Mass Combat


Kingmaker

151 to 200 of 295 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games

Zen79 wrote:
John Spalding wrote:

3) Why does losing an army suck? Why not just generate a new army every time you can?

War of the River Kings page 58:

Quote:
Every time an army is defeated, reduce the kingdom’s Stability, Economy, and Loyalty by 2.
As I read this, those are permanent maluses.

They are indeed. While there are some mechanical advantages to creating smaller armies and having them bum rush single larger armies, this is a significant counterweight for that, as the consequences for losing an army are bad news.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

The trick is to send wave after wave of soldiers against the enemies until they reach their maximum kill count.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

Jason Nelson wrote:
Zen79 wrote:
John Spalding wrote:

3) Why does losing an army suck? Why not just generate a new army every time you can?

War of the River Kings page 58:

Quote:
Every time an army is defeated, reduce the kingdom’s Stability, Economy, and Loyalty by 2.
As I read this, those are permanent maluses.
They are indeed. While there are some mechanical advantages to creating smaller armies and having them bum rush single larger armies, this is a significant counterweight for that, as the consequences for losing an army are bad news.

Those penalties are very minor. Because they are so minor the consequences can be perverse.

Consider:

Those penalties are offset by a Mill, Dump, Graveyeard...14BP total.

The cost of upkeep for a regular army is 3. Let's say you purchase the cheapest and most effective upgrade: mounts...now it is 5/week. The monthly expenditure is 20BP. You spend fewer BP if your army is killed and you buy a new one the next kingdom round than if they survive.

In this system, armies are a huge drain and one should immediately disband them as soon as possible. Moreover, some upgrades are so bizarrely expensive that they function like traps.

Option 1: One regular army with magic weapons: 53 BP a week
Option 2: 10 regular armies with mounts...each better than the single army above, 50 BP.

I am fine with some items being better than others. Most economic systems are like that. But I want more choices and I want persistent armies to make sense.

My tentative plan is here:

https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=0AvetQkhNTna5dEdZY1l0UkJvYlVGT0hZT0 llalVmUnc&hl=en&output=html

Note: All of the consumption costs are monthly not weekly.

I did my best to do a couple things:

1) Startup costs are more or less the GP cost of buying one of the appropriate item for each person translated into BP at the 1BP = 4,000 Gp tradeoff.

2) Play with the monthly upkeep values to even things out a bit and also to reflect game stuff (like horses and potions need to be replaced more often than armor).

They aren't perfect by any means, and the actual numbers are subject to change...but I think I will stick with this system.

It makes more sense with the base PF/DnD economy. It makes keeping armies around worth the while. Plus I like the idea of armies getting equipment in the normal D&D manners...make it or loot it off your enemies.


James Jacobs wrote:
princeimrahil wrote:
This may have been answered elsewhere (apologies in advance), but I need clarification on how to apply the strategy bonuses to damage. If a strategy applies a penalty to damage, does that penalty apply to damage received, or damage dealt? That is, if my strategy says "-4 damage," does that mean that I TAKE 4 less damage from each attack, or does it mean that I DEAL 4 less damage from each attack? Or, I suppose, option three: do BOTH things apply?
The damage penalty is inflicted only to the damage you deal. Your tactics can't directly affect damage done by other units; the only way a strategy can affect an enemy's damage is indirectly by raising your own DV modifier. Basically; your army is avoiding attacks in order to protect itself if you use a Defensive or Cautious strategy; you're not making as many attacks, so you aren't doing as much damage.

It's doesn't make that much sense the actual effects you get from strategies er skewed.

Defense gives you -10 OM and +4DV, since -6 damage converts directly to -6 OM, since the first 6 you beat the opponents DV with is canceled by the -6 dmg.
That is a difference of -6

Whiles Reckless gives you +4(+10) OM and -4 DV, all depending on wheter you hit or not.
That is a difference of +0(+6)

That means from reckless to total defense, there is a difference of 6-12 skewed towards aggression.

It get worse if you include tactics in this calculation, since Hold the line -4 OM +4 DV cancels out Reckless and give a net +0 OM +0 DV +6 damage.
While Relentless brutality +4 OM and - 4 DV cancels Defense, and gives +0 OM +0 DV -6 damage.
A total difference of 12 damage.

My suggestion to fix this, is either let the damage occur to both sides, that is -6 to both, or +6 to both. Or simply drop the damage totally, it doesn't sit well within the otherwise simple system.

Another thing, Tactics and strategy should be reversed. Strategy is the overall strategy for a battle, while tactics what happens from moment to moment.


I run with these building rules for my players

Buliding new Rules

Academy Will give a +20 bonus on any knowledge check (one knowledge only and must be chosen at time of build)
Alchemist Will give you access to all alchemical equipment in the core rule book
Arena
Barracks will provide you with enough town guards to patrol a city district
Black market Will give you access to items off the black market list form the equipment book
Brewery
Brothel
Casters tower Allows mages to be hired
Castle
Cathedral Will provide you access to a 17th level cleric to buy healing off of
City walls
Dump Will help to reduce disease hitting your city
Exotic Craftsmen Makes all exotic weapons available to buy
Garrison Will allow you to train soldiers to for army’s one barracks can train only 100 people

Granary
Graveyard Will also help reduce diseases hitting your city
Guildhall
Herbalist Will provide basic health care reduce disease hitting your city
House
Inn
Jail a place to store criminals without it there is nowhere for them to be stored except if the keep has a dungeon
Library will allow a person to get a +10 knowledge check (for one knowledge only which must be decide upon when built)
Luxury store
Magic shop
Mansion
Market A market will give you access to all base equipment in the core rule book.
Mill
Monument
Noble villa
Park
Piers
Shop
Shrine
Smith A Smith will give you access to all base weapons in the core rule book
Stables Allows mounts to become available to buy
Tannery
Tavern
Temple Will provide a 5th level cleric to buy healing from
Tenement
Theatre
Townhall A place for the citizens to rally during a crisis
Tradesman
Watch tower Help Reduce crime in your district
Water front


For Magnuskn--

Spoiler:

My PCs had essentially discovered that they could lead all of their armies into conflict with other armies at the same time.

They made an army, and since they had made friends with the Centaur and kobolds, got two more. They just had every army attack each enemy army one at a time. Since the bad guys couldn't intervene-- no rounds outside of combat in the rules-- they just kind of crushed over my dudes. It didn't help either that we had gotten kind of bored of kingdom building after I, earlier in the game as a player, min-maxed the hell out of it. (We couldn't fail, after just a few key choices of saving, waiting, building small and not trying to start large. Our bonuses to roll were always either -1 or +0 to the DC-- ie, a 71 stability vs a DC72 control check) The PCs didn't care if the bad guys ran rampant-- they just jumped them with all of their armies at once, and the baddies would die in less than a round. Some armies-- like the flight of wyverns-- didn't even see a round.

PCs crest a hill. Wyverns follow. Kobolds launch themselves out of catapults at them; centaurs ran arrows; humans fire trebuchets. Wyverns all die. No casualties.

