|
Post by Caerleon (Tristan) on Mar 7, 2017 3:24:12 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. We've come to a degree of concurrence here. We both agree that there is little reason to upgrade castles past level 1 (the return on investment is too low).
I believe that this situation is a poor outcome, and that something needs to be done to make higher level castles more valuable. I think the ability to suppress the castles ability to impact the battle fulfils this need. Using the existing ROE rules is a reasonable solution.
|
|
|
Post by Mercia(andreas) on Mar 7, 2017 3:28:27 GMT
That or level 2+ castle levels cost half that, of level 1 castles cost to build and upkeep.
|
|
|
Post by X-Nemeth on Mar 7, 2017 6:52:00 GMT
First off, I contest your claim that Gawant would have won. His army consisted of many different factions that had not been properly integrated, meaning the commander bonus was halved. Which was not the case with the Nemeth Army. Secondly you need to consider the possibility that Falea would have spent RP to cast battle magic if the castle had not been there to make it superfluous. Lastly there is the point that Alden was defending in hills. The rolls were stated while modified, so the cavalry/commander/hills/castle bonuses were included. Now that you mention it, seems weird that he should be able to roll modified 6. He should be on -1, making 5 the maximum. In any case Nemeth would never have been broken round one of the combat, and always ends up breaking the attackers on round 2!
On the subject of Castles, you are all forgetting an important part. Low level castles can be easily countered by continuous raiding actions that can only be stopped by attacking the province where the raiding originated.
The point of the castle is that you could have 3 traited units for the cost of it, and that a castle is unable to move as Mercia pointed out.
|
|
|
Post by Caerleon (Tristan) on Mar 7, 2017 8:03:45 GMT
First off, I contest your claim that Gawant would have won. His army consisted of many different factions that had not been properly integrated, meaning the commander bonus was halved. Which was not the case with the Nemeth Army. Secondly you need to consider the possibility that Falea would have spent RP to cast battle magic if the castle had not been there to make it superfluous. Lastly there is the point that Alden was defending in hills. The rolls were stated while modified, so the cavalry/commander/hills/castle bonuses were included. Now that you mention it, seems weird that he should be able to roll modified 6. He should be on -1, making 5 the maximum. In any case Nemeth would never have been broken round one of the combat, and always ends up breaking the attackers on round 2! On the subject of Castles, you are all forgetting an important part. Low level castles can be easily countered by continuous raiding actions that can only be stopped by attacking the province where the raiding originated. The point of the castle is that you could have 3 traited units for the cost of it, and that a castle is unable to move as Mercia pointed out. I took the units Linde advised as present, set the commanders at a level that had no effect and then input the dice rolls using magic modifier to make the dice rolls reach the the modified rolls Linde posted. Then I removed the castle, Nemeth breaks in the first round due to morale. Castles of any level can be countered by raiding, that's not really an argument that counters the fact that a level 1 castle in the current system has an outsize benefit. On the 3 traited units (Skirmishers/Outriders/Engineers for 21GB), they have a maintenance cost of 3.5GB, whereas the level 1 castle has a maybe 1GB maintenance (it can be covered by the province). Sure the units can move, they also cost 350% more every turn than the castle.
|
|
|
Post by X-Nemeth on Mar 7, 2017 8:39:48 GMT
A lvl 4 castle in a lvl 4 province counters raiding, as it makes it impossible to raid holdings. Also note that sieges reducing castle levels take many TURNS, not WMs. That said I agree that half price for upgrading castles and their maintenance should be considered. Upgrading castle lvls: 12GB, 0.5GB maintenance.
