Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    144
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    I know most people don't use it and that is a very bad way to run battles etc etc....

    I use it and want to ask something tho

    Units stacked with the Magian (or gorgon, or adventurers) get some benefits. Does this mean that all the units in the same square as these characters get the benefits or that ONE unit and ONLY one gets these benefits?

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    New Haven, CT
    Posts
    232
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    From my understanding of the old rules (which I'm pulling out of memory, so forgive me if I'm wrong), but adventurers cards only stacked with 1 unit. The Magian and Gorgon would be the same - they give all their bonuses to the one unit they are with, not all the units around them.

    Of course, you could give some smaller bonuses to other units in the same stack if you wanted.

    And finally, I don't remember being able to stack units. I do remember that if a unit gets a Fall Back result and there is a unit directly behind it, then the result becomes Destroyed because there is no where for the unit to fall back to. If units could stack, this wouldn't matter. Maybe I'm wrong, though.

    Benjamin

  3. #3
    Birthright Developer
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    388
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, Benjamin wrote:

    > And finally, I don`t remember being able to stack units. I do remember

    > that if a unit gets a Fall Back result and there is a unit directly

    > behind it, then the result becomes Destroyed because there is no where

    > for the unit to fall back to. If units could stack, this wouldn`t

    > matter. Maybe I`m wrong, though.



    The rule you`re remembering is that if a unit gets a "fall back" and there

    are _enemy_ units on all retreat routes, it is destroyed. Or something

    like that, might apply only to Rout results, but having friendly units

    nearby doesn`t hurt retreating units, it actually helps them so they can`t

    be cut off.



    Stackability was a major feature of the war card system; since the

    battlefield didn`t really represent physical areas, but conceptual ones

    like "enemy center" and "enemy left wing", there could be as many units in

    these spaces as the commander wanted, pretty much. Some people houseruled

    a limit in to prevent people from just stacking all their units in one

    square and tortising around the battlefield.



    --

    Daniel McSorley

  4. #4
    Senior Member teloft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Reykjavík, Iceland
    Posts
    234
    Downloads
    6
    Uploads
    0
    I have been thinking of some kind of suport units. like the boys thet help the knigths dress in there armore. and thows thet make/carry extra arrows for archers. Thees units dont realy have any figthing skills, there for suport. thay need space to fufill there tasks. (thees units usualy stay behind in the reserv, but its possible to feald them, specialy if you plan to take a last stand in the middle of the battle map)

    Then I have Hero cards of bards to inspire currage and disiplin in the other cards. I have the idee thet if you kill of the banner carriers, and the drummers, thows thet give commands directly to the units. then the unit will lose most of its bonuses do to type / training and disiplin.

    Silence is a terreble spell to cast in a unit only traned to react to sounded commands.

    Supply wagons and such. wagons of mages casting battle spells.

    If a unit looses its conection to its reserv, moral will sufer.

    h34r:

  5. #5
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    ----- Original Message -----

    From: "Daniel McSorley" <mcsorley@OKKOD.PAIR.COM>

    Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 5:39 PM





    > Some people houseruled a limit in to prevent people from just

    > stacking all their units in one square and tortising around the

    battlefield.



    Tortoising around the battlefield was the most common medieval tactic. It

    offers protection to be in a group, even a tightly packed one. The

    disadvantage of such groups are that they are tightly packed group is

    vulnerable to cavalry charges to flanks and volleys of arrows. If the

    tortoise using side wanted to have a square type formation with defenses on

    all sides, they only have the ability to attack the enemy on the front that

    the enemy attacks. Warfare is always a rock-paper-scissors game, its hard

    to form a dominant strategy (a strategy that is best in all situations).



    Kenneth Gauck

    kgauck@mchsi.com

  6. #6
    Birthright Developer
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    388
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

    > > Some people houseruled a limit in to prevent people from just

    > > stacking all their units in one square and tortising around the

    > battlefield.

    >

    > Tortoising around the battlefield was the most common medieval tactic. It

    > offers protection to be in a group, even a tightly packed one. The

    > disadvantage of such groups are that they are tightly packed group is

    > vulnerable to cavalry charges to flanks and volleys of arrows. If the

    > tortoise using side wanted to have a square type formation with defenses on

    > all sides, they only have the ability to attack the enemy on the front that

    > the enemy attacks. Warfare is always a rock-paper-scissors game, its hard

    > to form a dominant strategy (a strategy that is best in all situations).



    Tortising around the battlefield in real life isn`t the same as tortising

    around in the battle cards. For the battle cards, it pretty much was the

    dominant strategy in all cases, because you didn`t have that formation

    problem; you got to choose which unit you defended with in all cases when

    an enemy unit attacked that square. Hence the rules people made to

    prevent it.



    --

    Daniel McSorley

  7. #7
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    ----- Original Message -----

    From: "Daniel McSorley" <mcsorley@OKKOD.PAIR.COM>

    Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2003 12:33 AM





    > Tortising around the battlefield in real life isn`t the same as tortising

    > around in the battle cards.



