This might be filling a great gap, really excited. Does anyone have an idea of how the campaign side is put together ?
This might be filling a great gap, really excited. Does anyone have an idea of how the campaign side is put together ?
The focus of the sourcebook is mass combat; the rules for campaigns have room for expansion. It's mostly about conquering/founding, maintaining, and expanding settlements.
Anything on urban warfare within?
Likely getting it anyway, but I'm curious.
The mass combat has siege warfare, but no special rules for fighting in crowded streets. However, I would run it just like any other battlefield, with the obstacles (buildings) offering different tactical challenges.
For example, most likely units would not be able to fit abreast on a road, and enemy units could hide in buildings to gain flanking advantages as you marched down it (I would adapt rules for units fighting atop battlements for those fighting within/atop buildings).
The focus of the source book is mass combat; the rules for campaigns have room for expansion. It's mostly about conquering/founding, maintaining, and expanding settlements.
The mass combat has siege warfare, but no special rules for fighting in crowded streets. However, I would run it just like any other battlefield, with the obstacles (buildings) offering different tactical challenges.
For example, most likely units would not be able to fit abreast on a road, and enemy units could hide in buildings to gain flanking advantages as you marched down it (I would adapt rules for units fighting atop battlements for those fighting within/atop buildings).
Any ideas on when will the physical version be released ?
Any ideas on when will the physical version be released ?
I was told early May(ish).
In the meantime, you can check out a simple game I created for my gaming group based on the Song of Ice and Fire series by George R. R. Martin, to be used with MapTools, here. The mass battles are meant to be used with Warpath.
Any ideas on when will the physical version be released ?I was told early May(ish).
In the meantime, you can check out a simple game I created for my gaming group based on the Song of Ice and Fire series by George R. R. Martin, to be used with MapTools, here. The mass battles are meant to be used with Warpath.
Thanks Sir, especially for the quick answers. Do you think there will an option of "buy the physical product, PDF will be free" or each will be sold separately ?
Thanks Sir, especially for the quick answers. Do you think there will an option of "buy the physical product, PDF will be free" or each will be sold separately ?
I honestly don't know if someone will do that, but I would guess no, since that's what the preorder deal was.
My copy arrived in the mail earlier this week, though pre-ordered it direct last fall.
AJC
Yay, my pre-order copy arrived today!
Wait. Print/PDF bundle for $17.99? That can't be right.
Isn't it $17.99 print, $9.99 PDF?
Perhaps I am missing something, but I don't find any treatment of Ability Damage or Energy Drain in the book. The treatment of poison is a bit lacking in this regard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps I am missing something, but I don't find any treatment of Ability Damage or Energy Drain in the book. The treatment of poison is a bit lacking in this regard.
@Larry Lichman: There are rules for point-buy battles, for players who just want to create a couple armies and go at it.
@Urath DM: Ability score affects are treated the same; since a unit's stats already have the ability scores listed, you simply reduce the damaged/drained ability and apply its effects to various stats accordingly.
For opposing units of significant size differences, I'd use your best judgment, taking into consideration these relative differences.
For example, if a unit of 100 suffered 2 points of Strength damage from a unit of only 50, I would apply 1 point of Strength damage to the unit.
If the roles were reversed (50 suffered 2 pts of dmg from 100), I would apply 3 points of Strength damage, and so on.
An easy way to think of it is to multiply the damage by the unit count and divide by the targeted unit, round down. (D x X)/Y = A
So, if a unit of 100 monsters with the ability to drain 2 points of Strength attacked a unit containing only 63 (let's say 63 humans warriors), the humans' Strength ratings would drop by 3. Simply reduce the Strength rating of the unit by 3, per normal Pathfinder rules.
Because there are so many variables within Pathfinder, I tried to make the rules as intuitive as possible so on-the-fly judgments from GMs can easily be made. Also, a certain amount of abstraction was written into the rules to help accommodate the vast amount of variables in the game.
Of course, feel free to fiddle with the rules and post suggestions for others; like any Pathfinder or Pathfinder-compatible produce, the rules are designed to be a springboard for individuals' tastes.
Thanks for the quick response. I am struggling with something else at the momment...