Kind of sucked. In hindsight it was a cool system-- but they essentially "won" it as soon as the PCs got the army off of their capitol's back.

I just had them explore the Glenebon Uplands or w/e around Pitax instead, searching for Whiterose Abbey. The army took care of their stuff in the background, and at the end, the PCs got to lead the ambush on Irovetti, so it all worked out well.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Apologies if this has been dealt with either in the mass combat rules or this thread, but I haven't seen anything about it so far.

Is the size of the army (and/or number of armies) that you can raise at all limited by the size of your kingdom? Several of the sample armies have prerequisites regarding the number of hexes you control, but I can't seem to find that in the rules.

To give a practical example, my PCs currently control thirteen hexes, two of which have cities in them. Does this in any way affect the number of armies they can raise, the size of those armies, or the quality of the soldiers (that is, the class and level of them), according to the rules?

Alternately, do I base the army size (and class, levels, etc.) on the actual calculated population of the kingdom? Approximating how much of their city districts are filled, I'd say the entire kingdom has about 8,000 people in it.

Thanks in advance for the help!


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ice Titan wrote:

For Magnuskn--

** spoiler omitted **

Hm, hm. Well, I'll have to see if my players will game the system as well as yours. Most of the are experienced wargamers, so that may work in my disfavor, seeing how I am only experienced at BattleTech, not larger scale things. But thanks, that will help me to try to develop some counter-tactic. First off the players would need to ally with the other factions you mentioned.


Alzrius- yes, the size has a huge difference in the armies you control.

With 13 hexes, your players can control a small militia. If they have made friends with the kobolds, centaurs and boggards, they may be able to recruit a few more decent armies (the militia is pure cannon fodder, especially at that size).

To recruit even a minimal army, they need to be size 25, size 100 is better. Those rules are in adventure 5.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Major__Tom wrote:

Alzrius- yes, the size has a huge difference in the armies you control.

With 13 hexes, your players can control a small militia. If they have made friends with the kobolds, centaurs and boggards, they may be able to recruit a few more decent armies (the militia is pure cannon fodder, especially at that size).

To recruit even a minimal army, they need to be size 25, size 100 is better. Those rules are in adventure 5.

Hm, is there a specific page number I should be looking on? The only thing I can find about sizes as prerequisites is in the sample armies in appendix 2, where it lists 25 hexes as the prereq for a "regular militia."

I'm basically just trying to avoid the debate that will come up when my players start to insist that they can recruit something like five thousand 3rd-level Fighters from among their population of eight thousand people, while I'm trying to tell them that they can't even scrape together five hundred 3rd-level warriors.

Hard-and-fast rules would help with that; I'm just not sure there are any at this point.


Alzrius wrote:
Major__Tom wrote:

Alzrius- yes, the size has a huge difference in the armies you control.

With 13 hexes, your players can control a small militia. If they have made friends with the kobolds, centaurs and boggards, they may be able to recruit a few more decent armies (the militia is pure cannon fodder, especially at that size).

To recruit even a minimal army, they need to be size 25, size 100 is better. Those rules are in adventure 5.

Hm, is there a specific page number I should be looking on? The only thing I can find about sizes as prerequisites is in the sample armies in appendix 2, where it lists 25 hexes as the prereq for a "regular militia."

I'm basically just trying to avoid the debate that will come up when my players start to insist that they can recruit something like five thousand 3rd-level Fighters from among their population of eight thousand people, while I'm trying to tell them that they can't even scrape together five hundred 3rd-level warriors.

Hard-and-fast rules would help with that; I'm just not sure there are any at this point.

Aside from the prerequisites that made it into the sample armies, it doesn't appear that any guidelines as to prerequisites was given. If you think your players are going to give you a hard time about it, and won't accept "that's what the sample armies say", simply write your own rules as to army prerequisites.

You're the GM, you have the power.


Ice Titan wrote:

For Magnuskn--

** spoiler omitted **

Do you have any suggestions to mitigate that?

Scarab Sages Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games

Cesare wrote:
Ice Titan wrote:

For Magnuskn--

** spoiler omitted **

Do you have any suggestions to mitigate that?

Sure. Don't play dumb with the bad guys; what's good for the goose is good for the gander. The PCs can probably succeed with that tactic once, but in the future the enemy will try to use it against them and won't fall for it themselves. It's not as though the NPC armies are required to chase any bait offered to them.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jason Nelson wrote:
Sure. Don't play dumb with the bad guys; what's good for the goose is good for the gander. The PCs can probably succeed with that tactic once, but in the future the enemy will try to use it against them and won't fall for it themselves. It's not as though the NPC armies are required to chase any bait offered to them.

That sounds eminently reasonable. So eminently reasonable that I have to question why Ice Titan didn't do just that, since he is a smart guy and someone who always posts intelligent contributions to the forum. Maybe he could say why that didn't work for him?


Pardon my asking if this has already been covered, but what about hiring mercenaries? How would they be covered under BPs and Consumption? I'm assuming they might cost more at first, but when the fighting is over you stop paying them as they've moved on to the next job.


Eric Hinkle wrote:
Pardon my asking if this has already been covered, but what about hiring mercenaries? How would they be covered under BPs and Consumption? I'm assuming they might cost more at first, but when the fighting is over you stop paying them as they've moved on to the next job.

I'd handle it the exact same way, but when the mercs move on to another contract, the army is dissolved. (Or vice versa.)

In fact, it should be assumed that most armies raised are mercenaries, since it's hard to create 3rd level fighters (or whatever) out of wholecloth, and standing armies are incredibly expensive to maintain.


magnuskn wrote:
Jason Nelson wrote:
Sure. Don't play dumb with the bad guys; what's good for the goose is good for the gander. The PCs can probably succeed with that tactic once, but in the future the enemy will try to use it against them and won't fall for it themselves. It's not as though the NPC armies are required to chase any bait offered to them.
That sounds eminently reasonable. So eminently reasonable that I have to question why Ice Titan didn't do just that, since he is a smart guy and someone who always posts intelligent contributions to the forum. Maybe he could say why that didn't work for him?

I actually tried to have the armies all join together and attack, but since generally they were all split up to neutralize different areas they came together far too slow and were just destroyed.

I can definitely see the entire situation working much better if I hadn't chose to split up the armies. Then again, there's a regiment of trolls, wyverns and then soldiers.... The advanced troll and wyvern leading their armies had Int scores of 10 and 11 respectively. Then he has a legion of hill giants... Villamor Koth... The highest Int out of all of them is 14, and the highest Wisdom is 16 for the wyverns. The Pitax Horde hates the Tusker Raiders and the Tusker Raiders are giant evil idiots. Their king has an 8 wisdom. The leader of their horde has an 8 int. I think having them make a lot of bad tactical decisions was pretty much written into their characters for me.


So, having played through a couple sample mass combats, I'm a little dismayed with how much of a swing there can be when the armies are less than CR 5-ish. When armies have so few hp, one good roll can completely wipe them out, even when fairly matched. Has anyone tried using home rules to even things out a bit? I was considering replacing the d20 roll with 2d10 or 3d6 to help get rolls closer to the average more frequently. My biggest concern is that the underdog in any contest will have more difficulty overcoming a superior foe. The other consequence might be that battles between high CR armies could take a really long time as they plink away at each other. Any thoughts?


