Desirable Elements in a Mass Combat Minigame
Posted: Sat Dec 02, 2017 5:31 pm
So the other thread is really about straight up dealbreakers - things that a mass combat minigame needs to do and where failure means that the subsystem simply is not fit for purpose and can be dismissed out of hand. Here's the short list to condense several dozen posts:
I would say that the following things would be nice:
- A Mass Combat system that cannot accept the inputs of the kinds of mishmash armies RPG characters actually end up with is a simple failure.
- A Mass Combat system that cannot scale to the arbitrarily large armies that actual RPG situations might require is not particularly useful.
- A Mass Combat system that cannot show real effects from player actions is not actually a part of an RPG and has no value when discussing one.
- A Mass Combat system that any of the players cannot meaningfully interact with is worthless.
- A Mass Combat system that is invalidated by abilities in the regular skirmish level RPG might as well not exist.
- A Mass Combat system that supersedes the normal RPG actions is at best a concession that your core rules are trashable and probably worse than that.
I would say that the following things would be nice:
- Quick Resolution. The very first issue is that the Mass Combat system is and always will be a subsystem. Your Mass Combat system isn't done when there's nothing left to add, it's done when there's nothing left to take away. Resolution time is a real cost of anything your Mass Combat system does, and every part of the Mass Combat system needs to be scrutinized for ways it can be made to run faster and smoother.
- Meaningful Troop Differences. An RPG allows you to have a truly bewilderingly large amount of different soldiers under your command. You could have Dwarves with warhammers or Orcs with ranseurs. You can equip your Orcs with spiderweb armor looted from Drow vaults and give your Grimlock slaves iron swords. Obviously you're going to have to draw the line somewhere somehow, but the more these differences matter the happier the Johnnies are going to be.
- Quality and Quantity Differences. Sometimes you're going to have your own Dragon Turtle and sometimes you're going to have a bewilderingly large pile of Goblin spear chuckers. And it would be nice if that mattered somehow. There will obviously be some sense in which a Wyvern Rider is worth some number of Giant Weasel Riders, but it would also be good if there were also some senses in which the more elite force was better or worse.
- Army Divisions. You're going to need to aggregate military forces to a significant degree. You can't meaningfully talk about squads of ten soldiers or whatever because that fails to scale as much as is required. However, it is also important that there be different parts of the army. The players need to be able to do things like "attack the left flank" or "cut off the reserves by breaking the dam" and such. For that to happen, there need to be parts of the army. Probably somewhere between 3 and 8 parts per army.
- Leadership and Morale This seems self explanatory. Probably the default way for a team of adventurers to interact with an army is to target and slay a commander. Therefore there has to be stuff that having a commander around (and by extension not having that commander around) actually does.
- Casualties and Conquest. While it's fine (if still pretty weird) for skirmish battles to end with one side wiped out, it's simply unacceptable for military engagements to typically be fought to the death of full sides. That's deeply unrealistic and also super upsetting. Winning the field and calculating how many casualties are taken on each side should be achievable.