Birthright battle systems

[The Jew]

I know Osprey started to in the other post, but could those who have complete, or nearly complete battle system for Birthright, which have been playtested give a description and details. I know this is a big question, but some have raised concerns that individual polls of such a complex system are not very useful. Maybe if we could get a couple different views of the whole system, while the polls are going we may be able to make some more headway.

[geeman]

At 05:32 PM 3/8/2005 +0100, The Jew wrote:



> I know Osprey started to in the other post, but could those who have

> complete, or nearly complete battle system for Birthright, which have

> been playtested give a description and details. I know this is a big

> question, but some have raised concerns that individual polls of such a

> complex system are not very useful. Maybe if we could get a couple

> different views of the whole system, while the polls are going we may be

> able to make some more headway.



Well.... I have a complete one, but it`s a draft and not really in any

shape to be presented for review. It`s playtested and I was pleasantly

surprised by how well that went, but it was really some time ago and I

haven`t had much need to update it since then. If I were to look at it

again it would need a few major revisions. Large scale (company level)

combat just hasn`t been that much a priority, I`m afraid.



In any case, the system has a lot of things that are my tweaks. Nothing

that would make it completely unusable to the BR community but, for

example, one of the main features of the system was that one could build

units from scratch, equipping them and training them to create companies of

soldiers that were pretty much endlessly customizable. That part worked

out quite well, but unfortunately the monetary costs of that system were

pretty much straight line computations for the costs of equipping 100

soldiers with that type of equipment and training them in its use reflected

in GB (which were also redefined as 1,000gp) and unit cost was computed

without any of the rationalizations for the low prices of units that are

often used in BR.



The system did use facing and limited stacking, but the stacking element is

another thing that I`d probably change. I gave units a numerical size

value and said that a battlesquare could hold up to "10" size of

companies. There`s easier ways of doing that which would make more sense

in a 3e+ conversion. In a rewrite I think that should be that units have a

size value (small, medium-size, large, etc. just like the D&D standard) and

battlesquares should be described as having a number of such units that can

fit into them. Something like "A battlesquare can hold up to two large,

four medium, eight small units or any combination that does not exceed that

maximum. For instance, one large and two medium companies can stack in a

battlesquare, or one large, one medium and two small companies can stack in

a battlesquare."



Another thing that should be changed in the system I used is that one could

literally buy daggers and sheaths to outfit a unit in the system. All of

that equipment was then translated into a value for the company of

soldiers. I found that a lot of fun, but it`s not really all that

necessary other than for the coolness factor of actually knowing the

particular equipment that a unit has. Instead of doing that I`d have the

player just "buy" the melee, missile and defense values. It takes up less

space and just makes more sense. Those values might then have a list of

sample weapons that they might represent, but on the whole the system

doesn`t require that kind of minute detail.



Gary

[irdeggman]

One thing I am not going to do is to fall into the "trap" that was forced on the group via the the domain action polls.

What happened there was essentially people complained so much that they actually wanted me (or others) to "bring me a rock" before they wanted to vote on anything.

What I mean is that people wanted to vote on a complete system and not on concepts that are used to build a system.

The purpose of the various polls was to attempt to capture portions of a battle system that people wanted in order to put together a proposal that incorporated them into a cohesive "product". That product could then be tweaked accordingly.

What I see in danger of happening is that people are going down the path of "I have a system I've been using, we don't we simply adopt it". What will end up happening is that someone will have a system that works the way they like (and is cohesive according to their concpets) but will not be addressing the actual desires of the populace so the best written one ends up "winning" vice the one that best fits the majority's concept of what the system should look like/incorporate.

It is mechanically more sound to attempt to capture the building blocks first and then to build the structure instead of building houses of straw, sticks and brick and wait for the big bad wolf to try and blow them down.

[Osprey]

One thing I am not going to do is to fall into the "trap" that was forced on the group via the the domain action polls.

What happened there was essentially people complained so much that they actually wanted me (or others) to "bring me a rock" before they wanted to vote on anything.