Unless I am mis-reading, a unit of 100 sickly 1st level Rangers with Con 1 (avg hp 1) is just as hardy and resilient as a unit of 100 healthy 1st level Barbarians with Con 20 (avg hp 12). Both units will have Unit Strength of 100, Unit Mass of 10, and Unit Power of 10 (Unit Power being the base unmodified damage dealt per hit, and the Unit Power being the mass-combat unit's equivalent of hit points).
Identically armed (say with Greataxes), and all other stats being equal (10s), the Rangers will do 10 + 1 points of damage to the Barbarians per hit, requiring 10 hits to destroy the Barbarians. The Barbarians, in turn, will do... 10 + 1 points of damage per hit to the Rangers, requiring 10 hits to destroy them, as well (assuming no critical hits).
If the Barbarians enter Rage, their average individual hp rise from 11.5 to 13.5. Their unit stats remain unchanged, except for saving throws (Fort goes from +7 to +9, Will goes from +0 to +2) and AC (which goes DOWN 2). So the net effect, in melee, of Barbarians entering Rage is to make it easier for an enemy unit to hit them.
@Urath: Correct, it's based on HD, not HPs. The abstraction I mentioned earlier comes into play here. However, here's a houserule you can try and see if it works for you:
For rare cases of an entire unit with a significant bonus or penalty, consider granting a bonus for every +/-2 1/2 hd per soldier in the unit. For example, your unit of 100 barbarians would be boosted to equivalent of 150.
For the reverse, consider halfing the HD (So for -2, a unit of 100 would be equivalent to 50; since 0 would complicate things, at -4 they would be considered 25, at -6 12, and so on). You can do the same for bonus HPs. Try this method, and see if this works for you, and let me know the results (it might be something Gareth can incorporate into the errata, at least as an optional rule).
Don't forget, though, that in your above example, a barbarian raging gets a bonus to hit with that greataxe, due to the bonus to their Strength score. I would also rule that the +2 bonus to Will would count toward Discipline checks when seeing if they are going to rout.
@Calvin: Thanks for the review!
Keep in mind that these rules are designed to be more realistic and in keeping with historical ancient and Medieval warfare (albeit with magic and monsters thrown into the mix). Players do not have to be generals; the rules state that even if a PC is in a unit, he adds a significant bonus to morale by his presence. That, and his actual damage on the battlefield, is how he influences the battle.
If a PC is a captain or even a general in the army (or if the GM allows the players to control X amount of units), then he also can influence the battle by controlling unit formations and tactics, which is how it worked in real battles.
Warpath provides GMs with rules for how PCs can influence battles or lead them.
@Calvin: Thanks for the review!
Keep in mind that these rules are designed to be more realistic and in keeping with historical ancient and Medieval warfare (albeit with magic and monsters thrown into the mix). Players do not have to be generals; the rules state that even if a PC is in a unit, he adds a significant bonus to morale by his presence. That, and his actual damage on the battlefield, is how he influences the battle.
If a PC is a captain or even a general in the army (or if the GM allows the players to control X amount of units), then he also can influence the battle by controlling unit formations and tactics, which is how it worked in real battles.
Warpath provides GMs with rules for how PCs can influence battles or lead them.
I agree, which is why I mentioned that it actually is a good system, and recently changed my rating to 4 stars. Still, I would have liked more rules on how the PCs can influence the battle outside of leading the troops. The problem is not that Warpath is not that it is a bad sourcebook, but that there are much better ones for only slightly more money.
While I do like how they made the rules of battle realistic (something which Heroes of Battle didn't have), highly skilled individuals are more than capable of influencing the battle through espionage, raids, and ambushes that larger groups couldn't accomplish, something Warpath didn't even touch upon.
@Calvin: Ah, I see, and it's a valid point. If I ever get a chance to revise the sourcebook, I'll definitely see what I can add in that regard. In the meantime, if you ever get a chance to run this system and/or you have some suggestions for incorporating those ideas for use with this sourcebook, I would love to see them!
Thanks again!
@Calvin: Ah, I see, and it's a valid point. If I ever get a chance to revise the sourcebook, I'll definitely see what I can add in that regard. In the meantime, if you ever get a chance to run this system and/or you have some suggestions for incorporating those ideas for use with this sourcebook, I would love to see them!
Thanks again!
Well, espionage is easy; just put a bonus to the scouting roll based on the information the PCs bring back, or a penalty to the opponent's roll if they capture an enemy spy or otherwise hinder their opponent's scouting.
