Results 1 to 5 of 5
Thread: Sieges
-
09-08-1999, 12:22 PM #1DracoGuest
Sieges
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
- ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01BEFA48.9B56D120
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
a.. First I would like to appolagise for clogging up the list with =
the Compendium. I would also like to thank everyone for the great =
response to it. It took me 3 months to compile. ope everyone got their =
copy.
a.. Does anyone have any rules for storming castles? I havn't had to =
use any, but it looks like my players are starting to finely head that =
way. Would you believe it, 3 years of playing Birthright and not one =
siege? Any help would be much appriciated.
Draco
- ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01BEFA48.9B56D120
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
First I would like to appolagise for clogging up =
the list=20
with the Compendium. I would also like to thank everyone for the =
great=20
response to it. It took me 3 months to compile. ope everyone got =
their=20
copy.
Does anyone have any rules for storming castles? =
I havn't=20
had to use any, but it looks like my players are starting to finely =
head=20
that way. Would you believe it, 3 years of playing Birthright and =
not one=20
siege? Any help would be much appriciated.
Draco
- ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01BEFA48.9B56D120--
To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com
with the line
-
09-09-1999, 01:18 PM #2Mark A VandermeulenGuest
Sieges
On Wed, 8 Sep 1999, Draco wrote:
> a.. Does anyone have any rules for storming castles? I havn't had
> to use any, but it looks like my players are starting to finely head
> that way. Would you believe it, 3 years of playing Birthright and not
> one siege? Any help would be much appriciated.
I've never actually had to do it either, but like you it threatened to
happen at one time, so I did spend some time thinking about it. Lets see
if we can get a successful mind dredge...
Siege rules are pretty well covered in the rules (i.e. slow death through
starvation). I remember adding a couple of rules for the use of heavy
artillery (catapults, arbalests, etc.). For example, I think I had a rule
that if catapults were used as a "harrying tactic" (sorry, not a military
historian, so I'm unsure of the right names for some of this stuff) to
"wear out" the enemy without actually attacking, an artillery unit could
get the equivalent of 1 "war move attack" a day against one unit (of
defender's choice). Use the rules from the catapult card (I remember there
being one--though it's possible I made it up myself, if so I'll try to
look it up tonight), and the defending card, include the defensive bonus
of the fortification, and resolve the attack. The defending unit may take
a hit from the attack. If the result shows that the attacking catapult
unit either falls back or takes a hit, the catapults are damaged and need
to be repaired by someone with the Engineering proficiency before they can
be used again. The use of something like grapeshot (lead bullets loosely
wrapped in paper/parchment?) would give a bonus to the attack, but the
PC's either have to think that up themselves or succeed in some form of
proficiency (Engineering? Military Science? Perhaps only in combination
with a Special Building like a Military Academy, etc.), and costs 1 GB for
a week's worth of artillery assaults.
Attacks against wall I resolved in a similar way: assume that the wall has
a defense rating (in war card terms) equal to its fortification rating +2,
and resolve a regular war-card attack as above (one attack per day). If
the attack would cause a hit, the defense rating of the fortification
drops by one level. When it reaches zero, a breach occurs. The attackers
can then decide to attack through the breech. The breech allows only one
attacker to engage one defending unit at a time, but the defending unit
does not gain the fortification bonus. The rubble left from the walls
prevents charge attacks. Yes, this makes the stronger fortifications
almost impossible to breech without magic or advanced military technology.
Armies can choose to storm the walls if they choose, but all defenders get
the defensive bonus of a fortification. No units may utilize charge
attacks. In general, all siege warfare so greatly favors the defender,
that I would rule that all attempts meet w/ failure unless the PC's (or
major DM-antagonist NPCs) personally participate and manage to "turn the
tide of battle" on the walls. Run the attack (or the defense) as an
adventure, and assume that the critical area is the area where the PC's
are. If the PC's are forced to fall back, their side fails, and the attack
is repulsed or the defenses overrun. If their side wins, the attackers
take the walls or the defense pushes back the assault. I would decide
before hand exactly what qualifies as a success in the case of an attack:
clearing the 24 defending troops from a section of wall, and taking at
least one of the wall's "towers" to secure a sallying point sounds pretty
good to me, or perhaps talking control of the gate mechanism and opening
the gate will be required.
