View Poll Results: Should units be allowed to stack on the Battlefield?
- Voters
- 44. You may not vote on this poll
-
Yes
18 40.91% -
No
23 52.27% -
Abstain
3 6.82%
Results 31 to 37 of 37
-
10-04-2005, 07:52 PM #31
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- Virginia Beach, Virginia
- Posts
- 3,945
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
Alright this poll is now closed and the results are (moving Osprey's vote from yes to no):
Yes: 17
No 24
Abstain: 3
Not a clear majority but a majority none the less and when combined with the results of the last poll on the subject I think it is safe to say that most do not want units to stack (in combat - not dealing with movement issues). So in the BRCS units do not stack on the battlefield.Duane Eggert
-
04-02-2008, 10:18 AM #32
What do you think about special training for stacking with certain type of units? Like pikes guarding archers or cavalry with additional horses for greater maneuverability of heavy infantry. That would mean bonuses for one unit, but penalties for the other. Overall bonuses should be greater because of the spent feat(spec training) and the maintainance of two units. This way one would specify what the special training does as well as to whom it does it to.
I vote yes for stacking, but I would limit it to two units because more would be chaos for the rules as well as the event itself. I could imagine pikes guarding archers, but not pikes guarding archers with infantry that's attacking and cavalry that's helping all of them move faster! And of course no stacking for two units of the same type, because that would be poitless, abuse of the rules.
-
04-02-2008, 03:23 PM #33
Wow you dug this post from the depth of the internet.
Back in my first Birthright campaign I was playing as a player. I thought then that the Birthright battle system had some serious flaws.
If two armies met on the battlefield, it was always in the best interest of the army with the larger numbers to stack all of their units into one or two squares and begin moving forward. This often forced the army with the fewer forces to gather up into one large force.
The larger force army would charge into the smaller. Probably linking up his forces right before he moved in. In that giant battle in one square the units would be matched up. Any extra units could be matched up however the general with the larger army decided being able to create as many mis-matches as possible.
The war ended almost always with the larger force winning unless the small army had battlewise.
Another flaw with allowing multiple units onto one square back in the day was battlespells. They became far too powerful when one spell could hurt thousands of troops in one shot. It made the side with a single high level priest or wizard a must or you would lose.
My only beef with the new system with having just two opposing units in the same square is that there isn't quite enough squares. Troops with good movement don't have any where to move. Has anyone tried to say double the size of the board and see if the system still holds up?
-BB
-
04-02-2008, 03:38 PM #34
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- Virginia Beach, Virginia
- Posts
- 3,945
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
Well part of the discussion on revising the chapter had to due with battle grid squares. IIRC the general consensus was to do away with the old 2nd ed sheet and go with a regular battle map (i.e., 1" squares).
This allows the system to flow more cohesively with standard combat concepts. It also allows for larger battlefields. The downside is tha the old unit sheets would not be very effective as "markers" anymore.
As far as having a special training option. Nothing is wrong with that at all. Remember that not all training options are in the BRCS (nor should they be). The question being asked was about standard stacking (just like a normal war game). That was the one they looked to be frowned on by most people.Duane Eggert
-
04-02-2008, 04:18 PM #35
How big of a battle map are we talking about? I am actually playing this evening and will probably have a small scale war to do.
-BB
-
04-03-2008, 10:04 AM #36
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- Virginia Beach, Virginia
- Posts
- 3,945
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
That was to be left up to the DM based on terrain conditions and such. At least that was what I gleaned from the way people had posted on the subject. This makes a lot of sense since the DM normally determines the size of the field of play anyway.
Using a standard battlemap also aids when using regular spells on the battlefield (something else people seemed to like). This one I have trouble with working on since it is far too easy to overpower a large scale combat with a single character - I tend to favor "zoom in" combats to reflect how an individual actually handles a smaller combat and using the Hero Unit instead. Otherwise you can readily lead to the flying invisible wizard with a wand of fireballs (ala Forgotten Realms) concept, which does not seem very BR-ish to me at all.
Remember - none of this has made it into any "revisions" of the playtest document yet. So it would be house-rules for you. I personally would not introduce anything so vast without more preparation time (and time to let the players in on the concepts).Duane Eggert
-
04-24-2008, 04:50 AM #37
- Join Date
- Apr 2008
- Location
- Where the moon cuts the wind.
- Posts
- 259
- Downloads
- 4
- Uploads
- 0
I did not vote - since neither fit my view - basically movement is possible if they are moving into terrain controlled by their forces or open space.
Circumstances:
AOE & moral checks of one unit failiing implies both units fail, but success is per unit.
Only movement is allowed while both units are in same hex. <-Mainly nice for routing/regroupingLast edited by Mirviriam; 04-24-2008 at 04:54 AM.
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks