TheBeast TheBeast
msg tools
There's a danger of turning the game into a sitzkrieg yuk by enhancing the defense of areas with Castles and Strongholds too much, yet, it's too unrealistic that it's actually easier to attack a Castle or Stronghold area than it is to attack an area without a Castle or Stronghold. Those damned Siege Towers sauron, with their attack strengths of 4, can only be used against areas with a Castle or Stronghold. I know it's a game set in a fantasy world, call me a realism fetishist, robot but I want my Castles and Strongholds to mean something for the defense.


VARIANT:
EDIT: Players may take Power tokens from their hands and place them in an area whenever a Player removes an Order tokens from the area, or, when one of a Player's units leaves the area.

Players may remove their own Power tokens in the Cleanup Phase. Players may also remove Power tokens on demand when a Consolidate Power Order is successful, and the needed Power token is unavailable in the bank.

A Castle in an area with your Power token provides a +1 defensive bonus to one of your Footman or one Siege Tower in the area.

A Stronghold in an area with your Power token provides a +1 defensive bonus for each of two of your Footmen or Siege Towers in the area.

The Castle and Stronghold defense bonuses cannot be projected in any way to another area as Support

The Intrinsic Strength of a Home Area counts as a Power Token for purposes of this rule.



The following is to encourage aggressive play in a realistic way. Major battle victories have political consequences:

VARIANT
If one of your Armies defeats an enemy Army, inflicting at least one casualty (other than Siege Towers), you win a Power token. (An Army is more than one piece in an area.)


The following is to jazz up naval war with a special new piece:

VARIANT
During Muster, you may upgrade an already existing Ship-in-Port to a Galleon by stacking another Ship on top of it. You cannot build a Galley from scratch (from nothing) in a single Muster.

Galleons fight at three, but raid, transport, and support land combat in the same manner as a Ship. Galleons support naval combat at three. Galleons count as one unit for Supply purposes. When a naval force containing a Galleon takes a casualty, remove the top Ship, making the Galleon an ordinary Ship.

In Port, the top Ship of a Galleon can be removed but must then be repurchased for return to the map.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dean O
Australia
Melbourne
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I like each of your ideas, even though I'm not sure that the game needs them myself. I'm a bit unsure about the realism though - why do Siege Towers get a bonus in defence? Why don't Knights? I realise they're not mounted, but they'll still be excellent warriors. And why do Galleons get 'downgraded' to Ships when chosen as casualties? They may have more firepower, but surely a damaged one sinks just the same.

I'm also interested in why you think Galleons should be only be mustered into Ports, and as upgrades to ships.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dirk James
msg tools
Aardvark2 wrote:

VARIANT:
Players may place a Power token in an area whenever they remove one of their own Order tokens from the area, not just when they leave the area.


I would only do it with a non used defence-token. Ells the board would be full of power tokens



Aardvark2 wrote:

VARIANT
If one of your Armies defeats an enemy Army, inflicting at least one casualty (other than Siege Towers), you win a Power token. (An Army is more than one piece in an area.)


great idea!

Aardvark2 wrote:

VARIANT
During Muster, you may upgrade an already existing Ship-in-Port to a Galleon by stacking another Ship on top of it. You cannot build a Galley from scratch (from nothing) in a single Muster.


What do you do with Victarion Greyjoy? 3*2 or 3+1?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tom Hancock
United States
Charleston
West Virginia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I understand your frustration with the fact that castles and strongholds do not provide a defensive bonus. I don't think your idea is a bad one

BUT, I'm not so sure its unrealistic that castles are easier to capture than fields taking into account siege engines. Two units of footmen with a siege tower are more effective at taking a castle and its occupants than two units of footmen scrounging through a wilderness area looking for the enemy. From a realism standpoint, I think the defensive advantages of a castle/keep are probably counteracted by the inability to surprise the enemy.

I've never found it unrealistic, or unbalancing, and actually it encourages the type of taking and re-taking of certain keeps and castles in the novels.

Regarding the Galleons, I'm not sure why you think they are necessary. I also think the 3:1 advantage and them only counting as one unit for supply purposes is going to help the naval powers and hinder the land based powers. Do Stark and Lannister really need hosed to the benefit of Greyjoy and Baratheon? I think the Galleons will unbalance the game pretty significantly and I don't really see the gain, other than adding another interesting element to the game which may or may not be needed.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
TheBeast TheBeast
msg tools
DeanAU wrote:
I like each of your ideas, even though I'm not sure that the game needs them myself. I'm a bit unsure about the realism though - why do Siege Towers get a bonus in defence? Why don't Knights? I realise they're not mounted, but they'll still be excellent warriors. And why do Galleons get 'downgraded' to Ships when chosen as casualties? They may have more firepower, but surely a damaged one sinks just the same.

I'm also interested in why you think Galleons should be only be mustered into Ports, and as upgrades to ships.


Siege Towers get a bonus in defense because their machines (catapults, trebuchets, etc.) and personnel can be used defensively as well as offensively.

I don't give Knights a bonus because their double-strength is mostly due to their mounts. Their armor is superior too but it is less of a benefit when hiding behind a wall.

Galleon downgrade represents loss of rigging, loss of oars, and loss of highly trained marines -- sailors trained in aiming bolt on a heaving deck, boarding actions, etc. I assume the hulls of these large ships would still be as serviceable as ordinary ships even with reduced crew and maneuver ability. As they have stronger hulls, they are more difficult to sink than ordinary ships.

A return to port would be needed to get them back to fighting trim. Restricting the upgrades to Ports reflects that Galleons are larger and therefore more difficult and time-consuming to build. The crews too need more training. I think of the ordinary ships as mere privateers: trade vessels converted for war.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
TheBeast TheBeast
msg tools

Quote:
I would only do it with a non used defence-token. Ells the board would be full of power tokens.


I've edited the original variant rule to make easier the removal of Power tokens in areas.



Quote:
What do you do with Victarion Greyjoy? 3*2 or 3+1?


I would give the Galleon a +1 bonus, making Galleons an exception when playing Victarion.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
TheBeast TheBeast
msg tools
hancock.tom wrote:
I understand your frustration with the fact that castles and strongholds do not provide a defensive bonus. I don't think your idea is a bad one

BUT, I'm not so sure its unrealistic that castles are easier to capture than fields taking into account siege engines. Two units of footmen with a siege tower are more effective at taking a castle and its occupants than two units of footmen scrounging through a wilderness area looking for the enemy. From a realism standpoint, I think the defensive advantages of a castle/keep are probably counteracted by the inability to surprise the enemy.

I've never found it unrealistic, or unbalancing, and actually it encourages the type of taking and re-taking of certain keeps and castles in the novels.

Regarding the Galleons, I'm not sure why you think they are necessary. I also think the 3:1 advantage and them only counting as one unit for supply purposes is going to help the naval powers and hinder the land based powers. Do Stark and Lannister really need hosed to the benefit of Greyjoy and Baratheon? I think the Galleons will unbalance the game pretty significantly and I don't really see the gain, other than adding another interesting element to the game which may or may not be needed.



Taking castles was very difficult. That's why so many were built. Taking an empty area is what is easy--it's just not necessarily worth occupying such an area. The castles attract attention enough because they are the victory objectives. They should be harder to take.

I don't think the Galleons would change the game much, they're just a bit of chrome. Building them would mean you would lose the ability to occupy and transport armies through six sea zones, you would lose the ability to raid or project support from six different sea zones too. There are definite strategic costs for building them. They're not just cheese that all players would seek to manufacture.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.