Got a Real-World Weapon, Armour or Tactics Question? Mk. XXVIII

[PhoenixPhyre]

Depends on the travel times and safety of routes to and from the quarries. 50 miles would be between a 2-3 day journey one way, assuming reasonably flat land or easy route.

Rule of thumb is that the time taken to build a fortification results in a durability of one order of magnitude less (minutes to build to last seconds, hours to build to last minutes, etc). At a 6 month build time, you're looking at something intended to last a couple weeks at best.

I'm thinking something resembling a motte and bailey castle - a simple wooden logs enclosed courtyard around a small wooden keep could be done in around 1,000 man-days of work, whereas a more elaborate stone keep on a separate hill to the courtyard could take 24,000 man-days (e.g. Thetford Castle), especially if you need to build the motte as well.

Given wood is scarce, it looks like stone walls all the way, so you're looking at something resembling ringworks. Assuming that stone is freely available, you could throw up a rough stone wall around your camp in a couple days - bear in mind that some of your men might refuse to stoop to manual labour; good luck in convincing nobility to pick up a spade and pitch in.

Fortunately it's a war economy and a lot of the labor can be done by constructs, fanatics, and very experienced construction cadres. They finished a serious fortress wall closing off the pass (a long undertaking because it was under attack every winter) about 3 years ago and so have been idle.

Can you speed things up by throwing manpower at it? Or is it like software engineering/giving birth (where 9 women can't produce a baby in 1 month)?

I'm thinking a rough stone wall as initial fortifications that then gets expanded out, with priority being "something defensible against immediate attack" and then getting protected supply lines back to the wall.

[Storm Bringer]

Fortunately it's a war economy and a lot of the labor can be done by constructs, fanatics, and very experienced construction cadres. They finished a serious fortress wall closing off the pass (a long undertaking because it was under attack every winter) about 3 years ago and so have been idle.

Can you speed things up by throwing manpower at it? Or is it like software engineering/giving birth (where 9 women can't produce a baby in 1 month)?

I'm thinking a rough stone wall as initial fortifications that then gets expanded out, with priority being "something defensible against immediate attack" and then getting protected supply lines back to the wall.

to a degree, yes, you can just throw manpower at something like this. obviously, its not infinitely scalable, but doubling the manpower will not get you done in exactly half the time (their comes a point where you just cant get more workers into the site, and adding more slows everyone down as they keep getting in each others way, the required secondary staff eat up the extra manpower, etc). constructed mounds also need some time for the earth to "settle" and compact before you build on them, or else you'll find your structure being torn apart by subsidence

for a "quick, lets throw something up and improve it later", a simple ditch backed by a mound will do a pretty good job. It'll kill the momentum of any charge, break up the formation of that attack and generally turn a even fight into a very uneven one. Once that is out, you can start adding stone walls inside the ditch, then expand the defended area by enclosing some more land in ditches. this way, you can have a small, easy to defend core, with a larger, defendable outer area that can be used to hold a "surge" or troops staging though the base.

bear in mind, though, the fort needs to be small enough that it can be defended by the permeant garrison.

I know local wood is rare, but is it rare back at the parties home area? is would it be possible to just cart some over in order to throw up a palisade? something like the palisade stakes the romans carried with them, to use as spikes in the ditch or to make what we call toady Czech hedgehogs or a cheval de frise.

[KineticDiplomat]

Your good news is that pre-industrial age, “supply lines” matter less. You don’t need a massed and constant flow of stuff meant to keep the machine running or to keep obscene numbers of people at combat readiness 24/7. Food and fodder are your big bulk requirements, and depending on the state of civilization in the area, may be quite capable of hosting a few hundred fighting men with nothing more than some burdensome grain taxes.

————

Assuming you are using a Roman border fort as an example, if the force in question travels with its own hasty palisade on backs and carts, you can have a thin palisade and a ditch within a few hours if you have drilled it.

Stone will be another matter entirely. I’ll let other talk build time, let’s look at the logistics of getting it there: Ox teams with carts travel about ten miles a day. A working ox team with prime fodder eats 50 pounds of grain a day, or nearly 200 pounds of roughage. Depending on grazing in the Caldera, you need up to half a ton of food per one way trip from the quarry - unless other carts are hauling in food from large farms.

The weight won’t matter that much...they’re strong beasts...but eventually you’re going to cube out the carts. The classic “western movie rugged guy throws a bale of hay into his truck” hay bale is about 3x1.5x1.5 feet and feeds one team for one day. If it’s green roughage, 4 bales a day.

