Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 23

Thread: Castles

  1. #11
    Ehrshegh of Spelling Thelandrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,086
    Downloads
    68
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Green Knight View Post
    ...I am currently using 20 GBs/lvl for castles (building speed same as before); I used to have it higher, but I always push the players pretty hard in all areas, so finding money to pay even this amount is tough enough...
    I have to say that, in that situation, I would build a castle as my palace and might also build a level 1 castle in a key strategic situation. I certainly wouldn't be building multiple castles or even multi-levelling the one I would build!

    Ius Hibernicum, in nomine juris. Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.

  2. #12
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    The value of a castle in defense is pretty substantial. Its useful for both offensive and defensive operations, serves as a logistical base, and as I mentioned earlier is effectively a law holding. If these things are not reflected in the game, than its utility is seriously compromised.

    A castle is not quite invulnerable, but without special, expensive, siege equipment, the ratio of attackers to defenders could be approaching 10:1 if you want to take a castle. Even with siege equipment, 4:1 is still the very low end (not counting the siege company) and 6:1 might be more appropriate. I think making a siegecraft roll might effect this ratio. A realm like Roesone should be able to spend far less building castles than they would maintaining armies to defend against Diemed and Ghoere.

    In both offense and defense, a castle is a tremendous force multiplier.

    Siege warfare is a game of logistics. If the logistics of war isn't being considered, then as Vicente put it, maybe it's not worthwhile because you just killed one option of the game.

    Another issue is that of conquest. I know that I have mentioned before that of taking and holding unfriendly territory. A castle is the only way to hold new territory and have it contribute. It would seem that if you separate a people from their lord, they don't just switch allegiance to you, so unfortified holdings are not effective.

    I imagine that the struggle between Jaison Raenech and William Moergan is one of fortified holdings. Otherwise the regent with the local advantage would eventually push out the other guy and you'd eventually have two distinct realms. But, if they are fortified, they can't simply by contested. Likewise the Mhor's holdings in Ghoere and Ghoere's holdings in Mhoried. For these to last any period of time, they must be fortified.

  3. #13
    Special Guest (Donor)
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Spain
    Posts
    532
    Downloads
    11
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by kgauck View Post
    The value of a castle in defense is pretty substantial. Its useful for both offensive and defensive operations, serves as a logistical base, and as I mentioned earlier is effectively a law holding. If these things are not reflected in the game, than its utility is seriously compromised.
    Adding more beneficts to a castle is an intriguing idea to be honest, and it makes sense if they are very expensive options.

    Quote Originally Posted by kgauck View Post
    A castle is not quite invulnerable, but without special, expensive, siege equipment, the ratio of attackers to defenders could be approaching 10:1 if you want to take a castle. Even with siege equipment, 4:1 is still the very low end (not counting the siege company) and 6:1 might be more appropriate. I think making a siegecraft roll might effect this ratio. A realm like Roesone should be able to spend far less building castles than they would maintaining armies to defend against Diemed and Ghoere.
    Well, sieging a castle is a ugly affair, but nothing stops you from neutralizing it and moving on to other targets or pillage. Or just siege and wait to see it die little by little. Specially if they are low-level castles: they are going to be sieged pretty easily and pretty fast, no need to throw a big army expecting big casualties unless you really need a very fast win.

    So if they are very expensive things I would probably give them more functions (as you say) and try to make them more resistant to siege and attrition (although the problem of the enemy pillaging or moving on is hard to stop).

  4. #14
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    The idea of masking a fortress (putting enough of a siege to bottle up the defenders) and moving forward is pretty standard. Later on, as armies got larger, it became very common.

    It should be possible to mask a fortress and press forward. Like everything else, its a question of costs vs benefits.

    If I am invaded frequently, and I build a shell keep (which I have valued at 12 GB) or a something like that, but with three towers and a gate house, a proper little castle closer to Green Knight's 20 GBs/lvl, then the other guy needs to to raise the force he will use to mask your fortress. Suppose he decides Archers will do. 2 GB to raise them, and 1 GB to maintain them. Properly, as I have mentioned, not only does a castle not require maintenance, but it should pay for itself like a law holding. So let us further suppose I am Roesone. My little castle will require both Diemed and Ghoere to consider adding a unit apiece if they separately plans war with me. That is 6 GB right there. For every season they spend at least some time masking my keep they spend 1 GB. On the other hand not only my fortress cost me nothing once I have built it, but it should probabaly earn me 1/3 GB per season.

    Considering Ghoere alone, the cost of raising one Archer and maintaining him 10 seasons (presumably over several wars) makes the shell keep a break even with no maintenance. If I can assume wars with both Ghoere and Diemed, Each must raise and archer, and gets four seasons apiece before I have broken even at 12 GB. The 20 GB shell keep with towers will take longer, but its certainly not unreasonable.