Remember: more castles fall to treachery than to storm--and those can be
very interesting adventures, too. I would allow an Espionage action to set
the stage for the Treachery attempt, but once again require personal
intervention of the PC's to fully bring it off.
Mark VanderMeulen
vander+@pitt.edu
To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com
with the line
-
09-09-1999, 09:07 PM #3Kenneth GauckGuest
Sieges
Actually most castles fall to a perponderance of force. The comte
d'Armagnac shows up with 2000 men. The castle belonging to his rival, the
comte de Foix holds out until they come to believe that Foix is unable to
relieve the siege. Then they surrender. As the middle ages wanes into the
early modern era, this process -- making a proper show of defence, but not
actually attempting to hold out unless you actually have a chance to win--
becomes more formal.
Treachery may have been more common that storming, but I doubt very much
either came as close to starving and surrender, which I believe top the list
for capitulations.
Castles (and fortifications in general) work this way. They provide a base
for defenders to hide in. If the attacker does not remove the castle, they
only own the land they stand on. The minute they wander away, the defenders
come out of the castle and are once again dominant. If the army remains in
the province with the castle, but does not attack the castle, the defenders
will be able to sally out and strike at the defenders while the forage for
food, or are dispursed for any reason. Locals loyal to the castle dwellers
will keep the castle informed about when to strike and when to hole up.
Whoever owns a castle is lord, with all that that involves. They can do as
they like and no one can stop them. If you want to stop them, you need to
take all their castles.
In my estimation, based on historical sieges, there would be a 50% chance
for an army of appropriot size (one unit per keep level) to reduce the size
of the keep every season. Having a character with siegecraft would increase
that to 75%. This assumes you have a siege engine.
Without a siege engine, you can't damage a castle, but you can starve the
defenders.
Building a keep at the normal rate of increase would allow you to build up
to 0.015 levels of fortification a season. Only 67 seasons to get one level
of fortification. Increases beyond that require bringing in outsiders, and
the rate of cost increase goes way up. This rate of increase is mighty
slow, but costs only 1 GB per year, and covers the cost of a few specialized
NPC's not normally covered in your court costs. This is a fine thing to do
when you generally feel that your fortifications are strong enough, but a GB
a year is not to much to spend on an almost unnoticable improvement. Labor
is local peasant labor compelled by feudal landlord rights.
If 16 years is to long to wait for a keep, the rate of building in the book
(2-3 domain turns) seems too fast. Since a fortification costs 8GB for a
level, and I see a level of fortification as being a thing that would take
two years to build, I prefer a base of 8 seasons (two years), or 6 domain
turns + d4, for a 7-10 range. Fortifications of holdings cost half of that.
David Macaulay's book _Castle_ describes a great castle and walled city that
took 5 years to build. To my eye that is a Castle 2 and a fortified Guild
1. Or 20GB's worth of fortifications, hence 20 seasons of construction.
The fast rate of construction allowable in the BR rules suggests wooden
fortifications, which I would allow infantry alone to destroy. Anyone can
light a fire.
These are my thoughts on fortification.
Kenneth Gauck
c558382@earthlink.net
- -----Original Message-----
From: Mark A Vandermeulen
To: Bithright
Date: Thursday, September 09, 1999 8:22 AM
Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] - Sieges
>
>
>On Wed, 8 Sep 1999, Draco wrote:
>
>> a.. Does anyone have any rules for storming castles? I havn't had
>> to use any, but it looks like my players are starting to finely head
>> that way. Would you believe it, 3 years of playing Birthright and not
>> one siege? Any help would be much appriciated.
