Re: Mechanical discussion

[Lady Corrine Marsten]

Shields down! Divert emergency power!

I CANNA DO IT SIR

...

Wrong forum. Excuse me.

Damn it, Jim! I'm a maester, not a septon!

[Reader]

5 points to Drakeson.

10 points to Marsten.

[Lady Corrine Marsten]

5 points to Drakeson.

10 points to Marsten.

[Benedict Marsten]

On the warfare topic;
I could not find any where that said specifically what order must be taken for commander and subs. From what I have seen it would be wise to let lower warfare subs go first. That way as the discipline TN raises the better commanders would be issuing commands.

[Yoren longshore]

Yes, that's right, but DC only increase if you use the same unit several times, so unless you wish to do so it doesn't really matter.

[Benedict Marsten]

In our current situation we have done just that because of the units improved skills and low TN.

[Baelon Drakeson]

On the warfare topic;
I could not find any where that said specifically what order must be taken for commander and subs. From what I have seen it would be wise to let lower warfare subs go first. That way as the discipline TN raises the better commanders would be issuing commands.

That is correct, and it is borne out in the example battle. Not that the book examples are always (ever?) particularly good at following their own rules, but it is at least some evidence for that interpretation. It has a bigger effect with smaller armies where the same units are going to receive orders more than larger conflicts like this one.

On the topic of Standing Orders:
A suggestion for a middle-ground approach: Fighting units cannot re-target if the previous target is still available. That makes it even less useful tactically - if for instance their target was reorganized and now less vulnerable to harm than another adjacent unit, they would still have to attack their last target. That is how I had (erroneously) understood how the standing order Fighting attacks work, but upon review as written they can target any adjacent target. As an even less tactical option, they could roll randomly to decide between all adjacent targets. Marksmanship standing orders are already sufficiently non-tactical (always the closest unit), though I suppose whatever is decided for Fighting standing orders would apply as a tie-breaker if there are multiple units equidistant from the marksmanship unit.

I would also like to point out that attacking is not always the best option - if those raiders had been successfully reorganized, they would have likely been able to do more damage total, but now will likely be destroyed or routed off the map before they can attack again.

[Reader]

That is correct, and it is borne out in the example battle. Not that the book examples are always (ever?) particularly good at following their own rules, but it is at least some evidence for that interpretation. It has a bigger effect with smaller armies where the same units are going to receive orders more than larger conflicts like this one.

On the topic of Standing Orders:
A suggestion for a middle-ground approach: Fighting units cannot re-target if the previous target is still available. That makes it even less useful tactically - if for instance their target was reorganized and now less vulnerable to harm than another adjacent unit, they would still have to attack their last target. That is how I had (erroneously) understood how the standing order Fighting attacks work, but upon review as written they can target any adjacent target. As an even less tactical option, they could roll randomly to decide between all adjacent targets. Marksmanship standing orders are already sufficiently non-tactical (always the closest unit), though I suppose whatever is decided for Fighting standing orders would apply as a tie-breaker if there are multiple units equidistant from the marksmanship unit.

I would also like to point out that attacking is not always the best option - if those raiders had been successfully reorganized, they would have likely been able to do more damage total, but now will likely be destroyed or routed off the map before they can attack again.

I like Baelon's idea on Fighting standing orders, specifically attacking the same target as before.

[Yoren longshore]

I believe that standing orders should be happening in the standing order phase...

Baelon: that's how the system works as written, although your explanation is much more concise and better written than Green Ronin managed :;
):

Now for a little rant on warfare, and why the system should be overhauled: given two equally competent commanders, we could easily make a 10 power and one wealth unit defeat all the military might of house Longshore, just have elite cav with 10 armor and none of our units are even able to hurt it I'll be going out soon, so this post is a little off point, but just consider that four hundred trained infantry can surround 20 horsemen and not stand a chance, one unit of raiders hits just as hard as 10, a simple abstract system, or at least a few changes may be in order.

[Daveth Coldbrook]

Minor point: Unless this changed between revisions, cavalry can only be upgraded to 9 armour. It's personal guard who can get armour 10.

Also, Elite Cavalry would be 12 power, rather than 10 (and personal guard 13).

/pedantry

[Baelon Drakeson]

I believe that standing orders should be happening in the standing order phase...

The biggest problem I have with that it massively favors larger armies. A smaller army means fewer subcommanders and thus likely fewer orders (baring a ridiculous Warfare commander). That means more orders with which to negate the opponent's standing orders, fewer units with high TNs (assuming similar troop types/training) to risk failing on, and so on. Underdogs have enough of a hard time already. Larger armies have no need to use the high-cost tactic that Kevan described in the battle thread, they can spread around the damage and face less risk of losing units. That also minimizes the likelihood of failed orders.

Baelon: that's how the system works as written

Not quite;
the standard order for attack and charge just specifies "
adjacent enemy units"
. If you took it literally, they would attack all adjacent enemy units, but that clearly wasn't what was intended.

although your explanation is much more concise and better written than Green Ronin managed :;
):

Well, I don't mean to brag (ok, a little), but I did recently get a perfect score on the verbal portion of the GRE and scored in the top 20% of test takers on the analytical writing section... I'm a philosopher - writing is what we do.

Maybe I should give up on the whole philosophy professor thing and go write for the gaming industry. I might be more likely to get a job that way...

Now for a little rant on warfare, and why the system should be overhauled: given two equally competent commanders, we could easily make a 10 power and one wealth unit defeat all the military might of house Longshore, just have elite cav with 10 armor and none of our units are even able to hurt it I'll be going out soon, so this post is a little off point, but just consider that four hundred trained infantry can surround 20 horsemen and not stand a chance, one unit of raiders hits just as hard as 10, a simple abstract system, or at least a few changes may be in order

Your math is off. Raiders &
Infantry do Athletics+1 per DoS, with a minimum Athletics of 2. That's 3 per DoS, so they max out at 12. AR tops out at 10. Given enough green raiders/infantry/etc. I could take out any single elite unit.

[Yoren longshore]

Dealing 2 damage on 3dos... First off, 3 dos is way too high to be achieved, this is 10 over defence, and even if succeeded it's 2 out of 12, 6 hits and you've disorganised the unit. Also remember that each attack from the horses will at least disorganise a unit, so before you even disorganise it, it will have routed 3 units of trained raiders...

[Daveth Coldbrook]

Maybe I should give up on the whole philosophy professor thing and go write for the gaming industry. I might be more likely to get a job that way...

Linda Emery: A philosophy major? Now, what can you do with a philosophy major?
Bruce Lee: You can think deep thoughts about being unemployed.
-Dragon, the Bruce Lee Story

Your math is off. Raiders &
Infantry do Athletics+1 per DoS, with a minimum Athletics of 2. That's 3 per DoS, so they max out at 12. AR tops out at 10. Given enough green raiders/infantry/etc. I could take out any single elite unit.

Counterpoint - a green unit is highly unlikely to have the Fighting ability to hit 4DoS.

[Reader]

A bunch of trained infantry led by characters (+1D to fighting/marksmanship) have a very good chance to defeat a small elite army!

[Yoren longshore]

A bunch of trained infantry led by characters (+1D to fighting/marksmanship) have a very good chance to defeat a small elite army!

They should have a good chance, but they don't. As said, 3 units routed before they can even disorganise their foes...

[Reader]

A bunch of trained infantry led by characters (+1D to fighting/marksmanship) have a very good chance to defeat a small elite army!

They should have a good chance, but they don't. As said, 3 units routed before they can even disorganise their foes...

Too late and tipsy to crunch numbers, but another solution to small elite units should not be neglected: slaughter them at a character scale. Such units will often be cavalry, and that means only 20 men. A few good PCs can do some serious damage in ten combat rounds.

[Yoren longshore]

A bunch of trained infantry led by characters (+1D to fighting/marksmanship) have a very good chance to defeat a small elite army!

They should have a good chance, but they don't. As said, 3 units routed before they can even disorganise their foes...

Too late and tipsy to crunch numbers, but another solution to small elite units should not be neglected: slaughter them at a character scale. Such units will often be cavalry, and that means only 20 men. A few good PCs can do some serious damage in ten combat rounds.

No need to crunch numbers, I'm not saying that they are impossible to defeat, I'm simply stating that they are disproporsonally hard to deal with when consudering cost.

[Baelon Drakeson]

Dealing 2 damage on 3dos... First off, 3 dos is way too high to be achieved, this is 10 over defence, and even if succeeded it's 2 out of 12, 6 hits and you've disorganised the unit. Also remember that each attack from the horses will at least disorganise a unit, so before you even disorganise it, it will have routed 3 units of trained raiders...

I didn't say it would be easy, just possible.
Besides, it should be difficult for green units to defeat an elite unit. It wouldn't mean much to be elite otherwise...

The advantage to having a single tough unit is that they are hard to defeat. The disadvantage is that one bad survival roll can cost you the entire, expensive, unit - even if they weren't defeated.

