Mass Combat Rules Constraints

[merxa]

various sub systems like morale might be easier if we had even a skeleton of a rule set.

I'll try to model 3.x combat, but I'm not great at math and I don't know how it'll scale.

at it's most basic a 'unit' would get wounds, a +hit, AC, and attacks.

for conversion we would say 5hp = 1 wound, +hit is +hit, AC is AC and attacks generally translates to 1 per unit.

for a given unit we ask what # on a d20 does it need to hit another unit. for some scrub unit vs elite we can easily image it needs a 20, and in abstraction we could just say for every 20 attacks the unit lands 1 wound.

Of course we want to roll some dice and introduce variation, instead of rolling xd20 let's just roll 1d100 once per unit.

roll result / bonus
100 / +15
99-98 / +10
97-85 / +5
84-17 / +0
16-04 / -5
03-02 / -10
01 / -15

so for that scrub unit with 20 attacks which only hits on a 20 vs the elite

std | roll | wounds/per hits
std3 |100 | 16/20
std2 | 99-98 | 11/20
std1 | 97-85 | 6/20
std0 | 84-17 | 1/20
std-1 | 16-04 | 1/80
std-2 | 03-02 | 1/180
std-3 | 01 | 1/280

and we would round down

If we model average unit a vs average unit b and say unit a hits unit b half the time or 11/20

std3 | 26/20
std2 | 21/20
std1 | 16/20
std0 | 11/20
std-1 | 11/80
std-2 | 11/180
std-3 | 11/280

we could either ignore results above hits and cap it at hits or just allow it.
~

If we started to model things like damage reduction we could simplify

DR 5 vs unit = ignore 1/4 wounds (round up)
DR 10 vs unit = ignore 2/4 wounds
DR 15 vs unit = ignore 3/4 wound (round up)
DR 20 vs unit = ignore 4/4? damage immunity?

~
For converting heroes, it would be fairly straight forward, wounds = hp / 5, +hit is +hit, AC is AC, and 'hits' would require some finesse or accounting for feats like great cleave.

so say a level 11 fighter would get 3 attacks or for something like great cleave we say he gets attacks until his +hit would be a miss ... so for heroic fighter vs scrub unit let's say he hits on a 2-20

std3 | 34/20
std2 | 29/20
std1 | 24/20
std0 | 19/20
std-1 | 19/80
std-2 | 19/180
std-3 | 19/280 (roughly 1.3 wounds vs 20 units or 1 wound)

a level 11 fighter would also have around 110hp? so 22 wounds.

We would want to also give units 'size' and limit melee attacks (or all attacks?) based on size, limiting hits vs size would allow us to scale in a reasonable way, so our heroic fighter can't be effectively targeted by a 10,000 unit goblin hoard all at once.

To model morale we could roll break chances at 25% wounds or 50% wounds or whatever people think is accurate for mass combat.

So far I haven't tried to model area effect damage, IE a 10d6 fireball or a dragons breath weapon, but it should probably take in effect unit sizes.
~

Finally we could also try abstracting this system to be a single die for the entire outcome by having both sides add up total wounds, median +hit, median AC, total attacks and roll 1d100 for the modifier, subtract wounds roll morale, and roll again if it isn't resolved. Of course it would be fairly inaccurate and best used for off camera wars or for extremely large battles tides where the players are only one contingent of a front that stretches for miles and miles.

[Username17]

On first blush, that I'm totally for Morale being the most critical charistic. But how does that interact with armies composed of mindless skeletons controlled or more likely unleashed by necromancers?

The big problem is actually mixed armies. An army of skeletons or golems can jolly well just have a toggle where it doesn't break, and that would make it very scary.

Having a mixed army where a few troops have a wildly higher or lower morale means that you need some system to work with it. It could be as simple as having units provide toughness and morale, where Goblin Conscripts add more toughness than Morale and Skeletons add more Morale than Toughness.

-Username17

[OgreBattle]

Like the skeletons would help the goblins make morale checks?

[Username17]

Like the skeletons would help the goblins make morale checks?

Definitely yes. There are a couple ways to do that.

The simplest is that groups just have morale hit points and skeletons provide more morale hit points than they provide casualty hit points. So an all-skeleton army will be all-casualties before it breaks, but an army with some skeletons to shore up the ranks will be somewhat stickier in a meat grinder.

