Goblin Squad Member
|
This popped in my head...
What would happen if Settlement A was at war with Settlement E. Yet for A to get their army to E in the shortest route. They would need to go through Settlement B, C, and D's territory.
Now for argument sake the relationships to A could provide problems. Lets say B is friendly, C is neutral, and D is unfriendly.
B, even though friendly, might not want to accidentally get drawn into the war.
C, even more so, doesn't want a foreign army to go through their lands.
D might just attack A's army.
A could go another route, but that would take more time and could have other problems. More Settlements, terrain, etc...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is a case for settlement politics, some may be happy to let the army through others may not. Some you will be able to safely ignore the objections of.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I've thought that perhaps moving seige equipment or formations thru another settlement's territory should automatically flag the units as hostile, unless an alliance exists. Not saying they have to be attacked - just that there is a casus bellum for the defenders.
When someone is moving through, it probably is worth it to mobilize, just to make sure they don't decide to stop.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know, I really like the idea that siege equipment would need to be built in your own settlement and transported to the location in which you need to use it. This gives a reason to scout out various settlements, and could be a modified caravan system in usage.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know, I really like the idea that siege equipment would need to be built in your own settlement and transported to the location in which you need to use it. This gives a reason to scout out various settlements, and could be a modified caravan system in usage.
I really like that, too. I also really like the idea of requiring Formations to be formed at a friendly Settlement, and then moving overland while in Formation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I've thought that perhaps moving seige equipment or formations thru another settlement's territory should automatically flag the units as hostile, unless an alliance exists. Not saying they have to be attacked - just that there is a casus bellum for the defenders.
When someone is moving through, it probably is worth it to mobilize, just to make sure they don't decide to stop.
My understanding is that unless there were agreements negotiated it was indeed considered a hostile act to move armed forces across a neighbor's domain. The crusaders worked hard to gain approval from the Byzantine empire en route to Jerusalem, IIRC.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My understanding is that unless there were agreements negotiated it was indeed considered a hostile act to move armed forces across a neighbor's domain. The crusaders worked hard to gain approval from the Byzantine empire en route to Jerusalem, IIRC.I've thought that perhaps moving seige equipment or formations thru another settlement's territory should automatically flag the units as hostile, unless an alliance exists. Not saying they have to be attacked - just that there is a casus bellum for the defenders.
When someone is moving through, it probably is worth it to mobilize, just to make sure they don't decide to stop.
That is ultimately what I would like to see in PFO. Require planing that involved diplomacy.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You know, I really like the idea that siege equipment would need to be built in your own settlement and transported to the location in which you need to use it. This gives a reason to scout out various settlements, and could be a modified caravan system in usage.
Though it wouldn't jive with historical precedent (most times during sieges they would fell trees to build the equipment just outside bow range of the walls, if I remember the stories correctly) this would certainly make for interesting gameplay.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is why all the regions I conquer in Total War games border other regions I control unless I have naval access to them.
I really hope that in the majority of cases B, C, and D tell A to shove it unless A gives them a good reason not to. Be that by threat, diplomacy, or bribery. It's very rare real empires maintain territory they can't access without crossing another nation's borders. Politics will be a lot more meaningful if that is also the case in PFO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know, I really like the idea that siege equipment would need to be built in your own settlement and transported to the location in which you need to use it. This gives a reason to scout out various settlements, and could be a modified caravan system in usage.Though it wouldn't jive with historical precedent (most times during sieges they would fell trees to build the equipment just outside bow range of the walls, if I remember the stories correctly) this would certainly make for interesting gameplay.
Certainly is historically true that siege weapons were usually built on site.
However, imagine going to United Nefarious Citizens settlement and seeing catapults being built in the middle of the town square, or over by the barracks. Suddenly, you know that *someone* is in for a bad day. Of course, they could be bluffing. They could be just trying to make all of their neighbors bulk up their defenses instead of working on their economy.
