Battle Round length - part 2

[irdeggman]

I revised this poll using input from the discussion and previous poll. Unless there is an extremely decisive vote here I'll use this as paring down poll to narrow choices for a more final poll.

I didn't include an Other option here since that was what the discussion thread was about prior to setting up this poll.

Something to consider that still bothers me from a mechanics standpoint is how to incorporate standard magic into this process. The magic poll is still showing that a large group want standard magic to function unmodified on the battle field.

The time mechanism makes this very difficult to handle. Unless the round is 6 seconds then a character that can cast spells during battle can cast a whole bunch within a single battle round.

Making a limit of a single spell per battle round is essentially putting a modification on standard magic (the other choice in the magic poll) but people either don't see it that way or just don't care and want their spellcasters to be able to fire off a bunch of spells in a single battle round thus forcing several hundred actions within the round since troops should now be able to act as individuals and not as a single entity (e.g., 200+ arrow shots in the same time length as a wizard can cast a fireball).

[void]

I voted for one minute because the speed of units vs. the range of archers outweighed wanting battles to take the right amount of time for me. If i remember the other threads correctly, we have regular infantry being bogged down with a medium load (move 20 ft) moving at half speed while in formation (mv 10ft) in 100ft squares. Since a minute is 10 rounds, typical infantry is moving at 1 inch per turn. With archery ranges (assuming longbow) 1 square, -2 missile per additional square to max of +0 missile, archers actually have a chance to shoot before getting run over, especially if the infantry has to cross bad terrain, like a marsh.

[Osprey]

I voted for one minute because the speed of units vs. the range of archers outweighed wanting battles to take the right amount of time for me. If i remember the other threads correctly, we have regular infantry being bogged down with a medium load (move 20 ft) moving at half speed while in formation (mv 10ft) in 100ft squares. Since a minute is 10 rounds, typical infantry is moving at 1 inch per turn. With archery ranges (assuming longbow) 1 square, -2 missile per additional square to max of +0 missile, archers actually have a chance to shoot before getting run over, especially if the infantry has to cross bad terrain, like a marsh.

That's some decent reasoning, but I think there are a few other factors to consider: 1 battle round contains not only enough time for a unit to move, but also to fight long enough to inflict 1 hit of damage, or inflict c. 100 casualties on a unit of regulars. That alone might merit doubling the base turn length based on unit speeds.

Also, some others have posted some decent reasoning for the general slowness and inefficiency of a medieval army unit...so it might be reasonable to assume that units are hampered by more than 1/2 personal speed...

In the end, I decided 5 minutes (50 rounds) could work okay for a battle turn. In a lot of ways, you're right, one minute would make conversions a hell of a lot simpler, the problem is that it also will make all battles seem incredibly short - about 10-20 minutes for a typical battle I'm thinking (if battles take more than 10-20 turns, they will just take too long in real time to be much fun to play out).

10-20 turns at 5 minutes per turn is 50-100 minutes, which seems closer to reality in terms of battle length just before, during, and after actual engagement. As I mentioned before, I think we should write in a little blurb mentioning that there may be hours of marching and maneuvering before the actual engagement, but the battlesystem will only detail the time right around engagement. So if the engagement lasts for say, 1 hour (12 turns), it might be safe to assume the actual battle took 3-5 hours including maneuvers, conflict, and mopping up.

- Osprey

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Osprey@Apr 1 2005, 01:07 AM

In the end, I decided 5 minutes (50 rounds) could work okay for a battle turn. In a lot of ways, you're right, one minute would make conversions a hell of a lot simpler, the problem is that it also will make all battles seem incredibly short - about 10-20 minutes for a typical battle I'm thinking (if battles take more than 10-20 turns, they will just take too long in real time to be much fun to play out).

10-20 turns at 5 minutes per turn is 50-100 minutes, which seems closer to reality in terms of battle length just before, during, and after actual engagement. As I mentioned before, I think we should write in a little blurb mentioning that there may be hours of marching and maneuvering before the actual engagement, but the battlesystem will only detail the time right around engagement. So if the engagement lasts for say, 1 hour (12 turns), it might be safe to assume the actual battle took 3-5 hours including maneuvers, conflict, and mopping up.

- Osprey
Which is pretty much why I went with 10 minutes. Doubling the results of your estimates makes an actual engagement last 100 - 200 minutes (the range of 1 to 3 hours) and a battle lasting 6 - 10 hours (most of a day).

This meshes much better with the "winning the day" concept presented earlier, at least IMO.

