|
Post by Caerleon (Tristan) on Mar 6, 2017 22:24:39 GMT
Having just put all the castles on the map I was thinking about the impact of castles on the battle system and the fact that: - a level 1 castle is just as good as a level 5 castle for the purposes of the battle system. - there is no way to negate a castle bonus in combat.
So I had an idea to make it possible for a skilled commander to negate the castle bonus for a battle, representing manoeuvres, etc. designed to draw out the opponents army. Basically an opposed roll:
Attacker General Warcraft + (2 x Friendly Castle Level OR 1 x Highest Friendly Fort Level) vs. Defender General Warcraft + (2 x Friendly Castle Level OR 1 x Highest Friendly Fort Level)
With the winner getting to choose if the castle is considered in the fight or not, because absent a retreat to the castle, a castle in 1 in a province 3+ should not always be effective in the battle.
|
|
|
Post by Mercia(andreas) on Mar 6, 2017 22:53:47 GMT
You can negate a castle by attacking some other province. But i could see a offensive army having the option of seeking to slip by and around the castle, forcing a defending army to seek combat away from the castle or let them slip by.
An alternative is that a castle could be neutralize by 4 units per castle level+2*(the remaining units defending the castle rather than battling) removed from the attacker in the battle dedicated to disrupting the castle from supporting the battle.
And i assume in your suggestion the Warcraft skilled is modified for army size, right?
And in your suggestion any castle of level 3 or higher(rather than 1 or higher) continue the issue with the exception of absolutely extreme differences in warfare skill.
|
|
|
Post by Godfred Thraw BayardsKing(GT) on Mar 6, 2017 23:08:33 GMT
I know that you are trying to improve the system, but I think it is not possible to deny a castle whether it is wanted or not, it is there ... it can be besieged or assailed, but I Do not see what can deny it ...
It represents indeed the walls, but also the supply etc ...
That, to the limit, an espionage action can reduce its effectiveness so long as work is not undertaken ... Like opening sneaky doors ... or piercing a wall through engineers, but the commanders are already important unnecessary to make them disappear the castles more ...
|
|
|
Post by Linde (x-GM) on Mar 6, 2017 23:10:12 GMT
Suggested ways to negate castle bonus: Espionage (scaling with castle level) Assigning troops to negating fortifications prior to battles. (The units will then not be available for field battles.
|
|
|
Post by Caerleon (Tristan) on Mar 6, 2017 23:38:30 GMT
Neutralizing is already in the rules:
Active Castle: Units Req.= Castle Level x2 + Units Inside Castle Garrison Castle: Units Req.= Castle Level + Units Inside Castle
Which if allowed is a good option.
My issue is that currently (with the battle system) there is no benefit to having a castle above level 1 (and plenty of downsides like cost to build and maintenance) and no explicit way to neutralize them.
Allowing for troops to invest (block the castle) from interfering with the fight is a good idea.
|
|
|
Post by Alined on Mar 6, 2017 23:41:53 GMT
Higher level castles are harder to destroy, too, right? Those siege engines have to be good for something...
|
|
|
Post by Caerleon (Tristan) on Mar 6, 2017 23:56:23 GMT
Higher level castles are harder to destroy, too, right? Those siege engines have to be good for something... They are, but the rules already account for that.
The issue isn't with sieges and fights directly targeting the castle, the issue is with the castle's impact on battles in the province that don't directly target the castle.
For reference the WM7 in Nemeth is a win for Gawant if they can allocate units to invest the castle (having played with the spreadsheet Gawant can detail up to 8 units to invest the castle and still wins the fight in the province).
As a comment on the battle system in general, I think the retreat rules are a little too harsh, a lot of realms are single province (or effective single province for war moves) and as a defender losing one battle wipes out your army. I'd suggest a system where if you lose a battle you can't take army action outside of retreating until you have reorganized (using a WM), get defeated while reorganizing and you are forced to retreat. It would mean that Alined/Caerleon/Dumonia/Gawant/Nemeth all have to lose 2 consecutive battles before they are destroyed (rather than just 1).
|
|
|
Post by Mercia(andreas) on Mar 7, 2017 0:46:14 GMT
But should the base rules and a castle for battle purpose be negate able by 2 militias(plus units equal to those negated in the castle), their cost and upkeep should drop sharply.
I would rather suggest a defending army can choose to defend by a castle gaining the bonuses or in the field protecting province and stopping the enemy, but that fighting a field battle in a castle province allows you to quite safely retreat/withdraw to the castle, potentially choosing to withdraw before every day of combat.
|
|
|
Post by Caerleon (Tristan) on Mar 7, 2017 1:16:29 GMT
But should the base rules and a castle for battle purpose be negate able by 2 militias(plus units equal to those negated in the castle), their cost and upkeep should drop sharply. I would rather suggest a defending army can choose to defend by a castle gaining the bonuses or in the field protecting province and stopping the enemy, but that fighting a field battle in a castle province allows you to quite safely retreat/withdraw to the castle, potentially choosing to withdraw before every day of combat. I think it should be suppressible with a pair of militia, a level 1 castle should not be as good as it is now. With the current system a castle (of any level) provides a massive penalty, referencing the WM7 battle in Nemeth, if you take the level 1 castle away Gawant et al. can take away up to 8 units and still win the fight.
A level 1 castle should not be as good as 8 units.
I don't want to go to your suggestion as it basically means that the castles have no impact outside of the siege rules (as you would never attack an army defending at a castle), you just do what you needed in the province until they are forced to come to you.
|
|
|
Post by Mercia(andreas) on Mar 7, 2017 1:31:33 GMT
But if the castle did not have that Effect Nemeth would(should) have invested in troops instead, and Ursula would be alive.
