Results 1 to 2 of 2
  1. #1
    Darkstar
    Guest

    Fortified Cities

    Fortified Cities:

    Here are some rules that I have written up to explain fortification in
    the
    Khinasi City States.

    While reading the Cities of the Sun expansion I decided that the Khinasi
    rulers would not be likely to build massive, cold stone fortresses such
    as
    those that are common in Anuire. A fortified holding or province in
    Khinasi
    would be more likely a walled city rather than a castle. Assuming this I
    have adjusted the rules for castles and fortified holding to reflect
    this.
    For an example I will be using the Zikalan capital, which according to
    the
    Cities of the Sun expansion has a level 4 fortification.

    Part 1: The City & Surrounding Lands

    Zikala is one of the largest of the Khinasi City States, matched only by
    Ariya. As a coastal city in one of the most arid regions in Cerilia most
    of
    the population of the province is situated either in the city or along
    the
    coast. Unlike Anuire where the land is able to support many farmers and
    small towns through a province Zikala is unable to do this, so most
    people
    live in the towns and only a few animal herders and farmers live outside
    the main population areas. On page 4 of the expansion it mentions this
    when
    it states that a city like Ariya or Zikala is the only settlement of any
    size in the entire province, and the rest of the lands are sparsely
    settled
    plains and savannahs. Now because all the population is concentrated in
    a
    small area, i.e. the city of Zikala the cities rulers are more likely to
    build a large city wall to protect the people rather than just a small
    castle or fortress on a hill outside the city. Thus for a large city
    such
    as Zikala, a (6/0) province, there may be as many as thirty or forty
    thousand people living within the cities wall, and in Ariya as many as
    on
    hundred thousand.
    Because of the size and age of the City States I have now ruled in my
    campaign that a fortified holding in one of these provinces represents a
    fortified city instead. Although at first it may not appear as though
    this
    may not effect anything, it does and while thinking about these rules
    the
    changes I was making began to make more sense than the standard rulebook
    explanation.
    As the City State of Zikala is level 6 and only has a level 4
    fortification
    this means that only some of the city is fortified. The rest of the city
    (The unfortified part) represents the part outside the city walls,
    either
    the slums or an area that has recently expanded beyond the boundaries of
    the city wall. Because the part of the city outside the wall is not
    fortified it is open for attack if the province is ever invaded. While
    this
    might at first not appear to have any effect it must also be noted that
    if
    only four levels of the province are fortified then only four levels of
    holdings can also be fortified within the city walls. Thus an invader
    could
    rampage though the unprotected part of the city destroying the holdings
    there, while the rest of the city, and holdings within the walls are
    safe
    from the enemies attacks.

    Part 2: The Holdings.

    As I noted above, when the city is fortified it only protect as many
    holding levels as the level of the fortification. The rest are assumed
    to
    be unprotected. This does not however mean that these holding level can
    not
    also be fortified, above the level of the province's fortification.
    On page 56 of the rulebook it states that when a province is fortified
    any
    holdings the ruler controls in that province are automatically fortified
    as
    well. This makes a lot of sense with fortified cities. When the city is
    fortified and the wall built then any holdings of the ruler within the
    cities walls are also fortified. Using the example of Zikala again, as
    the
    city is fortified to level 4 then all the holdings of the ruler, Omar
    ibn
    Tuarim el-Zisef are also fortified, with the exception of source
    holdings.
    This means that Omar's level 3 law holding is protected behind the city
    walls. Now this is where my rules start to make a lot of sense. The book
    also states that the Zikalan Temple of Avani also have a level 2 law
    holding. This holding would represent law in the parts of the city
    outside
    the walls, perhaps the Grand Vizier is not concerned with what happens
    outside the walls of his city so the temple has decided to set up a
    police
    force of their own to keep crime in that area of the city under control.
    With the temple and guild holding of the province they start as
    unfortified
    holdings, but should the regents of those temples or guilds ever wish to
    upgrade their holdings to fortified holdings then what they are actually
    doing is moving their operations inside the city walls, and the cost of
    the
    fortification represents the cost of purchasing new buildings and land
    within the walls.
    What this also means is that fortified holdings within the city walls
    can
    still be attacked and destroyed by the ruler of the kingdom as though
    they
    were unfortified. This is not welcomed by the people of the city and has
    a
    - -3 penalty to loyalty for the province. Of course there is nothing to
    stop
    the guild owner from setting up a fortified holding outside the city,
    but
    this is a lot more expensive and cost double the normal cost for
    fortifying
    a holding.

    Part 3: Wars.

    During a war when an enemy army attacks a province and uses its troops
    to
    destroy the holdings of the province's ruler the rules are also changed
    slightly. The fortified city still has to be neutralized, using the
    rules
    on page 65 of the rulebook. The difference begins when the enemy wants
    to
    reduce holdings in the province. Once again we can use our example of
    Zikala to explain what happens. For the purposes of this explanation
    assume
    that the province's ruler, Omar ibn Tuarim el-Zisef, had a level 6 law
    holding in the province, which as you may remember has been fortified
    with
    a level 4 fortified city.
    When the enemy, say Ariya invades the province it must neutralize the
    city
    first. As this is a level 4 fortification and a city it can hold many
    more
    troops than a castle. A level 4 fortified city can hold as many as 16
    units
    of troops (4 times the level), although each turn the city holds troops
    above level 4 the loyalty is reduced 1 level. Although the city can hold
    16
    units of troops not all of these count towards the numbers needed to
    neutralize the city. An invading army in this case would need to have 8
    units of soldiers to neutralize the fortified city, which is the same as
    for a Anuirean castle with 4 units of troops in it.
    Once the castle is neutralized the invader is free to reduce any
    holdings
    outside the walls to level 0. The difference between this and the
    Anuirean
    situation is that any holdings that have been fortified are also
    considered
    part of the city and can not be destroyed individually. In the example
    above where Zikala has a level 6 law holding then only 4 of the levels
    of
    the law holding are situated within the walled part of the city. The
    rest
    are outside in the unprotected areas.
    The enemy must take the whole city to reduce the fortified holdings. The
    exception to this is any holding that has been fortified individually of
    the city. They may be assaulted with artillery and destroyed as normal.
    If the enemy have artillery then they may of course attack the city, but
    it
    is likely may be defended by soldiers from any temples and guild present
    as
    well as those of the province ruler.

