Chapter 8:

Quick Resolution Systems

For people who don't have the time (or desire) to play out a long siege with the BATTLESYSTEM rules, we present the following quick resolution systems. The first is intended for use in resolving sieges and the second for determining the outcome of entire military campaigns. Either of these settings can serve as an interesting backdrop to a traditional AD&D game campaign.

Siege Resolution

Although sieges lasting months or even years are realistic, they're not much fun to play out in their entirety. This section describes a system by which the results of sieges can be quickly determined: whether the garrison surrenders or is overrun, whether the attackers abandon the investment, and how many troops on both sides are slain.

This system is obviously very superficial--how else could an 18-month investment be reduced to a dozen or so die rolls?--and thus not particularly satisfying emotionally. It is strongly recommended that the DM running the campaign use these results as basis on which to build more textured descriptions of events. The system doesn't have to be used throughout the siege. Quick resolution could be used until things start getting interesting, and then the players could resort to standard BATTLESYSTEM or AD&D game rules to resolve the "good bits."

Phases

By their very nature, sieges almost never consist of continuous action. The attacking commander can pretty well control the pace of activity. If he or she wants to wait a few days before the next major assault, the garrison generally has little say in the matter. This issue of timing changes the whole tenor of sieges, of course. In an all-out attack, where the besiegers know they have the advantage in manpower, or where time is of the essence, one wave of assault will follow close on the heels of the last. Where the attackers don't have so great an advantage, or have the luxury to let the garrison starve a bit, the same number of waves can be spread out over weeks or months.

For this reason, the quick resolution system refers to "phases" rather than days, weeks or other absolute measures of time. Each phase represents one wave of assault, and the attacker (usually) can decide how frequently phases occur. For example, the attacking general can start the next phase as soon as the last is complete, or can wait a week or two while the garrison's morale drops further.

Quick Resolution System

Depending on current conditions, one player--attacker or defender--has the initiative to determine exactly when a phase is going to start. That player (the "phasing" player) rolls percentile dice. The roll is modified depending on current conditions (see "Modifiers" following), then the result is referenced on the siege

resolution table (SRT) in the next section.

This table can return various results, ranging from "Attackers revolt" (the attacking troops have had enough of this nonsense and give up the investment, no matter what their commander has to say about it) to "Garrison surrenders." Most results, however, are of the form "5% Defender/15% Attacker." These figures refer to the percentage of the current point count for the army that were lost during the phase (point costs are discussed in Appendix III of the BATTLESYSTEM rules).

For example, the attacking force currently has a total point value of 150. The results of the current phase state "10% Attacker." The attacking player must remove from play figures (or equipment) worth at least 15 points. The choice of the figures actually removed is completely up to the attacking player. This description and the section that follows assumes that miniatures are being used for at least part of the siege. If not--that is, if the whole thing is taking place "off screen"--the two forces can be viewed as "point pools", analogous to a character's hit points in an AD&D game.

Results also frequently include penalties or bonuses to morale, such as "Defenders morale -1." These are applied immediately and remain in effect until the siege is fully resolved. In addition to the two final results that can come from the SRT--"Attackers revolt" and "Garrison surrenders"--there are other victory conditions as well, mostly morale-related. Should any of these conditions come about, the siege is immediately over, one way or the other. This is why it's important that morale penalties or bonuses be applied immediately.

Siege Resolution Table

Siege Resolution Table Modifiers

Modifiers to rolls on the SRT fall into several categories. Each of these groups is detailed below.

Force Size

The relative sizes of the two forces (as expressed in their BATTLESYSTEM rules point values) is very important. As you can see by examining the SRT, the attacker will tend to lose many more troops than the defender. This reflects the fact that the defender has had time to "dig in" and that a castle is very difficult to take by force.

Special Forces & Equipment

The weapons employed by one side or another, as well as the special skills and abilities of the force, can make a big difference in the outcome of a battle.

Length of Siege

The total duration of the siege has a significant effect on morale, and hence on the outcome of any particular wave. Consult the table below to determine the effect of the time spent in this engagement and its associated modifier.

