Birthright battle systems

[The Jew]

I know Osprey started to in the other post, but could those who have complete, or nearly complete battle system for Birthright, which have been playtested give a description and details. I know this is a big question, but some have raised concerns that individual polls of such a complex system are not very useful. Maybe if we could get a couple different views of the whole system, while the polls are going we may be able to make some more headway.

[geeman]

At 05:32 PM 3/8/2005 +0100, The Jew wrote:



> I know Osprey started to in the other post, but could those who have

> complete, or nearly complete battle system for Birthright, which have

> been playtested give a description and details. I know this is a big

> question, but some have raised concerns that individual polls of such a

> complex system are not very useful. Maybe if we could get a couple

> different views of the whole system, while the polls are going we may be

> able to make some more headway.



Well.... I have a complete one, but it`s a draft and not really in any

shape to be presented for review. It`s playtested and I was pleasantly

surprised by how well that went, but it was really some time ago and I

haven`t had much need to update it since then. If I were to look at it

again it would need a few major revisions. Large scale (company level)

combat just hasn`t been that much a priority, I`m afraid.



In any case, the system has a lot of things that are my tweaks. Nothing

that would make it completely unusable to the BR community but, for

example, one of the main features of the system was that one could build

units from scratch, equipping them and training them to create companies of

soldiers that were pretty much endlessly customizable. That part worked

out quite well, but unfortunately the monetary costs of that system were

pretty much straight line computations for the costs of equipping 100

soldiers with that type of equipment and training them in its use reflected

in GB (which were also redefined as 1,000gp) and unit cost was computed

without any of the rationalizations for the low prices of units that are

often used in BR.



The system did use facing and limited stacking, but the stacking element is

another thing that I`d probably change. I gave units a numerical size

value and said that a battlesquare could hold up to "10" size of

companies. There`s easier ways of doing that which would make more sense

in a 3e+ conversion. In a rewrite I think that should be that units have a

size value (small, medium-size, large, etc. just like the D&D standard) and

battlesquares should be described as having a number of such units that can

fit into them. Something like "A battlesquare can hold up to two large,

four medium, eight small units or any combination that does not exceed that

maximum. For instance, one large and two medium companies can stack in a

battlesquare, or one large, one medium and two small companies can stack in

a battlesquare."



Another thing that should be changed in the system I used is that one could

literally buy daggers and sheaths to outfit a unit in the system. All of

that equipment was then translated into a value for the company of

soldiers. I found that a lot of fun, but it`s not really all that

necessary other than for the coolness factor of actually knowing the

particular equipment that a unit has. Instead of doing that I`d have the

player just "buy" the melee, missile and defense values. It takes up less

space and just makes more sense. Those values might then have a list of

sample weapons that they might represent, but on the whole the system

doesn`t require that kind of minute detail.



Gary

[irdeggman]

One thing I am not going to do is to fall into the "trap" that was forced on the group via the the domain action polls.

What happened there was essentially people complained so much that they actually wanted me (or others) to "bring me a rock" before they wanted to vote on anything.

What I mean is that people wanted to vote on a complete system and not on concepts that are used to build a system.

The purpose of the various polls was to attempt to capture portions of a battle system that people wanted in order to put together a proposal that incorporated them into a cohesive "product". That product could then be tweaked accordingly.

What I see in danger of happening is that people are going down the path of "I have a system I've been using, we don't we simply adopt it". What will end up happening is that someone will have a system that works the way they like (and is cohesive according to their concpets) but will not be addressing the actual desires of the populace so the best written one ends up "winning" vice the one that best fits the majority's concept of what the system should look like/incorporate.

It is mechanically more sound to attempt to capture the building blocks first and then to build the structure instead of building houses of straw, sticks and brick and wait for the big bad wolf to try and blow them down.

[Osprey]

One thing I am not going to do is to fall into the "trap" that was forced on the group via the the domain action polls.

What happened there was essentially people complained so much that they actually wanted me (or others) to "bring me a rock" before they wanted to vote on anything.

What I mean is that people wanted to vote on a complete system and not on concepts that are used to build a system.

The purpose of the various polls was to attempt to capture portions of a battle system that people wanted in order to put together a proposal that incorporated them into a cohesive "product". That product could then be tweaked accordingly.

What I see in danger of happening is that people are going down the path of "I have a system I've been using, we don't we simply adopt it". What will end up happening is that someone will have a system that works the way they like (and is cohesive according to their concpets) but will not be addressing the actual desires of the populace so the best written one ends up "winning" vice the one that best fits the majority's concept of what the system should look like/incorporate.

It is mechanically more sound to attempt to capture the building blocks first and then to build the structure instead of building houses of straw, sticks and brick and wait for the big bad wolf to try and blow them down.

Assuming people know what they want.

The other side of what you say is "not seeing the forest for the trees."

Most folks have only their experience with the 2e warcard system, homebrewed systems, and/or non-BR wargames. Does this mean they know what sorts of specific mechanics they want for a BR battlesystem?

What most people have felt strongly about, and voted solidly for, are key setting concepts, like 200 men per company or whether or not to have battle magic.

Very, very few people ever sit down and design a battlesystem. Even fewer do so for Birthright - as evidenced by the lack of responses in this forum.

Sometimes "bringing a rock" is the only way to see how a bunch of individual concepts (like unit size, grid size, etc.) all fit together. Naturally, it is far easier to crtitisize such a thing than it is to say what you want without having any sort of cohesive end product in mind. Certainly some of the battlesystem polls could be answered differently depending on what happens in the others - they are interconnected factors, not independent variables.

[The Jew]

Originally posted by irdeggman@Mar 12 2005, 06:22 AM
One thing I am not going to do is to fall into the "trap" that was forced on the group via the the domain action polls.

What happened there was essentially people complained so much that they actually wanted me (or others) to "bring me a rock" before they wanted to vote on anything.

What I mean is that people wanted to vote on a complete system and not on concepts that are used to build a system.

The purpose of the various polls was to attempt to capture portions of a battle system that people wanted in order to put together a proposal that incorporated them into a cohesive "product". That product could then be tweaked accordingly.

What I see in danger of happening is that people are going down the path of "I have a system I've been using, we don't we simply adopt it". What will end up happening is that someone will have a system that works the way they like (and is cohesive according to their concpets) but will not be addressing the actual desires of the populace so the best written one ends up "winning" vice the one that best fits the majority's concept of what the system should look like/incorporate.

It is mechanically more sound to attempt to capture the building blocks first and then to build the structure instead of building houses of straw, sticks and brick and wait for the big bad wolf to try and blow them down.
Which is why I created a new topic. This is meant to be for home-brewed systems. So that people can show us their work and we can ask questions and maybe pick some of the rules apart. I am not expecting more than a few people to actually post comprehensive systems, but that would be a great start for a discussion.

This is not meant to be instead of what you are doing Jrdeggman, as your polls are giving us a general feeling of where peoples interests lie. This is supposed to be on top of, and given that this is by far the most complicated chapter we have seriously tackled, I think both systems have merit.

It may turn out that one of the home-brew systems really is excellent, and with some significant tweaking be the end product.

[Osprey]

v1.4 of my battlesystem is being worked on - I'll post it for DL in here once I'm satisfied that it's better. What that really means is I need to playtest it once or twice and see what I think. I thought it worth mentioning that I am using 100' squares w/ no unit stacking. Archers and irregulars get a 1" (1 inch squares) base range, -2 per additional inch. Maximum range is at +0 missile attack, so better archers get longer effective ranges.

Regular Archers (+4 missile) have 3" max range at +0 attack.
Elite Archers (Veterans, +Missile; +8 missile) have 5" max range at +0 attack.

Compare this to batlefield speeds of units, which equal (Move x 2).
So Knights can move 6", easily able to run down even elite archers from outside their long range. Heavy Infantry will still have problems, but haven't they always? ;)

"Give your heavy infantry shield training, milords. They're too expensive to see them cut down like wheat at harvest by the enemies' longbows."


PS - Anyone ever think it funny that Anuireans have 2 specialties of troops: Knights and Longbowmen? The latter being the bane of the former, it's like the Anuireans figured out how to best defeat themselves.

[ConjurerDragon]

Osprey schrieb:



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

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=36&t=3027

>

> Osprey wrote:

>...

>"Give your heavy infantry shield training, milords. They`re too expensive to see them cut down like wheat at harvest by the enemies` longbows."

>

>PS - Anyone ever think it funny that Anuireans have 2 specialties of troops: Knights and Longbowmen? The latter being the bane of the former, it`s like the Anuireans figured out how to best defeat themselves.

>

Not at all. While the 2E warcard system made no difference, the

Anuireans have only access to the Longbow and the more advanced

Composite Longbow was reserved for the Khir-aften-el-Arrasi.



I find it strange however that you present the Longbowmen as the counter

to knights (in the game), when the 2E material stated that the cheap

Pikemen was invented to counter the expensive heavy cavalry and that the

crossbow got a special rule to easier penetrate plate armour.

bye

Michael

[The Jew]

This has been edited due to my booboo

[The Jew]

Originally posted by ConjurerDragon@Mar 14 2005, 01:20 PM
Osprey schrieb:



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

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php...36&t=3027<br (http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=36&t=3027<br) />
>

> Osprey wrote:

>...

>"Give your heavy infantry shield training, milords. They`re too expensive to see them cut down like wheat at harvest by the enemies` longbows."

>

>PS - Anyone ever think it funny that Anuireans have 2 specialties of troops: Knights and Longbowmen? The latter being the bane of the former, it`s like the Anuireans figured out how to best defeat themselves.

>

Not at all. While the 2E warcard system made no difference, the

Anuireans have only access to the Longbow and the more advanced

Composite Longbow was reserved for the Khir-aften-el-Arrasi.



I find it strange however that you present the Longbowmen as the counter

to knights (in the game), when the 2E material stated that the cheap

Pikemen was invented to counter the expensive heavy cavalry and that the

crossbow got a special rule to easier penetrate plate armour.

bye

Michael













I think Osprey stated that because, historically speaking, while pikes were quite effective against heavy cavalry, before the introduction of guns nothing massacred them like longbows. In the battle of Agincourt, made famous :rolleyes: by shakespears Henry IV, 6,000 English with longbows massacred 30,000 french knights.

Crossbows just take a long time to reload while pikes are only good if the cavalry runs into them or stands by while a slow moving tight formation walks into the cavalry.

It&#39;s true that composite longbows are superior, but the distinction in D&D terms is neglibible, I believe an extra 10ft range. An advantage, but not the kind with huge ramification on the battle field.

[Osprey]

Crossbows just take a long time to reload while pikes are only good if the cavalry runs into them or stands by while a slow moving tight formation walks into the cavalry.

Yep. The best uyse of pikemen is to guard your longbowmen while they slaughter the enemy knights at range. :)

Crossbows, historically, were superior in armor penetration, but far inferior to a Welsh/English longbow for overall battlefield effectiveness. Lonbows had about 12x the rate of fire and excellent range. Plus they still had very good armor penetration thanks to their armor-piercing bodkin tips and immense power.

There&#39;s a good reason only the Welsh and later the English used longbows on the battlefield: proficiency and the proper strength required lifelong training in the weapon, something Edward I instituted throughout rural England once he realized the potential of the weapon (as demonstrated to him by the Welsh as levies in his own armies, and against the English occupiers of Wales).

I&#39;ve never quite understood the D&D seperation between composite and normal longbows. Statistically, a Welsh lonbow is much closer to a Str 14+ composite longbow than to the D&D longbow, which has no strength requirement whatsoever. The only example of a composite longbow that I can think of is the daikyu of feudal Japan. Most any other historical composite bows were shortbows used by horse archers.

Osprey

[Osprey]

Alright, here&#39;s the latest version of my Birthright Battlesystem. I will be playtesting this latest iteration in the next week or two, and we&#39;ll see if the ranges and speeds balance out well (these are the hardest parts to balance).

It&#39;s a Word document, you can download it below.

[irdeggman]

Jeremy,

Having briefly gone through your document here are some comments.

Comments:

Page 1:

Under commanders and army size: You say that a commander can lead a number of units equal to 10 plus 1/5 ranks in warcraft. The example has a commander with a +22 lead skill (I have to assume that means 22 ranks and not a +22, since skill focus and ability modifiers could apply) can lead a total of 14 units, but since the skill can be used untrained a commander with 0 ranks can lead 10 units. Doesn’t seem quite right to me. I would instead base the number of units that can be lead totally on a function of ranks, maybe ½ ranks which would give the 19th level commander in question the ability to lead 11 units vice the 14 from the example. Not quite even, but mathematically easy to calculate.

Under warcraft and tactical initiative. “Each combat phase is resolved simultaneously, as usual.” This is just not true. In the D&D combat system no two individuals go at the same time. Actions are resolved in order of initiative. If the initiative order is the same, then tie breakers are used (the higher Dex goes first). Then the one with the higher adjusted initiative goes first with his actions resolved before the opponent’s are. This has the result of preventing an opponent’s actions from ever occurring, if lucky.

I also don’t see the point in straying from the core combat rules by re-rolling initiative every round (and yes I know that is how the BRCS-playtest has it but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be changed).

Page 2:

Under Battlefield Terrain: I would add a bonus due to synergy for 5 ranks in knowledge (local) to the strategic initiative roll since that person has more knowledge of the province in question and hence the natural formation, roads, etc.

Page 3:

Under elevation: If gaining bonuses for missile attacks due to elevation then need to add in cover bonuses due to terrain to balance things out. No matter how high up you are, a unit hiding in a forest is still going to be harder to hit with arrows.


Under charging: Pikemen don’t charge, or at least they don’t (and shouldn’t) get a special charge rating. Pikemen’s main function was to ready for a charge (set for a charge) to attack mounted riders. Rushing headlong on foot with a reach weapon just defies most logic here.

Page 6:

Under destruction of a command unit: You mention friendly reserves as if it is a location but with the battlefield set up described on page 1 there is no location for such a position.

Page 11:

Under Stealth: I am not so sure about this ability in the first place, but regardless it should not be allowed in open field. That is it can only be done when the unit is located in a portion of the field that has some sort of cover or concealment (similar to the requisites for a Hide check). Also a unit should not be allowed to maintain this condition when covering open field.



I really don’t like introducing facing rules. They have no basis except for trying to capture historical formations. This is a bad way to go because D&D combat itself does not parallel historical combat at all. The way the D&D system works is totally abstract and pretty much always has been. The closest to accurate systems was the 2nd ed Player’s Option: Combat and Tactics which had weapon speeds, and different weapons having different advantages against armors and shields. But even that was an abstract system too since things didn’t happen at the same time, and armor in D&D really doesn’t follow any historical concept. If it did it would be more of a DR function and there would be skill checks involved since as someone got better at using his armor and shield he could do more with it and gain more defensive (and offensive) capability.

The only time that facing has any effect is when charging and the 1 inch minimum distance to charge (here that translates into 100 ft) will negate any facing issues since the defender can readily turn to face the charging unit. Facing has no effect on archers for example and will allow them to be even more devastating than they are presently. When a unit is engaged it is intertwined with another one so that facing really has no meaning. There are 200 individual combats going on and they are facing in almost any position imaginable. For example a charging unit of knights has just completed its attack on a unit of infantry, which way are they facing and does it matter? The infantry unit is engaging them and fighting to prevent them from escaping, and since the knights probably did substantial damage to the infantry they are standing amongst a lot of fallen soldiers. Now if the unit of knights was allowed to continue its charge then facing would matter for them since they must proceed in the same direction (this type of maneuver isn’t addressed, at least not yet).

If you are going to insert facing rules on the battlefield then insert the optional facing rules from Unearthed Arcana into the basic combat system for consistency (and match it instead).

[geeman]

At 05:37 PM 3/15/2005 +0100, irdeggman wrote:



>I also don`t see the point in straying from the core combat rules by

>re-rolling initiative every round (and yes I know that is how the

>BRCS-playtest has it but that doesn`t mean it shouldn`t be changed).



When I playtested a system of battlerules I found that if one "commander"

gained initiative it was far more significant than it is at adventure level

combat since that character then got to perform his tactical movement for

ALL his units before his opponent, conduct ALL his attacks, etc. It was a

devastating advantage in the first playtested large scale combat I

ran. Far too significant to leave to a single die roll, so rolling

initiative at the beginning of every combat round was immediately

playtested into existence.



As for a rationale for such a ruling there are plenty of ways to justify

it. At the adventure level initiative is for "an encounter" but at the

large scale combat level battlerounds last upwards of a hundred adventure

level combat rounds, and battles can last hours. Very few adventure level

encounters last as long as a single large scale combat battleround. If

looked at in that way, one can equate rolling initiative once in a system

of large scale combat is equivalent to giving a character the ability to

roll an initiative check at the _beginning_ of an adventure and then

keeping that number for all subsequent encounters.



Furthermore, not all characters are engaged in combat throughout a

battle. Some disengage, others wait their turn in the unit, some issue

orders or otherwise stay out of the actual fighting. In many ways large

scale combat is the abstraction of a series of adventure level encounters

rather than one long, drawn out adventure level slugfest lasting several

hundred rounds. Therefore, initiative is rerolled at the beginning of each

battleround in order to reflect that.



>I really don`t like introducing facing rules. They have no basis except

>for trying to capture historical formations. This is a bad way to go

>because D&D combat itself does not parallel historical combat at all. The

>way the D&D system works is totally abstract and pretty much always has been.



Facing doesn`t really remove that much abstraction from a system of

combat. In fact, I`d argue that the system of flanking in D&D is much less

abstract and even a little weirder to adjudicate than facing is.



That aside, I don`t think there`s really that much of a connection between

facing rules and formation. Facing rules in a system of large scale combat

are very abstract. Formation would be much more particular. I`ve used

formation rules in addition to facing rules with different units arranged

in wedge formation, line abreast, marching order, etc. That kind of thing

can be done if one has a system of facing, but facing on its own doesn`t

express much about formation other than to note that people organized into

a company tend to face in the same direction when fighting on a battlefield.



Gary

[irdeggman]

>I also don`t see the point in straying from the core combat rules by
>re-rolling initiative every round (and yes I know that is how the
>BRCS-playtest has it but that doesn`t mean it shouldn`t be changed).

When I playtested a system of battlerules I found that if one "commander"
gained initiative it was far more significant than it is at adventure level
combat since that character then got to perform his tactical movement for
ALL his units before his opponent, conduct ALL his attacks, etc. It was a
devastating advantage in the first playtested large scale combat I
ran. Far too significant to leave to a single die roll, so rolling
initiative at the beginning of every combat round was immediately
playtested into existence.

