Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 70
  1. #31
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,945
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Originally posted by Osprey@Mar 15 2005, 11:39 PM
    . . . In a system with facing, I think the facing of a unit of pikemen is especially important. I would negate the first two abilities if a pike unit is attacked from the flank or rear.
    But since my point was that pikemen don't have an inherent ability to charge foes and the text quoted and analyzed by you still doesn't (including analysis) cover or really imply that pikemen referring to them as units that charge should be dropped. A charge is a specific action that is a reckless (at least partially) move that ends in an attack. Pikemen's specific advantages are from setting for a charge and not by charging in itself. Unlike lances that do double damage when charging a pike does double damage when readied for a charge - a major difference.
    Duane Eggert

  2. #32
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,945
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Dr., I agree whole heartedly in your comments on making the combat system too complicated. In fact I think I have brought that up fairly consistently since we started writing the playtest itself

    The reason I keep bringing up things is to emphasize the scope of changes necessary if proceeding down a specific path. 3.5 is inherently balanced and making what appears on the surface to be a small change almost alwyas ends up with a large series of changes due to the domino effect.

    Note that a lot of this discussion came about because of the discussion of using standard magic on the battlefield and then because of that other things to balance things out (detail wise and historical wise) have led to more and more things.

    I will point out that during the preparation of the playtest I was the one that pushed for the battlecaster feat as a means of simplifying magic on the battlefield and keeping it abstract enough to keep the battle field combat system quick and dirty.
    Duane Eggert

  3. #33
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,945
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    As far as facing goes - I think Gary made the connection albeit not cleary expressed in that it really only relates to formation style combat.

    That is it only has a specific meaning when formations are used, otherwise combat is abstract enough that it really has no meaning from a game mechanic point.

    I believe that people are getting locked onto this concept because they are thinking in terms of fighting in formations and how significant it was to maintain that formation and how certain formation had advantages over others.

    We have not defined (nor should we IMO because fo the detail involved) formations and fighting in formations. If this entire concept is removed from the equation then facing has no real value added (other then complexity) to an abstract battle field combat system.
    Duane Eggert

  4. #34
    Senior Member Osprey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    1,475
    Downloads
    34
    Uploads
    8
    I absolutely agree on this one.

    And since Warcraft is Int based it gives those with a high Int (like magicians and wizards) a descrete edge in its use. Giving them the ability to rely on "raw" talent in this case seems rather contrary to the entire concept here. In most cases a magician or wizard would be better at a warcraft check than a fighet of up to 2nd level - asuming he has maxed out his warcraft skill - just because of the focus on abiity scores for the respective classes.

    Heck the more I think about it the more this skill should not be used untrained - although I specifically know why it was left that way - for use on the battlefield in determining initiative order. If it can't be used untrained then it can't be used for this purpose So the reality base on this one is to not further reward those who don't place ranks into it (i.e., the base of 10 plus 1/5 (total mod)) - this is probably best handled through use of ranks alone with little to no base value (that is number without any ranks).
    You seem to keep interchanging Warcraft and Lead.
    Both can be used untrained according to the Ch 1 descriptions. I don't have a a big problem with that, I think leading folks can be done with sheer charisma (and supernatural enhancements to it). I think strategies and tactics can be reasoned out with pure logic and problem-solving - but without experience and/or training, this will be comparatively slow and incomplete.

    If people want to put untrained commanders in charge of their big expensive armies, let them - like Morgan says, there's plenty of historical precedent for it. I guarantee that a skilled commander will have a very distinct advantage throughout the battle, and with even close-to-evenly-matched armies will mop up the field against an unskilled enemy commander. Tactical initiative is that important. So is Morale, for that matter, though most commanders only give a Morale bonus to the unit they're personally leading. Still, keep the command unit alive and unafraid, and the rest of your troops will keep at it more often than not.

  5. #35
    Senior Member Osprey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    1,475
    Downloads
    34
    Uploads
    8
    But since my point was that pikemen don't have an inherent ability to charge foes and the text quoted and analyzed by you still doesn't (including analysis) cover or really imply that pikemen referring to them as units that charge should be dropped. A charge is a specific action that is a reckless (at least partially) move that ends in an attack. Pikemen's specific advantages are from setting for a charge and not by charging in itself. Unlike lances that do double damage when charging a pike does double damage when readied for a charge - a major difference.
    Listen, I tried to address why pikemen do damage in the Charge phase, but you seem to be very fixated on the idea that in order to do damage in the Charge phase of a battle, the entire unit must be making a Charge action as per the 3.5 combat rules. The 3.5 combat system isn't always the best rule system to use to define a good battlesystem. I just wanted a battlesystem that was close enough so that someone familiar with 3.5 combat can use the battlesystem more easily.

