Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17
  1. #1
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,946
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Based on the discussion and results from the previous poll - it appears as if some further discussion would be beneficial prior to calling for another vote here.

    What I see as choices are 10 minutes (the poll's majority opinion),

    Several have suggested 6 minutes

    Some have suggested 1 minute

    Some have wanted a longer time than the 15 minute or 30 minutes ones presented. Need some input here on what would be a better choice for a long time to use.
    Duane Eggert

  2. #2
    Senior Member Osprey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Ashland, NH
    Posts
    1,377
    Downloads
    6
    Uploads
    0
    I read 5 minutes as an option in multiple posts, so that should definitely be an option in any subsequent poll, too.

    BTW, I am curious if anyone else has some thoughts on how one justifies the very slow sppeds of unit movement vs. adventure scale. Can it be justified, or does scaling things to the battlefield just require a large dose of suspension of disbelief?

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Germany, Rhineland-Palatinate
    Posts
    30
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Originally posted by Osprey@Mar 19 2005, 03:24 PM
    I read 5 minutes as an option in multiple posts, so that should definitely be an option in any subsequent poll, too.

    BTW, I am curious if anyone else has some thoughts on how one justifies the very slow sppeds of unit movement vs. adventure scale. Can it be justified, or does scaling things to the battlefield just require a large dose of suspension of disbelief?
    Another thought about movement speed:

    The movement speeds in the 3.5 PHB are only valid for individuals.

    An army unit never is as fast as a single individual, regardless of the load the individual carries.

    An army unit may be able on the march to sometimes nearly achieve the speed of individuals but the result is dangerous (Varus Legions spread out on the march and becoming vulnerable).

    Army units on the battlefield need to maintain their formation. Not only due to the need for Pikemen to present a hedge of spears to the enemy, but also for e.g. Infantery using a shieldwall.

    An army unit needs also to maintain formation, so that each soldier can support his neighbour, that wounded soldiers can retreat through the ranks and be replaced and that all soldiers stay within reach of their commanding officers voice.

    Using that as justification one could use the PHB p. 163 rules on hampered movement and say that for soldiers moving as a cohesive army unit ALL terrain is difficult terrain.

    Would that give you acceptable unit spees Osprey?
    Michael Romes
    (Assan ibn Daouta in RoE)

  4. #4
    Senior Member Osprey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Ashland, NH
    Posts
    1,377
    Downloads
    6
    Uploads
    0
    OK, here’s a layout of unit speeds using Micheal Rome’s hampered movement idea.

    Default unit speeds = hampered movement (1/2 speed)
    Marching speed = walk/hustle + combat


    Light foot units can march 15’ per round = 150’ per minute = 1500’ per 10 minute battle turn
    Medium/heavy foot units can march 10’ per round = 100’ per minute = 1000’ per turn
    Light irregulars can march 20’ per round = 200’ per minute = 2000’ per turn
    Medium/heavy irregulars can march 15’ per round = 150’ per minute = 1500’ per turn

    Light cavalry can march 30’ per round = 300’ per minute = 3000’ per turn
    Medium cavalry can march 25’ per round = 250’ per minute = 2500’ per turn
    Heavy cavalry can march 18’ per round = 180’ per minute = 1800’ per turn

    Irregulars don’t suffer from hampered movement as they move only in loose formation. However, they still must maintain some semblance of formation, so their speed is adjusted as if they had one extra level of encumbrance.

    5 minute battle rounds would halve these speeds.

    If 1” = 100’ (1 grid square), this gives us the following unit speeds per 10-minute battle turn in open terrain (5 minute turn speeds in parentheses):

    Light Foot: 15” (8”)
    Medium/Heavy Foot: 10” (5”)
    Light Irregulars: 20” (10”)
    Med/Hvy Irregulars: 15” (8”)

    Light Cavalry: 30” (15”)
    Medium Cavalry: 25” (13”)
    Heavy Cavalry: 20” (10”)


    These speeds end up far exceeding missile ranges, allowing any unit on the field to start the turn out of missile range, then charge to engage in 1 turn. Net result = melee units will entirely dominate the field, while missile units will be mostly worthless.

    Such speeds also require a tremendously large battle map to allow sufficient room for maneuvering.


    So I'd say there's still a big problem in converting tactical speeds to battlefield speeds...

    Osprey

    PS, Micheal: Units don't typically march in shield wall or phalanx formations - those are meant to be either stationary or slow-moving defensive formations. More likely such units would march in more standard formation (1 man per 5' square is fairly reasonable), then reform when close to engagement. Infantry might not use a shield wall at all if they plan to attack. Also, the shield wall is really only appropriate for infantry units with shield training and/or defensive specialty training. Most infantry, though they may have shields, wouldn't tend to have this sort of training. OTOH, shield training is one of the best infantry training options available.