As for a rationale for such a ruling there are plenty of ways to justify
it. At the adventure level initiative is for "an encounter" but at the
large scale combat level battlerounds last upwards of a hundred adventure
level combat rounds, and battles can last hours. Very few adventure level
encounters last as long as a single large scale combat battleround. If
looked at in that way, one can equate rolling initiative once in a system
of large scale combat is equivalent to giving a character the ability to
roll an initiative check at the _beginning_ of an adventure and then
keeping that number for all subsequent encounters.

What is more significant having initiative for each round or controlling the battlefield at the start of the battle? IMO without a doubt the overall advantage goes to the army that establishes control of the field. That group gets to determine where the opposition will have to move in order to reach them. They can claim the high ground while forcing the opponents to have to travel through a pass in order to reach them, being whittled down by archers the entire time. So even if the group that has established initial control of the battlefield doesn’t have initiative for the rounds they a huge edge on the field.

Breaking down initiative to two separate ones – one for establishing the field and one for the order of combat makes sense and follows the normal patterns. The one that establishes the field of battle is actually the continuation of the domain action that established the war in the first place. Besides some bonuses that would apply to establish the field of battle (like Knowledge (local)) wouldn’t translate into a battlefield initiative bonus, IMO.

Nope, having a continuously established order for the combat pales in comparison and I don’t see why we should deviate from the norm.


Furthermore, not all characters are engaged in combat throughout a
battle. Some disengage, others wait their turn in the unit, some issue
orders or otherwise stay out of the actual fighting. In many ways large
scale combat is the abstraction of a series of adventure level encounters
rather than one long, drawn out adventure level slugfest lasting several
hundred rounds. Therefore, initiative is rerolled at the beginning of each
battleround in order to reflect that.

So you are saying that these really individuals and not a unit then? And that it is an abstraction of an already abstract system?

[quote]>I really don`t like introducing facing rules. They have no basis except
>for trying to capture historical formations. This is a bad way to go
>because D&D combat itself does not parallel historical combat at all. The
>way the D&D system works is totally abstract and pretty much always has been.

Facing doesn`t really remove that much abstraction from a system of
combat. In fact, I`d argue that the system of flanking in D&D is much less
abstract and even a little weirder to adjudicate than facing is.

That aside, I don`t think there`s really that much of a connection between
facing rules and formation. Facing rules in a system of large scale combat
are very abstract. Formation would be much more particular. I`ve used
formation rules in addition to facing rules with different units arranged
in wedge formation, line abreast, marching order, etc. That kind of thing
can be done if one has a system of facing, but facing on its own doesn`t
express much about formation other than to note that people organized into
a company tend to face in the same direction when fighting on a battlefield.[quote]

So there is no need to have facing then? Since it is essentially no more detailed – which I disagree with by the way. D&D is more abstract than facing rules – I refer you to Unearthed Arcana, which presented a means of using facing. It removed the flanking system of the core rules and forced a rewrite of sneak attack rules in the process. Combine that with the movement penalty for changing face, something else addressed in Unearthed Arcana by the way – as long as a character was moving he was considered to be facing in every direction, but when he ended his turn he chose a facing which established flanks and rear. It is a more complex system and less abstract.

[Osprey]

Under commanders and army size: You say that a commander can lead a number of units equal to 10 plus 1/5 ranks in warcraft. The example has a commander with a +22 lead skill (I have to assume that means 22 ranks and not a +22, since skill focus and ability modifiers could apply) can lead a total of 14 units, but since the skill can be used untrained a commander with 0 ranks can lead 10 units. Doesn’t seem quite right to me. I would instead base the number of units that can be lead totally on a function of ranks, maybe ½ ranks which would give the 19th level commander in question the ability to lead 11 units vice the 14 from the example. Not quite even, but mathematically easy to calculate.

I&#39;d suggest you re-read that section: the number of units that can be fielded at once is based on the commander&#39;s Lead skill modifier: 10 + 1 unit per +5 Lead skill. Much as with domain actions, I believe strongly that all skill modfiers should apply, not just pure experience (ranks). This allows high Charisma, blood abilities like bloodmark and divine aura, and feats like skill focus and great leader to all factor in to a commander&#39;s maximum army size.

1/2 ranks would make for pitifully small armies at low levels - a 5th level fighter with maxed Lead (8 ranks) could lead only 4 units. This is just too small a number. The idea was to have most armies be roughly equal, but talented commanders can have slightly larger forces on the field, giving them an edge without making things completely unmatched.

You do bring up an interesting point about untrained skill use, though. While it could happen, is it really a practical problem? Who is going to put an unskilled commander in charge of an army? Also, any commander without decent Warcraft will be at a severe disadvantage if they try to command a full army against an enemy commander with a good Warcraft skill.


Under warcraft and tactical initiative. “Each combat phase is resolved simultaneously, as usual.” This is just not true. In the D&D combat system no two individuals go at the same time. Actions are resolved in order of initiative. If the initiative order is the same, then tie breakers are used (the higher Dex goes first). Then the one with the higher adjusted initiative goes first with his actions resolved before the opponent’s are. This has the result of preventing an opponent’s actions from ever occurring, if lucky.

The reference to simultaneous actions refers to the warcard battle phases: Move, Stationary Missile Fire, Charge, Melee, Moving Missile Fire. Resolutions within each phase are considered simultaneous, so that 2 units can damage and even destroy one another when engaged in melee.


I also don’t see the point in straying from the core combat rules by re-rolling initiative every round (and yes I know that is how the BRCS-playtest has it but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be changed).

Geeman wrote a lot of what I was going to say.

In my playtesting experience with the 2e & BRCS warcard system, and later with these battle rules, the Warcraft check to determine initiative each round was one of the most significant factors in determining which side had the advantage. If initiative is rolled only once, then whoever wins retains an incredibly powerful advantage for the entire battle, which is highly unbalancing and not too fun for the loser, who feels like they can never "get back in the fight."

By winning initiative a commander can decide to go first or last, which is also an immense advantage. Very often it is more advantageous early in the fight (esp. if you have good missile units and/or a good defensive position) to force an opponent to move first, allowing you to react to his moves. As an enemy army moves closer to your lines, it can be to your advantage to take the 1st move and charge home. The point of intitative is to give the superior commander the choice of 1st or last moves. A round-by-round initiative check keeps things uncertain but also flexible, both of which are positive factors in my experience.

Assuming a 5 or 10-minute battle turn, that&#39;s a lot of room for maneuvering and changing tactics. This is very, very different from initiative in personal combat, most of which don&#39;t last for more than a few rounds, and "long" combats might be as much as 10 rounds (one minute). 3.5 combat isn&#39;t very abstract at all IMO, it is incredibly detailed. AD&D combat, with 1 minute combat rounds, was much more abstract, assuming a whole series of blows and exchanges...but they ditched that in 3rd ed. because it so badly lacked believability and was hard to describe as a storyteller. Battles with 200-man companies, though, require either a large degree of abstraction or a LOT of rules to cover all the dynamics and possibilities. This system seeks to find some balance there, mostly in favor of abstracted simplicity but with a nod toward some key factors in company-level warfare.


Page 2:

Under Battlefield Terrain: I would add a bonus due to synergy for 5 ranks in knowledge (local) to the strategic initiative roll since that person has more knowledge of the province in question and hence the natural formation, roads, etc.
With the new definition of K/Local being province-wide, I think that&#39;s an excellent addition to add to the list.


Page 3:

Under elevation: If gaining bonuses for missile attacks due to elevation then need to add in cover bonuses due to terrain to balance things out. No matter how high up you are, a unit hiding in a forest is still going to be harder to hit with arrows.

Yeah. Actually, this battlesystem is meant to include the BRCS warcard terrain modifiers. I didn&#39;t write in the things I was keeping the same, only the things I was changing. A more complete writeup of the battlesystem would include the effects of terrain, weather, etc. Now that I have a Word version of Ch 6, it shouldn&#39;t be too tough to cut and paste those sections in to a more complete document.


Under charging: Pikemen don’t charge, or at least they don’t (and shouldn’t) get a special charge rating. Pikemen’s main function was to ready for a charge (set for a charge) to attack mounted riders. Rushing headlong on foot with a reach weapon just defies most logic here.

I was going with the BRCS rule that in the 1st round of engagement, pikemen attack in the charge phase. This is pretty much the same as having a charge rating, only there&#39;s no attack bonus. This rule was put in to simulate the reach advantage of massed pike formations. Against charging enemies, pikes do double damage (2 hits) on a successful attack. Since they attack in the charge phase as well, they have a chance of hitting a charging attacker before they take the damage from the charge.

Rushing headlong on foot is a bad way to describe an attacking unit of pikemen. A better description (and I believe one used in BR) is "a rolling charge by a unit of well-trained pikemen can be devestating." They don&#39;t rush headlong, they stay in tight formation and speed up to double-time or so, and bear down on an enemy company with a layered hedge of long spears impaling multiple enemy ranks before the enemy can even hit back.

The reach advantage is one of the pikemen&#39;s main strengths. I think letting them attack in the first round on the charge phase simulates this very well. After that initial round, or any time they are hit by a unit while already engaged, they have no such advantage - and infantry are +2 melee against them as well, which makes them rather vulnerable.


Page 6:

Under destruction of a command unit: You mention friendly reserves as if it is a location but with the battlefield set up described on page 1 there is no location for such a position.

Battlefield Terrain (bottom of p. 1) mentions friendly/enemy reserves, again working off the already-established warcard rules for reserves being edges of a map. Once again, I could pretty easily insert more explicit definitions of reserves in a comprehensive document.


Page 11:

Under Stealth: I am not so sure about this ability in the first place, but regardless it should not be allowed in open field. That is it can only be done when the unit is located in a portion of the field that has some sort of cover or concealment (similar to the requisites for a Hide check). Also a unit should not be allowed to maintain this condition when covering open field.

Think about the distances involved - 4" is 400&#39; distance. You don&#39;t think a stealthy unit could use camouflage to hide itself in a wheatfield at that distance or more? Covering terrain halves these distances (2"). The biggest factor is when they are motionless, at which point an enemy has to move adjacent to discover them. But even adjacent is 100&#39; distant...not exactly close range for Spot checks.


I really don’t like introducing facing rules...

OK, 1st off: comparing personal combat to unit combat is problematic here. An individual fighting by himself has FAR more flexibility and maneuverability than a unit trying to move and fight in a coordinated formation.

One person turning in place takes almost no time or energy, and is thus somewhat negligible as a factor in personal combat.

A 200-man company rotating 90 degrees is an entirely different story. That&#39;s alot of marching and maneuvering whhile trying to maintain formation. This is the reasoning behind the movement costs for changing facing. It really has no direct relation to personal combat rules, it is purely a battlefield unit mechanic.

The facing rules are meant to be a fairly simple abstraction of the dynamics of unit formations. The basic assumption is that most units have a front, sides, and rear, and most every unit formation (with a few exceptions, like a chiltern) is designed for frontal fighting. Units that cannot turn to face an enemy with their front in melee are at a disadvantage.

I was fairly generous with the facing rules I thought. For instance, if a unit has at least 1" of movement remaining, they can turn to face an attack on their flank. With 2" remaining, they could even face an attack from their rear.

The only time a unit will be hit on the flank or rear is when they&#39;re already engaged or when they&#39;re marching all-out, leaving no room to maneuver defensively.

I&#39;ve always figured that anything more specific regarding specialized formations could be handled with individual unit statistics/abilities - like the infantry bonus vs. pikes and irregulars, or the pikemen&#39;s bonuses vs. cavalry.

A DM who wanted more specific formation stuff could, for example, allow infantry and pikes to spend 2" of movement and form a chiltern (a circular formation that faces outward on all sides). This might grant -2 Melee, +2 Defense, prevent flanking or rear attacks, and is immobile - the unit must spend another 2" of movement to resume normal formation.
A cavalry wedge formation might grant +2 Melee/Charge, but -2 Defense.
Loose formation might grant +2 Defense vs. missiles, -2 Morale, and -2 Defense vs. melee attacks.

I don&#39;t use any of these rules mind you, it&#39;s just too much detail for the typical non-wargamer, but they&#39;re quite feasible for those who&#39;d want a more detailed level of battle resolution. But they do help illustrate the significant differences between personal and unit combat.


Facing has no effect on archers for example and will allow them to be even more devastating than they are presently.

Facing determines the arc of fire for missile units. It&#39;s very significant. The assumption there is that a unit of archers is effective when spread out in a long, shallow line facing their target. That&#39;s how 200 archers can all fire on the same target unit.

Also, the missile ranges here are the shortest I&#39;ve ever used - they used to be much longer, but this allowed archers to be disgustingly dominant on the battlefield, so I&#39;ve adjusted for balance. I like the ranges as they are set now, but have yet to determine now if unit speed still balances. That&#39;s what playtesting will help determine.


When a unit is engaged it is intertwined with another one so that facing really has no meaning. There are 200 individual combats going on and they are facing in almost any position imaginable.

I disagree with this conception of unit combat. Disciplined units don&#39;t turn into chaotic mobs the instant they engage. Levies and green units, sure. And as they have only 1 hit, they will tend to die in one turn anyways.

More typically, the front lines of each unit engage one another and try to press into and break the enemy formation while maintaining their own formation&#39;s cohesiveness. This is the main reason infantry gain a bonus attacking irregulars, and have better morale - they keep formation against a loosely-organized enemy. The classic example is Roman infantry vs. barbarian warriors - so long as the Roman troops maintained discipline and formation, they could fend off much greater numbers of enemy attackers - unless they were overwhelmed from several sides at once, or worse, hit by a cavalry charge in the flank or rear.

Charging cavalry work differently, yes. Most cavalry charges are likely to deliver one hit of damage in the charge phase. If this isn&#39;t enough damage to destroy the enemy unit outright, however, then the cavalry will probably be stopped and suddenly wading in a mass of enemy troops. If the enemy has initiative next turn, then the cavalry may get hit from the sides or rear while still engaged...I think giving the flanking attackers a +1 or +2 attack bonus seems pretty reasonable to me.

Overrunning an entire unit without destroying it seems a bit much IMO.


If you are going to insert facing rules on the battlefield then insert the optional facing rules from Unearthed Arcana into the basic combat system for consistency (and match it instead).

Don&#39;t own the book, so I have no idea what you&#39;re referencing here. Anyways, I doubt UA is talking about unit facing anyways.

[geeman]

At 08:20 PM 3/15/2005 +0100, irdeggman wrote:



>What is more significant having initiative for each round or controlling

>the battlefield at the start of the battle? IMO without a doubt the

>overall advantage goes to the army that establishes control of the field.

>That group gets to determine where the opposition will have to move in

>order to reach them. They can claim the high ground while forcing the

>opponents to have to travel through a pass in order to reach them, being

>whittled down by archers the entire time. So even if the group that has

>established initial control of the battlefield doesn’t have initiative for

>the rounds they a huge edge on the field.

>

>Breaking down initiative to two separate ones * one for establishing the

>field and one for the order of combat makes sense and follows the normal

>patterns. The one that establishes the field of battle is actually the

>continuation of the domain action that established the war in the first

>place. Besides some bonuses that would apply to establish the field of

>battle (like Knowledge (local)) wouldn’t translate into a battlefield

>initiative bonus, IMO.

>

>Nope, having a continuously established order for the combat pales in

>comparison and I don’t see why we should deviate from the norm.



I think there are two separate issues here. First, who gets to move first

in individual battlerounds and, second, who gets to choose the location,

terrain features, etc. of the battlemap.



It`s been a while since I did that aforementioned playtesting, but IIRC I

broke these two concepts up in the system that I used. Initiative was

determined for each battleround after very early in playtesting (the very

first combat) revealed that using the 3e single initiative roll that

determines the order of actions for the whole battle was too significant

for the purpose of large scale combat.



Now, as for who got to determine the terrain, conditions, etc. of the

battlemap, I didn`t base that on initiative. Rather, the "defender" got to

pick a few terrain features unless he was engaged by units who had

surprise. (There were a couple of unit types that could give an attacker

this kind of advantage--scouts, for instance, might set up an ambush.) If

he had a castle in the province that was invaded he got to decide if the

battle were to take place there or if his troops would sally forth.



In the absence of such a system, however, one could still just give the

ability to determine such matters to the person who wins the first

initiative roll then moving things along from there. It doesn`t really

change the issues having to do with rolling initiative at the beginning of

every battleround or just once at the beginning of the battle.



>>Furthermore, not all characters are engaged in combat throughout a

>>battle. Some disengage, others wait their turn in the unit, some issue

>>orders or otherwise stay out of the actual fighting. In many ways large

>>scale combat is the abstraction of a series of adventure level encounters

>>rather than one long, drawn out adventure level slugfest lasting several

>>hundred rounds. Therefore, initiative is rerolled at the beginning of each

>>battleround in order to reflect that.

>

>So you are saying that these really individuals and not a unit then? And

>that it is an abstraction of an already abstract system?



Yes, I think both those things are basically true. That is, a unit of

soldiers at the large scale combat level does represent an abstracted

version of their combined stats into a further abstracted system of play.



But that`s not really what I was getting at there. Rather, it`s just a

justification for having players roll initiative at the beginning of every

battleround rather than once at the beginning of the battle the way D&D

adventure level combat does. As a rationale for an abstraction I think it

works though.



>>That aside, I don`t think there`s really that much of a connection between

>>facing rules and formation. Facing rules in a system of large scale combat

>>are very abstract. Formation would be much more particular. I`ve used

>>formation rules in addition to facing rules with different units arranged

>>in wedge formation, line abreast, marching order, etc. That kind of thing

>>can be done if one has a system of facing, but facing on its own doesn`t

>>express much about formation other than to note that people organized into

>>a company tend to face in the same direction when fighting on a battlefield.

>

>So there is no need to have facing then? Since it is essentially no more

>detailed * which I disagree with by the way. D&D is more abstract than

>facing rules * I refer you to Unearthed Arcana, which presented a means of

>using facing. It removed the flanking system of the core rules and forced

>a rewrite of sneak attack rules in the process. Combine that with the

>movement penalty for changing face, something else addressed in Unearthed

>Arcana by the way * as long as a character was moving he was considered to

>be facing in every direction, but when he ended his turn he chose a facing

>which established flanks and rear. It is a more complex system and less

>abstract.



Well, there`s a need for facing only if one sees the need for it.... One

can certainly get along without it.



Personally, I found conducting large scale combat on a grid using units of

100+ soldiers without a system to portray the tactical advantages of

flanking (not the D&D use of that word, but actually having units strike

other units at angles to their facing) or from behind just didn`t seem very

realistic or sensible when I have played out large scale combat.



