Jump to content

fulk

Member
  • Posts

    198
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by fulk

  1. My inclination would be to use shields (and potentially off hand parrying daggers in the right circumstances) like the old Defense characteristic in RQ1&2. That is, it would deduct from the attackers attach %. You could make it a straight -25% (or whatever) or allow it to be skill/4, or some similar mod. NT
  2. You only get credit up to a certain point. Essentially, there is a value for a 'fully-towered-wall'. You can't go above that. The bonus of extra towers is that if is taken down, you have back up. I can't remember the exact rule at this point.
  3. No offense taken. I totally agree. Any game system at any level is a simplification. We make compromises. I think the thing to remember is that KAP is not a computer game. We don't need to codify every instance in the rules. The GM simply has to and is free to make some decisions. Greg and I went back and forth a bit at the time about this and similar topics (keeps on the castle wall) and he wanted to keep things simple and more or less similar to previous designations. I'd say, if you have a map/plan and want to assault the castle (not town) directly, do so. In some cases, you're going to have to come up with things like ships and barges to hit the riverside section... Realistically, for example, it might have been better to use the 5-11/2 style designation (instead of 5/11/2) for most motte and bailey castles, because one could assault the motte and bailey separately (5-11) versus in sequence (5/11). The reason not to assault the motte first is that it is harder (11 vs 5) and you might get the defenders to just give up if they lose the bailey (fail a morale roll).
  4. It isn't published but is in the Castles MS. The rules change may affect some of the DVs in Warlords. I can't remember. I "built" them over long period of time. One of the old complaints was that big fortifications with large perimeters and lots of towers could have really high DVs. The newer, currently unpublished but possibly in the Warlords DV, scale the DV of towers to the length of the fortifications. So, one tower on a huge city wall has little effect. At the same time, if only a small portion of the walls are accessible, say because most of them are on a cliff edge, you need fewer towers to achieve the 'max' DV. I think the castles in Warlords all follow the same rules, but those rules might differ a bit from the final rules. Practically speaking, it doesn't matter much. Strong castles are strong castles. I wouldn't obsess about minor differences in DV. The ones in Warlords will be appropriate if not exactly the same as the final, yet unpublished, rules. NT
  5. Yes. I have a file with the acres and perimeters for all the castles and builds for every period. Those data didn't make it into BoWarlord. I'm not sure what the plan is for that information. For a lot of existing castles, you can just measure the perimeters on google maps. I did that for a lot of them, including just old earthworks where you can still see the outline. For others, I just guessed or went from other sources like Wikipedia or The Gatehouse. The "standard castle" has about a 400 ft perimeter. So for most, you can just use that. There may be some inconsistencies among castles because I made them over a long period of time while the rules were changing a bit. One big difference is that some features don't add DV but instead reduce the "accessible perimeter" -- so you need fewer people AND fewer towers for the same DV.
  6. Includes the town walls: Town walls DR5 (DV 13): 30 acres, 4850 ft perimeter; Riverside (7); Ditch & rampart (3), Palisade (3), 2 Gates (-0.8), 2 Gate works (0.4); Outworks DR4 (DV 13): 6 acres, 2169 ft perimeter; Riverside (7); Ditch & rampart (3), Palisade (3), Gate (-0.9), Gate works (0.5); Outworks DR3 (DV 5): 5 acres, 1980 ft perimeter; Ditch & rampart (3), Palisade (3), Gate (-2), Gate works (1); Bailey DR2 (DV 10): 2 acres, 1181 ft perimeter; Ditch & rampart (3), Palisade (3), 2 Gates (-4), 2 Gate towers (8); Motte DR1 (DV 11c): 0.2 acres, 314 ft perimeter; Motte (4), Ditch (2), Palisade (3), Postern gate (-1), Gate works (1); Stronghold DR0 (DV 2): Fortified wooden hall (2)
  7. I don't think I can do that legally. I'm not sure what the current plans are for that information.
  8. Yes. I "constructed" all of the castles for BoW.
  9. These are the specifics. Note these are not the same rules as in Nobles Book or Lordly Domains. The DVs are calculated differently. DV: 11/5/13/3 Outworks DR3 (DV 11): 2 acres, 1252 ft perimeter; Hill top (5); Ditch & rampart (3), Palisade (3), Gate (-2), Wooden gate tower (2); Bailey DR2 (DV 5): 0.5 acres, 626 ft perimeter; Ditch & rampart (3), Palisade (3), Gate (-2), Gate works (1); Motte DR1 (DV 13): 0.5 acres, 626 ft perimeter; Motte, double (6), Curtain wall (7), Postern gate (-1), Gate works (1); Stronghold DR0 (DV 3): Large stone hall (3)
  10. Yes. I would give that one hill/rise bonuses for each ring and reduce the effective perimeter as well.
  11. What? I find calculating the exact number of kernels of wheat necessary to plant my fields to make an exhilarating night of gaming...😜.
