Castles and siegecraft

[Pieter Sleijpen]

Hi,

For some time now, I have been wondering about the use of castles in the
defence of a nation. Under the right circumstances a castle can be a
great asset, because it will take away a lot of resources from the
attacker. The problem that circumventing a castle is too easy. One only
needs one artillerist or even worst, one character with the siegecraft
proficiency. Of coarse, there is a penalty on his proficiency check
equal to the level of the castle, but this is seldomly very high. The
worst thing is that the people in the castle can do nothing about it. I
do not know much about sieges in the middle ages (any age for that
matter), but wouldn't the defenders be able to make there own anti-siege
craft machienes? So maybe a person with the siegecraft proficiency on
the defending side can oppose the attacking general with siegecraft?
Maybe an artillerist unit on the defending side could neutralize one
artillerist unit from the attacker (not killing, just removing the
attacking benefit)? What do you say?

Pieter Sleijpen

P.S. For some reason I do not like the siegecraft proficiency that much.
Not only because it can replace a very expensive unit, but also because
with luck you can gain a free extra level on the fortification. That is
a free 8 GB or even 16 GB...makes one wonder????

[Trizt]

Pieter Sleijpen wrote:

> I do not know much about sieges in the middle ages (any age for that
> matter), but wouldn't the defenders be able to make there own anti-siege
> craft machienes? So maybe a person with the siegecraft proficiency on
> the defending side can oppose the attacking general with siegecraft?
> Maybe an artillerist unit on the defending side could neutralize one
> artillerist unit from the attacker (not killing, just removing the
> attacking benefit)? What do you say?

During sieges the only thing which limited the time for the defenders to
hold back the attackers was the amount of food and freshwater in the
castle.
So I would sugtgest that the siege must hold atleast [2*[province
level]/[castle level]] months before any kind of offencive actions from
the attackers side, unless they are 5 times more than the defenders.

just my opinion

//Trizt

[JulesMrshn@aol.co]

In a message dated 4/5/99 12:00:44 PM Central Daylight Time, madfox@wxs.nl
writes:

[Memnoch]

Actually, if I remember my siegecraft proficiency correctly, and understand
the abilities of the artillerist unit as well, having one or both of these
in the army allows one to make a DIRECT ASSAULT upon the castle. In order
to perform a Siege (and thus reduce the castle's rating) you don't need
this. As a matter of fact, it is the only option available (other than
retreat) when you don't have a person with this ability or a artillerist
unit with the army.

Additionally, while the artillerist unit ignores the castles defenses when
attacking, the other units can also assault the castle, but do not gain this
benefit. They are not used only to defend from attacks.

Memnoch
- -----Original Message-----
From: JulesMrshn@aol.com
To: birthright@mpgn.com
Date: Monday, April 05, 1999 1:34 PM
Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] - Castles and siegecraft


|In a message dated 4/5/99 12:00:44 PM Central Daylight Time, madfox@wxs.nl
|writes:
|
|

[JNeighb934@aol.co]

Perhaps a character with siegecraft counts as an artillery unit only in the
respect that it then becomes possible for the beseiging army to attack the
castle at all. He doesn't count as a full-fledged artillery unit, giving the
army the ability to attack with an artillery unit's missle rating and so
forth. He just makes it possible for them to assault a castle or a fortified
holding, which would normally be impossible. This makes the proficiency more
realistic, and I believe this is how the writers meant for it to be used.

[Mark A Vandermeulen]

On Mon, 5 Apr 1999, Pieter Sleijpen wrote:

> For some time now, I have been wondering about the use of castles in the
> defence of a nation. Under the right circumstances a castle can be a
> great asset, because it will take away a lot of resources from the
> attacker. The problem that circumventing a castle is too easy. One only
> needs one artillerist or even worst, one character with the siegecraft
> proficiency. Of coarse, there is a penalty on his proficiency check
> equal to the level of the castle, but this is seldomly very high. The
> worst thing is that the people in the castle can do nothing about it. I
> do not know much about sieges in the middle ages (any age for that
> matter), but wouldn't the defenders be able to make there own anti-siege
> craft machienes? So maybe a person with the siegecraft proficiency on
> the defending side can oppose the attacking general with siegecraft?
> Maybe an artillerist unit on the defending side could neutralize one
> artillerist unit from the attacker (not killing, just removing the
> attacking benefit)? What do you say?

I've long been of the opinion that the castle system in BR is a little too
simplified. Specifically, the rating system for castles confounds the
strength of the castle with the size of the castle, and there are plenty
of good reasons why a good strategist might want to make a distinction.
For example, you might want to defend your capital province with a castle
that is very strong, but not necessarily very big, to keep from ending up
with most of your army trapped in the castle with you. So it might make
best sense to have a medium-sized but strong castle in your capital, and
medium-sized but weak castles in your outlying provinces. This would be a
good strategy if you're worries specifically about your capital
province--which makes sense, esp in some of the Khinasi states, where most
of the population is located in one or two of the provinces. Any attacker
must tie up enough units around your outlying castles when they go to
assault your main castle, because if they don't you'll just pounce on them
from your free castles.