Cart sizes may vary, but the bed of a modern F-150 is 5.5 x 5.5 feet. If you’re using green roughage for fodder, you’re getting to the point where an ox team can only feed itself by 50 miles unless there’s grazing and other logistics supporting them. If you’re importing grain to feed the oxen (and that will have a burn to utilize rate before it even gets to the quarry) you’re looking at losing half your carrying capacity per cartload.

Which means this is going to be a long project or very expensive project if you want quarry stone. If you’re ok with just roughing it...well, soil dependent, you could dig out a ditch and turn the spoil into a rampart using only manpower. Fairly quickly as well. Top that with a man carried palisade, then bring in “engineers” using nothing but mortar and local stones to throw up rough walls...

[PhoenixPhyre]

Your good news is that pre-industrial age, “supply lines” matter less. You don’t need a massed and constant flow of stuff meant to keep the machine running or to keep obscene numbers of people at combat readiness 24/7. Food and fodder are your big bulk requirements, and depending on the state of civilization in the area, may be quite capable of hosting a few hundred fighting men with nothing more than some burdensome grain taxes.

————

Assuming you are using a Roman border fort as an example, if the force in question travels with its own hasty palisade on backs and carts, you can have a thin palisade and a ditch within a few hours if you have drilled it.

Stone will be another matter entirely. I’ll let other talk build time, let’s look at the logistics of getting it there: Ox teams with carts travel about ten miles a day. A working ox team with prime fodder eats 50 pounds of grain a day, or nearly 200 pounds of roughage. Depending on grazing in the Caldera, you need up to half a ton of food per one way trip from the quarry - unless other carts are hauling in food from large farms.

The weight won’t matter that much...they’re strong beasts...but eventually you’re going to cube out the carts. The classic “western movie rugged guy throws a bale of hay into his truck” hay bale is about 3x1.5x1.5 feet and feeds one team for one day. If it’s green roughage, 4 bales a day.

Cart sizes may vary, but the bed of a modern F-150 is 5.5 x 5.5 feet. If you’re using green roughage for fodder, you’re getting to the point where an ox team can only feed itself by 50 miles unless there’s grazing and other logistics supporting them. If you’re importing grain to feed the oxen (and that will have a burn to utilize rate before it even gets to the quarry) you’re looking at losing half your carrying capacity per cartload.

Which means this is going to be a long project or very expensive project if you want quarry stone. If you’re ok with just roughing it...well, soil dependent, you could dig out a ditch and turn the spoil into a rampart using only manpower. Fairly quickly as well. Top that with a man carried palisade, then bring in “engineers” using nothing but mortar and local stones to throw up rough walls...

So what I'm reading is that transport is the key bottleneck here. If you replaced the oxen with constructs that didn't need to eat (but otherwise were equivalent to oxen), something that this nation could do for smaller projects and shorter time-scales (due to maintenance needs over the long run), that should dramatically ease that burden, right?

I could easily see them pre-positioning enough wood and supplies for at least an initial fort at the Wall, about a day away. In fact, they could pull from the Wall's reserve[1] to throw something up pretty fast.

[1] this reserve is normally drained by repairs during the winter when transport is difficult and the Frost is constantly attacking...but this year the Frost didn't attack in any significant quantity. So it's basically full and they have the whole summer to replenish it. And there's enough there, including construct laborers to build a bunch of small forts because the Wall is massive (15-20 miles long by TALL and THICK, with internal living areas and fortresses). The benefit, I supposed of having only one pass out and having a few years with low activity to complete the thing (which was started more than 50 years ago).

[KineticDiplomat]

Yes. If you can replace draft animals with constructs, you solve one of the three major logistical problems of the world pre-combustion engine. If you ever talk with David Weber about safehold, he specifically invented the “Draft Dragon” as the only way that Charissa’s armies could move around the way they do. Otherwise all the cool”we have rifles while you have pikes parts” never happen because the armies can’t show up in any real force.

Of course, that capability would also drastically alter the face of...everything. So we’re starting to veer into “how fantasy do you want your fantasy.” It might be easier to hand-wave reality than try to create new capabilities realistically. Are your players really going to complain if you don’t do the ox math right?

[Storm Bringer]

So what I'm reading is that transport is the key bottleneck here. If you replaced the oxen with constructs that didn't need to eat (but otherwise were equivalent to oxen), something that this nation could do for smaller projects and shorter time-scales (due to maintenance needs over the long run), that should dramatically ease that burden, right?

