Castles

[kgauck]

I've been reading Castles, Battles, and Bombs by Jurgen Brauer and Hubert van Tuyll, and economic approach to military history.

Based on this, the most basic castle, a solid stone keep with a curtain wall would cost 2 GB for a minimum of 8 seasons with a possibility of one or two extra seasons of construction. It would have no maintenance (in fact it should increase tax incomes) basically functioning as a level of law holding.

http://www.birthright.net/brwiki/images/2/24/Shell_Keep.png

To build a modern castle, with all of the things that make a medieval castle a highly defensible place, multiple walls, numerous round towers, water barriers or other difficult locations, with multiple gatehouses, would take closer to a decade to build at the cost of hundreds of GB.

Builth was a castle centered atop a motte which supported a great round keep and was enclosed by a masonry wall defended by 6 towers. Two earlier Norman baileys remained as part of the complex and so don't figure into the cost. The whole thing is encompassed by another curtain wall and accessed through a twin-towered gatehouse. Other structures included a kitchen block and the great hall, a chapel, and residential quarters. Apparently, construction was stopped at Builth in 1282 although the work on the gatehouse may not have been complete. It took five years of construction and about 85 GB. That's about 4.25 GB per season.

Aberysteyth cost 195 GB, Rhuddlan 475 GB, Harlech 500 GB, Caernarfon, which included a walled town as much as 1000 GB or more.

Aberysteyth took 12 years to build costing 4GB per season
Rhuddlan took 8 years costing almost 15 GB per season
Caernarfon took 12 years costing almost 21 GB per season

So the fort action must involve substantially smaller fortifications.

One wonders what kid of fort level Caernarfon would be.

[Rowan]

How are you converting to a GB? I believe that, if some correlation is attempted between sums of money in the basic form of currency in any given realm and a gold piece, then most of our figures would be much too small (i.e., it would take much, much more money to outfit and maintain troops, create or rule holdings, etc). Instead, the sums of money might be better converted to gold pieces or GBs if looked at as a proportion of the Crown's income spent and also a proportion of the higher nobles' income spent. Then we'd be looking at millions of francs, crowns, marks, etc. of income annually and trying to convert that back into a managable sum of GBs. Either we then have incomes of thousands of GBs, or we keep GBs large and each effectively represents something on the order of 20,000 or 100,000 units of common currency in the realm (that's my gut impression, anyway).

I think it's easier explained that those francs and so forth would translate as copper pieces or silver pieces, allowing our GBs to represent much larger sums of money. Note that if you decrease your estimates by an order of magnitude, they seem to fit rather well. Builth, a motte and bailey, would be a level 1 fortification at 8GB. Caernarfon more like level 10. Works nicely if Silver Pieces are the common currency, I think (which I've actually always assumed in my games).

I agree that maintenance for castles shouldn't really be an issue (works well as far as gameplay, as well).

[kgauck]

Keep in mind that comparing the kinds of things that a king of England would do, all of these castles were built by Edward I, are more appropriate to the Emperor of Anuire or a united Brecht League, so we are in fact talking about thousands of GB annually.

The book, Castles, Battles and Bombs points out that nobles did very little castle building of their own. Nearly all noble castles were built by kings or very large magnates. Since realms in BR are more like historical counties and duchies than kingdoms, it is perfectly appropriate that one cannot imagine a realm building proper castles.

If we look for a Caernarfon type of fortress, a great castle, in a strong defensible place attached to a walled city as one planned defenisive point, I would expect Shieldhaven to be that place, and clearly the expense reveals that the Mohr could never have afforded it. Something like that was built during the Empire and is probabaly only maintained with effort by Mhoried.

The smaller castles, like the one I pictured, a shell keep, that could be a Fortress 2 based on time and cost. I expect little keeps like this are pretty common. Also pretty common, more like a fortress 1, would be a simple keep like the one here.

http://www.birthright.net/brwiki/images/c/c2/Keep.png

[Rey]

So, exactly, how did you convert that money into GBs?

And does the book say, for example, how much did the aristocracy or just kings earn from a taxation?

Of course, you have take into account that the game is designed so you can accomplish something during your (mostly human) lifetime. Also, there is a use of magic. In small amounts, but it can make a difference.

[Getters]

Keep in mind that comparing the kinds of things that a king of England would do, all of these castles were built by Edward I, are more appropriate to the Emperor of Anuire or a united Brecht League, so we are in fact talking about thousands of GB annually.

