Battle System simple or compex?

[irdeggman]

I figured I'd start a thread to focus on discussion on how complex the BR battle field system should be.

So far really none of the poll results have forced a progression in either way but some things that will be coming up, specifically the role of magic, will force such a decision. We might as well make that up front.

Historically (2nd ed) the BR combat system was a simple system and was designed to be readily resolved. Well readily as compared to the typical war game that is.

As Doom pointed out when the infor on training and unit types was added to the BRCS-playtest is set into motion a level of complexity that really didn't exist in 2nd ed.

There are currently several good products in publication that cover mass combat on a fairly detailed level. Cry Havoc, Fields of Blood, Minatures Handbook, Heroes of Combat, Warhammer, etc.

Should we be recreating all ready existing products (which are in general 60-100 pages for their combat system) or keep things as simple as possible? We could put out an appendix or most likely a supplement with details for how to convert whatever system we come up with for use in these other systems. This would allow people to use whichever system they wanted without requiring the use of any one of them.

[RaspK_FOG]

That would probably be best...

I know from experience that, should we head with this cute and beloved beast we call Birthright and make it something that will be used worldwide with as few tweaks as possible, we have to provide a groundwork; articles, adventures, and netbooks (such as which I am brewing) can be added on the site and allow for expansion on what is already "published" but that will have to wait for the "main" product.

[Benjamin]

I like to keep it simple, and point people to complex systems if they want it.

I tried reading through the BRCS combat stuff, and was utterly confused. Strategic combat, tactical combat, checks for everything under the sun... I hate to criticize since I didn't put anything into this section, but I am totally confused. I'm all for adding a few points for various skills, feats, terrain, position, etc and rolling a die.

If someone wants a really complicated system where it takes 4 hours to resolve 1 combat round, that's fine with me. Point them to it, or make it an optional rule.

[tcharazazel]

Heheh, as the target market will not likely be as interested in detailed battles that follow logical rules based on a mix of D&D rules and real medievel battles, it is likely that using the simple combat resolution system that I proposed before would be easiest. Just a few rolls and you have already gone through an entire battle.

However, if we are making this system as a baseline for what really ought to be done, and how battles really ought to be resolved, then the more detailed version is better. Additionally, if we look at the way inwhich it was presented in the BRCS and then if we choose to follow that lead, we would put in the complex system and have the simple one as a brief example of a quick resolution system.

I'd say that for many battles using the quick resolution system would work perfectly fine, however, for those big/important battles, ie those with other major players, and for those battles that are almost evenly matched, using the complex system would be the wisest course of action.

One problem of using the quick resolution system, is that heros no long matter that much as it is based on GB value. I believe there was some discussion about that matter, but I don't think it was totally resolved. Along with it being more difficult to zoom in during the battle.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

[irdeggman]

T'Char Azazel,

Not quite what I was thinking of when I meant simple. I had meant to look beyound just the resolution of battle but to other things as well.

I had already decided to include your "simple" resolution system as a variant for even quicker resolution with some mods for hero groups (I'll work that one out when I get there.)

The BRCS-playtest battle system is fairly simple as it is (at least when compared to other more detailed ones that is).

I don't think you could come up with a simpler (although not very realistic, well as far as magic itself is realistic) magic system for the battle field than the one already in the playtest.

The things in the playtest that started to make it exponentially more complex was the "training" and unit "type" mods.

If we try to work in more detail on the magic sytem it will easily start to become very much more complex.

One of the other things that could add a great deal of complexity very fast and has been "talked" about is a system for awarding experience to units.

Others that have the potential (as I see it at the moment) include: combat maneuvers (things related to facing and organization and how units can behave (e.g., equivalent of shield walls, etc.), movement, and equipment. It wouldn't take much to come up a list of other things that while making the system more "realistic" and "historically accurate" would greatly add to the level of detail involved in the game.

[tcharazazel]

Cool, just wanted a clarification of what you meant by complex vs simple then. It seems like a more simplified version of Osprey's battle system then.

Well, it maybe hard for him to cut his beautiful battle system to bare bones, but we can always ask him to try :D

GL Osprey!! If you need some help bouncing off preliminary ideas, just give me a call.

[The Jew]

Originally posted by tcharazazel@May 21 2005, 11:14 PM
Cool, just wanted a clarification of what you meant by complex vs simple then. It seems like a more simplified version of Osprey's battle system then.

Well, it maybe hard for him to cut his beautiful battle system to bare bones, but we can always ask him to try :D

GL Osprey!! If you need some help bouncing off preliminary ideas, just give me a call.
I was thinking we could do a hatchet job on his system, see if we could make him cry :P

[tcharazazel]

Heheh, Ok, so if we plan on including a complex version of the battle system and the simple version is going to be based on that, why not first work on the complex system and get is as accurate as we want it to be. Then we take out the main things we want from the complex system, generalize them and then we have the simple system.

