How Should War Work

[Mirviriam]

There is no category of wizards, but there is a category of wizard's marks, and there are 17 of those, and I know I have really only scratched the surface. I'd estimate the total number of wizard domains as closer to 50, and they will have successors in grooming, plus the odd wizard who isn't attached to a domain, I'd estimate close to 120 as a minimum, with dilettante wizards being a much larger number still.

Book & page # please? I think there's a book I'm missing.

[Mirviriam]

Short answer: By knowing how an attacker would besieger your castle, you know how to sight ballistas on towers to shoot at the likely spots for siege equipment. You know how to create overlapping fields of fire and set up obstacles in the very layout of the earth

That might work once...but second time they build a bigger one with more than your equipment.

As to storming castle...if you guys get close enough to hit my guys who are out of archer range...then my calvary can run you down to the breach...archers or not (since if we're close you can't shoot at us without hitting your own shit - please dont' tell me 100 or 200yard shots are that accurate on 2 moving forces)...just not realistic

[Mirviriam]

I was going to answer this post but it's too long for tonight Kbowielkeig~!

I played 3 campaigns for less than 1.5 year in real life and over 70 hard victories of gorgon's alliance - so for me the game is GA. None of the PBEM's lasted beyond my taking first province or two - so there's no way to know if other players compare.

My view is on the strategic side. Your bits about church being protected are interesting but rebellions don't happen in the game mechanics that quickly unless a random event occurs. We're talking about occupying our own province - probably with high number of mercancies, gnoll if necessary - doesn't matter. Iron rule will be had...within 2 years.

Would I be infamous...you know it...would I be knocking down other realms? Probably - I can see a few fearful & well played diplomancy depending on if I'm sandwhiched between two much larger Lawful Good countries getting me.

We're talking within game mechanics - not some crazy DM fiat from someone who can't stand the game played in a way they never dreamed. I've played campaigns 5 times more complicated with two groups of 4-5 players opposing eachother (didn't start that way)...with all the weird siegecraft rules you can dream...we ended up with a DM and a referee because otherwise the players would have abandoned the DM rules which had no backing in the mechanics (reminds me of the 2 & 3 popes thing - their people didn't magically rise up & over throw the french pope did they?).

I'd really like to see an advanced Birthright formed up - a sharpening of what the elitist players from the forums would play...but not something that suspends reality (like defensive siege weapons being more powerful for entirity of seige). Maybe this belongs under a different title/thread? Why hasn't anyone addressed the meta-comments I've made to that effect before? I'm also curious if we are just arguing for the sake of arguing or creating something new?

[AndrewTall]

I thought you might be approaching the game from a GA point of view.

I approach the game (which to me is the table top and PBEM primarily) very much from a role-play point of view, where the mechanics may have a background impact, but 'crazy dm fiat' is the dominant factor - also known as non-player characters.

The reason why DM fiat is so important, is that if you were to write a ruleset to cover 'everything' it would be several hundred thousand pages long - as long as every science book, legal text, psychological treatise, etc that we have in RL - and then some. Practically speaking, past a few thousand pages a RPG tops out, so all the rest has to be done by the DM - 'crazy fiat' which 'ignore the rules' are a core feature of the system as most of the rules simply can't be put down on paper without killing everyone of boredom...

The other reason why DM's impute these effects, is to make the games work. Most DM's are very well aware of how quickly a blinkered mechanic-mindset can break the game, they thus use fiat to round out the gaps in the mechanics and make the world work - and the game playable over time. That's not an inability on their part to see the more advanced aspects of the game, quite the opposite.

A modern computer game could probably mimic some RPG issues - domain unrest, hundreds or thousands of tiny domains and npc's, etc, but it is always going to be a long way short of an RPG in terms of interactivity, so I'm not sure that you can get a common view on core mechanics.

In terms of rulesets I'd love to split out the system into:

*Basic - aimed at people who want a domain system in the background but don't want it taking up too much game time.
* Standard - a moderately complex system for common use
* Book of regency -then a whole smorgasboard of optional extra's for people to pick from expansions - so if you want long drawn out seiges you can bring in logistics, costs, survival rates, etc; if you want courtly intrigue you'd have interaction rules, if you want magical weather, incursions, etc to stretch the source holders you could have those, you could have great structures and grand events, paragons of art/science, etc, etc - add in all the options and it would probably get unworkable, but some extra's would be great for people who wanted to focus more on one area or another.

