This is part four of this six part series.

Part 1 and Part 2 discussed the fundamental concepts needed to simulate a unit of 100 soldiers. Part 3 began discussing the practicalities of war in play, introducing the Initiative and Action Phases, the Action Order and handling Initiative for army units, and unit Morale. Part 4 will continue discussing the procedures for conducting a battle.

Part 4: The War Round (Continued)

The War Round Action Phase (Continued)

There are 7 stages to a the Action Phase of a war round. Part 3 identified these stages and detailed the first of them, the Morale Check. The article now continues with the other 6 stages: Movement, The Leadership/Tactics Check, The Luck Check, Tactical Advantages analysis, Attack allocation, and Attack Resolution.

Movement

In an Initiative phase, an army unit can move half it’s movement allowance or it can attack. In their action phase, they can move a maximum of 5’… which would be invisible at the scales reccomended. So, in effect, an army can move in it’s action phase and make a single attack, or it can stay still and make full attack.

This is not entirely realistic, nor is it in keeping with the normal D&D rules. It’s the result of the level of abstraction necessary to simulate other aspects of unit behaviour in battles while maintaining playability.

Leadership/Tactics check

The leader of each side then makes a tactics check (if he has “knowledge: war” or “knowledge: tactics” or similar, or a leadership check if he doesn’t, at a DC set by the GM. I set the base DC as 0, plus:

• +3 for each unit under the command of the leader*
• -2 for each unit commanded by someone with a leadership skill at least half that of the overall leader*
• +3 for each unit that has taken 50% or more casualties or is suffering from a morale failure
• +1 to +10 for difficulty of terrain (doesn’t normally change during battle)
• +1 to +10 for ‘fog of war’ depending on intelligence and messaging capabilities between units (Starts at +1 and worsens by 1 every round of battle)
• +1 for each special attack or other unusual consideration that the leader has to take into account, per unit affected
• -5 if clearly winning
• +5 if clearly losing
• +0 to +20 for other tactical complications

You’ll notice that there aren’t many things that reduce the DC, and that it goes up as the battle progresses (and inevitably grows more tactically complicated)! Compensating for this is the fact that two of these modifiers are not initially applied – they are the ones with an asterisk.

If the leader fails his roll, he cannot modify his battle plans or pre-battle instructions to the troops. They are on their own. Most of the time, however, he will succeed, either by a reasonable margin or by a small margin. Here’s where it gets interesting: The two modifiers with the asterisk are then applied, one unit at a time, until the roll becomes a failure, or all units have been accounted for. These units are counted, and the result is the number of units that can have their orders changed.

Changes in battle plan must be allocated to those units closest to the commander first – which are usually the ones farthest away from the actual battle. That usually means that to change his battle plans, the easiest way is to send in his reserves while the actual units whose behaviour he wants to change fall back to receive their new instructions. (This rule is ignored if some means of rapid communications has been set up).

Once the changed plan has been communicated to the units closest to the commander, he can continue to spread it further away in subsequent rounds if necessary.

A unit does not usually get the message instantly in any non-modern setting; it takes 1 round for instructions to travel one space (I use hexes). Between delays in issuing the instructions and delays in the instructions being received, they are often meaningless by the time they reach the unit for which they were issued – the tactical situation will have changed. In practice, that usually means that each unit is on its own, and follows its own leader’s judgement according to the overall pre-battle plan.

Ringers
This is best handled using a ringer to command one side and one or more of the PCs to command the other. On rare occasions, it might be more appropriate to have two ringers each commanding one force.

A ringer, also known as a ring-in, is a guest player whose job isn’t to roleplay, it’s to be the general. An experienced boardgamer is usually the best choice.

They issue the instructions, but I (as GM) decide what each unit actually DOES on the field of battle, keep track of when messages are received, and how they are acted apon. This makes a complicated situation far more manageable.

Luck Check:

Having taken one of the key variable factors out of the equation when we eliminated the need to roll each and every individual attack, we now need to put one back; the reason for the simplification was never a problem with random variability of result, it was a question of practicality. It might seem that the statistical arguement that was made at the time justified the elimination of the random factor, but luck is a real phenomenon that plays a part in almost every battle (even if it is less dominant than most people, players and GMs alike, believe).

Therefore, I decided that at this point, there should be something that put the question of luck back into play – but at the strategic scale. What I came up with is the luck check.
This step is only carried out in the FIRST action phase of a round that applies to an army unit commanded by this particular leader.

