First of all, I want to apologize for my English grammar and skills, they are far from perfect, but I’m sure you will understand what I am trying to say here.

One of the crucial elements in the Medieval wars (which this game and the whole series were trying to imitate) was the siege of a stronghold/castle. Every time, when I play this brilliant game, I have the feeling that this aspect should have been added somehow, more over because of the rule of the +4 strength that siege engines give when attacking a stronghold or a castle, which I’ve always felt is a little imbalanced. For this and other reasons I’ve developed the rule “Siege”, which may be will solve this “problems” (don’t get me wrong, I’m still playing the standard game and I love it).
I’ve also decided to develop one more rule, which is crucial element of every battle in every age – the morale of the troops, which often decides the outcome. This rule will make you think twice before fighting battles just to recycle your House cards.
And lastly, this rules ARE NOT YET TESTED in live game (for now they cannot be tested in this platform and you know how difficult is to get even 4 people to play the board game live – one of the reasons to be here, besides the possibility to play good games with good players). They are still theoretical and I would be very glad to discuss them together, someone to try them and to improve – or even disapprove – them.
After this introduction, here are the rules.

BATTLE IN AREA THAT CONTAINS A STRONGHOLD OR CASTLE

When and army invades an area with a Stronghold or Castle, if it has Siege Engine(s), their Combat Strength is 0. Their +4 Combat Strength could be added later (see below). If the attacking player wins the battle, the defending player may choose to retreat to the Stronghold/Castle if he/she has units left after the battle, in which case the losing army becomes a besieged army and the rules below are applied.

SIEGE

If a player is besieged, he or she places his/hers troops inside the Stronghold/Castle, and the besieger places his/hers somewhere around it. The siege – and its rules – must last a number of maximum turns. If the besieged army couldn’t brake the siege for the duration of the turns, the siege is declared successful and the area – conquered. But because this is still untested, I have two or actually three options for the maximum turns of a siege:
1. It can continues maximum of 3 turns.
2. It depends on the Supply Icons in the area (normally the length of a siege always depends on the supplies of the army inside). This has two options:
- It continues two turns and every Supply Icon in the area adds 1 turn.
- It continues two or three turns (debatable and must be tested), and if the area contains Supply Icon(s) – no matter the number – this would add one more turn.

The besieger doesn’t control and rule over the area with the Stronghold/Castle and doesn’t get its bonuses – Power Tokens, Castles, Supply – of the Westeros cards (Supply, Mustering etc.). But he or she can use a Consolidate Power Order (in that way he or she can upgrade a Footman into a Siege Engine and attack the Stronghold/Castle next turn).
The turn after the defending army retreated to its Stronghold/Castle is considered first turn of the castle. You put some counter (a dice for example) displaying the number “1” to indicate that. If this turn the siege doesn’t resolve in some way – the Stronghold/Castle is not conquered or the siege is not broken – the next turn becomes second turn of the siege, you change the counter (again – a dice maybe) to “2” and same rules are applied. This continues until the final turn of the siege (as explained above). If then the siege doesn’t resolve in some way, it is considered successful, the besieger’s army takes control of the area and the besieged army is destroyed.

Rules of the siege

Orders:
1. Every player places orders for its armies – including the besieger and besieged – in normal way. The besieged can try to brake the siege and attack the besiegers with March Order. They can be supported from armies in nearby areas. The besieger’s army can try to storm the Stronghold/Castle and take control of it, as well and the whole area, instead of waiting for all the turns of the siege to end (and to conquer the area automatically). He or she may decides to place a defense order, if he/she expects an attempt of breaking the siege. The besieger also gets Support from the nearby areas in normal way.
2. If the besieging army decides to Consolidate Power (to upgrade a Footman into a Siege Engine for example), it can still be raided from the besieged army.
3. The besieged army CANNOT use Consolidate Power Order.

Attack on the Stronghold/Castle:
1. If the besieging army decides to attack the Stronghold/Castle and have Siege Engine(s), then – finally! – it gets the +4 Strength of the Siege Engine(s) added to its attack Strength. It also gets the bonus if it is supported by an army which has Siege Engine(s).
2. If there is an attack on the Stronghold/Castle, the besieged army gets bonus Strength points because it’s defending a fortified place. If it’s in a Stronghold, it gets +2 Strength bonus, and if it is in a Castle, it gets +1 Strength bonus. The besieged army doesn’t get these bonuses if it trying to break the siege and attacks the besieger army.
3. If there is an attack on the Stronghold/Castle, every attacking, defending or supporting Knight has Strength of 1 (because horses are of no use when storming a Castle ).
4. If the attack on the Stronghold/Castle is made WITHOUT Siege Engine(s), no matter what is the chosen House card of the defending player, it has an additional Sword icon on it (but maybe to a maximum of 3 sword icons, so Clegane can’t get fourth, which will be really devastating) NO MATTER what would be the final outcome of the battle (because storming a Castle without the proper equipment always leads to many casualties).