[Mirviriam]

GA does mimic the DM Fiat idea ... difference is it's the unrest/attitude - razing or occupying drops it significantly, then you simplely demarogue or espionage it back up.

Thus the solving of issue of occupy and destroy churches power base without having rebellion.

From a roleplay perspective ... with multiple churches any that rebel will get the stick. Or I find a greedy priest within their ranks who wants a promotion...history is more than full of those.

Even though I'm aggressive I'm not anywhere near stupid. If it's not a computer game (really the only thing left of birthright unfortunately) that might last & it was more worthwhile to establish a spy network, 3 spies to counter-spy, cover-up, and finally sway the public into a rebellion then tempt them over to my control with diplomancy - I'll do that instead. My belief is that your idea's about counter balances are completely wrong. Even if I played in a realm ran by you - I'd keep public opinion on my side via other means.

Mainly I saw that your posts all reflected taking countries apart was based on strength - which history has proven not the case time & time again. Look at the American Civil War...the South per all history books kicked the snot out 4 times their numbers...till the generals of the north declared total war & destroyed cities, food production, transportation system till the people had to give up.

Thus, I'm saying your arguments are side tracking the thread in addition to irrelevant (if roleplaying hard - I'd counter all your population arguments as needed). As for the resources to do it - I'm used to running level 10 court...so there's build up time...maybe my enemies having knowledge of my play style create level 3 or better fortifications in all of their provinces while I build up?

[The Swordgaunt]

Look at the American Civil War.

This thread is too old for me to officially jump in, but I'll just make an observation. When using examples from history, it is important to take the context into account. The American Civil War was a turning point in the history of warfare. With it came the industrial war, something that was perfected in all the wars to come, from the Boer War, the Sino-Russian War, WWI and II, and to it's most pure form in the Cold War.

I fail to see it's relevance in a medieval-esque fantasy setting.

Examples are a two-edged sword... If not used properly, they harm the argument, rather than support it.

[kgauck]

Book & page # please? I think there's a book I'm missing.

I am refering to information on the wiki. Up on the top of the screen there are links to "portal", "forums", and "wiki."

That might work once...but second time they build a bigger one with more than your equipment.

You are missing a critical understanding of castles. If you go back to the beginning of this thread you will find I start with the basic question, given that castles cost so much, why build them instead of armies? The answer is that they are useful enough that to some degree, they are better than armies.

If one side can build a bigger siege engine, the other side can too. Attackers do not have a monopoly on engineers.

As to storming castle...if you guys get close enough to hit my guys who are out of archer range...then my calvary can run you down to the breach...archers or not (since if we're close you can't shoot at us without hitting your own shit - please dont' tell me 100 or 200yard shots are that accurate on 2 moving forces)...just not realistic

A sortie from a castle isn't made at random, or for no reason. It is made because you can achieve local superiority to achieve some significant tactical end. The besieging force is to some degree surrounding the fortress it besieges. That spreads forces thinly. At various times the army must fodder its horses, forage for food, and collect material. This takes forces away from the defenders. The besieging captain, like all captains who risk battle, believe they can either win, or at least avoid a serious defeat. The force that sorties believes it has a chance compared to the risk, to achieve a local win.

These continued comments reflect a near total ignorance of the basics of siege warfare. If the subject interests you, a visit to the local library should provide access to books on siege warfare. It would be prudent to draw on materials other than games.

[kgauck]

not something that suspends reality (like defensive siege weapons being more powerful for entirity of seige).

You are obviously unaware that nearly every siege that was begun ended in a failure to capture the fortress. For instance, of an archaeological survey of 150 castles (which could be besieged numerous times) there are only five definitely known cases of capture. And these often involve critical mistakes being made, not simply the straightforward success of the attacker against a prepared foe.

Frankly, it is you who are trying to suspend reality by assuming a siege might be successful more than very occasionally.

However it appears you are getting your sense of reality from the game Gorgon's Alliance, which is about as reality based as Spongebob Squarepants.

GA does mimic the DM Fiat idea ... difference is it's the unrest/attitude - razing or occupying drops it significantly, then you simplely demarogue or espionage it back up. Thus the solving of issue of occupy and destroy churches power base without having rebellion.

This game makes conquest of the world ridiculously easy because the point of the game is for the player to conquer the world. The purpose of the ideas discussed in this thread up until now are not based on making it easy for a player to conquer the world by making all obstacles minor and easily overcome, but rather reflecting reality.

From a roleplay perspective ... with multiple churches any that rebel will get the stick.

Don't pretend this is roleplay. This is wish-fulfillment attempting to pass itself off as strategy.

