|
Post by Linde (x-GM) on Mar 7, 2017 11:26:35 GMT
1. 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. 2. 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. 1. See your point, it would be an ooc choice. And true, loosing half your army while your enemy does not will be problematic for your stability anyways. 2. The goal is balance where there is a point to creating higher level castles while not making level 1 castles completely useless. What scaling, if any, would you propose instead?
|
|
|
Post by Alined on Mar 7, 2017 11:50:45 GMT
I think this will work, more or less. Since we started with (mostly) unfortified mid-level provinces, the main restriction on fortification levels in this game is going to be the time it takes to build them, so we're not likely to see fortifications increase by more than one or two levels no matter what rules we give them, even if we were to let them fly around and shoot artillery, or at the opposite extreme, if they weren't a good deal at all.
This seems like a fine balance to me. Camelot can probably find a use for a level 4 castle if they're so inclined.
|
|
|
Post by Mercia(andreas) on Mar 7, 2017 11:56:28 GMT
An alternative is reconstructing the bonus from the castle.
So a level x castle , provides x units worth of traits, of the types Artillery, Heavy, Bow, Engineer and Cavalry. This makes castles quite counterable and a bigger one is needed to defend against big armies, and still is unlikely to fully counter such an army. (Will need further balancing properly)
|
|
|
Post by X-Nemeth on Mar 7, 2017 12:08:33 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. I would suggest to remove the -1 to the dice from the castle (It never made sense to me anyway, the reduced morale and dmg makes sense, due to the support lent from the castle) and then make it: Active Castle: Units Req.= Castle Level x2 + 2x Units Inside Castle + Units dedicated to it outside Garrison Castle: Units Req.= Castle Level + Units Inside Castle + Units dedicated to it outside Each side would have to decide beforehand which units to commit to the castle duty, and could subsequently not be used for anything else for the fight (but these units should never be forced to surrender).
|
|
|
Post by Linde (x-GM) on Mar 7, 2017 14:37:20 GMT
This flavor supports the following way to counter castles: This could easily solve the issue with no further restrictions added. I would suggest to remove the -1 to the dice from the castle (It never made sense to me anyway, the reduced morale and dmg makes sense, due to the support lent from the castle) and then make it: Active Castle: Units Req.= Castle Level x2 + 2x Units Inside Castle + Units dedicated to it outside Garrison Castle: Units Req.= Castle Level + Units Inside Castle + Units dedicated to it outside Each side would have to decide beforehand which units to commit to the castle duty, and could subsequently not be used for anything else for the fight (but these units should never be forced to surrender). This raises many questions. Why don't the units outside battle each other, why can the castle sustain more units than it can during a normal siege. And even if those questions are answered it will be harder to administrate than just using the rules that are available from sieges. Making it a question purely of pinning the units that already can hide within the fortification is much simpler.
|
|
|
Post by X-Nemeth on Mar 7, 2017 14:50:14 GMT
The units do not battle each other as one set of units have the order to protect their supply lines and flank, while the other set of units have the orders harass and pin the enemies flank. The units "in" the castle are not actually in the castle. They move around using the castle as a base of operations.
Yes I agree, but using the other proposed rules would mean a huge nerf to castles, bringing them from permanent fixtures that have to be dealt with to a minor inconvenience (I have to levy one more time, 4 more units) that can be completely neutralized. And better yet, using the other proposed rules, if the defender fights from his castle and the attacker neutralize it, then too bad, the survivors surrenders, since the castle was already full.
|
|
|
Post by Mercia(andreas) on Mar 7, 2017 14:56:17 GMT
I must admit i quite dislike the solutions of simply throwing a few "junk" units at the castle to take it out of the battle.
And if you wish to remove castles from field battles, maybe they should serve other purposes.
If castles rather were a military base that could cover the upkeep of the units stationed inside of it. This would mean waging war would be relatively more expensive and staying alive in a castle more valueable.
Furthermore i dont think that during the assault on a castle more people can fit in the breach than 2 times the maximum capacity of the castle.