Ambushes are almost as simple. For small scale ambushes (i.e. the PCs, maybe with a few small allied squads, against a troop or two), whatever losses the two sides take would carry over to the next major battle, unless they could be replaced. The main difficulty would be that on such a small scale, it might be hard to get the troop cards system to work; perhaps treat it as a normal encounter, as in Core Rulebook?
Larger scale ambushes would be even easier; the ambushing party automatically wins the scouting roll (unless detected, of course), gains bonus to initiative, and maybe even receives an additional maneuver, probably in an adaptation of the surprise round. In addition, the ambushing party would be able to place units anywhere on the map, enabling them to easily surround their opponents formations. Also, supply wagons might be on the battlefield, causing minor disruption to the supply lines if they can be captured or destroyed (see next).
Raids on supply lines might be a bit more difficult. The best way I can think of to represent it is to add information on precisely how many supplies are stored in the camp or otherwise accessible to the army at one time, and how long these supplies would last. If the army cannot regain control of the supply lines or find another way of getting supplies (such as capturing enemy supplies) before their stores run out, they begin taking penalties as per your rules on lack of food and desertion.
Other things you might want to add:
- Rules on using monstrous creatures as siege engines. Giants can throw stones as well as any catapult, and perhaps better.
- Larger list of Siege engines. While not all should necessarily have unique rules, there should definitely be a larger list of siege weaponry, if only to list how much each costs. Admittedly, there wouldn't be much more (things like Onagers can be considered Catapults), but there are some things not covered, such as the repeating ballista (Polybolos) and light ballista (aka Scorpion).
- Additional ways of increasing/decreasing morale. While a huge monster might cause your forces to rout, seeing that same monster slain by the PCs will hearten the troops. You even have one idea in the short story at the beginning; seeing the standard flying high above the fray can put courage into a man's heart during the most terrifying of situations.
- Rules on what happens when a unit loses contact with its commander during a battle. This is a particularly useful one because, in addition to adding the problem of communication between units, it also opens up the tactic of disrupting enemy communications, something which can be done by the PCs about as easily as units.
- Put a cap on the Discipline bonus for the number of battles the unit has been in, at least for Morale checks; even veterans of dozens of battles will run in many situations, and a +37 bonus to Discipline (and thus, if I understand the rules, Morale checks) doesn't represent that.
- Rules for gaining experience and leveling, both for Characters and units. Lists of new, battlefield-oriented Feats and Spells would be particularly useful.
- Additional rules for individual characters/monsters, particularly Huge and larger monsters. Maybe I just missed something, but the rules seem a bit vague on how a single dragon or giant would fight against a unit.
Some of these might be harder to add than others, and some might slow the game down, particularly for new players. Perhaps you could introduce a section on optional rules?
Thanks for the suggestions! I think some of this stuff is already intuitively encoded into the current rules:
Raids on supply lines might be a bit more difficult. The best way I can think of to represent it is to add information on precisely how many supplies are stored in the camp or otherwise accessible to the army at one time, and how long these supplies would last. If the army cannot regain control of the supply lines or find another way of getting supplies (such as capturing enemy supplies) before their stores run out, they begin taking penalties as per your rules on lack of food and desertion.
The section on the baggage train goes into how much gold, food, etc. an army on campaign needs. It even goes into how long a baggage train is.
Rules on using monstrous creatures as siege engines. Giants can throw stones as well as any catapult, and perhaps better.
This would be easy enough to implement, since finding the average damage of, say a fire giant throwing rocks, and comparing it with the average damage of the siege weapons already listed. There is a bit in there that talks about how magical creatures might be used, though (like drow riding giant spiders over walls or trained bullettes being used to undermine, etc.).
Additional ways of increasing/decreasing morale. While a huge monster might cause your forces to rout, seeing that same monster slain by the PCs will hearten the troops. You even have one idea in the short story at the beginning; seeing the standard flying high above the fray can put courage into a man's heart during the most terrifying of situations.
This was actually to give an example of how a PC can increase morale, but that's a good idea.
Rules on what happens when a unit loses contact with its commander during a battle. This is a particularly useful one because, in addition to adding the problem of communication between units, it also opens up the tactic of disrupting enemy communications, something which can be done by the PCs about as easily as units.
This is one I strongly considered using, since in many historical battles, we read account after account of leaders not knowing what was happening on one side of the battlefield. However, in the end it started to feel like that level of realims bogged things down too much. The closest idea I liked was simply having a certain range that a commander could command his troops, but in the end I just dropped it.
