Page 4 of 12 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 115
  1. #31
    Senior Member Mirviriam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Where the moon cuts the wind.
    Posts
    259
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by AndrewTall View Post
    The strategic issue is that the attacker needs a lot more soldiers - and they cost money, so the attacker has to outspend the defender to neutralise them - and spend much more to beat them. You need more than 1:1 to seal the castle since the defenders can exit whenever the besieging force least wishes it, probably also doing so from more than 1 location for at least small bands (a D&D staple of course), ideally the attacker wants 2 or 3 men to each 1 defender...

    The attacker then needs enough 'spare' men to then set up the government, guard the tax inspectors, enforce their laws, etc, etc - and all the time the castle defenders can sally out whenever they like while waiting for the attacker to run out of money and go home - and meanwhile the peasants may begrudge their lord his taxes, but they really hate paying anyone else - as that means paying twice (usurper and true ruler) - so the attacker is in a hostile land where everything is expensive, small groups of men simply disappear, and they have no safe refuge in which to recover.
    The siege point is valid - but most of the middle sized realms don't have castles in every province. That means if they want to retain their property, then they have to field an army. Strategic is in part having numbers. The thing is raw numbers is actually the least of it.

    Think of it like starcraft - in the first 3 minutes of the game I've got 2 zealots, 4-5 maries, or 6 zerglings killing your workers. Why? You are going to grow slower than me. You regeant has to invest turns and is denied gold/rp from the province I just decimated. I might come back and take it later or I might repeat the same process on two or three of your non-fortified areas while you're trying to rebuild.

    Perfect example .... consider the Mongolian horde - they simply moved so fast no one could move their armies to keep up. The ate up more land than arguably anyone before or after. My other idea of strategic is feint one area, the enemy concentrates there and I take 2 or 3 easy targets that can be invested in a turn. Leave level one law there - as it's easy to create.

    Large scale 'strategery' is one part numbers, one part subterfuge(no time for spell check), 3 parts what & how you use your numbers.

    I'm going to talk briefly about the rebuilding thing as I'm short on time...

    The rules of the regeant investure for the realm, taking one full round action to setup a new hold already cover the basic costs. I believe you can only investure one province per turn (3 actions), at least thats the way Gorgons Alliance was - which is reasonable - the regeant must be present for a period of time.

    I find your arguments over making person x & y do action 1 & 2 to make realm work & how hard is inane. Kill them or bribe them or use yoru own system of people. Everyone knows you're going to leave an army unit there already unless you just pillaged the zone. The book describes level 0 law as a bully in the inn basically. Level 1 might be local police force. This already reflects the costs & scope of setting up shop in new province - why would you waste time discussing it? The one province per turn rule is enough.
    Last edited by kgauck; 07-02-2009 at 11:10 PM. Reason: fixed the quote block

  2. #32
    Senior Member Mirviriam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Where the moon cuts the wind.
    Posts
    259
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ShadowMoon View Post
    Opposed Siegecraft rolls is great idea to represent active Siege. You can modify it by various events, army size, etc...

    Anyway what kgauck's said; add to that "Muster over time" rule, and limit maximum number units that province could muster, unit experience, command groups, and traits... And You'll get Sieges that could last long, and War that it is far more interesting...
    Opposed seige rolls is a horrible idea - unless there's a storm option or something with an oppose warcraft check to get in the door while it's still open? Then the only times it should be allowed is when the enemy tries to go up over the walls or tunnel under them.

    The whole reason they are inside is because they are helpless to stop the army outside from doing whatever they want. Your siegecraft check from inside can't stop my catapults from hitting your walls and turning them into rubble (mages can, but they aren't going to be able to block it all or last all day).

    In part we're all thinking advanced ideas - I've seen simple board guys that take 6 hours to play & we're not nearly finished. Prehaps there should be levels of Birthright - like battletech (Lvl one is like trainer, LVL is their tourney rules for public plays, level 3 is advanced).

  3. #33
    Site Moderator AndrewTall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    2,476
    Downloads
    30
    Uploads
    2
    We are arguing mechanics dominating story and vice versa. I.e. is the game the rule-system, or is the rule-system an attempt to provide a framework for the game.

    You see a L1 castle and think castle, I see dozens of redoubts, fortified inns and holds etc - and estimate whether to reflect it as a castle or fort, or simply abstract it as a law holding. The differing approach and style of game play leads to totally different perceptions.

    So I look at the thousands of npc's in a domain and consider how they will react to player actions, and as a DM will then impute the necessary mechanic to reflect the facts - your 'pillage to L0, create a new province and then rule it up' would fail utterly as a tactic to win loyalty in my games - that sort of genocidal butchery would get every neighbour up in arms over the thousands of refugees, the church declaring the PC anathema, etc, the domain might well rise up if it was lawfully or good aligned, - that sort of thing is the difference between a board game and a role playing game for me...