    If a castle functions as a law holding, both in suppressing unrest, and in collections, a 12 GB shell keep pays for itself in 9 years, while a 20 GB shell keep with towers takes 15 years.

    If I combine these, even the 20 GB castle can look attractive.

    A siege should last until one of three things happen: successful storming of the castle, significant morale failure causes surrender, or supplies run out. A PC should be able to decide how long the supplies are stocked for. One season per fort level is not right. A smaller keep is easier to stock than a larger one, because less is required. The marginal benefit of a larger castle can easily favor a small castle, depending on the location and expected besieging force. One only need "enough castle" to be secure. If its very unlikely that my enemy will drop 10 units on a province prepared to storm its castle, a level 1 fort is fine. If I think he just might do that, then, and only then do I want a level 2 castle. Again, only if I fear 20 units storming that keep should I opt for a level 3, and so on. If my adversary has a siege train, I need to lower these ratios, but siege engineers take time (their movement is slow and they have a long set-up time), and I still have the flexibility with a level 1 castle to relieve the siege. I would expect Avanil to rely only on a level 1 castle in its provinces, because any invader would not have a very long time to lay siege before the large relieving force arrives.

    Morale is a bit if a wildcard. It depends on the local circumstances, the leadership of the commanders, and the conditions of storm and supply. In fact, one of the problems of too many castles is that the biggest issue with a castle isn't its maintenance (which is very small) but the loyalty of its Castellean and its garrison. If the troops are not loyal, they will surrender, perhaps outright, perhaps for coin. If the commander is not loyal, not only may he do the same, but he can use your castle against you. Joining a Great Captain, for instance.

    So I say again, a siege should last until one of three things happens: successful storming of the castle, significant morale failure causes surrender, or supplies run out.

  5. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    439
    Downloads
    31
    Uploads
    0
    Sounds like we should propose a few sets of variant rules for castles here for different degrees of simulation.

    I've long thought that in the average BR game, most castles simply aren't worth it at their current cost and maintenance. Fortified holdings are usually even less worth it. So IMO, castles and especially fortified holdings need to be even more attractive than they are in the standard game, not less so. If they cost more, they need even more benefits.

    Sounds like the sieging rules abstraction can be taken care of pretty easily by modifying the defense, morale, and warcraft bonuses given in Tactical warfare. I've suggested this before, using a base of +4 (instead of +0) and then increasing that by the level of the fortification. This number would of course be scalable to match appropriately the cost you're setting for the fortification.

    For Strategic warfare, it sounds like we would need only increase the siege time necessary and number of units required to "mask" the fortification. A base requirement of 1 season or 2 seasons before the castle level is reduced at all would help. Doubling the number of units required to mask it would also help.

    I would erase the limitation on fortified holdings that they are reduced every month instead of every season. I see little reason for that rule. They are still only protecting one holding. I also would grant the above tactical bonus to Contest actions (both defending and attacking).

    Whatever GB value is set for building fortifications, I would require only a single Court action to set the building in motion at a given rate of progress (like 1GB per month or per season, depending on the timescale you want to play), only requiring additional Court actions to increase the rate incrementally or resume building after a halt.

    You could also eliminate maintenance costs and increase income by 1/3GB (at standard BRCS rates; if using an adjusted rate like 1GB per Temple and Guild holding and 0.5GB per Law and Source holding, then the income increase could be 0.5GB). Similarly, provide a +1 per level to actions (aside from Contest actions, which are their primary purpose and are adjusted as above).

    I am personally in favor of holding fortifications providing special benefits appropriate to the holding type, but that would complicate the standard rules set even further and so I won't mention it yet (it would be another variant).

    All of these things make fortifications much more attractive. Each GM would then need to set an appropriate cost for them. I think 12 and 6 GB per level (province/holding) is a good starting point, but I wouldn't go higher than twice that personally.
    _______________________________________
    So my proposed Variant, in summary:
    Fortifications
    Cost: 12GB per level for Province, 6GB per level for Holding (no maintenance)
    Time: 1 Court Action required to set the rate of construction at 1GB per season. 1 additional Court Action is required to increase the rate by each 1GB per season or to resume construction if it is halted for any reason.

    Non-warfare benefits: Increase income by 1/3GB per level. Provide a bonus to holding actions equal to 1 per level, or 4+1 per level on Contest actions. Note that Province fortifications effectively function as additional law holdings.