Additional rules for individual characters/monsters, particularly Huge and larger monsters. Maybe I just missed something, but the rules seem a bit vague on how a single dragon or giant would fight against a unit.
This is covered (see page 13). It's important to note that this system facilitates units of various sizes, so a unit of only 1 soldier can be on the same battlefield as a unit with 100 or 1,000 or whatever.
Some of these might be harder to add than others, and some might slow the game down, particularly for new players. Perhaps you could introduce a section on optional rules?
If I get the opportunity (like a second printing is called for and Gareth lets me do it), I could absolutely see a lot of these being added as optional rules, and others (such as espionage) being made more explicit (since I don't think it alters the rules, just expands on ideas on how to use what's already there).
does the book detail on what happens if the PCs become prisoners??
does the book detail on what happens if the PCs become prisoners??
No, that's pretty much up to GMs. ;) But there are rules for figuring out if a PC in a wiped-out unit is dead, unconscious, or simply wounded.
can I get a detailed impression on the prisoners and consequences sections??
The prisoners section mainly goes into the consequences of taking prisoners for ransom, such as was popular during the Middle Ages. It's a simplified system; it's better for morale allowing your soldiers to take prisoners for ransom, but doing so reduces the amount of men you have in the battle, since the prisoners have to be guarded.
The best example of this is the Battle of Agincourt, when Henry V ordered all of his knights to slaughter the unarmed French nobility they had captured, because he needed all his men out in the field fighting (some historians also argue that he was worried the prisoners, which numbered in maybe the thousands, would riot and he would suddenly find himself surrounded).
The English knights refused the order (because of the ransoms they would lose), so the order was carried out by Henry's archers.
@Hank Woon: More on supply lines. If I start getting irritating, please say so. I never have been able to tell when to shut up. ;)
The section on the baggage train goes into how much gold, food, etc. an army on campaign needs. It even goes into how long a baggage train is.
Raids on supply lines might be a bit more difficult. The best way I can think of to represent it is to add information on precisely how many supplies are stored in the camp or otherwise accessible to the army at one time, and how long these supplies would last. If the army cannot regain control of the supply lines or find another way of getting supplies (such as capturing enemy supplies) before their stores run out, they begin taking penalties as per your rules on lack of food and desertion.
The rules on the baggage trains only mention how many men each carriage can support, with no mention of how long they can support them. Now, I'm by no means an expert on military matters, but unless I've misunderstood everything I've ever read about it, an army of any substantial size is incapable of carrying all the supplies they'll need on an extended campaign with them from the time they set out. To this end, they must maintain supply routes with their homeland, which both limits how far into enemy territory they can invade, as well as giving defending armies plenty of opportunities to ambush supply wagons away from the main camp. This, of course, is what I was talking about.
In addition, the rules on support of units seem slightly cumbersome. While listing precisely the amount of gold required to support each soldier is interesting, it might not work well as a rule system. While 3 units of, say, 150 1st level warriors is pretty easy to calculate, after a battle each unit will take casualties. A unit of 93 warriors, one of 69, and another of 123 is slightly more difficult to figure out. Given as how armies can consist of dozens of units, with thousands of men, it might take quite a while to determine how much you have to pay to support your troops, particularly for beginning player (might work as an optional rule, though).
Thus far, the best system I've been able to work up is a "Supply Point" system. I'm not sure how many months worth of supplies you intended each supply wagon to hold, or if you even thought about it, but that's the number of supply points they can carry. Each supply point is worth about 60gp, and the number of troops it can support can easily be figured out based on the information in the book.
Admittedly, it's not much better for considering casualties than your "individual gold" system, but it simplifies it somewhat, and makes it much easier to represent raids. To illustrate the differences, I've cooked up an example. Bonus points to whoever gets the reference.
[Two players (Richard and John) have just fought a battle. Richard wins decisively, though both sides take losses]
[Original System]
John:How much do I have to pay my men?
DM:Let's see.
[DM pulls up a calculator and punches in numbers.]
DM:You owe them 15,467gp.
John:What!
Richard:It's an army. What do you expect?
John:*Sigh* Well, pay them out of the stocks. I'll also call for...um, however many supply wagons I need to replace that.
DM.oO(How should I know how many that is?)
DM:Of course.
Richard:I ambush his supply wagons.