    What I've tried to express is that doing damage in the charge phase (in the first round of engagement only) is a result of an entire unit using reach weapons - it has nothing to do with their ability to set vs. a charge. The latter ability is expressed by pikemen's ability to do double damage vs. a charging unit in the first round of discussion.

    OK, I'm going to try to describe this. Suspend your knowledge of 3.5 combat for a minute, and simply picture a company of 200 men with 20' long pikes. They fight in tight, box-like formations, say 20 men abreast, shoulder to shoulder, and 10 men deep. The pikes angle forward, creating one row of spear points after another, layer upon layer...when engaging an enemy, the first four lines of pikes can be used to attack anyone engaging their front line! Things get ugly only if the enemy manages to press past those first layers and start attacking with close-combat weapons.

    Now, whether attacking or defending, there is a blatant advantage gained in the initial engagement with an enemy unit - quite simply, 4 layers of attackers vs. the single front line of an enemy company. This seems like all of the justification one should need for why pikes will do damage in the charge phase on the first round of engagement. By doing damage then, they have the potential to inflict a hit of damage on a melee unit before the enemy can hit back. The unit they engage can still attack in the Melee damage phase, but they may have already suffered a hit of damage, and thus be weaker (-2 attack/morale).

    Note that unlike cavalry or berserkers, they have no Charge bonus to attack -those units are making charge actions as per the PHB combat system. Plus there is some bonus assumed for the mass of horses gathered in a cavalry company.

    The reason I mentioned pikemen as charging units in the Battlesystem is because there is almost no mechanical difference between the pikemen's 1st round ability and the cavalry's charge ability - the only difference might be the 1" move required by cavalry, whereas pikemen simply need proper facing.

    Now, how a DM describes the actions of each unit should be distinctly different. Cavalry make headlong charges, pikemen either brace for an enemy charge, or rumble forward at a steady gait and press into enemy lines with their layered pikes.

    I'm really only using the BRCS rules for pikemen - it's quite apparent that you're bothered by pikemen being mentioned as charge-capable units, it's easy enough to edit, but I don't think any of the BRCS pike abilities should be deleted or dumbed down.

  6. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    883
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    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:

    >...

    >1/2 ranks would make for pitifully small armies at low levels - a 5th level fighter with maxed Lead (8 ranks) could lead only 4 units. This is just too small a number.

    >

    Considering that he has no telepathic link nor radio connection to the

    4+ units of up to 800 men this limit would sound to be the practical

    limit where he could effectively lead that much men.

    ...



    >You do bring up an interesting point about untrained skill use, though. While it could happen, is it really a practical problem? Who is going to put an unskilled commander in charge of an army? Also, any commander without decent Warcraft will be at a severe disadvantage if they try to command a full army against an enemy commander with a good Warcraft skill.

    >

    Except that it happened when for example some noble or protegé of

    someone took command due to his connections and social position and not

    his skill at commanding. Or even *bought* his position and rank.

    TV-Films like "The last charge of the light Brigade" (Krim War) or the

    series about the infantery unit in the spanish war against Napoleon in

    which a british contingent helped (Sharp Shooters?) come to mind for

    examples of such unable characters.

    bye

    Michael

  7. #37
    Senior Member Osprey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    1,475
    Downloads
    34
    Uploads
    8
    A general comment on Birthright battlesystems:

    I posted a bit earlier, in response to Doom, that I would like to see 2 distinct levels of battle resolution: a very simple, abstract system, and a more detailed wargaming system.

    The simple system should be so simple as to not require any wargaming at all. It should simply be resolved easily with one or a few d20 rolls, modified by whatever factors are relevant. Mainly these would be unit quality (best measured in GB muster value IMO), unit quantity, terrain, weather (maybe), the skill of each army's commander, and any misc. factors, such as magic, Battlewise, Courage (Great), and DM-assigned circumstantial modifiers.