    Tactical Warfare Benefits: Add 4+ level of fortification to any defending unit's Defense, Morale, and Warfare checks. Increase Attack ratings by the level of the fortification. 3 units per level of the fortification can defend it from the inside and benefit from these bonuses. (Other BRCS fortification rules are normal)

    Strategic Warfare Benefits: Fortifications may be overcome by neutralizing them, laying siege, siege and reduction, or direct assault (tactical warfare).
    ----Neutralizing a fortification requires stationing a number of units equal to twice the fortification level + the number of units inside to watch and guard against sorties. If the attacker devotes this many units, the rest of his forces may bypass the castle. Defenders can still engage if they leave the castle.
    ----Sieging and reduction could benefit from some special rules, like making an attack from the sieging army vs. the defending one each as if they were a single unit, once every month or season. The object of the siege would be to cause hits to break morale, with morale dropping precipitously after 2 seasons or so reflecting diminishing supplies; reduction (requiring engineers) would be aimed at reducing the fortification level, with 0 indicating a breach. Or the actions could be handled with specialized Contest or Agitate actions.
    ----If there were logistics rules, fortifications would have an impact on them. I assume a supply train follows the path of any marching army from the last allied city or fortification that they were in and that supply train can be Contested, with every 2 points required for the success roll preventing 1GB of maintenance cost getting to the supplied army; fortifications or armies can contest them as if they were holdings of the same level+number of units. Alternate supply routes can be set up with Court actions, and they can be defended by assigning units to defense (either resolving attacks through tactical warfare or by letting units modify the Contest defense roll). Cutting a supply route means that maintenance costs cannot be paid for units; after 2 war moves/weeks (in plains or hills, 1 in other terrain), current supplies and foraging run out and their only recourse is to pillage provinces and holdings to gain GB for maintenance.
    Last edited by Rowan; 07-15-2008 at 03:19 PM.

  6. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Quebec (Canada)
    Posts
    49
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    I think you should work with the Stronghold and Builders Guidebook (WotC), which as rules for constructing a castle. Only need to adapt the money ratio !!

  7. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    130
    Downloads
    6
    Uploads
    0
    But if a castle is attacked the defenders can't escape,so they shouldn't have morale bonus.

  8. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    439
    Downloads
    31
    Uploads
    0
    The fortifications give them a huge morale bonus. They're protected. They have a major force multiplier.

    The negative effect that you speak of--not having a way to escape--is the reason that if their morale breaks and they are routed, they will either be cut down or surrender. The standard tactical rules have them automatically making morale checks; I changed that in my proposed variant.

  9. #19
    Site Moderator AndrewTall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    2,476
    Downloads
    30
    Uploads
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by vota dc View Post
    But if a castle is attacked the defenders can't escape,so they shouldn't have morale bonus.
    Even a trapped rat will fight. The best way to break morale is to leave an obvious 'safe' path for escape - if the castle defenders know that it is 'fight or die' then their morale will be all but unbreakable.

    The problem we have is the lack of winter - besieging a castle in bad weather is not conducive to good fighting spirit or ability, pity the fool who besieges blackgate in winter, the defender will sally forth from warm halls and slaughter frost-bitten besiegers before they can stand and grab spears, breaking the castle (by one means or another) before being caught by winter / the scorching heat of summer/etc should be a key tactical objective....

    I would suggest a downside to castles - they should multiply great captain events (there's nothing like a thousand tonnes of masonry to boost self confidence) and in the event that a great captain occurs, there should be a chance that they take the castle.

  10. #20
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by AndrewTall View Post
    I would suggest a downside to castles - they should multiply great captain events (there's nothing like a thousand tonnes of masonry to boost self confidence) and in the event that a great captain occurs, there should be a chance that they take the castle.
    It certainly presents a problem. The cost of attacking a castle is so high compared the defense of one, as Frederic Baumgartner (From Spears to Flintlocks):
    The disproportionate resources needed to take a castle in comparison to defending it, once it had been built of course, was one of the key reasons for the constant rebellions of the nobility that characterized medieval politics.
    In Castles, Battles, and Bombs the authors write:
    The most important cost issue with garrisons was their reliability. An unreliable noble appointed as a castellan now possessed a powerful tool with which to defy his mentor. As castellans often caused trouble, this was no trivial issue, and rulers definitely considered it a significant matter.
    The way I think this should be handled though is through standard RPG loyalty rules, not as a random event at the domain level. It can be hard to make sure all the royal castles of England or France are in loyal hands, but keeping a dozen or so castles in loyal hands in a large sized realm should be within the powers of PC's. Loyalty issues shouldn't be perfect, but they should be better than kings with hundreds of appointments to make.

    I want players to think about loyalty, but in normal situations, I don't want them feeling like everyone will eventually betray them.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Birthright using Castles and Crusades rules
    By Tannen in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-21-2006, 03:48 PM
  2. How do you tell which provinces have castles?
    By devall4000 in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 02-22-2006, 10:16 PM

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.