Re: (TFT) How would sieges work in TFT?

[David Jackson <azog@bellsouth.net>]

I have used Melee / Wizard for sieges.  Yes, there's a lot of record keeping
(basically a trimmed down character sheet for each individual in the siege),
but there's a lot of duplication as well (lots of copy and paste for rank
and file troops).  Essentially what happened was that a specific character
was created to represent a group of troops - i.e. Crossbow wielders, spear
wielders, etc.

Siege weapons were handled very simply - whenever a spell effect that
duplicated a siege weapon could be found, we used that, and pretty much
fudged the rest.  We came up with a "material strength" for walls and used
that like a health for structures.

When it came to cannons, we even kludged together a rough-and-ready set of
morale rules for units suffering "shellshock".

The best bit was the combat resolution, which at first proved to take HOURS
to resolve.  Since we were big on keeping things somewhat realistic, we kept
figures in regular rank and file.  This allowed us to compare up combats
like this; there are six figures attacking, and six figures defending.  And
just lump all the dice rolls together.  Damage would go left to right.  It
was a kludge, but it make combat go very quickly.

Needless to say, we didn't have enough miniatures to make a full siege.  We
used empty bases with labels to represent siege weapons, and we would
"recycle" dead units and place them behind units that were in combat.  This
kept a "wave of death" going (we did keep track of how many units we
recycled).

The first parts of the sieges (we had several) were always slow as units
maneuvered and rank and files were decimated.  But once it got down to a
skirmish level (such as once the attacking force has breached the walls or
gates), it got very exciting.  Wizards with well-placed spells could make or
break battles.  Monsters were often the stars of the show.

Loads of fun.  The kind of gaming I can't do today, but wished I could.

David Jackson


On 10/1/08 3:17 PM, "Jim Zmrazek" <jzmra@hotmail.com> wrote:

> So far, I've just played on small 18x18 hex arenas.  It allows for some
> maneuverability, and you don't have to wait long to get into combat.  However,
> I was thinking down the road of expanding the battlefield.  The first thing
> that I thought of was the idea of a siege.  That way I could bring in
> ballistas, catapults, and cannons that I couldn't really use otherwise.  The
> only thing that bugs me is the lack of rules for sieges.
> 
> I saw a few things floating around in the archive, but I was wondering if
> there were any definitive rules you'd say were the best.  I would imagine a
> long stretch of land between the castle and war machines.  The catapults and
> cannons would fire away, while the troops close in on the castle gates with
> ladders and a ram.  Meanwhile fast cavalry sally forth from the castle to take
> out the war machines, and archers rain down arrows and drop boiling oil onto
> the attackers.  Sounds like a lot of fun to me!
> 
> Does the melee/wizards system work for sieges?  There would be a lot record
> keeping, since there would be more figures to keep track of.  Is it even
> plausible?
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> See how Windows connects the people, information, and fun that are part of
> your life.
> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/msnnkwxp1020093175mrt/direct/01/
> =====
> Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
> Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
> "unsubscribe tft"
=====
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"