    The more detailed battlesystem should be there for those who like wargaming. I think it's a very big mistake to treat the 2e warcard system as if it weren't a wargame. It certainly is, just a very simplified one that's somewhat abstract. And these abstractions sometimes make it more clumsy than elegant, more confusing than clear.

    Stacking of units is an excellent example of this problem. The 2e warcard system allowed for unlimited stacking, mainly for the sake of allowing the battlefield to be small (5x3). The rules for adjucating stacking actually worked pretty well, but had several major problems:
    1. Stacking 20 units in a single square defies belief. Just how massive is a single section on the battlefield, while still giving archers a range of 1 space and artillery 2 range? Unlimited units piled into a castle especially didn't make sense.
    2. When one side stacks up, it forces the other side to stack up as well. Trying to keep track of which units engage/fire at which enemy units became very confusing, especially with large stacks.
    3. Because terrain (including fortifications) occupied only a single space, it encouraged defenders to stack all of their units on that one space to maximize the benefits of defending in terrain. This tended to encourage the problems described in the first two points.


    In my experience, the 2e warcard system tried to provide a simple wargaming battlesystem - and had just enough level of detail to make me want to revise it. It's complex and time-consuming enough to call it a true wargame, but too simple to allow for many of the tactics and details of a decent medieval battlefield simulation.

    In other words, I think the 2e system was meant to be a compromise between utterly simple non-wargaming and wargaming, and as a result failed to satisfy either party very well.

    If you're not a wargamer, why would the warcard system appeal at all? It very definitely involves unit arrangement, tactics (where and when to use knights, who to place to defend archers, who assaults the walls of the castle, etc, etc), and a turn-by-turn resolution - far more detail than a non-wargamer will really want to get in to.

    If you are a wargamer, then the warcard system is insufficient (IMO) to satisy in certain ways. The lack of decent rules for flanking and rear attacks is an excellent example. This is a key tactic of every decent commander. Skilled commanders are almost always jockeying for position mainly to try and get an advantage against an enemy's flank, or to try and split them in the center and divide the army in two. The warcard system didn't address this most basic strategic principle at all.

    Hence the need for a more detailed system than the 2e warcard one. The battlesystem I've posted was built with several main goals in mind:
    1. To address the stacking problem. The easiest solution seemed to be no stacking (eliminating the confusion of who's fighting who), which requires a larger battle grid for armies of any size, and smaller sized squares so that only 1 unit fits comfortably in a square.
    2. To adapt the BRCS warcard and unit system onto this battlefield. I thought the modular unit-building system in the BRCS was very cool, it opened up all sorts of possibilities and variety for troop/unit types - making the whole military dynamics of Cerilia much more open-ended and adaptable to a DM's and players' visions.
    3. To allow for a bit more detail in unit tactics and strategies than the warcard system allows. The mechanics are modeled on a combination of 3.5 combat and the warcard system, with the goal of making the system easily usable by BR players familiar with both systems.

  8. #38
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,945
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    I'm really only using the BRCS rules for pikemen - it's quite apparent that you're bothered by pikemen being mentioned as charge-capable units, it's easy enough to edit, but I don't think any of the BRCS pike abilities should be deleted or dumbed down.

    The problem is that you have already modified many of the BRCS-playtest rules in this document itself so keeping a portion of the them and trying to hold onto that in the middle of semi-drastic changes is rather futile, IMO. What the pikemen did in 2nd ed and the BRCS-playtest and in the 3.5 rules for using pikes (either using a longspear or halberd either one are approximations) the pike strikes first when set for a charge. Its reach allows it to strike first w\against approaching units. Again this is different then having an inherent ability to be charge capable. See further discussions below.



    Listen, I tried to address why pikemen do damage in the Charge phase, but you seem to be very fixated on the idea that in order to do damage in the Charge phase of a battle, the entire unit must be making a Charge action as per the 3.5 combat rules. The 3.5 combat system isn't always the best rule system to use to define a good battlesystem. I just wanted a battlesystem that was close enough so that someone familiar with 3.5 combat can use the battlesystem more easily.

    What I've tried to express is that doing damage in the charge phase (in the first round of engagement only) is a result of an entire unit using reach weapons - it has nothing to do with their ability to set vs. a charge. The latter ability is expressed by pikemen's ability to do double damage vs. a charging unit in the first round of discussion.

