Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 33 of 33
  1. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Malden, MA
    Posts
    761
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    On Fri, 2 May 2003, Landen_Haesri wrote:

    > by opposing rolls per commander, and a certain setup, maybe each could
    > have control of a # of said terrain cards and place them where they wish,

    Yes, that`s what I had in mind.

    > with the attacker having the option of discarding each card he
    > won to reflect his scouts choosing the battlefield.

    I don`t think attacker/defender is a useful distinction here. For
    example: whether on attack or defense, dwarves will try to place mountains
    and elves forests, since they have big advantages there; for the same
    reason, humans facing those races, whether on attack or defense, will try
    to place clear. In any case, it is the side with the better scouts and
    the faster movement rate which chooses the battlefield. The province
    "defender", if it consists of elves in forests, dwarves in mountains, or
    human cavalry in plains, will generally get to choose the location of the
    battle (or even whether a battle happens at all) if the invader is move-1
    human infantry. Think "ambush", at the very least.

    In any case, I think "I choose this space to be clear" is a perfectly fine
    "placement of a terrain card". If the commander with the choice wishes to
    state that no card can go in the space, that`s fine -- so long as the
    total number of terrain cards placed works out to the right number,
    calculated by whatever formula you use. For example, if you use the rule
    that a forest province with source potential 9 should have 9 forest
    terrain cards on the battlefield, and the generals take turns placing
    where they go, you might have one general say "this forest goes here" and
    the other "no forest will go here" six times each, and then the remaining
    three squares must be forest (because that`s all that`s left). In this
    case, what you might want to do is make cards that say "Clear terrain" on
    them, and place them out to indicate which spots are taken.

    Note that the generals might *agree*, in which case their rolls should be
    added, not subtracted. For example, two human generals leading armies
    consisting mostly of cavalry meet in a thick forest. It may happen that
    both generals prefer to fight in clear terrain, so any adjustments each is
    allowed to make to the total number of forest cards present on the
    battlefield might go in the same direction. For example, if the province
    says 7 forest cards are supposed to be placed, and one general gets to
    adjust two cards and the other three, the actual number of forest cards
    placed could be 2 or 12 (if both wanted clear or both wanted forest) or 6
    or 8 (if they disagreed). IMO, this is the reason the battlefield default
    is clear -- human generals tend to collude in choosing them that way.

    > I`m thinking about transferring The Riddle of Steel

    What`s that?

    > Attacking commander and defending commander do opposed skill rolls of
    > Strategy or Tactics; based on their rolls, each would gain a # of
    > area`s terrain cards (up to the maximum level of the Source rating)
    > and place them; defender placing first, attacker next, continuing
    > until each runs out of cards. Attacking commander has the option to
    > discard his Terrain Cards (one at a time) if he chooses.

    I think having both choose from the same pile, some of which are marked
    "clear", is a bit better. That way, the side which doesn`t want terrain
    gets the same influence as the side that does -- both how much of that
    type of terrain there is, and where specifically it is placed. I`d
    actually do it in three steps: first, start with the number and kind of
    cards usual to the province`s terrain type (recall that some may have
    mountains and forests and a river!); second, the commanders roll to see
    how many cards each of them gets to change, and alter the mix of cards
    accordingly; third, they take turns choosing and placing cards from the
    single pile defined in the previous two steps. If the strategy rating
    plus roll difference in step 2 is big enough, in step 3 one general might
    be choosing 2 or even 3 cards for each one the opponent does.

    > This might balance the source rating; the attacking commander, with
    > his intelligence and scout forces, can somewhat choose the
    > battlefield, while the defending commander (having at least one
    > terrain card as home field advantage) gets to do the same. Sound good?

    Again, attacker/defender is not the best way to see it. Both sides have
    some choice of where to bring the other to battle, as both will be
    constantly scouting for the other and moving to improve their own
    position; a 1250 square mile province gives an awful lot of room for two
    forces of 200-3,000 soldiers to blunder around looking for each other.
    If one side is both faster and has better scouts, they can meet their
    opponents basically wherever they like, regardless of which side owns the
    province. Note also that the "attackers" (aka "invaders") on the province
    scale may well end up being the "defenders" on the battlefield, especially
    if their enemy has outmaneuvered them.

