Results 1 to 10 of 11
Thread: Assaulting castles
-
11-30-1997, 12:00 AM #1BearcatGuest
Assaulting castles
>So here's my more constructive suggestion. Why not stop adding endlessly to
>the rules with all these "options". I would like to see people use the same
>rules to solve new questions. I also enjoy seeing new interpretations.
What you don't seem to understand is that there are a couple score
people contributing to this list and probably many times that much lurking
out there. Whatever is said here is not law, it isn't even "official", If
you like it, use it. If not, don't. I'd doubt that many people haven't
applied more than five new rules to their campaigns.
Bearcat
lcgm@elogica.com.br
Come visit Bearcat's Birthright Homepage at:
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/6204
-
05-14-1998, 12:28 PM #2
- Join Date
- Jan 2002
- Posts
- 159
- Downloads
- 21
- Uploads
- 0
Assaulting castles
I need a response to a question I have. On p.65 of the BR rulebook there is
a short paragraph about assaulting castles if you have artillerist units.
But I didn't find anywhere what exactly is the effect after the castle is
assaulted. Is it immedately captured? Loses 1 level? How is assault better
than a siege? Can a castle be assaulted if you don't have artillerists, but
have a mage capable of casting range attack spells?
And another question, in the same paragraph it says that a castle without a
garrison is considered to be defended by 1 infantry unit, but on the
Fortification terrain card it says 1 irregular. Which one is correct?
************
Aleksei Andrievski
aka Solmyr, Archmage of the Azure Star
Visit the Archmage's Tower at
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Fortress/2198/index.html
-
05-14-1998, 02:49 PM #3James RuhlandGuest
Assaulting castles
>
> I need a response to a question I have. On p.65 of the BR rulebook there
is
> a short paragraph about assaulting castles if you have artillerist units.
> But I didn't find anywhere what exactly is the effect after the castle is
> assaulted. Is it immedately captured? Loses 1 level? How is assault
better
> than a siege? Can a castle be assaulted if you don't have artillerists,
but
> have a mage capable of casting range attack spells?
>
An assault is conducted like a normal battle but with some special rules.
You can assault a castle if the assaulting army has at least one
Artillerist unit, OR someone with the Siegecraft Proficiency. Wizards (and
Priests) can blow stuff up real good, but technically their presence
doesn't allow you to assault the Castle.
N.B. Defenders can only have a # of units= to the Castle level within the
fortification. Defenders in the Castle recieve defence bonuses (Defence=
Castle Level), except against Artillerist units.
Mounted units cannot participate in the assault (according to the rules),
but IMO this is strange, because (dismounted) Knights often participated in
assaults in Midieval times. What the heck: just Cloudkill everyone, there
gods will know their own.
> And another question, in the same paragraph it says that a castle without
a
> garrison is considered to be defended by 1 infantry unit, but on the
> Fortification terrain card it says 1 irregular. Which one is correct?
>
If it were me, I'd say the Fortification Terrain card was correct, because
at least Irregulars have a Missile rating. However, when in doubt, I'd say
the rulebook takes priority (consider the Terrain card a missprint). It
probably isn't a big deal, though; IMO, let the defender/owner of the
Castle decide which unit he has.
-
05-14-1998, 03:25 PM #4Ryan B. CaveneyGuest
Assaulting castles
On Thu, 14 May 1998, James Ruhland wrote in response to Aleksei:
> > But I didn't find anywhere what exactly is the effect after the castle is
> > assaulted. Is it immedately captured? Loses 1 level?
Immediately captured... or destroyed? That's the interesting
question to me. It's not just reduced because if you end the war card
battle in possession of the fortification terrain card, clearly the castle
is yours. If you win by siege the castle should revert to its former
level (perhaps minus one for loss of stores and incidental damage) because
after the inhabitants are starved out, you get the building relatively
intact. If you win by throwing big rocks at the walls, however, you are
definitely going to have damaged it somehow.
> > How is assault better than a siege?
If you win, you win much faster. On the other hand, it can be
harder to arrange because you may need more units, and it is definitely
riskier because you can lose units in an attack or even lose the battle,
whereas to win a siege all you have to do is wait.
> > Can a castle be assaulted if you don't have artillerists, but
> > have a mage capable of casting range attack spells?