The book, Castles, Battles and Bombs points out that nobles did very little castle building of their own. Nearly all noble castles were built by kings or very large magnates. Since realms in BR are more like historical counties and duchies than kingdoms, it is perfectly appropriate that one cannot imagine a realm building proper castles.

If we look for a Caernarfon type of fortress, a great castle, in a strong defensible place attached to a walled city as one planned defenisive point, I would expect Shieldhaven to be that place, and clearly the expense reveals that the Mohr could never have afforded it. Something like that was built during the Empire and is probabaly only maintained with effort by Mhoried.

The smaller castles, like the one I pictured, a shell keep, that could be a Fortress 2 based on time and cost. I expect little keeps like this are pretty common. Also pretty common, more like a fortress 1, would be a simple keep like the one here.

http://www.birthright.net/brwiki/images/c/c2/Keep.png

I respict your words my friend but must point out that this is Fantasy. I relly dont care about what it x amount of gold to have my fab Castile. It the feel of the game I'm more interested in this is why I've never got hung up on how much our how long just I would like it what it going to cost and how long to build. So I can have my nice defence castile that one of the resions I like birthright.

[kgauck]

So, exactly, how did you convert that money into GBs?

Look at the distribution of historical magnates and the distribution of birthright magnates and as best as possible, make the curves overlap.

This ignores the fact that England has a king owning about a third of the kingdom, and Anuire has no Emperor, but that would just mean adjusting the GB from £20, which I used, to £30 to account for the king's holdings. That would make the shell keep more 1.5 GB for eight seasons, but it doesn't makes the proper castles much more accessible.


And does the book say, for example, how much did the aristocracy or just kings earn from a taxation?
The average Earl made £200, only seven made more than £400, and at least twenty made less than £20. The crown never made less than £10,000, but it didn't just make money off land and law but off the wool monopoly and contributions from the church as well.


Of course, you have take into account that the game is designed so you can accomplish something during your (mostly human) lifetime. Also, there is a use of magic. In small amounts, but it can make a difference.

But "something" doesn't unnecessarily include everything. Figuring out what is possible by normal realms under normal circumstances, and what requires some other explanation (like magic, or it was done during the Empire, or it comes from the Shadow World) is probably worth a little bit of consideration, don't you agree?

[Green Knight]

The problem is much the same as with province growth - nothing "realistically" can be accomplished within the span of an average game. I mean, building a high level castle that protects and entire province in just a few years??? That really doesn't add up...no suspension of disbelief for me there. So some middle ground should be found...where castles CAN be built, but takes WAY more time that they do under current rules.

[Green Knight]

...I am currently using 20 GBs/lvl for castles (building speed same as before); I used to have it higher, but I always push the players pretty hard in all areas, so finding money to pay even this amount is tough enough...

[Vicente]

...I am currently using 20 GBs/lvl for castles (building speed same as before); I used to have it higher, but I always push the players pretty hard in all areas, so finding money to pay even this amount is tough enough...

One question, given that high cost, is even a reasonable choice to build a castle? If you make it too expensive, maybe it's not worthwhile so you just killed one option of the game.

[kgauck]

That depends on what benefits you get from having castles.

The book I'm reading confronts this question of cost and asks the same question.

[Thelandrin]

...I am currently using 20 GBs/lvl for castles (building speed same as before); I used to have it higher, but I always push the players pretty hard in all areas, so finding money to pay even this amount is tough enough...
I have to say that, in that situation, I would build a castle as my palace and might also build a level 1 castle in a key strategic situation. I certainly wouldn't be building multiple castles or even multi-levelling the one I would build!

[kgauck]

The value of a castle in defense is pretty substantial. Its useful for both offensive and defensive operations, serves as a logistical base, and as I mentioned earlier is effectively a law holding. If these things are not reflected in the game, than its utility is seriously compromised.

A castle is not quite invulnerable, but without special, expensive, siege equipment, the ratio of attackers to defenders could be approaching 10:1 if you want to take a castle. Even with siege equipment, 4:1 is still the very low end (not counting the siege company) and 6:1 might be more appropriate. I think making a siegecraft roll might effect this ratio. A realm like Roesone should be able to spend far less building castles than they would maintaining armies to defend against Diemed and Ghoere.

