Making Castles Great Again! A Proposal

[Trot]

As BF pointed out Yesterday Castle defenses are pretty damn bad so I am proposing a change to how Castles work to make there defensive capabilities better

First Cities are getting there own tier

Cities

Cities are the economic centers of Westeros, but suffer from being large and harder to defend then the keeps of other lords Cities have the following abilities -Can hold 15,000 men -Get +6 defense modifier -Can hold out for 3 real life days Kings Landing Gulltown White Harbor Lannisport Plankytown Oldtown

Great Keeps

Major fortresses are the greatest, most daunting military positions in Westeros. Exceptionally difficult to assault or besiege, these fortresses are capable of housing large contingents of troops and have defensive structures so vast and well-built that assaulting them would bleed many armies white. Major fortresses have the following attributes: - Will last 18 months in a Siege (1.5 RL weeks, 1 week and 3.5 days). - Have a +18 roll to any Siege assault undertaken against them. - Can hold 5000 men List of Major Fortresses: - The Red Keep (King's Landing) - Dragonstone - Casterly Rock - Storm's End - Winterfell - Harrenhal (See special Harrenhal rules) - Highgarden - The Eyrie

Medium Castles

Castles are purpose-built military positions whose primary purpose is to militarily dominate the surrounding region. Designed with warfare in mind, taking these positions is costly and dangerous, with the defenders having many options and positions from which to resist an assault. Castles have the following attributes: - Will last 1 year in a siege (1 RL week). - Have a +14 roll to any Siege assault undertaken against them. - Can Hold 3000 men

Castles

All other seats not mentioned in the above sections are Minor Castles. These structures, though in possession of a relatively fortified keep and perhaps a curtain wall, are not the major military installations that other, larger castles are supposed to be. More symbols of power and centres of regional government, these locations are capable of barring their gates and putting men on the walls to repel invaders, but were not built to break armies against their walls. Minor Castles have the following attributes: - If an invading army is known to be in the area before it arrives at the Minor Castle, it will last for 6 months (3.5 RL days) in a siege. Otherwise, it will last 1.5 RL days (~2.5 months). The enemy army is known to be in the area if a friendly army has been defeated in the area ("the area" meaning anywhere up to 2 provinces away) or if a scout roll has found that army in the area. - Have a +10 roll to any Siege assault undertaken against them. - Can Hold 1000 men Minor Castles can be upgraded to Castles (and gain the bonuses and attributes of them) if a player builds a Tier II Siege Defence building in that Minor Castle.

Due to the increases in defensive bonuses I propose we get rid of Garrisons for players. I think players should be allowed to leave their keeps near defenseless, and allow for situations like Winterfell in the Lore. AI lords would get Garrisons, to make troop calculations easier.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Rename this thread to "Attacking Castles Becomes Suicide"

Strongly, strongly opposed. There's plenty of stuff in this game that isn't balanced. Castles isn't one of them.

Also you want to get rid of garrisons but then base how many men castles can hold on having garrisons.

[Xion]

Oppose in it's current form. I feel the +10/14/18 for siege assault rolls is too high.

[Dirty Chai]

Well, overall, the real issue with castles is that, if we want some level of "authenticity", we need to make field battles less attractive and make lords more likely to sit in castles if they don't feel stronger than their opponent. Maybe it's already like that, dunno. A +4 is kinda lame though.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Well, overall, the real issue with castles is that, if we want some level of "authenticity", we need to make field battles less attractive and make lords more likely to sit in castles if they don't feel stronger than their opponent. Maybe it's already like that, dunno. A +4 is kinda lame though.

The siege of Riverrun in the original opening shows a small garrison can crush a large attacking force. People just usually equate field victories with winning battles.

[Trot]

The siege of Riverrun in the original opening shows a small garrison can crush a large attacking force. People just usually equate field victories with winning battles.

Riverrun has +11 to rolls it is an exceptionally strong castle. The majority are +4 which is awful. The numbers may need adjusted, but lower tier castles could be more than a minor inconvenience.

Edit on thought

How does +8 +10 +12 sound?

[Pontifex Maximus]

Then adjust the weak castles

[Zeus Almighty]

I don't see a need to adjust weak castles. Weak castles are weak castles. If a PC house gets upgrades, with bonuses and all even a small keep can put up a heck of a fight. Especially if you have the numbers behind the gates to hold it. I'm sorry Trot, I gotta oppose this one.

And even though we have been on opposite sides recently, I still got love for ya lol

[Pontifex Maximus]

I don't see a need to adjust weak castles. Weak castles are weak castles.

Actually yeah, I agree. If there are proposals for certain castles to be looked at for balancing issues, let's do that

[Pericles of Athens]

Once you build two of the castle defense upgrades your small castle turns into a medium one. I'm strongly opposed. Storm's End should be much more powerful than Horn Hill.

[Dirty Chai]

Once you build two of the castle defense upgrades your small castle turns into a medium one. I'm strongly opposed. Storm's End should be much more powerful than Horn Hill.

Incorrect; to get from a +4 to a +8 (minor and normal respectively) you have to build 4 upgrades (though note that the 3rd upgrade turns your castle into two castles)

[Pericles of Athens]

It says Tier 2 in the rules.

[Dirty Chai]

Where does it say this?

The castle buildings available only gives a +1 per tier. So Tier IV gives you +4 in total, putting a base +4 up to a +8, turning a minor castle into a castle.

Mind you, I'm against this proposal. Castles are doable, you just have to account for all the different little things that add up; buildings, bonuses, etc.

[Lord Dread]

Also say no towards it, especially in light of the Siege of Riverrun.
Hard to break in, even if you try to get into it via levy ships as I did during this time.

[Poach]

Against for reasons already stated by others.

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk

[Oznerol]

Yeah, agree with everyone else: No.

[Gandalfus]

Again no

[Pericles of Athens]

Right here BF, "Minor Castles can be upgraded to Castles (and gain the bonuses and attributes of them) if a player builds a Tier II Siege Defence building in that Minor Castle."

[Dirty Chai]

Right here BF, "Minor Castles can be upgraded to Castles (and gain the bonuses and attributes of them) if a player builds a Tier II Siege Defence building in that Minor Castle."

Well, that's not what the Buildings actually say, so.. that sentence is either obsolete or outdated, or the buildings are wrong.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Ths reason we never have sieges in this game where starving the defenders out is a viable atrategy is because nobody is conctent to stay out of a conflict and remain neutral. There's always soem fresh force swooping in and disrupting sieges. Its rhe dumbest thing I see on a regular basis in this game where even a small regional conflict has to spin into a realm wide war with tens of thousands of troops marching. It isn't even in line with lore. This war is a perfect example.