    My solution here is to make the battle cards work like the battlefield,

    since that is what they are intended to represent. Certainly when we have

    arrows, pikes, horses, and halbards, that`s the best way to proceed. I`ll

    agree that when we start adding magical effects we need to be clever.



    Kenneth Gauck

    kgauck@mchsi.com

  8. #8
    Site Moderator geeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,178
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    7
    At 01:21 AM 12/7/2003 -0600, Kenneth Gauck wrote:



    > > Tortising around the battlefield in real life isn`t the same as tortising

    > > around in the battle cards.

    >

    >My solution here is to make the battle cards work like the battlefield,

    >since that is what they are intended to represent. Certainly when we have

    >arrows, pikes, horses, and halbards, that`s the best way to proceed. I`ll

    >agree that when we start adding magical effects we need to be clever.



    I don`t know what you mean by making the battle cards work like the

    battlefield, but in the case of the BR warcards (or some other large scale

    combat system) I think it makes the most sense that the numbers represented

    by the units include factors like formation, defensive training, etc. and

    the map be used to handle maneuver and tactical positioning. Tortoising

    around the battlefield should be represented by the units themselves--a

    higher defensive rating for the unit and a lower movement rate.



    Gary

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    883
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Gary schrieb:

    > At 01:21 AM 12/7/2003 -0600, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

    >

    >> > Tortising around the battlefield in real life isn`t the same as

    >> tortising

    >> > around in the battle cards.

    >>

    >> My solution here is to make the battle cards work like the battlefield,

    >> since that is what they are intended to represent. Certainly when we

    >> have

    >> arrows, pikes, horses, and halbards, that`s the best way to proceed.

    >> I`ll

    >> agree that when we start adding magical effects we need to be clever.

    >

    >

    > I don`t know what you mean by making the battle cards work like the

    > battlefield, but in the case of the BR warcards (or some other large scale

    > combat system) I think it makes the most sense that the numbers represented

    > by the units include factors like formation, defensive training, etc. and

    > the map be used to handle maneuver and tactical positioning. Tortoising

    > around the battlefield should be represented by the units themselves--a

    > higher defensive rating for the unit and a lower movement rate.

    > Gary



    The problem with that and the old 2E rules was that if you stack all

    your army in one square, then you can use the best unit of your choice

    at all times. The Archers would attack the next square, the Knights

    charge out if some infantery moved near and the Pikemen engaged if you

    were charged by Cavalry... That assumes that the whole army is able to

    react immediately and change position without delay which is totally

    unrealistic.



    The whole issue of "manuever and tactical positioning" was void as the

    single best tactic was to place all units in one square without any

    maneuvering at all.



    Even with a whole army of 30 units in one square you did not even have

    the disadvantage of a close packed tight mass of men, like for example

    the enemys archers shoot at you and has a chance to hit all of your

    units, as the 2E battle cards fought one-on-one at a a time and archers

    could only hit a second unit if the second units was one of yours

    engaged with the target enemy unit.

    bye

    Michael

  10. #10
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    ----- Original Message -----

    From: "Michael Romes" <Archmage@T-ONLINE.DE>

    Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2003 7:22 AM



    > The problem with that and the old 2E rules was that if you stack all

    > your army in one square, then you can use the best unit of your choice

    > at all times. The Archers would attack the next square, the Knights

    > charge out if some infantery moved near and the Pikemen engaged if you

    > were charged by Cavalry... That assumes that the whole army is able to

    > react immediately and change position without delay which is totally

    > unrealistic.



    Its not totally unrealistic, but it does require a good bit of coordination.

    Archers can fire from rear ranks, cavalry can charge through open ranks, and

    pikes and regular infantry can be mixed to provide the advantages of each.

    It requires what amounts to a Roman level of training. I don`t think the

    standard costs in money or time for unit builds reflect that kind of unit

    (or inter-unit) training. Those factors suggest a more feudal form of

    military organization, in which case units can`t coordinate very well.



    > The whole issue of "manuever and tactical positioning" was void as the

    > single best tactic was to place all units in one square without any

    > maneuvering at all.



    Medieval warfare isn`t known for its tacical manuever and positioning, by

    comparison to ancient or early modern warfare. This is mostly a function of

    how command and control operates. When the commander is not on the spot he

    relinquishes control.



    > Even with a whole army of 30 units in one square you did not even have

    > the disadvantage of a close packed tight mass of men, like for example

    > the enemys archers shoot at you and has a chance to hit all of your

    > units, as the 2E battle cards fought one-on-one at a a time and archers

    > could only hit a second unit if the second units was one of yours

    > engaged with the target enemy unit.



    Well one archer unit really doesn`t have a chance to hit all of your units.

    Certainly the more targets, the more successful hits. But that is because

    we have reduced the number of arrows landing in the dirt. On the other

    hand, while densly packed targets are target rich, they also offer cover to

    one another. Defensivly, using the best defender in the stack makes sense.

    It doesn`t require the coordination of and offensive move. As many 3e feats

    reflect, close order defence tends to offer neighbors 25% cover. In no

    regard should 200 or 400 arrows do the damage of 600 or 800 arrows. Those

    arrows will be marginally more effective, they won`t do multiples of damage.

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.