Warfare Units

We have kicked some ideas around and Luecian brought it up again, so why not discuss it.

This is mainly for this two units:

Sailors
Scouts
Support

Of course feel free to add other units, or perhaps add units to the roster?

My idea to fix Support Units is to add the following rule:
Support Units can reduce the Training loss of one single Unit by 1 (Maximum to Intact). When fighting outside your domain, you must have a Support Unit for a total number of units equal to your Warfare rank. Each unsupported unit receives a -1D penalty to all rolls in combat and increases its Discipline by +3.

Scouts fix, if someone has a terrain advantage (fighting in their domain)
Reduce 1B for terrain bonus your opponent might gain for fighting in an advantageous terrain.
Edit: Find hidden units also.

- This assumes Battlefield condition like +1B to Strategy for fighting in your domain or such thing comes in play. This is just throwing ideas out there, since we are supposed to know our houses domains pretty well and the terrain in it also.

No idea what to do with Sailors other than drop their cost or something.

Sailors, reduce warships discipline modifier by 3, warships gain +1 b on boarding action attacks and defences

Septon Arlyn wrote:Sailors, reduce warships discipline modifier by 3, warships gain +1 b on boarding action attacks and defences

Warship has no Discipline modifier, it's 0.

I didn't know that. However if you have a discipline modifier of -3 then you're able to give more orders around at a lower target number as the target number for every additional order goes up by 3. So this could represent that sailors are better trained on how to fight on warships. They can also have the special rule wear whatever you complete a boarding action against an enemy is worship you get to add that worships your fleet if you have sailors wear as normal warships just destroy the enemy unit therefore you get the additional power from the warships when you defeat them. That power can later be used to exchange as per the normal rules and you get your sailors back

Ereth Redwain wrote:This is mainly for this two units:

Sailors
Scouts
Support

Of course feel free to add other units, or perhaps add units to the roster?

Perhaps something to distinguish Crusaders from Infantry.
Also, define what Guerrilla's "
advantageous terrain"
effect is.

Crusaders: +1 Morale (harder to order), but never become disorganized due to losing a commander/hero?
Guerrillas: +1D Fighting/Marksmanship and +3 CD in favored terrain, -1D Fighting/Marksmanship (no CD penalty) if not in favored terrain?

Ereth Redwain wrote:My idea to fix Support Units is to add the following rule:
Support Units can reduce the Training loss of one single Unit by 1 (Maximum to Intact). When fighting outside your domain, you must have a Support Unit for a total number of units equal to your Warfare rank. Each unsupported unit receives a -1D penalty to all rolls in combat and increases its Discipline by +3.

Way too powerful. Either one of those two options would have everyone investing in support units ASAP. Anything we add should be useful without making everyone feel that they need to get some right now.

Perhaps instead for every support unit on the field, one other unit per the support's training level has -1 Morale, but that does not stack with a hero (or commander, in the case of personal guard/warships)? Note that they have to be on the battlefield, not left back at some camp or fortress or whatever.

Ereth Redwain wrote:Scouts fix, if someone has a terrain advantage (fighting in their domain)
Reduce 1B for terrain bonus your opponent might gain for fighting in an advantageous terrain.
Edit: Find hidden units also.

- This assumes Battlefield condition like +1B to Strategy for fighting in your domain or such thing comes in play. This is just throwing ideas out there, since we are supposed to know our houses domains pretty well and the terrain in it also.

This is kind of complicated and makes scouts kind of useless on their home turf. I favor a simple bonus or bonus dice to initiative, perhaps only if certain checks are made (awareness vs. enemy commander's passive warfare(strategy), each DoS adds +1 or +1b, bonuses from multiple scout units don't stack). Perhaps also make a stealth check vs. the same or else start the battle at half health (and thus injured).

Ereth Redwain wrote:No idea what to do with Sailors other than drop their cost or something.

That's simple: sailors have their own ships and can travel the seas without the need of Warship units. At sea, their "
melee combat"
would consist of boarding actions - they still don't get marksmanship attacks. With this modification Ironborn raiders and the like should probably be sailors or raider/sailors.

How about for support unit's they can be used for a healing check VS TN 9 on one unit, every DOS adds +1 bonus die to the survivors roll. A critical failure causes the unit to suffer an additional disorganized point when calculating the roll

However they must be deployed on the field in "
medical tents"
and don't get to make attacks against other units.

