Poll: Sieges

[Poach]

Sieges: Currently it's simply assumed siege equipment is available instantly. Sieges aren't sieges, they're field battles with a defensive bonus. I therefore suggest two things:

1. Each level of +siege a fort has creates a 12 RL hour siege equipment construction time. So +6 siege is 72 hours, or 3 RL days, to make the necessary equipment. We give all castles a base of 24 hours, with +Siege upgrades adding on top of that. The +Siege upgrades continue to add a modifier to rolls for the assault.
2. We add a new Siege Engineer trait, that reduces the time taken to build said equipment by 6 hours per point. +4 Siege Engineer is an RL day less, so in the above scenario you can attack after 2 RL days and not one.
3. Why? It means highly-upgraded forts represent a stumbling block, even if their garrison is weak. Yes, they'll lose when the fight happens, but it means strategic garrisoning of fortresses can hold up campaigns. Places like The Twins become as important as they realistically should be, rather than a simple siege assault if Frey says no.

From the "myriad of ideas" thread. No major complaints or alterations were suggested, so a poll!

[Poach]

So, should we put this into the rules? It passed, but not very well.

[Pontifex Maximus]

If the people that voted no could post their reasons, we could try to make it more agreeable.

For example if you think it overpowers castles we can add an element for castle attrition.

[Trot]

Theon Greyjoy attacks Winterfell
it adds far to many unnecessary complications. That and it dosent take a month to build seige equipment

[Trot]

Theon Greyjoy attacks Winterfell
it adds far to many unnecessary complications. That and it dosent take a month to build seige equipment

[Pontifex Maximus]

Theon Greyjoy attacks Winterfell
it adds far to many unnecessary complications. That and it dosent take a month to build seige equipment

You just don't like anything that adds a depth of complication - that goes for any change. It really doesn't convince anyone not to implement the changes. You're essentially saying "I don't understand this and I refuse to understand it so we shouldn't have it."

I study history, there are plenty of instances where sieges lasted longer than a month and the frequent destruction of siege equipment or lack of material to build siege equipment made the siege last longer than a month. Most all of our sieges have been direct assaults with way too much success. Your point has no basis in reality, you're just making things up.

[Gandalfus]

I wouldn't mind if it was just merged with siege battles (the siege engineer trait I mean)

[Dirty Chai]

I didn't get to vote

[Poach]

Well, state your vote. It was open for 48hrs when I first started it.

[Dirty Chai]

Impossible. I was just here like 13 hours ago.
Edit: Woah, May 10? Why did I never see this..

I vote yes.
People really don't understand sieges. They rarely were immediate assaults;
most of the time it was: go around it or starve the defenders out.

[Trot]

Ponti there are many instances where sieges lasted much less then a month other times where they got grapples and scaled at night. There are a lot of variables to this that I just don't like as i think it will add unneeded complications however if they add a way to assault the moment you arrive and merge the siege bonuses I would support it.

[Pontifex Maximus]

How would you attack a walled castle with no equipment, out of curiosity.

[Dirty Chai]

Trot, those oddball instances can still happen, but not very often.
And that's just that; those unique sieges rarely happen.

[Trot]

Just make an amendment that lets you build seige equipment ahead of time or let men with grapples have a chance of sneaking in and opening the gates.