Maybe I should give up on the whole philosophy professor thing and go write for the gaming industry. I might be more likely to get a job that way...

Linda Emery: A philosophy major? Now, what can you do with a philosophy major?
Bruce Lee: You can think deep thoughts about being unemployed.
-Dragon, the Bruce Lee Story

Actually, the Wall Street Journal reports that philosophy majors get paid on average better than any other humanities major, and better than most business majors, and even better than some STEM majors :;
): (n.b. the report was only looking at students with only a baccalaureate degree).

Your math is off. Raiders &
Infantry do Athletics+1 per DoS, with a minimum Athletics of 2. That's 3 per DoS, so they max out at 12. AR tops out at 10. Given enough green raiders/infantry/etc. I could take out any single elite unit.

Counterpoint - a green unit is highly unlikely to have the Fighting ability to hit 4DoS.

True, I had not considered that. It takes 4 Fighting to get 4 DoS against a typical elite cavalry or personal guard with upgraded armor (Def 5).
So trained units or green units with heroes (if you can get enough).

Really, the solution to having a weak army isn't to adjust the rules to makes strong armies weaker, it is to invest more power and get a stronger army! All the unit types &
training levels are available to us, spend a few months building up your power reserves and invest in your own powerful units. Really, the most powerful armies are going to have a mix of powerful units and cheap units - cheap units get more subcommanders, which I think we can all agree have been a decisive factor in the two clan battles.

[Yoren longshore]

So the way of solving some units being much better than others is to have everyone use the good units? I think you misunderstood my point;
my main point is that it's so anticlimatic. We've spent the offseason getting ready to finally clear out the clansmen, and then we take two rounds, the equivalent of a few minutes, and the day is won. When I think battles I think large scale deception and heavy warfare, I think the romans marching unknowingly into trasimene, for a decisive victory, which won't happen in this system.
I think 1066 with Harold the king of englands last stance against William the bastard, ranks clashing and retreating from sunrise to sunset.

I think Alexander crossing the indus river after two weeks of intrigue and deception followed by an early morning covert crossing followed by a day of fighting where hoplons face swordsmen in hourlong fights, followed by the final last stance of the king (can't remember his name) who ignored Alexanders offer of peace, who chose to die a champion.

I think of Tristifer "
the hammer"
Mudd who fought an endless aray of battles against impossible odds, refusing to give in and let his foes win.

I care for the epicness, I don't want two minutes of fighting ending months of preparations. Mechanics should enhance the roleplay, not hinder it.

[Baelon Drakeson]

What you are describing there would require a more protracted campaign - those would all be series of multiple battles, not one battle each - even if they are on the same day. They would also involve far more than 5 or 6 units on the smaller side, and more numerous commanders, and more than likely a higher proportion of elite units on both sides.

In short, it would take an entire story arc to do it justice, but that is just not feasible - it would either (1) leave out all of the non-warrior players to cool their heels for real-time months, or (2) require there to be two long-term and separate events going on, at different time-courses and thus not particularly interacting... in other words, two complete simultaneous games.

I share your frustration over the anticlimactic nature of these fights. However, I don't think it is because of the warfare rules. If anything, it is because they weren't understood well enough to know in advance what would actually constitute a serious threat and just how many units would be needed to deal with such a threat. More clansmen, or fewer house units, and put them on a more even training level... these fights would have been more dramatic, if not epic. An epic war would require a war-focused story that all the players were willing to get into. That could be one hell of a game... but it wouldn't be this game with these characters.

[Reader]

Also, remember this is our first story. As with the melee, part of this is learning the system, what works in PbP and so on, so we're ready for grander conflicts.

[Reader]

One further note here: the strength of the clans was set already in my spreadsheet and had been estimated by Ser Kevan Lyras via a warfare roll (as flagged previously).

I'm not going to fudge opponents up or down.

It would cheapen the recruiting efforts of various PCs to artificially power up opponents.

As noted previously, "
Westeros doesn't scale to your level"
. :;
):

viewtopic.php?f=77&
t=107

[Yoren longshore]

Is there any grappling rules?
For ground combat, chocking etc... I looked through the book, but I may have missed it as things often are in strange places...

[Dunstan Tullison]

There is a grab option on page 158.

[Reader]

There is a grab option on page 158.

Indeed Lord Tullison! Gauntlets &
Fists have grab, and I'll not hesitate to use it if I fancy mobbing a PC to death. Significantly reduce CD.

[Sponsored content]