In both offense and defense, a castle is a tremendous force multiplier.

Siege warfare is a game of logistics. If the logistics of war isn't being considered, then as Vicente put it, maybe it's not worthwhile because you just killed one option of the game.

Another issue is that of conquest. I know that I have mentioned before that of taking and holding unfriendly territory. A castle is the only way to hold new territory and have it contribute. It would seem that if you separate a people from their lord, they don't just switch allegiance to you, so unfortified holdings are not effective.

I imagine that the struggle between Jaison Raenech and William Moergan is one of fortified holdings. Otherwise the regent with the local advantage would eventually push out the other guy and you'd eventually have two distinct realms. But, if they are fortified, they can't simply by contested. Likewise the Mhor's holdings in Ghoere and Ghoere's holdings in Mhoried. For these to last any period of time, they must be fortified.

[Vicente]

The value of a castle in defense is pretty substantial. Its useful for both offensive and defensive operations, serves as a logistical base, and as I mentioned earlier is effectively a law holding. If these things are not reflected in the game, than its utility is seriously compromised.

Adding more beneficts to a castle is an intriguing idea to be honest, and it makes sense if they are very expensive options.



A castle is not quite invulnerable, but without special, expensive, siege equipment, the ratio of attackers to defenders could be approaching 10:1 if you want to take a castle. Even with siege equipment, 4:1 is still the very low end (not counting the siege company) and 6:1 might be more appropriate. I think making a siegecraft roll might effect this ratio. A realm like Roesone should be able to spend far less building castles than they would maintaining armies to defend against Diemed and Ghoere.


Well, sieging a castle is a ugly affair, but nothing stops you from neutralizing it and moving on to other targets or pillage. Or just siege and wait to see it die little by little. Specially if they are low-level castles: they are going to be sieged pretty easily and pretty fast, no need to throw a big army expecting big casualties unless you really need a very fast win.

So if they are very expensive things I would probably give them more functions (as you say) and try to make them more resistant to siege and attrition (although the problem of the enemy pillaging or moving on is hard to stop).

[kgauck]

The idea of masking a fortress (putting enough of a siege to bottle up the defenders) and moving forward is pretty standard. Later on, as armies got larger, it became very common.

It should be possible to mask a fortress and press forward. Like everything else, its a question of costs vs benefits.

If I am invaded frequently, and I build a shell keep (which I have valued at 12 GB) or a something like that, but with three towers and a gate house, a proper little castle closer to Green Knight's 20 GBs/lvl, then the other guy needs to to raise the force he will use to mask your fortress. Suppose he decides Archers will do. 2 GB to raise them, and 1 GB to maintain them. Properly, as I have mentioned, not only does a castle not require maintenance, but it should pay for itself like a law holding. So let us further suppose I am Roesone. My little castle will require both Diemed and Ghoere to consider adding a unit apiece if they separately plans war with me. That is 6 GB right there. For every season they spend at least some time masking my keep they spend 1 GB. On the other hand not only my fortress cost me nothing once I have built it, but it should probabaly earn me 1/3 GB per season.

Considering Ghoere alone, the cost of raising one Archer and maintaining him 10 seasons (presumably over several wars) makes the shell keep a break even with no maintenance. If I can assume wars with both Ghoere and Diemed, Each must raise and archer, and gets four seasons apiece before I have broken even at 12 GB. The 20 GB shell keep with towers will take longer, but its certainly not unreasonable.

If a castle functions as a law holding, both in suppressing unrest, and in collections, a 12 GB shell keep pays for itself in 9 years, while a 20 GB shell keep with towers takes 15 years.

If I combine these, even the 20 GB castle can look attractive.

A siege should last until one of three things happen: successful storming of the castle, significant morale failure causes surrender, or supplies run out. A PC should be able to decide how long the supplies are stocked for. One season per fort level is not right. A smaller keep is easier to stock than a larger one, because less is required. The marginal benefit of a larger castle can easily favor a small castle, depending on the location and expected besieging force. One only need "enough castle" to be secure. If its very unlikely that my enemy will drop 10 units on a province prepared to storm its castle, a level 1 fort is fine. If I think he just might do that, then, and only then do I want a level 2 castle. Again, only if I fear 20 units storming that keep should I opt for a level 3, and so on. If my adversary has a siege train, I need to lower these ratios, but siege engineers take time (their movement is slow and they have a long set-up time), and I still have the flexibility with a level 1 castle to relieve the siege. I would expect Avanil to rely only on a level 1 castle in its provinces, because any invader would not have a very long time to lay siege before the large relieving force arrives.