>
>I've never actually had to do it either, but like you it threatened to
>happen at one time, so I did spend some time thinking about it. Lets see
>if we can get a successful mind dredge...
>
>Siege rules are pretty well covered in the rules (i.e. slow death through
>starvation). I remember adding a couple of rules for the use of heavy
>artillery (catapults, arbalests, etc.). For example, I think I had a rule
>that if catapults were used as a "harrying tactic" (sorry, not a military
>historian, so I'm unsure of the right names for some of this stuff) to
>"wear out" the enemy without actually attacking, an artillery unit could
>get the equivalent of 1 "war move attack" a day against one unit (of
>defender's choice). Use the rules from the catapult card (I remember there
>being one--though it's possible I made it up myself, if so I'll try to
>look it up tonight), and the defending card, include the defensive bonus
>of the fortification, and resolve the attack. The defending unit may take
>a hit from the attack. If the result shows that the attacking catapult
>unit either falls back or takes a hit, the catapults are damaged and need
>to be repaired by someone with the Engineering proficiency before they can
>be used again. The use of something like grapeshot (lead bullets loosely
>wrapped in paper/parchment?) would give a bonus to the attack, but the
>PC's either have to think that up themselves or succeed in some form of
>proficiency (Engineering? Military Science? Perhaps only in combination
>with a Special Building like a Military Academy, etc.), and costs 1 GB for
>a week's worth of artillery assaults.
>
>Attacks against wall I resolved in a similar way: assume that the wall has
>a defense rating (in war card terms) equal to its fortification rating +2,
>and resolve a regular war-card attack as above (one attack per day). If
>the attack would cause a hit, the defense rating of the fortification
>drops by one level. When it reaches zero, a breach occurs. The attackers
>can then decide to attack through the breech. The breech allows only one
>attacker to engage one defending unit at a time, but the defending unit
>does not gain the fortification bonus. The rubble left from the walls
>prevents charge attacks. Yes, this makes the stronger fortifications
>almost impossible to breech without magic or advanced military technology.
>
>Armies can choose to storm the walls if they choose, but all defenders get
>the defensive bonus of a fortification. No units may utilize charge
>attacks. In general, all siege warfare so greatly favors the defender,
>that I would rule that all attempts meet w/ failure unless the PC's (or
>major DM-antagonist NPCs) personally participate and manage to "turn the
>tide of battle" on the walls. Run the attack (or the defense) as an
>adventure, and assume that the critical area is the area where the PC's
>are. If the PC's are forced to fall back, their side fails, and the attack
>is repulsed or the defenses overrun. If their side wins, the attackers
>take the walls or the defense pushes back the assault. I would decide
>before hand exactly what qualifies as a success in the case of an attack:
>clearing the 24 defending troops from a section of wall, and taking at
>least one of the wall's "towers" to secure a sallying point sounds pretty
>good to me, or perhaps talking control of the gate mechanism and opening
>the gate will be required.
>
>Remember: more castles fall to treachery than to storm--and those can be
>very interesting adventures, too. I would allow an Espionage action to set
>the stage for the Treachery attempt, but once again require personal
>intervention of the PC's to fully bring it off.
>
>Mark VanderMeulen
>vander+@pitt.edu
>
>************************************************* **************************
>To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com
>with the line 'unsubscribe birthright' as the body of the message.
>
>
To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com
with the line
-
09-13-1999, 12:51 PM #4DracoGuest
Sieges
Thanks Mark!
This have given me some new ideas to process. Sounds like you have given it
some serious thought. I definatly agree that castles often fell to
treachery, but as you know there is allways the exception.
I have a copy of D&D Rules Cyclopedia which has a system that gives hp to
the actual castle parts. It is a little bit complicated but not to hard to
understand. You thoughts simplify the main ideas.