  5. #5
    Site Moderator geeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,178
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    7
    At 03:24 PM 3/19/2005 +0100, Osprey wrote:



    >I read 5 minutes as an option in multiple posts, so that should definitely

    >be an option in any subsequent poll, too.



    Agreed. If I have a first choice it`s for 6 minute battlerounds. That

    choice is, however, a little symbolic in that it references the 6 second

    combat round of the 3e+ adventure level of combat. The math does work out

    nicely too, but by and large the length of combat rounds is really about

    the minimum point at which one sees adventure level combat being abstracted

    out into a macro scale. For me that`s at about 50 rounds of action. I

    prefer the 6 minute battleround simply for its symbolic/referential

    significance, but when it really boils right down to it the difference

    between an abstracted 5 minute battleround and an abstracted 6 minute

    battleround is pretty slight.



    It might also be sensible--just to throw this out there--because the large

    combat system is abstracted to say that the battleround isn`t a single,

    absolute time value. That is, a battleround might be defined as "4-7

    minutes" or "8-12 minutes" etc. If we wind up with a set of votes that are

    close that method might satisfy the issue. That is, if voting is split

    about 50/50 between the 5 minute round and the 10 minute round the

    battleround might be defined as lasting 5-10 minutes.



    >BTW, I am curious if anyone else has some thoughts on how one justifies

    >the very slow sppeds of unit movement vs. adventure scale. Can it be

    >justified, or does scaling things to the battlefield just require a large

    >dose of suspension of disbelief?



    I justify it by noting that the speed that troops can move on a battlefield

    isn`t a straight line computation of the 30` (usually) movement rate of an

    individual soldier times the number of rounds that the battleround

    represents. It represents a broader series of actions including the

    transfer of orders to the unit as a whole, and complexity of moving a whole

    unit of soldiers in unison.



    Gary

  6. #6
    Senior Member Osprey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Ashland, NH
    Posts
    1,377
    Downloads
    6
    Uploads
    0
    I justify it by noting that the speed that troops can move on a battlefield
    isn`t a straight line computation of the 30` (usually) movement rate of an
    individual soldier times the number of rounds that the battleround
    represents. It represents a broader series of actions including the
    transfer of orders to the unit as a whole, and complexity of moving a whole
    unit of soldiers in unison.
    Gary
    Yeah, I get all that - Micheal Romes' idea of units moving as hampered seems to account for most all of that. Plus add in a battlesystem that accounts for changing facing by costing movement speed, and you've also consumed the biggest time factor, turning in formation.

    No, the real problem remains: even accounting for all of those factors, 5-10 minutes is a LONG time in which to move, assuming the unit remains unengaged that turn.

    You can tweak the math involved, but it's difficult to ignore it entirely.

  7. #7
    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=3038

    >

    > Osprey wrote:

    > OK, here’s a layout of unit speeds using Micheal Rome’s hampered movement idea.

    >

    >

    Michael Romes...

    ...



    >So I`d say there`s still a big problem in converting tactical speeds to battlefield speeds...

    >

    But it is at least better than what you assumed before where army units

    would move 100% faster than this :-)

    bye

    Michael

  8. #8
    Site Moderator geeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,178
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    7
    At 06:33 PM 3/22/2005 +0100, Osprey wrote:



    >No, the real problem remains: even accounting for all of those factors,

    >5-10 minutes is a LONG time in which to move, assuming the unit remains

    >unengaged that turn.



    It does depend on the size of the battlesquare also. That is, the smaller

    the battlesquare, the more difficult it is to justify the length of the

    battleround and movement rates. A battlesquare that is, say, 300 x 300

    suddenly starts to make better sense if one is going to assign movement

    values around 3-5 to infantry.



    Gary

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    california
    Posts
    317
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Originally posted by geeman@Mar 22 2005, 03:20 PM

    It does depend on the size of the battlesquare also.* That is, the smaller

    the battlesquare, the more difficult it is to justify the length of the

    battleround and movement rates.* A battlesquare that is, say, 300 x 300

    suddenly starts to make better sense if one is going to assign movement

    values around 3-5 to infantry.



    Gary


    The problem, as I believe Osprey was pointing out, is that no matter what size squares are used any reasonable amount of movenent within a 5 minute or longer battle round will be farther than the range of a bow. Whether the unit can move 12 100' squares or 4 300' in a battle round, they will still be able to move from outside a bows range to within melee combat with the archers unit within one round.

    We are either going to have to set battle rounds at a minute or less, or decide to set movement rates or archers ranges at unrealistic levels if we are to keep a proper balance between long range and short range units.
    Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a night. Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

  10. #10
    Senior Member RaspK_FOG's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Moschato, Athens, Greece
    Posts
    1,130
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    I actually think we should estimate the ammount of hampering each unit gets according to the kind of unit: pikement/halberdiers needed too much time to move, while archers were always pretty agile on the field...

    Furthermore, units don't always move coherently: most of the time they keep loose formation for ease of movement.

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.