This might work by assuming that there are 3 "strengths" of castles, weak,
standard and strong. A weak castle is essentially a fort, perhaps one of
those wooden-keep-on-a-hill-surrounded-by-a-ditch things like the Britons
used to make and whose name currently escapes me. It can be built for 1/2
or 2/3 the price a standard castle of that size would cost. Strong castles
represent the best of Cerilian battle-craft engineering, and provide a
modifier of some sort against siege engines. They cost 3/2 or 4/3 the
price of a standard castle. I would also allow fighters to undertake the
Research action to design Extra Strong castles, that provide an even
better bonus, or to design better siege engines that negate those
advantages.

As far the the seigecraft proficiency goes, I also assume that generals
who have the proficiency also know how to effectively combat siege
engines: how to train infantry to resist siege engines, how to minimize
damage from catapults, what the weak points of wheeled towers are, etc.
Perhaps that should provide a modifier to the defenders if they have a PC
or Lieutennant leading them who has the siegecraft prof.

> Pieter Sleijpen
>
> P.S. For some reason I do not like the siegecraft proficiency that much.
> Not only because it can replace a very expensive unit, but also because
> with luck you can gain a free extra level on the fortification. That is
> a free 8 GB or even 16 GB...makes one wonder????

Well, you also have to consider the time frame. Yes, a PC or lieutennant
warleader can replace the unit, but it's got to take some time. I would
suggest that it takes an entire War Turn for a general w/ the siegecraft
prof. to construct siege engines on the spot. Or perhaps one turn gives
you half-strength siege engines, in comparison to the mustered unit. (I
don't have my war cards handy, and I forget the stats on them.) Thus, if
your opponent declares war on you for his turn, he gets 4 War Turns, he
spends one turn moving in to invest your castle (not the domain
action--that's just what it's called when you surround a fortification)
and then he has to spend another war turn constructing his siege engines,
so it is not until the third war action that he is actually capable of
attacking the castle, giving you plenty of time to respond to his action
by calling in allies, raising levies, etc.

As far as the castle upgrade, perhaps if you develop the "strength
classes" rule I sketched above, it is only possible to build a stong
castle if you have the siegecraft prof. or you assign a lieutennant with
the prof. to do it. You can have one or the other benefit--not both: a
strong castle of the size you pay for, or a regular castle with a size
bonus due to efficiency of design, sort of thing.

Make any sense?

Mark VanderMeulen
vander+@pitt.edu

[JNeighb934@aol.co]

You are totally right that castles are way oversimplified in Birthright, but
I guess it's kind of a necessary evil to keep the number of rules down. IMC,
I treat small castles as a fortified holding. For example, one of my PCs is
the Baron of Roesone. From looking over the design of Blacktower Castle, I
made it a level 4 fortified holding. Since it's up on a high plateau, the
cliff card and fortification card can be used simultaneously when defending
it. The small castle garrison (40 men for a lvl 4 fortification) counts as a
unit of infantry, like a regular castle without any units inside it. The
castle's pupose is solely to protect the Baron's ass from raiders or a small
army until reinforcements arrive, not to hold troops to protect the entire
province. It would still take at least four units to besiege the castle. So
I think this is kind of the same thing you were talking about, a smaller
castle not designed to hold troops but still strong enough to offer
protection to the ruling regent of the land.

[Kenneth Gauck]

I consider all the "castles" under the BR rules to be wooden forts. Their
low cost, ease of destruction, and rapid construction all suggest wooden
rather than stone construction.

Kenneth Gauck
c558382@earthlink.net

[finnsson]

> So I would sugtgest that the siege must hold atleast [2*[province
> level]/[castle level]] months before any kind of offencive actions from
> the attackers side, unless they are 5 times more than the defenders.

I would like to change the function to:
months=2*[castle level]/[number of units stationed there]

//Finnsson

[finnsson]

> do not know much about sieges in the middle ages (any age for that
> matter), but wouldn't the defenders be able to make there own anti-siege
> craft machienes? So maybe a person with the siegecraft proficiency on
> the defending side can oppose the attacking general with siegecraft?
> Maybe an artillerist unit on the defending side could neutralize one
> artillerist unit from the attacker (not killing, just removing the
> attacking benefit)? What do you say?

I think it would be very dangerous to use an artillery unit from the
inside of the castle since you might hit the castle. However, it could
be possible to place lighter catapults on top of the castle wall, using
them to shot down the attackers catapults. This is a rather difficult
thing to do and I think you'll need a unit of artillerists to manage the
light artillery.
I think 1 artillery unit (belonging to the defenders side) could
decrease the strength of the attacking's side with 1/3 (rounded down).
So 3 artillery units would only count as 2 if the defenders got 1
artillery unit. The bonus can never be greater then 1/3 of the castle's
value (since you can't place 300 catapults on the walls of a small
castle :) and 1 unit of artillerists can never decrease the strength of
the attacking's side by more then 1, or something like that.
Do you think it became to complicated?

//Finnsson

[JulesMrshn@aol.co]

Most castles where built in 5 to 10 years according to The Compendium of
Weapons, Armour, and Castles published by Palladium Books (I believe it can
still be picked up through their catalog on their website
www.palladiumbooks.com).

I use it for most of my castle needs. It details a seige and everything. A
must for anyone looking for more realism in their BR campaign in a handy
dandy suppplement. (Not to mention the hudge amount of weapons with
pictures!).

[Jim Cooper]

Kenneth Gauck wrote:
> I consider all the "castles" under the BR rules to be wooden forts. Their low cost, ease of destruction, and rapid construction all suggest wooden rather than stone construction.<

And what do you do when they are made of stone? Rules? Points of
consideration?

Cheers,
Lil 'o Me