In my campaign i actually came up with a castle building and design book. So
we have plans for castles. Going by this factor i came up with the idea that
a 100 foot section of wall can be held by 20 men(skirmish rules). They get
+4 to AC and take 1/2 casualties. If there is no men to protect the 100 foot
section the enemy can swarm over the castle wall at this point, in which the
modifiers are lost.
Your idea about the castle wall was great. I think i will use it with some
sort of modification.
thanks again!
Draco
- -----Original Message-----
From: Mark A Vandermeulen
To: Bithright
Date: Thursday, 9 September 1999 11:25 PM
Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] - Sieges
>
>
>On Wed, 8 Sep 1999, Draco wrote:
>
>> a.. Does anyone have any rules for storming castles? I havn't had
>> to use any, but it looks like my players are starting to finely head
>> that way. Would you believe it, 3 years of playing Birthright and not
>> one siege? Any help would be much appriciated.
>
>I've never actually had to do it either, but like you it threatened to
>happen at one time, so I did spend some time thinking about it. Lets see
>if we can get a successful mind dredge...
>
>Siege rules are pretty well covered in the rules (i.e. slow death through
>starvation). I remember adding a couple of rules for the use of heavy
>artillery (catapults, arbalests, etc.). For example, I think I had a rule
>that if catapults were used as a "harrying tactic" (sorry, not a military
>historian, so I'm unsure of the right names for some of this stuff) to
>"wear out" the enemy without actually attacking, an artillery unit could
>get the equivalent of 1 "war move attack" a day against one unit (of
>defender's choice). Use the rules from the catapult card (I remember there
>being one--though it's possible I made it up myself, if so I'll try to
>look it up tonight), and the defending card, include the defensive bonus
>of the fortification, and resolve the attack. The defending unit may take
>a hit from the attack. If the result shows that the attacking catapult
>unit either falls back or takes a hit, the catapults are damaged and need
>to be repaired by someone with the Engineering proficiency before they can
>be used again. The use of something like grapeshot (lead bullets loosely
>wrapped in paper/parchment?) would give a bonus to the attack, but the
>PC's either have to think that up themselves or succeed in some form of
>proficiency (Engineering? Military Science? Perhaps only in combination
>with a Special Building like a Military Academy, etc.), and costs 1 GB for
>a week's worth of artillery assaults.
>
>Attacks against wall I resolved in a similar way: assume that the wall has
>a defense rating (in war card terms) equal to its fortification rating +2,
>and resolve a regular war-card attack as above (one attack per day). If
>the attack would cause a hit, the defense rating of the fortification
>drops by one level. When it reaches zero, a breach occurs. The attackers
>can then decide to attack through the breech. The breech allows only one
>attacker to engage one defending unit at a time, but the defending unit
>does not gain the fortification bonus. The rubble left from the walls
>prevents charge attacks. Yes, this makes the stronger fortifications
>almost impossible to breech without magic or advanced military technology.
>
>Armies can choose to storm the walls if they choose, but all defenders get
>the defensive bonus of a fortification. No units may utilize charge
>attacks. In general, all siege warfare so greatly favors the defender,
>that I would rule that all attempts meet w/ failure unless the PC's (or
>major DM-antagonist NPCs) personally participate and manage to "turn the
>tide of battle" on the walls. Run the attack (or the defense) as an
>adventure, and assume that the critical area is the area where the PC's
>are. If the PC's are forced to fall back, their side fails, and the attack
>is repulsed or the defenses overrun. If their side wins, the attackers
>take the walls or the defense pushes back the assault. I would decide
>before hand exactly what qualifies as a success in the case of an attack:
>clearing the 24 defending troops from a section of wall, and taking at
>least one of the wall's "towers" to secure a sallying point sounds pretty
>good to me, or perhaps talking control of the gate mechanism and opening
>the gate will be required.
>
>Remember: more castles fall to treachery than to storm--and those can be
>very interesting adventures, too. I would allow an Espionage action to set
>the stage for the Treachery attempt, but once again require personal
>intervention of the PC's to fully bring it off.