As for how abstract D&D is in relation to the issue of flanking, I`d

suggest that this kind of thing is well within the range of D&D`s scope of

abstraction. It`s somewhere between the very broad abstraction of hit

points, BAB, etc. and the very particular D&D system of movement on a grid

(which is not very abstracted at all.) In fact, if one is laying units out

on a grid with rules for determining things like performing specific

actions like bull rush, trip, disarm, etc. then the issue of facing fits in

there pretty neatly. As long as one is laying units out on a grid then

facing is not a very difficult or very much less abstracted thing to employ

than is the basic organization of the system itself, and IMO well worth the

benefits that one gets in regards to how units can then be moved on the

grid, outmaneuvered to gain tactical advantage, etc. YMMV.



Another way to look at this is that in a system of large scale combat there

is no system for flanking (in the D&D sense that allows rogues--or

others--to employ their sneak attack bonuses.) A system of facing can

replace at the large scale combat level the tactical advantages of maneuver

and positioning that are pretty common at the adventure level of play.



Gary

[irdeggman]

I&#39;d suggest you re-read that section: the number of units that can be fielded at once is based on the commander&#39;s Lead skill modifier: 10 + 1 unit per +5 Lead skill. Much as with domain actions, I believe strongly that all skill modfiers should apply, not just pure experience (ranks). This allows high Charisma, blood abilities like bloodmark and divine aura, and feats like skill focus and great leader to all factor in to a commander&#39;s maximum army size.

True enough it does say per lead skill. It also doesn&#39;t say total modifiers and since the default in the core rules is per rank I assumed you left of some text.

[irdeggman]

QUOTE
Facing has no effect on archers for example and will allow them to be even more devastating than they are presently.



Facing determines the arc of fire for missile units. It&#39;s very significant. The assumption there is that a unit of archers is effective when spread out in a long, shallow line facing their target. That&#39;s how 200 archers can all fire on the same target unit.

What I meant was that since archers are essentially stationary units, using 1 movement point to turn has a neglible effect on them. Since they are shooting a greater distance then other units can move (except for maybe mounted ones that is) it is easy to turn (as a unit if you will since they are disciplined after all) aim and fire at whatever unit they wish to.

[irdeggman]

QUOTE
Under charging: Pikemen don’t charge, or at least they don’t (and shouldn’t) get a special charge rating. Pikemen’s main function was to ready for a charge (set for a charge) to attack mounted riders. Rushing headlong on foot with a reach weapon just defies most logic here.


I was going with the BRCS rule that in the 1st round of engagement, pikemen attack in the charge phase. This is pretty much the same as having a charge rating, only there&#39;s no attack bonus. This rule was put in to simulate the reach advantage of massed pike formations. Against charging enemies, pikes do double damage (2 hits) on a successful attack. Since they attack in the charge phase as well, they have a chance of hitting a charging attacker before they take the damage from the charge.

Rushing headlong on foot is a bad way to describe an attacking unit of pikemen. A better description (and I believe one used in BR) is "a rolling charge by a unit of well-trained pikemen can be devestating." They don&#39;t rush headlong, they stay in tight formation and speed up to double-time or so, and bear down on an enemy company with a layered hedge of long spears impaling multiple enemy ranks before the enemy can even hit back.


The remainder of the text in the BRCS-playtest is “Hits inflicted by Pike units do damage during the ‘charge” phase of tactical battle during the first round of an engagement. This attack inflicts double damage against mounted units.’

This is pretty much, although not as clear, as the PHB text that they do double damage when readied for a charge. And since this is during the first round of an engagement it reads to me that it means they are set for a charge.

From the BRRB (2nd ed) “Pikemen: The Anuirean warfare ended with the introduction of pikes and longbows. Pikemen operate in dense masses, creating an impenetrable hedge of spear points. A column of pikemen on the move can strike an enemy line with unstoppable force.”


Resolving in the charge phase is not the same as having a charge rating. The reason pikemen go in the charge phase is because they are set to receive a charge and have reach weapons, hence they hit units charging them prior to the charge being resolved.

Note that the description of what a charge is in the PHB includes the "Since a charge is a bit reckless, you also take a -2 penalty to your AC until the start of your next turn." So I still think my description is more accurate when used with the definition/description of a charge from the PHB.

[irdeggman]

FYI

From Unearthed Arcana (pgs 124 – 128) {all OGC}

COMBAT FACING
The combat rules in the PHB intentionally ignore the direction a creature faces. The rules assume that creatures are constantly moving and shifting within their spaces, looking in all directions during a fight. In this variant, facing – the direction your head and body are pointing makes a big difference in how you move and fight.
This variant makes combat more complex, but it opens up new strategic options for PCs and monsters alike. It’s a choice if your group relishes the tactical complexity of D&D combat and doesn’t mind spending a lot of time duking it out with the bad guys. It won’t change the power level of your game.
This variant supersedes the standard rules for flanking and creates new conditions for the rogue’s use of the sneak attack ability.

FACING DIRECTION
All PCs and most monsters have a facing: the direction to the adjacent square the character is pointing toward. This means that a Medium creature standing in a given square has eight possible facings. The three squares a Small or Medium character is pointing toward are its front area. The three squares behind it are its rear area. The squares to its left and right are its flanks. Larger characters have more squares to deal with, but they still face toward one of eight directions. Their front areas remain the squares in front of them (including those on the front corners); their rear areas remain the squares behind them (including those on the rear corners); and their flanks remain the squares directly to their sides.
For some miniatures, it’s obvious which direction they’re facing; their faces are pointed in a particular direction, and they’re brandishing a weapon in that direction too. But some miniatures look one way and point their weapons another, or it’s otherwise unclear which way they’re facing. To keep things clear at the gaming table, it’s easiest if you mark the front of each miniature with a small dot or arrow on the base. That way everyone knows which way the character represented by the miniature is facing.
Some creatures simply have no facing. See Faceless Creatures, below.

FACING AND MOVEMENT
Facing has some significant effects on movement.
Changing Facing: As you move, you can freely change your facing, rotating your miniature before you step into each new square. In addition, you can change facing at the end of your move. These rules do not apply if your movement is limited to a 5-foot step; see below.
If you do not move during your turn, or if your movement is limited to a 5-foot step, you may change facing once, at any point during your turn, as a free action. You can turn to face any direction you like, but you cannot change facing more than once. (You can also change facing as a move action, however, if you aren’t using your move action to do something else.)
Normal Movement: You can move into any square in your front area at the normal movement cost. As you move, you may change your facing as you enter each new square. Make it clear which way you’re facing as you move, if it matters (such as when enemies are near), and set your miniature’s facing when you’re done moving. (If your miniature is on a square base, the corners of the base may extend beyond the miniature’s space. That’s okay, but remember that regardless of your facing, the size and shape of your space never actually changes.)
Moving Backward or Sideways: In general, you’ll usually turn your character in the direction of movement before making a move. (As described above, you may freely make such changes in facing during movement.) However, sometimes you’ll want to move without changing your facing, to avoid exposing your flank or rear area to an attack of opportunity while you move, It costs two squares of movement to enter a square on your flank or in your rear area.
5-Foot Steps: When taking a 5-foot step, you can move into any adjacent square, even in your rear or on your flank. You do not change facing when taking a 5-foot step. (You may, however, change your facing once as a free action; see Changing Facing, above.)

FACING AND ATTACKING
In general, a character can attack into any square in his front area without penalty. This means that a character making a full attack should consider carefully when he takes his free action to change his facing. For example, if 6th-level Tordek is beset by a bugbear in his front area and a goblin in his rear, he can attack the bugbear, take his free action to change facing toward the goblin, then attack the goblin. But he can’t then change his facing again. He’s stuck with his back to the bugbear, which is in his rear area.
Characters who don’t want to change their facing to point toward a foe can attack into their flank areas at a -5 penalty and into their rear areas at a -10 penalty.
Characters can make ranged attacks into any square beyond their front area without penalty, as shown in the accompanying diagram. The penalties for making ranged attacks into flank and rear areas are the same as for melee combat.

Opponent Facing
Not only does your facing matter when you’re attacking, but the facing of your opponent does as well. If you’re attacking from a foe’s flank area (or the squares beyond it, if you have a reach weapon or ranged weapon), you get a +2 bonus on the attack roll. You don’t need anyone opposite you on the other side of your foe. If you’re attacking from a foe’s rear area (or the squares beyond it), you get a +4 bonus on the attack roll.

Sneak Attacks
A rogue can strike for sneak attack damage whenever her foe is flat-footed or whenever she’s attacking with a melee weapon from a foe’s rear area. She doesn’t need anyone directly opposite her to get the extra damage. The standard rules for creatures’ immunity to sneak attack still apply. For example, a shambling mound has a rear area, but it’s immune to sneak attack damage because it’s a plant. Conversely, a phasm doesn’t have a front or rear, but you can still deal extra sneak attack damage if you catch it flat-footed.

FACING AND PERCEPTION
It’s much easer to see what’s going on in your front area, and much easier to sneak around behind someone’s back.
Spot Checks: Characters take a -5 penalty on Spot checks to perceive things in their flank area (or beyond) and a -10 penalty on Spot checks in their rear area (or beyond). The Combat Awareness feat (see below) eliminates this penalty. Faceless creatures (se below) and creatures with the all-around vision ability don’t take this penalty.
Readied Actions: You can’t ready an action to respond to a trigger that occurs in your rear area if you have to see it happen (such as a doorknob turning). But you can ready an action for a sound-based trigger (such as the click of latch opening).

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
The facing variant requires several other rule changes.

Faceless Creatures
Some creatures have no real facing because they can move, attack, and perceive foes equally well in every direction. All elementals and oozes are faceless. Also, the following monsters are faceless: lantern archon, assassin vine, chaos beast, darkmantle, violet fungus, glibbering mouther, mimic, phasm, will-o’-wisp, xorn, and octopus (including giant octopus).
Faceless creatures can move or attack into any adjacent square, and they can’t be flanked or attacked from the rear because they don’t have flanks or rears.

Tiny and Smaller Creatures
Tiny and smaller creatures don’t have facing. They can move or attack in any direction and are otherwise treated as faceless.

Feats and Class Features
Some feats and class features provide an additional facing-related benefit to characters who have them. Also, the Combat Awareness feat (see the sidebar) affects a character’s awareness to his flanks and rear.
Cleave and Great Cleave: The extra attacks granted by these feats can be made into flank areas without penalty, as well as into front areas.
Combat Reflexes: Characters with this feat can make attacks of opportunity into their flank areas without penalty.
Improved Uncanny Dodge: No attacker gets the +2 bonus for attacking into your flank or the +4 bonus from attacking from behind you. Only a rogue four levels higher than you can deal sneak attack damage by attacking from a rear square.
Mounted Combat: Characters with this feat can attack into their steed’s flank without penalty while mounted.
Whirlwind Attack: Characters with this feat can attack into any area without penalty.

Spellcasting
Spells and spell-like abilities that have areas such as lines and cones emerge from any grid intersection between the spellcaster’s space and his front area. A spellcaster can’t target anything in his rear area with a spell.

Flank Attacks
Some monsters have attacks and abilities that reach into flank squares as well as front squares. These creatures take no penalties for making these attacks into flank squares.

{list of examples not copied for brevity – include creatures like hydra and roper}

Rear Attacks
Some monsters have attacks and abilities that emerge from or attack into rear squares, not front squares. These creatures take no penalty for making these attacks into rear squares.

{list of examples not copied for brevity – include creatures like aranea – web, dragon – tail slap or tail sweep}

Shields (optional)
If you’re particularly keen on facing, you can add another layer of realism by modeling how shields only protect against attacks from some directions. This “variant to a variant” system introduces a shieldless AC for a character who is attacked from a direction where he can’t interpose the shield between himself and the threat. Shieldless AC is easy to figure: Just subtract the AC bonus the shield provides (including its enhancement bonus it it’s a magic shield) from the character’s normal AC.
A character holding a shield must indicate whether he’s wielding it to the left or right. The shield only adds to the character’s AC against attacks coming from his front area and the flank area on the shield’s side, plus any squares that lie beyond those areas.
The shield spell provides a bonus to AC against attacks from the front area only.

New Feat
COMBAT AWARENESS [General]
You are so perceptive that you practically have eyes in the back of your head.
Benefit: You take no -5 penalty on Spot checks to notice things in or beyond your flank areas. The penalty to notice things in or beyond your rear area is-5.
Normal: The penalty on Spot checks in or beyond your flank area is 5; on Spot checks in or beyond your rear area it’s -10.
Special: A fighter may select Combat Awareness as one of his fighter bonus feats.

{There are several pages of pictures with examples of facing, attacks of Opportunity and shield protection that I didn’t try to reproduce.}

[irdeggman]

QUOTE
When a unit is engaged it is intertwined with another one so that facing really has no meaning. There are 200 individual combats going on and they are facing in almost any position imaginable.



I disagree with this conception of unit combat. Disciplined units don&#39;t turn into chaotic mobs the instant they engage. Levies and green units, sure. And as they have only 1 hit, they will tend to die in one turn anyways.

More typically, the front lines of each unit engage one another and try to press into and break the enemy formation while maintaining their own formation&#39;s cohesiveness. This is the main reason infantry gain a bonus attacking irregulars, and have better morale - they keep formation against a loosely-organized enemy. The classic example is Roman infantry vs. barbarian warriors - so long as the Roman troops maintained discipline and formation, they could fend off much greater numbers of enemy attackers - unless they were overwhelmed from several sides at once, or worse, hit by a cavalry charge in the flank or rear.

Point taken. But since you have pointed out that the round is 10 minutes (as part of justification for re-rolling intiative) there is appoximately 100 individual attacks being made per member of the unit in that time (1 per 6 second combat round times 10 for a miunute times 10 for 10 minutes). That is 100 times 400 or 40000 attacks being made in a battle round.

What happens in a formation is that the front line breaks through and the moves on to the second line while their second line step in behind to "close ranks". Since individuals accomplish independent damage the lines are not straight but rapidly become interwoven much like a jagged line stretching through the lines (Battle of the Bulge anyone?). In a 10 minute round (unlike a 6 second one) there is plenty of opportunity for the "lines" to shrink and swell accordingly - that is the point I&#39;m trying to make. The individual members are indeed intertwined that is unless once someone kills an opponent he just stays there and waits until his entire line has done the same. An orderly and organized unit (like infantry in this case) is experienced and trained enough to step up and fill the gaps when an ally is moving forward or has fallen. So I see what your point is that they are keeping the line, but I see it more as a stretching of the line (the losing side has to have something happen that reflects their damage they can&#39;t keep stepping up without some visual loss of structure.)

[doom]

It would seem that significant effort is about to be spent towards the

creation of a complete and comprehensive battle system. I, for one,

think such an effort, while noble, would be misguided. A

"comprehensive" battle system is a work in its own right (e.g. Cry

Havok, WarHammer, et al). The system provided in the BRCS should be

simple (yes, this does mean that significant abstraction will be

necessary), reasonably fast, and where possible, stick to the general

concepts of the 2e Birthright battlesystem.



Those who want a more demanding represention of mass battles have a

plethora of options to choose from. The BRCS is not the place to

add another. I feel that such complexity is out of place in the

"default" presentation of the Birthright universe, for which war is

an important factor, but which is not, in essence, a wargame.



The playtest system presented in the BRCS is, in my opinion, overly

complicated. While well intentioned, "new" complexities (such as costs

for units on the march Vs. garrisoned units, etc) were added (largely

by me, I am forced to admit) that make the system less appealing to the

general public. I believe that the war system presented in the final

BRCS should have an underlying goal to be an effective story-telling

tool for a table-top RPG, not a stand-alone and internally

complete/historically consistent warsystem. Those who want "more"

for their own game have many other options to houserule in favor

of.



- Doom

[The Jew]

Overall I like your combat rules Jeremy. I havn&#39;t read it closely enough to argue over details but here are my broader comments.

I mean this only for the BRCS, and not as a criticisism of the rules in general. The complex rules for the castles along with skirmishers and stealth in their entirety should be removed. Those rules are wonderful details, but provide more complexity than is needed in the BRCS.

Facing provides a bit of realism, adds a nice bit of tactics without adding all that much complexity. It&#39;s true that their is no basis for it in D&D, but there are going have to be some rules that are truly distinct within mass combat.

[Osprey]

What I meant was that since archers are essentially stationary units, using 1 movement point to turn has a neglible effect on them. Since they are shooting a greater distance then other units can move (except for maybe mounted ones that is) it is easy to turn (as a unit if you will since they are disciplined after all) aim and fire at whatever unit they wish to.

Defending missile units tend to be stationary. Not at all so with attackers, who must run forward until they are in range, then fire.

Tactical speed is 2 x Move rating of a unit.

So regular infantry (move 1) can move 2" per turn. Light regulars at 4" per turn (speed 2). Light veterans and regular scouts can move 6" per round, veteran scouts 8". Knights 6", regular light cavalry 8", vet. light cavalry 10".

Maximum range of a unit of regular archers is only 3", at +0 missile ( a straight D20 attack vs. the target unit&#39;s Defense).

That&#39;s only 1-2 rounds of fire before regular infantry pound them. Of course archers as light units can always run away from other foot units, but then they can&#39;t fire before the melee begins.

Most any cavalry unit can charge them without suffering any but the "last shot" of a stationary missile unit.

[Osprey]

The remainder of the text in the BRCS-playtest is “Hits inflicted by Pike units do damage during the ‘charge” phase of tactical battle during the first round of an engagement. This attack inflicts double damage against mounted units.’

This is precisely the passage I was referring to. Only the BRCS p. 114 actually says "This attack inflicts double damage against charging units" - not mounted units. It then says, "Pike units gain a +2 attack bonus against mounted units."

I read this as three distinct abilities of pikemen:


Hits inflicted by Pike units do damage during the ‘charge” phase of tactical battle during the first round of an engagement.
This is the advantage enjoyed by a unit with reach weapons - much like the lances of charging cavalry.


"This attack inflicts double damage against charging units"
This is the ability to brace against a charging enemy and deal double damage, a second advantage of the pike/longspear.


Pike units gain a +2 attack bonus against mounted units.
This one is more of a historical/realistic advantage of massed formations of spearmen: they can gang up on horses and riders with hedges of spearpoints while blocking the advance of the riders into their formation.


In a system with facing, I think the facing of a unit of pikemen is especially important. I would negate the first two abilities if a pike unit is attacked from the flank or rear.

[Osprey]

The system provided in the BRCS should be
simple (yes, this does mean that significant abstraction will be
necessary), reasonably fast, and where possible, stick to the general
concepts of the 2e Birthright battlesystem.

I&#39;m not really opposed to this concept at all. I&#39;ve been pondering how to depict a simple and easy-to-resolve system for warfare.

The battlesystem I posted is meant to be have a middle level of tactical detail. It exists for those BR players and DM&#39;s who enjoy wargaming at least a little. I suspect that a substantial number of BR fans do enjoy wargaming - as many as 1/2 or more of them, in fact.