What I mean is that people wanted to vote on a complete system and not on concepts that are used to build a system.

The purpose of the various polls was to attempt to capture portions of a battle system that people wanted in order to put together a proposal that incorporated them into a cohesive "product". That product could then be tweaked accordingly.

What I see in danger of happening is that people are going down the path of "I have a system I've been using, we don't we simply adopt it". What will end up happening is that someone will have a system that works the way they like (and is cohesive according to their concpets) but will not be addressing the actual desires of the populace so the best written one ends up "winning" vice the one that best fits the majority's concept of what the system should look like/incorporate.

It is mechanically more sound to attempt to capture the building blocks first and then to build the structure instead of building houses of straw, sticks and brick and wait for the big bad wolf to try and blow them down.

Assuming people know what they want.

The other side of what you say is "not seeing the forest for the trees."

Most folks have only their experience with the 2e warcard system, homebrewed systems, and/or non-BR wargames. Does this mean they know what sorts of specific mechanics they want for a BR battlesystem?

What most people have felt strongly about, and voted solidly for, are key setting concepts, like 200 men per company or whether or not to have battle magic.

Very, very few people ever sit down and design a battlesystem. Even fewer do so for Birthright - as evidenced by the lack of responses in this forum.

Sometimes "bringing a rock" is the only way to see how a bunch of individual concepts (like unit size, grid size, etc.) all fit together. Naturally, it is far easier to crtitisize such a thing than it is to say what you want without having any sort of cohesive end product in mind. Certainly some of the battlesystem polls could be answered differently depending on what happens in the others - they are interconnected factors, not independent variables.

[The Jew]

Originally posted by irdeggman@Mar 12 2005, 06:22 AM
One thing I am not going to do is to fall into the "trap" that was forced on the group via the the domain action polls.

What happened there was essentially people complained so much that they actually wanted me (or others) to "bring me a rock" before they wanted to vote on anything.

What I mean is that people wanted to vote on a complete system and not on concepts that are used to build a system.

The purpose of the various polls was to attempt to capture portions of a battle system that people wanted in order to put together a proposal that incorporated them into a cohesive "product". That product could then be tweaked accordingly.

What I see in danger of happening is that people are going down the path of "I have a system I've been using, we don't we simply adopt it". What will end up happening is that someone will have a system that works the way they like (and is cohesive according to their concpets) but will not be addressing the actual desires of the populace so the best written one ends up "winning" vice the one that best fits the majority's concept of what the system should look like/incorporate.

It is mechanically more sound to attempt to capture the building blocks first and then to build the structure instead of building houses of straw, sticks and brick and wait for the big bad wolf to try and blow them down.

Which is why I created a new topic. This is meant to be for home-brewed systems. So that people can show us their work and we can ask questions and maybe pick some of the rules apart. I am not expecting more than a few people to actually post comprehensive systems, but that would be a great start for a discussion.

This is not meant to be instead of what you are doing Jrdeggman, as your polls are giving us a general feeling of where peoples interests lie. This is supposed to be on top of, and given that this is by far the most complicated chapter we have seriously tackled, I think both systems have merit.

It may turn out that one of the home-brew systems really is excellent, and with some significant tweaking be the end product.

[Osprey]

v1.4 of my battlesystem is being worked on - I'll post it for DL in here once I'm satisfied that it's better. What that really means is I need to playtest it once or twice and see what I think. I thought it worth mentioning that I am using 100' squares w/ no unit stacking. Archers and irregulars get a 1" (1 inch squares) base range, -2 per additional inch. Maximum range is at +0 missile attack, so better archers get longer effective ranges.

Regular Archers (+4 missile) have 3" max range at +0 attack.
Elite Archers (Veterans, +Missile; +8 missile) have 5" max range at +0 attack.

Compare this to batlefield speeds of units, which equal (Move x 2).
So Knights can move 6", easily able to run down even elite archers from outside their long range. Heavy Infantry will still have problems, but haven't they always?