Also note that a high lvl castle might be a prerequisite for certain actions/buildings.
|
|
|
Post by Caerleon (Tristan) on Mar 7, 2017 9:08:29 GMT
A lvl 4 castle in a lvl 4 province counters raiding, as it makes it impossible to raid holdings. Also note that sieges reducing castle levels take many TURNS, not WMs. That said I agree that half price for upgrading castles and their maintenance should be considered. Upgrading castle lvls: 12GB, 0.5GB maintenance. You might want to review the raid action (pg 104 Regents Guide). A Castle 4 in a Province 4 does make occupation challenging though, minimum 8 units to neutralise the castle and 4 more to occupy the province and then whatever is left can pillage. I don't think making castles cheaper is the way to go, they already have enough utility that I'll be building one up to Caerleon's maximum level (slowly), my only point is that the castles ability to impact the battlefield needs to: - have a counter (of some variety, I like the invest option that takes attacker units out of the battle). - be scalable in it's benefit (so the value of a castle is not front-loaded at level 1, but applied in a more linear fashion).
|
|
|
Post by X-Nemeth on Mar 7, 2017 9:13:02 GMT
Raiding can be done from adjacent provinces without having to move into the province with the castle. It is a nice way to avoid facing a head to head fight on someones "home turf" and force them to face you on your "home turf" to stop you from raiding. Of course nothing prevents them from doing the same to you
|
|
|
Post by SouthWestern Traders on Mar 7, 2017 9:39:06 GMT
A few things that stop raiding:
-Units with high morale and/or high speed (a single unit of outriders alone raises the DDC by 9! even a militia unit still raises DDC by 7 to start, and +2 thereafter) -Good-aligned realms (raiding is an evil act) -Influence (1RP to force a dice roll)
Things that are not cost-effective at stopping raids:
-Castles (20GB for +1 DDC to raiding)
|
|
|
Post by X-Nemeth on Mar 7, 2017 9:51:06 GMT
A few things that stop raiding: -Units with high morale and/or high speed (a single unit of outriders alone raises the DDC by 9! even a militia unit still raises DDC by 7 to start, and +2 thereafter) -Good-aligned realms (raiding is an evil act) -Influence (1RP to force a dice roll) Things that are not cost-effective at stopping raids: -Castles (20GB for +1 DDC to raiding) High level castles protect you holdings, meaning raiding can not target them.
|
|
|
Post by SouthWestern Traders on Mar 7, 2017 9:53:52 GMT
The castle description is ambiguous, especially as the raid action gives free contest actions. Unless contest is impossible against castle-protected holdings (which it isn't), then castles don't protect much against raiding holdings.
Besides that debatable point, trade holdings are never safe.
|
|
|
Post by Linde (x-GM) on Mar 7, 2017 10:11:52 GMT
Looking through the thread there are a lot of good ideas on how to balance castles and make higher level castles viable.
Pondering the issue I am thinking about instituting the following update to the rules:
1. When fighting in a province with a castle the castle owner may choose to use the castle in the battle if there are no more units on the castle owners side than Castle level x 5 2. If the castle is used in the battle then the castle owner may only retreat into that castle or other owned fortifications in the province. 3. Any units not able to retreat into the castle or other fortifications (2x castle levels + 1 x fort levels) must surrender. 4. Slowest units surrender first, in situations of ties in speed the lowest mortality units surrender first. 5. Winning a battle against someone who use a castle counts as winning a major battle for the purpose of stability. 6. Loosing a battle while utilizing a castle counts as loosing a major battle for the purpose of stability.
Reasons: 1: Bonus to higher level castles/restriction to low level castles 2: Penalty to mitigate the relatively low risk of loosing a battle while using a castle 3: Restriction to low level castles 4: For consistency in disorderly retreat 5: Bonus for winning against a castle. 6: Likely penalty for loosing while using a castle.