A more complicated version is certainly possible. You could have Skeletons be literally morale impervious, where they don't add shit to your army morale but morale damage is reduced proportionately to the amount of Morale: No units in it. You'd probably want to do something like that if you were writing a computer program, but it sounds like a total nightmare in table top.

You could do something to that effect that was more table top friendly by having morale drops be proportionate to the number of troops you have. That is, a 50 soldier army takes morale damage 50 at a time and a 5000 soldier army takes morale damage 5000 at a time. That would in essence mean that Goblin conscripts make your army less steady while Fire Giant elites make your line more steady. This sort of thing would also give you the ability to organically create effective command limits by making rally actions that have a maximum value - which in turn would give an organic benefit for assassinating enemy lieutenants ("every Orcish subcommander we knock off drops their rally effectiveness by 50").

-Username17

[Thaluikhain]

Hmm, looks like my post got eated by the system.

Anyhoo, it was an idea that if you wanted to really simplify things you could have skeletons not help goblins with morale, but let them break and get clean away (the first time) as the enemy can't pursue while dealing with skeletons. But that may be over simple and reduces skeletons to upgrades rather than warriors. Just throwing the idea out there.

[deaddmwalking]

One thing you could do is have situations where a unit has to make a morale check. For example, when a unit loses half of its remaining number in a single 'mass combat round' or when an allied unit breaks.

If you have a unit of goblins, they could be broken by having them take casualties. If the unit next to them is goblins, they might also break when the unit that is attacked breaks as well. But the skeletons would be immune. They just wouldn't break at all. As far as 'mixed units' the combined unit could make a check as normal, but it only applies to the goblins. Even if the unit 'breaks', it will remain on the field which could allow time for a commander to rally the fleeing units.

I'd think that having a number of 'command options' would be good. Things like dividing a unit and rallying a broken unit make sense. In general a unit should be able to attack just a single unit. That means if you get two allied units against an enemy unit, the enemy unit will have to attack only one of your units. Switching to another unit would likewise require a command action.

[Thaluikhain]

As far as 'mixed units' the combined unit could make a check as normal, but it only applies to the goblins. Even if the unit 'breaks', it will remain on the field which could allow time for a commander to rally the fleeing units.

You mean the goblins would test to flee, and the skeletons would not? Treating the combined unit as two separate units?

If so, why have combined units instead of keeping them separate?

[deaddmwalking]

The unit would test to flee, but only goblins would actually flee if they failed. After that point, you would have two separate units - one that is entirely skeletons and the other that is entirely goblins.

As for why you would combine units, presumably there are times that having a unit of 500 would be better than having two units of 250. If you were engaging a unit of 500, attacking with 250 and then another 250 would likely put you at a massive disadvantage - you could have both of your units wiped out without inflicting much damage to the opponent. Unit size would matter.

[Username17]

Units in the sense of "a unit is 10 troops" or "a unit is 100 troops" or something can't work. However many units you think the sweet spot of the game is, you will be confronted with scenarios in RPGs where the number of soldiers is orders of magnitude larger than that.

If you're doing the Crusader Kings 2 style thing where you have a fixed number of units and those units have however many dudes they happen to have in them, that's a whole different kettle. That seems workable. And if you had enough units in that sense, you could mandate that all Moral: NA troops went into a single unit and just treat it differently. For that matter, you could also have a unit that was all and only flyers or burrowers or whatever as well if you wanted non-standard mobility options to matter.

-Username17

[OgreBattle]

So how does an individual player character go about interacting with this mass combat system. Spend a round to cut down enemy fodder, use a standard action to yell inspirational commands?

[Judging__Eagle]

An other alternative to "skeleton (or golem) morale" is that the skeletons simply crumble when morale is working against them.

One of the primary reasons a WHFB skeleton regiment is both: A) often the only skeleton regiment in the army and B) so fvcking yuge; is that every failed morale check will simply auto-kill some amount of your skeletons. It's more efficient to have a large block which will have enough ranks to grind down any enemy regiments it encounters, than to have several smaller regiments that might death-spiral into inefficiency when a combat round goes against the skeletons.

Now, outside of WHFB; this likely doesn't matter. However morale just as often means "esprit-de-corps" or "Thumos", as it does "fearlessness" or "grit". It's not that the skeletons suddenly realized "Ohnoes, I'm a spoopy zkeleton; that's not real. I dirtsleep nao kbai" when the enemy has the upperhand in combat morale. It's that the side which has maintained their cool in the exchange of battle is working themselves into a frenzy of osseus obliteration. Breaking the skeletons which aren't reacting quickly enough to the changing situation.