"Give your heavy infantry shield training, milords. They're too expensive to see them cut down like wheat at harvest by the enemies' longbows."


PS - Anyone ever think it funny that Anuireans have 2 specialties of troops: Knights and Longbowmen? The latter being the bane of the former, it's like the Anuireans figured out how to best defeat themselves.

[ConjurerDragon]

Osprey schrieb:



>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/ind...ST&f=36&t=3027

>

> Osprey wrote:

>...

>"Give your heavy infantry shield training, milords. They`re too expensive to see them cut down like wheat at harvest by the enemies` longbows."

>

>PS - Anyone ever think it funny that Anuireans have 2 specialties of troops: Knights and Longbowmen? The latter being the bane of the former, it`s like the Anuireans figured out how to best defeat themselves.

>

Not at all. While the 2E warcard system made no difference, the

Anuireans have only access to the Longbow and the more advanced

Composite Longbow was reserved for the Khir-aften-el-Arrasi.



I find it strange however that you present the Longbowmen as the counter

to knights (in the game), when the 2E material stated that the cheap

Pikemen was invented to counter the expensive heavy cavalry and that the

crossbow got a special rule to easier penetrate plate armour.

bye

Michael

[The Jew]

This has been edited due to my booboo

[The Jew]

Originally posted by ConjurerDragon@Mar 14 2005, 01:20 PM
Osprey schrieb:



>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php...36&t=3027<br />
>

> Osprey wrote:

>...

>"Give your heavy infantry shield training, milords. They`re too expensive to see them cut down like wheat at harvest by the enemies` longbows."

>

>PS - Anyone ever think it funny that Anuireans have 2 specialties of troops: Knights and Longbowmen? The latter being the bane of the former, it`s like the Anuireans figured out how to best defeat themselves.

>

Not at all. While the 2E warcard system made no difference, the

Anuireans have only access to the Longbow and the more advanced

Composite Longbow was reserved for the Khir-aften-el-Arrasi.



I find it strange however that you present the Longbowmen as the counter

to knights (in the game), when the 2E material stated that the cheap

Pikemen was invented to counter the expensive heavy cavalry and that the

crossbow got a special rule to easier penetrate plate armour.

bye

Michael

I think Osprey stated that because, historically speaking, while pikes were quite effective against heavy cavalry, before the introduction of guns nothing massacred them like longbows. In the battle of Agincourt, made famous by shakespears Henry IV, 6,000 English with longbows massacred 30,000 french knights.

Crossbows just take a long time to reload while pikes are only good if the cavalry runs into them or stands by while a slow moving tight formation walks into the cavalry.

It&#39;s true that composite longbows are superior, but the distinction in D&D terms is neglibible, I believe an extra 10ft range. An advantage, but not the kind with huge ramification on the battle field.

[Osprey]

Crossbows just take a long time to reload while pikes are only good if the cavalry runs into them or stands by while a slow moving tight formation walks into the cavalry.

Yep. The best uyse of pikemen is to guard your longbowmen while they slaughter the enemy knights at range.

Crossbows, historically, were superior in armor penetration, but far inferior to a Welsh/English longbow for overall battlefield effectiveness. Lonbows had about 12x the rate of fire and excellent range. Plus they still had very good armor penetration thanks to their armor-piercing bodkin tips and immense power.

There&#39;s a good reason only the Welsh and later the English used longbows on the battlefield: proficiency and the proper strength required lifelong training in the weapon, something Edward I instituted throughout rural England once he realized the potential of the weapon (as demonstrated to him by the Welsh as levies in his own armies, and against the English occupiers of Wales).

I&#39;ve never quite understood the D&D seperation between composite and normal longbows. Statistically, a Welsh lonbow is much closer to a Str 14+ composite longbow than to the D&D longbow, which has no strength requirement whatsoever. The only example of a composite longbow that I can think of is the daikyu of feudal Japan. Most any other historical composite bows were shortbows used by horse archers.

Osprey