    Although these rules are not that different from the normal, I though
    some
    people may be interested in them as there have been some changes and
    quite
    a bit of explanation to explain something that was confusing some of the
    players in my pbem campaign.

    Any Questions or Comments are welcome as this is still a work in
    progress

    - --
    Ian Hoskins

    e-Mail: hoss@box.net.au
    ICQ: 2938300
    Home Page: http://www.box.net.au/~hoss
    Page Updates: http://www.box.net.au/~hoss/update.html

    >From the Darkness we came.
    And to the Darkness we will return.

  2. #2
    tbeutler@sprynet.co
    Guest

    Fortified Cities

    Thanks for devoting the time to establish these guidelines!!
    Some related questions ...

    On Sat, 06 Sep 1997, Darkstar wrote:
    >Fortified Cities:
    >Here are some rules that I have written up to explain fortification in
    >the>Khinasi City States.

    >Part 2: The Holdings.
    >
    Using the example of Zikala again, as
    >the >city is fortified to level 4 then all the holdings of the ruler, Omar
    >ibn Tuarim el-Zisef are also fortified, with the exception of source
    >holdings.
    >This means that Omar's level 3 law holding is protected behind the city
    >walls. Now this is where my rules start to make a lot of sense. The book
    >also states that the Zikalan Temple of Avani also have a level 2 law
    >holding. This holding would represent law in the parts of the city
    >outside the walls, perhaps the Grand Vizier is not concerned with what
    happens outside the walls of his city so the temple has decided to set up a
    >police force of their own to keep crime in that area of the city under
    control. >With the temple and guild holding of the province they start as
    >unfortified holdings, but should the regents of those temples or guilds
    ever wish to upgrade their holdings to fortified holdings then what they are
    actually doing is moving their operations inside the city walls, and the
    cost of the fortification represents the cost of purchasing new buildings
    and land within the walls.
    >What this also means is that fortified holdings within the city walls
    >can still be attacked and destroyed by the ruler of the kingdom as though
    >they were unfortified. This is not welcomed by the people of the city and
    has a -3 penalty to loyalty for the province. Of course there is nothing to
    >stop the guild owner from setting up a fortified holding outside the city,
    >but this is a lot more expensive and cost double the normal cost for
    >fortifying a holding.

    Now in Turin, OTZ is the province ruler, so how are the holdings of ZTA
    treated (ETT seems to have fortified its holdings, either in the city or
    perhaps a fortified trading camp elsewhere in the province)? or has ZTA
    spent the money to "bring it within the walls"
    I like the cost difference ... ZTA would spend normal to "bring it within
    the walls", but double to ACTUALLY fortify it(thus causing say Ariyan forces
    to beseige it like a castle)
    Perhaps on the pages, * =fortified with [level]
    and within the walls will be simply **

    >
    >Part 3: Wars.
    As this is a level 4 fortification and a city it can hold many
    >more troops than a castle. A level 4 fortified city can hold as many as 16
    >units of troops (4 times the level), although each turn the city holds
    troops above level 4 the loyalty is reduced 1 level.

    Do all those troops receive the fortification bonus? If so maybe the cost
    of walling a city should be slightly higher ...

    Although the city can hold 16 units of troops not all of these count towards
    the numbers needed to neutralize the city. An invading army in this case
    would need to have 8 units of soldiers to neutralize the fortified city,
    which is the same as for a Anuirean castle with 4 units of troops in it.
    Once the castle is neutralized the invader is free to reduce any
    holdings outside the walls to level 0. The difference between this and the
    >Anuirean situation is that any holdings that have been fortified are also
    >considered part of the city and can not be destroyed individually.

    How will you differentiate between within the walls type fortification ...
    and actual fortification ... as below

    >The enemy must take the whole city to reduce the fortified holdings. The
    >exception to this is any holding that has been fortified individually of
    >the city. They may be assaulted with artillery and destroyed as normal.


    >If the enemy have artillery then they may of course attack the city, but
    >it is likely may be defended by soldiers from any temples and guild present
    >as well as those of the province ruler.

    I've been working on a modification to sieges, artillerists ... I'll post
    it soon. Again, nice work

    Have you ever considered modifying the rules based on terrain, culture (like
    troops)? i.e. it's normal to rule "up" a plains province (fertile ground),
    but not Rjurik tundra, Khinasi steppes, jungles, high mountains, swamps ...

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Cities of the Sun
    By Sorontar in forum Main
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-07-2011, 06:22 AM
  2. cities of the sun
    By Wilenburg in forum BRWiki Discussions
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-01-2008, 03:00 AM
  3. Fortified Holdings and Contest Actions
    By soudhadies in forum BRCS 3.0/3.5 Edition
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 10-02-2005, 05:31 PM
  4. Fortified province or holding
    By Arjan in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-18-2003, 03:16 PM
  5. Contest of a fortified holding
    By Darkstar in forum MPGN Mailinglist archive 1996-1999
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-21-1997, 08:35 PM

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.