>
> You can assault a castle if the assaulting army has at least one
> Artillerist unit, OR someone with the Siegecraft Proficiency. Wizards (and
> Priests) can blow stuff up real good, but technically their presence
> doesn't allow you to assault the Castle.
As a point of campaign flavor, you may wish to consider the
following modification for elves. Among the Sidhelien you are going
to find much greater enthusiasm for the idea of learning usually-avoided
evocation magic for the purpose of knocking down castles than you will for
the idea of murdering their beloved trees to make siege engines to perform
the same task that could be done by fewer elves with magic alone. Thus
when elves buy a unit of artillerists, what they actually get should be
more akin to a character party war card, which consists of a handful of
fighter/mages with the Siegecraft proficiency who use spells like
Bigby's Besieging Bolt.
> Mounted units cannot participate in the assault (according to the rules),
> but IMO this is strange, because (dismounted) Knights often participated in
> assaults in Midieval times. What the heck: just Cloudkill everyone, there
> gods will know their own.
So convert them: knights become elite infantry for the purposes of
the assault, and cavalry become regular infantry. Khinasi bow-armed
cavalry should become archers instead, and so on.
- --Ryan
-
05-14-1998, 03:41 PM #5James RuhlandGuest
Assaulting castles
>
> > > But I didn't find anywhere what exactly is the effect after the
castle is
> > > assaulted. Is it immedately captured? Loses 1 level?
>
> Immediately captured... or destroyed?
>
If the Castle is successfully assaulted, it is usually captured. However,
depending on what is done during the Assault (I.E. if you end up blowing it
up real good with magic), it may be reduced in level or eliminated. This is
a role-playing/DM decision based on what actually occurs during the battle.
>
> If you win, you win much faster. On the other hand, it can be
> harder to arrange because you may need more units, and it is definitely
> riskier because you can lose units in an attack or even lose the battle,
> whereas to win a siege all you have to do is wait.
>
Siege can be nasty, though, too; especially if the other side has
spellcasters and/or adventurer types (crafty fighter leader and the like).
There's nothing to prevent the besieged from doing all kinds of nasty
things to the besiegers. However, Assaults are usually brutal.
>
> As a point of campaign flavor, you may wish to consider the
> following modification for elves.
>
Why do I get the strange feeling that this "modification" will be another
benifit for elves. They aren't Ubermen, you know.
> Thus
> when elves buy a unit of artillerists, what they actually get should be
> more akin to a character party war card, which consists of a handful of
> fighter/mages with the Siegecraft proficiency who use spells like
> Bigby's Besieging Bolt.
>
What level is that? As far as I know, Elves, though having more Wizards per
capita than Humans, don't exactly have enough to populate entire military
units. Bigby's Besieging Bolt would make the casters of fairly high level,
anyhow. And now they're Fighter/Mages, too? How did the Elves ever loose
Cerilia?
> > Mounted units cannot participate in the assault (according to the
rules),
> > but IMO this is strange, because (dismounted) Knights often
participated in
> > assaults in Midieval times. What the heck: just Cloudkill everyone,
there
> > gods will know their own.
>
> So convert them: knights become elite infantry for the purposes of
> the assault, and cavalry become regular infantry. Khinasi bow-armed
> cavalry should become archers instead, and so on.
>
I would do exactly (or similar to) that, but I was describing the rules as
written for the dude.
IMO, actually, dismounted persons (Knights, K-Cavalry, etc), have there
stats unaltered save for a lowering of their Move to 1. A good case could
be made that the K-Cav. Missile rating should go up when dismounted (since
it's theoretically harder to fire arrows from horseback). However, for
various reasons (mostly having to do with the fact that this is an
unfamiliar tactical employment for them, while horse archery is their
lives), I don't think so. Everything else (Defence, Melee, Morale), would
be unmodified.
-
05-14-1998, 04:18 PM #6Pieter A de JongGuest
Assaulting castles
At 10:41 AM 5/14/98 -0500, James Ruhland wrote:
>Why do I get the strange feeling that this "modification" will be another
>benifit for elves. They aren't Ubermen, you know.
>
Well, I would suggest that this is more of a "flavour" modification than
anything else. He is simply suggesting that the elves use magic rather than
catapults to attack fortresses
>> Thus
>> when elves buy a unit of artillerists, what they actually get should be
>> more akin to a character party war card, which consists of a handful of
>> fighter/mages with the Siegecraft proficiency who use spells like
>> Bigby's Besieging Bolt.
>>
>What level is that? As far as I know, Elves, though having more Wizards per
>capita than Humans, don't exactly have enough to populate entire military
>units. Bigby's Besieging Bolt would make the casters of fairly high level,
>anyhow. And now they're Fighter/Mages, too? How did the Elves ever loose
>Cerilia?
>
see my theory of direct divine intervention (note, this was allowed
pre-deismaar). If you read between the lines of what pre-deismaar history
we have, I sort of get the impression that it wasn't exactly uncommon either.
Pieter A de Jong
Graduate Mechanical Engineering Student
University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada
-
05-14-1998, 04:33 PM #7Ryan B. CaveneyGuest
Assaulting castles
On Thu, 14 May 1998, James Ruhland wrote:
> Why do I get the strange feeling that this "modification" will be another
> benifit for elves. They aren't Ubermen, you know.
Even though this is me we're speaking of, that is not what I had
intended. In fact, they will be less useful as they don't constitute an
additonal unit for siege purposes. Same cost, similar abilities (player
may assault castle if artillerists present), slightly different approach
(modifying existing unit rather than adding new one).
> What level is that? As far as I know, Elves, though having more Wizards per
> capita than Humans, don't exactly have enough to populate entire military
> units. Bigby's Besieging Bolt would make the casters of fairly high level,
> anyhow. And now they're Fighter/Mages, too? How did the Elves ever loose
> Cerilia?
There doesn't have to have more than 5 to 10 such wizards per
card. And they would be OK with just lightning bolt and move earth, too --
any spells that do structural damage. I chose fighter/mages because they
need to be trained in warfare to know how to put their spells to maximum
use, and it makes them more likely to know Siegecraft. I don't see any
elven realm really fielding more than one or two of these at a time.
> > So convert them: knights become elite infantry for the purposes of
> > the assault, and cavalry become regular infantry. Khinasi bow-armed
> > cavalry should become archers instead, and so on.
> >
> I would do exactly (or similar to) that, but I was describing the rules as
> written for the dude.
And I was suggesting new ones for him. =)
> IMO, actually, dismounted persons (Knights, K-Cavalry, etc), have
> there stats unaltered save for a lowering of their Move to 1.
> However, ... this is an unfamiliar tactical employment for them, while
> horse archery is their lives),
I'd go with the "unfamiliar tactical employment" all 'round.
- --Ryan
-
05-14-1998, 04:34 PM #8James RuhlandGuest
Assaulting castles
> >
> Well, I would suggest that this is more of a "flavour" modification than
> anything else. He is simply suggesting that the elves use magic rather
than
> catapults to attack fortresses
>
Well, that's a totally (IMO) ineficient use of resources. "Bigby's
Besieging Bolt", his example, is a 6th level spell, requiring at least a
12th level Wizard to cast it. Everyone who has paid attention to the
running "Battle Magic" thread (I admit I haven't, but I don't need to)
knows that a 12th level Wizard is loads more effective than a unit of
Artillerists.
This is what's wrong with the "Elves as Ubermen" school of gaming: the
assumption that Elves have Wizards (oh, Fighter/Wizards) by the score. It
also shows why the Elves lost Cerilia: Divine intervention wasn't needed;
the Elves were just monumentally inefficient, putting all their Wizards in
units with a Missile: 5 rating rather than using them to blow up humans
real good.
> see my theory of direct divine intervention (note, this was allowed
> pre-deismaar). If you read between the lines of what pre-deismaar
history
> we have, I sort of get the impression that it wasn't exactly uncommon
either.
>
-
05-14-1998, 09:20 PM #9bloebick@juno.com (BenjaGuest
Assaulting castles
On Thu, 14 May 1998 15:28:13 +0300 "Aleksei Andrievski"
writes:
>I need a response to a question I have. On p.65 of the BR rulebook
>there is
>a short paragraph about assaulting castles if you have artillerist
>units.
>But I didn't find anywhere what exactly is the effect after the castle
>is
>assaulted. Is it immedately captured? Loses 1 level? How is assault
>better
>than a siege? Can a castle be assaulted if you don't have
>artillerists, but
>have a mage capable of casting range attack spells?
>And another question, in the same paragraph it says that a castle
>without a
>garrison is considered to be defended by 1 infantry unit, but on the
>Fortification terrain card it says 1 irregular. Which one is correct?
>
>************
>Aleksei Andrievski
Well, I believe that assaulting allows you to attack the castle and
capture it in one action round. I say the remaining castle level should
drop by at least 1 level, maybe more, depending on how many units were in
it. For instance, if a castle (5) is defended by 3 infantry units, and
it is assaulted with artillerists and captured by a much larger army,
their should be a castle (4) left at best. Probably more like a castle
(3) or (2). Now, the new owner can spend some money to fix it back up to
full strength. I imagine this would be at 1/4 or 1/2 the cost for
fortification originally since all the materials are there already - you
just need to put them back in place.
I think the rules are fairly clear about assaulting a castle - you must
have artillerists. However, a DM probably would allow the PCs to lead a
commando raid and capture the castle, if desired.
I think it is probably irregulars at the castle. It is pretty much the
castle population banding together with a few full time guards to defend
it if there isn't an army present.
Benjamin
__________________________________________________ ___________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
-
05-18-1998, 02:43 PM #10DKEvermoreGuest
Assaulting castles
In a message dated 98-05-14 11:54:40 EDT, you write:
> As a point of campaign flavor, you may wish to consider the
> > following modification for elves.
> >
> Why do I get the strange feeling that this "modification" will be another
> benifit for elves. They aren't Ubermen, you know.
>
> > Thus
> > when elves buy a unit of artillerists, what they actually get should be
> > more akin to a character party war card, which consists of a handful of
> > fighter/mages with the Siegecraft proficiency who use spells like
> > Bigby's Besieging Bolt.
> >
> What level is that? As far as I know, Elves, though having more Wizards per
> capita than Humans, don't exactly have enough to populate entire military
> units. Bigby's Besieging Bolt would make the casters of fairly high level,
> anyhow. And now they're Fighter/Mages, too? How did the Elves ever loose
> Cerilia?
>
This small point of contention is really moot, you know. Elves cannot
purchase artillery units: they don't build them. If an elf commander wants
to assault the castle without them, he needs to have learned something of
seigecraft, like everyone else. We don't need to add more rules to
Birthright. You can describe the game effect any way you like, but if a DM
goes about saying certain magics can do the same thing as artillery units,
that poor DM is about to lay open a nasty can of worms when the PCs try it.
****** RANT WARNING *******
I see an awful lot of new "rules" come out of this list. Most of these are,
in my opinion, useless. For instance, the silly monuments thing; we've
already got the Build action, this kind of thing should be handled on a case
by case basis in conjuction with the action. And Modify Unit! Really! Just
design a cool new war card and let the DM trade it to the player when the DM
feels the player has covered the cost enough and the DM is sure the card will
not severely upset the play balance. Heaven knows we have enough examples to
follow.
Adding rules for this and that is a lot of fun for th DMs, but from the player
point of view, this game already has SCORES of new stuff to absorb, besides
learning the AD&D part!
Finally, adding more and more rules inevitably provides more loop holes than
swiss cheese for the rules lawyers to take advantage of. (sorry for the rotten
sentence)
So here's my more constructive suggestion. Why not stop adding endlessly to
the rules with all these "options". I would like to see people use the same
rules to solve new questions. I also enjoy seeing new interpretations.
Oh well. ::puts on flame retardant suit::
- -DKE
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Similar Threads
-
Castles
By kgauck in forum The Royal LibraryReplies: 22Last Post: 07-19-2008, 01:47 AM -
RE: Birthright - Castles
By Harding Nick MMUk in forum MPGN Mailinglist archive 1996-1999Replies: 0Last Post: 04-15-1998, 09:43 AM -
Castles and War
By Windhraver@aol.co in forum MPGN Mailinglist archive 1996-1999Replies: 4Last Post: 10-30-1997, 08:53 PM -
Castles and War
By Windhraver@aol.co in forum MPGN Mailinglist archive 1996-1999Replies: 0Last Post: 10-16-1997, 08:00 PM -
castles
By Finnsson in forum MPGN Mailinglist archive 1996-1999Replies: 0Last Post: 09-13-1997, 09:36 PM
Bookmarks