Combat and Levels of Scale

[tetramorph]

I have discerned that my campaign, "Dun Kells," really needs three levels of combat resolution above that of the usual D&D one-to-one dungeon-crawling combat scale.

1. Campaign level
2. Realm or Barony level
3. "Hex-crawl" level

For 1. I will use a house-ruled variant of "Risk."

For 3. I will use a method whereby I group "mooks" of one HD or less together in groups such that they are equal to the highest-lvl PC combatants. I will add HD, subtract AC, and use that as "combat factor." Normal combat (after magic but inclusive of range fire) will be resolved by "opposing checks" rolling d6 and adding to combat factor. Difference will indicate loser's HD losses. High differences will be role-played as the taking of prisoners (when applicable). Rounds will be 10 minutes, turns one hour.

This keeps combat as abstract as the normal "alternative" one-to-one combat rules we are used to in D&D. I envision it allowing for role-play (like the way Matt Finch describes the use of one minute combat rounds at the one-to-one level) that the referee can reward through bonuses or penalties to rolls, or simply through the creative interpretation of the outcome of rolls.

I am, however, a bit baffled as to how to achieve the same thing for realm level combat. What I mean here is that I want it to remain equally abstract such that no miniatures or even counters are necessary and where role-play can be cleverly rewarded. I have been envisioning a kind of cross between Tony Bath's beautifully simple rules for a "map campaign" and more traditional hex-and-chit style board wargames (like Axis and Allies). Does that make sense?

Any thoughts?

[The Semi-Retired Gamer]

tetramorph I have my thinking cap on... 

[Admin Pete]

tetramorph I look forward to seeing what you have for 1 and 3. As for the Tony Bath rules, I have not seen them. So I am not sure where you are starting, would love to see it.

[tetramorph]

Okay, I think I'm on to something. I am still thinking about it so this is really just a brainstorm, but here goes. Let me know what you think!

Group realm armies into significant units of anywhere from 20 to 100 troops each. Multiple units may march together but no more total troops than the max "number appearing" can march or fight together within a given 5-ml HX.

Calculate "combat factor" by subtracting troop type AC from 7, never less than 0. For fell, fay and unholy armies assume a fair balance of cavalry, range and foot per unit. For men assume light = AC4, normal = AC3, heavy = AC2. Move as per usual; armies of 100 or more must move more slowly.

Reckon a "turn" as one week of game time. Every turn: check morale for usual reasons, each realm involved may move, resolve mass-combat spells (e.g., fireball, lightening bolt, cloud kill, move terrain, etc.) and resolve normal combat (with range and melee abstracted together). Check fatigue if unit engages combat in same turn they have made a full move or if involved in siege. Units may attack only once per turn but may defend as many times as attacked. Up to four units may attack any given unit per turn.

Resolve combat by opposing check on d6 + respective combat factor. Subtract difference from losing units' combat factor. When combat factor is 0 or less, that unit is defeated. If a unit sustains loss but is not defeated it must check morale or retreat. Defeated or retreating units must remove to the nearest allied stronghold. Once there it may return to play after a number of weeks equivalent to its AC.

Flyers may attack by landing in a HX occupied by enemy units or by flying over a HX occupied by enemy units. Player declares intention before turn. If fly-over, player declares intended destination HX. In the case of a fly-over, if flyer survives attack, flyer must land in HX previously declared and may not occupy the same HX as that of the enemy attacked, even if all enemy units defeated.

A realm may occupy the stronghold or settlement of an enemy once all defending enemy units have been defeated or forced to retreat.

PCs may engage as equals units b/w 5 to 10 times their HD. Calculate combat factor by subtracting AC from HD plus any bonuses from magic weapons. Otherwise factor PCs into existing units granting them a bonus to relative combat factor. Such PCs are not harmed when a unit is defeated. They must save against retreating. If they make their save they may join another nearby friendly unit. If there is not other friendly unit they must retreat. Players and referee may pause realm-level combat resolution at any time in order to allow PCs and characters significant to the campaign to engage in "normal" one-to-one heroic combat. If there is a significant PC and a correspondingly significant NPC involved in a battle they must engage in one-to-one combat at least once per battle, even if unit-level combat has been resolved.

Units under siege may defend with their stronghold defensive bonus. (For my rules depending on type of wall and thickness built this is from +1 to +5.) Units under siege do not add the stronghold defensive bonus if they choose to attack ("sally"). Defeated or "retreating" units under conditions of siege may return to play after a number of weeks equivalent to its AC + 1d6. Units must use siege engines or flyers to attack strongholds. Siege engines reduce movement. Siege engines increase combat factor only when player declares destruction of defenses as target of attack. Ladders, siege towers, battering rams +1, catapults, trebuchet, etc., +2, bombards +3. Mantlets (+1 defense) are required for mining. Goblins grant +1, dwarves +2 to mining and countermining. When a structure's defense factor is 0 the structure or wall is breached. Engines of war do not increase unit combat factor in normal combat and are destroyed only when declared target of attack.

[finarvyn]

I guess I'm a little puzzled as to your distinction between "campaign" level and "realm/barony" level of play, as both seem to be similar to me. One might select a single system (whether it be modified Risk or hex-and-chit or whatever) and use it universally.

Back in the day, Chainmail was our system of choice for this. All you need to do is switch around the scale of how many men represent a single unit.

[tetramorph]

Feb 7, 2015 6:17:58 GMT -5 finarvyn said:

I guess I'm a little puzzled as to your distinction between "campaign" level and "realm/barony" level of play, as both seem to be similar to me. One might select a single system (whether it be modified Risk or hex-and-chit or whatever) and use it universally.

Back in the day, Chainmail was our system of choice for this. All you need to do is switch around the scale of how many men represent a single unit.

Good point, Fin, they are very similar.

What I started to realize is that, in my campaign, there is a difference between, let us say, a barony scale conflict and a kingdom or empire scale.

Here is something I started thinking over in order to respond to your points:

Dungeon-crawl = PCs, count in terms of individuals, never more than about 10 or 12
Hex-crawl = small units, count in terms of low tens, never usually breaching a hundred total HD per side
Barony-lvl warfare = larger units, count in tens, no more than hundreds of troops total
Campaign-lvl warfare (e.g., campaign WORLD lvl warfare) = armies, count units in terms of 100s, thousands of troops envolved

Then there is another factor. I don't want to engage in miniature wargaming (as cool as that is!). I want the resolution of combat at any lvl to be both as abstract and as role-playable (think Matt Finch here) as we are used to in a dungeon crawl.

So, "Risk" (house-ruled for role-play with treaties, the trading of "territory" cards, and written orders for simultaneous turns) is perfect for that highest lvl of warfare and the abstraction I am going for.

What I presented above was a way I had recently brain-stormed to get the results of something like "Chainmail" for barony lvl conflicts but that can be accomplished by pointing at a map, role-playing any creative military maneuvers, doing some calculations and throwing some dice (much like in the dungeon).

Does that make sense? What do you think?

[Admin Pete]

Sound well worth trying, I suggest keep refining it and then play test it when you get the chance. Play testing is where you find out how good the ideas are.