This is an abstraction of an already abstract system (the standard combat round) - so if that is kept in mind instead of trying to insert more realism than the core system has (which is IMO a futile effort) things can be made to work.

A battle round encompasses many things, coordinated movement (pointed out by Osprey as well as others), coordinated attacks (this includes staggering attacks of the various members of the unit so that not everyone is attacking at the exact same time - more efficient to inflict damage and closer to the historical concept we think of) - hence things take longer to execute than the would if done in a standard combat round.

[void]

In the end, the length of the battle round isn't my main concern, if we're thinking mainly abstractly. I just want the movement of main infantry to be small compared to the range of archers. My understanding is that archers were pretty useful in middle age warfare. I vaguely remember something from histroy classes about when a small band of welsh longbowman whooped bad on a huge number of french at some battle.

[Osprey]

In the end, the length of the battle round isn't my main concern, if we're thinking mainly abstractly. I just want the movement of main infantry to be small compared to the range of archers. My understanding is that archers were pretty useful in middle age warfare. I vaguely remember something from histroy classes about when a small band of welsh longbowman whooped bad on a huge number of french at some battle.

That was the Battle of Crecy, early in the Hundred Years' War. And then it happened again at Agincourt. The creme of the French chivalry was slaughtered in both cases, while the French crossbowmen proved to be quite inferior to the Welsh longbowmen.

[ConjurerDragon]

Osprey schrieb:



>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=36&t=3054

>

> Osprey wrote:

>

>

>------------ QUOTE ----------

>In the end, the length of the battle round isn`t my main concern, if we`re thinking mainly abstractly. I just want the movement of main infantry to be small compared to the range of archers. My understanding is that archers were pretty useful in middle age warfare. I vaguely remember something from histroy classes about when a small band of welsh longbowman whooped bad on a huge number of french at some battle.

>-----------------------------

>

>That was the Battle of Crecy, early in the Hundred Years` War. And then it happened again at Agincourt. The creme of the French chivalry was slaughtered in both cases, while the French crossbowmen proved to be quite inferior to the Welsh longbowmen.

>

However these battles should not lead us to make all longbowmen rule the

battlefield.

The english/welsh longbowmen of that time were certainly not the

standard longbowmen - they were superior to their equivalents in the

whole of europe. Daily training and the experience of long warfare would

mean that "welsh longbowen" if they would appear on the Birthright

battlefield would be veteran Longbowmen, not just the normal freshly

mustered "Anuirean Longbowmen".



And those two battles not only were won due to the Longbowmen, but also

the inability of the french to adapt their tactics and the use of

"battlefield fortications" that somewhat protected the longbowmen.



Weren´t the "french crossbowmen" actually mercenaries from Genua?

bye

Michael

[Osprey]

The english/welsh longbowmen of that time were certainly not the
standard longbowmen - they were superior to their equivalents in the
whole of europe. Daily training and the experience of long warfare would
mean that "welsh longbowen" if they would appear on the Birthright
battlefield would be veteran Longbowmen, not just the normal freshly
mustered "Anuirean Longbowmen".

I would add Advanced Missile Training as well and call them elite archers, making them look something like this: Vet. Lt. Archers, +Missile; +8 Missile, +4 Melee, Def 12, Hits 3, Mor +4, Move 3; +2 missile vs. cavalry.
[Well, OK, they should be +6 morale by BRCS standards, but I really think archers should have morale more like irregulars].


And those two battles not only were won due to the Longbowmen, but also
the inability of the french to adapt their tactics and the use of
"battlefield fortications" that somewhat protected the longbowmen.

Hmm, I hadn't remembered any fortifications, but I do remember that what English knights there were dismounted and fought in defensive lines in front of the archers along with the infantry.


Weren´t the "french crossbowmen" actually mercenaries from Genua? I'm not certain, though it's quite possible there were Geonese mercs there...I read about this stuff a long time ago. I'm pretty certain the French had their own crossbowmen, too. They were rather famous for them I thought.

[Walter]

Well the weather at the day the Battle of Azincourt took place was very bad, it rained all night before and during that day. The Battlefield was encased by wood and the French Knights were forced to attack the Englisch in this narrow space. The rain transformed the Battlefield into a Swamp and the Horses got stuck, the mighty charge of the noble Knights was stopped by this an they became an easy prey for the Englisch Bowmen, later the first wave of Cavalery was defeated and the Englisch had made a lot of Prisoners the French started another big Attack as the Englisch saw that it was possible that they could loose the Battle they killed all Prisoners taken,out of fear that they when realesed by their comrads would fight again and change the luck of battle, so the Englisch killed the creme of the French chivalry in front of the eyes of their fellows.
The Englisch won the battle but the locals saw their change and pillaged the Englisch base, the englisch King was forced to take Toops out of the fbattle to fight the raiders and nearly was beaten by them, the Englisch Cown Jewels got lost that day.