John:No fair! There's no rules on that!
DM:It's a house rule.
[Ambush ensues. Richard wins decisively.]
DM:You destroy most of the wagons, and manage to capture a few dozen.
Richard:How much money did I get?
DM:Um...Let me think on that for a while.
[John sits there whining about the loss of money until the DM and Richard finally kick him out and find a new Player]
["Supply Point" system]
John:How many supply points do I need to pay in support?
[DM pulls up a calculator and punches in numbers.]
DM:258.
DM.oO(Why couldn't he work it out himself? Idiot)
John:Ok. I'll send for 150 supply wagons.
Richard:I ambush his supply wagons.
[Ambush ensues. Richard wins decisively...Again.]
DM:You destroy most of the wagons, but you manage to capture 23 of them, giving you a total of 46 supply points.
John:You only won because of those trebuchet stones you got in Cyprus.
DM & Richard: There were no trebuchets here!
John:Yeah, well...I had to be cautious in case you might use them.
Richard:It was an AMBUSH! In the FOREST!
[Argument continues until they finally kick John out and find a new player]
OK, admittedly, it's somewhat slanted towards my viewpoint, but difficult to write something that isn't. In addition, I got bored during the writing, so I had to put a joke or two in. Sue me.
At this point, if you still disagree, I'll let the matter rest. Also, I honestly don't know any chatroom etiquette, so if I'm posting too long of comments, please say so. I do tend to write novels.
Actually, the rules for how much a wagon can carry is covered right after the Baggage Train section, in the Supplying an Army section (the rules assume gold is kept separate, most probably better guarded than the rest of the baggage. In Pathfinder, 50gp equals 1 pound).
As far as supply points, that's a fine houserule, but I don't think it works well for an RPG supplement (fine for a standalone wargame, though, but Pathfinder keeps track of everything a PC owns). Reducing it to that level of abstraction for sake of simplicity is perfectly fine, though, and as you mentioned, easy enough to convert if one is so inclined.
However, as mentioned, Warpath does cover that and does have everything one needs to carry out raids against a baggage train. As far as supply lines goes, since a GM or player knows just how many wagons he has in his army, how much each wagon can carry, and how much he needs for his army, he can plan accordingly for resupply (aka, planning his logistics). This allows GMs/players to recreate historical logistical strategies, such as Alexander's long trip back from India, where he had his ships--weighed down with supplies--meet his army at predetermined port cities as he marched along the coast, sacking towns and cities. Or Caesar's campaign in Gaul, where Massilia became an important strategic coastal city for resupply from Italia. I really like this part of the rules, because it adds a deeper level of strategic depth (planning logistics, disrupting supply lines, raids, etc.).
Of course, not every GM will have a long-term campaign for his players, but I included all of this pertinent information for those that do. I also thought it would be cool to come out with campaign supplements that use this product (for example, a campaign where players are members of Caesar's legions during his conquest of Gaul, working their way up from centurions controlling a single unit to his most trusted commanders, etc.).
*Facepalm*
I'm sitting here typing up the last post, and cross referencing stuff on that page and I completely miss it. Apologies. Being stupid can suck sometimes. ;)
As for your idea about the supplements, that actually is pretty cool. I'd already been planning a campaign based on Caesar's conquest, so I'd definitely buy it.
*Facepalm*
I'm sitting here typing up the last post, and cross referencing stuff on that page and I completely miss it. Apologies. Being stupid can suck sometimes. ;)
As for your idea about the supplements, that actually is pretty cool. I'd already been planning a campaign based on Caesar's conquest, so I'd definitely buy it.
Not at all stupid! Your posts have been terrific, so keep 'em coming, if you've got more ideas/suggestions!
If you do start a Caesar campaign, post your campaign notes!
@Hank Woon: I'll definitely post notes on my world's wiki (here), but I'm not certain how useful they'll be to you. It's an alternate history setting, so I won't be able to stick too closely to reality (King Arthur or Henry II might find Roman armies too to close to Britain as a threat, Vikings might attack, etc.). I also won't be running that campaign for quite a while, so you very well might put out a supplement before I start it anyways.
Other than that, I can't think of anything else to add to the rulebook besides what I've already mentioned. Not to say I won't keep thinking about it, but all the easy ones are out there.