An other direction for how to handle "infinite" morale units; make their "morale" a function of the commanders which animate/control them. Both in WHFB, and in Dominions, if there are no commanders who can supernaturally control the unbreakable units on the field; then they begin to crumble or go inert. So there could be an argument made for "infinite" morale units to have a moral score which is a function of their commander's morale.

[hyzmarca]

I actually prefer skeletons to basically be The Terminator.

Listen, and understand! That Skeleton is out there! It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear! And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead!

Mindless creatures should be among the most frightening things out there.

[deaddmwalking]

Units in the sense of "a unit is 10 troops" or "a unit is 100 troops" or something can't work.

I agree. You could have one side with a unit of '10,000 troops' and another with 3 units of 25, 250 and 1,000. The thing is, quantity has a quality all it's own. I like the odds of the 10k unit against any of the other units all things being equal.

Outnumber bonuses might cap out at 5:1 or might continue scaling, but that should be a real thing. If each soldier on side A is being attacked by 5 soldiers on Side B, that's going to make things pretty one-sided.

I could see 'funneling' as a way to adjust things. If you can create a situation where your unit of 1k has a 'face' of 250 and can't be attacked from other sides, you could treat the 10k unit as a 250 unit and they engage directly. Each 'round' they reinforce until one side is out of reinforcements. Again, the 10k is likely going to grind out a victory, but if your small unit is vastly superior, they could pull a 300.

[Judging__Eagle]

Outnumber bonuses might cap out at 5:1 or might continue scaling, but that should be a real thing. If each soldier on side A is being attacked by 5 soldiers on Side B, that's going to make things pretty one-sided.

I'd copy existing wargames like Kriegsspiele and have "combat ratios" go from Attacker:Defender at 1:3 (i.e. attacker has 1 strength for 3 of the defenders), all the way to 7:1 (attacker has 7 strength for 1 of the defenders). While it's almost never going to happen, you want even the most extreme edge-cases to be covered.

[infected slut princess]

there are also things called "Wargames" where you can just play mass combat all day long without trying to balance it around stories of individual characters.

Well yeah, sure. But no one cares if that's your opinion in a discussion where people want to tackle that issue. It's like if people are talking about who has the nicest tits and then your loser ass walks in and says "I don't like tits." Ok cool no one cares.

The criticism revolves primarily around trying to unify a gaming system that revolves primarily around story-telling of individual characters (RPGs) with one that revolves around abstracting (or, more harshly _dehumanizing_) individual soldiers and making them into just tiny cogs of a larger formation.

Behold to the tragedy of war.

RPGs are fundamentally about individuals. Mass combat is fundamentally about institutions.

Maybe people want the RPG to integrate the possibility of individuals controlling/commanding institutions.

Except mass combat games outside of computer games never actually achieve this. Mass combat isn't won by charging each other and having body parts fly over the air.

Maybe it could be if you develop decent rules for a tactical mass combat system, because that's what people want.

That's not what actually happens on the tabletop. Instead, at best, mass combat games let you throw 72 dice to simulate the "feel" of individual soldiers attacking and then deflate that feeling by having stuff like "toughness" and "armor" saves which reduce those 72 dice down to... 1 or 2 dead enemies? Smarter systems - such as chits and hexes wargames - dispense with throwing 72 dice together and just come up with tables that simulate the effect of rolling 72 dice by just rolling 2 dice instead. But that also means it's more of a "game" of adding up numbers and getting the exact amount of attack strength to beat the defense strength in a specific area. Moreover mass combat is in fact pretty deterministic and boring if you play to win; which is really a big reason why a lot of minis games are perpetually unfun and why traditional chit-and-hexes wargames are highly deterministic teaching tools rather than a real struggle. Even computer games that do mass combat - such as Total War - very rarely turn out to be tactically interesting affairs; which is why most of the interesting decisions in Total War games lies with the strategic map and character-building while the battles themselves are merely spectacles to confirm a pre-determined victory. Which I think is the bigger and broader issue with mass combat in general. People think of it as a grand spectacle like Battle of the Five Armies; when in reality it's more of a lot of busy work and dice rolling. They think of it as an arena where they can make interesting tactical decisions, but in reality the side that brought more men, better men, and bigger guns are just confirming their win. That's why armies treated as longstanding institutions are far more interesting than armies in battle; and why I simply pointed out that's a much better use for them in a game focusing on individuals. The individual tends to get drowned out when it's just one die roll out of 72.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Look, it's just supposed to be about interesting choices. It's kind of a resource management issue. Yes it might be mostly deterministic if you send your army of 400 lizardman soldiers against the army of 150 giants because of wahtever rules you have. But maybe it becomes more interesting when you zoom out a bit. Maybe the decision you make in regard to the lizardman vs. giant battle affects something later on. Maybe sending more or fewer lizards to the 1st giant battle affects the outcome of the lizard vs. dark elf battle at the underground drow fortress later on, and that affects what the PCs do on the "party quest" scale later.