Tem wrote:
So, having played through a couple sample mass combats, I'm a little dismayed with how much of a swing there can be when the armies are less than CR 5-ish. When armies have so few hp, one good roll can completely wipe them out, even when fairly matched. Has anyone tried using home rules to even things out a bit? I was considering replacing the d20 roll with 2d10 or 3d6 to help get rolls closer to the average more frequently. My biggest concern is that the underdog in any contest will have more difficulty overcoming a superior foe. The other consequence might be that battles between high CR armies could take a really long time as they plink away at each other. Any thoughts?

Maybe damage would be according to size like with weapon damage.


I did not see any thing about how long it takes to muster an army how many soldiers you could muster in a month? Should it be dependent on your kingdom size and the level of the soldiers and the buildings your cities have?

Would numbers of soldiers be something like this?

Kingdom size 10 and under
100 warrior 3
50 fighter 3
200 warrior 2
100 fighter 2
500 warrior 1
200 fighter 1

Kingdom size 11-25
100 warrior 4
50 fighter 4
200 warrior 3
100 fighter 3
500 warrior 2
200 fighter 2
1,000 warrior 1
500 fighter 1

Kingdom size 26-100
100 warrior 5
50 fighter 5
200 warrior 4
100 fighter 4
500 warrior 3
200 fighter 3
1,000 warrior 2
500 fighter 2
2,000 warrior 1
1,000 fighter 1

Kingdom size 101-150
100 warrior 6
50 fighter 6
200 warrior 5
100 fighter 5
500 warrior 4
200 fighter 4
1,000 warrior 3
500 fighter 3
2,000 warrior 2
1,000 fighter 2

Need stables for calvary and academies for PC classes?


Tem wrote:
So, having played through a couple sample mass combats, I'm a little dismayed with how much of a swing there can be when the armies are less than CR 5-ish. When armies have so few hp, one good roll can completely wipe them out, even when fairly matched. Has anyone tried using home rules to even things out a bit? I was considering replacing the d20 roll with 2d10 or 3d6 to help get rolls closer to the average more frequently. My biggest concern is that the underdog in any contest will have more difficulty overcoming a superior foe. The other consequence might be that battles between high CR armies could take a really long time as they plink away at each other. Any thoughts?

I must admit that I haven't really looked at the Mass Combat rules yet, I

am however, a wargamer from way back - so how about adding in some elements
from that kind of system...?

Perhaps bonuses for an army in a defensible position, at the top of a hill,
on the other side of a river etc.
And conversely, negative modifiers for an army attacking (or defending) at
a disadvantage - bowmen in the rain, cavalry operating in woodland, rather
than the open plains where they're more effective.

These kind of rules could make say, an ambush by a small army vs. a large
army, a bit closer. History is replete with such battles, and lets face it,
generals are always jockeying for terrain & weather that suits them &
not the enemy...

Hope this gives you some ideas.

Scarab Sages

I have to say that I really like the rules as written. By and large I think that their reach does not exceed their grasp. And this is a good thing.

Could there be a grittier system? Sure. Would it be something I want to do in the middle of Pathfinder? Unlikely.

I do have some concerns about the strategy track's damage bonuses... I think applying it to both armies is appropriate, though it means possibly having to subtract numbers.

Also it does seem a bit odd that the unit upgrades continuously increase their consumption. I believe one of the writers suggested that the increase be one third (approximately) of the upgrade cost. This seems reasonable to me.

All in all, kudos to Paizo for a solid system.


I'm curious if anyone out there has developed any sort of mass combat tracker. I've found that because of the strategy track, DV, OM, damage bonuses and hp are changing every round for every army. This isn't so bad for one on one battles but when there's two or three armies on each side, it can be a nightmare trying to track everything - especially since strategies are declared first then all attacks happen simultaneously.

I've put together a rough excel sheet to help but I'm not too pleased with it and my skills with such things aren't exactly up to snuff.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber

I'm still in RRR but my players are already talking about building up a militia. Good for them, but I want to get my mass combat rules worked out now so they can begin building appropriately. I'm planning on using Jason Nelson's mods for the most part but I have a couple of questions for my fellow GMs and ardent tinkerers...

1) When forming an new army, either in the RAW or Jason's rules, what level/CR do the troops start at? I think I've seen a couple of folks propose "training" rules, but in the regular RAW, you can start with whatever level of army you want, right, as long as you can pay for it? That, plus Jason's Loyalty check, that should (hopefully) keep them from starting with an huge army of 8th-level fighters, right?

EDIT: Okay, I see there are some Prerequisites for the sample armies, too, but those seem arbitrary. Is there any system or formula linking kingdom size to which armies it can raise?

2) On the Strategy Track, the extra Damage Modifier seems excessive. Damage is already being added via the OM bonus (or subtracted via the OM penalty). Has anyone reduced the Damage Modifier, or eliminated it completely?

3) Comparing "Tactics" to "Strategy," there seems to a number of redundancies. The "Cautious Combat" tactic is the same as the Cautious strategy. So an army with the Cautious Combat tactic can also use the Cautious strategy and get +2 DV & another +2 DV for +4? Hold the Line = Defensive for +8 DV? Relentless Brutality = Reckless for +8 OM? (No real parallel for Aggressive strategy). Also, some have pointed out that you can use one tactic and it's opposite strategy and cancel the negatives while maintaining the positives in damage.

So here's my thought (feel free to tell me why it's a bad idea...) - Adjust the regular Strategy Track WAY down:
Defen +2DV -2OM -2Dam
Caut +1 -1 -1
Stand - - -
Aggr -1 +1 +1
Reckl -2 +2 +2

Then, once an army learns the matching Tactic, it can "unlock" the Strategy Track values listed in the original table in the book. So only an army with the "Brutality" tactic could get the full benefit of the Reckless strategy.

Reactions? Thanks.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber

I came up with a new army Resource - Sappers. Please critique (I've included my version of Siege Engines for reference).

• Sappers (4 BP, +1 Consumption, kingdom must posses at least 1 Mine hex improvement): This army includes soldiers equipped with picks, shovels and other tools for destroying fortifications. Each round of the melee phase, instead of attacking another army, sappers may reduce the enemy’s bonus to DV from fortifications by 1d2 points (for a Medium army; 1 point for a Small army, 1d3 for a Large army, 1d4 for a Huge army, 1d6 for a Gargantuan army, and 1d8 for a Colossal army; Tiny, Diminutive and Fine armies cannot effectively sap fortifications). However, while damaging fortifications, sappers are quite vulnerable; -2 DV.

• Siege Engines (20 BP, +10 Consumption, requires Exotic Craftsman): Your army includes catapults, trebuchets, ballistae, rams, and other siege engines designed to break down fortifications at range. Increase OM by +2. Additionally, each round of the melee phase, reduce the enemy’s bonus to DV from fortifications by 1d4 points (for a Medium army; 1d2 for a Small army, 1d6 for a Large army, 1d8 for a Huge army, 1d10 for a Gargantuan army, and 1d12 for a Colossal army; Tiny, Diminutive and Fine armies may not operate siege engines); army's speed is halved (minimum 1).

