Overall results of Ch 6 Armies and Warfare polls

[RaspK_FOG]

I have to agree with Irdeggman here...

[Osprey]

The scales of "units" are generally:

Cry Havoc - 20
Fields of Blood - 100
Heroes - anywhere from 20 - 300+
...
When the BRCS was first put together none of those other products existed so there was no d20 mass combat system out there to use now there are several.

But none of them use a 200-man company as standard, and I daresay a 6-second battle round for 100-man units is, well...so silly it's not even worth considering as a "good battle system" insofar as it would decently represent fantasy/medieval-ish battlefield warfare. I haven't looked over these books in detail, but 6 seconds per "action" seems crazy for the coordination required for 100-man companies!

Not having seen these things, I can pretty much guess that these books are very definitely based on converting 3.5 combat to a larger scale, yes?

Since BR has had war cards and units in the domain scale from its beginnings (and never used the 2e miniatures battlesystem, either), it's a little harder to simply throw out the idea of a BR-specific battlesystem. The domain rules integrates these things pretty intimately.

All that being said, I think the war card system, the BRCS system, and any other system derived from these is guaranteed to be simpler in execution than any combat system based on 6-second rounds. It had better be, anyways! A lot of abstraction must go in to such a system when you lump things into mass scale and long turns.

I think most folks know what sort of battlesystem I'd most prefer...a balance between some detail, but more simplified than the 3.5 adventure-combat system. Ideally...

Osprey

[Birthright-L]

Hi,



cry havoc uses 60 seconds rounds if I don´t remember badly. The combat is

similar to the normal 3.5 combat, but with some tweaks and changes to

simulate the actions of units. I think it´s quite a good system (but I

readed it a looong time ago). Greetings,



Vicente







----- Original Message -----

From: "Osprey" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

To: <BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM>

Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 10:18 PM

Subject: Re: Overall results of Ch 6 Armies and Warfare polls [36#3081]





> This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/ind...ST&f=36&t=3081

>

> Osprey wrote:

>

>

> ------------ QUOTE ----------

> The scales of "units" are generally:

>

> Cry Havoc - 20

> Fields of Blood - 100

> Heroes - anywhere from 20 - 300+

> ...

> When the BRCS was first put together none of those other products existed

> so there was no d20 mass combat system out there to use now there are

> several.

>

> -----------------------------

>

>

>

> But none of them use a 200-man company as standard, and I daresay a

> 6-second battle round for 100-man units is, well...so silly it`s not even

> worth considering as a "good battle system" insofar as it would decently

> represent fantasy/medieval-ish battlefield warfare. I haven`t looked over

> these books in detail, but 6 seconds per "action" seems crazy for the

> coordination required for 100-man companies!

>

> Not having seen these things, I can pretty much guess that these books are

> very definitely based on converting 3.5 combat to a larger scale, yes?

>

> Since BR has had war cards and units in the domain scale from its

> beginnings (and never used the 2e miniatures battlesystem, either), it`s a

> little harder to simply throw out the idea of a BR-specific battlesystem.

> The domain rules integrates these things pretty intimately.

>

> All that being said, I think the war card system, the BRCS system, and any

> other system derived from these is guaranteed to be simpler in execution

> than any combat system based on 6-second rounds. It had better be,

> anyways! A lot of abstraction must go in to such a system when you lump

> things into mass scale and long turns.

>

> All that being said, well, I think most folks know what asort of

> bgattlesystem I`d most prefer...a balance between some detail, but more

> simplified than the 3.5 adventure-combat system. Ideally...

>

> Osprey

>

>

>

> Birthright-l Archives:

> http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html

>

>

>

[The Jew]

Just bringing this thread to the fore. It lists the completed poll results on mass combat. We still need to vote on stacking, though its a foregone conclusion given the other polls. But mainly it's the magic system that needs to be worked on, which is discussed at the bottom of the thread.

The 'Types of Magic in Birthright' poll which is closed, so I can't post to pull it to the top is also good reading. It mostly discusses zooming in. Normally the battle happens in mass combat rounds, but should a character decide they can fight in normal personal combat rounds, but then the enemy does to. Whatever damage is inflicted during the zoom in is added up come up with hits inflicted on the units involved. The characters which engage in personal combat during the zoom in would not be able to act as imbedded characters for the mass combat round.

This seems like a reasonable way to include PHB spells in the mass combat system. Simple and fair.

[irdeggman]

Just bringing this thread to the fore. It lists the completed poll results on mass combat. We still need to vote on stacking, though its a foregone conclusion given the other polls. But mainly it's the magic system that needs to be worked on, which is discussed at the bottom of the thread.

The 'Types of Magic in Birthright' poll which is closed, so I can't post to pull it to the top is also good reading. It mostly discusses zooming in. Normally the battle happens in mass combat rounds, but should a character decide they can fight in normal personal combat rounds, but then the enemy does to. Whatever damage is inflicted during the zoom in is added up come up with hits inflicted on the units involved. The characters which engage in personal combat during the zoom in would not be able to act as imbedded characters for the mass combat round.

This seems like a reasonable way to include PHB spells in the mass combat system. Simple and fair.

That is pretty much the "only" way that standard "unmodified" magic can be applied given the results of the other polls.