Otherwise the ottomen would have had a way easier times against the knights.
|
|
|
Post by Linde (x-GM) on Mar 7, 2017 16:52:23 GMT
Normal rules for castles:
Just posting rules on castles so that none are left with the misconception that castles has no other purposes than aiding in field battles. Please note that raid is unable to contest holdings if there is a castle in the province, you can only steal growth points.
Please note that the standard castles greatest effect on field battles used to be: "units inside a castle cannot be forced to do battle"
Perhaps the problem is that the buff I have made to a castles effect on field battles isn't reflected in the cost of castles.
A base castle costs 20 gb per level(It also did so before the buff to field battles). So if people have the impression that they only function in field battles, then that effect by itself must dwarf the cost of a "Standard" Castle.
Another proposed solution:
New building
Grand Castle: Base cost 80GB Upkeep: 0,5GB Effect: Ability to affect field battles unhindered in the province of the castle Special, you must upgrade a standard castle into a grand castle, so this building can't be built in provinces with no castle. Upgrading the level of an existing grand castle incur a 50% increase in cost. (so each upgrade of a grand castle will cost 30GB base instead of 20)
The two original castles: Camelot & Dumonia, who were forced to start with castles would then have started with Grand Castles, but others should be upgraded first.
Compensation offered to other castle holders: Ability to scream ohh no, and remove their castles, finished or otherwise, and get the resources invested refunded or diverted into other building projects.
If you think castles with no impact on field battles isn't worth the investment, then I don't want you to have castles forced upon you.
|
|
|
Post by SouthWestern Traders on Mar 7, 2017 17:15:31 GMT
Normal rules for castles: Just posting rules on castles so that none are left with the misconception that castles has no other purposes than aiding in field battles. Please note that raid is unable to contest holdings if there is a castle in the province, you can only steal growth points. I'd like to take this time to point out, quite unfortunately for guilds, that trade and source holdings are exempt.
Of course, source holdings can't be the target of non-magical actions.
Which means trade holdings are pretty much going to be the primary target of raid-based contest actions
|
|
|
Post by Mercia(andreas) on Mar 7, 2017 17:15:37 GMT
So at a standard rate upgrading to a grand castle would 3 GB a turn, so about 26 turns... that's a long time.
Can we consider making Grand buildings be built with multiple construction crews? So additional maybe additional built actions can be assigned at a stack +5 DDC to the construction project for each crew?
And maybe reducing the upkeep for an ordinary castle to 0.5GB/turn
|
|
|
Post by Linde (x-GM) on Mar 7, 2017 17:23:22 GMT
You can already hurry the construction at a cost of 1gb & +5DDC per turn.
Master builders that grant bonus to construction speed, or reduction in construction cost, or both, is more likely than extra crews. (Just ask Nemeth)
Upkeep for castles was balanced at 1GB per level prior to the bonus to field battles, so it is more likely that Grand castles should cost 1GB in upkeep instead of 0,5GB
|
|
|
Post by Caerleon (Tristan) on Mar 7, 2017 22:03:30 GMT
I must admit i quite dislike the solutions of simply throwing a few "junk" units at the castle to take it out of the battle. The owner of the castle can also throw his "junk" units into garrisoning his castle forcing the attacker to spend more units investing it. At the end of the day it would come down to who is willing to take more units out of the fight to invest the castle.
If (from the voting thread) option 1 was introduced an:
Castle + Garrison | Investing Force Required | Active level 1 castle + 2 units | 4 units | Active level 2 castle + 4 units
| 8 units
| Active level 3 castle + 6 units
| 12 units
|
And so on.