Supply Conditions

Units which have begun to run short of food and water will begin to see the "advantages" of surrender. Likewise, those who are well supplied will tend to hold out until things get worse.

Morale

The base morale value for an entire force is the average of the morales for all the units making up that force, adjusted for any modifiers applied due to the SRT. The following chart gives the SRT modifiers based on the current morale of the various sides. When applying the morale modifier to the SRT roll, add the bonus for the attacker's morale and subtract the bonus for the defender's morale.

For example, if the morale of the attackers is "steady" apply a +5% modifier to the roll. If the defender's morale is "elite", apply a-10% modifier to the roll. Note that the values for "unreliable" or "unsteady" troops do not follow the above logic. Modifiers for such units are reversed. Thus, "unsteady" attackers subtract 10 points from the SRT roll and "unreliable" defenders add 20 points to it.

Command

The competence of the individual commanders will have a huge effect on the outcome of any siege or battle. For this quick resolution system, the level of the commander will be the key factor in deciding his or her ability.

To determine the command modifier, subtract the level of the less experienced commander from the level of the more experienced one. For every two levels of difference, apply a 5% modifier in favor of the more experienced commander (that is, a minus to the roll if the defender is more experienced and an addition to it if the attacker has superiority).

Thus, if an army of orcs headed by an 8th level commander is attacking a fortress held by a 12th level elven king, the elven defenders have a 10% bonus which is reflected by a -10% to rolls on the SRT.

Phase Initiative

Normally, the attacker controls the timing of phases. There are two conditions under which this is not true, however. If the modified morale of the defending force is higher than that of the attacking force by at least 2 points, or if the attacker's modified morale drops below 9, the defender decides when phases will be initiated.

Victory Conditions

In addition to the "Garrison surrenders" and "Attackers revolt" results on the combat results table above, there are other conditions that bring a siege to an end. If the average morale (modified) of all surviving defending units drops to 3 or less, or is 10 points or more less than the average morale of all attacking units, the garrison immediately surrenders. Conversely, if the average morale of all attacking units drops to 6 or less, or is 8 points or more less than the average morale of all defending units, the attackers give up the siege. Finally, if the attacking force is ever reduced to 25% or less of its original size (determined by points), the attackers abandon the siege.

Fighting Campaigns

"Aelfred Silverhorn sighed as he stared at the map. Running scarred fingers through his close-cropped hair, he wondered--for the thousandth time--how he'd come to find himself in this position. He was a warrior, yes. A good warrior, by the gods, in single combat or leading his mercenary company, the Black Guard. But Commander in Chief? Commanding--and thus responsible for--not one company but several armies? When had war turned from something waged strictly for profit, where victory or defeat was less important than conducting oneself in a professional manner, to something that mattered, and mattered deeply? To something that might determine the course of history for generations to come?

He shifted his dagger aside, which had been serving to indicate his best guess as to the enemy's major axis of movement, for a closer look at the map--more precisely, at one small village. Alexia, it was called. Nothing more than a handful of farm houses, really. But massing around this tiny croft were armies the likes of which hadn't been seen in this Age. Certainly, other armies were clashing elsewhere--good men were dying, and Aelfred Silverhorn could do naught about it--but trained instincts told the aging warrior that it was here, at Alexia, that matters would be decided.

He grinned, but there was no mirth in it. How would they take it, he wondered, the spirits of those troops that had died elsewhere--died at his (albeit indirect) command? How would they take it should he tell them that their efforts and sacrifices were little more than a side-show, a mere bagatelle, compared with the battle that would be joined on the morrow?

In the names of all the gods, what had happened to war?" In many campaigns, the individual battles and actual day-to-day events that make up a long, drawn-out conflict aren't important except as a backdrop against which Player Characters perform heroic actions. This section describes a system to (relatively) quickly determine the outcome of a full-scale war that comprises a number of battles. As with the quick resolution system for sieges, detail and depth have been sacrificed for convenience and speed. It is strongly recommended that the DM running the campaign use the results generated by this system as a basis on which to build more textured descriptions of the events. The system that follows breaks a full-scale war down into individual battles, and then resolves the outcome of these battles. This has a number of advantages.