The other folks, though, have little to no interest in any detailed resolution of battles. For them things are more important either on the adventure level, or on the strategic domain level. War is just an event, problem, or means to an end.

I think having a very simple, necesarily abstract system for resolving battles is a good idea. It satisfies the latter group I mentioned, and is useful for any campaign. Like when a DM wants to quickly resolve battles between NPC regents/realms, or skip over battles in a campaign which the PC&#39;s don&#39;t personally participate in.

I can&#39;t say as I thought the quick resolution system in the BRCS was very good. It was so abstract, and ultra-heavy on the number crunching, and still seemed to ignore so many significant details about units involved, that I threw it out a while back.

What I would like is to see is a better version of a quick resolution system, and a 3.5 revision of the Birthright battle system, one meant to replace the 2e warcard system. Ideally, these 2 systems will be roughly compatible in outcomes.

Off the top of my head, simply using unit GB muster values seems like the best raw measure of power - unit type, experience, and special training options are all subsumed in a unit&#39;s muster value.

[Osprey]

I mean this only for the BRCS, and not as a criticisism of the rules in general. The complex rules for the castles along with skirmishers and stealth in their entirety should be removed. Those rules are wonderful details, but provide more complexity than is needed in the BRCS.

The unit training options were always meant as a sort of optional add-on to a campaign. Skirmishers came about as an answer to the lack of any good representations of (Khinasi) horse archers and the tactics they employ. Stealth units came about when designing ninja units for my Oriental Adventures BR campaign. It seemed reasonable to extend the option to any units capable of stealth: mainly special (usually veteran) rogue and ranger-type units. Scouts sort of imply stealth on the strategic level (in their ability to view units in adjacent provinces), but have only movement advantages on the battlefield.

The castle rules are a level of detail a bit beyond the warcard system, but then so are things like elevation and facing. A simplification of them is just to use the warcard fortification terrain type, but on a larger map give it an area equal to the maximum garrison size (fortified holding = level in squares, prov. fort. = 2xlevel in squares). On any battle map, it must be determined where exactly the defending garrison is positioned, and what area the castle takes up on the field.

I invented the gate rules to allow cavalry to play a role in assaults (which they definitely did in medieval assaults, once the gates were broken).

I gave walls and keeps elevation to represent the advantage that archers defending a catle enjoy against attackers. It&#39;s significant. One could just as easily say, "Ranged units defending a castle gain a +2 bonus to their missile rating. Ranged units attacking a castle recieve a -2 penalty to their Missile rating." But since I already had the elevation rules in place, much easier to reference them rather than re-writing their effects.

Most of the other castle rules are from the warcard system.

[MorganNash]

Originally posted by Osprey@Mar 15 2005, 08:17 PM
You do bring up an interesting point about untrained skill use, though. While it could happen, is it really a practical problem? Who is going to put an unskilled commander in charge of an army?

There are some extremely erudite discussions here which I am not really qualified to comment upon but I will pick you up on this one ... who is going to put an unskilled commander in charge of an army? Practically every single armed force since the beginning of time. There are a zillion different reasons to be the commander of an army - sadly, talent has rarely been the main one.

In this sort of "medieval" setting it is more likely that nobility of birth or having bags of money will put one in charge and that doesn&#39;t necessarily mean the commander has a shred of talent in command.

[geeman]

At 09:52 AM 3/16/2005 +0100, MorganNash wrote:



>>Who is going to put an unskilled commander in charge of an army?

>

>There are some extremely erudite discussions here which I am not really

>qualified to comment upon but I will pick you up on this one ... who is

>going to put an unskilled commander in charge of an army? Practically

>every single armed force since the beginning of time. There are a zillion

>different reasons to be the commander of an army - sadly, talent has

>rarely been the main one.

>

>In this sort of "medieval" setting it is more likely that nobility of

>birth or having bags of money will put one in charge and that doesn`t

>necessarily mean the commander has a shred of talent in command.



Well, it`s hard to argue with the reality of that.... :)



In the context of the game, however, in which (unrealistically and in

defiance of much real world precedence) leaders tend to rise to their

positions because their actual abilities are superior to others, and such

leaders actually quantifiably learn from their experience--as opposed to

simply refining their ill-conceived ideas, which seemed to be the trend in

real life--it`s less likely that unskilled commanders will be in charge of

an army.



It`s a kind of metagaming kind of thing, I suppose. Competence and actual

ability are generally the assumption within the game. In a unit of troops,

for example, one assumes that the soldiers are probably 1st level and led

by sergeants, lieutenants and a captain who are 2nd through maybe 5th or

6th level. While there can certainly be a little variation there the point

is that in the context of large scale combat one generally assumes a sort

of hierarchy based on merit of the type that doesn`t really exist in real life.



Now, we can take some exception to that issue in that the overall commander

in BR might be a low level scion/regent who commands troops with character

levels above his own, but on the whole I think most of the time the

commander is going to be the guy with appropriate skills because players

and DMs purposefully design (conspire?) for that to be the case. That`s

probably just gamers responding to the real world where all too off we are

led by half-baked, pampered, wildly hypocritical scumbags who owe their

positions to shameless self-promotion, nepotism and various machinations

within the realm of socio-economics.... On the whole, I think most people

would rather play in the idealistic, quasi-meritocracy that is generally

assumed in the game. Personally, I get enough of the real world on a daily

basis, so I confess I`m as guilty as the next guy.



`Scuse the rant. I`ll go off and fill out my absentee ballot now.



Gary

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by MorganNash+Mar 16 2005, 03:52 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MorganNash @ Mar 16 2005, 03:52 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Osprey@Mar 15 2005, 08:17 PM
You do bring up an interesting point about untrained skill use, though. While it could happen, is it really a practical problem? Who is going to put an unskilled commander in charge of an army?

There are some extremely erudite discussions here which I am not really qualified to comment upon but I will pick you up on this one ... who is going to put an unskilled commander in charge of an army? Practically every single armed force since the beginning of time. There are a zillion different reasons to be the commander of an army - sadly, talent has rarely been the main one.

In this sort of "medieval" setting it is more likely that nobility of birth or having bags of money will put one in charge and that doesn&#39;t necessarily mean the commander has a shred of talent in command. [/b][/quote]
I absolutely agree on this one.

And since Warcraft is Int based it gives those with a high Int (like magicians and wizards) a descrete edge in its use. Giving them the ability to rely on "raw" talent in this case seems rather contrary to the entire concept here. In most cases a magician or wizard would be better at a warcraft check than a fighet of up to 2nd level - asuming he has maxed out his warcraft skill - just because of the focus on abiity scores for the respective classes.

Heck the more I think about it the more this skill should not be used untrained - although I specifically know why it was left that way - for use on the battlefield in determining initiative order. If it can&#39;t be used untrained then it can&#39;t be used for this purpose ;) So the reality base on this one is to not further reward those who don&#39;t place ranks into it (i.e., the base of 10 plus 1/5 (total mod)) - this is probably best handled through use of ranks alone with little to no base value (that is number without any ranks).

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Osprey@Mar 15 2005, 11:39 PM
. . . In a system with facing, I think the facing of a unit of pikemen is especially important. I would negate the first two abilities if a pike unit is attacked from the flank or rear.
But since my point was that pikemen don&#39;t have an inherent ability to charge foes and the text quoted and analyzed by you still doesn&#39;t (including analysis) cover or really imply that pikemen referring to them as units that charge should be dropped. A charge is a specific action that is a reckless (at least partially) move that ends in an attack. Pikemen&#39;s specific advantages are from setting for a charge and not by charging in itself. Unlike lances that do double damage when charging a pike does double damage when readied for a charge - a major difference.

[irdeggman]

Dr., I agree whole heartedly in your comments on making the combat system too complicated. In fact I think I have brought that up fairly consistently since we started writing the playtest itself ;)

The reason I keep bringing up things is to emphasize the scope of changes necessary if proceeding down a specific path. 3.5 is inherently balanced and making what appears on the surface to be a small change almost alwyas ends up with a large series of changes due to the domino effect.

Note that a lot of this discussion came about because of the discussion of using standard magic on the battlefield and then because of that other things to balance things out (detail wise and historical wise) have led to more and more things.

I will point out that during the preparation of the playtest I was the one that pushed for the battlecaster feat as a means of simplifying magic on the battlefield and keeping it abstract enough to keep the battle field combat system quick and dirty.

[irdeggman]

As far as facing goes - I think Gary made the connection albeit not cleary expressed in that it really only relates to formation style combat.

That is it only has a specific meaning when formations are used, otherwise combat is abstract enough that it really has no meaning from a game mechanic point.

I believe that people are getting locked onto this concept because they are thinking in terms of fighting in formations and how significant it was to maintain that formation and how certain formation had advantages over others.

We have not defined (nor should we IMO because fo the detail involved) formations and fighting in formations. If this entire concept is removed from the equation then facing has no real value added (other then complexity) to an abstract battle field combat system.

[Osprey]

I absolutely agree on this one.

And since Warcraft is Int based it gives those with a high Int (like magicians and wizards) a descrete edge in its use. Giving them the ability to rely on "raw" talent in this case seems rather contrary to the entire concept here. In most cases a magician or wizard would be better at a warcraft check than a fighet of up to 2nd level - asuming he has maxed out his warcraft skill - just because of the focus on abiity scores for the respective classes.

Heck the more I think about it the more this skill should not be used untrained - although I specifically know why it was left that way - for use on the battlefield in determining initiative order. If it can&#39;t be used untrained then it can&#39;t be used for this purpose So the reality base on this one is to not further reward those who don&#39;t place ranks into it (i.e., the base of 10 plus 1/5 (total mod)) - this is probably best handled through use of ranks alone with little to no base value (that is number without any ranks).

You seem to keep interchanging Warcraft and Lead.
Both can be used untrained according to the Ch 1 descriptions. I don&#39;t have a a big problem with that, I think leading folks can be done with sheer charisma (and supernatural enhancements to it). I think strategies and tactics can be reasoned out with pure logic and problem-solving - but without experience and/or training, this will be comparatively slow and incomplete.

If people want to put untrained commanders in charge of their big expensive armies, let them - like Morgan says, there&#39;s plenty of historical precedent for it. I guarantee that a skilled commander will have a very distinct advantage throughout the battle, and with even close-to-evenly-matched armies will mop up the field against an unskilled enemy commander. Tactical initiative is that important. So is Morale, for that matter, though most commanders only give a Morale bonus to the unit they&#39;re personally leading. Still, keep the command unit alive and unafraid, and the rest of your troops will keep at it more often than not.

[Osprey]

But since my point was that pikemen don&#39;t have an inherent ability to charge foes and the text quoted and analyzed by you still doesn&#39;t (including analysis) cover or really imply that pikemen referring to them as units that charge should be dropped. A charge is a specific action that is a reckless (at least partially) move that ends in an attack. Pikemen&#39;s specific advantages are from setting for a charge and not by charging in itself. Unlike lances that do double damage when charging a pike does double damage when readied for a charge - a major difference.

Listen, I tried to address why pikemen do damage in the Charge phase, but you seem to be very fixated on the idea that in order to do damage in the Charge phase of a battle, the entire unit must be making a Charge action as per the 3.5 combat rules. The 3.5 combat system isn&#39;t always the best rule system to use to define a good battlesystem. I just wanted a battlesystem that was close enough so that someone familiar with 3.5 combat can use the battlesystem more easily.

What I&#39;ve tried to express is that doing damage in the charge phase (in the first round of engagement only) is a result of an entire unit using reach weapons - it has nothing to do with their ability to set vs. a charge. The latter ability is expressed by pikemen&#39;s ability to do double damage vs. a charging unit in the first round of discussion.

OK, I&#39;m going to try to describe this. Suspend your knowledge of 3.5 combat for a minute, and simply picture a company of 200 men with 20&#39; long pikes. They fight in tight, box-like formations, say 20 men abreast, shoulder to shoulder, and 10 men deep. The pikes angle forward, creating one row of spear points after another, layer upon layer...when engaging an enemy, the first four lines of pikes can be used to attack anyone engaging their front line&#33; Things get ugly only if the enemy manages to press past those first layers and start attacking with close-combat weapons.

Now, whether attacking or defending, there is a blatant advantage gained in the initial engagement with an enemy unit - quite simply, 4 layers of attackers vs. the single front line of an enemy company. This seems like all of the justification one should need for why pikes will do damage in the charge phase on the first round of engagement. By doing damage then, they have the potential to inflict a hit of damage on a melee unit before the enemy can hit back. The unit they engage can still attack in the Melee damage phase, but they may have already suffered a hit of damage, and thus be weaker (-2 attack/morale).

Note that unlike cavalry or berserkers, they have no Charge bonus to attack -those units are making charge actions as per the PHB combat system. Plus there is some bonus assumed for the mass of horses gathered in a cavalry company.

The reason I mentioned pikemen as charging units in the Battlesystem is because there is almost no mechanical difference between the pikemen&#39;s 1st round ability and the cavalry&#39;s charge ability - the only difference might be the 1" move required by cavalry, whereas pikemen simply need proper facing.

Now, how a DM describes the actions of each unit should be distinctly different. Cavalry make headlong charges, pikemen either brace for an enemy charge, or rumble forward at a steady gait and press into enemy lines with their layered pikes.

I&#39;m really only using the BRCS rules for pikemen - it&#39;s quite apparent that you&#39;re bothered by pikemen being mentioned as charge-capable units, it&#39;s easy enough to edit, but I don&#39;t think any of the BRCS pike abilities should be deleted or dumbed down.

[ConjurerDragon]

Osprey schrieb:



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

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=36&t=3027

>

> Osprey wrote:

>...

>1/2 ranks would make for pitifully small armies at low levels - a 5th level fighter with maxed Lead (8 ranks) could lead only 4 units. This is just too small a number.

>

Considering that he has no telepathic link nor radio connection to the

4+ units of up to 800 men this limit would sound to be the practical

limit where he could effectively lead that much men.

...



>You do bring up an interesting point about untrained skill use, though. While it could happen, is it really a practical problem? Who is going to put an unskilled commander in charge of an army? Also, any commander without decent Warcraft will be at a severe disadvantage if they try to command a full army against an enemy commander with a good Warcraft skill.

>

Except that it happened when for example some noble or protegé of

someone took command due to his connections and social position and not

his skill at commanding. Or even *bought* his position and rank.

TV-Films like "The last charge of the light Brigade" (Krim War) or the

series about the infantery unit in the spanish war against Napoleon in

which a british contingent helped (Sharp Shooters?) come to mind for

examples of such unable characters.

bye

Michael

[Osprey]

A general comment on Birthright battlesystems:

I posted a bit earlier, in response to Doom, that I would like to see 2 distinct levels of battle resolution: a very simple, abstract system, and a more detailed wargaming system.

The simple system should be so simple as to not require any wargaming at all. It should simply be resolved easily with one or a few d20 rolls, modified by whatever factors are relevant. Mainly these would be unit quality (best measured in GB muster value IMO), unit quantity, terrain, weather (maybe), the skill of each army&#39;s commander, and any misc. factors, such as magic, Battlewise, Courage (Great), and DM-assigned circumstantial modifiers.

The more detailed battlesystem should be there for those who like wargaming. I think it&#39;s a very big mistake to treat the 2e warcard system as if it weren&#39;t a wargame. It certainly is, just a very simplified one that&#39;s somewhat abstract. And these abstractions sometimes make it more clumsy than elegant, more confusing than clear.

Stacking of units is an excellent example of this problem. The 2e warcard system allowed for unlimited stacking, mainly for the sake of allowing the battlefield to be small (5x3). The rules for adjucating stacking actually worked pretty well, but had several major problems:
1. Stacking 20 units in a single square defies belief. Just how massive is a single section on the battlefield, while still giving archers a range of 1 space and artillery 2 range? Unlimited units piled into a castle especially didn&#39;t make sense.
2. When one side stacks up, it forces the other side to stack up as well. Trying to keep track of which units engage/fire at which enemy units became very confusing, especially with large stacks.
3. Because terrain (including fortifications) occupied only a single space, it encouraged defenders to stack all of their units on that one space to maximize the benefits of defending in terrain. This tended to encourage the problems described in the first two points.


In my experience, the 2e warcard system tried to provide a simple wargaming battlesystem - and had just enough level of detail to make me want to revise it. It&#39;s complex and time-consuming enough to call it a true wargame, but too simple to allow for many of the tactics and details of a decent medieval battlefield simulation.

In other words, I think the 2e system was meant to be a compromise between utterly simple non-wargaming and wargaming, and as a result failed to satisfy either party very well.

If you&#39;re not a wargamer, why would the warcard system appeal at all? It very definitely involves unit arrangement, tactics (where and when to use knights, who to place to defend archers, who assaults the walls of the castle, etc, etc), and a turn-by-turn resolution - far more detail than a non-wargamer will really want to get in to.

If you are a wargamer, then the warcard system is insufficient (IMO) to satisy in certain ways. The lack of decent rules for flanking and rear attacks is an excellent example. This is a key tactic of every decent commander. Skilled commanders are almost always jockeying for position mainly to try and get an advantage against an enemy&#39;s flank, or to try and split them in the center and divide the army in two. The warcard system didn&#39;t address this most basic strategic principle at all.

Hence the need for a more detailed system than the 2e warcard one. The battlesystem I&#39;ve posted was built with several main goals in mind:
1. To address the stacking problem. The easiest solution seemed to be no stacking (eliminating the confusion of who&#39;s fighting who), which requires a larger battle grid for armies of any size, and smaller sized squares so that only 1 unit fits comfortably in a square.
2. To adapt the BRCS warcard and unit system onto this battlefield. I thought the modular unit-building system in the BRCS was very cool, it opened up all sorts of possibilities and variety for troop/unit types - making the whole military dynamics of Cerilia much more open-ended and adaptable to a DM&#39;s and players&#39; visions.
3. To allow for a bit more detail in unit tactics and strategies than the warcard system allows. The mechanics are modeled on a combination of 3.5 combat and the warcard system, with the goal of making the system easily usable by BR players familiar with both systems.

[irdeggman]

I&#39;m really only using the BRCS rules for pikemen - it&#39;s quite apparent that you&#39;re bothered by pikemen being mentioned as charge-capable units, it&#39;s easy enough to edit, but I don&#39;t think any of the BRCS pike abilities should be deleted or dumbed down.


The problem is that you have already modified many of the BRCS-playtest rules in this document itself so keeping a portion of the them and trying to hold onto that in the middle of semi-drastic changes is rather futile, IMO. What the pikemen did in 2nd ed and the BRCS-playtest and in the 3.5 rules for using pikes (either using a longspear or halberd either one are approximations) the pike strikes first when set for a charge. Its reach allows it to strike first w&#092;against approaching units. Again this is different then having an inherent ability to be charge capable. See further discussions below.