I'm also working on Marines, but can't seem to get it quite right. Kinda' like someone's suggestion about Ships in another post.

• Marines (10 BP, +5 Consumption, requires Piers or Waterfront): This army is capable of using boats and ships to move across rivers and lakes. The army receives +4 DV and -4 OM if on the water and battling an army on land, although having ranged weapons negates the penalty to the Marines’ OM. Marines cannot be flanked while on water...

Maybe something about quicker movement via water? Also, I'm a little hesitant about the "while on water" stuff because, otherwise, mass combat doesn't do anything with terrain. Maybe better, "while in a hex with water (river, lake, sea)"?

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber

Bump. Couple of questions and a something to review, if anyone has time. Thanks.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber

Another question (please, other people, come back to this thread!) -

A medium army of 3rd-level human warriors has a CR of 3. The adjustment for a Medium army is ±0, so that means a human warrior 3 had a CR of 1?

I don't have a lot of experience assigning CRs. I always just assume that each PC level adds +1, but what about NPC levels? Is it like (NPC level - 1)? That seems low.

Thanks.


Mosaic wrote:

Another question (please, other people, come back to this thread!) -

A medium army of 3rd-level human warriors has a CR of 3. The adjustment for a Medium army is ±0, so that means a human warrior 3 had a CR of 1?

I don't have a lot of experience assigning CRs. I always just assume that each PC level adds +1, but what about NPC levels? Is it like (NPC level - 1)? That seems low.

Thanks.

Yes, a human warrior 1 has CR 1/3, warrior 2 has CR 1/2 and warrior 3 is CR 1. After that point, you add 1 to the CR for each level added.

I have been meaning to respond to some of your other questions but I tend to ramble and it keeps slipping my mind when I have the time to respond. If you search for some of my other posts in this thread (and possibly others) I believe I make my opinions known regarding some of your questions.


Mosaic wrote:

1) When forming an new army, either in the RAW or Jason's rules, what level/CR do the troops start at?

There aren't any official rules for this, but I've just been handwaving it based on the highest CR army I want them to have. I've used rules posted elsewhere on these forums to formalize the maximum size of an army based on the kingdom size and type of units you want to use.

Mosaic wrote:


2) On the Strategy Track, the extra Damage Modifier seems excessive. Damage is already being added via the OM bonus (or subtracted via the OM penalty). Has anyone reduced the Damage Modifier, or eliminated it completely?

I've left the OM and DV modifications the same but reduced the damage modifier to +2/+1/0/-1/-2 from reckless to defensive. A short discussion regarding this is a ways upthread without any real resolution but this seems to be working well for me. It's probably a little easier to eliminate it completely, but then you get overlap with some of the tactics which you can later learn (though they stack, so are not completely useless).

Mosaic wrote:


3) Stuff about the strategy track and unlocking them based on tactics

In practice, it's nice to have the bigger swings with OM and DV but then lower swings with the damage (since it can really pile up as initially written). I think my answer to 2) answers this as well. As far as I know, the bonuses and penalties from tactics and strategy stack but I would not remove their ability to select strategies based on tactics they've learned. Quite honestly, there just aren't that many combats for a single army to learn most of them and it's one of the few areas that players can make choices during mass combat rather than just rolling dice.

My suggestion - try running a few mock battles that include both one on one as well as one on two or three. If a particular strategy or tactic completely outshines the rest in both cases, it's probably too good. Likewise, if something never seems like a good idea, it's probably too weak. I'm pretty happy with the modifications I've made and I'm discovering that initiative (in the form I'm using it for both daily actions on the hex grid as well as the mass combat declaration of strategies) is a key factor in deciding the victor among equal strength armies. It makes things a little more chess-like on the bigger scale which suits my taste quite well. Hopefully my players will appreciate it as well.


I'm working on a KM/SS mashup, and it may be just a fluff issue, but I'm not so comfortable with generic nonelite basic armies being built with above 1st level NPCs. It conflicts with the flavor of PCs being special to have hundreds of 5 level fighters running arround, or even 3rd level warriors where the basline in the bestiary is 1st level for humanoid combatants.

I see why they did it, to get around the fractional CR, but I have another way to do it I want to throw out there that I think feels better, and has some other advantages - Two new resources: Basic Training, and Basic Equipment

Basic Training (BP cost special*): The army has proper training to operate as a unit, allowing them to be more effective as a formation than as individuals. Do not apply the -1 penalty for NPC class when calculating the CR of the base creature for the purpose of determining an Army's CR

Basic Equipment (BP cost special*): The army has a proper kit of equipment, arms and armor to operate as a cohesive military formation of it's type. Do not apply the -1 penalty for NPC equipment when calculating the CR of the base creature for the purposes of determining the Army's CR

*The cost of these resourses is reflected in the higher CR of the army, however when first formed the army must spend one week at a barracks or simmilar structure for each resource before gaining the benefit.

Yes, that's a hell of a lot more words that just making the base creature a 3rd level warrior, but doing it this way you don't need to have hundreds of strangely higher level NPCs running around, you also already have training time built in for all the kinds of armies it'd make sense would need it, and it lets you also have "rabble" armies - the untrained, ill equipped masses - by just keeping the -2 to CR (which I believe is how the sootscale kobolds were built).


My group(s) haven't yet reached the mass combat parts of KM yet, but at least one of them will in the coming months.

My players being very clever are likely to try to sneak/teleport into enemy armies and take out their commanders to disrupt any organization they have.

I don't want to prevent them from doing things like that, but any ideas on how to make it more interesting? I have Jason Nelson's director's cut so that will certainly help, but I'm looking for other ways to make it fun and challenging.

It might lead to the mass combat part of mass combat never happening on a large scale, but I suppose that's expected when you have a highly proficient wizard(using the Oculus of Abaddon), cleric, sorcerer and a barbarian group.


Leonal wrote:
I don't want to prevent them from doing things like that, but any ideas on how to make it more interesting? I have Jason Nelson's director's cut so that will certainly help, but I'm looking for other ways to make it fun and challenging.

I'd likely let them get away with it the first time. After that, the armies will be on alert. (They may already, knowing the foe they face.)

Ways of stopping it? Protection from scrying. Setting up traps/ambushes. Hiding who the leader is.

Are they still up to their tricks? Well, gosh. While they're going after the largest main army, sneak some smaller ones around the side. Or their own fighting force will teleport. Depending on the foe, targeted assassinations against key members of their kingdom (they ain't all Big Dang Heroes!) while their leaders are army-breaking is not unreasonable.

If their prepared, a Delayed Blast Fireball or two would not go amiss.

All in all, it's a decent strategy for them to use, but it should not be an automatic war-winner.


ChrisO wrote:
Leonal wrote:
I don't want to prevent them from doing things like that, but any ideas on how to make it more interesting? I have Jason Nelson's director's cut so that will certainly help, but I'm looking for other ways to make it fun and challenging.

I'd likely let them get away with it the first time. After that, the armies will be on alert. (They may already, knowing the foe they face.)

Ways of stopping it? Protection from scrying. Setting up traps/ambushes. Hiding who the leader is.

Are they still up to their tricks? Well, gosh. While they're going after the largest main army, sneak some smaller ones around the side. Or their own fighting force will teleport. Depending on the foe, targeted assassinations against key members of their kingdom (they ain't all Big Dang Heroes!) while their leaders are army-breaking is not unreasonable.

If their prepared, a Delayed Blast Fireball or two would not go amiss.

All in all, it's a decent strategy for them to use, but it should not be an automatic war-winner.

Thanks ChrisO! Yeah those are some good ideas, and will certainly help. Thanks again. :)


I agree with ChrisO that scry and fry tactics may work well the first time, or as an occasional tactic, but going to it repeatedly just won't work. Think of it like a baseball pitcher with a good change-up. Throwing it occasionally is devastating. Try to throw it too much and pretty soon hitters are going to catch on and a lot of those balls will be visiting the outfield bleachers.

Note that the base Kingmaker encounters are not written to take into account these kinds of tactics, so you will have to modify heavily to take them into account. Frankly, that is the nature of the beast with all purchased modules - just because someone wrote the scenario up doesn't mean it will survive first contact with your PCs. You still have to do a lot of work to keep it challenging for your PCs.

There are a lot of tactics that can be used to counter scry and fry, and ChrisO listed some good ones. To expand on his thoughts a little bit, I would say the risk of a trap/ambush is the biggest deterrent. After all the entire leadership of a kingdom is venturing deep behind enemy lines on a commando raid - what a tempting target! If an intelligent enemy with the resources to hire mercenaries and spellcasters suspects his enemies will use that tactic, he can prepare all kinds of nasty surprises. Just to give one example - hire a spellcaster to cast an anti-magic field immediately after their arrival to pin them in place and hire a bunch of strong, non-magical thugs (hill giants anyone?) to pound the snot out of the magicless PCs. Another example would be to hire an adventuring group very similar to the PCs and have them disguised as ordinary bodyguards/servants/advisers that are with him all the time. A third example would be to make heavy use of illusion magic to confuse where the target truly is and perhaps trick the PCs into teleporting someplace dangerous or inconvenient. Or any number of other ideas.

A couple of other things to consider. Using scry and fry against enemy leaders, particularly political leaders, will scare the bejeesus out of neigboring nations, and might force them to either diplomatically pressure the PCs or, if sufficiently scared, strike preemptively against them on the theory that they could be next. Also, if successful it will certainly lead to retaliation. they aren't the only spellcasters in the wold, and there are prtty good ones out there for hire to folks with resources. A game of tit for tat assassinations will get ugly real fast.

Bottom line - no tactic, including scry and fry, should be an autowin tactic against intelligent enemies. Enemies should adapt and force the PCs to constantly adapt their tactics as well, if they want to keep winning, or even breathing.


Thanks for the well written post! While I don't watch baseball I get your point.^^

Also I think use of the Rival Guide is good in cases like this for hired mercenaries to use against the PCs.

I believe they are intending to expand further into the River Kingdoms when time comes (lvl 11 now), but otherwise leave Brevoy and Numeria alone. Also they are knighted and have allies in Mendev (as an added result of the Demon Within), but depending on their tactics aid from the Order might not be in a manner they seek (i.e. they'll likely aid if the PCs are attacked, but not if the group is the attacker).

Thanks for the ideas!


John Spalding wrote:


Option 1: One regular army with magic weapons: 53 BP a week
Option 2: 10 regular armies with mounts...each better than the single army above, 50 BP.

1. Historically, cavalry were pretty awesome and won the land that the infantry then held.

2. Look at the combat utility of a +1 sword vs. a mount. As a 3rd level warrior, would you rather have +1 to hit and damage or get a buddy with 19 HP, three attacks, fast movement and +1 to attack for sitting on said buddy and attacking from higher ground?
3. This is why, in old editions, one of the first purchases was a horse or a guard dog.

Magic weapons should never be the priority for mass combat and the system reflects that.

Grand Lodge

John Spalding wrote:
Jason Nelson wrote:
Zen79 wrote:
John Spalding wrote:

3) Why does losing an army suck? Why not just generate a new army every time you can?

War of the River Kings page 58:

Quote:
Every time an army is defeated, reduce the kingdom’s Stability, Economy, and Loyalty by 2.
As I read this, those are permanent maluses.
They are indeed. While there are some mechanical advantages to creating smaller armies and having them bum rush single larger armies, this is a significant counterweight for that, as the consequences for losing an army are bad news.

Those penalties are very minor. Because they are so minor the consequences can be perverse.

Consider:

Those penalties are offset by a Mill, Dump, Graveyeard...14BP total.

The cost of upkeep for a regular army is 3. Let's say you purchase the cheapest and most effective upgrade: mounts...now it is 5/week. The monthly expenditure is 20BP. You spend fewer BP if your army is killed and you buy a new one the next kingdom round than if they survive.

In this system, armies are a huge drain and one should immediately disband them as soon as possible. Moreover, some upgrades are so bizarrely expensive that they function like traps.

Option 1: One regular army with magic weapons: 53 BP a week
Option 2: 10 regular armies with mounts...each better than the single army above, 50 BP.

I am fine with some items being better than others. Most economic systems are like that. But I want more choices and I want persistent armies to make sense.

My tentative plan is here:

https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=0AvetQkhNTna5dEdZY1l0UkJvYlVGT0hZT0 llalVmUnc&hl=en&output=html

Note: All of the consumption costs are monthly not weekly.

I did my best to do a couple things:

1) Startup costs are more or less the GP cost of buying one of the appropriate item for each person translated into BP at the 1BP = 4,000 Gp tradeoff.

2) Play with the monthly upkeep values to even things out a bit and also...

I like your numbers better. The upkeep for armies were kinda out there. It doesn't make sense to keep disbanding your army. A kingdom must always have an Armed Forces.


One suggestion is as the GM to keep a firm hand on what they can recruit as armies.

I cannot find the reference, but there was a complaint thread that 2,000 great wyrm dragons (not counting the 20th level wizards 'riding' them) couldn't defeat a supremely heavily fortified city.

Putting aside the obvious problems with this - where are you going to even find 2,000 great wyrms throughout the entire solar system of Golarion, let alone the 2,000 20th level wizards to ride them - there are a few things that spring readily to mind:

1.) The dragons' breath weapons at that age deal so much damage over so large an area that they would act as, say, a thousand siege engines each melee phase. If that city doesn't have a DM greater than, oh, +2500, those fortifications literally dissolve in one round.

2.) Any army unit with access to spell casters of sufficient casting level and spell level access - say, 6th level spells with 11th or 12th level casters as the requirements - will see each such caster provide "siege engine equivalance", with each melee phase those casters are "attached" to a given army during the melee phases obliterating 1d4 DV from fortifications.

