forum.wgcwar.com

Have there been any discussions about including rules for sieges?

Not really in the scope of the rules, we have campaign rules for doing a campaign in a convention setting.

if doing an extended campaign a siege might come into play, but sieges are not what people typically play on a miniatures table. So this would likely be a die roll off.

What you see on the table is the assault on a sieged castle or city. That or the relief force attacking the sieging force. For example I am thinking of doing the battle of Valencia/Cuarte where El Cid rides out to hit the besieging Almoravid forces in battle, but the city walls would be a back drop not the main battle.

Greyhawk Grognard wrote: ↑

Fri May 29, 2020 10:29 pm

Have there been any discussions about including rules for sieges?

Timescale and force interaction are totally different from field battles. Battlefield for assaults would be absolutely scenario dependent; battle"field" for sieges would be completely scenario independent. Army lists would be totally different from field army lists. So basically nothing associated with the current rules would be relevant in the least.

To do it right would require two phases -- a siege phase where forces were completely irrelevant; a battle of attrition, disease, starvation, and morale; and then (sometimes) an assault phase. With repeats.

SPI put out a "Siege Quad" in the late 70s that included two gunpowder sieges (Lille and Sevastopol) and two Medieval/Ancient sieges (Acre during the Third Crusade: Richard Lionheart and Saladin; Tyre during Alexander the Great) that were very interesting takes on the genre. Very hard to find those games, though. The two Medieval/Ancient battles were good simulations but had very little in common -- and that's true of many sieges. The better the simulation is, the more specific it is. At least for the assault phase.

So back to your original question. Are we doing this? Not at this point. Are we ever going to do this? No idea. It's a difficult problem, and the market for it is fairly small.

Thanks very much for the swift replies.

However, I think my original question wasn't quite what I was trying to ask.

I think what I'm looking for are rules for fortifications; defensive features like crenelated walls, ditches, etc. Something like the "Prepared Defenses" battle card, but with a little more variety in type and effect.

Greyhawk Grognard wrote: ↑

Sat May 30, 2020 3:27 pm

Thanks very much for the swift replies.

However, I think my original question wasn't quite what I was trying to ask.

I think what I'm looking for are rules for fortifications; defensive features like crenelated walls, ditches, etc. Something like the "Prepared Defenses" battle card, but with a little more variety in type and effect.

Prepared Defenses covers ditches, stakes, plashed saplings, that sort of thing. Anything that prevents foot from moving across it is beyond the scope of the game -- because (a) there were essentially no field battles with those in it, and (b) that sort of thing only works for scenarios with special victory rules. Usually asymmetric battles, which again is a special scenario thing. I love asymmetric battles -- but they have to be approached on a one-scenario-at-a-time way.

If you have a regular field battle with regular victory rules and a strong static defense that gives a major advantage to the peeps inside, then you end up with the guys inside saying "come fight us while we are in the fortress" and the guys outside saying "come out, you chickens" and no battle happening at all.