| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Fellfire |
Posted - 07 Feb 2011 : 03:34:53
I need some advice on running a large scale aerial battle. I generally eschew the use of minis, but in this case I can see how they may be helpful. Or will this just add to the confusion? Anybody done this before? Anything will be appreciated. |
| 16 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| idilippy |
Posted - 23 Sep 2011 : 16:30:45
I would recommend, if the flying units are a major part of combat, breaking the elevation down into High, Middle, and Low altitudes. High Altitudes are far out of reach of the ground, no spells or attacks can affect the ground from there, and identifying more than general information about the battle below is impossible for human eyesight. Middle Altitudes let you identify individual units, and long range spells can go back and forth, but most missile attacks won't have the range. Then Low Altitudes are where Dragons can do strafing runs, spells can fly back and forth, and missile attacks from the ground can threaten the aerial units. Let units drop an altitude with 2 move actions and climb one with 4, and you only have to track actual feet of movement on a 2D scale.
This approach stays flexible and simple, trading exact adherence to movement rates and ranges for ease of use, and it's easy to drop it to two types of altitudes if you want it to be even more simple, high and low, with high unable to affect the ground or be affected, and low able to affect the ground but at risk of being attacked in return. |
| Fellfire |
Posted - 21 Sep 2011 : 04:36:00
Also, Feats for flying creatures. Anything not in the SRD? Any source is fine. |
| Fellfire |
Posted - 21 Sep 2011 : 04:25:13
Finally getting back to this. Any thoughts from our newer Scribes? |
| Mystic Lemur |
Posted - 16 Feb 2011 : 17:44:59
I like using poker chips. You can designate each color to be a different height increment, and swap as needed. I'd not thought about the ground not being the baseline before, but what if the battle took place on the edge of a cliff? You might need a way to show aerial combatants below the top of the cliff... My poor head.
As an alternative, if you really don't want to use minis, you could just worry about the actions that directly affect the PCs and just hand wave and describe the combat and chaos around them. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 08 Feb 2011 : 00:47:03
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Remember, you need jump jets to do a proper Death From Above attack.
Oh, wait, wrong game!  
It's a shame the BattleTech computer games never properly reproduced this classic attack method in-game. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 07 Feb 2011 : 22:16:28
Minis and stacks of coins for them to sit upon (or washers) is the only way to do it properly (and get everyone at relatively correct altitudinal placements).
Edit: Checkers sound great as well. I remember those markers; I believe they were magnetic. |
| Fellfire |
Posted - 07 Feb 2011 : 21:44:44
For the sake of reference in case anybody else should need this information. A couple of suggestions on aerial combat rules recommended to me. Dragonlance Campaign Setting 3.5, Spelljammer War Captain's Companion; Book Three, Combat Among the Stars and a 3rd party book I discovered called The Aerial Adventure Guide: Sky Captains Handbook. I've yet to sit down and read all three but they appear to contain some useful information.
Oh, and Wooly I remember seeing an add for those, probably in Dragon mag and thinking to myself, who would ever need those?!? |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 07 Feb 2011 : 11:58:03
I use coins, legoblocks, dice, pokerchips, and whatever nifty little trinkets can be temporarily stolen from other games (or my toolbox, on occasion). Much swearing ensues when tall stacks get dominoed over by a clumsy player. Figs aren't expensive, but armies of them certainly are, and they take up space. It's important that "figs" indicate facing. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 07 Feb 2011 : 11:17:35
There's a company that makes elevation markers for miniatures games... Be dipped if I can remember what it's called, though. Alternatively, use stacks of coins or checkers or something similar. Black checkers could represent a certain elevation above a baseline, and red checkers could represent elevation below that baseline (assuming the baseline isn't the ground). Or quarters and pennies, or any particular combination. |
| Fellfire |
Posted - 07 Feb 2011 : 06:00:15
Awesome Arik, great ideas, maybe clear projection paper overlaid on a terrain mat layered at different altitudes. I'm overwhelmed just thinking about it. Thanks for the suggestions Scribes, keep them coming. I'm only talking a few hundred combatants here, but still. Errr, my head hurts. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 07 Feb 2011 : 05:41:07
I'd go with same scale maps "aligned" above each other in layers. Ideally, some sort of frame or glasstop/surface would allow you to see both/all maps simultaneously. This might not be necessary if your ground and air units aren't interacting.
