Re: [WW] Weapon reliability mechanics [was some silly argument]

["Dirk" <dirk00001@earthlink.net>]

Did you make up more "literal" rules for the # of casualties, determining
tactical levels, etc.?  I like the idea, and would be very interested in any
hard rules you've made up for it (thinking about that 1500+ combatant battle
;)

And thanks for the kudos! Glad someone other than myself is using those
sheets.

-Brandon

----- Original Message -----
From: <deaconblue3@juno.com>
To: <weirdwars@gamerz.net>
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 11:05 AM
Subject: Re: [WW] Weapon reliability mechanics [was some silly argument]


> On the other side of things, I've spent a lot of time making up tracker
> sheets for large numbers of opponents, as well as the same for the
> players
> to quickly run their NPCs, which greatly speeds things up.
> In case I've missunderstood this all and you meant "hundreds of
> combatants"
> rather than "dozens of combatants", then yes, there's no way you're going
> to
> run a effective d20 mass-combat. We tried doing that in a fantasy game
> just
> recently - even with some home-made rules to speed things up (basically,
> grouping creatures into units of 10 and attacking as full units), it took
> 4
> weeks in all to finish the battle, which involved 1500+ undead, monsters,
> mages, psions, and other evil-doers seiging a castle containing about
> half
> as many "good guys".
> If you're just trying to run a battle involving a platoon or so of
> combatants, however, don't worry - if everyone knows the rules, it'll
> work
> well.
>
> -Brandon
>
>
> --->I've used, and continue to use, Brandon's tracker sheets.  Very, very
> useful for tracking platoon level combat.  I reccomend using all of
> Brandon's sheets.  Even so, it can be cumbersome to run a combat
> involving over 50 combatants on each side.  Even with the sheets, I still
> had squads acting at once (excepting the PCs and the mortor teams).  The
> battle was an assault on an air field, with the PCs and the rest of their
> platoon as the attackers.  what I did was to have each squad (allied and
> enemy) get its own initiative, and act as a squad on that initiative.
> This sped things up considerably, and kept things flowing.  In terms of
> damage and casualties, I used a "roll off" method, a contested roll
> between the squads, with modifiers for tactical ability, level, cover, #
> of automatic weapons, etc.  High roll "wins" and by how much determined
> the resulting casualties.  Winning by only a few means light casualties
> (if any), but the enemy is suppressed for that turn.  Winning by 10 or
> mroe would indicate heavier casualties and damage, as well as
> suppression.  If you want to run a regimental or larger scal battle, get
> a good set of mini rules (Spearhead, Battleground) for either 15mm or
> 1/265th scale, and invest in some minis.  It will be up to the individual
> WMs to determine how the PCs are represented, and how they are effected
> in the battle.
>
> Josh R
>
> "No matter where you go, there you are."  B.Bonzai
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to esquire@gamerz.net with
> unsubscribe weirdwars@gamerz.net
> as the BODY of the message.  The SUBJECT is ignored.
>