But castles that provide no battlefield advantage are useless, if you cant defend in depth.
And in Nemeth Gawant and friends had 10 units battling 11 units from Nemeth and NSE, and Nemeth were more lucky with dice roll as well.
|
|
|
Post by Alined on Mar 7, 2017 2:20:24 GMT
I don't think a castle should provide any direct benefit to field battles in the same province, the most effect they could have is helping to force a battle into a province's minor terrain (something generals can already do, having fortifications on their side would just make it easier).
If you have only one province, then yes, if your castle is put under siege by a force you can't defeat in the field all it can do is delay your defeat. That's not insignificant, though, if you have any chance to call allies or even just because delaying your defeat means your enemy loses a lot of GB to maintaining a large, active army and may be more willing to make concessions. The castle still does its job without having some magical effect on the outcome of field battles.
|
|
|
Post by Maelgwyn ap Cadwgan (TOG) on Mar 7, 2017 2:26:23 GMT
I would, instead of finding a way to downgrade castles effects on battles rather see a slight advantage added to the effect of higher level castles.
As they can be surrounded and neutralized already, creating a second way of doing that (commander in battle) seems the wrong approach. They are major undertakings, and should not be made lesser in my opinion. On the contrary, give a reason for people to improve or build them and a reason for atackers to think twice and come up with a pkan for investing them to start with. A castle or series of fortifications is supposed to be just that, a detriment to not well thought out attacks.
Edit due to same time post: I'd put forward that they can certainly have an influence in that the garrison (if Áctive and thus on strenght) can raid and severly threaten the supplylines or rearguard, and thus imposes difficulty on the invading army.
|
|
|
Post by Mercia(andreas) on Mar 7, 2017 2:38:12 GMT
The thing about surviving longer with castle is a largely moot point, as current during every assault on a castle every single man and his dog can participate in the assault, thus the defenders are always greatly outnumbered and will be killed to the last man as the highly lethal table 5-1 and table 5-2 is used for storming a castle. And a single engineer and artillery unit, will reduce a level 1 castles chance of repelling a assault from 66% to 16%, and can be tested 3 times in a DO turn.
|
|
|
Post by Caerleon (Tristan) on Mar 7, 2017 2:44:05 GMT
But if the castle did not have that Effect Nemeth would(should) have invested in troops instead, and Ursula would be alive. But castles that provide no battlefield advantage are useless, if you cant defend in depth. And in Nemeth Gawant and friends had 10 units battling 11 units from Nemeth and NSE, and Nemeth were more lucky with dice roll as well. The issue is that effect is static bonus irrespective of the level of the castle. My issue isn't the bonus it's that the bonus is a static bonus irrespective of the level of the castle, it puts too much benefit on a level 1 castle.
If Nemeth had invested in 20GB worth of troops they'd also be out a ton of cash from military upkeep (approx. 3GB/turn). Nemeth made a cost-benefit analysis and went with the castle (I would have too).
I want castles to have the "potential" to provide an advantage, I just want the advantage to be something that can be countered.
On the dice rolls both sides where equally lucky (6/1 followed by 1/6), but if you take out the castle and then take away 4 militia and 4 outriders from Gawant, Gawant still wins. Reverse the dice rolls (so Nemeth gets the 6 on round 1) and Gawant still wins.
Comparing raw troops numbers isn't a good metric, Gawant had a HP advantage (translates directly to damage), trait advantage (Heavy+Cavaly vs. Nothing) and a commander advantage. If you remove the castle Nemeth is so thoroughly screwed that they need a 4+/4+ with Gawant rolling a 1/1 to win (Gawant rolls a single 2+ and its a draw).
I'm not arguing that castles shouldn't have a benefit, I am arguing that a level 1 castle has too much of a benefit, and that either there needs to be a way to suppress that benefit, or the benefit of a castle needs to be more graduated so that higher level castles actually have value.
I would, instead of finding a way to downgrade castles effects on battles rather see a slight advantage added to the effect of higher level castles. As they can be surrounded and neutralized already, creating a second way of doing that (commander in battle) seems the wrong approach. They are major undertakings, and should not be made lesser in my opinion. On the contrary, give a reason for people to improve or build them and a reason for atackers to think twice and come up with a pkan for investing them to start with. A castle or series of fortifications is supposed to be just that, a detriment to not well thought out attacks. Edit due to same time post: I'd put forward that they can certainly have an influence in that the garrison (if Áctive and thus on strenght) can raid and severly threaten the supplylines or rearguard, and thus imposes difficulty on the invading army. In the base ROE rules if I attacked a province with a castle and there was an army present the army could:
A) Fight. B) Retreat from the province. C) Retreat to the castle.
In case A you fight a battle and the castle has no effect on the battle. If the army lost then it became a valid retreat point.
In case B or C you could then move to invest the castle and either passive or active siege the castle.
The ROE rule give me no benefit/penalty to fighting in a province with a castle, Linde added that in his system, but he front loaded the benefit. You get all the benefit from the first level.
I think the system (as is) is unbalanced and that either: - castle suppression should be explicitly allowed as part of a battle. - castle benefits should be moved to higher tiers of castle.
|
|
|
Post by Mercia(andreas) on Mar 7, 2017 3:02:13 GMT
But unlike armies castles cant attack and they cant move to support their allies, but yes there is very little reason to upgrade castles, and the upgraded levels is hardly worth half that a level 1 castle is, yet the cost and upkeep remain the same.
|
|