Now, assuming that this settlement is NBSI, then suddenly you have a need to periodically sneak someone in, to notice what they are up to.
And as the siege weapons are being moved, you have a chance for people to try and take out the siege weapons on site.
Bonus: the only place you can set up a siege camp is the location where a POI would normally be.
Good heavens, I think I love this system....
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Simple siege equipment was certainly built on site. However more complex devices such as a medieval trebuchet or roman ballista would be disassembled for transport. Once they reached the target they would be reassembled.
I am very curious to learn more about what mass combat will be like as time rolls on.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You know, I really like the idea that siege equipment would need to be built in your own settlement and transported to the location in which you need to use it. This gives a reason to scout out various settlements, and could be a modified caravan system in usage.
I was hoping for the opposite. A tactical situation where the sieging army needs to maintain a supply line and find a way to control an area just outside town to fortify and build their equipment. The defenders have more options how to break the siege and attackers don't have to pre-decide or telegraph their strategy through what equipment is snaking along the roads, which sounds like more diverse and fun battles to me.
I disfavor any special mechanics related to moving armies through territories. Let players and politics decide what happens then.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know, I really like the idea that siege equipment would need to be built in your own settlement and transported to the location in which you need to use it. This gives a reason to scout out various settlements, and could be a modified caravan system in usage.I was hoping for the opposite. A tactical situation where the sieging army needs to maintain a supply line and find a way to control an area just outside town to fortify and build their equipment. The defenders have more options how to break the siege and attackers don't have to pre-decide or telegraph their strategy through what equipment is snaking along the roads, which sounds like more diverse and fun battles to me.
I disfavor any special mechanics related to moving armies through territories. Let players and politics decide what happens then.
I agree with proxima on this. There is no reason to require movement in formation or movement of siege engines. By all means require the needs to take a poi and set up a siege camp in the vicinity and supply lines though. That adds to the difficulty and fun.
Moving in formation from your originating settlement would just (in my opinion) be a major pain for most people and add little to the game in compensation for the inconvenience
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Just trying to brainstorm here.
The requirement for supply rules is high among my desirables. Best if somehow tangible but if that is impractical to program and represent then something practically the same but virtual.
This could be as simple as requiring an unbroken line of hexes/mini-hexes all the way back to home base. Supply should be interruptible by a hostile force present for some fair period of time on the route. It should not have to be a terribly large interdiction force but they should have to hold the supply route to interdict supply.
Now whether the supply route should be declared to the game mechanisms (not disclosed to players) somehow or not I'm less sure, but if a siege camp is in supply if there is any open route I think that would be asking an awful lot of the relieving force to field a presence so widely.
So essentially the way an attacker could ensure supply in the scenario where supply lines are not players actually hauling cargo would be to maintain patrols back and forth to the supply source. If the interdicting force takes out that patrol the supply line is cut until the route can be patrolled again.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If siege camps had their supplies refilled by the addition of IG resources I don't see the need for an abstract hex based line of supply. Players would be loading up wagons and pack mules and periodically driving them to the front. Rather than camping on a hex until the disruption timer counts down the opposition would need to actually locate and destroy or capture a supply train.
If siege camps had their supplies refilled by the addition of IG resources I don't see the need for an abstract hex based line of supply. Players would be loading up wagons and pack mules and periodically driving them to the front. Rather than camping on a hex until the disruption timer counts down the opposition would need to actually locate and destroy or capture a supply train.
100% agree with the Lord of elder days
No mechanic needed just pure player interaction
If siege camps had their supplies refilled by the addition of IG resources I don't see the need for an abstract hex based line of supply. Players would be loading up wagons and pack mules and periodically driving them to the front. Rather than camping on a hex until the disruption timer counts down the opposition would need to actually locate and destroy or capture a supply train.
I definitely agree with this as well. No need for some abstraction of supply routes and more complicated game mechanics when you can just have characters reliant on actual supplies.