  12. While I find all these conjectures re population distribution etc fun, KAP is not Harn. My suggestion is to not over think it. 😉
  13. I don't know that it was used to represent society in general. Regardless, its a game, so it doesn't necessarily match perfectly. It was a guide. However, I think that Greg did use the values from Domesday to set the values of the various holdings from individual 'manors' to the full hundreds for Estate and Warlords. If I remember correctly, there was some scalar involved. He didn't use the absolute values. He set the total value of lands to support the total number of knights he wanted. I don't remember whether the values were 'value' or 'geld' or what-have-you.
  14. Most versions of castle building rules include a generic "fine points". You can use fine points to add any of the minor additions (like turrets etc) to a castle. Geographic features are also in the rules but function a bit differently. I have been a bit out of the loop for a while, so I'm not sure of the present plans beyond the general announcements.
  15. Also - a description of the 'tower' on the motte from a wooden castle: The wooden donjon of Arnold, Lord of Ardres “It was designed and built by a carpenter from Bourbourg called Louis, who fell little short of Daedalus in his skill; for he created an almost impenetrable labyrinth, piling storeroom upon storeroom, chamber upon chamber, room upon room, extending the larders and grainaries into the cellars, and building the chapel in a convenient place overlooking all else from high up on the eastern side. He made it of three floors, the topmost storey supported by the second as though suspended in the air. The first storey was at ground level, and here were the cellars and grainaries, the great chests, cask, butts and other domestic utensils. On the second floor were the residential apartments and common living quarters, and there were the larders, the rooms of the bakers and the butlers, and the great chamber of the lord and his lady, where they slept, on to which adjoined a small room which provided the sleeping quarters of the maidservants and children. Here in the inner part of the great chambers there was a small private room where at early dawn or in the evening, or in sickness, or for warming the maids and weaned children, they used to light a fire. On this floor also was the kitchen, which was on two levels. On the lower level pigs were fattened, geese tended, chickens and other fowls killed and prepared. On the upper level the cooks and stewards worked and prepared the delicate dishes for the lords, which entailed much hard work on the part of the cooks, and here also the meals for the household and servants were prepared each day. On the top floor of the house there were small rooms, in which, on one side, the sons of the lord slept when they wished to do so, and, on the other side, his daughters as they were obliged. There too the watchmen, the servants appointed to keep the household, and the ever-ready guards, took their sleep when they could. There were stairs and corridors from floor to floor, from the residential quarters to the kitchen, from chamber to chamber, and from the main building to the loggia, where they used to sit for conversation and recreations.” —Lambert of Ardre, Historia comitum Ghisnensium
  16. Yes. Those are Greg's shortened descriptions. They don't necessarily used the 'official' terms. I understand that is a bit confusing. If the DV for the stronghold is 10, it is probably effectively a square keep. For example, the 'official' write up for Silchester Castle (from above in the thread) is: DV: 16 / 6 / 10 Outworks DR2 (DV 16): 99 acres, 7362 ft perimeter; Double ditch (3), 6 Gates (-1.6), Postern gate (-0.1), Roman walls (7), 6 Roman gate houses (8.1); ( I think this is the whole town if I remember). Bailey DR1 (DV 6): 2 acres, 1046 ft perimeter; Ditch (2), Gate (-2), Gate works (1), Roman walls & palisade (5); (Castle proper) Stronghold DR0 (DV 10): Square keep (10) DR = defense ring DV = defense value The newer (from BoEstates on, I think) write-ups use perimeter and not area. Note, that the DVs here are also calculated differently for things like towers. They are 'prorated' for the perimeter of the fortification, which is why 6 gate houses only have a DV of 8. This really only matters for large castles and towns. "Standard Castles" of 2-3 acres don't need any modifications. I think that the original decision was to include Greg's short description in the BoWarlords for space reasons and provide the specific details in another form at some point in the future. I don't know what the current plans are. I don't remember whether that above build 'historically accurate' or a Phase thing Greg wanted. The areas are probably based on either google maps or some description from a document or website. The Gatehouse http://www.gatehouse-gazetteer.info/home.html is a handy site for castle descriptions. F
  17. I'd be inclined to say no to the stone hall as the bottom half of the keep. A multi storied keep would require more foundational work and support than a wall that is built to be the bottom of the wall. YMMV of course. You could certainly give a discount and say that the original hall was destroyed but parts reused, saving on material costs. But I would not think of it half of the larger structure. I wouldn't sweat the rules to closely. Just do what works in your campaign. NT