Morale is a bit if a wildcard. It depends on the local circumstances, the leadership of the commanders, and the conditions of storm and supply. In fact, one of the problems of too many castles is that the biggest issue with a castle isn't its maintenance (which is very small) but the loyalty of its Castellean and its garrison. If the troops are not loyal, they will surrender, perhaps outright, perhaps for coin. If the commander is not loyal, not only may he do the same, but he can use your castle against you. Joining a Great Captain, for instance.

So I say again, a siege should last until one of three things happens: successful storming of the castle, significant morale failure causes surrender, or supplies run out.

[Rowan]

Sounds like we should propose a few sets of variant rules for castles here for different degrees of simulation.

I've long thought that in the average BR game, most castles simply aren't worth it at their current cost and maintenance. Fortified holdings are usually even less worth it. So IMO, castles and especially fortified holdings need to be even more attractive than they are in the standard game, not less so. If they cost more, they need even more benefits.

Sounds like the sieging rules abstraction can be taken care of pretty easily by modifying the defense, morale, and warcraft bonuses given in Tactical warfare. I've suggested this before, using a base of +4 (instead of +0) and then increasing that by the level of the fortification. This number would of course be scalable to match appropriately the cost you're setting for the fortification.

For Strategic warfare, it sounds like we would need only increase the siege time necessary and number of units required to "mask" the fortification. A base requirement of 1 season or 2 seasons before the castle level is reduced at all would help. Doubling the number of units required to mask it would also help.

I would erase the limitation on fortified holdings that they are reduced every month instead of every season. I see little reason for that rule. They are still only protecting one holding. I also would grant the above tactical bonus to Contest actions (both defending and attacking).

Whatever GB value is set for building fortifications, I would require only a single Court action to set the building in motion at a given rate of progress (like 1GB per month or per season, depending on the timescale you want to play), only requiring additional Court actions to increase the rate incrementally or resume building after a halt.

You could also eliminate maintenance costs and increase income by 1/3GB (at standard BRCS rates; if using an adjusted rate like 1GB per Temple and Guild holding and 0.5GB per Law and Source holding, then the income increase could be 0.5GB). Similarly, provide a +1 per level to actions (aside from Contest actions, which are their primary purpose and are adjusted as above).

I am personally in favor of holding fortifications providing special benefits appropriate to the holding type, but that would complicate the standard rules set even further and so I won't mention it yet (it would be another variant).

All of these things make fortifications much more attractive. Each GM would then need to set an appropriate cost for them. I think 12 and 6 GB per level (province/holding) is a good starting point, but I wouldn't go higher than twice that personally.
_______________________________________
So my proposed Variant, in summary:
Fortifications
Cost: 12GB per level for Province, 6GB per level for Holding (no maintenance)
Time: 1 Court Action required to set the rate of construction at 1GB per season. 1 additional Court Action is required to increase the rate by each 1GB per season or to resume construction if it is halted for any reason.

Non-warfare benefits: Increase income by 1/3GB per level. Provide a bonus to holding actions equal to 1 per level, or 4+1 per level on Contest actions. Note that Province fortifications effectively function as additional law holdings.

Tactical Warfare Benefits: Add 4+ level of fortification to any defending unit's Defense, Morale, and Warfare checks. Increase Attack ratings by the level of the fortification. 3 units per level of the fortification can defend it from the inside and benefit from these bonuses. (Other BRCS fortification rules are normal)

