This stuff has been talked to death, I'm sure, but the topic has long been one of interest to me. I like how James M at Grognardia referred to it as 'D&D's unfulfilled promise'. When D&D was published, it was usually with the assumption that as PCs levelled up, they'd eventually found strongholds and kingdoms of their own, but until 1985, there wasn't much to go by. And, even the Companion Set's rules were vague and felt unfinished.
Several other publishers have tried this type of thing. But, I find the rules introduced in Kingmaker to be really good. They're mechanically simple, intuitive to grasp, and yet have some meaty depth to them. I especially like so much emphasis on Charisma bonuses. Here we have an excellent reason for fighters to invest in that oft-neglected ability!
One thing especially that jumps out at me, and that is strikingly appropriate for a feudal dominion: the bigger the dominion, the more difficult to rule. I'm really tempted to add in a vassal/liege mechanic to this. As a duke or king, you can hand land over to a vassal, in return for a smaller dominion size (-1 to DCs per hex), plus you'd get a reduction in Consumption ... I've got no idea what would be appropriate, but maybe -1 to Consumption per 5 hexes you've handed over. Of course, if you're the low man on the totem pole, you've got to hand over the goods to your boss (referred to as a 'salt tax'), and perhaps the opposite math would occur (+1 Consumption per 5 hexes or something).
Over time, who knows if you really can trust that Duke or Baron holding your land, but that's what makes it fun, right?
I have the most problem with the mass combat rules; fundamentally, they're pretty sound. But, they could be a lot better with some tweaking. Here's my thoughts:
- Armies can only be up to 2000 men? How about this: armies are a collection of forces, with each force having a max size of 2000. Armies can be any number of forces. Semantics, I know.
- Forces are not a homogenous unit; they can be a mix of troop types. Just use a weighted average to determine the CR, and the lowest HD to determine the hp. However, it's perfectly legit to have a force 100% homogenous.
- This is simplification to be sure, but there's a rock/paper/scissors relationship to the core types of medieval fighting men: infantry/archers/cavalry. Each force can be a mix of all 3 and when it's up against an opposing force with a different mix, there's a potential bonus in play.
- When creating a force, you determine if it's majority archer, cavalry or infantry (or perhaps majority neither). For every 10% above 50, the potential bonus is +1, up to +5. If your force fights an opposing force whose majority is at a disadvantage, you get your bonus plus his. Imagine a force of mounted knights (60%) and other units (+1) up against a force of infantry (80%) and archers (+4). The knights enjoy a tremendous advantage against infantry and would get a total combat bonus of +5. Perhaps this bonus is to damage as well as OV/DV.
- I'd get rid of the Ranged Phase entirely; Ranged Attacks are simply assumed as part of the bonus listed above.
- Fatigue status could be introduced. Armies are either 'Normal', 'Fatigued', or 'Exhausted', with movement and combat penalties applying (perhaps 0, -3, -6). Forces out of supply or forced marched can suffer this condition; losing a battle also can have this effect. Even if a force took no damage in a battle, surely it'd stand a good chance of suffering fatigue.
- I'd think that breaking an opposing force's morale instead of wiping out their hp would be your primary goal. When hp starts dropping, that's when the army leader needs to start making Morale rolls (DC 15 + dmg absorbed) ? Historically, didn't armies try to break an army by making them lose confidence? That's the impression I've gotten from a lot of historical fiction, like Bernard Cornwell's stuff.
- I'm also not real crazy about the list of Tactics & Resources. Resources ought to simply be a list of available options when outfitting a force. I'd probably forgo all of the stuff in the Tactics list. A lot of that stuff is already assumed in the Strategic phase. It looks like it was meant to be a way to 'level up' an army, but a note about that next.
- Since armies take hp damage and then 'heal', the healing presumably is new recruits. So, at some level, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me that a force would gain experience by gaining tactics. If forces do indeed become deadlier over time, it seems to me that keeping it simple would be better - just apply bonuses to OV, DV, or dmg .. or maybe even hp.
- There ought to be more detail surrounding sieges, and I'm taking some inspiration from the old D&D Masters book. When a defending army is utilizing a stronghold (castle, city, fort, etc) for defense, then they are under siege. The only tactic available to them is Defensive while utilizing the stronghold's defenses, unless they decide to charge out into the field. Otherwise, the attacker has a few options:
1) Assault - the defense bonus from fortifications also becomes a damage bonus for the defender; potentially ruinous for the attacker, but nothing ventured, right? Helm's Deep anyone? Note that I also think kingdom builders should be able to expand upon their defenses much more than just walls & castles. I don't like a lot of the options in the River Kingdoms book ... they're kinda weird. But, things like magically reinforced walls, admantium gates, etc., could also be ways
to boost your cities' protection.
2) Bombard - Now we have to pull out the siege engines and let 'em rip. Each engine has a different cost and a different die used for bombardment. Each die roll minus 3 that's greater than zero, reduces the stronghold's fortifications by 1. Ballista only roll a d4; Grond would roll a d12. Of course a defender can also target siege engines w/ their own using the same mechanics (dX - 3). 1 hit takes out an engine. And, of course, you can always have the PCs in a mini-scenario raiding an army's engines.
3) Siege - So, we're gonna smoke 'em out. Tunneling, poisoning wells, building trenches, etc., adds +1 to the OV & DV for an attacking army per week. The defender's supplies likely go down as well. Note that the attacker must also be kept supplied. Also note that the bonus only applies while fighting the defending forces within the stronghold. If combat occurs with another army, those bonuses do not exist.
- Siege engines can be purchased/built at normal price in your cities or constructed for 2x the cost on the field. They slow your army down, taking 1 off the speed.
- How would supply work? Probably the simplest way is to look at your map. If you can trace a route from a city you control to your army, they're OK. If an opposing army can get in-between your city and your army, then you're out of supply. If you're hunkering down, defending in a city, then the city could be assumed to have so much supply available. It would last X number of weeks, depending on the dominion's treasury, the city size, and the army's consumption cost.
I'd really like to know your reactions to these ideas. I'm also working on an Access dbase to help track all this kingdom management & army stuff. So far, it's pretty fun watching it spin, but I've only built a small part of it.