@Hank Woon: I'll definitely post notes on my world's wiki (here), but I'm not certain how useful they'll be to you. It's an alternate history setting, so I won't be able to stick too closely to reality (King Arthur or Henry II might find Roman armies too to close to Britain as a threat, Vikings might attack, etc.). I also won't be running that campaign for quite a while, so you very well might put out a supplement before I start it anyways.
Other than that, I can't think of anything else to add to the rulebook besides what I've already mentioned. Not to say I won't keep thinking about it, but all the easy ones are out there.
Sounds good, keep me posted!
I had a quick question about the actual combat part. I probably missed it, but I was wondering about the facing during combat. I understand a unit can only attack its facing, but how much of that side must be adjacent to the enemy in order to attack?
For example, what if a unit only has 1/4 of its facing adjacent to an enemy unit. Would they get to attack for full damage since only a fraction of the surface area is available? What if i have my unit do a 90 degree turn (not a wheel) and attack on that side, since i only have them attacking with maybe half of the area that I would from the front?
And one last thing on this, what if a uint had wheeled 45 degrees and becomes positioned so the front corners are the only thing touching two seperate fronts of enemy units(that may be hard to visualize, let me know and I can elaborate more)?
Oh, and before I forget! What about the rules for blocking ranged attacks and for measuring distance? Is it a line from center to center, or it it like in regular combat where you can use a corner?
Thanks in advance, and thanks for all the great answers in this thread so far!
Hello! During playtesting, we opted to allow a full attack/damage as long as the attacking unit occupied at least one square that was adjacent to an enemy unit (and of course taking into account the facing). We felt that worrying about percentages slowed things down too much. We found that it was balanced, since the unit was exposed and more in danger of being flanked/ganged up on by multiple enemy units. Also, if a unit was adjacent to multiple enemy units, they still could only attack one of them per turn (unless they had multiple attacks, of course).
With your example of the 45 degree turn, I would allow the unit to choose either enemy unit to attack. If they have multiple attacks, I would allow them to split the attacks. However, keep in mind that if both of those units attack back (if able to do so--like if each corner is touching the enemies' facings), then that one unit's clever maneuver suddenly put it under fire by 2 units in one round, which calls for a morale check to see if they rout!
However, with all that being said, if you find that allowing only partial attacks creates interesting and worthwhile tactical situations, then I would create a houserule for it (I would use something simple, like the unit's Power Rating; for example, if only 25% of the unit is touching the targeted unit, only allow 25% of the Power Rating to be applied to the damage, or something similar. Also in this example, I would rule that if only a corner is touching, it's a max Power Rating of 1).
For missile attacks, we also went the simplistic route and allowed for corners/front edge of the unit card to be the measuring point (at any spot along the card's edges). (What's good for the goose is good for the gander.)
Thanks for the answers. With my group it would be MUCH better to go for simplicity over realism (one fo the reasons that they hate playing GURPS instead of D&D).
This isn't rule-related, but any suggestions on how to sell this system as a campaign to people that don't really use tactics normally? When I bring this system up as a campaign, they sem to think of this as more of a chore than something cool to try (these are players that like to do nothing tactical-except for charging everything in melee!). I wonder if there are any good ideas floating around that simplify this system even further to make it more appealing to these types of players.
I would suggest incorporating it into the story, and pressing forth the tactical importance of a certain aspect of a coming battle, and give them the command. For example, hold the left flank, or some such. Warpath can be (and in many aspects is intended for) incorporated into the roleplaying experience. I tend to play things up organically from within the campaign.
For example, if my players were new or didn't have a strong grasp (or appreciation) for tactics/ancient battles, I would put them in a situation where defense was at stake. I might put them in a city that is going to be attacked by a far superior foe, and build the suspense and importance of their victory. Then I might do some prologue adventures (scouting the enemy forces, securing provisions, diplomatic missions to secure allies, etc.), and then a preliminary battle in which they are given command of the left flank. Their commanders tell them what they must do and why it is so important (holding the left, waiting for the signal to attempt to break through the enemy lines, and so on).
During the battle, I would keep the characters "in the moment" by vividly describing the scene and always bringing it down to an individual level, while still using the unit cards. Ideally, they will slowly begin to realize that using the unit cards is the same as using miniatures and the only thing that really changes are some of the tactics and what the cards represent (units instead of individuals, battle maneuvers instead of feats, etc.).
After the battle, I would do another side adventure that is more traditional, and in that way slowly introduce the concept of mass combat and how it fits into a campaign.
