Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Iituem]

Just to confirm, the only tactic specified by the attacking troops was to try and scale the walls, wasn't it?  (And did either Terenos or Taric specify a point at which they would retreat if things got too far out of hand?)

[Digital Hellhound]

Hahghgh, excitingggg.

[Taricus]

Just to confirm, the only tactic specified by the attacking troops was to try and scale the walls, wasn't it?  (And did either Terenos or Taric specify a point at which they would retreat if things got too far out of hand?)

Why?

[thatkid]

Cuz he's making the rolls and he wants to check to make sure he isn't ignoring a tactic that was buried in other posts?

[Iituem]

Just to confirm, the only tactic specified by the attacking troops was to try and scale the walls, wasn't it?  (And did either Terenos or Taric specify a point at which they would retreat if things got too far out of hand?)

Why?

I had to deal with Vagel7's post, so the battle got a bit delayed.  I've just run the naval battle and am about to run the land one, so I need to know about any tactics I might have missed.  There's a fair chance you won't retreat and will just slaughter everyone in the castle... but there's also a chance they might hold out long enough to put you at a disadvantage.  Need to know if you have a retreat condition prepared.

Edit:  Needless to say, the defenders cannot retreat.  They will fight to the death.

[Terenos]

Lets break this down.
We're both practically guaranteed to lose some regiments. So hes giving us a chance to retreat with some of what we've got, Or go all in.

-personally- I'd like a break point between the naval battle, and our actual assault so we can -see- that hes upgrading his troops, and hang back.
But since we cant change our attack.
I'm all in. His forces aren't defending the docks. Based on what he says, every damn one of them is on the walls. Knife. Hot butter. I'll kill him and end this. If hes not at the docks, Automatic flank, potential for split forces. Yeah, thats right. Do I potentially die to this? Sure. Do I die to gaming the game? Yeah.

[Taricus]

Well, that tactic applies to my forces, so yes.

EDIT: I'm guessing that Terenos is correct about the auto-flank if they're focused about the walls.

[Iituem]

Lets break this down.
We're both practically guaranteed to lose some regiments. So hes giving us a chance to retreat with some of what we've got, Or go all in.

-personally- I'd like a break point between the naval battle, and our actual assault so we can -see- that hes upgrading his troops, and hang back.
But since we cant change our attack.
I'm all in. His forces aren't defending the docks. Based on what he says, every damn one of them is on the walls. Knife. Hot butter. I'll kill him and end this. If hes not at the docks, Automatic flank, potential for split forces. Yeah, thats right. Do I potentially die to this? Sure. Do I die to gaming the game? Yeah.

By the time the naval battle happens, he's already upgraded his troops.  Of course, this does mean that Taric might have some clue about that, so I can tell you now that they do get enough money to do their upgrades.  I don't see how this would change your tactics, but the actual battle follows on immediately after the naval battle.

They are focused on the walls, but the castle is bordered on one side by sea (am I making this up?  Yes, but it's a logical consequence of castle design and I haven't written auto-flanking into the rules) so there's only 3 sides you can attack from.  Auto-flank is not guaranteed.

[Terenos]

Still all in. Hes still on the walls, Meaning I should get an automatic flank just due to his troop layout.

Its not as though I can change from attacking, to sending a runner to demand his surrender. So..yeah. Game on.

[Iituem]

Still all in. Hes still on the walls, Meaning I should get an automatic flank just due to his troop layout.

Its not as though I can change from attacking, to sending a runner to demand his surrender. So..yeah. Game on.

Give me a better reasoning than that.  Whilst you could technically approach his troops from two sides, flanking still requires a measure of co-ordination so that you don't have one side reach the top of the siege ladders ahead of time, the defenders break them and then move troops to the other side to handle the next lot coming up.

i.e. I need a damn good precedent for allowing auto-flanking, especially given that castle designs should be taking this sort of thing into account anyway.

[Taricus]

Well the post for Terenos' action in this battle did say that he was sending a messenger and/or a signal to my forces. If it's not automatic, then include a flank the enemy tactics roll.

[Terenos]

*shrug* Well looking at this map(the miring closeup map, in hexographer), the walls protect the port and the castle proper from assault by land, thus theoretically meaning there are no significant blockades against a land attack from the port after the Port is seized. Ergo one would expect that if his troops are on the walls, ready to repel Taricus, there is nothing to stop me from storming in.
Is this a poor castle layout? Yes. It hinges large parts of its defense on holding the port. But that should have been understandable, Miring's wealth comes from the sea. And they had a significant navy..Once.
The way I see this layout is that Miring expects to lose by Land. It doesn't care about that. In fact it also speaks to me of a structure built to be the beachhead to conquer a land. Secure the sea advance, protect that, you can ferry in unlimited troops. This is reinforced by the apparent Miring Empire that once existed.

[Digital Hellhound]

The castle probably has its own walls. In any case Terenos, do you think it's wise to argue with the GM on the eve of an important battle?

 Also, Miring has a closeup map? I thought that was Preston.

[Iituem]

*shrug* Well looking at this map(the miring closeup map, in hexographer), the walls protect the port and the castle proper from assault by land, thus theoretically meaning there are no significant blockades against a land attack from the port after the Port is seized. Ergo one would expect that if his troops are on the walls, ready to repel Taricus, there is nothing to stop me from storming in.
Is this a poor castle layout? Yes. It hinges large parts of its defense on holding the port. But that should have been understandable, Miring's wealth comes from the sea. And they had a significant navy..Once.
The way I see this layout is that Miring expects to lose by Land. It doesn't care about that. In fact it also speaks to me of a structure built to be the beachhead to conquer a land. Secure the sea advance, protect that, you can ferry in unlimited troops. This is reinforced by the apparent Miring Empire that once existed.

Ah.  No, that's an error of my mapmaking.  The visible wall is the outer bailey, which does in fact stretch over the whole port area.  The archers are on the walls of the inner bailey, represented by the castle icon.  My mistake.

Edit:  Yup, here you go.

Spoiler: Miring Closeup (click to show/hide)

Edit 2:  In short, still no auto-flank, but I will add flanking into your tactics rolls if you wish.  If this were an NPC nation I might give you a Tactics bonus due to my cartography failure giving you a slight advantage - but I'm not going to pull that for a PvP battle.

[Taricus]

They each had a map. Preston's was the one with a bucketload of bridges and rivers.

EDIT: Then which wall is Miring manning?