Handling large scale battle

[Soccercalle]

Hi. I wonder if there are some good rules anywhere about handling battle with say 10-20 people. Not a large battle like Dangerford or Auroch Hills but something that is too large for using the standard strike rank rules. 

[soltakss]

Glorantha Skirmish Wars is coming out soon, which handles that kind of scale pretty well. I have played a few games at conventions and they worked really well.

You would have to convert RQG Adventurers into the format for the game, though, so would need conversion rules.

[Darius West]

I am pleased to hear about Glorantha Skirmish wars.  If RQG is heading into the Hero Wars that sort of supplement becomes increasingly necessary.

Edited January 29, 2022 by Darius West

[Rob Darvall]

I use a modified version of the Bushido rules.

[Nozbat]

35 minutes ago, Soccercalle said:

Hi. I wonder if there are some good rules anywhere about handling battle with say 10-20 people. Not a large battle like Dangerford or Auroch Hills but something that is too large for using the standard strike rank rules. 

Mythras has Ships and Shieldwalls which is an excellent way to handle small scale to large scale battles on sea or land. 

Not much conversion needed other than skills for being the leader (in Mythras, Strategy & Tactics). All the rest of the skills are ones that a PC might have developed.

I've used them a lot with my Saxon campaign and they work well. As an ex-ancient wargamer I had initially wanted a little more depth but after playing them, I think they are quick and easy to use and allow PCs to feel involved in the decision-making 

[Soccercalle]

1 hour ago, Nozbat said:

Mythras has Ships and Shieldwalls which is an excellent way to handle small scale to large scale battles on sea or land. 

Not much conversion needed other than skills for being the leader (in Mythras, Strategy & Tactics). All the rest of the skills are ones that a PC might have developed.

I've used them a lot with my Saxon campaign and they work well. As an ex-ancient wargamer I had initially wanted a little more depth but after playing them, I think they are quick and easy to use and allow PCs to feel involved in the decision-making 

I guess that the RQG Battle Skill is appr the same as Strategy & Tactics.

[Soccercalle]

2 hours ago, soltakss said:

Glorantha Skirmish Wars is coming out soon, which handles that kind of scale pretty well. I have played a few games at conventions and they worked really well.

You would have to convert RQG Adventurers into the format for the game, though, so would need conversion rules.

Is Glorantha Skirmish Wars a game in itself or a module to use in other games like RQG? This is the first time I hear about it.

[Nozbat]

5 hours ago, Soccercalle said:

I guess that the RQG Battle Skill is appr the same as Strategy & Tactics.

In Mythras Strategy & Tactics skill is a Lore and in RQG it is a knowledge skill. I guess both are similar.

Looking at the RQG Battle skill it is the ability to both survive a massed combat and to lead warriors in such a conflict.  Survival in S&S depends on the percentage of casualties and then if the character is possibly injured, an opposed roll of the individuals personal combat against the opponents original rolled S&T skill. If they are therefore good at individual combat they are likely to get away with light wounds.

The skills in both systems are really Swings and Roundabouts.. but S&S rules are easily transferable to RQG and importantly they do not take forever to play out. The main issue is usually deciding the tactics and dispositions before the battle takes place, giving a rousing speech, insulting your opponent in a meeting of commanders and jeering or being jeered at if there is a refusal of individual combat. In the most recent battle one of the players asked the Cyninge (Queen) to make a rousing speech and she fumbled. Instead of galvanising the troops she told them she was leaving and that as they faced overwhelming odds that they should run away and save their families. Needless to say most took her advice and went to get their families. The PCs still held the defensive line against overwhelming odds using a choke point and a sturdy barricade but were very scared all the way through the battle.

My players enjoy using S&S and as the campaign gets more political and they have gone up in rank they tend to be leading Warbands of 10-20 warriors. It is not feasible to even consider playing that out.

[Soccercalle]

I realised after some googling that the Shieldwalls part of S&S is described in the Mythic Britain-book for Mythras. Seems to be quite easy to use and you could use Battle and Orate Skills from RQG. But is probably more done for battles with 20+ fighters than for 10-15 (where individual battle skills is more important).

[Runeblogger]

44 minutes ago, Nozbat said:

My players enjoy using S&S and as the campaign gets more political and they have gone up in rank they tend to be leading Warbands of 10-20 warriors. It is not feasible to even consider playing that out.

When I used these rules in my samurai campaign, my players complained they were not suited for skirmishes with 20-30 warriors on each side, and I had to agree, as many of the battle effects and damage were awkward for such small units.