First off, I had a quick query about morale/routing. I didn't see offhand any specific rules for route checks for losing troops. For example: What if two groups of 100 warriors are meleeing, but one group eventually loses a LOT more than the other(say the first group loses 80, while the second only loses 10)? Or, what if during combat one unit gets dropped to about 10% or less of its regular unit count? Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see anything about morale checks or route checks for just large losses of troops. It just seems like the unit will fight to the last man if they don't get in a specific situation on that list that would enable a route check. I would wing it and make them have discipline checks, but I was just checking if there was an official rule.
This rule is covered by a unit losing more than half its Unit Strength in one attack. During playtesting, it was more fun to put an emphasis on the tactics. If two units clash, and one wants an advantage, it should opt for maneuvers like Bull Rush (if an option) or to simply pin the unit in place while one of their fellows attempts to flank.
If it's just one unit vs. one unit, then it's going to be a slog, which was the intention. Eventually, as one unit gets worn down, it will be forced to start making morale checks for routing from losing too many men in one attack (though this is supposed to say in one round, so a unit with multiple attacks can trigger a rout more easily).
If you wish to make it easier to rout, I would suggest 50% rather than 10% (otherwise 2 units of 100 1 HD troops would trigger a morale check in just one hit).
But again, the idea is to reward players for clever tactics. In the ancient world, the entire goal/idea of a battle was to break through an enemy's lines. This was done by outflanking, exploiting a gap, or pushing the front line backward (aka, Bull Rush). (The latter was pretty much the only use of a Greek phalanx.)
The second thing was initiative. If I was reading it right, the better scout/tactics check lets that person place second-which is obviousily better since you can react to your opponent's placements. But it seems that if you win initiative, you go FIRST-which seems to be bad, for the same reason as placement(it's at least contradictive).
If you win initiative, you don't have to act (there's readying actions, just waiting, being defensive, etc.).
The last question was about turn order. I understand the order, ranged attacks go first etc. The question is, does the person that goes first do ALL of those steps then the opponent, or do they alternate on each phase of the turn? I hope it is the latter, that would make going first if you wining initiative make a bit more sense.
Alternate. The idea is to simulate attacks happening more or less at the same time (which is why unit strength/power aren't recalculated until both sides have gone through their respective phases, and then it moves on to the next).
Thanks for all your help, I know I'm being annoying!
Not at all! My pleasure. ;)
:thumbs up:
Let me know if you have any more questions, and also how future sessions using the system go!
|
I had a question regarding reach weapons in Warpath. I quite like the system, and I like it more the more I read it, but I was surprised that reach weapons don't get a whole lot of justice in the supplement. The only thing I could find was the "phalanx" formation, which seems to represent a specific style of utilizing reach weapons. From what I understand about ancient and medieval warfare, reach weapons become very useful in a battlefield setting, and I was disappointed to see they seem to give no benefit in Warpath.
I also wanted some clarification about page 21, under Close/Open Formations. It says that "Units equipped with double-handed weapons cannot attack while in closed formation." Does this mean two-handed weapons, or double weapons? It seems like a lot of two-handed weapons, like halberds, spears, ranseurs, etc., are ideal for a close formation.
I had a question regarding reach weapons in Warpath. I quite like the system, and I like it more the more I read it, but I was surprised that reach weapons don't get a whole lot of justice in the supplement. The only thing I could find was the "phalanx" formation, which seems to represent a specific style of utilizing reach weapons. From what I understand about ancient and medieval warfare, reach weapons become very useful in a battlefield setting, and I was disappointed to see they seem to give no benefit in Warpath.
I also wanted some clarification about page 21, under Close/Open Formations. It says that "Units equipped with double-handed weapons cannot attack while in closed formation." Does this mean two-handed weapons, or double weapons? It seems like a lot of two-handed weapons, like halberds, spears, ranseurs, etc., are ideal for a close formation.
You're quite right about the spears and so forth, and that sentence was left out. I amended in another thread: Weapons that can are used as piercing weapons can be used in close formation, while slashing weapons cannot (so barbarians with great swords cannot while spears and so forth can).
As far as reach weapons, phalanx and setting against a charge are the only added benefits they get (as per historical examples). These are perfect for a) steam rolling through enemy units or b) neutralizing enemy cavalry.
If you have any other questions, shoot!