I could easily see them pre-positioning enough wood and supplies for at least an initial fort at the Wall, about a day away. In fact, they could pull from the Wall's reserve[1] to throw something up pretty fast.

[1] this reserve is normally drained by repairs during the winter when transport is difficult and the Frost is constantly attacking...but this year the Frost didn't attack in any significant quantity. So it's basically full and they have the whole summer to replenish it. And there's enough there, including construct laborers to build a bunch of small forts because the Wall is massive (15-20 miles long by TALL and THICK, with internal living areas and fortresses). The benefit, I supposed of having only one pass out and having a few years with low activity to complete the thing (which was started more than 50 years ago).

if the land is snow-blown tundra, then yes, logistics and food supply (and also liquid water, if its permanently cold) are major bottlenecks on expansion into the area. however, making and holding a fort a days ride out from the Wall isn't going to be a massive issue for a civilisation that built a Game of Thrones style border wall. the location of the fort might be determined by the fact it needs to be at or very close to a water source (like a river, or spring)


the point about logistics is that their comes a point where your oxen are eating their own carry weight in fodder to move that stone the distance required (ie, the oxen needs to devote all its cargo hauling space to fodder to travel that far). A single days ride isn't that point, but depending on how far back form the Wall the fodder is coming form, you might not have that much ability to "project" forward of the wall because most of your logistical effort is being spent bringing supplies TO the wall.

looking at a real, historical example, namely Hadrian's Wall (the one that inspired the Game of Thrones Wall), its important to understand how that worked, and that it wasn't the first line of defence that the romans never crossed. they had a mix of obsovation towers and cavalry patrols ranging out in front of it to keep an eye on the land for trouble, and they had extensive trade and diplomatic links with the Pictish tribes in southern Scotland, which often gave them advanced warning of major raids. minor raids of a dozen or two people could often get over the wall (its difficult to patrol a wall 73 miles long well enough that they couldn't), but it was very difficult for them to take much worth stealing and get back over unopposed (most raiders would be after portable wealth, and farm animals were a favourite. and their is no way your going to convince a cow to climb a wall)




argueably, what the Players are going to want in a home base is something like a small valley with very steep, unclimbable cliffs on both sides, with one way in at the bottom and a way out at the top onto the higher area. a small stream runs though it, which gives you a water supply. the enemy can only really attack you form two sides, and if their isn't another path up to the highland he might have only one path, so you don't have to fortify anywhere near as much. hell, it might even be preferable to not fortify, but rely on stealth to hide you form any scouts. you don't build anything fancy, nothing that you can't replace easily. then, if your found, you bug out and find a new site and repeat.

[PhoenixPhyre]

if the land is snow-blown tundra, then yes, logistics and food supply (and also liquid water, if its permanently cold) are major bottlenecks on expansion into the area. however, making and holding a fort a days ride out from the Wall isn't going to be a massive issue for a civilisation that built a Game of Thrones style border wall. the location of the fort might be determined by the fact it needs to be at or very close to a water source (like a river, or spring)


the point about logistics is that their comes a point where your oxen are eating their own carry weight in fodder to move that stone the distance required (ie, the oxen needs to devote all its cargo hauling space to fodder to travel that far). A single days ride isn't that point, but depending on how far back form the Wall the fodder is coming form, you might not have that much ability to "project" forward of the wall because most of your logistical effort is being spent bringing supplies TO the wall.

looking at a real, historical example, namely Hadrian's Wall (the one that inspired the Game of Thrones Wall), its important to understand how that worked, and that it wasn't the first line of defence that the romans never crossed. they had a mix of obsovation towers and cavalry patrols ranging out in front of it to keep an eye on the land for trouble, and they had extensive trade and diplomatic links with the Pictish tribes in southern Scotland, which often gave them advanced warning of major raids. minor raids of a dozen or two people could often get over the wall (its difficult to patrol a wall 73 miles long well enough that they couldn't), but it was very difficult for them to take much worth stealing and get back over unopposed (most raiders would be after portable wealth, and farm animals were a favourite. and their is no way your going to convince a cow to climb a wall)




argueably, what the Players are going to want in a home base is something like a small valley with very steep, unclimbable cliffs on both sides, with one way in at the bottom and a way out at the top onto the higher area. a small stream runs though it, which gives you a water supply. the enemy can only really attack you form two sides, and if their isn't another path up to the highland he might have only one path, so you don't have to fortify anywhere near as much. hell, it might even be preferable to not fortify, but rely on stealth to hide you form any scouts. you don't build anything fancy, nothing that you can't replace easily. then, if your found, you bug out and find a new site and repeat.