First, it gives the DM more material to work from when describing ongoing events. For example, after determining the results of a battle, the DM tells his players that "after some initial success based on tactical brilliance, Furyondy's forces were beaten back by the sheer numbers of the gnoll army. The human forces fought courageously, but were finally overrun, and slaughtered almost to a man. Thus ended the Battle of High Horn."

Second, it makes it easier for both the DM and the players to figure out how and when the PCs can get involved in the conflict and how they can make a difference to the outcome.

War in the Medieval Age

Today when we think of war, we probably picture maps of World War I or II, showing unbroken friendly and enemy lines with "no-man's-land" in between them. Although the ideas of a front line, defence in depth, breakthroughs, etc. are well ingrained in us thanks to war movies, these concepts were unknown to combatants in the medieval period.

There were no firm boundaries between countries. This is true in the typical AD&D game worlds as well. Take a look at the map of the FORGOTTEN REALMS(R) campaign setting, for an example. Similarly, there were no firm friendly or enemy lines. Armies met whenever and wherever their commanders wished--and could engineer it--and fought there. A war in medieval times comprised a number of disconnected battles, few rising above the category of skirmishes. Wars of domination or subjugation were rare indeed. Most campaigns had very limited strategic goals, and ended when one or other of the combatants was unable to continue or lost interest. Wars rarely ended with an armistice or peace treaty; instead, they just trailed off, frequently to brew up again in a couple of years or decades.

Manpower

When a commander in chief wants to fight a war or defend the country, there's one important question that must be answered: where are the troops going to come from? In feudal Europe, a number of different sources were tried. In the early feudal period, powerful people or institutions, like the crown, nobles and the church, who owned large amounts of land would "lease" allotments of this land to others in return for payment or service. This practice was called "benefice." Initially, those granted benefice had to work the land and hand over to the landowner a portion of anything produced on that land. In 730, however, during the administration of the Frankish state by Charles Martel, military service began to be required of benefice holders in addition to other services and payments.

While accepting a benefice usually entailed some form of military service, sometimes the causality was reversed. For example, around 730 A.D., Charles Martel needed troops, and so began recruiting able warriors. If these warriors would swear absolute fidelity to him and become his vassal, Charles would grant them a benefice. This land would be held by the warriors and their family so long as they served Charles well in a military capacity. While this seemed like the ideal solution, there was a problem: the number of troops that could be acquired by this method was limited by the amount of land available for dispersal. Other traditions arose that provided the state--in the person of the king or queen--with troops. For example, each free household in the Frankish state owed the service of one man with complete arms and equipment. Other countries recognized this as a good idea, and made it their own. Military obligation became hereditary, providing the crown with a mass levy of free men in time of need. These free men would be obligated to serve their lord for tours of duty ranging from sixty days to six months out of a year, depending on the country and the period.

There was a problem, of course. Complete arms and equipment, even for an infantryman, didn't come cheap. In the case of cavalry, acquiring a horse, lance, sword, shield and armor was well beyond the capabilities of a common free landholder. Also, the skills needed to fight from horseback didn't come easy, and required more time to master than a farmer or craftsman--no matter how dedicated--could devote. If the state wanted a force of well-equipped, skilled cavalry, it would have to find some way of providing them with equipment and removing from them the obligation of working for a living.

Thus emerged the knights. Knights were quite different from the mass levy. They were elite warriors, maintained by the kings and great magnates, and they became the nucleus of the aristocracy in many European lands. In addition to serving in the field, they did duty as castle guards, in time of peace as well as war. The system under which landholders owed the crown military service evolved further under Charlemagne. Every able-bodied man who possessed twelve mansi (a rather vague measure of land) had to own a mail shirt and, when called upon for active duty, must bring rations for three months and clothes for six.