Strategic Warfare Benefits: Fortifications may be overcome by neutralizing them, laying siege, siege and reduction, or direct assault (tactical warfare).
----Neutralizing a fortification requires stationing a number of units equal to twice the fortification level + the number of units inside to watch and guard against sorties. If the attacker devotes this many units, the rest of his forces may bypass the castle. Defenders can still engage if they leave the castle.
----Sieging and reduction could benefit from some special rules, like making an attack from the sieging army vs. the defending one each as if they were a single unit, once every month or season. The object of the siege would be to cause hits to break morale, with morale dropping precipitously after 2 seasons or so reflecting diminishing supplies; reduction (requiring engineers) would be aimed at reducing the fortification level, with 0 indicating a breach. Or the actions could be handled with specialized Contest or Agitate actions.
----If there were logistics rules, fortifications would have an impact on them. I assume a supply train follows the path of any marching army from the last allied city or fortification that they were in and that supply train can be Contested, with every 2 points required for the success roll preventing 1GB of maintenance cost getting to the supplied army; fortifications or armies can contest them as if they were holdings of the same level+number of units. Alternate supply routes can be set up with Court actions, and they can be defended by assigning units to defense (either resolving attacks through tactical warfare or by letting units modify the Contest defense roll). Cutting a supply route means that maintenance costs cannot be paid for units; after 2 war moves/weeks (in plains or hills, 1 in other terrain), current supplies and foraging run out and their only recourse is to pillage provinces and holdings to gain GB for maintenance.

[Panics]

I think you should work with the Stronghold and Builders Guidebook (WotC), which as rules for constructing a castle. Only need to adapt the money ratio !! :D

[vota dc]

But if a castle is attacked the defenders can't escape,so they shouldn't have morale bonus.

[Rowan]

The fortifications give them a huge morale bonus. They're protected. They have a major force multiplier.

The negative effect that you speak of--not having a way to escape--is the reason that if their morale breaks and they are routed, they will either be cut down or surrender. The standard tactical rules have them automatically making morale checks; I changed that in my proposed variant.

[AndrewTall]

But if a castle is attacked the defenders can't escape,so they shouldn't have morale bonus.

Even a trapped rat will fight. The best way to break morale is to leave an obvious 'safe' path for escape - if the castle defenders know that it is 'fight or die' then their morale will be all but unbreakable.

The problem we have is the lack of winter - besieging a castle in bad weather is not conducive to good fighting spirit or ability, pity the fool who besieges blackgate in winter, the defender will sally forth from warm halls and slaughter frost-bitten besiegers before they can stand and grab spears, breaking the castle (by one means or another) before being caught by winter / the scorching heat of summer/etc should be a key tactical objective....

I would suggest a downside to castles - they should multiply great captain events (there's nothing like a thousand tonnes of masonry to boost self confidence) and in the event that a great captain occurs, there should be a chance that they take the castle.

[kgauck]

I would suggest a downside to castles - they should multiply great captain events (there's nothing like a thousand tonnes of masonry to boost self confidence) and in the event that a great captain occurs, there should be a chance that they take the castle.

It certainly presents a problem. The cost of attacking a castle is so high compared the defense of one, as Frederic Baumgartner (From Spears to Flintlocks):

The disproportionate resources needed to take a castle in comparison to defending it, once it had been built of course, was one of the key reasons for the constant rebellions of the nobility that characterized medieval politics.

In Castles, Battles, and Bombs the authors write:

The most important cost issue with garrisons was their reliability. An unreliable noble appointed as a castellan now possessed a powerful tool with which to defy his mentor. As castellans often caused trouble, this was no trivial issue, and rulers definitely considered it a significant matter.

The way I think this should be handled though is through standard RPG loyalty rules, not as a random event at the domain level. It can be hard to make sure all the royal castles of England or France are in loyal hands, but keeping a dozen or so castles in loyal hands in a large sized realm should be within the powers of PC's. Loyalty issues shouldn't be perfect, but they should be better than kings with hundreds of appointments to make.

I want players to think about loyalty, but in normal situations, I don't want them feeling like everyone will eventually betray them.

[Rowan]

I'm not sure Great Captain events need be more common; I do like Kgauck's loyalty point. However, I think both DMs and players need to have a good idea of what wars and rebellions look like. Under standard BR rules, rebellions are pretty hopeless things for the rebels, just nuisances to the regents. Seizure of a castle under such new rules makes it a much bigger deal. In fact, any rebellions and Great Captain events that do occur are likely to start with a castle or two, if possible.

As for warfare during the seasons, I agree that this is something greatly lacking (for obviously rules simplicity reasons) from BR rules. Then again, the lack of harvest times and so forth is also something of a problem. This could again be handled by variant rules. For instance:

Summer (south of the Aelvinnwode and similar lateral line across Cerilia): Add 1 to movement cost of travel unless it is along a river or highway (heat exhaustion being a problem). North of this point, no change.