Here's the thing: a lot of us have run D&D games where we put together some rough shitty version of a mass combat system in order to support certain stories and it worked kinda ok and it was fun. It would just be nice to have a somewhat more rigorous system for that. It doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be "pretty good" as a storytelling aid. Most D&D players want some way to support Braveheart / Battle of the Five Armies / Malazan style scenarios where lots of dudes charge each other and hack each other up.

I think you raise a lot of interesting points but they aren't very helpful in relation to the goals people have regarding integrating some kind of mass combat system with their party-based RPG game.

[mlangsdorf]

So how does an individual player character go about interacting with this mass combat system. Spend a round to cut down enemy fodder, use a standard action to yell inspirational commands?

It's an abstract system, so that's way too detailed. Mass Combat battles should be resolved in turns that represent hours of game time.

Low level characters are just part of the rank and file. Higher level characters are heroes that are equivalent to dozens or hundreds of normal troops. Certain PCs may be officers that can either influence the behavior of normal troops beneath them, or make strategic decisions that affect all or part of the battle. PCs might have other special abilities that can influence the battle.

So 4 9th level PCs might interact with the system by:
* Each counts as a hero that is worth 100 troops and gives an additional bonus if the other side doesn't have a hero or powerful monster to oppose them.
* They also oppose any heroes or powerful monsters on the side and prevent them from getting more bonuses.
* The wizard can just arbitrarily destroy some enemy troops, and the cleric can prevent troops from being destroyed (or destroy some troops, what they hey, they're CoDzilla).
* The fighter is the general, and picks out the overall strategy and gives a BIGNUM bonus to the overall chance of winning because of his strategic acumen and leadership.
* Optional, each PC might be able to give additional bonuses at the risk of taking abstract damage.

Also, assuming the PCs are in charge of the army, they interact with the mass combat system by ordering armies around on the strategic map and trying to make sure that battles only occur when the PCs' army has overwhelming superiority. Zinegata is wrong on a lot of things, but he is right that armies try to set up situations where the results of the actual battle are known before the fighting starts, because you show up with 10 times as many guys as the other side or whatever.

My players get a lot of enjoyment out of tricking and outsmarting the enemy. They've assassinated enemy leaders, faked orders, or provided false intelligence on 9-10 occasions to make an inferior enemy force attack their fortified position. Most of the session is focused on the trickery, and the actual defense against the assault can be resolved pretty quickly.

[Voss]

Low level characters are just part of the rank and file.

This is both really boring, and really disempowering/disencouraging to the players. Basically you're boiling low level mass combat down to either
a) no
or
b) shut up and listen to the GM's monologue about how the battle goes.

Higher level characters are heroes that are equivalent to dozens or hundreds of normal troops.

Depending on class, yes. For the rest of them, you're going to have to make up rules or abilities. Especially for the warrior types.

Certain PCs may be officers that can either influence the behavior of normal troops beneath them

Sure. But you're back to ass-pulling abilities, or 'be a spellcaster'

or make strategic decisions that affect all or part of the battle.

This... isn't level dependent. This (and tactical decisions) is actually where you want the players to be, not 'just part of the rank and file.' Whatever the narrative reason for giving them at least a temporary rank, you want the players engaged and making decisions. Not pull a 'some are officers' and low level dudes are 'just' rank and file.

PCs might have other special abilities that can influence the battle.

Yep. Again, they might be spellcasters.

The fighter is the general, and picks out the overall strategy and gives a BIGNUM bonus to the overall chance of winning because of his strategic acumen and leadership.