That way they still eat up power, still get deployed on the field, don't get attacks, yet add to the heroes and leaders unit count

It moves them more to a support role yet leaves a reason for them to be in combat

I also like the idea of

If a a force does not have more then 3 units to every one support roll an AH TN 9, each DOS adds +1 bonus die to warfare tactics roll at the beginning of the battle. A critical failure causes a -1d to the roll

Totally forgot about crusaders being the same as Infantry.

I do image them as knights for some reasons, good ideas so far.

Yeah, y Support unit idea might have been a bit to powerful I suppose, but at least serves the point of how I think it should work with better mechanics.

More ideas are welcome.

Ereth Redwain wrote:Totally forgot about crusaders being the same as Infantry.

I do image them as knights for some reasons, good ideas so far.

Yeah, y Support unit idea might have been a bit to powerful I suppose, but at least serves the point of how I think it should work with better mechanics.

More ideas are welcome.

well I agree that support units should be more effective... their fluff would indicate that an army should not be as effective without them, yet the game mechanics don't seem to show that

I do think Crusaders are an odd choice of unit in Westeros, but I do see them as the Faith Militant infantry, not something normal lords would have, so maybe tie them to Abbey holding, so only really devout houses would have access to them (after they are fixed). Just an idea of course.

Yes, I agree support units are the ones that keep your units functioning, if you go by description of them, so I wanted to reflect that, and the lack of them can be with time detrimental for your units.

Septon Arlyn wrote:How about for support unit's they can be used for a healing check VS TN 9 on one unit, every DOS adds +1 bonus die to the survivors roll. A critical failure causes the unit to suffer an additional disorganized point when calculating the roll

Way too powerful. Compare to the Master-at-Arms, which give a +1 to the roll, at a cost of 10 wealth. A 3 power unit shouldn't be able to do the same - with a chance to be twice as good. The <
2% chance of critical failure (assuming 3 Healing) does not counterbalance such a powerful effect. I don't think support should affect the survival check at all. It's just way too powerful for a cheap unit.

Perhaps give them the a special order to heal adjacent units (the damage in warfare is much more abstract than damage in combat, so it works - more of a morale boost than actual healing).
Perhaps an AH test for mounted troops, Healing for others. TN 9, each DoS recovers 1 health (cannot be done on disorganized, routed, or defeated units). Unlike the command TN modifier I mentioned, it uses their attributes and doesn't require extra bookkeeping. It is powerful, but comes at an opportunity cost (using an order to heal rather than to move/attack/etc.)

Septon Arlyn wrote:However they must be deployed on the field in "
medical tents"
and don't get to make attacks against other units.

Eh, I don't think such a restriction is necessary. If a commander is ordering support to attack that means that they probably don't have any other units left - its not like support are going to be all that effective anyway.

Septon Arlyn wrote:That way they still eat up power, still get deployed on the field, don't get attacks, yet add to the heroes and leaders unit count

They already do all that (except for the "
don't get attacks"
, which I already covered above).

Septon Arlyn wrote:If a a force does not have more then 3 units to every one support roll an AH TN 9, each DOS adds +1 bonus die to warfare tactics roll at the beginning of the battle. A critical failure causes a -1d to the roll

That verges on making support necessary, which is going too far. Anything we add should be useful, but not mandatory (or effectively mandatory).

Septon Arlyn wrote:well I agree that support units should be more effective... their fluff would indicate that an army should not be as effective without them, yet the game mechanics don't seem to show that

I agree, but adding any utility makes the fluff work - but we don't want to completely up-end how warfare works in the process. Any unique utility means that an army is not as effective without them. No need to go overboard to fix it.

Ereth Redwain wrote:I do think Crusaders are an odd choice of unit in Westeros, but I do see them as the Faith Militant infantry, not something normal lords would have, so maybe tie them to Abbey holding, so only really devout houses would have access to them (after they are fixed). Just an idea of course.

Well, they can be any zealots, not just religious zealots. They fight for a cause, but are only tied together by that cause - they are not drilled units like infantry. That's why I thought that making them harder to order but also less vulnerable to demoralization made sense. Basically, unlike normal troops they are intrinsically motivated to fight. Following orders is less important to them.

Baelon wrote:
Perhaps give them the a special order to heal adjacent units (the damage in warfare is much more abstract than damage in combat, so it works - more of a morale boost than actual healing).
Perhaps an AH test for mounted troops, Healing for others. TN 9, each DoS recovers 1 health (cannot be done on disorganized, routed, or defeated units). Unlike the command TN modifier I mentioned, it uses their attributes and doesn't require extra bookkeeping. It is powerful, but comes at an opportunity cost (using an order to heal rather than to move/attack/etc.)

This I like, makes it a viable unit. Add cannot heal disorganized units, so you don't have an instant rally, that also heals them

Perhaps just give the Crusaders the regular +3 Discipline and cannot be disorganized only destroyed?

Perhaps too strong?

I also wish to add one thing

Warships, I was hoping their health should be 12 or 15. I find it very silly that their health is 6.

I agree with Baelon's point, that we have to make sure the changes add to the existing ruleset but don't break it in a way, where a unit instantly become a must-have. I like the idea about healing as well.

Warships, I was hoping their health should be 12 or 15. I find it very silly that their health is 6.

I support this as well. It should be raised to 10 or 12. I always found it strange that a group of archers can destroy 5 warships that quickly!

Baelon wrote:

Septon Arlyn wrote:How about for support unit's they can be used for a healing check VS TN 9 on one unit, every DOS adds +1 bonus die to the survivors roll. A critical failure causes the unit to suffer an additional disorganized point when calculating the roll

Way too powerful. Compare to the Master-at-Arms, which give a +1 to the roll, at a cost of 10 wealth. A 3 power unit shouldn't be able to do the same - with a chance to be twice as good. The <
2% chance of critical failure (assuming 3 Healing) does not counterbalance such a powerful effect. I don't think support should affect the survival check at all. It's just way too powerful for a cheap unit.

.[/quote]

3 power is not cheap, that's 2 points away from infantry, which is much more useful tacically, if you convert the wealth to power a Master of arms is worth 5 power, adds a wealth upgrade to every unit, as well as adding +1 to every roll, meaning that your units have a higher chance of gaining experience. Meanwhile the average you assume of healing 3 at TN 9 is +1 b, potentially +2, and +3 B is out of the question without significant dedication to the healing stat,

the master of arms provides a broader benefit then a healing test on a single unit.

I'm against the idea of them providing additional bonuses to units in the middle of combat (healing health) as that is more of a morale thing. Medical attention in the feudal ages was not able to get people fighting again, that is more the preview of commanders rallying their troops to greater heights.

The support units are self limiting in that the healing check would only effect 1 unit. Bonus die don't take away the danger of getting a bad roll, but they even out the Bell curve for the survivors chart where as the Master of arms can negate all risk if a unit took no damage as well as effecting your entire force. The Master of arms also provides a free wealth upgrade to every unit, which if you have a lot of units can pay for itself as well.

The animal handling adding to tactics is simply adding to a single roll, it could be seen as the support setting up the camp, allowing for faster movement to the battle field and more time for the commader to set up troops.

Is it strong, yes, but it's spending 3 power for the potential of +1 or 2b tatics, or gaining a flaw (warfare). It's risky, but if it works you still will get a reward

So far:

Crusaders
- +1 or +3 Discipline
- Cannot be Disorganized, or can't be disorganized if Commander dies/leaves the field.

Garrison
- Can detect Hidden units.

Guerrillas
- +1D Fighting/Marksmanship and +3 CD in favored terrain, -1D Fighting/Marksmanship (no CD penalty) if not in favored terrain.
- +3 Discipline and -1D Stealth if not in favored terrain, -3 Discipline and +1D Stealth if in favored terrain.
- Advanced Order - "
Ambush"
Must be hidden. +1D Fighting/Marsmanship against surprised unit for the turn they Ambush.

Sailors
- Count as naval units (have own ships) and can perform "
Boarding Actions"

- Take no unit slot when using a Warship unit.

This makes Ironborn have to take Raider/sailors to fight at sea or Warships + Raiders to attack land from sea?