My reasoning for doing the complex system first is simply because we already have most of it done, while we don't have any for the simple system. Thus, as it is easier to get everyone to work on 1 project at a time, rather than multiple, we just focus on finishing the complex system, then we make the simple system.

Does that seem reasonable?

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by tcharazazel@May 23 2005, 01:19 PM
Heheh, Ok, so if we plan on including a complex version of the battle system and the simple version is going to be based on that, why not first work on the complex system and get is as accurate as we want it to be. Then we take out the main things we want from the complex system, generalize them and then we have the simple system.

My reasoning for doing the complex system first is simply because we already have most of it done, while we don't have any for the simple system. Thus, as it is easier to get everyone to work on 1 project at a time, rather than multiple, we just focus on finishing the complex system, then we make the simple system.

Does that seem reasonable?
Not really and I didn't see any suggestion to include both a complex and simple version until your comment here. The Jew was being funny and sarcastic in his comment, note the reference to making Osprey cry. For one I don't think he would, nor would he take it personnally. IMO he would use his system if he thought it was "better" for his style of gaming and most likely try to get it into whatever supplement (if any) was posted for more complex and robust play.

There are many things that contribute to being complex.

There is the entire "formations" issue. This has been touched on by several people during postings. It has not been delved into but is most definitely a part of any "complex" system.

There is the entire 'magic' issue. Again it has been touched on by posts but not a lot of "real" work has been done towards geting it down.

There is the entire "training" concept. Again, some have touched on it but nothing concrete.

There is the experience issue. Osprey posted a proposal (real preliminary if I recall his take on it at the time).

So I don't think it is easier to "finish" something that has hardly been started only to gut it out to end up with a simplier version.

I would instead start with the BRCS-playtest (and the polls of course) and instead of seeking to add more realism look to what can be taken out.

Osprey's hero group concept doesn't really add any more complexity since it was designed to reduce complexity in the first place by having PCs act a part of a unit vice as individuals thereby reducing the detail involved in play and round resolution.

One thing that remains "complex" but IMO is part of the inherent BR domain system is the maintenance costs of units. While this is more complex than the 2nd ed system it is the one part of the domain maintenance system that the players have direct control over theri costs. If they build assets (roads, shipyards, etc.) they pay additional costs in order to gain the benefit associated with the asset. The same applies to unit maintenance. Which is why IMO it doesn't add anything that is not already present in the system. That is to say that asset maintenance is fairly detailed and the unit maintenance just follows suit. We could look for ways to simplify the math (as some have suggested using tenths vice variable fractions based on months and quarters).

So to sum up if we continue down the path to make things more complicated then we go all the way, any less is just lazy and won't stand up to any sort of scrutiny IMO. It is like being kind of pregnant.

[A_dark]

I prefer something simple... the simpler the better....

Then, if people want to use a more complex system, make a new book about it :D or use one of the existing complex systems out there :)

[Osprey]

"Simpler the better" is best handled by a cleaned-up version of TChar's Quick and Dirty battle resolution system. Converting everything into simple numbers and rolling a few d20's is pretty darn simple.

What is apparent, however, from such a system is that it leaves almost no rrom for player control. Everything is reduced to mathmematical odds and the roll of one or a few d20's...the end result of exclusive use of such a system is that the guys with the biggest and most expensive armies will almost always win.

The advantages of a more complex system include:
1. Player control of units on the field. A player who is a decent wargamer thus has a chance of producing better-than-average results by utilizing intelligent tactics. This is a big advantage when such a player is an underdog regent trying to defend his realm or move up in the world of conquest or competition with more powerful neighbors. In BR, this is especially poignant because all of the big and powerful realms are strictly NPC realms (ex: Ghoere, Avanil, Boeruine).

2. More realistic simulation: As most roleplayers are trying to create a "you are there" atmosphere, having a more detailed simulation of a battle helps players focus on the specific events and effects of units used to their best effect - how the elite archers are so devestating against the enemy knights in the open, or how the light infantry came swooping out of the woods and cut down the pikemen like wheat for harvest.
A more detailed castle assault system that distinguishes a few components like walls, gates, or towers, helps players appreciate the strengths and weaknesses of such elements - how a gate breaks more easily than a wall, but is often costly to hit because of the elaborate defenses surrounding it.
Finally, details of a morale system help illustrate how most medieval battles (and later ones, too) were won - by breaking the will of the enemy to keep fighting. Most battles end when the bulk of one side breaks and runs...the few with more courage are doomed if they stay, and will usually run, too - and so the day is won.


The primary disadvantages of a more complex system are related (inversely):
1. Players and DMs need some wargaming skills to do well: Players who aren't particulary good at strategy games will fare poorly in a detailed battle system - regardless of their PC's Warcraft skill rating. I've learned that when any sort of detailed battle system is used, it's important that players who control military leader-type PC's with Warcraft really need some general strategy skills/talents - otherwise they end up under-using their armies and character's capabilities.

