Battle System simple or compex?

[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. 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


fields of blood (price $15.99)
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...ssPageName=WD1V


amazon.com

cry havoc
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-h...1475781-4943954


fields of blood
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-h...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.