Scales might need to be different because of sizes and movement rates; flying units tend to cover a lot more distance each turn, but then again giants and dragons are pretty big.
A small adaptation to the rules: I suggest you move the largest objects first, then medium, then smallest. This can simplify the "flow" of the battle a bit (especially if the formations are based on the large units) and it sort of simulates the "movement initiative" advantage small agile units would have, since by declaring (simultaneous) movement after the clumsy big boys they can position themselves wherever they like, avoid getting rammed or squished, take advantage of "cover" by using the big lumps as terrain, be more evasive and annoying, etc.
Try running a medium-scale combat first (outside of D&D, with one of your players) just for practice. You'll get a better idea of how long each turn takes to resolve and maybe figure out some tricks to speed things up. If my limited experience with games like BattleTech and AeroTech are any indication, a battle like this can easily take 4-12 hours, and that assumes a fairly aggressive pace that doesn't pause for constant arguments and calculations. As a bonus, your opponent will understand the rules as well as you do and be able to take over the chore of coordinating the PCs ... I'll tell you from experience that controlling dozens of units and formations will take all your attention.
If you use figs (or other physical representations) for the units then you can use a length of string with little markings on it to determine line-of-sight and measure range/distance, a great speedup. Thus my first suggestion for "aligned same scale" maps. You might simplify things by having "leader" units make dice rolls and such for their entire group. You obviously want to work out all your D&D numbers (and have the relevant charts/tables immediately handy) before getting into the battle. |
| Fellfire |
Posted - 07 Feb 2011 : 05:07:10
Thanks Kentinal, I've been doing some looking and 2 different maps using 2 different scales has also been proposed. |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 07 Feb 2011 : 05:02:59
I thought about this at least a few moments.
2-D fighting keeping track of location can be hard.
You indicate that you eschew the use of minis in most play.
3-D combat requires the DM to describe or display changes in height. So thus you are faced with the choice of describing accurately the dives and climbs, as well the turns and tracking on paper or use of minis.
Elevation is required to be described, that Dragon diving from 1,000 feet to attack the mage on the flying carpet at 500 feet almost requires the use of tokens unless you are very good verbal.
You indicate this will be large scale battle, as such confusion is assured. What you need to decide is using the tokens will make it easier for the players and you to use the visual effect.
My best guess is that the tokens are less work for you and should be the best choice as long as your players feel comfortable using minis..
The combat of course can be tracked on paper, however dropping 100 feet and moving 12 squares becomes a little hard to record on paper - not counting the PCs' action.
Either way you can quickly encounter confusion of battle, the tokens and elevation chips should made it slightly less so. |
| Fellfire |
Posted - 07 Feb 2011 : 04:56:55
That's kind of what I see in my Mind's Eye, Arik. I'll have squadrons of elves on eagle-back and Avariel flying in formation, fighting with Abishai in the air and Giants on the ground, as well as a Celestial and a Dragon or two flying around adding to the confusion. Yeah, hornet's nest pretty much sums it up well. I don't know where to begin. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 07 Feb 2011 : 04:49:07
Although technically less realistic, you'll find a large scale aerial/underwater battle will run much faster when all (or at least most) of the units adhere to just two dimensions. Sort of as seen in Star Trek or other sci-fi, where objects can theoretically move freely in all three dimensions but stubbornly maintain a 2D "paper" mindset.
It doesn't look as bad when things move in groups and formations. The alternative is a hornet's nest full of numerous small objects darting and dogfighting randomly. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 07 Feb 2011 : 04:47:46
Remember, you need jump jets to do a proper Death From Above attack.
Oh, wait, wrong game! |
|
|