Thanks. I'll have to look at my map of the area at a higher resolution and figure out a good place that's already naturally fortified to some degree. I'd figure that they'd have very light scouts already out in the country relying on stealth (or familiars flying over with the wizards looking through their eyes or something), so they'd know the general layout within a short distance of the Wall.

The actual fortification part is going to be a minimal part of the overall campaign--just a home base and a place for there to be some complications (maybe having to help defend it, etc). The party will spend most of their time out looking for other things/sifting through ruins/talking to non-hostile tribes. Their personal, primary goal will be to find out why the Frost has been attacking. Because no one knows. They just attacked out of nowhere 90 years ago, seemingly bent on the total destruction of this nation. There seem to be "allied" tribes of goblins in the area who only fight when they're coerced--these might be able to be swayed or at least bribed into giving information; there is also the ruins of the original capital not too far away.

[Max_Killjoy]

Expeditions are like space lauches -- every pound of fuel you take with you also requires fuel to move, and that fuel needs fuel, and more stuff to carry that added fuel also means more fuel needed.

[Pauly]

For fortifications in that environment a wall may not be the best option.

If you look at real life fortifications in the Andes, for example at Ollantaytambo or Pisac.
The Incas built a fort extending up a hillside at a bottleneck in the valley. The stone terracing acting as an unbreakable wall and allows crops to be grown. (The stone walls retain heat from the sun and then radiate that heat at nighttime creating warmer microclimates for crops).
Any intruder cannot bypass the fortification because no supplies can pass or booty be returned. Every single terrace has to be fought over and won with the attackers being constantly harassed by enfilading fire from higher positions.

[Telok]

Depending on how close that old capital was it may be useful to send a handful of scouts with a string of remounts to do a fast check. Historically using old buildings and fortifications as the materials for new ones was very popular since your building materials were already quarried and on site. Then you just need to push a batch of supplies through to the site and begin hardening the supply route while the fortification at the end in being thrown up.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Depending on how close that old capital was it may be useful to send a handful of scouts with a string of remounts to do a fast check. Historically using old buildings and fortifications as the materials for new ones was very popular since your building materials were already quarried and on site. Then you just need to push a batch of supplies through to the site and begin hardening the supply route while the fortification at the end in being thrown up.

The old capital is unavailable for a few reasons. One big one is that its infested with undead. Not even the Frost go there. This is partly for story reasons (I have plans for that).

For fortifications in that environment a wall may not be the best option.

If you look at real life fortifications in the Andes, for example at Ollantaytambo or Pisac.
The Incas built a fort extending up a hillside at a bottleneck in the valley. The stone terracing acting as an unbreakable wall and allows crops to be grown. (The stone walls retain heat from the sun and then radiate that heat at nighttime creating warmer microclimates for crops).
Any intruder cannot bypass the fortification because no supplies can pass or booty be returned. Every single terrace has to be fought over and won with the attackers being constantly harassed by enfilading fire from higher positions.

In this case, I went with the more trope-y "big wall" more for aesthetics than for anything. That was settled a while ago and can't really change. But it's a good idea. The next fort (described below) might use something on that style.

On the broader topic, I've settled on the map/terrain for the next fort. The scale is 2 miles per hex, or about 1 hour's movement in rough terrain (by game rules).

Spoiler: Big Image

Show

There's a natural formation that was the kingdom's previous line of defense after the old capital fell. Two pillar-like mountains with stairs leading to watchtowers on either side of a narrow valley, with chasms (partially natural, partially artificial decades ago) between the pillars and the sheer mountain wall to north and south. It's about 15 miles from the wall and neatly protects an area of hills. Looking at the map, they can pull lumber from the near side of the pass behind the wall.

For game purposes, this also gives the party a natural place to overlook the rest of the play area, as well as a "sheltered" training area should they so choose. I've planned a bunch of points of interest in this lower valley they can hit before heading to the more contested areas to the west/further into the caldera.

Now I just need to get a good simple model for how far the naked eye can resolve objects of various sizes so I know how far they can see from the watchtowers (horizons aren't an issue due to the height)...but that's just trig. And trig is easy.

