Skip to Content
 

Trouble with formations

13 replies [Last post]
Wed, 08/31/2005 - 20:33
Infernal
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969

I am working on a table top wargame. this game will have 1 minature (or chit) to represent around 100 troops (this is a large scale game). The problem I am working on is a way to calculate the number of troops in the unit that would be engaged in melee (I call this frontage). As only 1 minture represents the unit I can't just llok at the number of minatures touching others.

Each unit will be able to be in one of several formations, however not all of these formations will be nice even lines (ranks).

Overview of formations:
These formations are the ones I am having trouble with (formations with ranks are easy to work out. None of these have ranks.
Scattered - The troops are spread out, having roughly 5 metres between them.
Loose - The troops are spread out with roughly 3 to 5 metres between them.
Tight - The troops are close together packed shoulder to shoulder.

Any suggestions on how to handle the frontage of these formations would be apreciated.

Top
Wed, 08/31/2005 - 22:37
#1
Emphyrio
Emphyrio's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/10/2010
Trouble with formations

It depends on your scale, doesn't it? How much space does each miniature represent? If you have 100 troops 5m apart, it will be a square at least 50m on a side, with 40 troops on the perimeter able to engage an enemy facing them.

Also, frontage is not the only factor determining how many troops can engage. You may want to consider formations such as the Greek phalanx, where several ranks could engage at once due to their long spears, and the Roman maniple, where rear ranks would advance through gaps in the front ranks in a sort of leapfrogging advance.

Top
Wed, 08/31/2005 - 23:03
#2
Infernal
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Trouble with formations

I have rules for more ordered formations with ranks. What I am loking for is ways to calculate the number of troops that could engage if the group was a mob or such.

Each formation can perfome several "manoeuvers" that allow for different uses of the formation, like using lang spears and such.

I have rules for the flanx type of effect,

Quote:
Greek phalanx, where several ranks could engage at once due to their long spears, and the Roman maniple, where rear ranks would advance through gaps in the front ranks in a sort of leapfrogging advance.
but not for the roman maniple. Thanks I will add them in.

Top
Thu, 09/01/2005 - 01:38
#3
Anonymous
Trouble with formations

how about making a circle template, cut it in half and put it at the models feet. If it's in range, say that perhaps half the units are in range of the enemy models.

But don't really know how the rest of your system works...

Top
Thu, 09/01/2005 - 02:55
#4
Infernal
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Trouble with formations

I am basing my system off the D&D D20 system. This is an attempt to make a mass combat system that I can use in my roleplaying game.

If you are unfamiliar with the D20 roleplaying game system tehn you can check here: http://d20srd.org/index.htm
I have posted my curent rules in my journal:
http://www.bgdf.com/modules.php?name=Journal&file=display&jid=435

Top
Thu, 09/01/2005 - 03:45
#5
Anonymous
Trouble with formations

well in that case you could just make a square tile... put them 3 in a row...

[ ][ ][ ]

place it in front of and canter of the units square.... any figures touching those 3 squares can be attacked...

or am i missing your question....

do you mean you want to calculate how many in a 1 figure 100 man unit could attack?

if so you could make rules for it like this

Rank of unit / percentage of unit that can hit in melee
Elite / 60
Veteran / 50
Trained / 40
Basic / 30
Untrained / 20

does anything land near what you seek?

Top
Thu, 09/01/2005 - 05:28
#6
Infernal
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Trouble with formations

Quote:
do you mean you want to calculate how many in a 1 figure 100 man unit could attack?

Yes. Each unit is a single figure. Although minatures may be next to eachother they will be fighting as a seperate unit and will need to have their frontage calculations done seperatly.

eg
[1][2]
Where 1 and 2 are minature figures.

or
[1][2]
[A][B]
Where 1 and 2 are seperate units on one side and A and B are 2 seperate units on the opponents side.

Each unit has its own formation and frontage calculations. This will not nessesarily be shown on the minature model (may be as a chit or token placed beside it though).