Scouts
- Advanced Order - "
Reconnaissance"
Scouts roll Stealth vs. Passive TN Enemy Commander Awareness (Notice) or Scout or Garrison Awareness. If unit fails, they begin game with half Health. If successful. Scouts roll Awareness vs. Passive TN Enemy Commander Warfare (Tactics or Strategy?). Every DoS gives +1 to Initiative
- Can only benefit from one Scout unit.

Support
- -1 Discipline to a number of units equal to the Commander Warfare rank.
- Advanced Order - "
Heal"
Support unit can give first aid/heal an adjacent unit that is not disorganized, routed or defeated. Roll Animal Handling (for cavalry units) or Healing vs. TN 9. Every Degree of Success recovers 1 Health.
- Must be in combat (obviously)

- Stays outside of combat (No access to Advanced Order)
- Gives a +1B for Survivors roll
- Roll Endurance or Animal Handling vs. TN 9? +1B on Tactics

Warship
-Health 10/12/15 I think the middle ground is 12 so far, but I feel it should be 15, Cavalry is Health 12, I think a Warship should be a bit more sturdy than that.

I took some liberties and try to work them into what has been suggested so far, please let me know if I left something out or modify something if I didn't quite portrayed your idea well. (I'm sure I worded something wrong somewhere lol).

Ereth Redwain wrote:This I like, makes it a viable unit. Add cannot heal disorganized units, so you don't have an instant rally, that also heals them

Already in there. :;
): Perhaps tighten it up a bit and say can only affect units in the "
injured"
condition. Any other condition they either don't need it or aren't sitting still enough to be bandaged etc.
Also, specify that it does not work on commanders &
heroes.

Ereth Redwain wrote:Perhaps just give the Crusaders the regular +3 Discipline and cannot be disorganized only destroyed?

Perhaps too strong?

Hmm. I think the +3 makes sense, but not being disorganized ever is too much, I think. Otherwise the commander could just reorg them immediately and they would be nigh-immortal.
Perhaps just reduce disorganized discipline penalties by 3 - essentially the first disorg only applies the -1D.
I thought about saying it doesn't stack, but that gets into weirdness with multi-trained units (and crusader/cavalry are specifically mentioned in the cavalry section).

Ereth Redwain wrote:I also wish to add one thing

Warships, I was hoping their health should be 12 or 15. I find it very silly that their health is 6.

Kevan Lyras wrote:I support this as well. It should be raised to 10 or 12. I always found it strange that a group of archers can destroy 5 warships that quickly!

Well, keep in mind that they have the best armor of any unit - 5 AR with no AP, which upgrades to 10AR with no AP.

Green archers with basic equipment should take a few hits to defeat equivalent warships. They can't defeat them outright, so it would take at least two hits. Now, offense scales up faster than defense, so at higher investment level it could be a problem. Still, compared to most other units, warships still have a better chance of survival.

Septon Arlyn wrote:3 power is not cheap, that's 2 points away from infantry, which is much more useful tacically, if you convert the wealth to power a Master of arms is worth 5 power, adds a wealth upgrade to every unit, as well as adding +1 to every roll, meaning that your units have a higher chance of gaining experience. Meanwhile the average you assume of healing 3 at TN 9 is +1 b, potentially +2, and +3 B is out of the question without significant dedication to the healing stat,

the master of arms provides a broader benefit then a healing test on a single unit.

I'm against the idea of them providing additional bonuses to units in the middle of combat (healing health) as that is more of a morale thing. Medical attention in the feudal ages was not able to get people fighting again, that is more the preview of commanders rallying their troops to greater heights.

The support units are self limiting in that the healing check would only effect 1 unit. Bonus die don't take away the danger of getting a bad roll, but they even out the Bell curve for the survivors chart where as the Master of arms can negate all risk if a unit took no damage as well as effecting your entire force. The Master of arms also provides a free wealth upgrade to every unit, which if you have a lot of units can pay for itself as well.

The animal handling adding to tactics is simply adding to a single roll, it could be seen as the support setting up the camp, allowing for faster movement to the battle field and more time for the commader to set up troops.

Is it strong, yes, but it's spending 3 power for the potential of +1 or 2b tatics, or gaining a flaw (warfare). It's risky, but if it works you still will get a reward

Master at Arms also takes more than a year to produce, up to a year and a half. Power units take 1 month. Having 1 support for each unit (or just the most important ones) would be easy to do.
Also, the survival roll is not a bell curve, it is a linear 1d6. Master at arms prevents all chance of damage to units that are uninjured at the end of the battle only. Otherwise there is still risk. Being able to modify it further is too much.