This is a weird assumption, and it stands out because unlike the wizard or cleric (or even a bard), the thought process is obviously that the fighter has to be given something to do. But the fighter class doesn't have anything to warrant this- their only measurable skill is personal combat- they get shit-fuck to do with strategy or handing out bonuses, or strategic acumen and leadership. Its the functional equivalent of propping up the class with artifact swords.

I actually prefer skeletons to basically be The Terminator.

Listen, and understand! That Skeleton is out there! It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear! And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead!

Mindless creatures should be among the most frightening things out there.

Thats a way to approach it, I suppose. It doesn't mesh well though. Mindless creatures are actually some of the least frightening things out there, as they're very easy to outmaneuver, avoid or trap. D&D style skeletons in particular are fairly fragile, so the Terminator comparison doesn't work at all, and zombies are slow and pathetic.

What they do provide is a stable core that won't do anything unpredictable, great for just swamping enemies that can't or won't flee, so are perfect for sieges or blocking strategic points/places, or performing labor 'round the clock that living troops can't sustain (sapping, digging)

[FatR]

(1)I don't see much problem with designing mass combat for DnD, as long as you accept the basic premise that you are not designing a system that allows tiny men to hold their own on the battlefield of heroes and titans, you are designing a system that allows heroes and titans to delete vast numbers of tiny men without that taking approximately forever to roll (at lower levels: that allows barbarian kings to cut their way through dozens of enemy mooks and when the enemy brings thousands of mooks instead, counter them with hundreds of their own), with the side effect of massive units of tiny men becoming something that may conceivably participate in battles of heroes and titans, and have some meaningful effect. However, so far nobody who tried to design some mass combat rules I'm aware of tried to do so, and the starting post of this tread doesn't look like an exception.

(1.1)On matters of scale. The highest number of men that may have a battle in the field, without that battle naturally separating itself into a number of distinct engagements (possibly occuring over several days), where troops participating in one of those engagements cannot directly support those participating in others, is 30-40 thousands on each side, judging by examples from ages where we do have somewhat reliable data on troop numbers and event sequences. The mass combat units should naturally be smaller than that, perhaps wuth 10 thousands as the largest possible size.

(2)The bigger problem is designing henchmen combat for DnD. Unless you're aritifically limiting PCs' actions and options, by mid-levels a party is going to have a shit ton of allies, and servants, and followers who are not at PCs' level, but nonetheless may conceivably offer unique contributions on a battlefield that are harder to abstract than just turning piles of tiny men into massed units that act as single creatures, but tracking all of which when PCs and their henchmen are squaring off against an enemy party is just not reasonably possible. I'm currently using/testing a rip-off of Pendragon battle system where outcome of a battle between retinues is decided by a single roll, with subsequent survival rolls for participating named characters, but it doesn't seem very satisfying.

[Chamomile]

Pendragon's system is designed around the idea that the progression of the Arthurian mythos as designed by the Great Pendragon Campaign is pretty much inviolate. Great effort is taken to make sure that PCs can't unseat Lancelot or Galahad or other critical knights from their place in the stories, and are instead playing supporting roles or occasionally displacing more minor knights from their quests. The ultimate goal of PCs is not to be earth-shaking badasses unto their own right, but to rack up a high score of glory, progeny, and wealth in the wake of earth-shaking badasses.

Pendragon is fine unto itself (I really dislike the kind of pedantic fan who thinks that any alteration to the material they're a fan of constitutes some kind of blasphemy, but it's not inherently wrong to have them and not me as your target audience) but it's a terrible source of inspiration for D&D mass combat because its goals are so radically different.

[mlangsdorf]

Low level characters are just part of the rank and file.

This is both really boring, and really disempowering/disencouraging to the players. Basically you're boiling low level mass combat down to either
a) no
or
b) shut up and listen to the GM's monologue about how the battle goes.

I don't have a problem with low level PCs being in charge of the army and make the tactical and strategic decisions. But even the most pimped out 5th level CodZilla's ability to influence a battle with 500 people on each side is not markedly greater than that of the 10-50 2nd level adepts on the other side.

At low levels, you might command or inspire or perform a key tactical strike that influences the battle. But you're not personally the equivalent of dozens of normal troops.