[AdAstra]

From my knowledge, the distance at which you can actually recognize what you see is highly dependent on what you're looking at/for. It's far from just comparing size and distance: something as simple as a person looking towards or away from you could change whether you notice them at all (people are really good at recognizing faces, and really human shapes in general). Is the object moving in relation to the background? What color is it? Does it have a clear silhouette? How does the visual "noise" in their vicinity compare to that of the object (i.e. cluttered terrain makes solid colors stand out and vice-versa)? These things are far more likely to shift the likelihood of perception than just distance, and should at least give advantage/disadvantage if enough of them are stacked up at once. One thing's for sure, don't just make an equation where say, size/distance x n = DC and call it a day, and the same would go for maximum distances.

[PhoenixPhyre]

From my knowledge, the distance at which you can actually recognize what you see is highly dependent on what you're looking at/for. It's far from just comparing size and distance: something as simple as a person looking towards or away from you could change whether you notice them at all (people are really good at recognizing faces, and really human shapes in general). Is the object moving in relation to the background? What color is it? Does it have a clear silhouette? How does the visual "noise" in their vicinity compare to that of the object (i.e. cluttered terrain makes solid colors stand out and vice-versa)? These things are far more likely to shift the likelihood of perception than just distance, and should at least give advantage/disadvantage if enough of them are stacked up at once. One thing's for sure, don't just make an equation where say, size/distance x n = DC and call it a day, and the same would go for maximum distances.

I'm keeping it simple because I'm really concerned with how the party finds interesting things to investigate. Since I only really care about groups of people (including things like camp fires) and structures, my plan is to say that

At ground level, you can generally see evidence (but not details) about band-size groups of people or most structures in any adjoining hex (~2 miles), assuming clear weather and actually having line of sight (so less in super hilly terrain or forests, for example).

At significant relative elevation (climbing a watch tower or one of the pillars, for example), you can see groups of people within 2 hexes[1] and structures within 5 hexes. These increase to 5 hexes and 10 hexes if you have a spyglass or telescope. These numbers come from a very rough trig calculation using the angular resolution of the eye, rounded to 2-mile increments.

None of these require a check, because they're long-term things and no one's trying to hide. People actively trying to hide or hidden structures can't be seen outside your own hex.

Edit: you can't see details about anything outside your hex, unless you're at the edge and they're nearby. So you'd see a big group of upright figures, or the dust cloud of a migrating group, etc. but you couldn't tell if they're a tribal family group moving or a war band until they got closer. Something like an ordered block of troops would be easier to discern, because they're marching in some sort of formation vs just a big clump.

[1] but campfires count as structures for this purpose, so you can see camps from much further away assuming they're not trying to hide.

[AdAstra]

Makes sense. I will point out that fires are definitely going to increase detection distance substantially. In general, if you have line of sight on a fire at night, you will see it, no matter how far away it is. Thick smoke could also be visible from a great distance during the day as well. Deliberate smoke signals could reach hundreds of miles. From an in-game perspective, I would treat any outdoor fire as visible to everything with LOS at night.

Might even be able to work this into part of the fort infrastructure. A line of watchtowers, hill forts, or mountain camps between the two main forts, using a variety of means to transmit limited information between them, as well as provide quick reinforcement to anyone ambushed while travelling between, or reduce the odds of getting cut off, etc. Maybe that's something that's still being actively established, and the players can participate in their construction and defense? Could also serve as a weakpoint, the first thing a hostile force would likely attack, giving players a chance to cut their teeth on say, a small band of goblins that took over a watchtower.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Makes sense. I will point out that fires are definitely going to increase detection distance substantially. In general, if you have line of sight on a fire at night, you will see it, no matter how far away it is. Thick smoke could also be visible from a great distance during the day as well. Deliberate smoke signals could reach hundreds of miles. From an in-game perspective, I would treat any outdoor fire as visible to everything with LOS at night.

Good to know. How hard is it to localize a fire at night though? I mean you can see it, probably get a rough bearing on it, but as far as ranging?

Might even be able to work this into part of the fort infrastructure. A line of watchtowers, hill forts, or mountain camps between the two main forts, using a variety of means to transmit limited information between them, as well as provide quick reinforcement to anyone ambushed while travelling between, or reduce the odds of getting cut off, etc. Maybe that's something that's still being actively established, and the players can participate in their construction and defense? Could also serve as a weakpoint, the first thing a hostile force would likely attack, giving players a chance to cut their teeth on say, a small band of goblins that took over a watchtower.