Nowadays, I would let the players influence the skirmish with their Battle / S&S skill and then solve the battle with just one roll based on the skill and numbers of the participants.

Edited January 29, 2022 by Runeblogger

[Nozbat]

10 minutes ago, Soccercalle said:

I realised after some googling that the Shieldwalls part of S&S is described in the Mythic Britain-book for Mythras. Seems to be quite easy to use and you could use Battle and Orate Skills from RQG. But is probably more done for battles with 20+ fighters than for 10-15 (where individual battle skills is more important).

I think its perfectly good for 10-20 warriors and works well... but my focus is really not on combat and its therefore just another mechanism to move the narrative on. Mind you the last battles produced real jeopardy for the PCs and they thought they were going to die (heroically) defending Colnecæster from the Angles.

Individual 'Battle' skills are reflected in the difficulty of the rolls. Hardened warriors who are trained to fight in a Shieldwall make mincemeat of the Fyrd. Higher Battle skills reflect types of possible formations, morale, rallying, special effects etc. As I said above, I initially wanted more complexity but the RAW in S&S can be used in all situations and I found through playing them as written works well. 

YGMV so do what you think is best as @Runeblogger has done above

[soltakss]

6 hours ago, Soccercalle said:

Is Glorantha Skirmish Wars a game in itself or a module to use in other games like RQG?

It is a game in itself. Mad Knight are producing it and, hopefully, it will be out this year.

[Orlanthatemyhamster]

You could always use the Pendragon rules. 

[David Scott]

22 hours ago, Soccercalle said:

Hi. I wonder if there are some good rules anywhere about handling battle with say 10-20 people. Not a large battle like Dangerford or Auroch Hills but something that is too large for using the standard strike rank rules. 

The RQG Battle rules will use a modified version of the Pendragon Battle rules. Pendragon divided mass combat in to

Skirmish - single unit vs. single unit, at most 200 combatants. (Skirmish 5.2 page 154)

Battle - multiple units, 200-20000 combatants. (Battle 5.2 page 236)

See the example here of @Jeff using the new RQG Battle rules modelled on Pendragon. But you can use the skirmish rules pretty much as.

[Stephen L]

23 hours ago, Soccercalle said:

I wonder if there are some good rules anywhere about handling battle with say 10-20 people. Not a large battle like Dangerford or Auroch Hills

If it were me, I would run it using the larger scale battle "rules".  I can't see why it wouldn't work for a skirmish.

31 minutes ago, David Scott said:

See the example here

David Scotts reply links to the example of the Battle of Queens.

Also the White Bull campaign has how Jeff played this through in the Chaosium house campaign:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJNnec52PzjOWpiUFsO_8YRRDmwFG1wEK

It's episodes 10-12.

But how I play it is: the players round the table fight a normal RQ engagement as a vignette, a scene which is an element of the whole fight (but perhaps slightly more fluid, in that combatants can be swept apart, or thrown together), and then I, as GM, hand wave the rest of what's happening round them.  The example for the Battle of Queens gives an idea of how this hand waving can be done formally with battle rolls and rules like guiding passion.

I like this approach, because I *really* like the RQ combat system.  And, to me, a battle or skirmish is the perfect show case for it (at least for me and my players).  And what I've seen of the battle rules, I can't see these would need much variation to handle small skirmishes up to apocalyptic battles.

Edited January 30, 2022 by Stephen L
That grammar thing

[Squaredeal Sten]

On 1/29/2022 at 5:09 AM, Soccercalle said:

Hi. I wonder if there are some good rules anywhere about handling battle with say 10-20 people. Not a large battle like Dangerford or Auroch Hills but something that is too large for using the standard strike rank rules. 

"Handling" can be done a couple of ways.  One is by treating it as a miniatures game.  The other is by abstracting it: the method presented in Company of the Dragon.  To summarize it, both sides are given group stats.  The basic stat is STR, representing troop quality and armor, while SIZ And POW and Battle skill of leaders, also a possible Orate,  are among the modifiers. Each PC gets a single combat and the aggregate result is another modifier.   You roll STR vs STR and apply the modifiers to the roll.

It works.   Really doesn't take too long if the GM has already worked up the group stats.   I made myself a worksheet for it.  Used it last Friday as a matter of fact.  I will say it favors a party of developed PCs but that helps prevent a Total Party Kill.

Edited January 30, 2022 by Squaredeal Sten
spelling; of, not if. Typing on the smartphone induces errors.