The luck check is a simple d20 roll, -1 for each unit currently suffering from a Morale failure, +1 for each unit that is currently Rallied or Resurgant. Any magic that gives a character luck also gives +1 to the roll. Each point of the result can be used to achieve a particular set of effects before the next action phase. Luck checks have a minimum value of 1 point. A single point of luck can be used to:

• improve a single unit’s next morale check by +5
• add 10% damage to a single unit’s next attack
• reduce the damage inflicted by a single enemy unit’s next attack by 10%
• increase a single unit’s movement rate by 5″ (maximum +30″)
• reduce a single enemy unit’s movement rate by 5″ (maximum effect halves enemy movement; initiative phase movement is unaffected)
• reduce one enemy unit’s cover from ranged weapons by 5% (must expend enough luck points to reduce cover to the next standard value)
• increase one allied unit’s cover from ranged weapons by 5% (must expend enough luck points to increase cover to the next standard value)
• reduce by one round the time it takes for a tactical change (from the preceeding leadership roll) to reach a unit (minimum required is 1 round).

Luck as a strategic factor
A commander never has as much luck as he would like. Luck, properly applied, can swing the battle one way or the other, but on it’s owm it is not decisive. Luck can neutralise an imbalance in forces long enough to make a fair fight of a mismatch. Even more decisive over the course of a battle is how luck is applied; because both sides have it, and can use it both to their own benefit and to disadvantage their opponants, victory is generally decided by how a commander takes advantage of the luck that comes his way. The obvious and simplest approach is a game of chicken, in which the commander who allocates his luck second negates, or compensates for, whatever the commander who allocated first has done. However, it does not take long to learn that this is a losing tactic, because the commander who goes first can simply apply his luck to increasing the damage inflicted in his action phase; by the time the second commander gets to employ his own serving of luck, the damage has already been done. He may even be further disadvantaged if one or more of his units have failed morale checks as a result of the massive first strike of his opponant.

Luck, therefore, has to be used to shore up a command’s weaknesses, blunt the strengths of an enemy, and increase the enemy’s vulnerability to the commander’s units’ own strengths. The problem is that there is rarely enough luck going around to do all that. This means that the tides of batte will inevitably ebb and flow as one commander finds a tactic that works for the current round, only to have it countered by his enemy in subsequent rounds.

Tactical Advantages Assessment

The GM then considers the tactical situation of each unit that has an action phase on the current action number. If a unit is in a strong position, he may rule that it receives a tactical advantage, represented by a further 5% additional damage inflicted. If in a tactically inferior position, he may reduce their damage by 5%.

As a rule of thumb, I apply the following guidelines:

• unit is in a catastrophically exposed or vulnerable position: -15% (3 tactical disadvantage levels)
• unit is exposed on two fronts and has one other tactical disadvantage: -10% (2 tactical disadvantage levels)
• unit is exposed to a single tactical disadvantage without a compensating advantage: -5% (1 tactical disadvantage level)
• units advantages are balanced by disadvantages: +0%
• unit has a single tactical advantage: +5%
• unit has two tactical advantages: +10%
• unit has two tactical advantages that synergise, or has three or more tactical advantages: +15%

These can wipe out a luck-generated advantage or enhance it, or vice-versa.

It is the responsibility of the unit’s commander to record on the unit’s documentation what tactical advantage score was applied in the last round, and be ready to report to the GM what has changed about the unit’s circumstances since the last round. If the commander has failed to do so, or cannot report clearly any change of circumstance, the rule is that the unit has the tactical disadvantage of ‘sloppy leadership’ – with the accompanying 5% damage penalty (in addition to whatever is decided according to the unit’s location and circumstance).

Examples of tactical disadvantages and advantages are:

• coming under fire from enemy archers while in combat with another unit (disadvantage)
• being supported by enemy archers while in combat with another unit (advantage)
• being flanked by another enemy unit (disadvantage)
• having another allied unit flanking the target unit (advantage)
• having the high ground (advantage)
• being positioned on lower ground (disadvantage)
• having cover (advantage, negates any disadvantage from archers)
• having surprise (advantage)
• being surprised (disadvantage)

…. and so on.

It should be noted that the size of a tactical advantage modifier is half that of a luck modifier simply because the same circumstance will generally work in favour of one unit in conflict and against the unit that they are battling, so it counts twice.

Ingenious commanders will find all sorts of things to ‘suggest’ as advantages for their side and disadvantages for their enemy. Be prepared to rebuff any that you consider inappropriate.

As GM, while the commander is recording the advantage total that has just been handed down against his unit, I add any new advantages or disadvantages to prepared lists so that I can be consistant in my rulings. There will be more said on the subject of tracking decisions and outcomes of War rounds below.