I am now wondering how an actual siege would work though. What benefit would there be to the attacker to maintain a prolonged siege over a more quick assault as soon as they breach the walls? And is food currently a necessity in Pathfinder, something characters would actually suffer without?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If siege camps had their supplies refilled by the addition of IG resources I don't see the need for an abstract hex based line of supply. Players would be loading up wagons and pack mules and periodically driving them to the front. Rather than camping on a hex until the disruption timer counts down the opposition would need to actually locate and destroy or capture a supply train.I definitely agree with this as well. No need for some abstraction of supply routes and more complicated game mechanics when you can just have characters reliant on actual supplies.
I am now wondering how an actual siege would work though. What benefit would there be to the attacker to maintain a prolonged siege over a more quick assault as soon as they breach the walls? And is food currently a necessity in Pathfinder, something characters would actually suffer without?
Food would be needed for attackers during a siege to keep up their Power, which you use on more powerful abilities. So I could see that as being useful.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The current expression of supply rules the community proposes implies an answer to an old question we've gone round-about on: the effect of Consumables and the critical role crafting cooks/farming may play. Another factor we did not have in that earlier conversation was the restoration of HP/Power consumables are to provide.
The advantage seems appropriately to settlement defenders unless, along with the mobile rez shrine, the siege camp would include a portable Inn, or mess hall.
The current expression of supply rules the community proposes implies an answer to an old question we've gone round-about on: the effect of Consumables and the critical role crafting cooks/farming may play. Another factor we did not have in that earlier conversation was the restoration of HP/Power consumables are to provide.
The advantage seems appropriately to settlement defenders unless, along with the mobile rez shrine, the siege camp would include a portable Inn, or mess hall.
Portable shrines, inns and mess camps seem perfect targets for counter attacks by defenders assuming they ensure that these take significant time to build (3 or 4 hours maybe)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If siege camps had their supplies refilled by the addition of IG resources I don't see the need for an abstract hex based line of supply. Players would be loading up wagons and pack mules and periodically driving them to the front. Rather than camping on a hex until the disruption timer counts down the opposition would need to actually locate and destroy or capture a supply train.
Clarifying that by supply line my thought also was players getting materials from wherever to the siege site, if they don't lose it to enemies or Bluddwolf.
@Davhand I'm pretty sure 90+% of the purpose of the siege is to get tht breach in the walls or gate. They better not be made of paper. It's definitely an interesting choice whether to use DI to further reinforce the walls and gates or improve culture (training facilities). Eventually you'll get a networked kingdom of advanced training and crafting dug in behind a stone shell.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Portable shrines, inns and mess camps seem perfect targets for counter attacks by defenders assuming they ensure that these take significant time to build (3 or 4 hours maybe)The current expression of supply rules the community proposes implies an answer to an old question we've gone round-about on: the effect of Consumables and the critical role crafting cooks/farming may play. Another factor we did not have in that earlier conversation was the restoration of HP/Power consumables are to provide.
The advantage seems appropriately to settlement defenders unless, along with the mobile rez shrine, the siege camp would include a portable Inn, or mess hall.
Precisely; seems like a really intuitive way to have a back-and-forth competition of attacking smaller objectives to go about winning the larger war, as we talked about before (when you talked about the way you take a station in EVE). The defenders have to hold the gatehouse and prevent intrusion through other means (maybe magical intrusion will be a possibility?) while the attackers have to defend their much more vulnerable spawn points, portable tavern, or whatever else. It gives the developers opportunity to really drag out a siege if there are advantages won by taking smaller objectives before attempting a rout.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Davhand I'm pretty sure 90+% of the purpose of the siege is to get tht breach in the walls or gate. They better not be made of paper. It's definitely an interesting choice whether to use DI to further reinforce the walls and gates or improve culture (training facilities). Eventually you'll get a networked kingdom of advanced training and crafting dug in behind a stone shell.
But oh boy, when a crack is made in that stone shell...