    As for 6 hours to play and not finished - try 6 months and just getting started - that's the sort of game I like to play...

  4. #34
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Mirviriam View Post
    Opposed seige rolls is a horrible idea - I've seen simple board guys that take 6 hours to play & we're not nearly finished. Prehaps there should be levels of Birthright - like battletech (Lvl one is like trainer, LVL is their tourney rules for public plays, level 3 is advanced).
    A siege lasts weeks, months, occasionally years. It should be a complex skill challenge. The castle, if well constructed makes it quite possible to prevent attackers from being able to act. That is quite the point of many of its innovations.

    Those board games that take hours to play are a glorious style of gaming. Birthright promised to merge rpg's and wargames, and never got serious about the wargaming side. If you want to resolve major, complex military operations in the single role of a die, feel free. No one is stopping you. However, I don't see how you can criticize the alternative except from a matter of taste.

  5. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    439
    Downloads
    31
    Uploads
    0
    I think the tension between the rules and the story, Andrew, is sometimes difficult to deal with. If you're deep in the story, at the level of detail of describing the movement of this group of soldiers through the countryside to hit that fortified township, and that assault force making an attempt at taking the eastern tower, it can seem artificial to then introduce a mechanic like a domain-level rule. I agree that in such a case, if you use any mechanic at all, a skill challenge is more appropriate.

    On the other hand, there are those of us who like a faster, more birds-eye-view of play, but also disdain the fully mechanics-driven action. I'd like to approach things with a general strategy, make a relatively few high-level rolls, and quickly describe the action resulting from them. Or, getting into the detail of a pitched battle, rolls for each major attack phase, but not resulting in a 6 hour battle (unless it's truly epic).

    I like rules discussions like these because I haven't yet found a good solution for my middle level of play


    Kgauck, something Mirviriam pointed out was a valid alternative to the seasonal, years-long wars. It works primarily with national armies, though, or any with more professional soldiers or at least professional leadership (the nobility who don't get involved in planting and harvest).

    Mirviriam used the Mongol example. That's a great example of the force multiplying effect of mobility, as well as a few other things. Most of the great conquerors used a different approach to warfare, though. They had a large enough army initially to defeat and cow another state into submission, then immediately incorporate its army into their own and press onward. This is how Alexander conquered his vast empire in just a few short years. His army was large enough he could go directly to sieges, only worrying about the occasional large army assembled to meet him (armies that it took a lot of time and money and geographic space to assemble).

    His army was large enough (and reputation was such) that many of his victim states, even early on, would surrender rather than face up to him, and thus contribute to his campaigns through tribute, supplies, and forces. In this way, losses were replenished (even after garrisons were left behind), his army grew ever-larger, and his subject peoples largely obeyed and accepted his government.

  6. #36
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Rowan View Post
    Mirviriam used the Mongol example. They had a large enough army initially to defeat and cow another state into submission, then immediately incorporate its army into their own and press onward. This is how Alexander conquered his vast empire in just a few short years.
    Machiavelli addresses Alexander this way-
    There are two kinds of states. The first is a state where all power is centralized in the hands of one person. In this case, like Persia, when you remove the head, the whole state falls to the conqueror. The other kind of state is where power is distributed among many people. Machiavelli identified France as an example. France is impossible to conquer, he said, because there is no one power to defeat. Because, "if you wish to hold it afterwards, you meet with infinite difficulties, both from those who have assisted you and from those you have crushed. Nor is it enough for you to have exterminated the family of the prince, because the lords that remain make themselves the heads of fresh movements against you, and as you are unable either to satisfy or exterminate them, that state is lost whenever time brings the opportunity."

    This is chapter 4 of the Prince.

    I think Cerilia is entirely the second kind, with a multitude of scions each connecting their holding to the land, each difficult to dislodge. I also think that the land is full of castles, even if many of them are small, like the towers and simple shell keeps I pictured earlier in this thread. No part of Cerilia, except the Khinasi deserts (0 pop) and Rjurik tundra (0 pop) could be rapidly conquered.

  7. #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    439
    Downloads
    31
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by kgauck View Post
    Machiavelli addresses Alexander this way-
    There are two kinds of states. The first is a state where all power is centralized in the hands of one person. In this case, like Persia, when you remove the head, the whole state falls to the conqueror. The other kind of state is where power is distributed among many people. Machiavelli identified France as an example. France is impossible to conquer, he said, because there is no one power to defeat. Because, "if you wish to hold it afterwards, you meet with infinite difficulties, both from those who have assisted you and from those you have crushed. Nor is it enough for you to have exterminated the family of the prince, because the lords that remain make themselves the heads of fresh movements against you, and as you are unable either to satisfy or exterminate them, that state is lost whenever time brings the opportunity."