Listen, I tried to address why pikemen do damage in the Charge phase, but you seem to be very fixated on the idea that in order to do damage in the Charge phase of a battle, the entire unit must be making a Charge action as per the 3.5 combat rules. The 3.5 combat system isn&#39;t always the best rule system to use to define a good battlesystem. I just wanted a battlesystem that was close enough so that someone familiar with 3.5 combat can use the battlesystem more easily.

What I&#39;ve tried to express is that doing damage in the charge phase (in the first round of engagement only) is a result of an entire unit using reach weapons - it has nothing to do with their ability to set vs. a charge. The latter ability is expressed by pikemen&#39;s ability to do double damage vs. a charging unit in the first round of discussion.

OK, I&#39;m going to try to describe this. Suspend your knowledge of 3.5 combat for a minute, and simply picture a company of 200 men with 20&#39; long pikes. They fight in tight, box-like formations, say 20 men abreast, shoulder to shoulder, and 10 men deep. The pikes angle forward, creating one row of spear points after another, layer upon layer...when engaging an enemy, the first four lines of pikes can be used to attack anyone engaging their front line&#33; Things get ugly only if the enemy manages to press past those first layers and start attacking with close-combat weapons.

Now, whether attacking or defending, there is a blatant advantage gained in the initial engagement with an enemy unit - quite simply, 4 layers of attackers vs. the single front line of an enemy company. This seems like all of the justification one should need for why pikes will do damage in the charge phase on the first round of engagement. By doing damage then, they have the potential to inflict a hit of damage on a melee unit before the enemy can hit back. The unit they engage can still attack in the Melee damage phase, but they may have already suffered a hit of damage, and thus be weaker (-2 attack/morale).

Note that unlike cavalry or berserkers, they have no Charge bonus to attack -those units are making charge actions as per the PHB combat system. Plus there is some bonus assumed for the mass of horses gathered in a cavalry company.

The reason I mentioned pikemen as charging units in the Battlesystem is because there is almost no mechanical difference between the pikemen&#39;s 1st round ability and the cavalry&#39;s charge ability - the only difference might be the 1" move required by cavalry, whereas pikemen simply need proper facing.

Now, how a DM describes the actions of each unit should be distinctly different. Cavalry make headlong charges, pikemen either brace for an enemy charge, or rumble forward at a steady gait and press into enemy lines with their layered pikes.

I&#39;m really only using the BRCS rules for pikemen - it&#39;s quite apparent that you&#39;re bothered by pikemen being mentioned as charge-capable units, it&#39;s easy enough to edit, but I don&#39;t think any of the BRCS pike abilities should be deleted or dumbed down.


From your writings. .
Charging: A unit that is capable of charging (cavalry, pikemen, and berserkers) may do so on its first round of engagement. Any unit that initiates a charge must move at least 1” in a straight line in order to receive the charge bonus to attack. Pikemen require only a frontal facing with the unit they are engaging.

Special- Countercharge: Any unit capable of charging has the ability to charge any unit within range at any point within the movement phase. It must meet the normal conditions, of course (frontal facing + 1” straight movement). This simulates a charge-capable unit’s aggressive and mobile advantage while keeping the charge rules uniform. Although a charge can be devastating in the first round, it can also leave the charging unit vulnerable to flanking (see below) if it engages out in front of its friendly lines.


What this does is have pikemen be capable of countercharging since they are listed as being capable of charging in the first place. In order to counter charge the unit must move at least 1”. Making their charge advantage be derived from movement and being readied for a charge.

As far as the facing issue goes – a unit can only attack one unit at a time. Pikemen take their readied for a charge action against the first unit that attacks, they can no longer use that benefit against other units. Simple combat logic using either BRCS-playtest or 3.5 combat rules.

Once engaged pikemen drop their pikes and draw their melee weapons to engage in melee, essentially becoming weak infantry units. It was that way in 2nd ed and still is in the BRCS-playtest.

So essentially facing doesn’t really mean anything since the pikemen are only gaining their benefit against the first attack. In order to move around the “perceived” front of the unit requires time and space thus allowing the unit to “adjust” its apparent “facing” so the result is no effect from “facing”.


Let’s see per the BRCS-playtest the battle round goes as follows:
Movement Phase
Tactical Initiative
First side moves all unengaged units
Battle magic declared
Routed units attempt to recover morale
Units attempt to evade or retreat
Surrender or withdrawl

Attack Phase
Resolve stationary missile attacks
Resolve charge attacks
Resolve melee attacks
Resolve moving missile attacks


So many of these things will need to be revised based on the way things are going in the polls. For example the battle magic phase is pretty much eliminated since people seem to favor using standard magic during the battle. You can be pretty sure that the abstract effects of the BRCS-playtest battlemagic system will be going out the window. People are going to want direct effects – much more complicated and thus the “benefits” of battle magic need to resolved at the same time as other tactical effects.

I no longer see a reason to make separate phases (and portions) of them for battle like this anymore. The simplified 3.5 system of all things happening on your turn in the initiative makes it easier to adjudicate and doesn’t really cost anything reality wise.



You seem to keep interchanging Warcraft and Lead.
Both can be used untrained according to the Ch 1 descriptions. I don&#39;t have a big problem with that, I think leading folks can be done with sheer charisma (and supernatural enhancements to it). I think strategies and tactics can be reasoned out with pure logic and problem-solving - but without experience and/or training, this will be comparatively slow and incomplete.


Yes you are right here. But the logic still applies. When using Lead to determine the command structure. Lead is a charisma based skill so classes with high Charisma based abilities would come out ahead here – bards and sorcerers most notably. They would gain an inherent bonus to their ability to command on the unit level. This is a place where your house-rules style has now inserted itself and IMO we need to pull back. While at the domain level it makes sense to adjust the benefit (well not really but the effect is less there due to the influx of RP) the battlefield level is much closer to the normal skill application and we should be following the normal protocol here. It makes no sense whatsoever that sorcerers and bards are better leaders of men than are fighters or paladins. Paladins are better than fighters due to their nature and this one works but the others don’t, even throwing in clerics who have a relatively high charisma also.

Natural talent comes into play when applying the skills (i.e., making a check which the reflection of this) and not in the static conditions (which are what the ranks benefits reflect). What this says is that when 2 character both have the same number of ranks in a skill the one with the most natural talent will be better at applying the skill or will get the most out of it.

Classes that are Cha based (for example Sorcerers and Bards) gain a huge advantage over others at low levels. A fighter gets 2 + Int mod in skill points per level, a sorcerer gets 2 +Int mod per level and a bard gets 6 + Int. It is not unlikely that a sorcerer or bard will have starting Int of 16 (+3 mod) or even 18 (+4) and that a fighter will have no mod while a paladin will have a lesser one, +1 or possible +2. The maximum ranks a first level character can have in a class skill is 4. So at first level, a Cha based class is at least as good as a non-Cha based class at Lead. Since the most that this can increase is by 1 rank per level for a maxed out skill and the fact that fighters and to a lesser extent paladins get so few skill points per level it is highly likely that this mismatch will continue until at least 3rd or 4th level. I mention fighters and paladins as the comparison because, IMO they are the two classes that are most likely to lead troops. A noble most likely would be the best at this because they get a decent number of skill points per level and their focus is really Cha so they will come out way ahead on this one – not necessarily bad.



Commanders and Army Size Limits: Commanders are an extremely important element of any medieval army. A commander’s ability to coordinate and give orders to troops is based on his Lead skill. A commander may command a maximum of 10 units, plus 1 per +5 Lead skill. These units must remain within 1” per +1 Lead. This is the commander’s Command Range. Any units outside of the command range may take only partial actions (Move or Attack). Thus, units advancing from the reserves may move closer to the commander, and engaged units may fight without nearby commanders.
Example: A commander with a +22 Lead skill may personally command up to 14 units on the field at one time, and has a Command Range of 22.”

Lead (Cha) [New]
You are a born leader who draws great devotion from your followers. Use this skill to inspire followers, incite revolutions, increase morale, and otherwise motivate people on a large scale through inspired speech and rhetoric.

Warcraft (Int) [New]
You have been educated in the military sciences of strategy, tactics and logistics. You are skilled at commanding groups of soldiers at both land and sea, whether entire armies or just a small squad of soldiers.

What I think is that the two skills have been crossed here. IMO warcraft should be the defining skill but Lead could (and probably should) provide a bonus to the skill in this situation or better yet the morale bonus provided by the hero would work (it reflects all kinds of intangibles that come into play here).

Lead is providing inspiration and Warcraft is the actual commanding. Part of commanding groups is the actual organization of them into units that are managed. Using that as a simplification helps to keep things in perspective here, IMO.

[geeman]

At 12:19 PM 3/16/2005 +0100, irdeggman wrote:



>As far as facing goes - I think Gary made the connection albeit not cleary

>expressed in that it really only relates to formation style combat.



Hm. I guess it wasn`t that clearly expressed since that`s not what I was

getting at at all.... In fact, quite the opposite. What I said was:



>...I don`t think there`s really that much of a connection between facing

>rules and formation. Facing rules in a system of large scale combat are

>very abstract. Formation would be much more particular. I`ve used

>formation rules in addition to facing rules with different units arranged

>in wedge formation, line abreast, marching order, etc. That kind of thing

>can be done if one has a system of facing, but facing on its own doesn`t

>express much about formation other than to note that people organized into

>a company tend to face in the same direction when fighting on a battlefield.



I don`t know how that turned into me saying that facing really only relates

to formation style combat, but let me give the description another shot so

as to make sure I`m firmly in the "Other" option (whatever that might be in

this case) for any upcoming poll....



Facing represents the very abstract recognition that large groups of

soldiers will be organized in such a way as they are all looking in the

same direction. It allows for more portrayal of things like tactical

maneuver on the battlefield, arcs of fire for ranged weapons, large scale

combat rules for flanking that are based on the orientation of the unit

rather than the adventure level version of flanking which is more like

being attacked simultaneously in different directions than what most people

probably think of as flanking in wargaming (or real life, for that matter.)



*IF* one has a system of facing *THEN* one can also have a system of

formation that interacts with it, but they are really seperate

issues. "Formation" in this case being not the direction that soldiers in

a unit are oriented towards, but the physical location of soldiers of the

same unit in relation to one another, but a system of facing need not lead

to a system of formation automatically. In fact, formation is a whole

`nother topic that can be handled in several ways.



For instance, let`s say that one institutes a very simple system of

facing. On a grid a unit of soldiers is a square chit with one side of the

chit being its front, the opposite side its rear, and the sides being the

flanks. It has a little arrow on it to indicate which side is

front. Units that attack that unit from the squares that are on that

unit`s flanks or rear get a bonus to their attack roll. My own system was

a very simple, base 10 thing, so such attacks got a +1 or +2

respectively. One needs a few other rules like arcs of fire for ranged

weapons, but it`s a very simple set of guidelines. If one can handle a

game of checkers, facing is not much of a stretch.



Formation, on the other hand, would be handled in several different

ways. The ways that soldiers position themselves in relation to one

another is very significant in small unit tactics. There`s a parallel, I

think, between formation of soldiers on a field of battle and the

arrangement of athletes on a field of play. Imagine, for instance, how

many formations there are in an (American) football game.



As a game mechanic, however, formation need not have very much to do with

facing. Let`s say, for instance, that a player wanted to create a unit of

soldiers trained to fight as a phalanx. Now, we needn`t bother going much

into what that means in detail, but basically its one of the most

elementary ways soldiers organize themselves defensively. The point is

that in an abstract system of large scale combat that kind of training to

fight in "phalanx" formation might just give a unit +1 to its defense

value. It needn`t necessarily be more complex than that.



If one wanted to be even more particular with issues of formation as they

relate to facing one could come up with a system of specific combat

formations; wedge, line ahead, marching order, echelon right, echelon left,

etc. and assign values to the facing of the units based upon their current

formation. A unit in echelon right formation (meaning its soldiers are

arranged in a line like the left leaning oblique "") might be +2 to attack

from squares on its left flank and rear rather than +1 on both its flanks

and +2 from the rear of normal units in "standard" formation.



I did the first method of portraying formation to some extent when I

fiddled around with large scale combat, but didn`t bother with the second,

though I don`t think it`d be really all that difficult having used that

kind of thing in wargames in the past.



Gary

[irdeggman]

That aside, I don`t think there`s really that much of a connection between
facing rules and formation. Facing rules in a system of large scale combat
are very abstract. Formation would be much more particular. I`ve used
formation rules in addition to facing rules with different units arranged
in wedge formation, line abreast, marching order, etc. That kind of thing
can be done if one has a system of facing, but facing on its own doesn`t
express much about formation other than to note that people organized into
a company tend to face in the same direction when fighting on a battlefield.


This is where I made the connection. Facing on its own doesn’t express much about formation but that formation rules in addition to facing work. That is that formation can be used if one has a system of facing.

Now you do seem to have explained that you have a rather more complex system in mind. That you like formations and facing but really haven’t stated what you wish the “other” vote to be so that we can prepare an option that corresponds to what you would like to see. Instead you have stated a whole bunch of possibilities without really expressing which one you like the best.

[geeman]

At 07:53 PM 3/16/2005 +0100, you wrote:



>I`m really only using the BRCS rules for pikemen - obviously, you`re

>bothered by pikemen being mentioned as charge-capable units, it`s easy

>enough to edit, but I don`t think any of the BRCS pike abilities should be

>deleted or dumbed down.



One could just note their charge value in parenthesis or otherwise

highlight it, then have a notation that describes how such values are in

response to a charge.



The way I handled this, though, was to have the attacks/damage of units of

pikemen resolved first. Hits diminished the attack/defense/morale values

of units, so if the pikemen attack is resolved first that influences the

effectiveness of the charging unit`s attack. Here`s the text from that set

of notes:



"Melee attacks are resolved in order of the length of the weapons being

used by the companies attacking and defending. Companies wielding pikes

resolve their attacks first, followed by companies using lances, spears or

other pole arms and finally companies using all other melee weapons. If a

company with a short weapon attacks a company wielding longer weapons the

attack of the longer weapon is resolved first and damage assessed,

regardless of who is the `attacker` for the purpose of initiative."



Gary

[Osprey]

Re. Pikemen: Duane, you are right in that pikes shouldn&#39;t be included as "charge-capable units."

Within the context of my battlesystem:
Being a unit with reach weapons, however, I think they should be capable of doing damage in the Charge phase on the first round of engagement, assuming they engage with proper facing. If facing and engaging a charging unit, they do double damage as well.


So essentially facing doesn’t really mean anything since the pikemen are only gaining their benefit against the first attack. In order to move around the “perceived” front of the unit requires time and space thus allowing the unit to “adjust” its apparent “facing” so the result is no effect from “facing”.

I would rule that the pikemen must be facing the unit they engage to gain their reach/anti-charge advantages on the first round of engagement. This is pretty significant. If your unit of pikemen advances at full speed (say 4"), with no movement remaining, and then an enemy cavalry unit wheels around their flank and charges home into their side, the pikes won&#39;t have time to wheel and face - giving the cavalry full effect while leaving the pikes fighting as a flanked melee unit.

[geeman]

At 05:44 PM 3/17/2005 +0100, irdeggman wrote:



>Now you do seem to have explained that you have a rather more complex

>system in mind. That you like formations and facing but really haven`t

>stated what you wish the "other" vote to be so that we can prepare an

>option that corresponds to what you would like to see. Instead you have

>stated a whole bunch of possibilities without really expressing which one

>you like the best.



Isn`t that what "Other" means? :)



I found facing with various types of training types to express formation to

be enough to satisfy my sense of verisimilitude, so if there`s an "Other"

that`s where my vote would go. A more detailed formation system (wedge,

echelon right, etc.) is cool, but as soon as the number of units starts

getting over about six or eight it`s hard to keep track of without a computer.



Gary

[irdeggman]

But if pikes move all out then they can&#39;t ready for a charge anyway. That is the point I&#39;m trying to get to.

Using move and standard actions (3.5 terminology) which do translate into the move and attack phases in the platest (or your system) pretty well - if a unit moves "all out" which is what they would have to do in order to cover more than 1 square (basically a run) then they couldn&#39;t attack.

In fact in 3.5 the ready action is a standard action in itself. So you can&#39;t move and attack, but you could move and ready an attack - that can&#39;t occur until next round.

And yes the pike should resolve their readied attack prior to the attack being made on them. The whole point of the ready action anyway. Being a reach weapon they can strike as a standard attack prior to an approaching unit canreach them hence their attack is resolved prior to their opponents. But by the same token using a reach weapon means that they can no longer use it once engaged.

[irdeggman]

"Melee attacks are resolved in order of the length of the weapons being
used by the companies attacking and defending. Companies wielding pikes
resolve their attacks first, followed by companies using lances, spears or
other pole arms and finally companies using all other melee weapons. If a
company with a short weapon attacks a company wielding longer weapons the
attack of the longer weapon is resolved first and damage assessed,
regardless of who is the `attacker` for the purpose of initiative."

Pretty much the point I’ve been trying to make. Not charge capable attack (only the first since once the unit has been closed on the reach weapon must be dropped) but attacks resolved prior to opposition (assuming the unit has an attack left to make, otherwise it moot).




Isn`t that what "Other" means? :)

No that is “bring me another rock” and doesn’t contribute a darn thing into getting a product done.

While I may disagree with Osprey, almost all of the time it seems :D , I respect him and value his work. This is because he expresses ideas clearly and concisely at the same time providing specific details on variations to the discussion and all the while keeping open to changing his opinion (well the direction to proceed in anyway) to match what the majority want. He usually, if not always, provides a written plan/proposal to go over that is not merely a set of ideas thrown out for discussion. His goal has been to help create the product (or at least that is what his actions have shown so far) and not to merely further debates and discussions. We as a site/mailserv have been discussing 3.0 BR since 3.0 came out and this project for going on 3 years now. Long enough for talk, it is time to take positive action.

[Osprey]

Let’s see per the BRCS-playtest the battle round goes as follows:
Movement Phase
Tactical Initiative
First side moves all unengaged units
Battle magic declared
Routed units attempt to recover morale
Units attempt to evade or retreat
Surrender or withdrawl

Attack Phase
Resolve stationary missile attacks
Resolve charge attacks
Resolve melee attacks
Resolve moving missile attacks

Which is pretty much identical to the 2e warcard system, with the exception of battle magic being thrown in there.

It&#39;s not necesarily a bad thing to have battle magic declared in the opening phases of battle. That way beneficial/enhancement spells can have effects right off - such as a battle haste spell adding to a unit&#39;s speed, for example. Defensive spells will have effects throughout the later attack phases.

Offensive spells should be resolved just as if they were missile fire...so if the Battle Caster doesn&#39;t move, they can launch a magical attack in the stationary missile phase. If they move, they wait till the Moving Missile resolution.