At least one major problem was never satisfactorily solved--the problem of training. Pressing laborers into military service and giving them swords didn't make them warriors. They just didn't have the skills and instincts that could only be gained through months or years of experience. Thus these peasant "soldiers" were frequently little more than "cannon-fodder" when faced by tough, cynical, and competent mercenary troops.

It wasn't only kings who could raise armies through the granting of benefice, of course. During the ninth and tenth centuries in Europe, many wealthy and powerful lords--both lay and ecclesiastical--raised and maintained their own private armies. Soon, the armies fielded by kings comprised mainly contingents of vassals commanded by powerful nobles.

In Anglo-Saxon England, the king used another source of manpower. "Thegns" made up the personal entourage of kings, or of powerful landed magnates (who were called "eorls"). These thegns, whether they owned land or not, owed their lords military service. This obligation arose from their position in society, not from their status as landowners, and so was different from the obligations owed due to benefice. Kings and lords could--and did--also hire mercenaries (in England, these professional mercenary warriors were called "huscarles"). These mercenaries were paid wages, and were often allowed to supplement this income through looting.

By the twelfth century, knights and others who owed military service were looking for ways to get out of it. Thus arose the practice of "scutage": paying the liege lord an amount of money to avoid military service. This payment was theoretically enough to hire a mercenary for the length of time the payer would have had to serve. By the reign of Henry II, the role of the paid soldier grew more important than that of the feudal tenant, as more and more people paid scutage.

Knights paid scutage to escape castle duty, as well. These obligations ranged from thirty to ninety days per year. Castle duty was more inconvenient than dangerous, and rates of scutage were often accepted that were much lower than the cost of hiring replacements. Thus many castles--even in militarily sensitive areas--were left with skeleton garrisons in peacetime.

Differences in a Fantasy Universe

Of course, there's nothing that says countries in a fantasy milieu must use any of the above techniques for raising troops; enterprising and creative commanders can, no doubt, devise other ways of acquiring the troops they need. In campaigns based around massive warfare and eternal conflicts--orc hordes attacking an elven forest, for example, or humans wishing to exterminate a colony of gnolls in the nearby hills--there might be no need to persuade able-bodied warriors to join the fray; they might willingly volunteer to do so. The same is true in "defense of the realm" situations. No matter what the circumstances, however, the questions that commanders must answer are similar: where do I get the troops, how do I equip them, and how can I train them to work together?

Warfare in a magic-sparse campaign world populated predominately by humans would probably resemble historical feudal warfare. In a magic-rich environment with many fantastical creatures, however, things would be quite different. William of Normandy didn't have a squadron of griffon riders under his command, and the Battle of Hastings would have looked different if he had. Medieval commanders labored under the "fog of war" much more than did later generals. Communication was sketchy at the best of times, and totally unreliable during a crisis; it was also limited to the speed of a racing dispatch rider. One can imagine a messenger arriving with an order to cancel the planned advance,just too late to stop the unit from charging into the jaws of death. Too, medieval generals didn't always bother with reconnaissance or scouts, so their intelligence about enemy strength and position was often somewhat lacking. In a fantasy campaign, many of these burdens are lifted.

Spellcasters can provide instantaneous communication--either through spells like "message" or by teleporting directly to the recipient--as can magical items. Scrying spells and devices can give the general information about the foe almost down to the number of arrows in each archer's quiver. Plus, flying creatures make exceptional forward observers.

Conversely, magic can add its own burdens. If you know that your foe has a high-level illusionist on the payroll, you're less likely to welcome unexpected reinforcements into your formation without some kind of confirmation first. Also, your advance might be slowed slightly if you're never sure whether each copse of trees is actually a unit of heavy crossbowmen under a "massmorph" spell.

"Hallucinatory terrain" adds yet another level of doubt: is that rolling meadow over there actually Darkling Swamp . . . or is the map just wrong? It's obvious that magic simply replaces one form of "fog of war" with another. Fantastic creatures also make a big difference. Historical commanders never had to worry about attacks from the sky or from underground, and never had to face the fire and terror of a rampaging dragon.