Quote:
Rank of unit / percentage of unit that can hit in melee
Elite / 60
Veteran / 50
Trained / 40
Basic / 30
Untrained / 20

At the moment I have a similar system to what you have suggested. It does have some problems that I want to eliminate.

These are apparent when fighting with a unit significantly smaller than the opponent's. If your unit's size is less than, or simialr to, the enemy units frontage but you have it that only 50% can hit in melee then it does not make too much sense as you unit would spread out across the frontage of you opponent (this is the main problem that I wish to fix).

Anothr other problem is when you get 2 dispersed formations fighting each other. The problem is how (or if I allow) the 2 units to mix together and overlap (the minatures will still be placed side by side) so that the 2 units would effectively occupy the same space (or close to).

Top
Thu, 09/01/2005 - 05:57
#7
Lor
Lor's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Trouble with formations

I know it's a large scale game and this could make it larger, but have you considered that maybe your troop granularity ought to be smaller? Like maybe, one miniature for ten troops? Like a platoon?

Have you considered a WarHammer-like die-throw for damage? I don;t know if that's in the D20 system or not. You know, random effects from fog of war. Always happens.

How about a spinner shaped like a military compass?

Top
Thu, 09/01/2005 - 06:23
#8
Infernal
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Trouble with formations

Quote:
Have you considered a WarHammer-like die-throw for damage? I don;t know if that's in the D20 system or not. You know, random effects from fog of war. Always happens.

The game uses the Dungeons and Dragons roleplaying game system.
In D&D attack rolls are done by rolling a D20 and adding an attack bonus (this can vary quite a lot depending on the level and type of the character). If this attack score is equal to or greater than the targets Armor Calss (AC) then the attack is successful.

If the attack is successful then damage is rolled. The dice used to roll the damage depends on the weapon used, alos then a damage bonus based on the character's strength is added to the damge roll. Some characters can attack several times in one round.

My combat resolution system is prety much the same. All I have done to it as use the inital attack roll to calculate the percentage of troops that would have hit in the round (instead of rolling for each one).

Quote:
I know it's a large scale game and this could make it larger, but have you considered that maybe your troop granularity ought to be smaller? Like maybe, one miniature for ten troops? Like a platoon?

This system is design to scale (you could use 10 troops in a unit or even a 1000). However if you are geting down to a 10 troop unit then it would be better handeled as a normal combat in the roleplaying game.

This mass combat system is going to be used as a addon to the core mechanics. As the D20 system is covered under the Open Game Licence, I could eventually sell this system as my on=wn creation (I am not planing to do this at the moment).

Quote:
How about a spinner shaped like a military compass?

You seem to like spinners at the moment :-D

Top
Thu, 09/01/2005 - 15:08
#9
Lor
Lor's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Trouble with formations

You don't think a miltary compass-style spinner with numbers instead of compass points for at least navigating would be cool? Then just throw the dice for damage. Who says you have to adhere to all the features of an existing system? You're describing WarHammer's attack and damage determination. Thinking of ways to make it more unique!

Well, just a notion.

Top
Thu, 09/01/2005 - 19:19
#10
jwalduck
Offline
Joined: 09/06/2011
Trouble with formations

The question is about the combat frontage - how many men will be engaging in combat when agiven combination of formations meet.

I think the answer must be in thinking of combinations of formations. There are basically teo types: loose and tight formations. Tight formations have no gaps for the enemy to get through.

If a loose formation meets a tight formation the loose formation will pile up against the front of the tight formation. The frontage will be determined by the tight formation. The tight formation would also be at an advantage because they have been drilled to work in confined conditions while the loose formation has not.

When two loose formations meet the two will permiate each other to a certain extent and then stop as individuals stop and engage each other. How much they do this could be determined by the speed of the fastest unit (ie a cavelry charge will get further into the ranks then foot soildiers).

Consider a loose unit of 4 ranks of 25 men with large gaps between.

They meet a tight formation of 3 ranks of 33 men. The loose formation will collapse onto the tight one and end up fighting across a frontage of 33 (probably at a disadvantage to the formerly loose formation).

