Rule Change Ideas

[hobbychest@pcsia.co]

I have a couple of ideas for rules that need to be changed, and wanted
to get them out there for everyone to discuss.

1) RULE- I posted earlier on this one. It is currently too easy to
increase the size of a domain with this action. You could go from a
level 3 province (about 10,000 people) to a level 7 province (about
50,000 people) in the course of 4 domain turns (1 year). I don't know
of any civilizations that grew that fast.
The variation I proposed is that to raise a province 1 level
requires a number of successful rule actions equal to the desired
province level. For example to raise from level 2 to 3 requires 3
successful rule actions while going from 5 to 6 requires 6 rule actions.
To make the same rise from level 3 to level 7 will take 22(4+5+6+7)
domain turns. Granted, this still means that the population doubled
over 5 1/2 years (still rather fast) but it is a little bit realistic.
This also means that to make a large kingdom grow requires a huge
committment from a ruler in both resources and time (as it should).
I left ruling holdings as is. I don't think it is as hard to build
a new temple as it is to get thousands of people to move to your
country.

2) I think the warcard rules should be revamped heavily. I like the
idea of war cards, they are a fast, easy way to do battles. However I
see a big problem in the strategy. I run low magic in my campaign, so
wizards and spellcasting priests usually don't come into play in battles
much. As a result my players have found it to be advantageous to put
all of their units in one square. This makes for boring battles when
there is no reason to manouver.

3) Bloodtrait tables- I agree new tables are needed. Several people
have already posted tables, so I see no reason to post mine. (There is
only a little variation.)

4) Mustering armies- I like the alternative mustering rules off of
netbook. It basically has levels of units.
Level 1 levie
Level 2 scouts, irregulars
Level 3 infantry, archers, pikemen
Level 4 elite infantry, cavalry
Level 5 knights, artillerists
Basically the system is that you can only muster levies. Then you can
use a train army action to change the unit into a unit of the next
level. This makes it so units like elite infantry are not mustered, but
instead created through intense training. Train Army would make a good
free action so it doesn't use your turn. The costs for training units
are on netbook. I encourage you to check it out. I think it is one of
the better things on there.

Well that is probably enough for now. I'll see if I have anything else
later.

Robert Thomson

[Rancour]

hobbychest@pcsia.com wrote:

....
> 2) I think the warcard rules should be revamped heavily. I like the
> idea of war cards, they are a fast, easy way to do battles. However I
> see a big problem in the strategy. I run low magic in my campaign, so
> wizards and spellcasting priests usually don't come into play in battles
> much. As a result my players have found it to be advantageous to put
> all of their units in one square. This makes for boring battles when
> there is no reason to manouver.


Unfortunately, we use the same tactic in our game (stacking all in one square).
This allows for all the ranged attackers to target any unit attempting to
close. Against whatever enemy survives to engage your forces, your army's full
firepower is also concentrated at the point of contact.

How about giving an attack against a flank (or rear) a bonus of +1 (+2 vs
rear)? This would force units to spread out to protect their flanks. An
opening in the line would be an invitation for the calvary to sweep in.
You may allow an infantry unit to form a square as a move option. It can't
move but it no longer has a flank or rear. It would also require a full move
option to unform the square.


Also, how about introducing stacking limits per square? Say, four units?
Or, how about decreasing the unit effectiveness due to crowding? Say -1
defence per unit above 2 vs ranged attacks due to target density.
Or, you could also only allow two units to non-range strike. The front is only
so broad and only so many units can participate in an attack.
Personally, I'd favour the first option since its the simplest.


Do these changes turn Birthright into too much of a wargame?


....
> Robert Thomson

- -Serge

[Tripp Elliott]

Rancour wrote:
>
> hobbychest@pcsia.com wrote:
>
> ....
> > 2) I think the warcard rules should be revamped heavily. I like the
> > idea of war cards, they are a fast, easy way to do battles. However I
> > see a big problem in the strategy. I run low magic in my campaign, so
> > wizards and spellcasting priests usually don't come into play in battles
> > much. As a result my players have found it to be advantageous to put
> > all of their units in one square. This makes for boring battles when
> > there is no reason to manouver.
>
> Unfortunately, we use the same tactic in our game (stacking all in one square).
> This allows for all the ranged attackers to target any unit attempting to
> close. Against whatever enemy survives to engage your forces, your army's full
> firepower is also concentrated at the point of contact.
>
> How about giving an attack against a flank (or rear) a bonus of +1 (+2 vs
> rear)? This would force units to spread out to protect their flanks. An
> opening in the line would be an invitation for the calvary to sweep in.
> You may allow an infantry unit to form a square as a move option. It can't
> move but it no longer has a flank or rear. It would also require a full move
> option to unform the square.
>
> Also, how about introducing stacking limits per square? Say, four units?
> Or, how about decreasing the unit effectiveness due to crowding? Say -1
> defence per unit above 2 vs ranged attacks due to target density.
> Or, you could also only allow two units to non-range strike. The front is only
> so broad and only so many units can participate in an attack.
> Personally, I'd favour the first option since its the simplest.
>
> Do these changes turn Birthright into too much of a wargame?