My current (after changes) idea is as follows.

The "ideal" site for a fort is already fortified by a band of the enemy, but not particularly well due to the inherent disorganization of their forces. The Dragonslayers (being hot-heads) jumped the gun on a planned operation to liberate and rebuild it. Because they're hot-heads lacking any sense of tactics, they managed to take the fort with significant losses.

That was a day or so before the party sets out from the Wall, accompanying the mercenary group (who were supposed to take the fort and would have done so much more deliberately and with fewer losses, but...) and a group of engineers/supplies to rebuild the fort properly. The main fort will be relatively secure, but there's lots of wild territory between the fort and the Wall (and even more on the other side), and none of the groups there are really suited for small-unit independent operation. That's where the party comes in. There are abandoned mines, ruins, and beast lairs on the "safe" side, as well as a couple old kingdom watchtowers near-by on the "wild" side that are juicy targets for liberation. If they choose to retake those, the main fort becomes basically secure and they'll have good intel on what's going on out around them. If they don't, the NPCs will...eventually. And with losses. My world puts the normal cap on capabilities at about the level 3-ish range for humanoids (with a fat tail though), so most of the NPCs are weaker than that. I spent some time yesterday creating rough outlines and locations for 30-ish points of interest in the area--some friendly, some neutral, and some decidedly hostile.

[AdAstra]

Good to know. How hard is it to localize a fire at night though? I mean you can see it, probably get a rough bearing on it, but as far as ranging?

Ranging's tough, but at those kinds of distances it'll always be a bit of a crapshoot. You know they're in line of sight at least, and you know exactly which direction they're in. Even in the worst cases you could draw a line in the dirt pointing toward it, then in the morning look that way again. After all, the characters don't understand trig, they're always going to be relying on estimations and gut-feeling, so this isn't really that much worse. Perhaps back then people were more used to thinking of such distances in terms of how long it would take to get there, like a three hour-ish walk. Exact distance is definitely more of a game contrivance than a thing the characters would be expected to keep track of.

My current (after changes) idea is as follows.

The "ideal" site for a fort is already fortified by a band of the enemy, but not particularly well due to the inherent disorganization of their forces. The Dragonslayers (being hot-heads) jumped the gun on a planned operation to liberate and rebuild it. Because they're hot-heads lacking any sense of tactics, they managed to take the fort with significant losses.

That was a day or so before the party sets out from the Wall, accompanying the mercenary group (who were supposed to take the fort and would have done so much more deliberately and with fewer losses, but...) and a group of engineers/supplies to rebuild the fort properly. The main fort will be relatively secure, but there's lots of wild territory between the fort and the Wall (and even more on the other side), and none of the groups there are really suited for small-unit independent operation. That's where the party comes in. There are abandoned mines, ruins, and beast lairs on the "safe" side, as well as a couple old kingdom watchtowers near-by on the "wild" side that are juicy targets for liberation. If they choose to retake those, the main fort becomes basically secure and they'll have good intel on what's going on out around them. If they don't, the NPCs will...eventually. And with losses. My world puts the normal cap on capabilities at about the level 3-ish range for humanoids (with a fat tail though), so most of the NPCs are weaker than that. I spent some time yesterday creating rough outlines and locations for 30-ish points of interest in the area--some friendly, some neutral, and some decidedly hostile.

Interesting and coherent. Definitely establishes the Dragonslayers characterization. If you haven't accounted for it already, I would recommend ensuring that you tell and show the players why someone, with the PCs being best suited to handle it, needs to do these tasks in the short and long term, and then show the changes their actions create. The fort needs lumber, so clearing that cave of beasties in the forest is pretty helpful, the fort needs a lookout near this easy ambush point, so taking the watchtower is imperative... and as the players do this, they're also gradually accomplishing the broad-scale objectives, like securing the fort's supporting infrastructure, and allowing the two forts to easily communicate and send troops/supplies to each other, plus seeing how their actions are contributing to the effectiveness of the expedition. Don't lead them about by the ear, but make their actions feel appreciated/effectual.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Ranging's tough, but at those kinds of distances it'll always be a bit of a crapshoot. You know they're in line of sight at least, and you know exactly which direction they're in. Even in the worst cases you could draw a line in the dirt pointing toward it, then in the morning look that way again. After all, the characters don't understand trig, they're always going to be relying on estimations and gut-feeling, so this isn't really that much worse. Perhaps back then people were more used to thinking of such distances in terms of how long it would take to get there, like a three hour-ish walk. Exact distance is definitely more of a game contrivance than a thing the characters would be expected to keep track of.

