Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1
    Site Moderator geeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,178
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    7
    At 09:19 AM 5/8/2002 +1000, Peter Lubke wrote:

    >>I just use "War" as the name of the action myself. I like the idea that
    >>a War action (or whatever one wants to call it) allows the regent to
    >>cross more than one border, but I like it because I can`t really come up
    >>with a satisfactory rationale for why one wouldn`t be able to do exactly
    >>that after mobilizing the troops and all. What`s to keep borders
    >>sacrosanct? Presumably the original "Declare War" allowed one to cross
    >>the border of the nation one had declared war against, but since the
    >>whole issue with the diplomatic/legal nature of war implied by "Declare
    >>War" is even more ambiguous I figure it`s still a trade up to go with the
    >>less hinky action.
    >
    >The real cost is the loss of "regency" (which is modelled by a loss of RP
    >and/or a domain action). If we accept that war is an undesirable state, a
    >declaration of war, no matter how much justified, shows an inability to
    >deal with the situation in a regal manner. The regent becomes the
    >aggressor, the bad guy (at least a tiny bit). I was thinking that
    >declaring war against more than one domain (or alliance)was worse than
    >against a single one.

    I wouldn`t go with this interpretation myself. Though I personally view
    war as un undesirable state, and I think many modern people do, I don`t
    think that has been the viewpoint for much of human history, nor is it
    really the viewpoint of most modern people. Aside from that, even in
    modern terms I think declaring war winds up earning the equivalent of
    regency for the ruler even for rulers of nations that supposedly abhor
    it. That`s certainly the case in the short term, and probably in the long
    term as well. It`d be easy to rationalize that being a leader in a time of
    war could _net_ a ruler regency points rather than cost him some.

    Of course, it can easily work the other way. People do grow tired of war
    eventually (with some very notable exceptions.) I think that kind of
    thing, however, could be better reflected by giving a DC to the Declare War
    action and having a system of critical failures in place so that a long,
    protracted war will eventually wind up backfiring on the regent.

    >>Anyway, as to the costs of military actions. I think it might make sense
    >>for each "body" of troops to have an individual cost whether they are
    >>crossing the same border (and moving into different provinces) or not,
    >>since each group represents its own administrative, supply and
    >>command. There might be an increased cost per "army" put into action
    >>rather than a cost per border. This is in addition to the standard costs
    >>for moving troops. Does that seem sensible?
    >
    >That wasn`t quite what I meant by cost. But it`s not a bad idea. Could get
    >complex of course, does each group comprise a new front or offensive or
    >are they supporting another etc etc.

    One of the things that some folks have found annoying about the military
    system in BR is that there is no system of supply lines for units operating
    away from friendly territory, and setting up some sort of cost for each
    "group" of units might reflect this sort of thing. I`ve fiddling around
    with units that have a "forage" ability that allows them to operate
    independently and with "caravan" units that operate behind an advancing
    force, maintaining a supply line to friendly territory. It seems to work
    fine for the a meticulous unit-by-unit level of military operations, but at
    some point or another it gets way too complicated just using units the size
    of the BR warcards (I know... pthoo!) with or without such units, so some
    sort of abstracted version of the same thing would make sense.

    There already is a higher movement cost for units operating in hostile
    territory, but that doesn`t change no matter how far away from friendly
    territory those units might go, and if Declare War doesn`t limit one to a
    single border then the units could tramp from Anuire to Vosgaard without
    any practical limits. Some sort of supply line or increased cost for
    operating so far away from home would seem sensible. I`d like at least two
    ways of determining that. The first at the unit level (per the special
    types of troops I noted above) and the second as a formula or payment for a
    similarly abstracted "military strength score" when one doesn`t want to
    role-play out military engagements at the tactical level. Exactly what
    that formula might be I`m not sure, but that`s what I`m going for.

    Gary

    ************************************************** **************************
    The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
    To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
    with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

  2. #2
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    In regards the RP benifits and costs of war, I look to pages 47 and 48 of
    the rules as a guide. Some of these things are directed somewhere else
    (loyalty), but they can be useful guides. Winning a battle, capturing a
    province, &c might be RP enhancers, or even bloodline enhancers. They
    explicitly deal with losses of regency on p. 48.