Intelligent commanders will consider all these complexities as serious dangers to be watched out for, but also as potential tools to be used in their own campaigns.

War Plans

Why do countries go to war? There are probably as many answers as there are countries, if not more. Some examples of reasonable "causes" are mentioned below:

Territorial

A country needs more land, or believes--for one reason or another--that a certain area of land should be within its boundaries. (For example, a country believes that is "divinely destined" to possess a certain territory.)

Cultural/Racial

There is antipathy, based on cultural or racial grounds, between two nations. (For example, orcs might attack a neighboring elven homeland "just because.")

Religious

A neighboring land worships a god totally antithetical to a country's dominant religion. (For example, a country launches a "holy war" to sweep the "heathens" from the face of the earth.)

Just Cause

This includes "wars of liberation" (where a foreign government is believed to be oppressing its people), alignment-based conflicts (a country that is predominantly Lawful Good invades a neighbor that is predominately Neutral Evil), or cases of "evening the score" (a country attacks another in retribution for some real or imagined insult or injury in the past).

Mercenary

A neighboring country is wealthy--perhaps it has many natural resources--and is seen as "ripe for the picking." Preemptive In fear that a neighbor is preparing to attack, a country attacks first.

Defensive

Someone else is attacking the country and forcing the crown to defend itself. These reasons aren't mutually exclusive, of course: there's no reason that a soldier on a "mission from god" can't make some extra gold pieces along the way by looting, and once an invader has been driven out, it seems only right that the fight should be taken into the enemy's homeland just to teach him a lesson. There might be other reasons that don't fit into these categories, also. For example, a military dictatorship might engineer occasional border skirmishes with a neighbor just to toughen up its troops. It's important to know the real cause behind any conflict because it affects the strategic goals and targets that each combatant goes after. For example, if a country goes to war because its leader wants to regain a valuable deep-water port that was captured by the enemy, the attacking army probably won't split its forces by launching a raid on the enemy's inland capital. If, on the other hand, the war is religiously motivated, destroying the central temple in the enemy's capital city would probably be a key goal. In both cases, the central strategic goal of the country being attacked would be to repel the invaders.

Strategic goals might be symmetrical. Take, for example, two countries who have been vying politically and economically for decades. Finally, they both decide to settle the matter once and for all. Armies mass on either side of the river that divides the two lands, and the war is on. In such a case, each country has as a strategic goal to inflict as much damage--and hopefully humiliation--on the other as possible.

Setting the Scene

Before a DM can start to determine the outcome of a war, he or she must decide exactly what the war is about, and what the strategic goals on each side are. The DM must then figure out the number of troops that each side can commit to the struggle, how quickly they can be mobilized, and what their level of skill and equipment is. This is why the information above about levies, scutage, mercenaries, etc. is significant. The country or race involved and the geographical situation might necessitate a certain balance of troops. For example, a nation of sylvan elves would probably favor horse archers more than would a colony of dwarves. Otherwise, the DM must decide on a reasonable balance of forces. Recent history, political ambitions, relations between the two combatants, and the cause of the war would have a great effect on the initial disposition of the opposed forces. For example, if the tension between two militaristically aggressive countries has been running high for some time, both states will probably have armies massed near their frontiers (or at least have made sure that their border towers or castles are well garrisoned and supplied). On the other hand, one country might be totally or partially unprepared for war, due to its own pacifistic policies or because the aggressor has managed to avoid giving away its intentions.

Now the DM must determine the strategic goals that each side will pursue. In the example centered around the "liberation" of the captured deep-water port, the attacking country will send at least one army to destroy or rout the enemy troops holding the port, while other troops are given the mission of cutting lines of communication and supply, and intercepting reinforcements. In contrast, the country being invaded would so position its troops as to protect or reinforce the port town's garrison. A smart defender might also send a small force to flank the advancing attackers and play havoc with their supply lines. In any case, wherever opposing armies meet, there will probably be a battle. Remember that simply inflicting damage on the enemy is a valid strategic goal, so a force might be dispatched to ambush an opposing force while on route.