I no longer see a reason to make separate phases (and portions) of them for battle like this anymore. The simplified 3.5 system of all things happening on your turn in the initiative makes it easier to adjudicate and doesn’t really cost anything reality wise.

Well, that&#39;s your opinion, and you&#39;re welcome to it. Me, I think the warcard phases are a bit complex, certainly different than the 3.5 adventure combat system...but really a pretty good representation of mass combat dynamics.

If it were more like adventure combat, then initiative would be all-powerful. If the whole army moved and attacked on the same initiative, then they basically could get a free round of attacks on the enemy before there was any response at all. In a system where most units have only 1-3 hits, this would end up deciding battles entirely. So I would say that this has a very high cost reality-wise, not to mention the effect on game blance and enjoyment.

The warcard phase system balances this issue much better. One side moves, then the other, but most important is how attacks are then resolved. By making damage in each of the attack phases (stat missile, charge, melee, moving missile) simultaneous, there is a much better representation of what happens when large companies of troops clash. Unlike one-on-one combat, where simultaneous attacks/damage are the exception, unit combat assumes that two units engaged in melee tend to damage each other, especially if they&#39;re offensively strong.

Advantages like the &#39;first strike&#39; of charging shock troops and pikemen are really significant, because the unit attacked gains no recourse until after they&#39;ve suffered the hit of damage (charging units usually succeed on scoring a hit). At that point, they must make a morale check. If they succeed, they are still at -2 attack when it&#39;s their turn to hit back in the melee phase. If they&#39;re routed, they still have a chance to counterattack in the melee phase, but now they&#39;re at -6 melee&#33; Pretty much crippled, only sheer luck allowing msot units to score a hit.


The 3.5 combat system, for all its detail, really scores very low on realism IMO, so I think it&#39;s a poor model when talking about &#39;realistic&#39; simulations. The initiative system is there to make a turn-based combat system easily playable, but it sacrifices realism to do so. Can one guy move 60&#39; and deliver a charge attack while the defender just stands there like an idiot and does nothing? Of course not - IRL the defender would, assuming he&#39;s unengaged and sees his attacker coming, react - probably by bracing himself, maybe by running or seeking cover. There&#39;s no easy way to depict the reality of simultaneous actions in combat with a turn-based system. So our question isn&#39;t about realism here so much as what system can best represent the dynamics of mass combat.

I also don&#39;t think the 3.5 combat system is even remotely simple - as I&#39;ve mentioned before, it is far and away the most time-consuming apect of most tabletop games because there are a thousand and one details: special maneuvers, spell effects, circumstance modifiers, free/move/standard/full-round actions, etc.
This is a system meant to cater to the rules-lawyers and novice DM&#39;s - a much simpler, quicker system would involve a lot more GM ad hoc and a lot less specifics. At least, this has been my experience with the variety of RPG&#39;s that I&#39;ve played.

So building a battlesystem that mirrors the 3.5 combat system too much is a very bad idea IMO. It wouldn&#39;t be even remotely simple - it would be far more complex than warcards or my battlesystem, which I don&#39;t think is the direction you or most others want to go.

Osprey

[Osprey]

But if pikes move all out then they can&#39;t ready for a charge anyway. That is the point I&#39;m trying to get to.

Using move and standard actions (3.5 terminology) which do translate into the move and attack phases in the platest (or your system) pretty well - if a unit moves "all out" which is what they would have to do in order to cover more than 1 square (basically a run) then they couldn&#39;t attack.

In fact in 3.5 the ready action is a standard action in itself. So you can&#39;t move and attack, but you could move and ready an attack - that can&#39;t occur until next round.

And yes the pike should resolve their readied attack prior to the attack being made on them. The whole point of the ready action anyway. Being a reach weapon they can strike as a standard attack prior to an approaching unit canreach them hence their attack is resolved prior to their opponents. But by the same token using a reach weapon means that they can no longer use it once engaged.

OK, I see your points here. Correct me if I&#39;m wrong here, but I still think you&#39;re mixing two seperate concepts:
1. Reach, which pikemen will have against any unit they face and engage. This allows them to do damage in the charge phase rather than melee because they strike first (with several rows of attacks at once).
2. Brace Against A Charge: The unit does double damage to a charging unit that attacks them.
If it&#39;s really important to add this level of detail and make it more like 3.5 combat, then in addition to facing what could be required is that the pike unit spend 1" of movement to brace. At this point the unit would be stationary, which would require them to be attacked by a charging unit.

Does that solve the issue?


QUOTE
"Melee attacks are resolved in order of the length of the weapons being
used by the companies attacking and defending. Companies wielding pikes
resolve their attacks first, followed by companies using lances, spears or
other pole arms and finally companies using all other melee weapons. If a
company with a short weapon attacks a company wielding longer weapons the
attack of the longer weapon is resolved first and damage assessed,
regardless of who is the `attacker` for the purpose of initiative."

Pretty much the point I’ve been trying to make. Not charge capable attack (only the first since once the unit has been closed on the reach weapon must be dropped) but attacks resolved prior to opposition (assuming the unit has an attack left to make, otherwise it moot).

The problem here is that in 3.5, lances and longspears have the same reach. So technically one doesn&#39;t "out-reach" the other. This is why I left the rules the way they were in terms of pikes doing damage in the charge phase on the 1st round of engagement, simultaneous to a unit charging them. That, and it&#39;s much simpler. Pikes still come out way ahead of a cavalry unit charging them...the pikes will probably take 1 hit while the more expensive cavlary will take 2...compare the unit costs to damage, and you come out with about a 4:1 cost:damage ratio in favor of the pikemen. Good enough for me as a simulation of the pikemen&#39;s advantage vs. cavalry. It&#39;s also good enough to pretty much ensure that cavalry will rarely, if ever, charge headlong into a pike formation facing them.



While I may disagree with Osprey, almost all of the time it seems , I respect him and value his work. This is because he expresses ideas clearly and concisely at the same time providing specific details on variations to the discussion and all the while keeping open to changing his opinion (well the direction to proceed in anyway) to match what the majority want. He usually, if not always, provides a written plan/proposal to go over that is not merely a set of ideas thrown out for discussion. His goal has been to help create the product (or at least that is what his actions have shown so far) and not to merely further debates and discussions. We as a site/mailserv have been discussing 3.0 BR since 3.0 came out and this project for going on 3 years now. Long enough for talk, it is time to take positive action.

Thanks. I definitely want to create the product, and make it as good a product as possible - why else would I spend thousands of hours on this project?

Why do we disagree most of the time, Duane? :huh: Bloody frustrating more often than not.

I know one reason, at least: I see every RPG and its mechanics as a work in progress. In my own campaigns, nothing is immune to revision, including the core rules. I give no reverence to games simply because they are printed by a major publisher. The writers are as human as you or I, and just as prone to making mistakes, errors in judgement, or just not seeing the full consequences of their work. Their main advantage is having a team of editors, playtesters, and co-writers (usually)...so I do tend to assume they will be of higher-than-homebrew quality - just not necesarily the best possible product.

The result is that with the BRCS, I&#39;m not always out to make Birthright as 3.5ish as possible, because I don&#39;t think the 3.5 system is always the best model to use. This is especially true when there is an attempt to overlay stuff like domain rules and battlesystems with a 3.5 template, even though the core D&D rules really weren&#39;t built to deal with these things at all.

[geeman]

At 07:55 PM 3/17/2005 +0100, irdeggman wrote:



>>"Melee attacks are resolved in order of the length of the weapons being

>>used by the companies attacking and defending. Companies wielding pikes

>>resolve their attacks first, followed by companies using lances, spears or

>>other pole arms and finally companies using all other melee weapons. If a

>>company with a short weapon attacks a company wielding longer weapons the

>>attack of the longer weapon is resolved first and damage assessed,

>>regardless of who is the `attacker` for the purpose of initiative."

>

>Pretty much the point I`ve been trying to make. Not charge capable attack

>(only the first since once the unit has been closed on the reach weapon

>must be dropped) but attacks resolved prior to opposition (assuming the

>unit has an attack left to make, otherwise it moot).



I honestly don`t recall how well that played out during testing. It seems

to me the guys preferred archers to pikemen when dealing with cavalry....



Nonetheless, it seems like the type of ruling that would mostly satisfy the

issue here. I think if it were up to me I`d add a little addendum to the

description of pikemen that their melee value was increased by +1 or +2 or

something when attacked by charging units (infantry vs. cavalry) but that

aside I think such a system would work well enough to both address the

issue of how attacks with pikemen should be resolved and their relative

effectiveness against charging opponents.



When it comes to the need to portray the 3e game mechanic regarding

readying an action for pikemen preparing to face a charge in the large

scale combat system, I don`t think we need worry overmuch about that. The

battleround is substantially longer than the adventure level combat

round. Most everyone`s actions are visible to one another, particular

things like a screaming unit of charging warriors. Readying an attack is a

standard action (allowing movement) that allows only a partial

action. Since units of pikemen are probably going to be less than 6th

level warriors they probably aren`t going to be able to take advantage of

more than one attack anyway, so the partial nature of the readied action

doesn`t matter. My point is that the actual mechanics involved in

resolving large scale combat round the ready action aspect can be pretty

easily factored into the issue with the stats of the unit itself, and the

way the combat is resolved.



Gary

[Osprey]

When it comes to the need to portray the 3e game mechanic regarding
readying an action for pikemen preparing to face a charge in the large
scale combat system, I don`t think we need worry overmuch about that. The
battleround is substantially longer than the adventure level combat
round. Most everyone`s actions are visible to one another, particular
things like a screaming unit of charging warriors. Readying an attack is a
standard action (allowing movement) that allows only a partial
action. Since units of pikemen are probably going to be less than 6th
level warriors they probably aren`t going to be able to take advantage of
more than one attack anyway, so the partial nature of the readied action
doesn`t matter. My point is that the actual mechanics involved in
resolving large scale combat round the ready action aspect can be pretty
easily factored into the issue with the stats of the unit itself, and the
way the combat is resolved.

Gary

I agree.

One assumption I made originally was that so long as they could face an attacker at the start of engagement (including having any move left to wheel their facing if necessary), it was assumed they had the few moments necessary to brace for a charge. I doubt even a full company of 200 regular pikemen would need more than 1 or 2 peronsal combat rounds to brace for a charge. Turning to face the oncoming enemy would be the most time-consuming; grounding their pikes and angling correctly, pretty fast.

[geeman]

At 10:53 PM 3/17/2005 +0100, Osprey wrote:



>One assumption I made originally was that so long as they could face an

>attacker at the start of engagement (including having any move left to

>wheel their facing if necessary), it was assumed they had the few moments

>necessary to brace for a charge. I doubt even a full company of 200

>regular pikemen would need more than 1 or 2 peronsal combat rounds to

>brace for a charge. Turning to face the oncoming enemy would be the most

>time-consuming; grounding their pikes and angling correctly, pretty fast.



In order to reflect the issues having to do with soldiers using long,

unwieldy pikes, the relative difficulty for such a unit to maneuver, etc. I

also reduced the "Move" rating of such units by 1. This would also help

reflect their need to "brace" their weapons as it could be part of the

rationale for their movement and actions. Where a unit of normal infantry

had a base "Move 3" value, equipping them with pikes reduced that to 2.



I`m adding that +1/+2 vs charging units of infantry/cavalry to my

description of pikemen in that system, so on total it looks lie this now:



Pikemen

Cost: +1 GB

Melee Value: 4

Move: -1

Special: Pikemen add +1/+2 to their melee value when fighting a unit of

charging infantry or cavalry.



Gary

[irdeggman]

When it comes to the need to portray the 3e game mechanic regarding readying an action for pikemen preparing to face a charge in the large scale combat system, I don`t think we need worry overmuch about that. The battleround is substantially longer than the adventure level combat round. Most everyone`s actions are visible to one another, particular things like a screaming unit of charging warriors. Readying an attack is a standard action (allowing movement) that allows only a partial action.



One assumption I made originally was that so long as they could face an attacker at the start of engagement (including having any move left to wheel their facing if necessary), it was assumed they had the few moments necessary to brace for a charge. I doubt even a full company of 200 regular pikemen would need more than 1 or 2 peronsal combat rounds to brace for a charge. Turning to face the oncoming enemy would be the most time-consuming; grounding their pikes and angling correctly, pretty fast.


So let me see if I get this straight. Due to the length of the battlefield combat round and how far a charging unit has to move in order to complete its charge (or at least due to the openness of the battlefield) the pikemen should be able to easily set for a charge.

The base logic for this is why I said (and still do) that facing really isn’t an issue. I still don’t see why a pikemen would require longer to turn then to set their pikes in the ground to ready for a charge. The only logic in applying this is that they are in a formation vice a square (the abstract combat structure) and that every row of men are equipped and trained to respond differently.

Implying a unit formation is something we have pretty much avoided due to the complexities of using formations in the combat system, so that basis should be dismissed – unless we adopt a more detailed system to account for formations of all unit types.

Assuming that all members of a unit aren’t interchangeable is another issue that should be delved into. If they are not then it flies in the face of the historical precedent where a solder moved up to replace a fallen ally with essentially no loss of cohesiveness, until there weren’t enough to be able to replace those that have fallen.

This interchangeability means that those on the sides are just as capable as those in the front. Since the rows are assumed to be evenly spaced out to reflect this interchangeability then all it requires is a 90 degree turn to address a unit approaching from the side and another 90 degrees to address a unit approaching from the rear.

Hence facing doesn’t really have any meaningful application when dealing with battlefield combat – at least not any more meaning, most likely less, than it does in a standard D&D combat round.

I see Gary’s point in using varied attack ratings (or even damage ratings) for pikemen against charging units.


[quote]Readying an attack is a standard action (allowing movement) that allows only a partial action

I don’t know where this is from. PHB pg 160 “The ready action lets you prepare to take an action later, after your turn is over but before your next one has begun. Readying is a standard action. It does not provoke an attack of opportunity (though the action you ready might do so.)

You can ready a standard action, a move action, or a free action. To do so, specify the action you will take and the conditions under which you will take it. For example, you might specify that you will shoot an arrow at anyone coming through a nearby doorway. Then, any time before your next action, you may take the readied action in response to that condition. The action occurs just before the action that triggers it. If the triggered action is part of another character’s activities, you interrupt the other character. Assuming he is still capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action.

You can take a 5-foot step as part of your readied action, but only if you don’t otherwise move any distance during the round. For instance, if you move up to an open door and then ready an action to swing your sword at whatever comes near, you can’t take a 5-foot step along with the readied action (since you’ve already moved in this round).”

There is no such thing as a partial action. The closest in meaning is during a surprise round a character can take a standard action (which means an attack or a move but not both).

Also if a character performs a movement other than a 5 ft step in a round he only gets a single attack (not the total he would have during a full attack.)

[geeman]

At 01:05 AM 3/18/2005 +0100, irdeggman wrote:



>
Readying an attack is a standard action (allowing movement) that

>allows only a partial action

>

>I don’t know where this is from. PHB pg 160 “The ready action lets you

>prepare to take an action later, after your turn is over but before your

>next one has begun. Readying is a standard action. It does not provoke an

>attack of opportunity (though the action you ready might do so.)

>[Snip]

>There is no such thing as a partial action. The closest in meaning is

>during a surprise round a character can take a standard action (which

>means an attack or a move but not both).



Quite right. That was the 3e version of readying an action that only

allowed you to prepare a partial action. In 3.5 one can now prepare a

standard action, a move, or a free action.



I`d suggest, however, that the 3.5 version makes the rationale for assuming

that at the large scale combat level pikemen set and receive a charge is

even easier to justify. That is, since there`s very little restriction on

readying actions, battlefields are big places, battlerounds are 50-100

times the length of the time needed to prepare a standard action, pikemen

are likely going to observe the approach of a charging unit as it crosses

the battlefield, and since that`s the kind of thing they would be training

for, one should assume that readying an action can be incorporated into

those units` stats at the large scale combat level.



>So let me see if I get this straight. Due to the length of the

>battlefield combat round and how far a charging unit has to move in order

>to complete its charge (or at least due to the openness of the

>battlefield) the pikemen should be able to easily set for a charge.

>

>The base logic for this is why I said (and still do) that facing really

>isn’t an issue. I still don’t see why a pikemen would require longer to

>turn then to set their pikes in the ground to ready for a charge. The

>only logic in applying this is that they are in a formation vice a square

>(the abstract combat structure) and that every row of men are equipped and

>trained to respond differently.



Well, I`d argue that essentially this is the difference between a single

drill order and what is at minimum a comparatively much more complex and

difficult to execute series of drill orders.



First, marching/drill order issue: When it comes to extrapolating the D&D

game mechanics into a large scale combat system we`re talking about the

difference between executing a standard action that results in another

action vs as many as 200 individual soldiers turning their facing from one

direction to another. IIRC there were a couple of maps with the layout of

soldiers on them somewhere in a recent thread that displayed 200 (or so)

soldiers laid out in rows of forty about five ranks deep. Unless one is

imagining a unit of soldiers being organized on the battlefield in (about)

a 14 x 14 square a unit of soldiers that is arranged in a rectangle cannot

simply execute a "right face." in order to change its facing. That will

result in only the soldiers at the end of the rows facing an opponent.



Even if we imagine the abstract interpretation of a company of soldiers as

being a square in 3.5 I`d argue that it is much like the way large (or

bigger) monsters are viewed as a square now regardless of the actual

physical area they take up. A horse, for instance, is now four 5` x 5`

squares, though it is, in reality only physically occupying two of those

squares. Similarly, a unit of soldiers is going to occupy a larger area

than just they physically occupy. That area represents part of the issue

with their facing.



Now, we needn`t go into too much detail about how a change of facing might

occur in regards to the specific drill orders for a company of soldiers

would go. Suffice it to say that when we see a well-practiced marching

band perform this kind of maneuver on a parade ground it looks simple and

even graceful (if one can look graceful holding a trombone...) but if we

imagine those chubby band members marching through uneven ground with

rocks, plants and dead bodies in their way, start shooting the occasional

arrow or throw a spear at the trombonists, and instead of nice smooth round

brass instruments give them pointy sharp steel things with which they can

accidentally stab the guy standing next to them through the gizzard if they

aren`t careful about handling them properly (and been issued the correct

commands to shoulder their weapons) then we start seeing the difficulty of

pulling off a simple change of facing on a battlefield. A company has to

perform a rather tricky wheeling movement or they have to fall back by

squads and reposition according to their new orientation.



So comparatively, what we`re talking about is the difference between

executing what is probably one or two quick to execute orders to the

company ("Present Arms!" and "Ready!") versus a much more complex task

requiring all the soldiers of the unit acting in concert, and performing

orders that take a lot more time.



