The question of castles

[The Wanderer]

How can the Castle of Rydychan have a DV: 13/13/5/10/11/2 if it is a motte and three baileys??🤔

[fulk]

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)

Edited January 17, 2022 by fulk

[The Wanderer]

Looks like Minas Tirith OMG😂

I understand... But why does the riverside protect the town walls but also the outworks? I can't imagine the whole thing.

[Oleksandr]

24 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

But why does the riverside protect the town walls but also the outworks? I can't imagine the whole thing.

Maybe outworks are too on the riverside, while the rest of inner fortifications are farther away?

[fulk]

At this point, I don't remember...

[The Wanderer]

It'd be very interesting to know the acres of each castle/defense (as you posted in your examples of The Pass and Rydychan), just to know how many men are necessary to defend them! 😅

[fulk]

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.  

[Oleksandr]

13 hours ago, fulk said:

so you need fewer people AND fewer towers for the same DV.  

Interestingly, i can't find this changes in newer books. Was it published? If no, how then this work? What this features, and how towers DV calculated with it?

[fulk]

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

[Morien]

Rydychan (i.e. Wallingford) Castle is quite complicated, which makes the default 'defense rings' of KAP a bit too simplistic. Those work well enough with isolated, perfectly concentric castles. But if you look at the actual pictures of what the castle would have looked like in the 14th century (such as shown in this museum page: https://www.wallingfordmuseum.org.uk/displays ), you can see that technically, you could assault the inner ring from the riverside*. As the castle is situated at the edge of the town, the town's walls at the very least would not enter into it. 

This is not meant as criticism of our fortifications expert, fulk, but just a recognition that the whole DR & DV system is an abstraction, and cannot, by its design constraints, capture every detail of historical castles.

* = Such an assault would have to be amphibious, under enemy archer fire from the walls, so likely result in huge confusion (hence slow and unorganized) and high casualties. Then again, attacking a strong castle like (middle period) Wallingford head-on is a fool's gambit anyway...

Edited January 20, 2022 by Morien

[fulk]

19 minutes ago, Morien said:

This is not meant as criticism of our fortifications expert, fulk, but just a recognition that the whole DR & DV system is an abstraction, and cannot, by its design constraints, capture every detail of historical castles.

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). 

[Oleksandr]

15 hours ago, fulk said:

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 want to clarify one more thing - can this system actually increase tower DV if approach is really narrow? Or basic DV is maximum?

[Morien]

5 hours ago, Oleksandr said:

I want to clarify one more thing - can this system actually increase tower DV if approach is really narrow? Or basic DV is maximum?

I would imagine that there is a cap. After all, if you cram towers right next to one another... Congratulations, you have a very expensive, slightly taller wall.

I think Gatehouses/Barbicans would be a special case, guarding the gate, but priced/modeled as a single unit.

[Oleksandr]

On 1/21/2022 at 4:36 PM, Morien said:

After all, if you cram towers right next to one another... Congratulations, you have a very expensive, slightly taller wall.

Funnily enough, i'm sure i seen photo of such "wall of (round) towers" 😅 . If i remember correctly, it was in France. 

[fulk]

On 1/21/2022 at 12:57 AM, Oleksandr said:

I want to clarify one more thing - can this system actually increase tower DV if approach is really narrow? Or basic DV is maximum?

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.

[JonL]

On 10/26/2021 at 12:25 PM, fulk said:

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. 

I'm glad to read this. The perimeter & # of troops dynamics were something that previously short-circuited making an effective fortification that didn't resemble Constantinople.

[Oleksandr]

Here one unusual castle i wanted to show👇

 Total hight, from river/moat to spires, was about 60m, walls up to 40m high*. That was it's 14-17th centuries incarnation (original, wooden, castle was established in 10thc). And that's it's modern (post 18th century) looks 👇

 

*interestingly, it seems it's impossible to make castle like this by KAP rules😅

[Morien]

1 hour ago, Oleksandr said:

*interestingly, it seems it's impossible to make castle like this by KAP rules😅

Well, there are currently no 40 meter high walls in the fortification lists, sure. I checked Lordly Domains and the tallest walls were just about half that, 60'.

But in principle, there wouldn't be a problem adding such an option. Granted, I would expect it to cost about four times as much as the 60' wall (double the height, double the thickness; x1.5 thickness would be pretty close actually what the thickness is quoted in the Wiki, 16-20', since the 60' wall is 12' thick in LD).

 

[Oleksandr]

Another interesting fortification (curiously, located just 30 km from aforementioned one😞

(modern look)

[Morien]

Very Nice! Reminds me of Besancon, actually, with that Oxbow in the river and then the castle blocking the 'stem'. That escarpment in the above is something else, though.

 

 

Edited March 29 by Morien

[Tizun Thane]

It's always a bit weird when the map of the polish castle is written in french, and the map of the french city of Besançon is written in latin ^^

I wonder how the Turks take the polish fortress in 1672 ? By Surprise? With gunpowder? 

Anyway, does someone know what are the fortifications of Oxford in KAP ? Or in real life during the middle ages?

 

[Morien]

14 hours ago, Tizun Thane said:

Anyway, does someone know what are the fortifications of Oxford in KAP ? Or in real life during the middle ages?

Motte-and-bailey, looks like, upgraded to a Stone Castle later on during the Boy King. (BotW, Oxenford)

As for the medieval Oxford and the town itself:

That is probably closer to what the Lordly Domains assumes, in its write-up of the Rydychan Usurpers.

Edited March 30 by Morien

[Oleksandr]

On 3/29/2023 at 5:22 PM, Morien said:

with that Oxbow in the river and then the castle blocking the 'stem'.

In fact, i'm surprised there aren't many more fortification like that. There a lot of similar Oxbows which wasn't used at all...🤔

BTW, i understand correctly that in KAP such location would give +7 DV, like peninsula? (in case of Kamieniec also +5 for elevation. And i assume same goes for both city and castle...🧐)

On 3/29/2023 at 7:40 PM, Tizun Thane said:

It's always a bit weird when the map of the polish castle is written in french, and the map of the french city of Besançon is written in latin

Which is surprising considering that all PLC scholars knew Latin 🤨. Also interesting, in medieval Moldova and Wallachia Old Church Slavonic was used, for some reason😄

On 3/29/2023 at 7:40 PM, Tizun Thane said:

I wonder how the Turks take the polish fortress in 1672 ? By Surprise? With gunpowder?

If i remember correctly, with gunpowder. A lot of it. I even heard that, supposedly, they managed to hit fortress gunpowder storage, causing a lot of damage. It should also be noted that there was a lot of unsuccessful sieges.

[Mugen]

On 4/3/2023 at 10:00 AM, Oleksandr said:

Which is surprising considering that all PLC scholars knew Latin 🤨. Also interesting, in medieval Moldova and Wallachia Old Church Slavonic was used, for some reason

The annotations on the map say it was drawn in Paris, which explains why it is in French.

Judging by the way people are dressed in the Besançon map, I guess it is from 16th century, at least 100 years older than the other one. Which could explain why it uses Latin and not French. Another big difference is the older map uses roman numerals and the other arabic numerals.