Castles: Size and Strength

[Rancour]

Another proposal:

How about breaking up the rating of a fortification into capacity and defensive
strength? This will allow for small but strong castles as well as large but
weak fortifications.


For example, each castle has a two-number rating:

CAPACITY: or the number of troops it can hold. The cost in gold bars to
increase the *capacity* of a fortification is equal to the size being built plus
its current defensive strength. To protect an entire domain (town), the
fortification capacity must at least equal the domain size. Fortifications for
temples or guilds need only be of a capacity of one.
Any troops in the territory in excess of the fortification capacity can be
engaged in open battle by the attacker.

DEFENSIVE STRENGTH: its defensive bonus. Increasing a fort's strength is at the
same cost as increasing its size (ie: equal to the strength being built plus its
current capacity).
Only forts with a defensive strength of 4 or larger need special troops
trained for siege warfare to attack.

OPTIONAL RULE: The owner can build a larger capacity for an existing
fortification at a lower strength. This "multi-level" castle has different
defensive slots each with its own capacity. The defender designates the
positioning of the troops in the fort (ie: he distributes the defensive bonuses
among his units).
Also optionally, this may also allow for the weaker part of the fort to be
over-run while the stronger part still holds out.

MAXIMUM VALUES: There is no maximum fortification size or strength that can be
built for a domain.

BUILD TIME: Use the standard 1D6 GB's. An extra D6 can be added at a cost of,
say, 2 GB per die in addition to the total result.

- -Serge

[Rancour]

ADEPT@aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 97-10-30 15:25:59 EST, you write:
>
>
> How about breaking up the rating of a fortification into capacity and
> defensive strength? This will allow for small but strong castles as well
> as large but weak fortifications.
>
> OPTIONAL RULE: The owner can build a larger capacity for an existing
> fortification at a lower strength. This "multi-level" castle has different
> defensive slots each with its own capacity. The defender designates the
> positioning of the troops in the fort (ie: he distributes the defensive
> bonuses among his units).
> Also optionally, this may also allow for the weaker part of the fort to
> be over-run while the stronger part still holds out.
>
> -Serge >>
>
> This is a great idea I was just woundering how you were going to show the
> multi- level and are there any other bonuses to it. And what peneltys would
> they have.
> The reasion I ask this is because that is similar to the way true castles
> were built. As you went deeper into the defensives of the castle you found it
> harder and harder.
....
> Travis Engles


I was thinking that each basic castle could be given a two-number rating - say,
"6/2", which means 6 strength and 2 capacity.

Unfortunately, multi-level castles would be much more complex: say, "6/2;3/8",
which means the above fortification has additional space at 3 strength and 8
capacity. The warcard layout for *inside* the castle could be done off-board on
a paper marked with a 6/2 slot and 3/8 slot. The defender then stacks his units
on this separate paper minding the capacity limits.

The way we have played ranged attacks until now is that you designate your
target even it shares the same square with other units. As was pointed out to
me by Tripp Elliot, this is not a correct interpretation of the rules. So if
one attack can apply to all in the castle, you might consider drawing a separate
card for each castle section (Unless the standard rule is that you draw a
separate card per target . In which case, do that.).

- -Serge