    This is chapter 4 of the Prince.

    I think Cerilia is entirely the second kind, with a multitude of scions each connecting their holding to the land, each difficult to dislodge. I also think that the land is full of castles, even if many of them are small, like the towers and simple shell keeps I pictured earlier in this thread. No part of Cerilia, except the Khinasi deserts (0 pop) and Rjurik tundra (0 pop) could be rapidly conquered.
    I think when Roele conquered his initial empire, it was very much like Alexander's campaigns.

    You're right about the fragmentation since then. But coalitions are not impossible to form. I've considered a game setup where there are a number of major factions played at the faction level by the players, with most states and domains loosely falling into one or more factions (more if disputed, or if bridging in the case of non-landed domains): Boeruine, Avanil, Mhoried, Ghoere, Diemed, Elves, Gorgon, Chaos.

    The other type of coalition is in the reforging of the Empire, if you allow it to be achieved, or in uniting against a common foe, and once that foe is dealt with, onward to a bigger goal. If half of Anuire were united (perhaps by Hapsburg-style marriages), other realms, if they didn't manage to coalesce into an opposing force, may well join their fortunes to the mighty realm, particularly with a vast army on their doorstep giving them the chance to join up or suffer the consequences.

    If Anuire is more like France, with the humans generally sharing a fairly common nationality and history, such re-unions are more possible. They are less possible the more disparate are the cultures. Less possible, but not impossible.

  8. #38
    Senior Member Mirviriam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Where the moon cuts the wind.
    Posts
    259
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by AndrewTall View Post

    That's a game conceit to balance domains and realms for potential players, if looking at things from a simulationist approach, as Ken is doing, the balance is unstable - the realm/source domains will fail as soon as the mage dies and is replaced by an incompetent (as the power is that of the individual), the realm/guild domain and realm/temple are more stable but have competing internal goals that will cause ongoing issues with the medieval mindset.
    I didn't think about this point of yours much - but I read the campain setting some (skimmed interesting parts) - got to where the original materials stated, outside of the elves and evil domains there are only 6 truly practicing mages.

    This made me think that their has to be more mages with equal or near equal power ratings who were sharpening skills on normal spells. These guys are hiding their talents so the 6 settled mages with domain spells don't off the competition. They might lack the finese & experience that comes with practicing at will, but probably steal off the magical oddities that dot the source holdings.

    It seems to me, this assumption of more hidden to be discovered is the basis of campaign settings.

  9. #39
    Senior Member Mirviriam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Where the moon cuts the wind.
    Posts
    259
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    0

    !!!!

    Guys this has to be the best thread I've read in 3 years - any forums...generally I lurk - but this is seriously awesome.

    I'm not critizing in traditional sense - I'm looking at it from the view point of making new rules is about breathing life in to something we love.

    We almost need a vision, goals, etc.

    I'd love to split this thread into 4 pieces...historical explainations of realm balance, strategy used, mechanics of siege/control/consolidation, philosphy of our game designing for the handbooks/tools etc.

    What I hear over & over again is that everyone adjusts their game based to their tastes (I do it too - one time I want to focus & have players actions have great impact on out come - othertimes we gloss over)...you guys didn't write the last two rule books because you wanted offical ways of playing - you wrote them because it's about keeping the Bright alive.

  10. #40
    Senior Member Mirviriam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Where the moon cuts the wind.
    Posts
    259
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by kgauck View Post
    A siege lasts weeks, months, occasionally years. It should be a complex skill challenge. The castle, if well constructed makes it quite possible to prevent attackers from being able to act. That is quite the point of many of its innovations.

    Those board games that take hours to play are a glorious style of gaming. Birthright promised to merge rpg's and wargames, and never got serious about the wargaming side. If you want to resolve major, complex military operations in the single role of a die, feel free. No one is stopping you. However, I don't see how you can criticize the alternative except from a matter of taste.
    I love battles, that's one of best parts of game - all I'm saying is how is your being good using castles able to stop rocks the size of wagons from hitting the wall - you need to get more granular with the siege checks - there's things you just can't do with siege checks. Also if you exit castle, then I can enter castle should I catch up with you

    Thanks for fixing my quote other day too!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Good work
    By MorganNash in forum BRCS 3.0/3.5 Edition
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-19-2005, 05:13 AM
  2. How does the Espionage work exactly ?
    By Achab in forum BRCS 3.0/3.5 Edition
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-16-2004, 08:49 AM
  3. how is work?
    By marcum uth mather in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-26-2004, 06:43 PM
  4. Hows Work Coming On The New Site
    By marcum uth mather in forum Birthright.net support
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-22-2003, 04:51 AM

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.