Thanks!

Interesting and coherent. Definitely establishes the Dragonslayers characterization. If you haven't accounted for it already, I would recommend ensuring that you tell and show the players why someone, with the PCs being best suited to handle it, needs to do these tasks in the short and long term, and then show the changes their actions create. The fort needs lumber, so clearing that cave of beasties in the forest is pretty helpful, the fort needs a lookout near this easy ambush point, so taking the watchtower is imperative... and as the players do this, they're also gradually accomplishing the broad-scale objectives, like securing the fort's supporting infrastructure, and allowing the two forts to easily communicate and send troops/supplies to each other, plus seeing how their actions are contributing to the effectiveness of the expedition. Don't lead them about by the ear, but make their actions feel appreciated/effectual.

That was my basic plan. They'll have a primary mission of figuring out why the Frost is attacking and gaining allies (if possible), but having those "support the base" side missions be organically present will help as well.

[Storm Bringer]

one minor point, but on clear or clear-ish nights, with a decent moon, its actually quite easy to see long distances in the dark, espically if your not next to a light source yourself thats screwing with your night vision. If they know the area (and if their looking out form a watchtower, they should know the area), then they might be able to localise the fire pretty well ("thats near Humber's ford. they must be waiting for daylight before they attempt to cross").

I don't know how built up your area is, but try and get out in the dark, away form lights and traffic, no torches or lanterns turned on, and just see what you can see in the dark, once your eyes have adapted. its surprising if you've never done it.

[Pauly]

one minor point, but on clear or clear-ish nights, with a decent moon, its actually quite easy to see long distances in the dark, espically if your not next to a light source yourself thats screwing with your night vision. If they know the area (and if their looking out form a watchtower, they should know the area), then they might be able to localise the fire pretty well ("thats near Humber's ford. they must be waiting for daylight before they attempt to cross").

I don't know how built up your area is, but try and get out in the dark, away form lights and traffic, no torches or lanterns turned on, and just see what you can see in the dark, once your eyes have adapted. its surprising if you've never done it.

Especially if there is snow on the ground or on nearby mountains. Snow reflects moonlight quite well.

[KineticDiplomat]

If you want an extra layer of play for them...”clearing” a watchtower/lair/old mine does nothing unless they can occupy and guard it. Stronger garrisons can patrol on their own and hold off attacks...eight poor bastards can barely keep three men awak at night to stop anyone with bad intentions. A resource constraint on what they can actually do strategically (and avoids the six men conquer the world idea). Plus it lets them politic for more resources/forces, playing the factions of the expedition and the home land.

[Pauly]

Visual sighting distance depends a lot on the conditions.

Variable 1) nearer the equator the sunlight is stronger and objects can be made out much further than in areas which receive less direct sunlight.

Variable 2) the thickness of the air. Generally speaking the higher you go the thinner the air becomes and the further you can see.

Variable 3) how close the air is to it’s dewpoint. If the air is significantly above it’s dewpoint the water vapor in the air won’t coalesce and if the air is significantly lower then the water vapor drops out of the air. When the air temperature is close to its dewpoint haze and mist forms.

Variable 4) How much smoke/dust is present.

As a general rule sighting distances in mountainous areas are longer than usual as the air is thinner and less polluted and the air is often lower than the dewpoint.

[Maquise]

A somewhat different question, but I think it fits in the scope of this thread.

If one had a fully-functional cybernetic arm, with strength and range of movement comparable to a physically fit human's natural arm, what would be the most effective way to mount a retractable bladed weapon?

[redwizard007]

A somewhat different question, but I think it fits in the scope of this thread.

If one had a fully-functional cybernetic arm, with strength and range of movement comparable to a physically fit human's natural arm, what would be the most effective way to mount a retractable bladed weapon?

That would depend entirely on the design of the prosthetic. Ideally the blade would be integrated into any appropriately sized void in the arm.

[Maquise]

That would depend entirely on the design of the prosthetic. Ideally the blade would be integrated into any appropriately sized void in the arm.

Indeed, but I was wondering how it would be designed to be used. Would arm-blades like we see in Cyberpunk or Deus Ex be the best way to go about such a weapon, and if so what configuration would be optimal?

[Mr Beer]

What's it for and how much spare volume do you have in the cyberarm?