Once the DM has determined the general course of the war, and what each side's operational objectives will be, the next step is to resolve the outcome of each individual battle.

Battle Resolution

Many people talk of "the ebb and flow of battle." In fact, of course, this isn't a true picture. As Clausewitz explained in "On War", a battle is more like a steady movement away from equilibrium. In general, the balance of battle will favor the strongest army, and will slowly move from equilibrium in favor of the strongest force. This movement can be influenced by strategic and tactical brilliance exhibited by individual commanders, by luck, and by such things as divine intervention. In general, however, the larger army will win the battle. As the saying goes, "The battle isn't always to the strong . . . but that's the way to bet." This is reflected in the following system.

Battle Results

This quick resolution system is based on "battle turns." Like "phases" in siege determination, these are variable units of time; it's impossible to state categorically that "one battle turn is equal to 90 minutes." Depending on the course of the battle, a battle turn might represent anywhere from fifteen minutes to several hours.

To use this system, the DM must roughly determine, using the BATTLESYSTEM rules, the point value of the forces involved (this will depend on the issues discussed in "Setting the Scene"). The point value doesn't have to be exact. One force is then labelled as Force A, the other as Force B. Each battle turn, the DM rolls percentile dice. The result is modified depending on current conditions (see "Battle Modifiers"), then the result is referenced on the Battle Results Table (BRT) table below.

This table returns results in the form "Force A 5 points, morale +1; Force B 10 points." These results refer to the casualties inflicted upon each side. The number of points specified in the result is subtracted from the total point value of the corresponding army. Note that the system doesn't specify where or how those points are lost. The force is viewed simply as a "point value pool." This is analogous to hit points in an AD&D game. A result also might specify morale effects. Before the battle, the DM must determine the base level of morale for each force. Any morale modifiers are added to or subtracted from the base morale.

Battle Results Table

BRT Modifiers

Modifiers fall into several categories. Before consulting the BRT, total up all the applicable modifiers--positive and negative--for both forces and apply them to the die roll.

Force Size

The relative size of the forces involved in a combat is, by far, the most important factor in any battle. While having a larger force does not ensure victory, it almost always determines the outcome of the battle.

Special Forces & Equipment

Just as it is in siege warfare, the composition of a force is very important in battle resolution. Modifiers taken from this table for force A are applied as positive modifiers to the die roll, those for force B are negative modifiers.

Supply Conditions

A unit which doesn't know where its next meal is coming from will tend to be less effective in combat. On the other hand, a force which has a solid base of supplies on which to draw will be in better condition to fight.

Morale

The base morale value for an entire force is the average of the morales for all the units making up that force, adjusted for any modifiers applied due to the BRT. The following chart gives the BRT modifiers based on the current morale of the various sides. When applying the morale modifier to the BRT roll, add the bonus for force A's morale and subtract the bonus for force B's morale. For example, if the morale of force A is "steady" apply a +5% modifier to the roll. If the morale of force B is "elite", apply a -10% modifier to the roll. Note that the values for "unreliable" or "unsteady" troops do not follow the above logic. Modifiers for such units are reversed. Thus, if force A is "unsteady", subtract 10 points from the SRT roll.

Command

The competence of the individual commanders will have a huge effect on the outcome of any siege or battle. For this quick resolution system, the level of the commander will be the key factor in deciding his or her ability.

To determine the command modifier, subtract the level of the less experienced commander from the level of the more experienced one. For every two levels of difference, apply a 5% modifier in favor of the more experienced commander (that is, a minus to the roll if force B's commander is more experienced and an addition to it if the leader of force A has superiority).

Thus, if an army of orcs headed by an 8th level commander (force A) is attacking a legion of elves under the command of a 12th level elven king (force B), the elven defenders have a 10% bonus which is reflected by a -10% to rolls on the BRT.