[geeman]

When it comes to using historical battles as the basis for developing

things like the length of the battleround I think we are on solid, if

slippery, footing. What I mean by that is that it`s a good thing to use

things like the battle of Agincourt as reference material because it adds

to the verisimilitude of the rules, and satisfies the geeky, history fetish

of a lot of gamers (of which I am undoubtedly one.) However, there are

more than a few dangers in the process that can be a big problem, so I

think it worthwhile to mention them. One or two have been brought up in

this thread already, and I`d like to reiterate them in some way as well as

add my voice to those who have already raised them, so my apologies for not

crediting points already raised.



First, there is an issue of scope. Most often the battles (and any

historical issues, really) are on a much larger scale than that presented

by the BR setting. Agincourt, Crecy, Hastings, etc. are all battles

involving thousands and/or tens of thousands of men. A warcard is 200

soldiers give or take a few, depending on a few matters of

interpretation. Sometimes elite infantry or cavalry units are interpreted

as being made up of much fewer than 200 soldiers. Some people describe

units of knights as being less than 40 men and their mounts. Even if that

is not the case, to represent some of the battles cited as examples would

require upwards of hundreds of warcards on a side. Now, I for one wouldn`t

relish trying to resolve a battle on that scale using the system of large

scale combat portrayed in BR. Even a number of BR units aren`t really an

"army" in the sense that most often is applied to the historical examples

used. Comparatively, BR warcard battles are up to around a max of 10% of

the size of the battles often used as examples for how battles might be

conducted, and probably about 2-5% is more likely.



There is also the matter of cinematic RPG game mechanics versus

realism. Historical examples are, from what I can tell, a call for more

realism in the system. Now, that`s all well and good. I am more than a

little sympathetic to that stance. One should bear in mind, however, that

the D&D system upon which the setting is based is not and really never was

the most realistic set of rules ever committed to paper. They are, in

fact, pretty over-the-top, big bang, gonzo rules with an incredible body

count of the kind that makes the average action hero look like the host of

a tea party at an old folk`s home. As such, there`s a natural inclination

when portraying the results of a large scale combat for that system to be

similarly unrealistic. It`s easy for a set of large scale combat rules to

go overboard when one is portraying the cinematic adventure level of D&D

play, because it assumes a 1:1 relationship between the adventure level

rules and the results of hundreds and thousands of individuals. One should

be more than a little leery of the suggestion that the D&D adventure level

rules translate directly into a large scale system of combat if for no

other reason than it results in bizarre outcomes for those battles, but at

the same time be aware that if Henry V was a D&D character he`d probably

not have needed an army at all to defeat the French at Agincourt....



Lastly (and this is the one that I think people have been good about

recognizing already, but I`d like to restate it myself) it is tempting to

extrapolate a bit from a few examples in a way that isn`t really very

accurate. That is, the performance of archers at the battle of Agincourt,

or the abilities of Swiss pikesmen, the effectiveness of Mongol light horse

archers, etc. in one or two battles does not equate to their overall

utility in every battle they fought in. For every example of one

particular type of troop`s wild success on the battlefield there is a good

example of that same type of troop providing excellent fertilizer for the

farmers who came along the year after the battle to till the field upon

which they fought (if I can be forgiven a moment of gory, agricultural

rhetoric.) One should be cautious of taking examples from famous battles

because those battles are almost invariably famous because they are

historical aberrations. Battles don`t usually resolve themselves in

dramatic, one-sided ways.



In any case, that`s my two pennies on the subject....



Gary

[irdeggman]

Time to close this poll.

Here are the results:


How long should a battle round last in BR?
1. 6 seconds (just like a standard round) [ 1 ] [7.14%]
2. 1 minute [ 2 ] [14.29%]
3. 5 minutes [ 4 ] [28.57%]
4. 6 minutes [ 0 ] [0.00%]
5. 10 minutes [ 5 ] [35.71%]
6. 15 minutes [ 0 ] [0.00%]
7. 30 minutes [ 2 ] [14.29%]
8. Abstain [ 0 ] [0.00%]
Total Votes: 14

I'll do a run-off between 5 and 10 minutes, everything else falls far behind them.