>Assuming that all members of a unit aren’t interchangeable is another

>issue that should be delved into. If they are not then it flies in the

>face of the historical precedent where a solder moved up to replace a

>fallen ally with essentially no loss of cohesiveness, until there weren’t

>enough to be able to replace those that have fallen.

>

>This interchangeability means that those on the sides are just as capable

>as those in the front. Since the rows are assumed to be evenly spaced out

>to reflect this interchangeability then all it requires is a 90 degree

>turn to address a unit approaching from the side and another 90 degrees to

>address a unit approaching from the rear.

>

>Hence facing doesn’t really have any meaningful application when dealing

>with battlefield combat * at least not any more meaning, most likely less,

>than it does in a standard D&D combat round.



It`s only sensible that when a company at the large scale combat level is

fighting (and the stats assume) that not EVERY soldier in the unit is

actively engaged. Some must be in reserve for exactly the kind of thing

you`re talking about. However, I`d still suggest that units are not

generally organized into a single large, globular kind of group. They are

arranged in rows so as to maximize the number of soldiers that can perform

an attack, so the flanks aren`t as capable of attacking as the front since

there are many fewer of them.



Gary

[irdeggman]

Why do we disagree most of the time, Duane? Bloody frustrating more often than not.

We disagree because we care. Actually I have found that our disagreements are usually part of the initial discussion phase when we (as a group) are trying to decide on how to proceed. IMO this comes about because of our passion for things. I have also found that once a decision has been made we work together to follow that decision, whether we agree with it individually or not. Ahh true teamwork.


I know one reason, at least: I see every RPG and its mechanics as a work in progress. In my own campaigns, nothing is immune to revision, including the core rules. I give no reverence to games simply because they are printed by a major publisher. The writers are as human as you or I, and just as prone to making mistakes, errors in judgement, or just not seeing the full consequences of their work. Their main advantage is having a team of editors, playtesters, and co-writers (usually)...so I do tend to assume they will be of higher-than-homebrew quality - just not necesarily the best possible product.

The result is that with the BRCS, I&#39;m not always out to make Birthright as 3.5ish as possible, because I don&#39;t think the 3.5 system is always the best model to use. This is especially true when there is an attempt to overlay stuff like domain rules and battlesystems with a 3.5 template, even though the core D&D rules really weren&#39;t built to deal with these things at all.

And that is probably the main reason here.

It is part of the BRCS core design concepts to follow 3.5 as closely as possible. That is the basis of my insistence on not changing the core rules (e.g., using total modifiers vice ranks in skills). This is my attempt at being consistent and to keep from having a project development process that is consistently inconsistent and always in flux.

[irdeggman]

Quite right. That was the 3e version of readying an action that only
allowed you to prepare a partial action. In 3.5 one can now prepare a
standard action, a move, or a free action

Actually 3.5 only made things clearer in this regard. It didn’t really change anything. The table of partial actions in 3.0 (PHB 127 Table 8-3) lists things that are actually standard actions by definition of what a standard action is, hence the elimination of the term “partial action” in 3.5. In 3.0 a character could make an attack, a move, cast a spell, etc. as a readied action but couldn’t move and attack pretty much the same things allowed in 3.5.



I`d suggest, however, that the 3.5 version makes the rationale for assuming that at the large scale combat level pikemen set and receive a charge is even easier to justify. That is, since there`s very little restriction on readying actions, battlefields are big places, battlerounds are 50-100 times the length of the time needed to prepare a standard action, pikemen are likely going to observe the approach of a charging unit as it crosses the battlefield, and since that`s the kind of thing they would be training for, one should assume that readying an action can be incorporated into those units` stats at the large scale combat level.those units` stats at the large scale combat level.


So comparatively, what we`re talking about is the difference between executing what is probably one or two quick to execute orders to the company ("Present Arms&#33;" and "Ready&#33;") versus a much more complex task requiring all the soldiers of the unit acting in concert, and performing
orders that take a lot more time.


It`s only sensible that when a company at the large scale combat level is fighting (and the stats assume) that not EVERY soldier in the unit is actively engaged. Some must be in reserve for exactly the kind of thing you`re talking about. However, I`d still suggest that units are not generally organized into a single large, globular kind of group. They are arranged in rows so as to maximize the number of soldiers that can perform an attack, so the flanks aren`t as capable of attacking as the front since there are many fewer of them.


Now, we needn`t go into too much detail about how a change of facing might occur in regards to the specific drill orders for a company of soldiers would go. Suffice it to say that when we see a well-practiced marching band perform this kind of maneuver on a parade ground it looks simple and even graceful (if one can look graceful holding a trombone...) but if we imagine those chubby band members marching through uneven ground with rocks, plants and dead bodies in their way, start shooting the occasional arrow or throw a spear at the trombonists, and instead of nice smooth round brass instruments give them pointy sharp steel things with which they can accidentally stab the guy standing next to them through the gizzard if they aren`t careful about handling them properly (and been issued the correct commands to shoulder their weapons) then we start seeing the difficulty of pulling off a simple change of facing on a battlefield. A company has to perform a rather tricky wheeling movement or they have to fall back by squads and reposition according to their new orientation.


IIRC there were a couple of maps with the layout of soldiers on them somewhere in a recent thread that displayed 200 (or so) soldiers laid out in rows of forty about five ranks deep. Unless one is imagining a unit of soldiers being organized on the battlefield in (about) a 14 x 14 square a unit of soldiers that is arranged in a rectangle cannot simply execute a "right face." in order to change its facing. That will result in only the soldiers at the end of the rows facing an opponent.


This is by definition a formation, since you are talking about a specific arrangement and rectangles. That is the entire focus of my argument. Facing only comes into play when formations are considered, that is if we treat units as being in a formation instead of the abstract structure of a square. If we consider units to be in formations then there are a whole lot of other issues that need to be discussed and worked out – what are the shapes of the formations? What are the advantages and disadvantages of the individual formations? What formations are allowed/disallowed per unit type? And so on.

[The Jew]

Originally posted by "Duane
This is by definition a formation, since you are talking about a specific arrangement and rectangles. That is the entire focus of my argument. Facing only comes into play when formations are considered, that is if we treat units as being in a formation instead of the abstract structure of a square. If we consider units to be in formations then there are a whole lot of other issues that need to be discussed and worked out – what are the shapes of the formations? What are the advantages and disadvantages of the individual formations? What formations are allowed/disallowed per unit type? And so on.

But we actually don&#39;t, because we are using one of the most powerful forces in game design, it&#39;s called abstraction. You wish to for the most abstract concept of unit formation, a mere blob of troops. We wish for a slightly more realistic, but still highly abstract, form to allow for facing. Actual formations will be be merely imagined away and will be represented in the different training methods that the BRCS already allows.

There is not an either or situation here. Just because the detail is increased does not mean that all abstraction must be thrown out.

[ConjurerDragon]

Osprey schrieb:



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

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=36&t=3027

>

>

>

...



>The problem here is that in 3.5, lances and longspears have the same reach. So technically one doesn`t "out-reach" the other. This is why I left the rules the way they were in terms of pikes doing damage in the charge phase on the 1st round of engagement, simultaneous to a unit charging them. That, and it`s much simpler. Pikes still come out way ahead of a cavalry unit charging them...the pikes will probably take 1 hit while the more expensive cavlary will take 2...compare the unit costs to damage, and you come out with about a 4:1 cost:damage ratio in favor of the pikemen. Good enough for me as a simulation of the pikemen`s advantage vs. cavalry. It`s also good enough to pretty much ensure that cavalry will rarely, if ever, charge headlong into a pike formation facing them.

>

I thought that as a riders sits on the horses back and not on it´s head,

that the reach of the lance would only be enough to reach over the head

of the horse to attack enemys right before the horse? So that the pike

actually would outreach a lance in that the pike would strike the horse

before the lance could hit the pikemen?

bye

Michael

[geeman]

At 12:49 PM 3/18/2005 +0100, irdeggman wrote:



>This is by definition a formation, since you are talking about a specific

>arrangement and rectangles. That is the entire focus of my argument.

>Facing only comes into play when formations are considered, that is if we

>treat units as being in a formation instead of the abstract structure of a

>square. If we consider units to be in formations then there are a whole

>lot of other issues that need to be discussed and worked out * what are

>the shapes of the formations? What are the advantages and disadvantages of

>the individual formations? What formations are allowed/disallowed per

>unit type? And so on.



Ah, OK. Interesting.



Let me put it this way: "Facing" as a concept does assume some sort of

general formation, but doesn`t really dictate anything about what that

formation might be, and issues of formation can then be handled in any

number of ways.



Facing does acknowledge the organization of soldiers into a large unit in

some sort of arrangement, but doesn`t say much of anything about that

arrangement. Units will _generally_ arrange themselves into a an oblong

kind of order, roughly line abreast, and all facing in the same direction

when they go into battle, but we needn`t worry overmuch about specifics of

that arrangement other than to acknowledge that 100+ soldiers/creatures are

so oriented. Even irregulars and untrained levies will usually fall into

this sort of order--albeit with less order and precision. This might be

viewed as the difference between portraying units as large scale combat

companies and the 3.5 method of portraying massed groups of individual

creatures using the "swarm" characteristics.



Facing does assume some sort of formation, but employing facing does not

mean that one must automatically come up with a system of formation to

accompany it. Formation can be assumed to be part of the already

abstracted stats of the company of soldiers (which is the method I think is

most sensible.)



For instance, let`s say that we have two units of infantry. One has a

defense value of X and costs 2GB to muster. The second has a defense value

of X+2 and costs 4GB to muster. What is represented by that +2 points of

Defense and additional 2GB? It could be better armor certainly. It could

also be that such a unit is going to get additional training; close order

drill to start, followed by battlefield exercises, etc. all of which have

to do with soldiers being trained to take on various formations on the

field--or to stay more resolutely in those formations in combat--along with

the sergeants, officers and commander learning how to command that unit

more effectively to take advantage of their training, equipment etc. In

combat then the unit takes on various formations for defensive purposes all

of which (along with any additional equipment they get for those 2GB) are

abstracted into part of that +2 to their Defense Value. The specifics of

which particular formation they adopt on the battlefield need not be addressed.



This is a sensible solution since as units get more expensive equipment

they also tend to be trained more. That`s not always the case, of

course. Some honor guards might get very pretty and expensive equipment

that has little or nothing to do with their ability to fight, but as a

general idea it makes sense that soldiers who have more invested in their

equipment will also get more attention in terms of training and drill, and

taking on particular formations in battle when appropriate, adopting those

formations efficiently and in a disciplined fashion, etc. can all be

described by increasing their defense value. I`m content with that

interpretation of the effects of formation.



Gary

[geeman]

At 03:16 PM 3/18/2005 +0100, Michael wrote:



>I thought that as a riders sits on the horses back and not on it´s head,

>that the reach of the lance would only be enough to reach over the head

>of the horse to attack enemys right before the horse? So that the pike

>actually would outreach a lance in that the pike would strike the horse

>before the lance could hit the pikemen?



Yeah, that`s basically the way it would work. He with the longer stick

hits first.



In D&D terms its a bit of a problem since the weapon doesn`t actually exist

in 3e+. There is an awl pike in 2e, but it got dropped in the

conversion. I don`t personally really have a problem with that since it`s

just not really a very effective adventure level weapon. It`s too unwieldy

to try to use in a 1:1 melee fight. I suppose it might make a doable

exotic weapon if one really wanted (I don`t think it`d be any worse than

the spiked chain) but from a realism standpoint it really makes sense only

on the battlefield and in large numbers so one can fight in clustered groups.



I used to spar with a buddy of mine who had bamboo growing in his

backyard. I had a bunch of safety martial arts equipment ("safety" being a

relative term in such matters) and we`d fiddle around with various length

"spears" made from that bamboo. The longspear length of weapon is really

about the length one can practically wield against another opponent. After

about 12` or so it gets easy to knock that weapon aside, rendering the

wielder pretty much defenseless.



D&D assumes that one is "bracing" for a charge, which was IIRC sometimes

described as actually putting one`s foot at the butt end of a pole

arm. That is what one does most of the time. Pikemen, however, could also

stand with their weapon held up over their heads with both hands and angled

down a bit. That way when a horse (or whatever) struck the pike he would

be stabbed but if it missed the spike of the pike is probably forced down

and the length of the shaft then becomes a barrier to the charging

horse. One by itself, of course, isn`t going to stop a horse, but five or

six will slow him down or deflect his charge. That`s not really an option

with a 10` long shafted pole arm since the length of the shaft isn`t enough

to stick in the ground far enough away from the wielder to represent much

of a barrier between him and the charging horse (or the guys in the row in

front of him.)



Gary

[Osprey]

Not to muddy the waters or anything, but it may be worth considering the fact that
the number of individuals isn`t as important as effective deployment of strength.
It would probably be an ineffective deployment of strength to send 200 hardened Varsk
Riders against 200 individuals in a levy. One might be far better of sending 20
or 30 Varsk riders out and sending the others to fight a different force. Thus, I`d
argue that, in the spirit of abstraction, the number of individuals in a fighting
unit is not as important as its measure of "power" (for which CR/EL seems to be an
appropriate measure).

If a unit is defined as some arbitrary CR/EL then a "unit" of levies
might include 400 1/2 CR individuals and a "unit" of Varsk Riders might
include only 50 soliders with mounts. On the field, they might be
"roughly" appropriate numbers to send at each other.

If the system is re-designed to simply use numbers of individuals, then the war
card metrics are going to have to be signiciantly more varied (as 200 levies Vs.
200 Varsk Riders will hardly require a roll and should be solvable in one war
round).

- Doom

I think the 200 number is for typical foot units - most folks seem to agree that cavalry units would be significantly smaller. I would say c. 100 horsemen per company is fairly reasonable.

Larger creatures in general would be arranged in smaller units - ogres, trolls, and giants come to mind - maybe as few as 20 (giants) to 50 (ogres) per company.

I think there would be variation in both CR and unit size (individuals per company) depending on the unit&#39;s composition, but 200 medium humanoids for foot companies works as a good rule of thumb.

Osprey

[RaspK_FOG]

Think of this as coin weight, candle illumination, horse power and other such units: an equivalency... of sorts, as is obvious, by an equivalency nonetheless&#33;

[graham anderson]

I&#39;ve never quite understood the D&D seperation between composite and normal longbows. Statistically, a Welsh lonbow is much closer to a Str 14+ composite longbow than to the D&D longbow, which has no strength requirement whatsoever. The only example of a composite longbow that I can think of is the daikyu of feudal Japan. Most any other historical composite bows were shortbows used by horse archers.

not getting into d&d classifications there is one example of a composite longbow in the west thanks to those lovely vikings. A small number of composite bows have been found over the years made using the same techniques as those of the middle east. They are however larger and are reinforced by small iron straps. The rarity of the bows meens they are unlikely to have been used in any numbers but they do exist. There rarity may be down to constuction methods or posibly the strength needed to use it.

[C0R5A1R]