    War then, is just a more fluid RP area than regular politics. Its easier to
    win big or lose big.

    Based on this I employ a reverse of the descriptions of p. 48 as well.
    Complete a quest, solve a serious problem, or establish solid holdings in a
    new provinces, and get 2d4 RP`s.

    Win a major battle, aquire a province, or defeat a major enemy yield 3d4
    RP`s .

    Conquer a group of provinces, eliminate a major enemy, overcome a major
    abomination, 5d4 RP`s and the gain of 1-3 bloodline strength.

    Kenneth Gauck
    kgauck@mchsi.com

    ************************************************** **************************
    The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
    To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
    with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    474
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Kenneth Gauck wrote:

    >In regards the RP benifits and costs of war, I look to pages 47 and 48 of
    >the rules as a guide. Some of these things are directed somewhere else
    >(loyalty), but they can be useful guides. Winning a battle, capturing a
    >province, &c might be RP enhancers, or even bloodline enhancers. They
    >explicitly deal with losses of regency on p. 48.
    >
    >War then, is just a more fluid RP area than regular politics. Its easier to
    >win big or lose big.
    >
    >Based on this I employ a reverse of the descriptions of p. 48 as well.
    >Complete a quest, solve a serious problem, or establish solid holdings in a
    >new provinces, and get 2d4 RP`s.
    >
    >Win a major battle, aquire a province, or defeat a major enemy yield 3d4
    >RP`s .
    >
    >Conquer a group of provinces, eliminate a major enemy, overcome a major
    >abomination, 5d4 RP`s and the gain of 1-3 bloodline strength.
    >
    sounds reasonable

    ************************************************** **************************
    The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
    To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
    with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    474
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Gary wrote:

    > At 09:19 AM 5/8/2002 +1000, Peter Lubke wrote:
    >
    >>> I just use "War" as the name of the action myself. I like the idea
    >>> that
    >>> a War action (or whatever one wants to call it) allows the regent to
    >>> cross more than one border, but I like it because I can`t really
    >>> come up
    >>> with a satisfactory rationale for why one wouldn`t be able to do
    >>> exactly
    >>> that after mobilizing the troops and all. What`s to keep borders
    >>> sacrosanct? Presumably the original "Declare War" allowed one to cross
    >>> the border of the nation one had declared war against, but since the
    >>> whole issue with the diplomatic/legal nature of war implied by "Declare
    >>> War" is even more ambiguous I figure it`s still a trade up to go
    >>> with the
    >>> less hinky action.
    >>
    >>
    >> The real cost is the loss of "regency" (which is modelled by a loss
    >> of RP
    >> and/or a domain action). If we accept that war is an undesirable
    >> state, a
    >> declaration of war, no matter how much justified, shows an inability to
    >> deal with the situation in a regal manner. The regent becomes the
    >> aggressor, the bad guy (at least a tiny bit). I was thinking that
    >> declaring war against more than one domain (or alliance)was worse than
    >> against a single one.
    >
    >
    > I wouldn`t go with this interpretation myself. Though I personally view
    > war as un undesirable state, and I think many modern people do, I don`t
    > think that has been the viewpoint for much of human history, nor is it
    > really the viewpoint of most modern people. Aside from that, even in
    > modern terms I think declaring war winds up earning the equivalent of
    > regency for the ruler even for rulers of nations that supposedly abhor
    > it. That`s certainly the case in the short term, and probably in the
    > long
    > term as well. It`d be easy to rationalize that being a leader in a
    > time of
    > war could _net_ a ruler regency points rather than cost him some.

    Yeah, that`s a valid point. The real cost (in BR) is that it uses an
    action - which is comparable to other domain actions - but is the RP
    expenditure ?

    >
    >
    > Of course, it can easily work the other way. People do grow tired of war
    > eventually (with some very notable exceptions.) I think that kind of
    > thing, however, could be better reflected by giving a DC to the
    > Declare War
    > action and having a system of critical failures in place so that a long,
    > protracted war will eventually wind up backfiring on the regent.

    It`s best to keep things simple though.