[making the fighter the general] is a weird assumption, and it stands out because unlike the wizard or cleric (or even a bard), the thought process is obviously that the fighter has to be given something to do. But the fighter class doesn't have anything to warrant this- their only measurable skill is personal combat- they get shit-fuck to do with strategy or handing out bonuses, or strategic acumen and leadership. Its the functional equivalent of propping up the class with artifact swords.

Oh, for fuck's sake. Get over your hatred of the dumb melee fighter.

Obviously, if you're writing a mass combat mini-game for D&D, you're going to have to come up with some kind of mechanism to represent strategic acumen, and you're going to have to add some abilities to every class to interact with the mass combat mini-game. And obviously, the class that represents "the conquering overlord, the elite foot soldier, the hardened mercenary, the bandit king" (PHB 3.5 p 37) is going to get a fuckton of bonus abilities give it a lot of strategic acumen and that make it a preferred choice for general.

As you point out, high level spellcasters already have ways to contribute to mass combat. Of course you're going to give extra abilities to the fighting classes that thematically should be leading the big armies. If you're planning to fix D&D's ability to tell stories about battles by adding a mass combat mini-game, you're not going to limit yourself to the design flaws of the original versions of D&D, like the lack of of a mass combat mini-game or a fighter class that isn't any good.

[erik]

A thought for mindless/morale-proof monsters in mixed armies. While they don't break, they also have lower self preservation and are the first to die/soak damage. Goblins hide behind then zombie screen.

I haven't given much thought to the mechanics for weighting who died first. Just figured it worth incorporating.

[Voss]

Oh, for fuck's sake. Get over your hatred of the dumb melee fighter.

That... isn't the issue. You're hand-waving that DMF secretly has a bunch of unlisted abilities that you don't detail and don't exist.

I'd love to see relevant melee types, but you're arguing secret strategy powers.

Obviously, if you're writing a mass combat mini-game for D&D, you're going to have to come up with some kind of mechanism to represent strategic acumen, and you're going to have to add some abilities to every class to interact with the mass combat mini-game. And obviously, the class that represents "the conquering overlord, the elite foot soldier, the hardened mercenary, the bandit king" (PHB 3.5 p 37) is going to get a fuckton of bonus abilities give it a lot of strategic acumen and that make it a preferred choice for general.

The problem is, D&D presents the dumb melee fighter. You're arguing about creating something completely different out of nothing and adding it into the mass battle game.

The issue here is you- you're trying to maintain that the PCs are just normal troops, but out of nowhere also have a bunch of strategic acumen and bonus abilities. Pick one.

If you're planning to fix D&D's ability to tell stories about battles by adding a mass combat mini-game, you're not going to limit yourself to the design flaws of the original versions of D&D, like the lack of of a mass combat mini-game or a fighter class that isn't any good.

Right. You're going to have to dump the fighter class and write something new. You are agreeing with me. But also inexplicably arguing that sometimes the characters are just plain folks, even when they (especially spellcasters) have battle shaping abilities at level 1.

[mlangsdorf]

First off, I'm not writing a D&D mass combat mini-game, because as I have said upthread, I play GURPS and have a perfectly adequate mass combat mini-game already. I'm making suggestions, based on that system and my experience with it, on things other people want to do for a D&D mass combat mini-game.

Anyway, low level PCs and the mass combat mini-game.

Aside from any command responsibilities, a 1st level PC fighter engages the mass-combat mini-game as a member of unit of fighting types with similar abilities: light cavalry or bowmen or heavy infantry or whatever, per the PC's preferences and the composition of the army. A 1st level PC thief is a member of a light infantry unit or some such. A 1st level PC wizard is a member of the wizard unit, and there are at least 6 other NPC wizard spell-casters in that unit. Collectively, the wizard unit influences the battle with their abilities which is abstracted into some kind of troop strength (and maybe some special ability bonus), just like the fighter's heavy cavalry unit adds to the overall troop strength and provides the cavalry special ability bonus.

That might be a little deprotagonizing, but any given 1st level D&D character really doesn't stand out in a battle of 1000 people when there are 10-50 people like him on each side.

Now at some point, the PC stops being run of the mill and one of the rank and file, and becomes something special in his own right. A large army might have entire companies of spellcasters, but it probably doesn't have entire companies of 7th level spellcasters (or 7th level fighters or whatever) and that's when the PC wizard's particular abilities start to matter.