Fall (if optional logistics rules are proposed): Forage alone can sustain armies for twice as long without supply chains (4 weeks)

Spring (again if optional logistic rules such as outlined previously are in play): Forage can only sustain units for half as long (1 week)

Winter: Subtract 2 from all morale ratings. If snow or blizzard during the week, all travel shifts one step to the left on movement chart (highways act only like roads, roads like trackless, trackless become impassable to armies). Units in fortifications ignore the impact to morale.

Depending on how detailed you want to get, there would also be strategic modifiers for special terrain (desert, tundra, mountains), and of course soldiers fighting our of their normal climate would suffer the penalties outlined in BRCS tactics (Anuireans are not used to a Rjurik winter). I don't think terrain is different enough in Anuire to warrant additional complication.

[The Swordgaunt]

The idea of masking a fortress (putting enough of a siege to bottle up the defenders) and moving forward is pretty standard. Later on, as armies got larger, it became very common.

First, this is a brilliant thread!

Then to the issue. KG, If I could suggest a way to resolve a masking action, I'd say that for an attacker to effectively isolate a fortification, he would have to detach at least one unit per fortification level. I'd also suggest that one of these must be cavalry. This is important in such an action due to the need for screening and foraging.

This opens for another aspect of tactics, namely the relief of besieged fortifications. If the besieging force is under threat, the whole scenario can hinge upon a single battle fought while the heroes (or villains) are elsewhere. Further, if an attacker does not confront any fortification, but opts for masking every time, a large portion of his army will end up scattered and tied down. In fact, more than one war has been lost in this manner.

As for complexity of the fortification rules, I have been using a tactical value of my forts. Once a castle is constructed, the Master Mason rolls a Warcraft skill roll. In short, this gives the fortress a Siege DC. Now to effectively lay siege, a commander must roll against this DC. The result of the roll will determine any penalties or bonuses for the attacker for the next turn. There is a table involved... Not a smooth-flowing system, I know, but I like it. And with the aspect of masking actions (thanks, KG, for pointing it out) I can see a war being even more fun.

[kgauck]

I'd say that for an attacker to effectively isolate a fortification, he would have to detach at least one unit per fortification level. I'd also suggest that one of these must be cavalry.

Excellent observation. I totally agree.


As for complexity of the fortification rules, I have been using a tactical value of my forts. Once a castle is constructed, the Master Mason rolls a Warcraft skill roll. In short, this gives the fortress a Siege DC.

There is a mechanic in the Medieval Players Handbook which is for artists creating a masterpiece which I think would apply here. The rules are designed for artists, of which architecture is an art, but they look to establishing DC's and such for art effects. However its not even a half-step to use the same mechanics for an engineering purpose, setting a siege DC.

There are two phases, inspiration and perspiration. In the first phase, the engineer needs to devise a plan to make a good castle. It is a standard skill check against a DC of 25. One could use Siegecraft, Profession (Engineer), Craft (Stone Mason) or whatever you have selected as the key skill. If this check succeeds, the engineer has an idea for a castle in the location selected. I would back the ability to make checks down to once a week. The result of this check, as you have already mentioned, sets the DC for the project. But instead of a single roll, the engineer can choose to continue to reflect on the problem and devise new plans, making a new check every week until satisfied with the DC. This can establish a very high DC.

The second phase, perspiration requires making a series of checks to equal the Inspiration DC squared. These checks have a DC of the Inspiration check minus 10. The amount by which you succeed is added to the "Perspiration Total" and the amount you fail by is subtracted from it.

Example:
Linnias Fhoruile is an engineer hired by Aeric Boeruine to plan and execute a fortress in Redoubt. He looks over the strategic and tactical situation, and starts to work. Once a week he makes an Inspiration Check. He has 20 ranks in the skill Craft (Stone Mason) and an INT of 19. He envisions mutually supporting towers with interlocking fields of fire. He has found a good location with a steep approach. He gets a +24 to his weekly check, but waits ten weeks until he gets a really fine result, a 42. He wants his fortress to be invincible.

Phase 2, Perspiration. The DC for this phase is 32, ten less than the inspiration DC. The castle is completed when the build time is reached, and when the perspiration total reaches 1754. This project will take at two and a half years because of the DC alone. Executing a really fine castle requires solving problems in practice. Of course you could roll every day, but for ease, assume he takes 10, and will gain 2 perspiration points a day. The project takes 877 days. This castle has a defense DC of 42.