>
>Mark VanderMeulen
>vander+@pitt.edu
>
>************************************************* **************************
>To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com
>with the line 'unsubscribe birthright' as the body of the message.
>
>
To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com
with the line
-
09-13-1999, 01:16 PM #5DracoGuest
Sieges
Thanks Kenneth for your thoughts.
I agree with your castle building time. In BR you can build a castle way too
fast. Real castles sometimes took generations to finish.
Draco
- -----Original Message-----
From: Kenneth Gauck
To: birthright@lists.imagiconline.com
Date: Friday, 10 September 1999 11:53 AM
Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] - Sieges
>Actually most castles fall to a perponderance of force. The comte
>d'Armagnac shows up with 2000 men. The castle belonging to his rival, the
>comte de Foix holds out until they come to believe that Foix is unable to
>relieve the siege. Then they surrender. As the middle ages wanes into the
>early modern era, this process -- making a proper show of defence, but not
>actually attempting to hold out unless you actually have a chance to win--
>becomes more formal.
>
>Treachery may have been more common that storming, but I doubt very much
>either came as close to starving and surrender, which I believe top the
list
>for capitulations.
>
>Castles (and fortifications in general) work this way. They provide a base
>for defenders to hide in. If the attacker does not remove the castle, they
>only own the land they stand on. The minute they wander away, the
defenders
>come out of the castle and are once again dominant. If the army remains in
>the province with the castle, but does not attack the castle, the defenders
>will be able to sally out and strike at the defenders while the forage for
>food, or are dispursed for any reason. Locals loyal to the castle dwellers
>will keep the castle informed about when to strike and when to hole up.
>
>Whoever owns a castle is lord, with all that that involves. They can do as
>they like and no one can stop them. If you want to stop them, you need to
>take all their castles.
>
>In my estimation, based on historical sieges, there would be a 50% chance
>for an army of appropriot size (one unit per keep level) to reduce the size
>of the keep every season. Having a character with siegecraft would
increase
>that to 75%. This assumes you have a siege engine.
>
>Without a siege engine, you can't damage a castle, but you can starve the
>defenders.
>
>Building a keep at the normal rate of increase would allow you to build up
>to 0.015 levels of fortification a season. Only 67 seasons to get one
level
>of fortification. Increases beyond that require bringing in outsiders, and
>the rate of cost increase goes way up. This rate of increase is mighty
>slow, but costs only 1 GB per year, and covers the cost of a few
specialized
>NPC's not normally covered in your court costs. This is a fine thing to do
>when you generally feel that your fortifications are strong enough, but a
GB
>a year is not to much to spend on an almost unnoticable improvement. Labor
>is local peasant labor compelled by feudal landlord rights.
>
>If 16 years is to long to wait for a keep, the rate of building in the book
>(2-3 domain turns) seems too fast. Since a fortification costs 8GB for a
>level, and I see a level of fortification as being a thing that would take
>two years to build, I prefer a base of 8 seasons (two years), or 6 domain
>turns + d4, for a 7-10 range. Fortifications of holdings cost half of
that.
>
>David Macaulay's book _Castle_ describes a great castle and walled city
that
>took 5 years to build. To my eye that is a Castle 2 and a fortified Guild
>1. Or 20GB's worth of fortifications, hence 20 seasons of construction.
>
>The fast rate of construction allowable in the BR rules suggests wooden
>fortifications, which I would allow infantry alone to destroy. Anyone can
>light a fire.
>
>These are my thoughts on fortification.
>Kenneth Gauck
>c558382@earthlink.net
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Mark A Vandermeulen
>To: Bithright
>Date: Thursday, September 09, 1999 8:22 AM
>Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] - Sieges
>
>
>>
>>
>>On Wed, 8 Sep 1999, Draco wrote:
>>
>>> a.. Does anyone have any rules for storming castles? I havn't had
>>> to use any, but it looks like my players are starting to finely head
>>> that way. Would you believe it, 3 years of playing Birthright and not
>>> one siege? Any help would be much appriciated.