    OK, I'm going to try to describe this. Suspend your knowledge of 3.5 combat for a minute, and simply picture a company of 200 men with 20' long pikes. They fight in tight, box-like formations, say 20 men abreast, shoulder to shoulder, and 10 men deep. The pikes angle forward, creating one row of spear points after another, layer upon layer...when engaging an enemy, the first four lines of pikes can be used to attack anyone engaging their front line! Things get ugly only if the enemy manages to press past those first layers and start attacking with close-combat weapons.

    Now, whether attacking or defending, there is a blatant advantage gained in the initial engagement with an enemy unit - quite simply, 4 layers of attackers vs. the single front line of an enemy company. This seems like all of the justification one should need for why pikes will do damage in the charge phase on the first round of engagement. By doing damage then, they have the potential to inflict a hit of damage on a melee unit before the enemy can hit back. The unit they engage can still attack in the Melee damage phase, but they may have already suffered a hit of damage, and thus be weaker (-2 attack/morale).

    Note that unlike cavalry or berserkers, they have no Charge bonus to attack -those units are making charge actions as per the PHB combat system. Plus there is some bonus assumed for the mass of horses gathered in a cavalry company.

    The reason I mentioned pikemen as charging units in the Battlesystem is because there is almost no mechanical difference between the pikemen's 1st round ability and the cavalry's charge ability - the only difference might be the 1" move required by cavalry, whereas pikemen simply need proper facing.

    Now, how a DM describes the actions of each unit should be distinctly different. Cavalry make headlong charges, pikemen either brace for an enemy charge, or rumble forward at a steady gait and press into enemy lines with their layered pikes.

    I'm really only using the BRCS rules for pikemen - it's quite apparent that you're bothered by pikemen being mentioned as charge-capable units, it's easy enough to edit, but I don't think any of the BRCS pike abilities should be deleted or dumbed down.

    From your writings. .
    Charging: A unit that is capable of charging (cavalry, pikemen, and berserkers) may do so on its first round of engagement. Any unit that initiates a charge must move at least 1” in a straight line in order to receive the charge bonus to attack. Pikemen require only a frontal facing with the unit they are engaging.

    Special- Countercharge: Any unit capable of charging has the ability to charge any unit within range at any point within the movement phase. It must meet the normal conditions, of course (frontal facing + 1” straight movement). This simulates a charge-capable unit’s aggressive and mobile advantage while keeping the charge rules uniform. Although a charge can be devastating in the first round, it can also leave the charging unit vulnerable to flanking (see below) if it engages out in front of its friendly lines.


    What this does is have pikemen be capable of countercharging since they are listed as being capable of charging in the first place. In order to counter charge the unit must move at least 1”. Making their charge advantage be derived from movement and being readied for a charge.

    As far as the facing issue goes – a unit can only attack one unit at a time. Pikemen take their readied for a charge action against the first unit that attacks, they can no longer use that benefit against other units. Simple combat logic using either BRCS-playtest or 3.5 combat rules.

    Once engaged pikemen drop their pikes and draw their melee weapons to engage in melee, essentially becoming weak infantry units. It was that way in 2nd ed and still is in the BRCS-playtest.

    So essentially facing doesn’t really mean anything since the pikemen are only gaining their benefit against the first attack. In order to move around the “perceived” front of the unit requires time and space thus allowing the unit to “adjust” its apparent “facing” so the result is no effect from “facing”.


    Let’s see per the BRCS-playtest the battle round goes as follows:
    Movement Phase
    Tactical Initiative
    First side moves all unengaged units
    Battle magic declared
    Routed units attempt to recover morale
    Units attempt to evade or retreat
    Surrender or withdrawl

    Attack Phase
    Resolve stationary missile attacks
    Resolve charge attacks
    Resolve melee attacks
    Resolve moving missile attacks


    So many of these things will need to be revised based on the way things are going in the polls. For example the battle magic phase is pretty much eliminated since people seem to favor using standard magic during the battle. You can be pretty sure that the abstract effects of the BRCS-playtest battlemagic system will be going out the window. People are going to want direct effects – much more complicated and thus the “benefits” of battle magic need to resolved at the same time as other tactical effects.

    I no longer see a reason to make separate phases (and portions) of them for battle like this anymore. The simplified 3.5 system of all things happening on your turn in the initiative makes it easier to adjudicate and doesn’t really cost anything reality wise.


