War is hell, at any size and at any scale. The general in danger of losing his force and reputation, or the warrior in danger of losing his life face, are similar perils. Sometimes PCs are involved in a tiny corner of a bigger battle, other times they are drawing arms against the enemy alongside the Barbarian Warchief. The events of the battle affect PC and NPC decisions on many levels. The GM can use these principles to change the scale of a conflict from the individual level, to the battalion level, and back again, according to need.

The GM needs to decide what the characters can know on a personal scale, without going through the torture of trying to run an entire battle at an individual-level. There are many strategic-level boardgames and miniatures rules for simulating mass combat, and there are plenty of RPGs for simulating interpersonal combat. But the two types of systems have different needs and expectations, and coordinating them is not always straightforward.

The goals of a strategic-level combat system are to see which force ends up in control of a goal(s), and at what cost. The goals of an RPG combat system are the same, with one significant difference: the RPG system can tell you the fate of a particular individual while a wargame cannot.

This article explains how the GM can use different game systems to learn a PC's fate and the outcome of the battle. An example, examining the Battle of Stirling Bridge at three different levels - strategic, tactical, and man-to-man - provides a plausible guide for GMs wanting to run various levels of combat.

The Strategic Battle is simulated with a system that is suited to the technological level and military techniques of the period. Determine how many turns of that battle are fought before the characters get involved and play them out. Stop at the first turn in which characters may be killed or be heroic (ie. their unit enters battle).

The tactical battle simulation should include all the important characters and some supporting troops. The tactical battle takes place in shorter turns with personal (but still abstract) combat that sacrifices detail for speed. Stop at the first turn in which an important character may be killed or captured.

For interperson combat, GMs should switch to the detailed RPG combat system until the fate of the character is resolved. Once this battle is over, GMs may then use the information ascertained from this battle and apply it to the tactical level game.

This article will illustrate this sort of "wargaming" using Scotland the Brave, Battlelust, and HarnMaster to resolve Stirling Bridge. However, players and GMs are encouraged to use whatever system they are comfortable with, in fact this very Issue of SHADIS contains a short set of mass combat rules - "Toy Soldiers" - which may be helpful in designing your own war campaigns.

BACKGROUND

In the Summer of 1297, guerrilla leader William Wallace led an army of rebellious patriots to siege and capture Glasgow, Aberdeen and Perth. Another guerrilla leader, Andrew de Moray, also enjoyed success, capturing Inverness and Urquhart Castle. The Scottish rebellion had succeeded in liberating all of Scotland north of Edinburgh, except Dundee and Stirling (which Wallace also sieged).

The English King Edward ordered his treasurer Cressingham and the Earl of Warrene, to raise and army to relieve Stirling and then pacify the rebellious Scots. Stirling castle defended the only bridge over the Forth, a choke point on the road into the Scottish Highlands. The wooden bridge was narrow: wide enough for only two horsemen to ride abreast. The north side of the river was marshy and a causeway traversed the soggy ground until it joined the road over the Ochil Hills to Perth. Cressingham gathered and equipped a formidable force, including many veterans of the wars in the Holy Land and France. His army comprised fifty-eight thousand men and one thousand horses.

When news of the English army's approach arrived, William Wallace's besieging forces, now combined with those of Andrew de Moray, withdrew north across the Forth. They took up position beside the Perth road on sloping ground with the Ochil Hills at their backs. As was customary, the English offered the Scots an opportunity to surrender, sending a herald whose offer Wallace defiantly rejected. 

Soon after, the vanguard of the English army crossed the bridge. The vanguard included Sir Marmaduke de Thewng and his entourage, who galloped ahead to the end of the causeway to secure it and cover the English crossing. More horsemen, infantry and archers foll o w e d , spreading out onto the marshy plain.

Wallace had the advantage of choosing the odds at which he would fight; he could attack at any time and would only have to contend with the English troops on the north side of the river. He had roughly forty thousand lightly armored infantry.

Wallace held his troops at bay until nearly 5,000 foot-soldiers, 100 knights and 300 Welsh archers were across, and then ordered the attack. The Scots raced down from the slopes, gathering speed as they ran. They charged into the English position and captured the bridge, leaving thousands of troops stranded. The Welsh archers were cut down with ruthless vengeance. The infantry, reeling from the charge and unsupported by archers or cavalry (which were ineffective in the marsh), were also killed to a man.

The only notable Englishman to keep his wits and survive the fray, was Marmaduke. Seeing the bridge in Scottish hands, he charged along the causeway and across the bridge cutting down dozens of Scottish infantry along the way. His squire also escaped. Stunned and demoralized, the remaining English forces withdrew south. Wallace pursued them, harassing and putting stragglers to the sword. Days later, he returned to Stirling and captured it after a brief siege. For the moment, the Scots controlled all of the castles north of Edinburgh.

The Characters