If the besieged army wins the battle, it stays in the Stronghold/Castle, the besieger retreats to the same area and the siege continues. The besieger army is still routed though and if a battle takes place in the same area, its Combat Strength would be 0. If the besieged army lose the battle, it is destroyed and the attacker takes control of the area.

And again, at the end of the last turn of the siege, if the Stronghold/Castle is not conquered and the besieged army wasn’t able to break the siege, the siege is considered successful, the besieger takes control of the area and the besieged army is destroyed.

MORALE (EDITED - no rolling of dices)

Besides strategic skill, a battle is often decided by the morale of the soldiers. Adding some kind of a rule here is not so difficult. Here is my suggestion.
Every House starts the game with Morale of 3. Every battle won increases the Morale with 1 point, every battle lost decreases it with 1 Point, but you can’t have more than 6 points of Morale or fewer than 0. If you have 5 or 6 points of Morale, you add 1 Combat Strength during a battle. If you have 0 points of Morale, you subtract 1 Combat Strength. If your Morale is between 1 and 4, it doesn't change your Combat Strength in battles.


So this is it. I would be happy to know your opinion and specially after testing this rules. Again, I haven’t done that yet.

Last edited by Lighthammer on 2018-Sep-21 10:04, edited 2x in total

I can see how you had a blast coming up with that and I can also see how lackluster and boring the whole concept is. Basically you've nerfed the attack into oblivion, your game would be stale af.

I think you are playing to much into the theme. This isn't a total war game and neither it is a medieval fantasy simulator. Castle sieging and GoT theme is just that, a theme. Your mechanic fits thematically but would absolutely break the game mechanically. This game has mechanics of a quite simple strategical game. The mechanics exist and are balanced for the very specific map and very specific amounts of resources players can have at certain periods of time. Such a dramatic mechanics change would require rebalancing every single aspect of the game, effectively forcing a remake from scratch.

And the whole morale thing seems like an unnecessary complicated ToB with much greater snowball effect.

Sorry if I sound harsh, that wasn't the intention.

I guess you are probably right for everything, maybe i just didn't think of it that way, that would introduce some really dramatic changes in the game - and i'm still not convinced, I must admit.   And yea, maybe I am too big of a fan of Total war games.
Again, I play the game with lot of fun and satisfaction, i don't want someone to think that I don't like it and try to change it somehow big. It was just an idea, that came to my mind, that doesn't need anything extra (except for tone of dices ) and could be fun.
I will surely try it.

Last edited by Lighthammer on 2018-Sep-17 17:51, edited 1x in total

Interesting thematic themes and period flavour there Lighthammer. However I think though that you've got a bit carried away with the details at the expense of the game play. This just makes it way too complicated and would make taking castles a bit of a nightmare and ultimately this would detract from game play.

To be honest, I don't like the siege part at all. There is pretty similiar rule in the War of the Ring boardgame and eventough I have very little experience in that game, the sieging part makes the game a lot longer. I fear this rule would do exactly same thing in AGOT, already pretty long game.
Also, I can't honestly think many cases where besieged army would have much of an change to break free or even survive another attack, especially thinking that sieging army was able to beat the defender WITHOUT +4 power of siege engines that they now will have in their next attack.

Alternately I find the morale rule interesting. I'm not sure about balance tough, this would nerf Roose down a lot.
I don't like the dice system in morale rule. I especially love this game because there is so little randomness in it, just pure skill. Adding dices would add more luck. Maybe morale points could be from 1 to 3 and it would just be added to your combat strenght?

Two different opinions about the siege here. Good.
First to elitecat. Taking castled in this period IS a nightmare. They say that for storming of castle you need a ratio of 10:1 in your favour.
To Beornegar. Why do you think it will be easy to take a Castle without Siege Engine? You've wasted a good card for the battle and/or you've won with a bunch of Knights. You will not have these things during the attack of the Castle, but your opponent will have bonus Strength. Also, for the sake of realism, from where I get the idea, breaking of a siege can really be done with the support of another army and in rare cases the besieged would done it only with their own hands.
Btw i've missed something in the rules, which i didn't thought about. Can the defender get Support if there is an attack on the Castle? What do you think?
You're right about the more or less absence of a luck in decision making and outcome of the battles, I also like that, that's why my Morale rule is pretty much straightforward. I don't dislike the idea of a fixed bonus, but +2 or +3 i think is pretty much. I would think about other options.

Last edited by Lighthammer on 2018-Sep-17 23:53, edited 9x in total

There already is a "morale" Option in the game: Tides of Battle
Adds the same amount of randomness without much dice rolling or implementing a new rule

---

AFFC PBF - #10
You do not need to know everything, but where to read it.-Albert Einstein-

Reading is overrated.-sarcasm off-

Sorry, but it's not anything like that - nor the Tides' idea, nor my idea. One is pure randomness, the other is an attempt to really implement the concept of Morale. And yes, it doesn't mean that you have to roll dices (it can easily be fixed: Morale 0-1 removes 1 point of Strength, Morale 3-4 doesn't change anything, Morale 5-6 adds 1 point - and that's it).
That's why I've made this topic to discuss what I think as a fun mode that anyone can try IF he/she wants - there is nothing obligatory here. I don't want to revolutionalize the game or to change it dramatically. It's just an idea that it's fun for me to try and to discuss with experienced players - that's it.