    You seem to keep interchanging Warcraft and Lead.
    Both can be used untrained according to the Ch 1 descriptions. I don't have a big problem with that, I think leading folks can be done with sheer charisma (and supernatural enhancements to it). I think strategies and tactics can be reasoned out with pure logic and problem-solving - but without experience and/or training, this will be comparatively slow and incomplete.

    Yes you are right here. But the logic still applies. When using Lead to determine the command structure. Lead is a charisma based skill so classes with high Charisma based abilities would come out ahead here – bards and sorcerers most notably. They would gain an inherent bonus to their ability to command on the unit level. This is a place where your house-rules style has now inserted itself and IMO we need to pull back. While at the domain level it makes sense to adjust the benefit (well not really but the effect is less there due to the influx of RP) the battlefield level is much closer to the normal skill application and we should be following the normal protocol here. It makes no sense whatsoever that sorcerers and bards are better leaders of men than are fighters or paladins. Paladins are better than fighters due to their nature and this one works but the others don’t, even throwing in clerics who have a relatively high charisma also.

    Natural talent comes into play when applying the skills (i.e., making a check which the reflection of this) and not in the static conditions (which are what the ranks benefits reflect). What this says is that when 2 character both have the same number of ranks in a skill the one with the most natural talent will be better at applying the skill or will get the most out of it.

    Classes that are Cha based (for example Sorcerers and Bards) gain a huge advantage over others at low levels. A fighter gets 2 + Int mod in skill points per level, a sorcerer gets 2 +Int mod per level and a bard gets 6 + Int. It is not unlikely that a sorcerer or bard will have starting Int of 16 (+3 mod) or even 18 (+4) and that a fighter will have no mod while a paladin will have a lesser one, +1 or possible +2. The maximum ranks a first level character can have in a class skill is 4. So at first level, a Cha based class is at least as good as a non-Cha based class at Lead. Since the most that this can increase is by 1 rank per level for a maxed out skill and the fact that fighters and to a lesser extent paladins get so few skill points per level it is highly likely that this mismatch will continue until at least 3rd or 4th level. I mention fighters and paladins as the comparison because, IMO they are the two classes that are most likely to lead troops. A noble most likely would be the best at this because they get a decent number of skill points per level and their focus is really Cha so they will come out way ahead on this one – not necessarily bad.



    Commanders and Army Size Limits: Commanders are an extremely important element of any medieval army. A commander’s ability to coordinate and give orders to troops is based on his Lead skill. A commander may command a maximum of 10 units, plus 1 per +5 Lead skill. These units must remain within 1” per +1 Lead. This is the commander’s Command Range. Any units outside of the command range may take only partial actions (Move or Attack). Thus, units advancing from the reserves may move closer to the commander, and engaged units may fight without nearby commanders.
    Example: A commander with a +22 Lead skill may personally command up to 14 units on the field at one time, and has a Command Range of 22.”

    Lead (Cha) [New]
    You are a born leader who draws great devotion from your followers. Use this skill to inspire followers, incite revolutions, increase morale, and otherwise motivate people on a large scale through inspired speech and rhetoric.

    Warcraft (Int) [New]
    You have been educated in the military sciences of strategy, tactics and logistics. You are skilled at commanding groups of soldiers at both land and sea, whether entire armies or just a small squad of soldiers.

    What I think is that the two skills have been crossed here. IMO warcraft should be the defining skill but Lead could (and probably should) provide a bonus to the skill in this situation or better yet the morale bonus provided by the hero would work (it reflects all kinds of intangibles that come into play here).

    Lead is providing inspiration and Warcraft is the actual commanding. Part of commanding groups is the actual organization of them into units that are managed. Using that as a simplification helps to keep things in perspective here, IMO.
    Duane Eggert

  9. #39
    Site Moderator geeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,165
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    0
    At 12:19 PM 3/16/2005 +0100, irdeggman wrote:



    >As far as facing goes - I think Gary made the connection albeit not cleary

    >expressed in that it really only relates to formation style combat.



    Hm. I guess it wasn`t that clearly expressed since that`s not what I was

    getting at at all.... In fact, quite the opposite. What I said was:



    >...I don`t think there`s really that much of a connection between facing

    >rules and formation. Facing rules in a system of large scale combat are

    >very abstract. Formation would be much more particular. I`ve used

    >formation rules in addition to facing rules with different units arranged

    >in wedge formation, line abreast, marching order, etc. That kind of thing

    >can be done if one has a system of facing, but facing on its own doesn`t

    >express much about formation other than to note that people organized into

    >a company tend to face in the same direction when fighting on a battlefield.