    The one place where the two sides don`t have essentially equal influences
    (except for the defender`s generally greater knowledge of local terrain)
    is in the defense of fixed points (cities, castles, bridges, etc.) -- in
    that case, the defender should get to pick almost every terrain card! At
    the very least, at any fortification which is built during play, the
    builder should have near-total control of the surrounding terrain. This
    could extend even to things like "in this plains province, there is
    exactly one large hill; therefore, I chose to build my castle upon it."


    Ryan Caveney

    ************************************************** **************************
    The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
    Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
    To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
    with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

  2. #32
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    18
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Ryan~

    Well stated. I was locked into the attacker/defender mode because the only battle I've had to run so far was with a group of elves defending the province of Abbatuor from humans, and the terrain benefitted the defenders (which is why I thought the distinction important). I do see what you're saying now, with the attacker/defender position being irrelevant, and I agree with you.

    Also, you have a great point with fixed defended positions! I love the idea; I'm going to have my PCs tell me the position their castles and fortified holdings and preplace the terrain cards because it makes total sense. The one question I would have is how to attack fortified holdings in the cities themselves; from what I understand most of my player's temples or Guild holdings are located in the heart of large cities. That'd be interesting to run.

    Thanks for the corrections on viewpoints and the good ideas; with your permission I'd like to rip them off and use 'em IMC. ;)

    Two ales for the strategist an' me! ([_] ([_]

    Charles

    [edit]


    >> I`m thinking about transferring The Riddle of Steel

    >What`s that?

    The Riddle of Steel is an RPG published by Driftwood Publishing and a great game for realistic combat. The emphasis is on humanoid vs. humanoid fighting and is very "gritty"; mundane weapons (swords, daggers, heck, even a quarterstaff) can be deadly in the right hands. I like the system myself (though the magic in TROS is too powerful to be transferred as-is into a setting like BR) and so does my gaming group (half of them anyway). You should check out their website for more info.

    www.theriddleofsteel.net

    (if this is in any way breaking forum rules, please take it off and inform me! I mean no harm!)

  3. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Malden, MA
    Posts
    761
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    On Tue, 6 May 2003, Landen_Haesri wrote:

    > I do see what you`re saying now, with the attacker/defender position
    > being irrelevant, and I agree with you.

    Glad to hear it! Remember, though, that while the above is a good first
    principle, troops in their home province should probably have some small
    scouting advantage, due to familiarity with the local terrain. Even so,
    don`t make this an attacker/defender thing, because the "attacker" could
    be trying to retake a province that was theirs for centuries and the
    current "defender" just occupied last month; also, even if the local
    humans have lived in the mountains/forests for a long time, an invading
    army of dwarves/elves will still probably be able to out-scout them.

    > Also, you have a great point with fixed defended positions!

    Glad you like it. =)

    > The one question I would have is how to attack fortified holdings in
    > the cities themselves; from what I understand most of my player`s
    > temples or Guild holdings are located in the heart of large cities.
    > That`d be interesting to run.

    Urk. Battles in cities are even more dangerous, confusing, and hard to
    control than battles usually are. They degenerate into looting really
    easily; even if you can avoid that, it is extremely difficult to figure
    out what is going on, much less command it. In fact, when cities were
    walled, one generally attacked the walls just like a big castle, and upon
    breaking in the city was often, perhaps usually, sacked. Cities, knowing
    this, tended to surrender as soon as an opposing army approached, unless
    they were really well defended or expected to be sacked anyway. I know of
    very few medieval battles *inside* cities that were really battles -- most
    generals of the time tried to avoid it. Siege or open field was the rule.

    > Thanks for the corrections on viewpoints and the good ideas; with your
    > permission I`d like to rip them off and use `em IMC. ;)

    Go right ahead! That`s why I post them. =) All I ask is that you write
    back at some point with a description of how it went and what you learned,
    and what changes you made to it as you played. I crave more data! ;)

    > www.theriddleofsteel.net

    Thanks for the pointer! What rules would you think you might be breaking?


    Ryan Caveney

    ************************************************** **************************
    The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
    Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
    To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
    with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
BIRTHRIGHT, DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, D&D, the BIRTHRIGHT logo, and the D&D logo are trademarks owned by Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and are used by permission. ©2002-2010 Wizards of the Coast, Inc.