Last edited by Lighthammer on 2018-Sep-18 10:32, edited 1x in total

Oh yes in reality it is much harder to attack a castle where as in this game it’s actually easier (thanks to siege engines) which doesn’t make sense historically at all. Maybe castles should have a small defensive bonus but I think your idea would make the game play too slow.

I didn't say it would be easy to take a castle, I pointed out that if attacker has already beaten the defender, possibly killing a unit or two, I find it very difficult for the defender to survive the siege. They basically have only one shot to break free, and that is if they are ahead on Throne. Then attacker will rush in with +4 power from siege engine. Even tough knights reduced to zero, it is still in many cases +-0, probably even often +2 to final power, while defender also loses his/hers knights power with possible previous casualties.

I do like your new suggestion for morale, but maybe the scale should still be reduced, 0 points negates one power, 1-3 doesn't no anything and 4+ adds one. This way dropping to zero morale wouldn't ruin your whole game because you only need one win to get back up and on the otherside winning couple "easy" wars wouldn't make you unstoppable with 3+ combat strenght.

Yea, I started to like the idea of the fixed Morale bonus/minus and in this case it has to be decided, should a player gets the +1 Combat bonus after 1 victorious battle or 2? Maybe 2. So everybody starts with 3 Morale and then if he/she has 0 Morale, it negates 1 power, 1-4 doesn't do anything and 5-6 gives you +1.
And the siege again. First, to specify something - Knight Strength is not 0, it's 1 when attacking/defending siege.
As far as the other issues, I think no one would choose to retreat in a castle if he/she doesn't have nearby units that can help to break the siege next turn. And knowing that they would lose a battle, most people tend to choose House cards that would protect their units. So in this case, if someone chooses to retreat to castle, probably would be because he/she has a plan to defeat the besieging army next turn or maximum 2 turns. I don't think that attacker would assault every time the turn after. Imagine the situation: Attacker won the battle with 2 Knights and a Footmen, defender lost it with 1 Knight and a Footman, which survived. The next turn, if no one has Support, in case of an assault, the attacker will have 3 Strength and the defender 3 if defends Castle and 4 if defends Stronghold, which becomes 5 or 6 of he/she places a Defense Order. So assault on a Castle the next turn without a Siege Engine becomes a lot harder.

Last edited by Lighthammer on 2018-Sep-18 22:02, edited 3x in total

Lighthammer - if u want to bring realism to the game - well done, that would be a way to do WOuld it be balanced? Surely not

Increased game time - well, my friends tend to play Twilight Empire for the whole weekend - they do have break only for some casual stuff like: toilet, cig or some sleep ^^  My point is - you might find such theme freaks, that would actualy try to play it, just reserve whole month for betatesting and balancing the game afterward. How many turns would the game last? Still 10? How much castles u need? Still 7? As someone mentioned, to balance the game ( so it would be actualy worth spending time) u would have to make things from scratch.

Morale - I disagree with Harakon, that is not the same as Tides of battle, that is actualy pretty nice, small feature, that could change the way people would play. I see a lot of different ways to use this thing to increase calculations and general playstyle (asking ally to attack, win minor battle over worthless spot just to decrease enemy morale/attacking weaker points first, to decrease enemy morale, increase own - so that your last attack would be on with best possible odds.
I do like it much more than ToB - unpredictable results that affect battlefield based on luck only.

I might try and persuade my friends to try this morale (without dice thou) stuff - will give feedback if we decide to try it out

Last edited by Furtum Vitae on 2018-Sep-21 05:27, edited 3x in total

Btw one could argue that the Morale is actually like the Valyrian Steel Blade rule, and I can accept it in some way. Of course, it has to be tested, because what happens when 2-3 turns there is no Clash of Kings and Grayjoy easily gets to 6 Morale smashing Lanni or Stark, having the Blade AND the Morale bonus AND having the 0 Morale of his opponent? Pretty unstoppable. How would he lose 2 battles in a row to lose the Morale bonus at least?
Furtum Vitae, your questions about the siege are mine also, that's why it has to be tested - is there something interesting here and can it be balanced? I would be really happy if someone tests these things and provide me with a feedback.

Last edited by Lighthammer on 2018-Sep-21 10:23, edited 1x in total

It occurred to me that one way of doing the morale thing without it getting too out of hand would be to have it reset at the end of each round.  So if you have a particularly hectic round where you are winning a lot of battles, you can gain some momentum that bolsters your later bouts with your weaker cards. Sort of like the NBA Jam 'HE'S ON FIRE!" dynamic.

It would mostly come into play when multiple houses gang up on one, because otherwise you wouldn't be fighting 3+ battles per turn very often.

Yes, that idea is interesting too!