This tactic was discussed a while back too. You know if all of your
units are stacked on the same square then a missile attack against that
square should effect ALL units in the square. Likewise, BattleMagic
used on the square would be especially brutal. If your PC's use this
tactic always, then have some Mage create a chasm beneath the square the
Army is concentrated in and obliterate the Army.

The fact is that missile attacks should be especially brutal against
that tactic.

Good luck,

Tripp

[Rancour]

Tripp Elliott wrote:
....
> This tactic was discussed a while back too. You know if all of your
> units are stacked on the same square then a missile attack against that
> square should effect ALL units in the square.

Oh... I wasn't there for that. Does this also apply for missile fire on
fortifications?

> Likewise, BattleMagic
> used on the square would be especially brutal. If your PC's use this
> tactic always, then have some Mage create a chasm beneath the square the
> Army is concentrated in and obliterate the Army.

Ok. We just have never used wizards.

> The fact is that missile attacks should be especially brutal against
> that tactic.

Aren't missile units now disproportionately strong, if they can strike at
multiple targets? In our campaign, we sometimes put together huge armies.
Multiple stacks of four archers wouldn't be unusual. If each unit charging such
a stack takes 4+ missile attacks, there won't be anything left of them.

> Good luck,
>
> Tripp

- -Serge

[Tripp Elliott]

Rancour wrote:

> Tripp Elliott wrote:
> ....
> > This tactic was discussed a while back too. You know if all of your
> > units are stacked on the same square then a missile attack against that
> > square should effect ALL units in the square.
>
> Oh... I wasn't there for that. Does this also apply for missile fire on
> fortifications?

I think you need Artillerists for that.

> > The fact is that missile attacks should be especially brutal against
> > that tactic.
>
> Aren't missile units now disproportionately strong, if they can strike at
> multiple targets? In our campaign, we sometimes put together huge armies.
> Multiple stacks of four archers wouldn't be unusual. If each unit charging such
> a stack takes 4+ missile attacks, there won't be anything left of them.

They're not striking multiple target really. What happens is the
missile attack hits a square, and if you're in that square watch out.
Missile units ARE strong, there is a reason that when the English
Peasant took up the bow taxes became much less. The value of Cavalry is
their ability to close quickly and make their crashing attack.

Tripp

[Rancour]

Tripp Elliott wrote:
....
> This tactic was discussed a while back too. You know if all of your
> units are stacked on the same square then a missile attack against that
> square should effect ALL units in the square.
....

Do you draw one attack card per unit in the targeted square, or apply the
results of *one* card draw to all the targets in the square?


> The fact is that missile attacks should be especially brutal against
> that tactic.

Unfortunately, this would probably make our predicament worst (keep in mind we
don't have wizards in our game). I suspect if we use this rule, we players
would buy nothing but archers. For battle, we would stack a large number of
them all in one square, and simply wait for the attacker to come in range. If
both sides do this, every battle would end in a stalemate since no side dares to
make the first move.

Have stacking limits ever been discussed on this list? This would undermine the
above tactic.


....
> Tripp

- -Serge

[prtr02@scorpion.nspco.co]

Whoo boy, while I agree massing in one square is an undesirable war card
tactic that makes for dull battles, missile units are tough enough without
giving them some bogus MIRV bonus. A company of 200 archers shoots, say 400
arrows. These 400 arrows have the same effect on a lone company of 200 as they
do on an army of 5 companies? or 10 companies? or 20 companies? Changes to
stacking limits or flank and rear bonus may be desirable, MIRV missile troops
are not.

By the way, English peasents never "took up" the bow. It takes a lot of training to become a proper longbowman. English yeomen were highly trained
individuals fully supported by their lord.

Randax

[Tripp Elliott]

Rancour wrote:
>
> Tripp Elliott wrote:
> ....
> > This tactic was discussed a while back too. You know if all of your
> > units are stacked on the same square then a missile attack against that
> > square should effect ALL units in the square.
> ....
>
> Do you draw one attack card per unit in the targeted square, or apply the
> results of *one* card draw to all the targets in the square?

Do it either way, it's still essentially random either way.

> > The fact is that missile attacks should be especially brutal against
> > that tactic.
>
> Unfortunately, this would probably make our predicament worst (keep in mind we
> don't have wizards in our game). I suspect if we use this rule, we players
> would buy nothing but archers. For battle, we would stack a large number of
> them all in one square, and simply wait for the attacker to come in range. If
> both sides do this, every battle would end in a stalemate since no side dares to
> make the first move.

I disagree, a unit of Knights can rush right up and attack without
getting hit, remember they have a movement of 3.

> Have stacking limits ever been discussed on this list? This would undermine the
> above tactic.

They have been discussed, but not ever decided on.

Tripp

[hobbychest@pcsia.co]

BI>I disagree, a unit of Knights can rush right up and attack without
BI>getting hit, remember they have a movement of 3.
However, the person with archers also can include a unit of pikemen who
meet the knights leaving the archers to keep on shooting.

Robert Thomson