Thus, the 2,000 great wyrm red dragons with 2,000 20th level wizards riding them would obliterate 4,000d4 of DM from fortifications each melee phase for an average of 10,000 DM destroyed each melee phase.


PJ wrote:
It doesn't make sense to keep disbanding your army. A kingdom must always have an Armed Forces.

Not to get too RL historical on you, but actually this isn't true. Historically, in between wars most nations have disbanded the vast majority of their militaries, precisely because it is so incredibly expensive to maintain them. There is nothing so wasteful as a large peacetime army. That is why most countries, throughout history, have disbanded most of their military very quickly after the war was over, maintaining only a small cadre force or large militia from which to mobilize more quickly if war does come.

In the U.S. itself, we followed this pattern until the aftermath of the Korean War, when the Cold War really set in and it was decided that a large, permanent professional military, something the U.S. had never had before, was necessary to deter attack and defend U.S, interests overseas. With the end of the Cold War, there was considerable speculation that we would again decrease the size of our military, but 9/11 and the wars that followed it, the failure of democracy in Russia, the emergence of a non-democratic China as a semi-realistic threat, and (last but not least) very effective defense industry lobbying efforts, prevented us from doing what all our NATO allies and our Cold War opponents did, drastically reduce defense spending to a more historically consistent level.

So, you can make an argument that every kingdom needs at least a small permanent military force, but the historical support is simply not there to say every nation needs a large standing military. Generally, the only nations in history that had such were those engaged in conquest, and those facing imminent threat.


The benefit in game terms to maintaining a professional standing army is the retention of the Morale and Tactics of that force. Since it takes battle experience to earn both, were I a player I would be loathe to disband such hard-won benefits just to save some BP!

Sczarni

Brian Bachman wrote:
Generally, the only nations in history that had such were those engaged in conquest, and those facing imminent threat.

Funny enough, my expansionist PCs fall exactly into the former, while soon to also be in the latter group there.

Plus, it's a handy way to drain them of BP.


Here's my "stuffs" so far for army raising/consumption/training:

Raising a conventional army requires buildings based on the army's size: a watchtower for Medium or smaller (permitting small armies to be raised at any of the kingdom's Forts); a Barracks for a Large army; a Garrison for a Huge army - 2 Garrisons in the same district for a Gargantuan army; 4 Garrisons in the same district for a Colossal army. The army's CR x2 is added to the kingdom's control DC to determine the required Loyalty check DC. Success means a BP cost of twice CR to raise the raw body of men and its basic equipage. Failure means a BP cost equal to the CR and a +4 bonus on this check the following month.
Armies can be quartered in proper buildings (as noted for what is required to raise them to begin with), reducing their consumption cost from weekly to monthly.

Housing a Gargantuan or Colossal army is no different than raising one - although if their only billeting is the same barracks/garrisons that raised and trained them, you won't be able to get any more until you correct this little problem. If a kingdom desires several such regiments of troops, it is recommended that each such regiment be ensconced within its own 'mini city' (a presumably fortified single-district city) analagous to modern military bases. Since a city, even a single district city, precludes farmlands and vinyards, it is recommended that the base/fort be of sufficient economic capacity so as to at least be able to pay for its own foodstuffs (Economy bonus of +5 or higher, not hard to achieve really).

When determining an army's speed, retain any fractions of 0.25, 0.5 or 0.75 - the 40' speed horde of lightly loaded barbarians should be faster than an army of infantry, but not quite as fast as 50' speed cavalry. One can also opt to retain fractions of 0.33 and 0.67 if you are so inclined.

Each attempt to raise an army counts as one of the kingdom's buildings for that turn. Each army requires its own "pool" of building(s) be tasked to raising that army.

Each army requires that a specific leader be assigned to that army as its commander until that army is defeated or disbanded. This is where the 5th, 6th and even 7th level followers from Leadership come into play, as they form the kingdom's "officer corps".

Ransoming Commanders: Most armies seek to capture and subsequently ransom enemy officers. Ransom is not sought until after a conflict concludes, whether decisively or by armistice. If all involved parties in a conflict have captured each other's officers, those of comparable rank (level) are evenly exchanged. If victory is attained after capturing an enemy capitol, this most likely results in having liberated one's own officers. Ransom is (officer's level -4) BP per officer.

Most often officers are captured rather than slain when an army is defeated - for NPCs of 7th level or less that fought against sentient armies, there is a 75% chance that officer commanding the defeated army is captured. If not, that officer was killed during combat. NPCs of 8th level or higher should be specifically determined by the GM as to their fate - escaped the conflict, captured or killed in action.

The exception is when an army is defeated by mindless foes - such are more likely to have eaten/killed/smooshed than captured an officer - 01-25% to have escaped, 26-85% eaten/killed, 86-00% captured.

Mercenaries come with an NPC leader as determined by the GM. 'Default' is a leader with 5 ranks of Profession (soldier), a +10 bonus in that skill and a +2 Cha bonus. Mercenaries may or may not be combat experienced - with higher than the standard starting Morale of +0 and one or more learned Tactics - at the GM's discretion. Such established mercenaries should come with a consumption cost corresponding to that greater capability.

The BP costs for army resources is all fine and dandy for a Medium or smaller army, but wholly inadequate in reflecting the equipage costs for larger armies. I suggest the following for determining resources and consumption costs:

Siege engines and ships have specific costs that are not directly tied to the size of the army they are "attached" to.

Siege engines cost 15 BP each to construct and have a consumption cost of 5 BP per week per engine. A small army can have 1 siege engine attached, a medium army 2, a large army 4, a huge army 10, a gargantuan army 20 and a colossal army as many as 40 engines. NOTE: these limits largely assume that a city's full DM applies, rather than any reductions not yet made "official". Most armies will not have more than 4. Siege engines halve an army's speed, although ponying up for mounts will effectively return the speed to normal. Siege engines require exotic craftsman buildings to construct them. They are "attached" to a specific army. When quartered or that army is resting, the engines can be attached to a different army.

Ships are 10 BP x army size multiplier to construct and half this cost to maintain. They must be constructed in a city with a waterfront. They can be 'quartered' in such a city, in the same manner as ground troops, with a limit of 20 ships per qualified waterfront plus/or 2 ships per pier in a given city.

The 'healing potions' resource has insufficient utility, although it should require access to suitable buildings - alchemist, herbalist, shrine, temple, cathedral or academy would all suffice. The consumption cost for these would only matter after a battle during or after which they are used. This a change to the official write up for them - if an army has a supply of healing potions, they can chug them to heal/repair the damage twice per "battle load" that army has available to consume. (See below.) They can also represent potions of make whole for construct armies and potions of inflict wounds for intelligent undead. Consumption cost 5 BP per battle they are used in/after x size multiplier.

Consumption cost for improved armor, improved weapons, ranged weapons and shields is 1 each per week per item. Improved armor and weapons includes a supply of cold iron, alchemical silver and alchemical splaish weapons. As always, quartering reduces this to monthly.