Flavor: 1: Small fortifications are of less significance in larger battles and thus, while providing some bonus, the bonus is not tangible enough to convey a castle bonus to the battle. 2: Using castles and forts as a vital part of your defense/offense strategy make it hard for the enemy to cut off retreat into them and people retreating disorderly run for nearest perceived point of safety. 3: In routing towards that perceived safety the soldiers are dismayed when safety cannot be found there and surrender. 4: Fastest people escape first 5: Defeating an enemy that is prepared for battle, and forcing that enemy to hide within his fortifications is a major victory towards winning a war. This will most likely increase the stability of the commanders realm, and any realm able to bring home substantial amounts of surrendered troops. 6: Loosing a battle and being forced to hide within your fortifications is a major defeat. Should some of your army be forced to surrender at the same time, then it surely is an event that will hurt the stability of your realm.
Most notable this would: Restrict lower level castles from being used in larger battles. Keep the use of castles impossible to counter by your enemy. Make it hurt double when you loose a battle while using your castle to modify that battle.
Any thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by X-Nemeth on Mar 7, 2017 10:49:20 GMT
With the current warfare emphasis (warfare meta) on winning by decimating the enemy due to the large number of "free" levies I think that 1) is a very bad idea. I dont think we have seen any realm on realm wars with less than 10 units on a defending side, and most with 20+ units. Furthermore we do not have similar rules for the other traits. And the most likely outcome is that more than half would die (3/5 is normal), meaning no surrenders since there is room for troops in the fortifications. If there are no surrenders, I fail to see why it should count as losing a major battle. You fought the enemy and lost, now you are regrouping in the castle (thank god you had the foresight to built it!).
On flavor: The point of castles is that they are used as staging points to harass the enemy (you know the terrain, the populace is with you), and that you know you have someplace to fall back to. They are not less significant for large battles, they are more so! You can not leave one uncontested and pass it by for fear of being flanked or losing supply. Instead you have to divide your forces and leave a part of it behind to protect the flank. Thus if the enemy can sufficiently protect his flank, then he should be able to "neutralize" at least the dice modifier of the castle. Likewise, the defender should be able to add to the difficulty by spending units. This solution would add another strategic layer to warfare, which I personally approve of.
On surrenders: Surrendered troops should never be able to fight again before having taken a a full turn, interrupted recover action.
Also nerfing them to the ground after several realms spent significant resources on them is a huge mistake.
|
|
|
Post by Alined on Mar 7, 2017 10:55:14 GMT
My first issue with this is that it's hard to imagine from a character's perspective, deciding whether to use a castle to help defend against an attack or not based on whether or not they want to risk the realm being shocked by the defeat. I'd assume that in most cases where this could potentially come up, the defeat would probably be major anyway if the castle weren't involved, so that wouldn't be an issue.
My second issue is that we can have castle levels from 1 to 4 (or higher for Camelot) but there's no way we're going to see 20 units on one side of a battle. On the other hand, we're probably not going to see level 4 castles, either, and if we ever do, then who knows how big the armies might be, then. The scaling is a bit functionally odd, in that 5 units is a weak army, 10 units is strong, and any more than that is almost unthinkable, but it does seem to work, anyway.
Edit: I wasn't considering fights between coalitions, here, but it doesn't make sense for fortifications built by single realms to be large enough to support entire coalitions, so it seems reasonable for that not to work.
|
|
|
Post by Maelgwyn ap Cadwgan (TOG) on Mar 7, 2017 11:09:16 GMT
(Some good points here on both accounts.)
|
|
|
Post by Linde (x-GM) on Mar 7, 2017 11:15:34 GMT
On flavor: The point of castles is that they are used as staging points to harass the enemy (you know the terrain, the populace is with you), and that you know you have someplace to fall back to. They are not less significant for large battles, they are more so! You can not leave one uncontested and pass it by for fear of being flanked or losing supply. Instead you have to divide your forces and leave a part of it behind to protect the flank. Thus if the enemy can sufficiently protect his flank, then he should be able to "neutralize" the castle. Likewise, the defender should be able to add to the difficulty by spending units. This solution would add another strategic layer to warfare, which I personally approve of. This flavor supports the following way to counter castles: 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 This could easily solve the issue with no further restrictions added.
|
|