  18. Hi Oleksandr, I "built" most of those castles (seems like ages ago at this point). Most of them are based on whatever information I could find online or in books. So, the number of rings is the number of rings for which I found evidence. The same goes for the size of the enclosures. A lot of them I measured on google maps or took from document sources. Some I just made up when I couldn't find information or if the information was vague. At this point, I don't remember the specifics on individual castles. RE DVs: There are also some changes in the way DVs are calculated. Some features no longer affect DV but instead reduce the effective perimeter of the castle. This change affects how much siege equipment and troops are needed to assault or defend the castle. Obviously, a smaller perimeter benefits the defender. RE keeps on mottes. Shell keeps can certainly go on mottes. Otherwise, it wasn't a common practice from what I can tell. Within the Pendragon (all editions) and the real world, there are there are occasional exceptions, which Greg just explained to me as "unique". So you will occasionally see a stone castle before they are actually available to everyone. RE strongholds. On top of the motte, the stronghold is usually a wooden tower. In other areas, most of the DV2 or DV3 are halls (wood or stone). A stronghold can really be any structure with DV that is designated as such. There is probably some inconsistency in noting halls as the stronghold unless the hall is the only real stronghold. I remember talking with Greg about it. Basically, every castle has a hall, but it usually isn't a stronghold and not DV'd as such. In some cases they might be. I am a bit proponent of "it is an in-person" rpg, not a computer game. So the GM can certainly make some decisions about how hard it is to get siege equipment into the bailey. However, the rules don't go into that level of detail. Both the Nobles Book and Lordly Domains have more detailed castle building rules than Warlords or Estate. They are similar to but not exactly the same as the rules used to build the castles in Warlords.
  19. I expect that the BoEstate and BoWarlord economics of 10L of land = 1 knight and 2 soldiers will remain the staple. Personally, I liked the goods/food distinction in Nobles Book and Lordly Domains, but the 10L = 1 knight is super easy.
  20. Traveller (Mongoose 2nd edition) has a pretty good system for skills with umbrellas and specialties. A character gains skill levels in a specific skill, such as Engineering: Life Support, but also gains a broad understanding of other topics within the umbrella skill category. You advance those specialties separately. So your engineer might have Engineering: Life Support-2 but would also have Engineering-0. If the jump drives need repair, they would be able to use Engineering-0 to repair them. Similarly, a scientist might have Science: biology-3, but be able to address physics questions with science-0. (As an aside, the mechanic is to roll 2D6 where 8+ is a success. Skill level and attributes affect the roll). In BRP terms, that might mean something like Science 50% being the max generic skill base, after which you would specialize in a specific science. Perhaps the base would increase/decrease based on some controlling attribute (say Int for science). NT
  21. Yes. I was thinking of Teucer not Paris. Probably killing random minor characters on the battle field is ok, but you can't kill a major hero with an arrow and gain any honor. You have to face him one on one. NT
  22. Unless you're Odysseus. Then you just shoot all your guests...for hitting on your wife. There is also some bow and arrow use in the Iliad but not by the major heroes. However, I don't remember it being portrayed as shameful, but I haven't read the Iliad for a long time. There is also some rock throwing... F
  23. 4th Edition was a mess from my perspective, in many ways. Too much of a video game on paper.
  24. True. The bonus of level-based systems is, of course, that you can keep everyone's power levels similar. You can throw some light damage fire spells around at single targets in DnD at low levels, but Fire Ball is a higher level spell. I do think that 5E is pretty well designed in that way. Certain classes can be pretty powerful under certain circumstances, but that just means you have to think a little. I played a bit of 5E with a Barbarian. He was a total tank in melee...unless you stayed away from him and only attacked every other round, which meant he would lose his advantages from Raging. The same is true for the Wizard above; don't confront him at range, in the open, when he is prepared. As much fun as I have had with DnD, I prefer class-less games, so that characters can develop more organically and in varying directions. BRP and Mythras don't necessarily ration out spells in the same way as DnD, which is obviously a different style. I am fully on board with homebrewing the magic to get what you want. Re MP above, you still have to allocate Shaping to Magnitude, which would bump the cost to 4 MP, not 3 MP, by my reading. Nevertheless, the point is that this delay is a weakness for magic users. DnD 1E also had varying time requirements for spells and weapons, although I think a lot of people didn't use them. *** Edit - I just realized you are correct it is 3MP. I was mixing up intensity and magnitude. Nevertheless the extra time is important for dealing with the caster.
×
×
  • Create New...