My only issue with the castles is that Linde added a mechanism that allows them to impact field battles without explicitly adding a counter-mechanism to negate that impact.
|
|
|
Post by Mercia(andreas) on Mar 7, 2017 22:10:25 GMT
Yeah the best/only counter to fortifications is to attack when the enemy is unprepared,attacking with many more forces, a much more elite force, or attack somewhere else. Or of course magic.
|
|
|
Post by Linde (x-GM) on Mar 7, 2017 23:59:13 GMT
Thank you for your input, I have pondered ever since the subject of negating bonus from castles was brought up. I have looked at Nemeth's version and tried to envision a way to make it simple. But it is still too time consuming and straining on me for it to be viable.(Version 1)
Then I thought about Tristan's proposal, and it has its beauty in simplicity and lack of impact on my time. But it also makes it fairly easy to negate castles at absolutely no risk and at the cost of only cheap units. (Version 2)
Then I came up with a compromise that I am going to implement as rules. It builds on Version 2 but allows a sortie prior to battle as well. It is my hope that this will keep people from sending their worst units to invest castles, while also compelling castle owners to garrison their castles with good units in hopes of breaking sieges/Investments. Only time will tell (Version 3)
For reference on my trail of thoughts I have included the 3 versions below
Version 1: All provinces has a zone of battle called the primary zone Each province with fortifications has an extra zone for the purpose of battles. The extra zones are called secondary zones
Castle bonus in conveyed only to primary zones
Upon entering a province with fortifications the aggressor must choose to divide his forces or keep them combined. You can still scout ahead.
Primary zone battles are conducted last
If not all zones are attacked successfully then occupation will be impossible and the remaining zones must be attacked in following war moves.
Note: The units that did battle in a zone with a friendly fortification or castle may choose to withdraw into that castle should they loose.
Example:
Benefits of this version: Castle level will matter. It gives versatility to castle and fort holders and ensures that the castle wont just be invested with the most crappy units. Drawbacks: Pain in the ass for all other players as war moves would grind to a halt as soon as a castle was involved. So this version is sadly not viable
Version 2:
You may send units to invest castles by expending the appropriate amount of units needed prior to field battles and thus render the castle bonus void.
Benefit of this version: Castle level will matter, no impact on speed of war move resolution. Drawbacks: Very easy to counter a castle at no risk. crappiest units sent away from field battles. So still not an ideal solution
Version 3: You may send units to invest castles by expending the appropriate amount of units needed prior to field battles and thus render the castle bonus void. But, the owner of the castle is allowed a sortie before the field battle begins to try and lift the siege. (As described in rules on forum)
Benefit of this version: You would need to send decent units to invest a castle or risk loosing to a sortie, there would be good reason to garrison castles with decent or good units to increase chance of winning sorties. Drawbacks: Still a little impact to resolution of war moves but nowhere near as much impact as version 1. Still a rather large nerf when castles go from invulnerable to being vulnerable in one regard. Investing units are most likely to win for two reasons: They have more units, they roll on better tables.
So to summarize: The new rules regarding castles in battles will be:
You may send units to invest castles by expending the appropriate amount of units needed prior to field battles and thus render the castle bonus void. But, the owner of the castle is allowed a sortie before the field battle begins to try and lift the siege/end the investment.
If you have built a castle or is building one right now, you may reallocate the funds invested towards another building project or withdraw them to your treasury by disbanding your castle.
As we are close to deadline for the turn, the rules change will first be in effect from turn 11, so your castles will function as usual the rest of this turn.
|
|
|
Post by Caerleon (Tristan) on Mar 8, 2017 0:56:44 GMT
So to summarize: The new rules regarding castles in battles will be: You may send units to invest castles by expending the appropriate amount of units needed prior to field battles and thus render the castle bonus void. But, the owner of the castle is allowed a sortie before the field battle begins to try and lift the siege/end the investment.
If you have built a castle or is building one right now, you may reallocate the funds invested towards another building project or withdraw them to your treasury by disbanding your castle. As we are close to deadline for the turn, the rules change will first be in effect from turn 11, so your castles will function as usual the rest of this turn. Scenario A: Invest not opposed - castle bonus neutralized. Scenario B: Invest opposed, garrison sallies. B1) Garrison loses - castle bonus neutralized. B2) Garrison wins - castle bonus preserved. B3) Draw - what impact does this have
My assumption for B3 would be that the castle bonus is neutralized as the investing forces haven't been driven off and thus still block the castles ability to interact with the field battle.
|
|