    >
    >
    >>> Anyway, as to the costs of military actions. I think it might make
    >>> sense
    >>> for each "body" of troops to have an individual cost whether they are
    >>> crossing the same border (and moving into different provinces) or not,
    >>> since each group represents its own administrative, supply and
    >>> command. There might be an increased cost per "army" put into action
    >>> rather than a cost per border. This is in addition to the standard
    >>> costs
    >>> for moving troops. Does that seem sensible?
    >>
    >>
    >> That wasn`t quite what I meant by cost. But it`s not a bad idea.
    >> Could get
    >> complex of course, does each group comprise a new front or offensive or
    >> are they supporting another etc etc.
    >
    >
    > One of the things that some folks have found annoying about the military
    > system in BR is that there is no system of supply lines for units
    > operating
    > away from friendly territory, and setting up some sort of cost for each
    > "group" of units might reflect this sort of thing. I`ve fiddling around
    > with units that have a "forage" ability that allows them to operate
    > independently and with "caravan" units that operate behind an advancing
    > force, maintaining a supply line to friendly territory. It seems to work
    > fine for the a meticulous unit-by-unit level of military operations,
    > but at
    > some point or another it gets way too complicated just using units the
    > size
    > of the BR warcards (I know... pthoo!) with or without such units, so some
    > sort of abstracted version of the same thing would make sense.
    >
    > There already is a higher movement cost for units operating in hostile
    > territory, but that doesn`t change no matter how far away from friendly
    > territory those units might go, and if Declare War doesn`t limit one to a
    > single border then the units could tramp from Anuire to Vosgaard without
    > any practical limits. Some sort of supply line or increased cost for
    > operating so far away from home would seem sensible. I`d like at
    > least two
    > ways of determining that. The first at the unit level (per the special
    > types of troops I noted above) and the second as a formula or payment
    > for a
    > similarly abstracted "military strength score" when one doesn`t want to
    > role-play out military engagements at the tactical level. Exactly what
    > that formula might be I`m not sure, but that`s what I`m going for.

    The standard rules are 1 GB for every 10 provinces moved per unit
    applied pro-rata. I have a "home" province for all my non-mercenary
    troops (actually even mercenaries have a home too). Why not 1 GB for
    evy 10 provinces distance (moved away) from the home province per unit.
    i.e. rather than count for actual movement that domain turn, it counts
    the static distance - so that an army beseiging a castle would count
    toward the GB cost as well.


    e.g. A unit raised in Bliene, two from Ciliene, two from Moere and one
    from Aerele are moved in a "War" domain action to Caerwil. This is 4
    provinces from Bliene, 3 from Ciliene and Aerele, and 2 from Moere -
    total count is 1*4 + 3*3 + 2*2 = 13, for a cost of 1.3 (or 2) GB. If
    they were to move into Ghoried, this would increase by 6 to 1.9 GB, etc
    - making foreign wars expensive the further away they were fought.

    >
    >
    > Gary
    >
    > ************************************************** **************************
    >
    > The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
    > To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
    > with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.
    >

    ************************************************** **************************
    The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
    To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
    with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

  5. #5
    Site Moderator geeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,178
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    7
    At 09:07 AM 5/9/2002 +1000, Peter Lubke wrote:

    >>I think that kind of thing, however, could be better reflected by giving
    >>a DC to the Declare War
    >>action and having a system of critical failures in place so that a long,
    >>protracted war will eventually wind up backfiring on the regent.
    >
    >It`s best to keep things simple though.

    I haven`t come up with it yet, but if there was one system of critical
    failure that applied to all domain actions then I think it would work out
    pretty well.

    >The standard rules are 1 GB for every 10 provinces moved per unit applied
    >pro-rata. I have a "home" province for all my non-mercenary troops
    >(actually even mercenaries have a home too). Why not 1 GB for evy 10
    >provinces distance (moved away) from the home province per unit. i.e.
    >rather than count for actual movement that domain turn, it counts the
    >static distance - so that an army beseiging a castle would count toward
    >the GB cost as well.
    >
    >e.g. A unit raised in Bliene, two from Ciliene, two from Moere and one
    >from Aerele are moved in a "War" domain action to Caerwil. This is 4
    >provinces from Bliene, 3 from Ciliene and Aerele, and 2 from Moere - total
    >count is 1*4 + 3*3 + 2*2 = 13, for a cost of 1.3 (or 2) GB. If they were
    >to move into Ghoried, this would increase by 6 to 1.9 GB, etc - making
    >foreign wars expensive the further away they were fought.