If you want a really rough idea of how I'd approach all of this:

Armies are made of soldiers. Each soldier has a type and provides a troop strength (TS) and 0 or more class specials depending on his type. Class specials are Air, Artillery, Cavalry, Fire Support, Hero, Insubstantial, Spellcasting. When two armies fight, the generals roll 1d20 and add twice their BAB, 1/2 of the best of their Int, Wis, or Cha modifier, any special bonuses, a scaling bonus for having more total troop strength in their army and for each class special that they have at least a 2:1 advantage in. Higher roll wins.

Troop Types would be like this:
Heavy Infantry: TS 5
Pikemen: TS 5, Anticavalry 5
Scout Infantry: TS 2, Recon 2
Heavy Cavalry: TS 4, Cavalry 4
Scout Cavalry: TS 2, Recon 4, Cavalry 2
Foot Archers: TS 3, Fire 3
Horse Archers: TS 2, Recon 3, Cavalry 2, Fire 2
Spellcasters: TS 4, Spell 4, Negates Insubstantial 3
Ballista: TS 30, Artillery 30

An early Roman force under this system would look like this:
4 maniples of 120 heavy infantry each: TS 2400
1 maniple of 120 velite scout infantry: TS 240, Recon 240
1 ala of 120 auxiliary scout cavalry: TS 240, Recon 480, Cavalry 240
1 maniple of priests and augurs (120 spellcasters): TS 480, Spell 480, Negates Insubstantial 360
Total is TS 3360, Cavalry 240, Spell 480, Recon 720, Negates Insubstantial 360

They might fight an orc barbarian horde:
200 orc thugs on horseback (Heavy cavalry): TS 800, Cavalry 800
100 goblin wolfriders (horse archers): TS 200, Recon 300, Cavalry 200, Fire 200
650 orc thugs (Heavy Infantry): TS 3250
50 shamans and witch doctors (Spellcasters): TS 250, Spell 250, Negates Insubstantial 150.
Total is TS 4700, Cavalry 1000, Fire 200, Spell 250, Recon 300, Negates Insubstantial 150.

The orcs have a big edge in cavalry and archery; the Romans have a slight edge in Reconnaissance troops and will need to set up an ambush and have a better general to win this fight.

Anyway. Some character abilities:
Fighter Level 1: Inspiring Presence: Double the TS of up to level x10 soldiers that you are personally fighting with.
Fighter Level 3: Gifted Commander: Add 1 + level/3 to your strategy roll when commanding an army.
Fighter Level 5: Aura of Command: Usurp command of the army from any NPC with a lower BAB or fewer levels in Fighter.
Fighter Level 6: Big Damn Hero: You personally count as a Heavy Infantry or Heavy Cavalry or Bowmen unit with Level * Level / 2 members and the Hero Special class with a value equal to your TS. Your own Inspiring Presence doesn't apply.

And so on and so forth. There's a lot of things to embellish and expand on: Reconnaissance Contests, Morale, terrain, troop quality, the actual results of the battle but I'd start with something like that.

[Thaluikhain]

Aside from any command responsibilities, a 1st level PC fighter engages the mass-combat mini-game as a member of unit of fighting types with similar abilities: light cavalry or bowmen or heavy infantry or whatever, per the PC's preferences and the composition of the army. A 1st level PC thief is a member of a light infantry unit or some such. A 1st level PC wizard is a member of the wizard unit, and there are at least 6 other NPC wizard spell-casters in that unit. Collectively, the wizard unit influences the battle with their abilities which is abstracted into some kind of troop strength (and maybe some special ability bonus), just like the fighter's heavy cavalry unit adds to the overall troop strength and provides the cavalry special ability bonus.

That might be a little deprotagonizing, but any given 1st level D&D character really doesn't stand out in a battle of 1000 people when there are 10-50 people like him on each side.

Hmmm...what would the PCs be doing in the unit? I mean, if you had them be in charge, instead of a party of a fighter, thief, cleric and wizard fighting 6 orcs, you could have 6 orc units engaged by a fighter led unit, while supporting by a group of wizards led by the PC and a group of flankers led by a thief, with the cleric being in charge of the healers. That is, stick "unit" after each PC and monster and run things rather the same.

Again, bit simplistic, but it would allow the PCs to do things and things appropriate to their class.

[mlangsdorf]

You do understand that the units are entirely abstract and we're not putting minis for each unit on the board?

Also, the Exalted solution that you're proposing where units are suits of armor worn by PCs doesn't work at all.