    I don`t know how that turned into me saying that facing really only relates

    to formation style combat, but let me give the description another shot so

    as to make sure I`m firmly in the "Other" option (whatever that might be in

    this case) for any upcoming poll....



    Facing represents the very abstract recognition that large groups of

    soldiers will be organized in such a way as they are all looking in the

    same direction. It allows for more portrayal of things like tactical

    maneuver on the battlefield, arcs of fire for ranged weapons, large scale

    combat rules for flanking that are based on the orientation of the unit

    rather than the adventure level version of flanking which is more like

    being attacked simultaneously in different directions than what most people

    probably think of as flanking in wargaming (or real life, for that matter.)



    *IF* one has a system of facing *THEN* one can also have a system of

    formation that interacts with it, but they are really seperate

    issues. "Formation" in this case being not the direction that soldiers in

    a unit are oriented towards, but the physical location of soldiers of the

    same unit in relation to one another, but a system of facing need not lead

    to a system of formation automatically. In fact, formation is a whole

    `nother topic that can be handled in several ways.



    For instance, let`s say that one institutes a very simple system of

    facing. On a grid a unit of soldiers is a square chit with one side of the

    chit being its front, the opposite side its rear, and the sides being the

    flanks. It has a little arrow on it to indicate which side is

    front. Units that attack that unit from the squares that are on that

    unit`s flanks or rear get a bonus to their attack roll. My own system was

    a very simple, base 10 thing, so such attacks got a +1 or +2

    respectively. One needs a few other rules like arcs of fire for ranged

    weapons, but it`s a very simple set of guidelines. If one can handle a

    game of checkers, facing is not much of a stretch.



    Formation, on the other hand, would be handled in several different

    ways. The ways that soldiers position themselves in relation to one

    another is very significant in small unit tactics. There`s a parallel, I

    think, between formation of soldiers on a field of battle and the

    arrangement of athletes on a field of play. Imagine, for instance, how

    many formations there are in an (American) football game.



    As a game mechanic, however, formation need not have very much to do with

    facing. Let`s say, for instance, that a player wanted to create a unit of

    soldiers trained to fight as a phalanx. Now, we needn`t bother going much

    into what that means in detail, but basically its one of the most

    elementary ways soldiers organize themselves defensively. The point is

    that in an abstract system of large scale combat that kind of training to

    fight in "phalanx" formation might just give a unit +1 to its defense

    value. It needn`t necessarily be more complex than that.



    If one wanted to be even more particular with issues of formation as they

    relate to facing one could come up with a system of specific combat

    formations; wedge, line ahead, marching order, echelon right, echelon left,

    etc. and assign values to the facing of the units based upon their current

    formation. A unit in echelon right formation (meaning its soldiers are

    arranged in a line like the left leaning oblique "") might be +2 to attack

    from squares on its left flank and rear rather than +1 on both its flanks

    and +2 from the rear of normal units in "standard" formation.



    I did the first method of portraying formation to some extent when I

    fiddled around with large scale combat, but didn`t bother with the second,

    though I don`t think it`d be really all that difficult having used that

    kind of thing in wargames in the past.



    Gary

  10. #40
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,945
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    That aside, I don`t think there`s really that much of a connection between
    facing rules and formation. Facing rules in a system of large scale combat
    are very abstract. Formation would be much more particular. I`ve used
    formation rules in addition to facing rules with different units arranged
    in wedge formation, line abreast, marching order, etc.
    That kind of thing
    can be done if one has a system of facing, but facing on its own doesn`t
    express much about formation other than to note that people organized into
    a company tend to face in the same direction when fighting on a battlefield.

    This is where I made the connection. Facing on its own doesn’t express much about formation but that formation rules in addition to facing work. That is that formation can be used if one has a system of facing.

    Now you do seem to have explained that you have a rather more complex system in mind. That you like formations and facing but really haven’t stated what you wish the “other” vote to be so that we can prepare an option that corresponds to what you would like to see. Instead you have stated a whole bunch of possibilities without really expressing which one you like the best.
    Duane Eggert

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

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.