    That could work, though I`d probably base it on their distance from
    friendly provinces, not on the province in which the unit(s) were raised
    since that would probably cut down on some of the record keeping. What
    might be the result of not having enough GB to cover such expenses, or
    simply refusing to pay it? Hits of damage, automatic disbanding, loss of
    morale?

    Gary

    ************************************************** **************************
    The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
    To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
    with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    474
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Gary wrote:

    > At 09:07 AM 5/9/2002 +1000, Peter Lubke wrote:
    >
    >>> I think that kind of thing, however, could be better reflected by
    >>> giving
    >>> a DC to the Declare War
    >>> action and having a system of critical failures in place so that a
    >>> long,
    >>> protracted war will eventually wind up backfiring on the regent.
    >>
    >>
    >> It`s best to keep things simple though.
    >
    >
    > I haven`t come up with it yet, but if there was one system of critical
    > failure that applied to all domain actions then I think it would work out
    > pretty well.

    Don`t get me started on critical hit/miss systems. Never been done well
    in D&D. Ever. By anyone. All flawed.

    >
    >
    >> The standard rules are 1 GB for every 10 provinces moved per unit
    >> applied
    >> pro-rata. I have a "home" province for all my non-mercenary troops
    >> (actually even mercenaries have a home too). Why not 1 GB for evy 10
    >> provinces distance (moved away) from the home province per unit. i.e.
    >> rather than count for actual movement that domain turn, it counts the
    >> static distance - so that an army beseiging a castle would count toward
    >> the GB cost as well.
    >>
    >> e.g. A unit raised in Bliene, two from Ciliene, two from Moere and one
    >> from Aerele are moved in a "War" domain action to Caerwil. This is 4
    >> provinces from Bliene, 3 from Ciliene and Aerele, and 2 from Moere -
    >> total
    >> count is 1*4 + 3*3 + 2*2 = 13, for a cost of 1.3 (or 2) GB. If they were
    >> to move into Ghoried, this would increase by 6 to 1.9 GB, etc - making
    >> foreign wars expensive the further away they were fought.
    >
    >
    > That could work, though I`d probably base it on their distance from
    > friendly provinces, not on the province in which the unit(s) were raised
    > since that would probably cut down on some of the record keeping. What
    > might be the result of not having enough GB to cover such expenses, or
    > simply refusing to pay it? Hits of damage, automatic disbanding, loss of
    > morale?

    Most supply rules in wargames tend to limit the ability to attack,
    sometimes to defend, sometimes even destruction (disband - the unit
    loses it`s cohesiveness - I`ve even seen games where the unit lost
    "cohesion" but a bit complicated for BR).

    Good point though - what ? ? take a step loss (desertion, disease,
    famine etc), losses should be spread evenly among units starting with
    those most difficult to supply (varsks, cavalry) - this does affect
    their ability to attack - and costs to rebuild them later, but doesn`t
    affect their defensive capabilities.

    ************************************************** **************************
    The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
    To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
    with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

  7. #7
    Site Moderator geeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,178
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    7
    At 10:36 AM 5/10/2002 +1000, Peter Lubke wrote:

    >>I haven`t come up with it yet, but if there was one system of critical
    >>failure that applied to all domain actions then I think it would work out
    >>pretty well.
    >
    >Don`t get me started on critical hit/miss systems. Never been done well
    >in D&D. Ever. By anyone. All flawed.

    I`ve played a couple that weren`t that bad. The current system of critical
    hits works pretty well... the optional fumble rules aren`t bad either. I`m
    thinking of a similar thing, but with RP/GB costs, or maybe just an
    appropriate random even if the regent misses the DC of the domain action by
    5 or more.

    Gary

    ************************************************** **************************
    The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
    To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
    with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

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.