Magic armor and weapons have a consumption cost of 2 x size multiplier. This category also includes expensive materials (adamantine, mithril).

Consumption and resources costs scale to the size of the army above Medium, as follows: Large x2, Huge x5, Gargantuan x10, Colossal x20.

An obvious question is "why use really big armies instead of gobs of smaller armies"? The answer is hinted at above: a kingdom's officer corps. There are not very many able leaders (5th level+), and these should be drawn from the kingdom's followers as provided by the Leadership feat. If the entire group has this feat, they can field a very well-led army. The other catch is the permanent penalties from the defeat of an army. Army hp are simply greater for the larger sizes. All else being equal, despite the costs the bigger army will defeat smaller armies. Action economy will dictate otherwise - but who fields a lone army?

The 'rout' threshold of army hp is awfully low, equal to CR in remaining army hp. I suggest that threshold instead be set at 25% or CR, whichever is greater. Mindless creature armies cannot be routed, since they automatically make all Morale checks. They must be defeated in detail.

Mounts for a particular army have a BP cost equal to (mount CR x size multiplier) to raise and change the army's base consumption cost from (half CR plus equipage consumption/week) to (rider CR + mount CR) plus (equipage consumption) per week.

Poisons as a resource (instead of as a special ability) have an equippage cost of 6 x size multiplier plus an identical per-battle consumption cost. You need access to alchemists and herbalists to supply them. I do not recommend poisoning, as - barring an army being entirely comprised of those able to utilize poisons with impunity (such as by outright immunity or by way of the poison use class feature) - would also incur 5% loss of army hp per melee battle phase (with a minimum of 1 lost army hp per melee phase) due to accidental nickings and the like that is normally associated with poison use.

Healing potions can be used after a battle. For healing potions and poisons I suggest that a certain number of battles' on-hand potions be "attached" to each specifically equipped army. This same suggestion should also apply to poison-using armies.

Training time for the army is also required, at "basic" (1/2 CR or the higher value for units that will be mounted) consumption cost per week. The rules of thumb are as follows:

Once raised, an army and its attendant building(s) are tasked with undertaking basic training. Time requirements are based on whether the new soldiers are monsters with racial hit dice [giants, dumb dragons, centaurs], are trained in PC class levels or are trained in NPC class levels.

Monsters are generally the most difficult to train. Most are ill-suited to taking the field or are simply unavailable in sufficient numbers in close locale to each other to be even viable. Use your judgement as the GM! For suitable monsters, however, training time is army CR x army CR x3 for how many weeks are required.

For armies comprised of PC class leveled creatures without racial hit dice, training time is level x level x2 in weeks, with a cap of 3rd level (resulting in 18 weeks of intense training).

For armies comrpised of NPC-classed individuals, training time is level x level in weeks with a cap of 4th level (16 weeks).

Once trained, the army can be moved to suitable quartering. If moving not more than 4 days' march to their new quarters, ignore the "on campaign" consumption cost.

Additional training time of 1 week per resource is also required. Apply the full consumption cost for the army as if it were "on campaign" for the final week of training. While not quite accurate, it is simple enough to apply the training costs all at once at the end of training.

Note that it is possible to "attach" siege engines and ships at a later date to an army. However, doing so incurs full consumption cost for that week of training and 'ties up' the requisite buildings for housing them. I suggest appending 'siege trained' and 'ship trained' to armies that are trained in such methods of warfare without benefit of having them attached for ease of reference.

The cost to raise the army, the equipage costs (including additional 'per battle' supplies of poisons and potions) should be spread out over the entire time that army spends in training.

When an army is "on campaign", the consumption cost applies weekly plus any incurred "per battle" costs as normal.

EXAMPLE 1: His Royal Majesty's Imperial Guard

His Majesty decides to raise a professional army of 3rd level fighters. He has 2 Garrisons in the same district of the capitol, so he goes for a Gargantuan army. At a CR of 8, the DC of the Loyalty check to recruit volunteers is 16 over the kingdom's control check. He is successful and sets them up as the force he will personally lead into war.

His Majesty decides to go all-out on this army's training too. Other armies at the kingdom's disposal are already trained in using ships and siege engines, so he detaches those siege engines and ships in order to attach them to this army during its training.

Equipage: improved armor (30 BP), improved weapons (50 BP), ranged weapons (20 BP), fortification builders (20 BP), war-trained horses (10 BP), shields (10 BP) and healing potions (100 BP) for an equipage cost of 240 BP. The consumption cost is (CR 2 + CR 1 x10 army size) 30 for the mounted troops plus 10 each for armor, weapons, ranged weapons and shields for a weekly 'on campaign' consumption of 70 BP or a monthly 'quartered' consumption cost of 70 BP. During training they will not be using the high-end stuff (as is the norm for basic training), so the training time costs 30 BP per week of training plus the full consumption cost for the ships that they trained on for a week (50 BP) and a "battle load" of healing potions (50 BP) and practice with a battery of siege engines (5 BP) plus 40 BP for their normal equipage.

It takes (18 +9 for the number of resources) 27 weeks' time to train this army from the fresh meat recruited.

The first 26 weeks' training costs 30 BP per week for a total of 780 BP. Add in 16 more BP for drafting/raising/recruiting the 1,000 men and/or women that comprise this force. Lastly, the 'big week' tacked on another 240 BP in equipage costs and 145 BP in resources training costs. Altogether this army cost His Imperial Majesty a grand total of 1,181 BP over the course of 27 weeks - call it a full 7 months' time from recruitment to graduation. Each month His Majesty's kingdom spends 169 BP in funding for this army (rounding conventionally) {168.714). Provisioning this army with four such "battle loads" of healing potions increases the monthly BP cost to 197 BP per month for those 7 months.

Presuming His Majesty is not some inbred swine barely capable of pointing the four compass directions, he will be able to competently lead these crack troops into battle.

First Imperial Guard - nublet army stats (as in, no baptism of fire has been undertaken)

Army hp: 44 (rout threshold 11 hp); OM +11, ranged capability, ship trained, siege engine trained (base 8 +1 improved weapons +2 mounts); DV 21, 22 during ranged phase (10 +8 base +1 improved armor +2 mounts - +1 shields); increase OM and DV by +1 per 5 full ranks of the commanding officer's Profession (soldier) skill. A 15th level King would result in OM +14, DV 24, 25 during ranged! This does not account for strategy used nor tactics learned either ...

Speed: 3.25 <3.33 if you're of the mind> (50 ft speed horses = 40 miles a day) - attached siege engines reduces speed to 1.5 <1.67 if you're of the mind> (20 miles a day).

Resources: fortification builders, healing potions, improved armor and weapons, mounts, ranged weapons, shields

Morale: +0, the same for any nublet army - with no Tactics yet learned either. It seems likely that such a promising unit is likely put to work rather swiftly.

Consumption: 70; "Per Battle": 50 for healing potions
Potion Supply: 4 battle-loads (cures 16 army hp twice per battle-load) Note that it is probably considered the most effective to down one battle-load, two at most, before making use of regular army hp healing methods to recuperate the rest if the army is in bad enough shape or needs to get back into combat that quickly. Think of the latter as R&R...

