M2M attack on a fortification -has anyone played one?

[jmccann]

I have been working on a scenario for CM using the m2m rules. I have considered having a simple fortification - a wooden hill fort with an improved stone gatehouse - in the scenario but because it is for a convention and time will be limited I don't think I want to risk having the game bog down. So I'll probably have to save the attack on the fort for another time. There are various plot twists, magic items and so on that could be used but I don't want to introduce a lot of high-powered magic items, and I don't want something that seems like a gimmick.

Has anyone tried scenarios where one side is in a fortress of some kind?

[derv]

I attempted to run a seige with the MtM rules to a lesser degree of success and much fumbling with the rules

Actually, I was quite happy with my set up and castle construction. But, I never actually got to the seige. The battle was resolved entirely on the field. Because of this, I think if I would do it over again, I would shorten the playing area and concentrate the battle around the castle walls. This type of scenario brought out alot of questions as far as execution of play was concerned.

If you happen to have a copy of Warriors of Mars, Gygax states in regards to seiges:

"....it is suggested that if they must be conducted the major part is done with paper and pencil. That is, the plans of the city being invested be drawn in triplicate. The defender should indicate his disposition on one copy, the attacker his earth works and disposition on another, and a referee keep track of both on the third copy. Attempts to escalate, breech a wall, or whatever can then be worked out by the referee, and the opponents informed of the results."

"Only when a successful foothold has been gained atop a wall or in a breech should play go to the table top."
(WoM p.16)

I think this is helpful advice and would cut down on some confusion that might be inherent with this sort of scenario.

Personally, I always feel there is no better way then to simply give it a go. But yeh, I probably wouldn't want to try it at a convention.

[rsdean]

My 2011 experience with an 18th century siege game is on my blog : sharpbrush.blogspot.com/search/label/siege

In general, the main problem is that the defenders are in a very reactive mode, and it's not all that fun to play them. It should be, but the key skill, historically, is patiently waiting for the opportunity to disrupt the plans of the attackers. Patience is an uncommon virte among wargamers.

[jmccann]

Jul 20, 2014 14:11:16 GMT -6 derv said:

of play was concerned.

If you happen to have a copy of Warriors of Mars, Gygax states in regards to seiges:

"....it is suggested that if they must be conducted the major part is done with paper and pencil. That is, the plans of the city being invested be drawn in triplicate. The defender should indicate his disposition on one copy, the attacker his earth works and disposition on another, and a referee keep track of both on the third copy. Attempts to escalate, breech a wall, or whatever can then be worked out by the referee, and the opponents informed of the results."

I know I have read that in the past but I could not remember where, thanks for that.

Jul 20, 2014 18:47:01 GMT -6 rsdean said:

My 2011 experience with an 18th century siege game is on my blog : sharpbrush.blogspot.com/search/label/siege

In general, the main problem is that the defenders are in a very reactive mode, and it's not all that fun to play them. It should be, but the key skill, historically, is patiently waiting for the opportunity to disrupt the plans of the attackers. Patience is an uncommon virte among wargamers.

Thanks for the reply. Patience is in especially short supply at a con I am afraid and I can't take a chance on one side being disengaged.

Your terrain looks great, and that is part of the appeal for me - I'd like to have a good looking model to fight over. I had a look at some of your other posts and I like the cardstock models. That is what I was thinking of using for the gatehouse and buildings inside the fort.

I guess I was hoping someone would convince me there is a way to run a siege and keep it snappy and engaging, but I think it is not in the cards.

[rsdean]

Jul 20, 2014 21:11:21 GMT -6 jmccann said:

Your terrain looks great, and that is part of the appeal for me - I'd like to have a good looking model to fight over. I had a look at some of your other posts and I like the cardstock models. That is what I was thinking of using for the gatehouse and buildings inside the fort.

I guess I was hoping someone would convince me there is a way to run a siege and keep it snappy and engaging, but I think it is not in the cards.

Thanks. Building the terrain was fun, if a little slow. Storing it afterwards has been the problem. We're due to set it up again sometime this fall and have another siege game.

With the stuff that is available from Dave Graffam and Fat Dragon, I'd think you could build a very attractive castle interior, and probably the walls, too.

The actual assault could make a good game...

[premmy]

Jul 20, 2014 18:47:01 GMT -6 rsdean said:

In general, the main problem is that the defenders are in a very reactive mode, and it's not all that fun to play them. It should be, but the key skill, historically, is patiently waiting for the opportunity to disrupt the plans of the attackers. Patience is an uncommon virte among wargamers.

Two ideas to address that problem:

- The defending player(s) could also be in control of a nearby relief force jockeying for a good opportunity to break the siege lines. It would give them the chance to play something proactive, and it would also force the besiegers to built up and maintain an outer line of defenses around their locations. Very much like the siege of Alesia.

- A scenario based on The Defence of Duffer's Drift. A smaller-scale engagement where one player's forces arrive into a contested location and are given a limited amount of time and resources to build their own defenses as they see fit, using the local terrain (and other) features to their advantage.

[Deleted]

Every year at Gary Con they run "Vikings Attack Saxon Hill Fort." I've run, and played in, many sieges in CHAINMAIL.

It's always worked great for us, and it doesn't take any longer than any other type of battle. The siege rules compress time considerably, and escalades are actually quite effective.

[jmccann]

Jul 21, 2014 10:41:24 GMT -6 premmy said:

- The defending player(s) could also be in control of a nearby relief force jockeying for a good opportunity to break the siege lines. It would give them the chance to play something proactive, and it would also force the besiegers to built up and maintain an outer line of defenses around their locations. Very much like the siege of Alesia.

- A scenario based on The Defence of Duffer's Drift. A smaller-scale engagement where one player's forces arrive into a contested location and are given a limited amount of time and resources to build their own defenses as they see fit, using the local terrain (and other) features to their advantage.

I have had some thoughts along the lines of the first suggestion. A high-powered evil critter of some sort arrives after some period of time which forces the good guys to hurry up and get over the wall.

The second idea doesn't fit in the campaign though.

Jul 21, 2014 12:25:18 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

Every year at Gary Con they run "Vikings Attack Saxon Hill Fort." I've run, and played in, many sieges in CHAINMAIL.

It's always worked great for us, and it doesn't take any longer than any other type of battle. The siege rules compress time considerably, and escalades are actually quite effective.

A Saxon hill fort is very close to what I am thinking of.

I think what I will do is test out essentially a pair of linked scenarios. A lighter, mobile battle where probing elements of Law encounter some patrols of Chaos. The outcome of this first battle will affect the OOBs available for the second battle and the threat of reinforcements should speed things up, forcing an assault on the fort. If this were part of an ongoing campaign I would have hidden map movement and recon, but I am not sure how this would work at the con. Linked scenarios (aka railroading) should keep things moving.