For the same of utility, assuming that simply carrying around weapons like a normal person is a problem for some reason, I would think a small concealed blade in hand for knife stuff and a proper weapon like a gun in your arm for combat would be better than a long fighting blade.

I'm dubious about the overall combat utility of integral weapons anyway.

Melee weapons suffer from things like lack of mobility unless you somehow incorporate all the articulation available to a sword gripped in a hand. Also, I don't think it would be great to parry with something that's wired directly into your skeleton. Also, melee weapons are generally much less effective at killing people in comparison to, for example, rapid fire rifles (a very old technology compared to fully functional cyberlimbs).

Missile weapons, which are effective weapons, do things that are incompatible with being contained within the human body e.g. waste heat, recoil, toxic fumes etc.

So using limbs as somewhere to hide holdout grade weapons for special situations might be the most realistic application of this kind of thing.

I think if sufficient technology exists to overcome these problems, you could go in a variety of different ways anyway. So you maybe better off thinking about what kind of aesthetic you are after and then go about justifying it.

[redwizard007]

I'm dubious about the overall combat utility of integral weapons anyway.

Melee weapons suffer from things like lack of mobility unless you somehow incorporate all the articulation available to a sword gripped in a hand. Also, I don't think it would be great to parry with something that's wired directly into your skeleton...

...So using limbs as somewhere to hide holdout grade weapons for special situations might be the most realistic application of this kind of thing.

This.

What I am picturing is sort of a spike or blade protruding from your hand or elbow. That would look cool, but would be horrid to actually fight with.

A fully retractable weapon is going to be great for assassins. Not so much for actual combat. Your pros will be surprise and placement of that first strike. Cons will be deflecting enemy attacks, adjusting your strikes, and the ability to adjust your angle of attack (or lack of ability to do these.)

In theory, a weapon that shoots out of your arm and into your hand (to be held like a normal weapon) could be feasible. A short straight sword of some type, or even an ax that's blade is collapsed could be feasible. At that point you just have a spring loaded weapon delivery device. Packing a pistol instead of a blade would be more practical.

Depending on tech level you could even have the whole arm morph into the weapon instead of simply concealing it. Picture your arm liquefying and reshaping, or breaking into a million nanobots to do the same. It could even be more like the transformers, basically just rearranging pieces to get the weapon you want. In any of these you are going to be better off using your other arm to wield this weapon. That way you maintain reach and a normal range of movement.

[Maquise]

For some clarification, in the setting (Netrunner) there are monoblade weapons which are based on single-atom filaments that are stiffened from an electrostatic field; I figured that in the context of the setting such a weapon would be the most efficient way of using such an implement, just trying to figure out what way made the most sense to mount it.

[AdAstra]

For some clarification, in the setting (Netrunner) there are monoblade weapons which are based on single-atom filaments that are stiffened from an electrostatic field; I figured that in the context of the setting such a weapon would be the most efficient way of using such an implement, just trying to figure out what way made the most sense to mount it.

If this is a true "can cut through just about anything" style monoblade, then you're going to want maximum dexterity and finesse, since the amount of force you can apply is far less relevant, and your best defense will be getting the first strike in. This means that a blade mounted directly to your arm is likely to be too unwieldy compared to one held in the hand, due to less articulation. That being said, you could probably have a hidden compartment you can draw a conventional blade from, or one that extends from the knuckle or like, the top part of the hand. That would at least allow you to use your wrist to maneuver the blade, as opposed to having to use your entire forearm.

[Pauly]

For some clarification, in the setting (Netrunner) there are monoblade weapons which are based on single-atom filaments that are stiffened from an electrostatic field; I figured that in the context of the setting such a weapon would be the most efficient way of using such an implement, just trying to figure out what way made the most sense to mount it.

The first thing you want is a gyroscopic stabilizer to ensure correct edge alignment. The blade has zero effective mass so any cut that is not aligned perfectly with the angle of momentum will not cut effectively.

[Willie the Duck]

For some clarification, in the setting (Netrunner) there are monoblade weapons which are based on single-atom filaments that are stiffened from an electrostatic field; I figured that in the context of the setting such a weapon would be the most efficient way of using such an implement, just trying to figure out what way made the most sense to mount it.

The problem for this specific question in a thread like this is that monoblades are based on author-fiat rules. So the answer is whatever you want. Can the filament be kept on a spool or the like when not in use? In that case, maybe have it in a fingertip, and the power source somewhere down the arm. Wherever you have the most fine motor control, the better.