2. Time: Just like personal combat systems, more detail = more time consumption. It's a direct trade-off. More detail brings realism, but also requires more number-crunching, rules memorization and consultation, dice rolling, and decision-making. When I've used my battlesystem with armies of 20-30 companies per side, it's taken 5-10 hours of real time to resolve them. Not exactly quick and easy. But the players came out of it with 2 things they wouldn't have had from a Q&D system: an intimate understanding of why the battle went the way it did, and they took a LOT more personal responsibility for the outcome than they would have with a quick resolution.


So there are pros and cons to each version, which is why I like having both a Q&D and a more detailed system...though the complex one should be reasonably limited or the time requirement becomes ridiculous.

Osprey


PS - My battlesystem isn't a whole lot more complex than the BRCS system...it may not require as much of a hatchet job as you would think. I think details like unit experience, training, and general customization are excellent kinds of detail to have, so long as they don't require complex systems of their own to manage (like the D&D character XP system for example).

[tcharazazel]

Actually, I believe it was you, irdeggman, who mentioned putting the complex system into a supplemental. Hence, one of my reason for stating we ought to finish it. The other main reason being that I prefer the complex system to a Q&D system for reasons Osprey wrote about.


Heheh, I'm all about player control. Hence, why I like Osprey's battle system, because a military leader ought to know some basics about tactics, which are easy to find in books or even practice them on video games like MTW or RTW. Then, getting to see your basic little army crush the "mighty" army of the enemy because you used some good tactics to bait him in while your calvery swooped behind to prevent an easy retreat, while your archers on the hills just open fire on the tightly packed units... *grin* You won't get that kind of victory with a Q&D system.


So, do y'all think that just expanding a bit on my Q&D system to get the simple battle system would work?

Most of those other variables can be put in as bonuses to the roll, for example good tactics:

Now, in order to simulate some decent tactics in a Q&D system, I know that we did have a DM bonus to the roll and good tactical plan ought to be included in that. For the player can explain his plan and the DM can give an appropriate + or - (if its a really bad plan or wrong tactics to use against the opposing army). Of course the opposing army would have a plan also, so when seeing what the two plans are the DM can decide who's plan would likely succeed and give the bonus to the appropriate party.


Heheh, one thing is for certain, it would be difficult to make it more simple and have any semblance of an actual battle. :D like Benjamin and A_Dark talked about.

If you want to bring in player control and units attacking each other as opposed to just armies attacking each other, than it will become more complex. So, can you define clearly what kind of balance between simple and complex you are aiming for? Because when I think simple, I don't bother to think of them in terms of units, and when I think complex I think of all the stats and training, ect about each unit and how to use that unit to its most effective means on the battleground. I know that you said you wanted something similar to the BCRS, but that isn't really all that clear as the BCRS does have training, which you viewed as complex.

[geeman]

When it comes to the simple vs. complex issue of a system of large scale

combat for BR D20, shouldn`t the test be the existing D20 adventure level

combat system? That is, it shouldn`t be _more_ complex than resolving an

adventure level combat, but anything up to or around that level of

complexity should be acceptable. D20 adventure level combat is pretty

complex, so that makes for what should be IMO a pretty complex large scale

combat system. However, when it boils right down to it, wouldn`t resolving

large scale combat in a simplistic way be incongruent with a game that

resolves small scale combat with much more complexity?



As much as possible the vocabulary, concepts, die rolls and other game

mechanics should be as much like the adventure level combat system so as to

equate the two (and making the large scale system "simpler" in terms of

comprehensibility) but where the changes need to be expounded to

accommodate the fundamental differences between the two.



Gary

[irdeggman]

"Simpler the better" is best handled by a cleaned-up version of TChar's Quick and Dirty battle resolution system. Converting everything into simple numbers and rolling a few d20's is pretty darn simple.

What is apparent, however, from such a system is that it leaves almost no room for player control. Everything is reduced to mathematical odds and the roll of one or a few d20's...the end result of exclusive use of such a system is that the guys with the biggest and most expensive armies will almost always win.


If you want to bring in player control and units attacking each other as opposed to just armies attacking each other, than it will become more complex. So, can you define clearly what kind of balance between simple and complex you are aiming for?

Alright it is becoming obvious that people are confusing what I’m trying to say here concerning complex and simple.

When I’m talking simple I am talking about the entire unit creation and execution process.

Gary is correct in that whatever system we use should be no more complex than that in the PHB.

Creating a character is a very complex although rewarding process. There are many steps along the way. Should it be as involved to create non-significant NPCs (for example followers)? Or should the process be streamlined?

Military units with the exception of renowned units and military cohorts are the equivalent of warriors (re: generic NPCs) on the battlefield. They are supposed to generic and faceless, being disbanded and mustered as the regent sees fit.

Why have different “levels” of units?

There is no precedent for the experience of units in the 2nd ed material. There was no Green, standard, veteran designations.

Training of units didn’t exist until the BoR. A unit was a unit, an Elite Infantry unit was a different type of unit than was an Infantry unit. See “Military Matters” in BoR.

The expanded options presented in the BRCS helps to complicate this system by providing an even greater array of choices and complexities via the list of Special training options. This list currently includes: Advanced Training, Berserk, Magical Support, Marine, Scout, Shield Formation and Toughness. The second ed variation of this only served to add an additional attack type (melee, charge or missile) and increase the ratings for the same (up to a +4).

While this adds more realism and player/DM tailoring is it really necessary? It could be. I’m only asking the question since it does exponentially increase the complexity of the system. If these Advanced training options are desired then why tie them into experience (e.g., green through veteran) of troops? Why not just have them be add-ons that can be obtained ether via original muster or using the unit training option?



The advantages of a more complex system include:
1. Player control of units on the field. A player who is a decent wargamer thus has a chance of producing better-than-average results by utilizing intelligent tactics. This is a big advantage when such a player is an underdog regent trying to defend his realm or move up in the world of conquest or competition with more powerful neighbors. In BR, this is especially poignant because all of the big and powerful realms are strictly NPC realms (ex: Ghoere, Avanil, Boeruine).

No effect on anything I’m talking about. As long as units are represented by markers (or figures) on a battle map then players have “control” of the battle.


2. More realistic simulation: As most role-players are trying to create a "you are there" atmosphere, having a more detailed simulation of a battle helps players focus on the specific events and effects of units used to their best effect - how the elite archers are so devastating against the enemy knights in the open, or how the light infantry came swooping out of the woods and cut down the pikemen like wheat for harvest.

A more detailed castle assault system that distinguishes a few components like walls, gates, or towers, helps players appreciate the strengths and weaknesses of such elements - how a gate breaks more easily than a wall, but is often costly to hit because of the elaborate defenses surrounding it.

Finally, details of a morale system help illustrate how most medieval battles (and later ones, too) were won - by breaking the will of the enemy to keep fighting. Most battles end when the bulk of one side breaks and runs...the few with more courage are doomed if they stay, and will usually run, too - and so the day is won.

You just can’t “be there” in a war game atmosphere. There is no role-playing on the battlefield. The more detailed a system the more it starts to resemble a war game and the farther it gets from a role-playing game. Not that this is bad, it is just a fact of the two systems being different. Note that in the 3.5 combat system there is no longer any such thing as morale checks for monsters and encounter (interesting how that piece got removed in 3.0). Morale is totally left up to the DM to ejudicate, basically having the monsters act more like the players would – no automatic running away.


The primary disadvantages of a more complex system are related (inversely):
1. Players and DMs need some wargaming skills to do well: Players who aren't particulary good at strategy games will fare poorly in a detailed battle system - regardless of their PC's Warcraft skill rating. I've learned that when any sort of detailed battle system is used, it's important that players who control military leader-type PC's with Warcraft really need some general strategy skills/talents - otherwise they end up under-using their armies and character's capabilities.

Without a doubt this is true. In fact this was one of the core concepts of the arguments over the 2nd ed battle system itself. Many wargamers felt it was too light and lacked detail while a lot of role-players felt it detracted from their ability to play an individual character and interact (i.e., role-play). You can’t please everyone.


2. Time: Just like personal combat systems, more detail = more time consumption. It's a direct trade-off. More detail brings realism, but also requires more number-crunching, rules memorization and consultation, dice rolling, and decision-making. When I've used my battlesystem with armies of 20-30 companies per side, it's taken 5-10 hours of real time to resolve them. Not exactly quick and easy. But the players came out of it with 2 things they wouldn't have had from a Q&D system: an intimate understanding of why the battle went the way it did, and they took a LOT more personal responsibility for the outcome than they would have with a quick resolution.

Again, I think this is back to the complex resolution system. I don’t think I’ve really mentioned that – I’ve mostly been focused on the unit structure itself.

TChar's Quick and Dirty battle resolution system is probably the easiest and quickest method. But note that I said I was going to include it a variant for those who wanted an "even simpler" system to use not as the base system.

One thing that should be avoided, IMO, is a detailed formation and movement system. That type of system is already pretty well detailed in the published books I referred to earlier – no need to duplicate them here.


Brief summary of the “other” systems.

Cry Havoc:

Unit size: Depends – at least 10 (ranges from 10 to 50)
Battle round length: 1 minute
AC: a unit has the average AC of the creatures in it.
Attack roll: Average of all members of unit.
Damage: each hit deals one damage factor. 1 damage factor equals 5 hit points.
Hit Points: total hit points of all members of unit divided by 5.
Spells: Spells with casting time of 1 standard action can be cast in a single battle round.
Grid size: 5- ft square

Many actions require specific “orders” to be given. Command check equal to d20 + commander’s BAB + Cha mod or profession (military commander) skill check or Diplomacy or Intimidate check at -5 penalty.
Many new feats and prestige classes.

Fields of Blood:

Unit size: 100 members
Turn length: 1 minute
Every unit is specific and has its own MAB (melee attack bonus), RAB (ranged attack bonus), AC, melee power (basically damage) – (roughly hit dice minus 5), and ranged power.
Toughness: 10 plus HD size plus Con modifier and one for each hit dice. (basically this functions like damage reduction)
Wound Level: Determines when a unit dies.
Command checks required to execute maneuvers. Equals d20 + unit’s command rating and the leader’s Command skill bonus.
Magic: standard spells work the same, only 1 standard action spell per round. Special battle magic and Realm magic.
Special feats and prestige classes.
Move: in inches – normal d20 movement divided by 5.
A unit takes up 1” by 1”
Cohorts are 4 units.
Companies are 9 units
A legion is 16 units.


Heroes of Battle:

Unit size: Squad (10 privates and a corporal), Platoon (2 or more squads), Company (2 or more platoons), battalion (2 or more companies), regiment (2 or more battalions), brigade (2 or more regiments0.
Grid size: 200 ft square
Spells: standard spells work as written
More feats and prestige classes
Haven’t found out how long rounds are but it looks geared towards a mesh with standard combat system (although the Miniatures Handbook might have more – I don’t have that one though).

All three systems have some sort of morale worked into them.

So I was incorrect in saying they revolved around a 6 sec round. But note that they all make adjustments to standard spells so that they take a round to cast (1 minute round vice 6 second one). This works against the concept of using standard spells unmodified on the battlefield.

[irdeggman]

Some more info on those reference books:

e-bay links

cry havoc (price $9.99 buy now $14.99)
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...ssPageName=WDVW (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=44112&item=5200765453&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW)


fields of blood (price $15.99)
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...ssPageName=WD1V (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=44112&item=5201867243&rd=1&ssPageName=WD1V)


amazon.com

cry havoc
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-h...1475781-4943954 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/104-1475781-4943954)


fields of blood
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-h...1475781-4943954 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/104-1475781-4943954)

[Osprey]

Irdeggman,
Regarding unit creation and customization:
I thought the modular unit customization in the BRCS was a pretty cool addition to the static units of the original system. However, extensive playtesting with this system has revealed some problems with the system:
The biggest glaring problem is this: Veteran level of experience gives across-the-board bonuses to unit stats, yet adds only 1 GB to cost. Every regent in his right mind will muster veteran units with such a system.

I've talked about some fixes to this problem in other threads, but currently my thinking has gone something like this:

1. Make veteran units a more expensive training/maintenance upgrade. +3 GB to muster cost is not at all unreasonable, even if it makes knights cost 8 GB instead of 6. They're worth it. Those without level 8 law holdings will have to resort to mustering regular heavy cavalry, then training them with a skilled leader. If Knights are elite, they should require some special effort (and extra expense/focus) to create. This will keep them a rarer unit type, which is good IMO.

2. Restrict mustering of units to culturally-available standard units. But keep the special training and experience upgrades as options available with the Train Unit domain action (a Court Action that requires a holding). This way, having extra good units with veteran experience or +missile, defense, etc. takes extra time and someone's dedicated character action - and thus makes such units as special and unusual as they were meant to be. It also helps preserve the original balance and feel of the BR setting without making it a static and unchangable one. Structure and setting definition is good, but unyielding rigidity is not so fun for advanced players and DM's.

Osprey

[irdeggman]

Osprey,

How many of these "balance" issues would handled if the green through veteren concept was totally eliminated?

These designations did not exist in 2nd ed and were added by the BRCS-playtest. Improving stat mods and "special" abilities were introduced inthe BoR although the "special" abilities were much more limited.

If the focus was instead on the stat mods and "special" atributes it makes a more streamlined system that still contains some tailoring (and of coursestill has the dedication to improving a unit since it would still take time to upgrade these things).

Not using green through veteren also eliminates all of the questions surrounding how to award experience to units in the first place - another issue of contention with regards to complexity and game time.

So by dropping the green to veteren designations and focusing on the stat mods and "special" attributes the original "feel" of how special these types of units were is maintained, while keeping a less complex system of generation and improving. It can still take time and money to improve a unit but if one doesn't have to deal with experience levels and instead these improvements are straight up cost/time increases it greatly simplifies the system.

[tcharazazel]

So by dropping the green to veteren designations and focusing on the stat mods and "special" attributes the original "feel" of how special these types of units were is maintained, while keeping a less complex system of generation and improving. It can still take time and money to improve a unit but if one doesn't have to deal with experience levels and instead these improvements are straight up cost/time increases it greatly simplifies the system.

So, are you saying that we should keep the unit training and do away with unit exp essentially? Then how much training can a unit recieve? Is it still just 2 training options or can the units melee or moral be trained up as a seperate issue from special training and just require the court action for personal training be used?

If this direct cost/time increase as I think I understand it is to be used, there must be a limit on it, otherwise you could have super units out there will insanely high stats, who have just been trained up repeatedly. This also puts the question, what are the requirements for the person to train the unit? I mean it doesn't make sense for a level 2 fighter to train a unit of infantry in melee, when the unit already has a BAB greater than the fighter's, now does it?

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by tcharazazel@May 26 2005, 12:31 PM

So by dropping the green to veteren designations and focusing on the stat mods and "special" attributes the original "feel" of how special these types of units were is maintained, while keeping a less complex system of generation and improving. It can still take time and money to improve a unit but if one doesn't have to deal with experience levels and instead these improvements are straight up cost/time increases it greatly simplifies the system.

So, are you saying that we should keep the unit training and do away with unit exp essentially? Then how much training can a unit recieve? Is it still just 2 training options or can the units melee or moral be trained up as a seperate issue from special training and just require the court action for personal training be used?

If this direct cost/time increase as I think I understand it is to be used, there must be a limit on it, otherwise you could have super units out there will insanely high stats, who have just been trained up repeatedly. This also puts the question, what are the requirements for the person to train the unit? I mean it doesn't make sense for a level 2 fighter to train a unit of infantry in melee, when the unit already has a BAB greater than the fighter's, now does it?
Let’s see off the cuff:

Use the listed rules for “training” as a base.

The max number of modifiers a unit can have are not based on exp but rather on the "quality" of the teacher.

Use the following guideline: maximum number of improvements is equal to the total modifiers to Lead/5 {new standard for domain level effects}. To determine the level necessary calculate the number of improvements a unit already has and then add 1, this is the necessary amount of improvements that the teacher must be able to teach in order for the unit to gain an improvement from that teacher.

This gives more incentive for PCs and players to have other characters under their control to max out Lead. This scales with character experience as do all skills so a higher level character is better at it than is a lower level one.

DM controls NPCs while typically Players control Lts and cohorts so the DM hassay in availability of appropriate teacher f not the PC or character under player's control.

Using the special training types from the BRCS-playtest for purposes of this discussion:

Certain types have certain prerequisites for the teacher to be able to improve the unit.

Berserk – keeping the cultural requisites seems to be best.

Magical Support – I’d drop this one entirely. It really doesn’t give anything of value to a unit. Instead place a material (or battle wagon) requisite for casting battle spells (again it depends on how that is handled).

Marine – Teacher must have at least 1 rank in Profession (sailor) {could increase this to 5 if want to make it more restrictive}.

Scout – teacher must have 1 rank in Survival or Track feat {open for discussion}

Shield formation – teacher must have Tower Shield proficiency

Toughness – teacher must have Toughness feat (or feat in that tree depending on what optional books are being used).

Advanced Training – each level grants a +2 to selected type. Maximum of 3 levels of improvement in any one type. Costs scale upwards per level of improvement – 1 GB for first level (+2 to rating), +3 GB additional cost for second level (+4 to rating), +5 GB additional cost for third level (+6 to rating)

Melee – teacher must have BAB equal to three times benefit level (i.e., 1st level requires +3 BAB, 2nd level requires +6 BAB and 3rd level required +9 BAB)

Missile – teacher must have a number of feats in the point blank shot chain (Point Blank Shot, Far Shot, Precise Shot, etc) equal to the level being training (i.e., one feat allows training of 1st level, 2 allows 2nd level, 3 allows 3rd level).

Def – For first level of training teacher must have proficiency in armor being used by unit, for 2nd level teacher must have dodge feat, for 3rd level teacher must have mobility feat. {this one is the hardest to find something to fit since there is no defense adjustment for classes like in other d20 systems}

Mrl – teacher must have a modifier to Wil saves equal to three times benefit level (i.e., 1st level requires +3 to Wil save, 2nd level requires +6 and 3rd level requires +9)


The current BRCS-playtest rules for units gaining exp (i.e., green to veteran) are pretty much left up to the DM (the basic reason that Osprey ahd made the proposal he did a while ago on units gaining experience).

This would eliminate the balance issue that Osprey pointed out for veteran units (since they wouldn't exist) and remove the necessity for the DM to determine how much exp a unit received in combat and having to come up a system to determine/calculate this in the first place.

This is all off the cuff and not really detailed out but should serve as an example of how it could be done or at least a straw man for dicussion.

[The Jew]

I would also drop toughness to a bonus hit, rather than bonus hit and +2 morale. It includes the benefit from an advance training, and gives something else even better.

[Osprey]

I think unit experience would be a bad concept to drop. It's more than just a great flavor element, it's an extremely significant characteristic for any sort of standing company of professional soldiers/mercenaries. Throughout history, real experience has been the single most important factor in measuring the effectiveness of soldiers.

One idea I thought of, playing off Irdeggman's suggestions, is to limit the Train Unit action to special training options only; units could be mustered only as Green or Regular units (and who would muster Green if they could have Regulars anyways?). Standard unit costs would be based off of Regular level of experience.

This would insert the concept that "there is no substitute for real experience."

A second option would still allow training units for general experience, but make it much harder, longer, and more expensive by using an XP system (see lower quote below for specifics).

This would still require keeping track of unit experience, but I think this could be done with a very simple system (similar to what I suggested oh so long ago) that minimizes book-keeping yet still rewards those favorite units who keep surviving and succeeding.

Here was my idea for accruing unit XP. XP awards would be applied at the end of each battle:

A unit gains 1 XP for active participation in a battle. This means they must be on the field for at least 1 battle turn, not merely in the reserves.

A unit gains 1 XP if they score at least 1 successful hit on an enemy unit during a battle. Only 1 XP may be gained this way per battle.

A unit gains 1 XP each time they destroy an enemy unit.


When a unit heals damage through normal (non-magical) means, it loses 2 XP per hit of damage healed (but never below 0 XP). This loss represents the recruiting of regular soldiers to replace more experienced casualties.



Experience Levels, Total XP needed, :
Green: -1* (1 XP gained raises the unit to regular experience with 0 XP).
(-2 Attack, -2 Defense, -1 Hits, -1 Move, -2 Morale, -1 GB muster)
Regular: 0 (base stats unmodified)
Veteran: 8 (+2 Att, +1 Def, +1 Hits, +1 Move, +2 Mor; +3 GB muster)
Elite: 16 (+4 Att, +2 Def, +2 Hits, +1 Move, +4 Mor, +6 GB muster)
Crack: 30 (+6 Att, +3 Def, +3 Hits, +1 Move, +6 Mor, +10 GB muster)



Notes:
I'm sure folks will notice the Defensive adjustments for unit experience. While not part of the BRCS system, it seems appropriate based on what was done with Hero Units, and most especially based on military facts: experienced troops are far better at not just saoking up damage, but on how much damage they can avoid in the first place. In medieval era, this would include better dodging and blocking skills (as an inherent skill that improves with experience, seperate from any specialized defensive training), tighter discipline in quickly shifting to or from defensive formations.
Ex: "Arrows incoming! Loose formation, NOW!"
30 seconds later: "Alright, lads, here come their cavalry! Regroup, line of battle! Quick on ya now!"
Greens and irregulars can't do that quite so efficiently. Veterans survive because of such skills.

Speed bonus for vets also represents better unit coordination, not an actual increase in individual speed. However, there should be a limit to such an advantage, so I cut off its progress beyond veteran level.

Muster cost is included to determine the higher maintenance that vet+ units would deservedly recieve. Also, I imagine with such combat experience, a small portion of that would go into things like replacing damaged equipment, rewarding them with occasional bonuses like masterwork items, stipends, cash bonuses, better quarters, and other perks for individual and company achievements. Medals are nice and all, but material rewards are what keep the lads loyal.

I also imagine vet+ units that are disbanded (perhaps they become too expensive to keep around) are highly likely to join or form their own mercenary outfits.

Finally: As an option for those who believe that a degree of experience could be achieved through rigorous training:


Rather than training a unit with special training options, the Train Unit court action may be used to increase a unit's overall level of experience by 1 XP. This requires a character with the Lead skill to perform the action, and costs 1 GB in expenses. The training character makes a Lead check vs. DC (10 + 2 times target XP value). If the check succeeds, the unit gains 1 XP that month.
This action requires a Law Holding (or Guild/Temple holding 2 levels higher) whose level equals or exceeds the unit's current muster cost in GB. For each GB by which the unit's cost exceeds the holding's level, the DC for the action increases by +5.

Ex: A unit of regular medium infantry (2 GB) with 7 XP are trained by a PC Fighter with a +15 Lead skill. He (or his patron regent) must spend a Court Action, pay 1 GB, and utilize a level 2+ law holding (or level 4+ guild or temple) to avoid a penalty to the action. The DC will be 26 (10 + 2x8) for the check, meaning the player must roll an 11 or higher to gaive the unit 1 more XP (and raise them to veteran status).

Osprey

[Osprey]

I would also drop toughness to a bonus hit, rather than bonus hit and +2 morale. It includes the benefit from an advance training, and gives something else even better.

Agreed. 1 Hit is worth special training all by itself.

Here's another tweak idea: Let advanced discipline add +1 Move and +2 Morale, but cost 2 GB.

Unit cohesion should add to a unit's mobility through increased efficiency, and increased fortitude and willpower (the individual benefits of strong discipline) adds to a unit's endurance (a potent factor in battlefield manevering and fighting, as well as strategic marching distances covered).


Also, a side note: If unit experience is retained, I'd recommend limiting special training options to one of each type (rather than 3 levels each of melee, defense, missile, and morale), as it stands in the BRCS.

Of course, I also use the War Academy wonder to allow such things, but that makes for pretty stiff requirements for such things to be possible.

Osprey

[A_dark]

if one could train units to become crack (i hope you don't mean that they're addicted to the stuff...lol... sorry for the pun, but I couldn't resist), then perhaps I should point out that in 2nd ed you could not train units without a limit. There was only so much training that a unit could undergo...

Also, imho, those +6 etc are waaaaaay too strong...

just two cents :)

[Birthright-L]

Once, instead of unit experience, while running a game I gave an ad

hoc award that turned out to become a regular feature for that game.

