Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
This forum is used with the NationStates web-game designed and run by Max Barry. While not officially affiliated, this serves as the regional forum for the regions: Middle East, African Continent, American Continent, Asian Continent, and European Continent.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and can "read only".

In order to get the most out of these forums, please become a member and read this guide - http://z3.invisionfree.com/nationstates/index.php?showtopic=3060


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Siege of Constantinople 1453; Discussion Thread
Topic Started: Nov 9 2009, 02:29 PM (664 Views)
Telosan
Member Avatar
The Foremost Intellectual Badass
A uniform combat system will lessen a great deal of confusion. With the original system, there was a possibility for "special rules" each war as agreed upon by the warring parties and the moderator. If you look at Pomerania, I added flanking rules. I think Huesca added a few special rules to the Tunis Crusade.

Constantinople's wall strengths and such could be changed using the special rules.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
East Anarx
Member Avatar
Anarchitect

Telosan
Jan 24 2010, 09:51 PM
A uniform combat system will lessen a great deal of confusion. With the original system, there was a possibility for "special rules" each war as agreed upon by the warring parties and the moderator. If you look at Pomerania, I added flanking rules. I think Huesca added a few special rules to the Tunis Crusade.

Constantinople's wall strengths and such could be changed using the special rules.
I wasn't aware of the "special rules" concept as a part of the original system. Makes sense.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Abnar
Member Avatar
Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the lurkiest of them all?
Sedulius
Jan 24 2010, 07:16 PM
I realize we're going for a somewhat simple system, but it doesn't exactly do justice to the Siege of Constantinople. I think we should have different wall strengths.

Considering that the Byzantines rebuilt the breaches as the Turks made them and defeated all the waves meant for attrition, I'd say they had damn good walls (it was being bombarded by cannon and giant bombards, yet still standing up. It was firing back with its own smaller, breach-loading cannons). The only reason the Turks took Constantinople is on the final day they assaulted with their entire force. They made one breach in the wall, which after the Venetian commander there was killed his forces fled, but even then were it not for the main gate in the walls opening for some reason, the Turks could not have taken the city.

Not trying to undermine the system, I'm just saying there's much more to be considered in a siege.
Then change "X" to determine how long it takes to destroy a wall. If the defenders hold a destroyed wall for Y turns, it's rebuilt and requires Z turns to break again, with Z less than X because the rebuilt wall is weaker.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Telosan
Member Avatar
The Foremost Intellectual Badass
Sed, I've been working on modifying the war system, and have been saving the siege engines part because it's a bit more complex than naval and land engagements.

Anyway, I was wondering if, once I finalized a prototype for the siege warfare, if you would like to attempt to do the Siege of Constantinople as a test run?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
« Previous Topic · 1452 General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply