War Machine Options - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

War Machine Options

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
Traianus_Decius_Aureus
Jul 14, 2005 10:14:28 I saw a similar thread started on the listserv about additional tactics for War Machine and thought I'd post some of my campaign's options. I'd be interested to see what other's have come up with.

7. Field Artillery
When a force uses field artillery, apply the following adjustments:
a. If the force is using the Hold tactic, the field artillery adds the full BR bonus and the enemy’s casualties are increased 50%.
b. If the force is using any other tactic, there are two options: the first is the artillery adds only ¼ the BR bonus, the enemy’s casualties are increased by +30%, but due to misfires the forces casualties are increased by +10%. This represents firing the artillery only before the forces engage. The second adds the full BR bonus and the enemy’s casualties are 50%, but the force’s casualties are doubled. This represents using the artillery as much as possible during battle.

8. Field Fortifications
When a force uses field fortifications (mantlets, timber forts, etc…) apply the following adjustments:
a. If the force is using the Hold tactic, the field fortifications add the full BR bonus and the force’s casualties are reduced by 20%. At the DM’s discretion, this option may be applied to the trap or envelopement tactics.
b. If the force is using any other tactic the field fortifications adds only ¼ the BR bonus, the force’s casualties are decreased by +5%. This represents using cover only before the forces engage in melee and to shield rearguard troops from missile fire.

The force commander may order his troops to concentrate their attacks against a specific enemy troop type. 75% of all casualties inflicted in the battle affect these troops first, with the remaining 25% casualties then affecting the rest of the army equally. If the 75% casualities would result in more casualities than targeted troops, the leftover casualities are added to the 25% affecting other troop types.
Thus, when facing an army of 2,000 infantry and 500 archers, if the archers are the primary targets, they will take the casualties first. The archers take 75% of the casualties, while the remaining 25% affects the infantry. If the battle results indicate 400 casualties, 300 of them will be inflicted on the archers and 100 on the infantry. If the results indicate 800 casualties, all 500 archers are wounded or killed, and the remaining 300 casualties are inflicted on the infantry.

The force commander may also order his forces to target the mounts of enemy cavalry. This results in a reduction of the enemy’s casualties by 10%, but it triples the number of mount casualties.
#2
spellweaver
Jul 14, 2005 11:06:07
The force commander may order his troops to concentrate their attacks against a specific enemy troop type. 75% of all casualties inflicted in the battle affect these troops first, with the remaining 25% casualties then affecting the rest of the army equally. If the 75% casualities would result in more casualities than targeted troops, the leftover casualities are added to the 25% affecting other troop types.
Thus, when facing an army of 2,000 infantry and 500 archers, if the archers are the primary targets, they will take the casualties first. The archers take 75% of the casualties, while the remaining 25% affects the infantry. If the battle results indicate 400 casualties, 300 of them will be inflicted on the archers and 100 on the infantry. If the results indicate 800 casualties, all 500 archers are wounded or killed, and the remaining 300 casualties are inflicted on the infantry.

The force commander may also order his forces to target the mounts of enemy cavalry. This results in a reduction of the enemy’s casualties by 10%, but it triples the number of mount casualties.

An interesting post but I foresee a few problems with the above rule, particularly when an army might have dragons or giants in it. It seems to me that if a commander can focus the attacks of his army on a specific type of troops, such as four dragons in an army of 3000 orcs, and the leftover "kills" will just be distributed amongst the orcs, then he has really nothing to loose by using that tactic. He is guaranteed to kill three dragons (!) and the orcs take the rest of the fatalities. His own troops do not suffer any extra casualties from this determined tactic nor any other tactical disadvantages, which they IMHO should suffer.

Just a thought.

:-) Jesper
#3
Traianus_Decius_Aureus
Jul 14, 2005 11:29:45
An interesting post but I foresee a few problems with the above rule, particularly when an army might have dragons or giants in it. It seems to me that if a commander can focus the attacks of his army on a specific type of troops, such as four dragons in an army of 3000 orcs, and the leftover "kills" will just be distributed amongst the orcs, then he has really nothing to loose by using that tactic. He is guaranteed to kill three dragons (!) and the orcs take the rest of the fatalities. His own troops do not suffer any extra casualties from this determined tactic nor any other tactical disadvantages, which they IMHO should suffer.

Just a thought.

:-) Jesper

Actually that had crossed my mind when I first developed these add-ons, and part of the solution we use is casualties are calculated off of total HD of the force, not simply the number of troops. This is how things are calculated in Sea Machine and makes much more sense. In the above, your dragons absorb a high percentage of the HD, and leave much fewer orc casualties.

As for a penalty for such an explicit targeting, how about +15% casualties (assuming troops will defend themselves if attacked by other troop types) and a BR penalty of -20?
#4
spellweaver
Jul 14, 2005 12:16:17
Actually that had crossed my mind when I first developed these add-ons, and part of the solution we use is casualties are calculated off of total HD of the force, not simply the number of troops. This is how things are calculated in Sea Machine and makes much more sense. In the above, your dragons absorb a high percentage of the HD, and leave much fewer orc casualties.

As for a penalty for such an explicit targeting, how about +15% casualties (assuming troops will defend themselves if attacked by other troop types) and a BR penalty of -20?

Using HD instead of number of troops sounds much more reasonable. I don't remember much about Warmachine so I cannot comment on whether the penalties you suggest are fitting or not but they sound okay to me

:-) Jesper
#5
Hugin
Jul 15, 2005 16:35:27
I saw a similar thread started on the listserv about additional tactics for War Machine and thought I'd post some of my campaign's options. I'd be interested to see what other's have come up with.

I saw that thread on the MML as well and, although I don't have any additional options, I did wonder if there was any work done that could convert the War Machine machanics to 3E. Basically, I wondered if there was a way in which a 3E game could make (almost) direct use of the detailed army info given in the PWAs (for example).
#6
Traianus_Decius_Aureus
Jul 15, 2005 20:18:19 I have started a basic run through of war/sea/siege machine for 3.5E, and it doesn't look like there is too much that has to change. Leadership factor had some tweaking for Leadership and Epic Leadership, some rules on how to handle NPC classes (the are cheaper to hire than their PC counterparts, so they are less effective). All in all mostly minor. For Sea machine, I came up with a way to convert 3.5E ship statistics to Hull points- that was the biggest obstacle. I need to work out some details on speeds for the BR ratings still, and iron out some kinks, but I think I'll have a workable system.
If all goes according to plan, there may be some minor tweaks needed to the PWA info, but overall the info should be still good when I'm done.

Unfortunately, I'm still heavy into some monster conversions, so I don't have the time to finish it just yet, but I plan on returning to it soon since our campaign has ALOT of need for it.
#7
Hugin
Jul 15, 2005 23:02:27
Unfortunately, I'm still heavy into some monster conversions, so I don't have the time to finish it just yet, but I plan on returning to it soon since our campaign has ALOT of need for it.

Well, I love all those monster conversions, but I'll definately be looking forward to seeing the mass combat work! And you have to post at some point because we all know about it! ;)

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Traianus_Decius_Aureus Jul 14, 2005 10:14:28	I saw a similar thread started on the listserv about additional tactics for War Machine and thought I'd post some of my campaign's options. I'd be interested to see what other's have come up with. 7. Field Artillery When a force uses field artillery, apply the following adjustments: a. If the force is using the Hold tactic, the field artillery adds the full BR bonus and the enemy’s casualties are increased 50%. b. If the force is using any other tactic, there are two options: the first is the artillery adds only ¼ the BR bonus, the enemy’s casualties are increased by +30%, but due to misfires the forces casualties are increased by +10%. This represents firing the artillery only before the forces engage. The second adds the full BR bonus and the enemy’s casualties are 50%, but the force’s casualties are doubled. This represents using the artillery as much as possible during battle. 8. Field Fortifications When a force uses field fortifications (mantlets, timber forts, etc…) apply the following adjustments: a. If the force is using the Hold tactic, the field fortifications add the full BR bonus and the force’s casualties are reduced by 20%. At the DM’s discretion, this option may be applied to the trap or envelopement tactics. b. If the force is using any other tactic the field fortifications adds only ¼ the BR bonus, the force’s casualties are decreased by +5%. This represents using cover only before the forces engage in melee and to shield rearguard troops from missile fire. The force commander may order his troops to concentrate their attacks against a specific enemy troop type. 75% of all casualties inflicted in the battle affect these troops first, with the remaining 25% casualties then affecting the rest of the army equally. If the 75% casualities would result in more casualities than targeted troops, the leftover casualities are added to the 25% affecting other troop types. Thus, when facing an army of 2,000 infantry and 500 archers, if the archers are the primary targets, they will take the casualties first. The archers take 75% of the casualties, while the remaining 25% affects the infantry. If the battle results indicate 400 casualties, 300 of them will be inflicted on the archers and 100 on the infantry. If the results indicate 800 casualties, all 500 archers are wounded or killed, and the remaining 300 casualties are inflicted on the infantry. The force commander may also order his forces to target the mounts of enemy cavalry. This results in a reduction of the enemy’s casualties by 10%, but it triples the number of mount casualties.
#2 spellweaver Jul 14, 2005 11:06:07	The force commander may order his troops to concentrate their attacks against a specific enemy troop type. 75% of all casualties inflicted in the battle affect these troops first, with the remaining 25% casualties then affecting the rest of the army equally. If the 75% casualities would result in more casualities than targeted troops, the leftover casualities are added to the 25% affecting other troop types. Thus, when facing an army of 2,000 infantry and 500 archers, if the archers are the primary targets, they will take the casualties first. The archers take 75% of the casualties, while the remaining 25% affects the infantry. If the battle results indicate 400 casualties, 300 of them will be inflicted on the archers and 100 on the infantry. If the results indicate 800 casualties, all 500 archers are wounded or killed, and the remaining 300 casualties are inflicted on the infantry. The force commander may also order his forces to target the mounts of enemy cavalry. This results in a reduction of the enemy’s casualties by 10%, but it triples the number of mount casualties. An interesting post but I foresee a few problems with the above rule, particularly when an army might have dragons or giants in it. It seems to me that if a commander can focus the attacks of his army on a specific type of troops, such as four dragons in an army of 3000 orcs, and the leftover "kills" will just be distributed amongst the orcs, then he has really nothing to loose by using that tactic. He is guaranteed to kill three dragons (!) and the orcs take the rest of the fatalities. His own troops do not suffer any extra casualties from this determined tactic nor any other tactical disadvantages, which they IMHO should suffer. Just a thought. :-) Jesper
#3 Traianus_Decius_Aureus Jul 14, 2005 11:29:45	An interesting post but I foresee a few problems with the above rule, particularly when an army might have dragons or giants in it. It seems to me that if a commander can focus the attacks of his army on a specific type of troops, such as four dragons in an army of 3000 orcs, and the leftover "kills" will just be distributed amongst the orcs, then he has really nothing to loose by using that tactic. He is guaranteed to kill three dragons (!) and the orcs take the rest of the fatalities. His own troops do not suffer any extra casualties from this determined tactic nor any other tactical disadvantages, which they IMHO should suffer. Just a thought. :-) Jesper Actually that had crossed my mind when I first developed these add-ons, and part of the solution we use is casualties are calculated off of total HD of the force, not simply the number of troops. This is how things are calculated in Sea Machine and makes much more sense. In the above, your dragons absorb a high percentage of the HD, and leave much fewer orc casualties. As for a penalty for such an explicit targeting, how about +15% casualties (assuming troops will defend themselves if attacked by other troop types) and a BR penalty of -20?
#4 spellweaver Jul 14, 2005 12:16:17	Actually that had crossed my mind when I first developed these add-ons, and part of the solution we use is casualties are calculated off of total HD of the force, not simply the number of troops. This is how things are calculated in Sea Machine and makes much more sense. In the above, your dragons absorb a high percentage of the HD, and leave much fewer orc casualties. As for a penalty for such an explicit targeting, how about +15% casualties (assuming troops will defend themselves if attacked by other troop types) and a BR penalty of -20? Using HD instead of number of troops sounds much more reasonable. I don't remember much about Warmachine so I cannot comment on whether the penalties you suggest are fitting or not but they sound okay to me :-) Jesper
#5 Hugin Jul 15, 2005 16:35:27	I saw a similar thread started on the listserv about additional tactics for War Machine and thought I'd post some of my campaign's options. I'd be interested to see what other's have come up with. I saw that thread on the MML as well and, although I don't have any additional options, I did wonder if there was any work done that could convert the War Machine machanics to 3E. Basically, I wondered if there was a way in which a 3E game could make (almost) direct use of the detailed army info given in the PWAs (for example).
#6 Traianus_Decius_Aureus Jul 15, 2005 20:18:19	I have started a basic run through of war/sea/siege machine for 3.5E, and it doesn't look like there is too much that has to change. Leadership factor had some tweaking for Leadership and Epic Leadership, some rules on how to handle NPC classes (the are cheaper to hire than their PC counterparts, so they are less effective). All in all mostly minor. For Sea machine, I came up with a way to convert 3.5E ship statistics to Hull points- that was the biggest obstacle. I need to work out some details on speeds for the BR ratings still, and iron out some kinks, but I think I'll have a workable system. If all goes according to plan, there may be some minor tweaks needed to the PWA info, but overall the info should be still good when I'm done. Unfortunately, I'm still heavy into some monster conversions, so I don't have the time to finish it just yet, but I plan on returning to it soon since our campaign has ALOT of need for it.
#7 Hugin Jul 15, 2005 23:02:27	Unfortunately, I'm still heavy into some monster conversions, so I don't have the time to finish it just yet, but I plan on returning to it soon since our campaign has ALOT of need for it. Well, I love all those monster conversions, but I'll definately be looking forward to seeing the mass combat work! And you have to post at some point because we all know about it! ;)