Attack Allocation

The next step in an action phase is for the commander to allocate attacks, or more accurately, targets. Unlike the attack in in the Initiative Phase, which must be directed against a single target, an attack in the action phase can be split up and spread amongst as many target units as are adjacent to the unit making the attack. However, because variability of results will play a greater role if the attack is spread amongst several targets, there is an additional variability to be applied. Furthermore, this random factor is biased towards the low end.

The random factor comes in two parts, both decided by die rolls. The first part imbalances the split between a primary target and a number of secondary targets, while the second reduces the total damage inflicted (because some troops will be unable to decide which target to attack, or unable to reach their selected target during the action phase). As a result, there will be some damage that the unit could potentially inflict that does not occur when attacking more than one target.

Method
Roll 1d8 for each target after the first and total the effects shown on the table below.

EG: Unit 1 is in a bad position; it is being attacked on four sides, though each of the attacking units is fairly weak. It has been attacking Unit 2 since the start of battle, so that is its primary target, but the commander on the spot has decided to spread his attacks against all four units in hopes of breaking the morale of at least one. That means that Unit 1 will be attacking one primary target (with which it is already engaged) and 3 secondary targets. The commander rolls 3d8 and looks up each result on the table above, which he then totals:

With 3 secondary targets, these reduce to -8% damage to secondary targets, +8% damage to primary target, +2.9 denomenator.

Interpreting the results:
The denomenator penalty fictitiously increases the number of ‘units’ that the damage is being spread amongst. Even a small amount of confusion adds up to tremendous losses of effect. In the case of our example, instead of dividing by 4 to determine the base amount of damage inflicted by each unit, the total inflicted is divided by 6.9 (=4 + 2.9). If the damage was normally 2800 points, it becomes 405.79 (round up to 406) points against each of the attacking units instead of being 700 each. That’s only 406/700 = 58% of normal efficiency. Almost half the unit has failed to engage.

In our example, the amount of damage apportioned to the first secondary target is up by 5+3=8%; the amount apportioned to the second is reduced by 3+3=6%; and the amount apportioned to the third is reduced by 4+6=10%. This equates to an increase over the base damage apportioned to the primary target of 8%. Since the base amount is 406, the damages inflicted on each unit, respectively, is 406+8% = 438.48 points (round down to 438) against the primary; 406+8%=438 points to the first secondary target; 406-6%=381 to the second secondary target, and 406-10%=365 points. Even if the attacking units are weak, unless they are already heavily damaged, this seems unlikely to cause any of them to break and run.

Friendly Fire [Optional Rule]
When the system was used in play, one of the Ringers suggested that some or all of the “confusion inefficiency” should actually be expressed as internal damage to the attacking unit from “Friendly Fire”. He argued that the concept of uniforms was a relatively new one, and that one swordsman looked much like another on the battlefield. Having considered this, I decided that in a game setting, there were occasions when this might be appropriate and occasions when it was blatantly obvious who is on which side. So this rule is optional depending on the circumstances and whether or not the DM wants to invoke it.

The reccommended percentage of the losses due to efficiency is 25% +5% per secondary target.

Resolving Attacks

This is handled in a very similar fashion to the resolution of attacks described in the Initiative Phase. However, there are a number of additional factors to take into account, and these should be handled in this sequence:

• Base Damage x Survive %
• Add any bonus from Luck;
• Subtract any penalty from opponant’s Luck;
• Apply any modifier for stratregic advantages or disadvantages;
• Subtract any damage inflicted in the Initiative Phase;
• Divide by the number of targets being attacked plus any confusion modifier;
• Apply secondary target modifiers as necessary.

The result is the actual damage inflicted on each unit attacked during this action phase. Notice that spreading attacks over multiple units is not only inefficient, it’s a lot more work for the commander and referee. In reality, I don’t think the confusion penalty would be anywhere near as high as the system sets it; while the rules are there to use, I wanted to discourage this particular rule from being heavily used.

Tracking War in play

Despite appearances, there’s relatively little bookkeeping here, except when secondary targets become involved.

An ‘order of battle’ listing priority targets should be noted and the basic strategy written down. These are the rules of engagement that each unit is supposed to follow – at least until the orders change. This should be prepared by each commander and given to the DM, who will adjudicate the actions of each unit according to that strategy (with the commander acting as advisor/consultant when his troops are concerned).

When a unit attacks, the commander notes the number of enemy troops killed within the targetted units on a scratch pad for use in that unit’s next morale check and documents the tactical bonus awarded that round.

When a unit is attacked, the commander determines the % of the unit that is killed, and adjust the percentage that survives appropriately. It’s good practice to immediatly recalculate the base damage that the unit can inflict right away.

This concludes part four of this six-part article. Part five will look at how to have the War interact with PCs and other important individuals, and vicce-versa, as we continue to make it practical to referee a 10,000 man battle.