[tpdarkdraco]

I am not sure if any one on the forum is familar with Warmaster but they have rules for mass battle and I just recently found a review of a Warmaster: Medieval which details more rules for manning and assaulting ramparts, siege weapons etc. But there are also tables covering the effect on the defenders of a prolonged siege.

I have the basic Warmaster rule book and it seems to me and easy convert of the 2ed stats that units had and easy to use. They use stuff like hero unit or leader unit which have range for giving order etc. seems to fit with BR. Have a look if you get a chance or buy one of the books.

Also on the plus side if you like working with minitures then these are great too. They have dwarves, elves, humans, orcs (which can be used for goblins, undead etc.) Great for table top battles if you get into that.

[Mirviriam]

Kguarck - You post says, "How war should work"

I'm going to keep this civil though you seem to be losing the thread or your cool (ad hominem arguements indicate lack of sleep or belief that one is losing the argument).

My comment on reality is very valid - light unarmor horses move faster than armored horse with riders in plate...why in the world would you say I'm out of touch with reality when you are arguing that fact? Say all things are equal if you are close enough to strike a base or objective then the enemy can ride back with you (triggering a siege/warcraft check to see who takes control of the gates?). When I saw we are departing reality, I am pointing out that horses essentially move at the same speed.

I believe you do the game a diservice when you take it personally.

Previously I gave an example in siege why opposed siegecraft rules would not work - you came up with one exception which I acknowledged & amended stating the first time that would work. The reason your siege check can't be used in definitely is where will you get the materials, how will you move it in to place, how will you know whats going on behind my screens? Who's to say the enemy doesn't bring their own engineer who clearly measures the distance & sets up outside your range? There's just no generic way to use opposed siege rolls with projectiles, magic serves a roll already - leave it to that if needed.

I argue against your side to try & help creating balanced rules. In this case I've countered your argument about oppposed siege checks as blanket rule. Now, I argue there are situations to use that opposed check, the sally forth attack from castle is one of the only times opposed siege checks should be used...perfect situation:

I the brutual leader who raized, pillaged & destroyed more of the known world than anyone ever has arrived at Kguard's castle. With little to no siege items, I setup some camps at various points and have my little guys collect anything interesting while keeping their eyes open on patrol.

You seeing I left some gaps & my people are mostly lazy & in disarry. You sally forth to raid one of my camps.

[Dice Rolls]Your siege check(because you're better at it than a brutual leader) versus my warcraft check (as I am a brutual leader, but know I haven't ever laid siege before or seen a building bigger than my outhouse) - you win once & hurt me or I win first time.

It turns out the roll didn't matter; my disarray & spread out camps were a trap - all of my guys are on horse, not just a few. By the time you hit the camp proper well outside the archer range - half my force is behind you & the other half was awaiting near the location of the sloppy camp. Suprise, my men don't strap on armor or spend even full minutes getting ready - we string our bows & hop on our horses in a matter of seconds. The camps spawl so that no one is far from Horsieses!

That's my argument for opposed rolls in sallying forth. You need to break down the situations, not all situations are appropriate that's my point in regards to the siege. You almost need a set of rules just for different actions in sieges, like you have for battles.

Let this (when I play rogues, though my paladin will kill everyone in vengeance as required by his god of battle!) brutual leader illuminate you on one point. Most sieges end because of starvation & disease. A fact in all of your dazzling knowledge you missed ... my playstyle is to not roleplay 2-9 years of starving out my enemy.

If you really want to chase the other argument about my tactics of spreading enemy out & how to raid - start another thread, I know there's 3 ways to do it - all of them involving non-fortified provinces (which is the only place to attack in my opinion).

As the the premise of your post - how wars should work. It will be a trading of lands that are not protected by fortifications & destruction of low level fortifications till outside interference & several others help to carve up or save the province. I doubt very much we'd see a 2 nation war. How many people get busy is another matter.

If you're still insulted after I tried to make peace - get a thicker skin, half my humor points back at me. The other half points out that brutual does not have to be stupid & it suceeds more often than you anyone here wants to acknowledge. Everyone had to go through some power consolidations. Not all brutual, maybe they used behind the scenes actions. The upfront ones didn't always get neutered though...I won't mention the H word, King Louis XIV, Julias caesar, Chinggis Khan etc ... the priesthood didn't slow any of them down once they started ... and they all killed lots of civilians, nobles, barbarians (think they were probably dealt with before hand - bribed, killed, demoted, promoted ... bet on it).