Morale Issues

Morale penalties applied through combat results can remain in effect for a number of days. The force's morale increases by 1 point per day, until it reaches its normal level. Thus, it can take quite some time for a totally demoralized army to regain its will to fight. In contrast, morale bonuses applied through combat results remain in effect for the day of the battle only. The next morning, the force's morale is at its normal level.

Quitting the Field

When an army is reduced to 40% or less of its original point value, and at the beginning of each subsequent turn, it must make a check against its current morale on 1d20. If the roll is equal to or lower than the force's current morale, the force stays in the fight. If, however, the roll is greater than the force's current morale, the force tries to quit the field. Also, if at any time a force's morale drops below 7, it tries to quit the field. The opposing force now has two options. It can let the enemy leave, in which case the two armies separate with no further hostilities. This doesn't mean that they can't fight each other again when they've been reinforced, of course. It could instead pursue the fleeing force and try to eradicate it once and for all.

A force that is attacked while it is trying to quite the field suffers a 35 point modifier to the next die roll on the BRT. If the quitting side is force A, this is a negative modifier, otherwise it is a positive one. Each turn, the fleeing force makes a check against its current morale on 1d20. If the die roll is equal to or less than its current morale, the entire force rallies, and the 35 point penalty is lifted; if the die roll exceeds its current morale, the force continues to suffer under the 35 point penalty.

Note that it's possible for both forces to quit the field simultaneously. In such a case, both forces have one single die roll on which to rally. If neither does so, the battle is at an end; if one does, it has the choice of pursuing the enemy or not. A force can quit the field voluntarily at any time.

Campaign Victory – Winning the War

During the feudal period, many countries were at war for extended periods of time. They weren't fighting continuously, to be sure, but neither were relations good. For one reason or another, one country would launch a campaign against the other--frequently without any official declaration of war. The campaign, often composed of apparently unrelated battles, would continue until one side or the other had achieved its strategic objectives, or no longer had the stomach--or the resources--for the conflict. Then conditions would settle back to their normal level of distrust and tension. This latter situation was more common than out-and-out victory.

In game terms, one side "wins the war" when it has achieved all or most of its strategic goals. This, of course, is up to the DM to determine, and depends on what those strategic goals are. Using a previous example, once the attacker has retaken its captured port town, it has achieved its strategic objective and has no reason to continue fighting. A sensible commander won't push his or her luck, and will stand fast, reinforcing the town to prevent its reconquest. Not many wars proceed to total victory, of course. One side or the other usually runs out of resources, or is so badly roughed up that it sues for peace.

Suing for Peace

Dungeon Masters can use a die roll to decide when a particular side loses the will or ability to fight on. There are several conditions that will trigger this die roll:

* 50% or more of troops in the field have been eliminated.

* Capital or seat of government is surrounded or besieged.

* 10% of civilian populace has been slain.

* Civilian populace is undergoing severe hardship (terror tactics, starvation, and so forth)

If the DM decides that one or more of these conditions applies, the die roll is made. Should the country pass the die roll, its forces fight on; the roll is repeated each subsequent week, however. If the country fails the roll, it sues for peace.

Roll 1d100, and modify the roll depending on the current conditions (see "Modifiers" following). If the modified die roll exceeds 50, the country's forces fight on; otherwise, the country sues for peace.

Modifiers

The following modifiers are applied to the die roll whenever a country considers suing for peace.

+15 More than 50% of the enemy troops in the field have been eliminated

+10 Predominant alignment is Lawful

+5 Predominant alignment is Evil

+5 For each major strategic goal that has been achieved

-5 Seat of government is surrounded or under siege

-10 Predominant alignment is Chaotic

-10 Country is ruled by an autocrat, dictator, or other "strong man", not by popular government

-20 Country is ruled as above, but ruler has been killed during the combat

When a country sues for peace, it tries to negotiate the best terms possible with the enemy. Depending on the relative strengths and positions of the two combatants, this can range from an equitable compromise ("We'll both go back to our original borders and call the whole thing quits") to humiliating oppression ("Each able-bodied adult must work a term in our mines, you are forbidden a standing army, and your ruler must receive approval from our king before making any major policy changes"). The DM must decide what the outcome will be, depending on the personalities, political systems, and such involved. Note that it's possible for both combatants to sue for peace simultaneously. In such a case, an equitable compromise is the most likely outcome.

