Mass Combat Extension

[darrenan]

I'm trying to integrate the Mass Combat rules from Ultimate Campaign into an extension for PFRPG. Currently, here's what I have done:
1. Added a fourth button, Army, to the bottom of the NPC sheet.
2. Built the Army statblock data sheet.
3. Mark the OM field as rollable.

TODO: The OM field isn't rolling correctly when double-clicked. I figure that's just a matter of walking the CoreRPG and 3.5E .lua files to figure out what they expect in order to get a roll + mods to show up in the chat window.

That's all well and good for record keeping, but I'm wondering what the next steps might be for deeper integration, and how to accomplish that. For instance, I can drag an army to the combat tracker, but once there, it just looks like an NPC. Is it possible to customize the combat tracker in any way to make this show up as an Army?

Assuming I can do that, dropping OM onto an enemy army should do the roll and count the damage, incorporating any mods.

Any suggestions on how to accomplish some of these? I'm still learning my way around the code base and was hoping someone with more experience could make some suggestions.

[Bidmaron]

darrenan, I think using the combat tracker would not be appropriate. As you know, mass combat doesn't occur in the time used in the combat tracker. There's just too much baggage from the normal combat rules. You could use the code as a guide to build something new, but patching the ct to work with armies would, I believe, wind up being more work than coding something fit-to-purpose.

[Lillhans]

Great initiative! (all sorts of puns intended)
In theory, the combat tracker and NPC stats will suffice - adding some Conditions to resolve Strategy and Tactics (working primarily with damage resistance as DV and no-dice damage for OV). That's how I'll try to manage my upcoming Kingmaker mass combats, anyway. As for turn order, i think a flat 1-x order will do; I'm going to use a static map where you position tokens depending on phase (grouping melee opponents together etc) so I'll most likely group opponents on the same initiative (if multiple armies are involved). My only concern at this time, really, is critical hits and how to work around them (but I figure Immunity will do the trick).

[darrenan]

I haven't done anything on this since my post above. If I understand the mass combat rules, there shouldn't be any initiative, everything happens simultaneously. Once you get into the melee phase of combat, each 'turn' is basically two steps:
1. Modify strategy.
2. Roll dice and apply damage.
Rinse and repeat until everyone is dead or fleeing. Am I missing anything? Step 1 is the tricky part, because it should be done in secret by all commanders, and then revealed at the start of step 2. I'm not sure how I'm going to handle that part. My grand goal was to have the 'next turn' button at the bottom of the tracker (my new 'mass combat tracker') would know about these phases, and cause pop-ups to appear on the screens of each of the commanders, and then advance to phase two once everyone was done modifying their strategy (which might involve morale rolls as well). But I have made zero progress along that front, been too busy with other stuff. Let me know how this ends up working for you, I think I'm probably 4-5 game sessions away from any mass combat occurring in my Wrath of the Righteous campaign.

[Lillhans]

The turns would simply help keeping track of what melee to resolve next. If there's only two units fighting, there's obviously no need really. Regarding keeping strategies hidden and all that I'm just going to go ahead and use a random table for it, at least for the non-player controlled armies - maintaining that rock-paper-scissors of it; as a GM I won't know if I "make the right call" even with full insight of how the players decide. All visible rolls, obviously.

Might take some time before I actually end up with mass-combat for Kingmaker, though (as in; we're only just started with 1st part :) ); but I will field-test it with some of the players well in advance anyway.

[JohnD]

Treat each creature as a combat unit I'm guessing.

[Lillhans]

6424

That would be the embryo. Tactics and strategies added under NPC spells from their respective sheets for quicker reference, with battlefield conditions perhaps added to the list of global effects. The only thing puzzling me now is whether or not DV and OV are actually static (UC rules states at least DV is static) - i.e. if they drop due to casualties with decreased ACR as a result thereof. It's a minor nuisanse though, since the +X from the damage bracket is easy enough to adjust.

[Lillhans]

Having done some field-tests of the above I can conclude that it is a functional - albeit extremely ugly and clunky - jury-rig.

[darrenan]

Just an FYI - I have decided to cut out Mass Combat from my Wrath of the Righteous campaign, so I will not be doing any further work on the extension I started. Glad there's at least an ugly workaround for folks who need it.

If anyone wants to take the work I've started and run with it, I would be more than happy to hand off the extension in its current state. Since my initial post above, I had started on creating the Army Combat Tracker which you would pull up via the /act command, but it's not very far along. The Army NPC sheet work is done though.

[darrenan]

Having done some field-tests of the above I can conclude that it is a functional - albeit extremely ugly and clunky - jury-rig.

I'm curious, how did you handle the strategies that have two different values for OM and dmg dealt, see the following chart:

Strategy DV OM Damage Dealt
Defensive +4 —4 —6
Cautious +2 —2 —3
Standard +0 +0 +0
Aggressive —2 +2 +3
Reckless —4 +4 +6

If you are just treating OM as damage dice, then I don't see how you can reconcile the last two columns just via an effect or condition. Seems like it will require some manual hand-holding no matter what.

[Lillhans]

Yup. A clunky, clunky jury-rig indeed.

[darrenan]

To my last question, that was a total head slapper, since you don't need to treat them separately, they add together as far as I can tell can be simplified to just a single OM modifier. Correct me if I'm wrong of course. In fact, I'm not even sure why the rules distinguish between OM modifiers and damage modifiers.