I'm pretty much going to exert editorial control to say that unmodified standard magic can't be applied during a "normal" battle round - since the round has been determined to "last" greater than a standard round.

[Birthright-L]

>
> I`m pretty much going to exert editorial control to say that unmodified
> standard magic can`t be applied during a "normal" battle round - since the
> round has been determined to "last" greater than a standard round.

Doesn`t that only make it more likely for standard magic to be used during
a normal battle round? In fact, the question it seems most players would ask
about this point isn`t "Why can`t I cast a normal spell during a battle
realm to get a battle effect," but rather "Why can`t I cast two, or six, or
ten of them in a round?" And of course, "What if we all do that? What kind
of effect will that make?"

[The Jew]

>
> I`m pretty much going to exert editorial control to say that unmodified
> standard magic can`t be applied during a "normal" battle round - since the
> round has been determined to "last" greater than a standard round.

Doesn`t that only make it more likely for standard magic to be used during
a normal battle round? In fact, the question it seems most players would ask
about this point isn`t "Why can`t I cast a normal spell during a battle
realm to get a battle effect," but rather "Why can`t I cast two, or six, or
ten of them in a round?" And of course, "What if we all do that? What kind
of effect will that make?"

IF you read the thread I mention, that is exactly what they talk about. You could cast 6 fireballs during a round of "zooming in". Essentially, if the wizard is willing to give up the bonus that he would give by being imbedded within a unit, the battle will go to normal combat rounds while the wizard uses his spells, but with the enemies also acting in normal rounds. Then the damage from the zooming in is totalled and added to damage from the normal mass combat round.

[irdeggman]

The "zooming in" is up to the DM to ejudicate. It should not be, IMO, the entire battlefield.


Again - if the wizard can cast 5 or 6 spells then then the opponets get the same number of actions (some maybe spells but most would be attacks). Hence the overall effect is that a wizard can inflict a large amount of damage but also has a large risk associated with doing it.

[Saragon]

First things first -- hello all! My gaming group and I recently found Birthright and fell in love with it; we'll be starting a campaign shortly, using 3E rules, and have run some test adventures already. Great fun.

My thoughts on this "battle magic vs. character-level magic" question haven't really followed the same lines as this thread, and I suspect that that's because I approached it from a different angle: Concentration.

In an adventuring situation, spellcasters must make Concentration checks when casting under duress. Battlefields are FULL of distractions and interruptions; that's one reason why battle wagons exist, after all. They provide scaled-up component supplies and flunkies to beef up the scale of a spell to the appropriate dimensions, yes, but remember that their supporting unit -- itself carefully trained to avoid disrupting the casters -- not only provides protection from harm, but also protection from interruption. A lone spellcaster running around in a battle, dodging arrows, flanking cavalry, jostling friendlies, and opposing spells, would be hard-pressed to concentrate well enough to get one good spell off, much less a number of them. Add in quick-marching towards the enemy, keeping track of the battlefield, listening to commanders, etc., and... well, you see the problem. Even at range, the sheer noise and panic does not exactly help the caster's situation.

In game terms, a caster might have to make a very difficult Concentration check (DM's discretion based on the tactical situation) each battle round to get off any spells at all while not part of a casting unit. Casting speed would be slowed by constant interruption -- a reasonably bright wizard would wait until the cavalry charge has passed him by before trying to cast his fireball -- and simply failing Concentration checks; at a guess, I would say one spell every two or three minutes, on average (modified by the DM, of course.)

Whatever is cast successfully could initiate the "zoomed in" combat previously discussed, or just affect the targeted unit slightly (perhaps cumulatively -- see below.) Remember that this method would also "waste" prepared spells that didn't pass the Concentration check, further limiting the spellcaster's usefulness outside of a battle-magic unit.

Alternatively, tiered DCs could allow a certain number of spells per battle round depending on the result of the Concentration check. I haven't done the math, but an example could work like so: the DM sets the DC of casting one spell successfully per battle round at 25. Each additional spell adds +3 to the DC of the Concentration check for each spell -- the caster is spending less time waiting for that perfect moment and more time trying to cast amidst distractions.

As for cumulative damage: while a single fireball spell would kill a few troops and startle/scare the rest, several in the same round would do significantly more. I can't really judge the exact effects here -- wiser heads must prevail.

[irdeggman]

The idea is to have a system that is no more complex than standard D&D combat.


Multiple concentration checks and DCs make it inherently much more complex. Also remember that for every standard spell cast the opposing troop gets roughly 200 attacks in, more if high level/feat specialized. It is not one person against - say a single very large creature. It is an individual against 200 (roughly) trained (at least to point of being at least warrior NPC class, if not fighters).

There are already several systems out there that can be adapted to a game (Fields of Blood and Cry Havoc to call attention to the 2 most popular). There is no point in trying to replicate that level of detail. Both of those books are in the 75+ page length to cover battles. Add that to the already very lengthy BRCS and it becomes something that Milton could have written.

Regardless, several things have been "decided" already. The size of the battle square, the size of the troops and the length of time for a battle round. these "votes" must be used when putting things together.

I'm just trying to maintain some sort of semblence to everyone has some say and votes are how it is quantified.