The above system is included for completeness only. Full-scale warfare has too significant an effect on a campaign for the results to be left totally up to a die roll. DMs will probably have some dramatic purpose in mind for the war, or they wouldn't have started it (or, more precisely, they wouldn't have given major NPCs the motivation and opportunity to start it). This dramatic purpose will probably carry over into the eventual outcome.

For example, if the DM wants to embroil the PCs in an underground resistance movement, with all the opportunities for heroism and intrigue that entails, then the PCs' country should lose the war, no matter what the dice may say. A good DM will use the siege and battle resolution systems above to help flesh out a story line, not to replace it.

Character Involvement

Wars, by definition, are conflicts between states and political systems, clashes between multiple armies involving thousands to millions of troops. How can individuals affect the outcome of a war?

In many ways. In the real world, an individual precipitated World War I with a single pistol shot, by slaying Archduke Ferdinand in Sarajevo in 1914. A small body of disaffected German generals could possibly have hastened the end of World War II if their assassination plot against Hitler had succeeded. In the same era--admittedly in a work of fiction "(The Eagle Has Landed")--Lieutenant Kurt Steiner could have altered the course of the war had he succeeded in his attempt to kidnap or assassinate Winston Churchill.

On a smaller scale, acts of individual heroism can have great effects on the field of battle. Commando raids can sabotage equipment or destroy supply depots. Spies can gather intelligence that will warn their superiors of the enemy's plans, or discover weaknesses in the enemy's deployment.

In a fantasy world, the options are even wider. A single character can cause great changes by simply destroying or capturing a powerful magic item. A well-timed "illusion" or "suggestion" could goad an enemy commander into making a rash decision, or at least hesitating before making a move.

In any battle or campaign, there are certain turning points, the points that are hashed over so often in the history books. It's at these crucial "what-if" points that individual PCs can have a significant effect. In an individual battle or siege, these turning points most often come down to timing. ("If the attack is launched immediately, the defenders' ranks will still be in disarray after repelling that last charge; if the attack is delayed by only a few minutes, the defenders will have time to regroup." "If a handful of troops can defeat the garrison members trying to close that gate, the army can gain entry to the castle.") Here PCs can alter the course of the battle, by distracting the commander--with magic or personal combat--or by performing acts of individual heroism.

Battles also often revolve around individuals and personalities. A Chaotic army held together solely by the indomitable will of its commander will hesitate and possibly collapse should that commander be eliminated. A prideful, arrogant officer might be goaded into doing something foolish by the japing of a bard. A commander might hesitate overlong before making the final charge if he sees what looks like a loved one among the enemy's lines.Full-scale wars, too, can revolve around individuals. A charismatic leader might be able to persuade a country to enter into a war that would otherwise be unpopular (or a dictator might force the populace into it). Decreasing that leader's influence would significantly lessen the country's will to fight. This decrease in influence could take many forms, ranging from assassination or capture to public discredit and humiliation.

Alternatively, a leader of conscience might be persuaded--either by word or magic--that the whole war is a bad idea. A handful of creative PCs would be the best force to undertake tasks like these. Espionage and intrigue offer great opportunities for player involvement. Whether it involves a couple of thieves sneaking into an enemy command post at night to "liberate" the battle plans for the morrow, or a handful of disguised warriors trying to enlist with the bandit horde to overhear their battle plans, espionage can be tense and exciting.

On the operational level, too--which is between the scope of battle and war--PCs could have a significant effect. A handful of motivated warriors could destroy important supply depots or centers of communication, playing havoc with the enemy's ability to wage war.

As DMs plot out the dramatic story line that "drives" the war, they should also plot out a number of significant turning points. These can then be injected (subtly) into descriptions when the players want to know how the war is going. Smart players will pick up on these turning points, and their characters will get involved, perhaps altering the course of history for decades to come.