First of all, I&#39;d like to state that I&#39;m new to the BR.net community, so I apologize if this post is off-topic or has already been addressed elsewhere. That having been said, I would like to present a loose comparison of one historical medieval battle to the BR setting&#39;s battle system.
As a DM, I have been trying to collect information on the actual arrangement and movement of military units in well known historical battles in developing a house-rules &#39;mass-battle&#39; system. At the moment my best information comes from the Battle of Crecy (1346), which is what I will use in the following examples:
I have developed my own battle system for home use that seems to work well enough (still needs playtesting to work out any exploitable aspects), but I will try to confine this post to a couple of the inconsistencies I&#39;ve noticed between historic and fantasy warfare.
Battle Durations- this ties in with the size and dimensions of the battlefield itself. At Crecy, the battle line stretched ~6,000 ft., involving about 51,000 men (~7000 British longbowmen, 5000 British spearmen and men-at-arms, 15,000 Genoese crossbowmen, and another 21,000 French comprised of knights and Genoese footmen). Welsh longbowmen, by most accounts I&#39;ve read, had an effective range of 300 to 350 yards, which works out to roughly the extreme range of longbows presented in the 3.5 PHB (1000 ft.). The account by Froissant describes the French opening the battle with a movement of crossbowmen into the field to fire upon the British front lines (the infantry), whereupon the longbowmen rained volleys down upon the crossbowmen as soon as they entered the field. Longbows have superior range over crossbows, so it would stand to reason the British could do this before the Genoese had the opportunity to fire on the British. Why is this relevant? It suggests the two armies were set up just outside the longbowmen&#39;s effective range. This gives us an image of the battlefield as being 6000ft wide with a 1000ft gap between the two armies. Also, it stands to reason no commander would willingly set up his forces within an arrow&#39;s reach of their enemy. At 1000ft. distance we can see it would take a typical unit of light infantry (base move 30ft.) about 33 rounds of marching (walking) to reach the opposing force. Half that for a hustle, halved again for a full run. Using a one-minute round (my preference, but not critical) this means the opposing force could be reached in a single round, should &#39;running&#39; be allowed (theoretically I allow it, but in practice it quickly becomes obvious how ineffective- suicidal, even- it is to send units out this way). As for the rank-depth of the armies, the French must have been the most densely packed. With 6000ft. of space, the 36000 French troops would need roughly 30 ranks to keep each file 5 feet distant from one another (that is, to obey D&D&#39;s 5-foot-square-per-individual rule). Unfortunately, I haven&#39;t yet found out how many of the french forces were knights, so the actual number of infantry in-formation they possessed is anyone&#39;s guess. but without even removing a portion to account for said knights, the french lines were arranged rather thinly (6000 ft wide, ~150 ft deep), which was probably the case for most medieval armies, pike phalanxes excluded. the British were arranged in a flattened V- shape, with the &#39;head&#39; comprised of infantry flanked by archers on either side. from what I gather the battle was situated in an area no more than 6 to 8 thousand feet wide by 2000 to 2500 feet deep- this is for a battle of much larger scale than would likely be seen anywhere on Cerilia, but you get the idea.
The second subject I wanted to address has more to do with a continuing misinterpretation of how battlefield conflicts were resolved (not dealing exclusively with RPGs like Birthright, but also movies, PC games, etc.). Crecy lasted from 4pm till midnight, with the French making 14 to 16 attempts to upend the British from their hilltop position. Everyone&#39;s seen Braveheart, right? Now, I can&#39;t honestly say I know exactly how long any of those pitched battles lasted (nor have I yet looked for that information), but I&#39;m guessing every last one of them managed to consume the better part of an afternoon; the 20 seconds of cut-scenes of maiming and decapitation, after which the entire losing army is in a heap on the ground, paint a wildly different picture of how these battles were conducted. IMO, one of our biggest inconsistencies in the battle system is the fact that we treat combat and movement as equal pairs, consuming the same amount of time. As was demonstrated earlier, medieval armies met one another in relatively close proximity, capable of closing with one another quickly if necessary, but actual conflicts between formations of 200+ men per side were not resolved in the span of one minute&#39;s time. with 400 or more troops, some fighting, some waiting within the formation for the battle to reach them, one could easily expect &#39;engaged&#39; forces to remain engaged for 10-30 minutes before a a unit takes enough damage to constitute a &#39;hit&#39;. This is why actual combat occurred in the no-man&#39;s-land between the two armies- each commander sent a unit into the area, which was intercepted by selected unit(s) of the opposing force, and the result was observed by both sides. in this way, armies didn&#39;t hurl themselves in a headlong rush to grapple with the entire opposing force, but ground one another down in smaller conflicts designed to weaken the opposing reserve force (or else allow gaps to open up in its arrangement) until the side with the upper hand could lead a direct assault and &#39;take the field&#39;. Crecy resulted in 5 to 10,000 French losses (less than a thousand English casualties) before the battle ended with the French pulling back from the field. No sudden collapse of the entire French line, no loss of their entire army; just a series of failed conflicts that gradually weakened French numerical superiority and left them with no intelligent choice but to end the fight. Personally, I use a system where either side alternates making non-combat moves (with 1-minute rounds) until both sides declare they have finished moving. units are &#39;engaged&#39; during this time, but rather than having those engagements resolve themselves immediately following one round of movement, they remain engaged while players respond to the arrangement of one another&#39;s units. It actually resembles chess in many ways. this has the effect of allowing players to &#39;bid&#39; additional units into a pair of engaged forces before the result is determined, while keeping an eye on their opponent&#39;s reserve; bidding too many units into a single conflict leaves your main body open to a cavalry flanking maneuver or an infantry charge that can split your army in two.
Finally, I had to adjust the role of archers in combat to account for the change in combat sequence. This aspect will probably win me a fair deal of criticism, as it flies in the face of most every modern strategy game. I came to this conclusion after calculating the ‘best possible’ accuracy rate of arrow volleys in medieval warfare and reading a few descriptions of how soldiers responded to these attacks. Once again, I will cite Crecy, since I have far more information about its particulars than any other medieval battle. The typical longbowman carried with him 2 sheaves of 24 arrows each, amounting to 336,000 total arrows on-hand and a larger supply ready to be brought forward as needed. An estimated 500,000 (that’s one-half million) arrows were fired during that 8-hour period. British longbowmen fired an average of 10 shots per minute (fortunately, this is the same ROF as a 1st level warrior), and there were 7000 longbowmen present at Crecy. This works out to an average of about 70 shots per archer, accomplished in a minimum of 7 minutes. Looking at it in this fashion, 500 thousand shots fired appears surprisingly low for an 8-hour-long battle. Obviously, in the limited conflicts that occurred only a small portion of the British archers were eligible to fire, with the majority remaining well out of range. Probably, these units furthest in the flanks were meant only to stop cavalry charges and relieve exhausted archers in the front. Again citing the French casualties (5,000-10,000), this brings to light a serious misinterpretation of the arrow volley’s intended use; of 500,000 arrows, only 1 or 2% managed to strike a hit, yet longbowmen were feared throughout history as a devastating force. We’ve all heard quotes from one battle or another claiming “the sky turned black”, “the sun was eclipsed” or, as in Crecy, one Genoa stated “it looked as snow”, when the arrows were loosed and the would-be attackers turn tail and flee back to their main lines. I make use of missile weapon ranges in my campaign, using the range increment divided by 10 (range 6 for short bows, 8 for light crossbows, 10 for longbows, etc.) but missile weapons do not inflict ‘hits’. Instead, the unit subjected to missile fire makes a morale save (an opposed d20 roll using the defender’s morale bonus vs. the attacker’s missile bonus) to determine if the defending unit is routed, retreating as far back from the missile unit as possible with its remaining movement. On a natural 20 (crit) when determining morale save DC I allow one ‘hit’ of damage to be counted against the defender, in addition to the rout that will likely follow. The specifics of morale saves are just a personal preference; the notion of treating missile weapons as demoralizing rather than deadly is more the point. This redefines missile weapons as a means to deter or disrupt enemy units and formations at a distance, with the occasional chance to cause substantial loss of life. This way, only a well-disciplined force can manage to press through a hail of archer fire.
Once again, I hope some useful insight can be gleaned from this analysis. I’ve tried to provide an example of how these tendencies in historic warfare could be applied to BR’s battle-system without turning out a ‘this is how to do it’, ‘this is the precise pecking order of events’ lecture. The relevance of these tendencies in a D&D campaign is really more the issue. Also, if anyone should happen to come upon a book or website that details battles of the post-roman, pre-gunpowder middle ages (especially if they offer numerical values such as field dimensions, numbers of ranks, rank spacing, etc.) don’t hesitate to send me a message as I am always looking to get a better understanding of exactly how these wars played out. Thank you&#33;

[Osprey]

Thank you&#33;

No, thank you&#33; That was a great post filled with a lot of good historical data - exactly the sort of facts I&#39;ve been hungry to discover, but didn&#39;t know. Plenty of food for thought, to be certain. I&#39;m still trying to wrap my head around envisioning how you described medieval battles and engagements actually playing out.

For instance, I really can&#39;t even begin to imagine two 200-man companies spending 30 minutes locked in battle before one of them takes c. 100 casualties&#33; Having done some informal, reenactment medieval fighting myself (in small groups only, but competitively with metal weapons), I&#39;ve rarely had any personal combat last more than a minute or so - by then either me or my opponent is down. Most last more like 30 seconds. If two infantry units engaged on the field, I would expect that a fourth to a third of each infantry unit would be engaged with an enemy at a time, especially if one or both sides are charging and penetrating enemy ranks.

Exceptions to this would include infantry shield walls, and phalanxes of spear-/pikemen - these sorts of defensive formations were specifically designed for resisting enemy penetration of their ranks, and would prolong battles a great deal when employed.


Crecy lasted from 4pm till midnight, with the French making 14 to 16 attempts to upend the British from their hilltop position.

Have you found, or can you find, reasonably reliable accounts of the lengths of other historical battles? Not just the largest and most famous, but also smaller conflicts?

As you mentioned, BR battles are on a much smaller scale than many historical ones - about 1/10 the scale or even smaller. I suspect that one of the main reasons for the considerable lengths (1/2 to full day) of historical battles was due to the tremendous numbers involved - giving orders, and then having them be carried out in a coordinated fashion (especially marching orders, as opposed to missile fire orders), to thousands of troops at a time, is pretty difficult if not completely impossible with the technology and communication methods of the medieval era. That&#39;s why it makes sense to me that battles would be fought company by company, as you described.

Anyways, if most BR battles have only 10-20 companies on a side (c. 2000-4000 troops at most), then I suspect they will be resolved far, FAR more quickly than large-scale historical ones.

Also, re. size of the battlefield: I suspect size will vary a great deal, depending on actual terrain and the chosen tactics of the commanders involved. An army with many mobile units, who are used to ride (or run) around an enemy&#39;s flanks, shielded from enemy missile fire, will need either a much larger field (to stay out of range) or covering terrain (like hills or forest). That&#39;s one of the reasons I made battlefield sizes variable (DM&#39;s discretion) in my own battlesystem.

I think Crecy panned out the way it did in part because the French used a very predictable frontal attack strategy. Given the "heavy cavalry charges always win" strategy of the time, plus vast numerical superiority, this makes sense.


Your missile system is interesting. The idea of forcing morale checks is novel and probably fairly accurate, and it does have the effect of stretching battles out far more than "hit and kill" systems - which makes the battles more realistic, but also makes them take a LOT longer in real time, too, as units rout, run back to the reserves, and eventually rally and come back to fight again...and again..and again...

Realistic, maybe, but how much fun is it to play out such a lengthy series of exchanges? In my experience, the longer a battle takes (real-time), the less appeal it has for most players, and only the most die-hard historical/strategy enthusiasts will stay interested. Like most game systems, there&#39;s often a very large dilemma between realism and playability.

Osprey

[ConjurerDragon]

C0R5A1R schrieb:



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

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=36&t=3027

>

> C0R5A1R wrote:

>

...



> about 70 shots per archer, accomplished in a minimum of 7 minutes. Looking at it in this fashion, 500 thousand shots fired appears surprisingly low for an 8-hour-long battle. Obviously, in the limited conflicts that occurred only a small portion of the British archers were eligible to fire, with the majority remaining well out of range. Probably, these units furthest in the flanks were meant only to stop cavalry charges and relieve exhausted archers in the front. Again citing the French casualties (5,000-10,000), this brings to light a serious misinterpretation of the arrow volley’s intended use; of 500,000 arrows, only 1 or 2% managed to strike a hit, yet longbowmen were feared throughout history as a devastating force. We’ve all heard quotes from one battle or another claiming “the sky turned black”, “the sun was eclipsed” or, as in Crecy, one Genoa stated “it looked as snow”, when the arrows were loosed and the would-be attackers turn tail and flee back to their main lin

> es.

>

Casualties on the french side do not necessarily equal hits of english

bows - certainly the french only counted the dead human beings in that

number, and horses which are large targets have been hit as well.

bye

Michael

[Lord Valkyr]

About the feared English/Welsh Longbowman.....

I watched a history channel thingy about Agincourt I believe.. where the english army was heavily outnumbered vs the french army 6000 (5000 archers the rest knights & men-at-arms) vs 30000 (5000 Nobles/Knights 8-10000 men-at-arms remainder infantry & crossbowmen) or so. The longbows were relatively innefective against the knights save for their mounts. The iron arrowhead couldnt penetrate the steel armour the french men-at-arms wore. (They did a test on the show) What did the french in is basically arrogance & tactical inflexibility.

Mindset:
the french were drunk on their superior numbers & did not keep their mind on FIGHTING the battle.
The french marshall of the army was very intelligent & formed a good attack plan (he would rather starve them out but nobles wanted glory) However the nobles who commanded units were more concerned for personal glory & Ransom so most of them moved to the front of the line so they could be seen & "get in on the action" pretty much disregarding the supporting infantry & crossbows

The british were in trouble however at this time period britain is starting to have a "professional" military no longer a feudal military system

Terrain:
battlefield was damp & already muddy hordes of very pissed french guys on horses &/or in very heavy armor moving on the field aggravated this. Whats worse is the actual terrain was a natural bottleneck that the french would attack through. Whats worse though is the soil nothing special dry but when damp is very clay-like & sticky. when the french attack they become bogged down in this muck as the suction this mud creates when the try & move through it in their heavy armour. The english in lighter armor for the most part can run circles around the armoured french. What makes this worse is the french keep coming and basically kill themselves as they step on each other trying to get at the english & with more troops pressing from behind its like a crowd-push at a football game.


Most of the french casualties are from suffocating in this horrid muck or being killed after being captured by the english. Now the theory behind why the english killed most of their prisoners is shortly after driving the french of the english baggage train is attacked by a mob of french peasants. The english think they are being attacked from behind & they have almost as many prisoners as they have troops so a rough tactical call.... King Henry V orders his men to kill the prisoners te feudal lords troops say no way since they will lose out on the ransom however the "professional" troops obey the kings order.

Crecy though the longbows definitely outrange the french crossbowmen & slaughter them quite nicely.

[Bokey]

Has anybody considered using the rules from the complete minitures handbook as a "simple" system?

GB cost of units could probably be converted into points, and then these points could be used to purchase certain types of available figures. The other option would be to have the BR community decide which figure best represents the available unit types, and then just reference the Complete Miniatures Handbook for all relevant rules. These figures (representing units) could then duke it out.

Not all figures would be available (no dragons likely to be running around), but certain figures could be deemed as appropriate by the BR site, and speciality units would already be available for those who would want to expand the game. Battle resolution is fairly quick, and would resemble more of a big encounter in an adventure rather than a whole new set of rules. The rules for setting up a battlefield would have to be tweaked slightly (if we wanted to go to the trouble), but that way we would not be making up a new war-gaming system, just referencing people back to an existing 3E product (which I am sure wizards would appreciate).

Just a thought.

[ausrick]

Has anyone read the book "Cry Havoc"? It is the D20 massive combat rulebook written by Skip Williams and Monte Cook and published through Malhavoc press.

It seems to blend very well into standard D20 rules and is very flexible (allowing you to design your own units, incorporate pc&#39;s, and individuals on the battlefield and producing results exceptionally similar to if you played the battles out in the standard D20 combat scale), and being written by two people who worked on the original D20 design for WoTC I would expect as much. I just bring this up because it appears there are a lot of people out here working really hard trying to reinvent the wheel. Now I know it would take some adjustments to fit Birthright, I&#39;ve been hitting my head on the wall about that myself. But it would make a possible launch pad to consider.

The main adjustments I am running into problems with are the appearant differences in economies in 3rd Edition (and consequently the Cry Havoc book) and Birthright. It seems that roughly the pay for a soldier would be about 1s per day if a unit of 200 soldiers would have an upkeep of 1GB every Domain Turn. Well, Cry Havoc states that a soldier gets 2s per day per npc class per lvl (and absolutely no mention on if your units were made out of Fighters instead of warriors, I&#39;m assuming for that advantage they would get more). Also, I am wondering, if Mustercosts are based on equipment (I would imagine that atleast to some degree they would), then equipping a Knight with Full Plate, Full Plate Barding, Heavy War Horse, and Shield, lance, etc. costs about 5k gp, now make that 200 knights and that is so not the 6 Gold Bar muster cost in the original Birthright, however, equipping a longbowman costs roughtly 100gp, granted more than the 2 Gold Bar Muster Cost for them, but not really in line with the ratios. a 6GB muster of Knights owns 500GB worth of equipment and a 2GB muster of Archers owns 10GB worth of equipment. So you could almost assume equipment doesn&#39;t effect mustercost much, but at the same time, if you were to make units with superior and more expensive equipment they would perform far better. And in reality nothing is free so somebody has to pay for everything, I know I couldnt&#39; afford 500GB worth of equipment on 4GB a year income. Not sure how to resolve this issue, but welcome to input, I just thought I would share my findings and what I&#39;m banging my head with. (note it seems the original BR just took 2X the Upkeep cost of each type of unit except for a few higher demanding equipment ones it made the ratio 3:1, however if you are going to make a system that blends seemlessly with existing D20 rules that is going to cause some loopholes, for example say kingdom A killed kingdom B&#39;s unit of Knights, looted their corpses and sold the goods at 50% market, then did the Finance free action to convert that into GB they could then hire Many units of knights. If this was a video game I&#39;d publish a patch for that. :P

[ConjurerDragon]

ausrick schrieb:



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

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=36&t=3027

>

> ausrick wrote:

>

>

>

>

...

[snipped comments about muster costs compared to D&D equipment costs]



The difference between the Birthright muster costs and the cost of

equipment was mentioned long ago already before the BRCS ever started.

The assumption made then was that the muster cost of the army units is

not the cost to gather able soldiers, train them and pay for their whole

equipment with the muster cost, but assuming a feudal society, that

those soldiers come to serve with some of their own equipment as feudal

obligation to their liege lord.

bye

Michael

[Osprey]

[snipped comments about muster costs compared to D&D equipment costs]

The difference between the Birthright muster costs and the cost of
equipment was mentioned long ago already before the BRCS ever started.
The assumption made then was that the muster cost of the army units is
not the cost to gather able soldiers, train them and pay for their whole
equipment with the muster cost, but assuming a feudal society, that
those soldiers come to serve with some of their own equipment as feudal
obligation to their liege lord.
bye
Michael

In the case of knights and their supporting troops, definitely. In the case of a regent raising his own standing armies, I would also assume that equipment is "bought" not at market price, but essentially wholesale price, as most lords witht he facilities to muster and equip troops hire their own armorers, bowyers, and weaponsmiths to make weapons and ammo for the troops. So if you want to really go nitpicking, maybe look at the price of crafting arms and armor, then factor in the retainer (labor) fee for the smiths, and you might come somewhere closer to the real cost of eupipping a unit.

Most specifically in the case of knights and full plate: knights, more than any other unit type, are the ones directly supported by a feudal system. Knights aren&#39;t paid and equipped with their liege&#39;s gp, they are paid in land, and they are expected to use that land to afford their own arms and armor, and provide a fighting contingent of men-at-arms in addition to their own service. That&#39;s basic feudalism at its core, as Michael wrote.

In truth, I doubt most knights could actually afford full plate armor if it&#39;s as expensive as printed in the PHB. Half-plate and banded mail are likely far more common armor types for common knights; only the wealthiest of knights could afford the luxury of full plate armor I think. Whole companies equipped with full plate would be something reserved only for the wealthiest and best-equipped of Anuire&#39;s chivalry - like the champion knights of Avanil, Boeruine, the WIT, or maybe the MOC.

Osprey

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by ausrick@Apr 15 2005, 03:45 PM
Has anyone read the book "Cry Havoc"? It is the D20 massive combat rulebook written by Skip Williams and Monte Cook and published through Malhavoc press.

It seems to blend very well into standard D20 rules and is very flexible (allowing you to design your own units, incorporate pc&#39;s, and individuals on the battlefield and producing results exceptionally similar to if you played the battles out in the standard D20 combat scale), and being written by two people who worked on the original D20 design for WoTC I would expect as much. I just bring this up because it appears there are a lot of people out here working really hard trying to reinvent the wheel. Now I know it would take some adjustments to fit Birthright, I&#39;ve been hitting my head on the wall about that myself. But it would make a possible launch pad to consider.

The problem is that we can&#39;t use the Cry Havoc material as such for this product.

Even the portions that are OGL won&#39;t fit into the "contract" that the site has - specifically the portion about the material being jointly owned by WotC and the authors.

IMO a better combat system to use would be that from "Fields of Blood" published by Eden. It is a less complex system than that of Cry Havoc and fits the BR system closer. The average unit size is 100 individuals vice the 20 or so for Cry Havoc.

Fields of Blood also has battle magic and translates standard spells into battle field effects. It has a domain section real similar to that of BR using Resource Points (RP in FoB) that equate to 100 gp (similar to a GB in BR). It also has means of creating your own unit types.


I would also like to see the upcoming WotC product on Mass Combat for its use.

The biggest problem here is that the BRCS was designed to be a stand alone product using the 2nd ed material and not requiring anyone to have to purchase any d20 books other than the core 3 (PHB, MM and DMG) in order to play (or to get the info from the SRD).

I would like to eventually see a supplement (or web supplement) that provides conversion of whatever we end up with for these 3 systems for those who wish to use them instead (the 3 being Cry Havoc, Fields of Blood and the upcoming WotC Mass Combat system).

This topic is one that Doom has mentioned in the past - that the system in the BRCS should be a simpified one (like it was in 2nd ed) and that if anyone wanted a more detailed one they could suse one of the existing published ones instead.