All non-irregular non-militia units that succeeded in battle were

given veteran counters which were kept tracked of on the domain record

sheet. During a battle, once per turn per unit, each unit could spend

1 veteran point to gain a +1 to defense, range, melee, and charge. Of

course, what inevitably happened was there was one regent who had two

or three units that just accumulated a large amount of veteran points,

and they were a major part of every battle.



Maybe a concept like that would work a little bit better? It would

need to be expanded on, I think. But maybe having different maneuvers

available by spending veteran points might work... I leave it to the

group to think about.

[tcharazazel]

Well A_Dark, if you look at the numbes, the DC to train a unit to crack will be 10+2x30=70. As this is generally a low end game, who will likely have a high enough lead skill to ever train up a unit to crack status? I think only the Gorgon could pull that off.

Even if someone had the lead skill required, It would also take 30 months to do so as you can only train the unit up 1 time per month and it will use a court action and a character action.

Heh, thus the probability of such units reaching crack status through training is almost negligable, and then even through battle as they loose 2 exp per hit it will be very dificult to keep them so high.

[irdeggman]

So now people are moving towards making a more complex and detailed system than is already in the BRCS-playtest system if I'm reading thing correctly.

Regardless of how easy this add on is being attempted it is still and add on and thus more detailed and complex (i.e., additional steps in the process).

[The Jew]

I don't care which way the argument goes keeping vereran and green status. But if they are kept, Veteran status should be significantly more expensive (for unit upkeep) than mearly giving a unit special training. Veteran status gives bonuses equal to 4-5 special trainings.

Also rather than having a complicated experience chart, just say that if a unit performs especially well during a battle, they can earn veteran status. Leave it to the DM to decided to decide what espcecially well means. A conservative DM may only let great heroics earn it, a liberal DM may allow any unit which was blooded and survived earn it. A formula for experience just seems like to much for the BRCS, save it for a netbook or royal library.

[Thomas_Percy]

Originally posted by irdeggman@May 21 2005, 08:19 PM
1. T'Char Azazel,
I had already decided to include your "simple" resolution system as a variant for even quicker resolution with some mods for hero groups (I'll work that one out when I get there.)

2. The BRCS-playtest battle system is fairly simple as it is (at least when compared to other more detailed ones that is).
Can anyone give me a link to these two systems?

[RaspK_FOG]

I simply loved what you put up, Osprey!! Kudos!

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Thomas_Percy+May 28 2005, 03:26 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Thomas_Percy @ May 28 2005, 03:26 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-irdeggman@May 21 2005, 08:19 PM
1. T&#39;Char Azazel,
I had already decided to include your "simple" resolution system as a variant for even quicker resolution with some mods for hero groups (I&#39;ll work that one out when I get there.)

2. The BRCS-playtest battle system is fairly simple as it is (at least when compared to other more detailed ones that is).
Can anyone give me a link to these two systems? [/b][/quote]
Quick & Dirty Battle System for the non wargamer, Easiest to not mix the detailed and q&d
http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=3035


BRCS-playtest, Chap 6 Armies and Warfare

Check the pinned topic at the top of this one Latest version of the BRCS by Chapter
I t has links or attachments with the latest versions of everything so far
http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=3003

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Birthright&#045;L@May 27 2005, 12:20 PM
Once, instead of unit experience, while running a game I gave an ad

hoc award that turned out to become a regular feature for that game.

All non-irregular non-militia units that succeeded in battle were

given veteran counters which were kept tracked of on the domain record

sheet. During a battle, once per turn per unit, each unit could spend

1 veteran point to gain a +1 to defense, range, melee, and charge. Of

course, what inevitably happened was there was one regent who had two

or three units that just accumulated a large amount of veteran points,

and they were a major part of every battle.



Maybe a concept like that would work a little bit better? It would

need to be expanded on, I think. But maybe having different maneuvers

available by spending veteran points might work... I leave it to the

group to think about.













Sort of like Action Points.

I&#39;ve always liked AP (and Force Points in Star Wars d20) as a concept. Reminds me of Last Resort Points from Alternity.

Would at least make a good addition to some supplement with variant rules (like an Unearthed Arcana for BR) {Which I still think is a good idea in the long run since there are so many possibilities and house-rules out there that deserve some compilation}.

[RaspK_FOG]

I always thought that that variant rules expansion supplement was a given&#33;

[tcharazazel]

Actually, after talking with Osprey about the Q&D system, we thought about getting rid of the multipliers and replacing them with flat bonuses. Unfortunately, I haven&#39;t had enough free time to write it out.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by tcharazazel@May 28 2005, 09:09 PM
Actually, after talking with Osprey about the Q&D system, we thought about getting rid of the multipliers and replacing them with flat bonuses. Unfortunately, I haven&#39;t had enough free time to write it out.
Whenever you get done, e-mail it to me so I have a word copy to use later on.