EXAMPLE TWO: Desperate Times and desperate measures

His Majesty is desperately struggling to win some war or another decisively, resorting to drafting / conscripting mobs of barely trained militia. He needs vast numbers of men and he needs them quickly. Perhaps he needs troops to secure the rear lines of his vanguard. More likely, he is increasingly desperate to win and is willing to send thousands to slaughter if it means a decisive victory can possibly be attained. Or at least an armistice... His officer corp is large enough, its the BP and time that are winding to a close far faster than his liking.

As such, he scrapes together enough commoners to push through a mere week of bare-bones basic combat training before slapping them in padded armor, clapping leather helms on their noggins and pressing spears in their hands.

A Colossal Army of 1st level Warriors only takes a week to train, is a CR 7 force and is dirt cheap (14 BP to raise; consumption cost 3). His Majesty has 5 Castles available to quarter them in - and, as it so happens, he also only has 5 barely-competent officers remaining at his disposal to command these troops. It is unlikely that these militia will see their quarters for very long given His Majesty's dire straits.

Each is easy enough to raise, so he spends 70 total BP plus 15 BP for training. Total cost: 85 BP, 1 week of training.

Barely-Trained Militia Regiment, CR 7

Army hp: 38 (rout threshold = 9 remaining army hp); OM +7 = +8 with a barely-qualifying officer <5 ranks/ 5th level>; DV 17 = 18 with a barely-qualifying officer. Speed: 2; Consumption: 3

Not too bad ... while only 6 fewer hp than the First Imperial Guard, the 4 fewer points of OM and the 4 or 5 fewer points of DV are already telling. The likely result of a battle between the two example forces does not favor the militia however, even IF their respective leaders, tactics and strategies are equal. Sure there will be attrition - and likely not in the militia's favor since the Imperial Guard are mounted - and the militia are not...

On the flip side, if you think you can absorb the permanent penalties to one's Kingdom ability scores (-2 to all 3 per defeated army), the same 1,381 BP that it cost for the 1,000-man regiment of crack troops after a 7-month delay would raise and train three (3) 2,000-man regiments of very cherry militia every single week <39 BP per week x4 weeks/month = 156 BP/month x7 months = 1,092 BP> of those same 7 months in very rough numbers. 84 2,000-man conscript regiments against a single 1,000-man elite regiment does not result in favorable odds unless one is in extremely defensible terrain (such as a strategically-placed "fort-city" in a very favorable mountain pass).

Some times raw numbers counts for a great deal - and this explains WHY conscriptions, levies and such were so prominently used historically.

However, when all is said and done, militia always disband when the war is over (unless you start another one right away ... err, something egregious happens that provokes hostilities once more, OH NOES!!). Professional fighting forces are another matter. It would all depend upon one's officer corps pool in breadth and depth as an estimation.

If one's kingdom has but few officer-qualified persons, crack troops are likely to be considered essential in order to capitolize upon one's small officer corps. If one's kingdom has a vast pool of officers to draw upon, militia armies are more likely to be the norm, with elite units commanded in the field by PCs and/or cohorts.


Turin, I may be blind (and couldn't find it referenced elsewhere), but have you listed what the multipliers are somewhere? Do you use medium =1, huge = 3, colossal = 5, or the CR modifiers, or something else?


Leonal wrote:
Turin, I may be blind (and couldn't find it referenced elsewhere), but have you listed what the multipliers are somewhere? Do you use medium =1, huge = 3, colossal = 5, or the CR modifiers, or something else?

Consumption and resources costs scale to the size of the army above Medium, as follows: Large x2, Huge x5, Gargantuan x10, Colossal x20.

This is buried in the wall o' text above. It should read "Consumption of resources costs" instead of "consumption and resources costs". Hope that helps!

Grand Lodge

Brian Bachman wrote:
PJ wrote:
It doesn't make sense to keep disbanding your army. A kingdom must always have an Armed Forces.

Not to get too RL historical on you, but actually this isn't true. Historically, in between wars most nations have disbanded the vast majority of their militaries, precisely because it is so incredibly expensive to maintain them. There is nothing so wasteful as a large peacetime army. That is why most countries, throughout history, have disbanded most of their military very quickly after the war was over, maintaining only a small cadre force or large militia from which to mobilize more quickly if war does come.

In the U.S. itself, we followed this pattern until the aftermath of the Korean War, when the Cold War really set in and it was decided that a large, permanent professional military, something the U.S. had never had before, was necessary to deter attack and defend U.S, interests overseas. With the end of the Cold War, there was considerable speculation that we would again decrease the size of our military, but 9/11 and the wars that followed it, the failure of democracy in Russia, the emergence of a non-democratic China as a semi-realistic threat, and (last but not least) very effective defense industry lobbying efforts, prevented us from doing what all our NATO allies and our Cold War opponents did, drastically reduce defense spending to a more historically consistent level.

So, you can make an argument that every kingdom needs at least a small permanent military force, but the historical support is simply not there to say every nation needs a large standing military. Generally, the only nations in history that had such were those engaged in conquest, and those facing imminent threat.

I didn't say they needed a large military force but enough to cause neighbors to pause before invading.

Grand Lodge

Turin the Mad wrote:
The benefit in game terms to maintaining a professional standing army is the retention of the Morale and Tactics of that force. Since it takes battle experience to earn both, were I a player I would be loathe to disband such hard-won benefits just to save some BP!

+1


Turin the Mad wrote:
Leonal wrote:
Turin, I may be blind (and couldn't find it referenced elsewhere), but have you listed what the multipliers are somewhere? Do you use medium =1, huge = 3, colossal = 5, or the CR modifiers, or something else?

Consumption and resources costs scale to the size of the army above Medium, as follows: Large x2, Huge x5, Gargantuan x10, Colossal x20.

This is buried in the wall o' text above. It should read "Consumption of resources costs" instead of "consumption and resources costs". Hope that helps!

Ah, thank you! I didn't read it thoroughly enough.


PJ wrote:
I didn't say they needed a large military force but enough to cause neighbors to pause before invading.

Most people would agree. And that still leaves a lot of room for interpretation by a government. How large is large? What are the threats to the kingdom, and how does the general populace perceive those threats? In the end, though, like all rulers, they must realize that money spent on the military is money not spent on something else, so they will have to baalnce their security needs against the other needs of the kingdom. Not easy stuff, and no textbook "right" decision. Spend too little on your military and you might invite foreign adventurism. Spend too much and you might hurt your kingdom's development.


Turin the Mad wrote:
The army's CR x2 is added to the kingdom's control DC to determine the required Loyalty check DC.

Do you use this for all loyalty checks regarding an army, or just when recruiting? (e.g. learning tactics, fighting after being routed etc.)


By the way, has anyone made revisions of the "defeat" rules?

It doesn't make much sense to have the kingdom suffer an equal loss (-2 to all econ/loy/stab) from loosing a 10-man army to losing a 2000-man one.

151 to 200 of 295 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Adventure Path / Kingmaker / Mass Combat All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.