>>
>>I've never actually had to do it either, but like you it threatened to
>>happen at one time, so I did spend some time thinking about it. Lets see
>>if we can get a successful mind dredge...
>>
>>Siege rules are pretty well covered in the rules (i.e. slow death through
>>starvation). I remember adding a couple of rules for the use of heavy
>>artillery (catapults, arbalests, etc.). For example, I think I had a rule
>>that if catapults were used as a "harrying tactic" (sorry, not a military
>>historian, so I'm unsure of the right names for some of this stuff) to
>>"wear out" the enemy without actually attacking, an artillery unit could
>>get the equivalent of 1 "war move attack" a day against one unit (of
>>defender's choice). Use the rules from the catapult card (I remember there
>>being one--though it's possible I made it up myself, if so I'll try to
>>look it up tonight), and the defending card, include the defensive bonus
>>of the fortification, and resolve the attack. The defending unit may take
>>a hit from the attack. If the result shows that the attacking catapult
>>unit either falls back or takes a hit, the catapults are damaged and need
>>to be repaired by someone with the Engineering proficiency before they can
>>be used again. The use of something like grapeshot (lead bullets loosely
>>wrapped in paper/parchment?) would give a bonus to the attack, but the
>>PC's either have to think that up themselves or succeed in some form of
>>proficiency (Engineering? Military Science? Perhaps only in combination
>>with a Special Building like a Military Academy, etc.), and costs 1 GB for
>>a week's worth of artillery assaults.
>>
>>Attacks against wall I resolved in a similar way: assume that the wall has
>>a defense rating (in war card terms) equal to its fortification rating +2,
>>and resolve a regular war-card attack as above (one attack per day). If
>>the attack would cause a hit, the defense rating of the fortification
>>drops by one level. When it reaches zero, a breach occurs. The attackers
>>can then decide to attack through the breech. The breech allows only one
>>attacker to engage one defending unit at a time, but the defending unit
>>does not gain the fortification bonus. The rubble left from the walls
>>prevents charge attacks. Yes, this makes the stronger fortifications
>>almost impossible to breech without magic or advanced military technology.
>>
>>Armies can choose to storm the walls if they choose, but all defenders get
>>the defensive bonus of a fortification. No units may utilize charge
>>attacks. In general, all siege warfare so greatly favors the defender,
>>that I would rule that all attempts meet w/ failure unless the PC's (or
>>major DM-antagonist NPCs) personally participate and manage to "turn the
>>tide of battle" on the walls. Run the attack (or the defense) as an
>>adventure, and assume that the critical area is the area where the PC's
>>are. If the PC's are forced to fall back, their side fails, and the attack
>>is repulsed or the defenses overrun. If their side wins, the attackers
>>take the walls or the defense pushes back the assault. I would decide
>>before hand exactly what qualifies as a success in the case of an attack:
>>clearing the 24 defending troops from a section of wall, and taking at
>>least one of the wall's "towers" to secure a sallying point sounds pretty
>>good to me, or perhaps talking control of the gate mechanism and opening
>>the gate will be required.
>>
>>Remember: more castles fall to treachery than to storm--and those can be
>>very interesting adventures, too. I would allow an Espionage action to set
>>the stage for the Treachery attempt, but once again require personal
>>intervention of the PC's to fully bring it off.
>>
>>Mark VanderMeulen
>>vander+@pitt.edu
>>
>>************************************************ **************************
*
>>To unsubscribe from this list send mail to
majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com
>>with the line 'unsubscribe birthright' as the body of the message.
>>
>>
>
>************************************************* **************************
>To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com
>with the line 'unsubscribe birthright' as the body of the message.
>
>
To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com
with the line
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Similar Threads
-
Mirviriam/Sieges
By Mirviriam in forum UserReplies: 0Last Post: 05-17-2010, 02:45 AM
Bookmarks