Affecting the initiative roll, to my mind, should be the purview of scouts. (I think you meant strategy? Tactics is not used in warfare, to my knowledge)

EDIT: fixed quoting error.

I'm in favor of most of what has been suggested this far. Couple of clarifications based around the below and concealment rules that already exist.

Ereth Redwain wrote:

Guerrillas
- +1D Fighting/Marksmanship and +3 CD in favored terrain, -1D Fighting/Marksmanship (no CD penalty) if not in favored terrain.
- +3 Discipline and -1D Stealth if not in favored terrain, -3 Discipline and +1D Stealth if in favored terrain.
- Advanced Order - "
Ambush"
Must be hidden. +1D Fighting/Marsmanship against surprised unit for the turn they Ambush.

Would this advanced order be in addition to the concealment bonus? Otherwise I believe this already exists and is covered under the concealment rules.

Ereth Redwain wrote:
Scouts
- Advanced Order - "
Reconnaissance"
Scouts roll Stealth vs. Passive TN Enemy Commander Awareness (Notice) or Scout or Garrison Awareness. If unit fails, they begin game with half Health. If successful. Scouts roll Awareness vs. Passive TN Enemy Commander Warfare (Tactics or Strategy?). Every DoS gives +1 to Initiative
- Can only benefit from one Scout unit.

Not sure on the stealth roll and punitive damage dealt due to losing a stealth roll. Concealment rules already exist for warfare, and scouts only defense is really stealth/ concealment. If they fail their concealment they are just targets waiting to be attacked, but I do think someone should have to attack them to deal damage.

Scouts
- Advanced Order - "
Reconnaissance"
Scouts roll Stealth vs. Passive TN Enemy Commander Awareness (Notice) or Scout or Garrison Awareness. If unit fails, they begin game with half Health. If successful. Scouts roll Awareness vs. Passive TN Enemy Commander Warfare (Tactics or Strategy?). Every DoS gives +1 to Initiative
- Can only benefit from one Scout unit.

I note that Scouts don't actually have Awareness (at least, not in my version of the rules, which is the old one). They have Endurance, Stealth, and Survival. I like the general idea behind this (using them to gain Initiative), it makes a lot of sense, but we'd probably have to change the key abilities to either Endurance, Stealth, and Awareness or Awareness, Stealth, and Survival.

I'd like to think we could use them as scouts without necessarily fielding them on the battlefield, as well (in essence, they advance, report back, then retreat). So, if they succeed their stealth roll, they roll on the 'No Damage' survivors table column. If they fail it, they roll on the Damaged column, if they crit fail, they roll on the Routed column.

Plus, warfare units rolling against passive defence is brutal. Since passive defence is 4*stat+1*specialty (IIRC), for a warfare leader, probably means 12-13 for Warfare 3 or 16-17 for Warfare 4. That means that Scouts would need a minimum of 4 or 5 Awareness to stand a better than average chance of giving a single +1 to the initiative roll, which statistically is unlikely to be significant.

Like I say, I like the *idea* here, but I don't think the mechanics quite work yet.

In the GoT edition, scouts have awareness, endurance, and stealth.

Most PC and NPC commanders have Awareness 3, perhaps a +1B to notice to bring the passive to TN 13, which a unit of Scouts with Stealth 4 or 5 as many will make Stealth a priority and awareness a second since it won't be a "
field"
unit for most people I think they have a solid chance at getting most commanders. While the +1 Initiative won't be so easy with Commanders having around Warfare 4 or 3 depending on how strong the NPC/PC is.

+1 to any roll can sometimes make a difference believe it or not to getting that extra DoS or success in the roll you needed.

IF scout are used this way a lot of PC/NPC will start using them with something like Scouts (Trained) Stealth 4, Endurance 2, Awareness 3. Most Garrison probably only have Awareness 3 as people prioritize combat stats and just give Awareness a 3 so they at least set the bar at TN 12.

I do wish Support units could also have the option of not "
fielding"
and heal perhaps some other mechanic like giving +1B to endurance rolls for healing once per battle instead after or during the skirmish, but the unit would lose their "
attack"
for that round?