Or they engage another 4x25 formation. Because of their speed they get two ranks into the enemy formation before the melee starts proper. This would be result in a frontage of 50.

Basically you want to know how many one-to-one engagements will result from two formations meeting. Sometimes some formations can achieve a numbers supremacy. Units used to fighting in a tight formation could achieve a higher effective frontage - 1.5 men to each enemy man maybe. The Greek lance formation would be three to one.

Anyway that's just thinking out loud... Is this the kind of thing you are thinking of/looking for?

Top
Thu, 09/01/2005 - 22:36
#11
Lor
Lor's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Trouble with formations

[The question is about the combat frontage - how many men will be engaging in combat when agiven combination of formations meet. ]

Yours is the better answer for Infernal.

But now I have patented my design of the Military Compass Spinner Navigation and Frontage Attack Engagement System (MICSNATTASYS pronounced like "pacifist"). Soon to be available here a the Proto-Parts store. Reasonable licensing terms available.

(Not.;-)

Top
Thu, 09/01/2005 - 23:56
#12
Emphyrio
Emphyrio's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/10/2010
Trouble with formations

By coincidence, I was working on mass battle rules for d20 several months ago. For the frontage issue, I took the approach that one individual (medium size) occupies a 5' square as in normal d20. Since my physical scale was 60' to the square, that meant each unit had a maximum frontage of 12 troops. I didn't worry about different formations though.

Have you thought about how to handle units with multiple attack forms (especially magical ones)? Can some of the troops lob grenade-like weapons while others are in melee? What about massed archers? Standard d20 assumes that an archer is aiming at a particular target, but I believe in actual battles, archers would send a volley of arrows up into the air at an angle, figuring that if the enemy was closely packed they would probably hit someone. I guess the chances of that would depend less on the archer's skill than on the density of the enemy formation and what kind of armor they have.

Top
Fri, 09/02/2005 - 00:37
#13
Infernal
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Trouble with formations

Quote:
If a loose formation meets a tight formation the loose formation will pile up against the front of the tight formation. The frontage will be determined by the tight formation.

Thanks jwalduck, this is what I was working towards. I kept thinking in combinations of formations (but if I added more formations the number of combinations would get out of hand). By using the tighter formation to determine the frontage it seems to give an easy method to calculate the frontage.

I think I will use a combination of duckforceone's percentage for engagement and your tighter formation determines the frontage systems.

Fronatge Rule (new)
If one formation is a tight formation (Tight, Box, Rank or Wedge) then the defence frontage is determined by the frontage of the tightest formation.

If the units have a loose formation (Loose, Scattered or Dispersed) then they will have a percentage overlap,based on the speed of the attackers.

Quote:
Have you thought about how to handle units with multiple attack forms (especially magical ones)? Can some of the troops lob grenade-like weapons while others are in melee?

I created the "Manoeuvres" to handle such situations. If the unit just moves and or attacks withits frontage each turn then no manoeuvres are needed. Every time the player wishes to do somthing out of the ordinary with a unit it must make a manoeuvre and pass a comand check to perform the manoeuvre successfully. Failure of the command check means that the manoeuvre was not performed and no more manoeuvres can be attempted this round. If the check faile by too much (critical failure) then the unit will loose all manoeuvres it has attempted this round and can't make any more manoeuvres this round either. Also certain formations have restrictions on what manoeuvres the unit can do. This has given a large flexability to the system.

Ranged attacks are made without the frontage rules. The frontage rules are just for melee attacks.

Quote:
, I took the approach that one individual (medium size) occupies a 5' square as in normal d20. Since my physical scale was 60' to the square, that meant each unit had a maximum frontage of 12 troops.

I have tried to have the system scaleable so that the play can seamlesly (as much as posable) go from single characters fighting on the battlefield to several units of over 100 troops each alsongside them (and even have them interact as well).

This is why I chose to go to a statistical model of the attack roll as it can be scaled easily (a single character could still use this model without any change to the outcome of the attack roll).

Top
Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut