Chapter 7:

Warfare!

Note: This chapter refers to rules and concepts used in TSR's BATTLESYSTEM miniatures rules. Since siege warfare is, by its very nature, an activity involving scores, hundreds or even thousands of troops, BATTLESYSTEM is the system of choice. Of course, this doesn't mean that small segments of a siege can't be role-played to great effect using standard AD&D rules.

"General Gralnor muttered another curse to Gruumsh the All-Seeing, god of the orcs--in whom he didn't quite believe. He shifted on his saddle until he found a more comfortable position--a somewhat less uncomfortable one, tear it. Here he was, a battle-scarred veteran with some two-score heads to his personal credit, and so far in this campaign the only opportunity he had to show his true mettle was to suffer stoically a bad case of saddle-sores. Much more of this and he'd be as soft as a human. Still, he knew that would change soon enough. Before the day was out, he'd have more weighty things to worry about than the condition of his hindquarters. The orcish general's mission had been made clear to him--quite painfully clear--by the War Chieftain. Reduce the elven fort that lay ahead. It didn't matter how, just do it. And if he didn't succeed, it would be much better all around if he just didn't come back. Gralnor had seen what was left of the last field commander to disappoint the War Chieftain. As an orcish warrior, Gralnor was no stranger to physical atrocities, but even so he'd been impressed.

As to the fort ahead, General Gralnor would much rather just bottle it up--totally interdict all supply routes and communication into and out of the place, and then wait. There couldn't be more than three weeks worth of food within the walls, four at the outside. Then the garrison would resort to eating their war dogs and their horses, maybe even each other. Gralnor wasn't sure about that last thought; his only real knowledge of elves was how to kill them. Another three weeks after that and his army could scale the walls confident that they'd meet no meaningful resistance from those within.

Elsewhere that would be a valid tactic; it even looked so here, if you examined the fort in isolation. But eight weeks was a long time, more than enough for reinforcements to be called by magical means. And Gralnor had no desire to participate in the classical military situation of double encirclement. No, the walls would have to come down. And the sooner the better . . .

The general of a force planning to attack a castle has a number of options from which to choose. The right choice depends on a number of factors including the size of the target, the expected resistance, the presence or absence of heroes (on both sides), the presence or absences of fantastic beasts, the magical capabilities of both forces, the chance of counterattack or relief, supply constraints, terrain and weather conditions. More important than these, however, are three other factors: the size of the attacking force, the general's estimation of his or her army's morale, and the length of time within which the castle must fall.

In general, there are two distinct techniques for defeating a fortification: investment, and reduction.

In its simplest terms, investment is what most people think of when they hear the word "siege": cutting off access to and escape from a fortification. Interdicting lines of supply ensures that no food shipments can make it into the castle; the garrison is thus limited to the supplies on hand at the moment the investment was laid. Interdicting lines of communication ensures that the garrison can't call for help, and must stand or fall on its own abilities.

Medieval Tactics

During the true Medieval period, investment was the only viable method for dealing with a fortification of any size. Without gunpowder (and without magic, of course), armies had no practical means of breaching walls any stronger than log palisades. True, siege engines such as catapults and ballistae had been used by the Romans, but even these weren't overly effective against the stone curtain wall of a castle. Also, investments of the medieval period were usually undertaken by smaller--and frequently less-organized--groups than were later sieges. Such groups would rarely have brought siege engines along with them, have access to them after they reached the target, or know how to build them. The usually smaller size of medieval siege armies had another consequence: there were simply insufficient troops to set up a complete cordon around the fortification. Instead, the attacker would typically just block off all gates and other portals into a castle, concentrating its forces at these key points. A sensible general would place a picket line of soldiers to keep watch on the rest of the building. Even so, it would usually be possible for someone inside the castle to escape at night--either over the wall or through a concealed passage and flee the area to summon help.

The attacker's purpose, of course, is to prevent resupply and reinforcement to the castle under siege. Its effectiveness depends largely on the castle's level of supply when the investment was laid. Most castles are built around a well of some kind; unless the attackers are able to poison or otherwise eliminate this well, thirst should not be a problem for the defenders. On the other hand, food soon will become a problem. The level of supply varied widely for historical castles. Forts on the border between England and Wales were traditionally stocked with enough food for two months; Krak des Chevaliers, a Crusader castle in what is now Syria, was provisioned for a full year. Other castles, particularly those whose garrisons didn't expect imminent attack, might have had considerably lower levels of supply.

To simplify what would otherwise be a rather complex discussion, let's start with a few assumptions. First, when a castle is said to have a certain level of provision (for example, "the garrison has two weeks' worth of food"), this amount represents a daily ration just barely sufficient for unimpaired functioning (the assumption is that a normally-functioning castle will have a constant influx of fresh food). Cutting the rations any further would lead to malnutrition, with effects similar to those of out-and-out starvation. Secondly, troops can remain totally out of supply for five days without showing any physical symptoms of starvation. In BATTLESYSTEM game terms, progressive starvation through lack of supply can be viewed as a form of attack. It also has effects on morale. These effects fall into three categories: "Morale decrease".

On a regular basis, the morale base for each unit among the garrison decreases by 1. These decreases are cumulative, and remain in effect until the fortification is relieved, or until it falls. In either case, the morale of surviving troops returns to normal as soon as they are once more in complete supply.

"Morale checks"

Regular morale checks reflect the debilitating effect of being out of supply. Eventually, units will become shaken, and commanders must make an effort to rally them if they wish to make sorties against the investing forces.

"Attrition"

This represents actual death or incapacitation due to starvation. Each time attrition is scheduled to occur, the defender must roll 1d4 for each figure in the total garrison. The result of each roll is taken individually; the rolls are not summed. Using the Combat Results Table, compute the total number of hits that these rolls have caused. Now the defender must distribute these hits as he or she sees fit against the garrison. Note that Armor Ratings have no effect on attrition. Giving the defender a choice as to where to apply these hits represents a de-fending general's ability to allot what little food is available to the most important troops.

Larger creatures (size L and greater) need proportionately more food than smaller ones. When calculating hits from attrition, use 1d6 for each figure of size L or larger creatures, rather than 1d4. Goblinoid and giant-class creatures--but only those of size M or smaller--suffer less of an effect from attrition. This is because the nasty stuff that starving soldiers grub up during a siege isn't too far out of line from their regular diet. These troops roll for attrition using 1d4, but the total number of hits from these rolls is decreased by 25% (round fractions up). Thus, the attrition dice rolled for goblinoid troops and the resulting hits are kept separate from those rolled for other troops in the garrison. The total number of hits (after the 25% reduction) is still summed, however, and the defending commander can decide how best to allocate those hits. This partial amelioration of attrition effects can be extended to other troop types, at the DM's option. Figures representing "individuals" of size M or even size L never suffer attrition ("one person can always find enough to eat"). Figures representing creatures of sizes greater than L (dragons, for example) are a different case, however. Since these huge creatures will generally be handled through AD&D rules anyway, attrition is handled through saving throws and hit points. Each time the garrison is scheduled to undergo attrition, each huge creature must save versus staves with a -5 penalty or lose a number of hit points equal to 25% of its hit point total when at full strength.

Undead and elemental creatures are not affected by hunger, and so are immune to attrition. The following chart outlines when each of the above effects takes place. Consider "day 1" to be the first day that the garrison is totally out of supplies.

On Day 45, any units still in good order automatically become shaken, and shaken units can no longer be rallied. Attrition continues to occur every seven days (on Days 49, 56, 63, 70, etc.) until the garrison surrenders or is totally eliminated. In terms of game mechanics, assume that morale effects and attrition occur at sundown on the day in question.

Lack of water has a much swifter effect than lack of food. Morale effects are the same as with starvation; when attrition occurs, roll 1d4 for each figure in the defending garrison. For the following table, Day 1 is again the first day that the garrison has run out of water.

On day 12, all units still in good order automatically become shaken, and can no longer be rallied. Attrition occurs every second day (on days 13, 15, 17, 19, etc.) until the garrison surrenders or is totally eliminated. In terms of game mechanics, assume that morale effects and attrition occur at sundown on the day in question. Certain creatures are more affected by water loss (lizard men, for example). For troops of this type, roll 1d6 per figure for attrition, rather than 1d4. Truly amphibian creatures such as bullywugs or grung are affected even more; roll 1d8 per figure for these troop types. For desert-dwelling creatures, decrease all hits from thirst attrition by 25%. Undead and elemental creatures are not affected by thirst, and so are immune to attrition.

Later Periods

During later periods, particularly in Western Europe, the nature of investment changed considerably. Rather than concentrating entirely on closing the gates, the attacker would often go to great efforts to totally enclose the castle within siegeworks, often elaborate enough to be considered strongholds in their own right. Such an enclosure often comprised two distinct systems of walls and trenches: lines of "circumvallation" (facing the country) and "countervallation" (facing the besieged fortress). These siegeworks first appeared as tentative experiments around Milan in 1522 and grew into the elaborate constructions besieging Grave in 1602. The principle of complete encirclement had a number of benefits in a gunpowder-free campaign (and many more when siege cannon were available). The first was defense for the attackers. Rather than taking up positions to guard the gates--often nearer to the walls than was comfortable-- and having to suffer withering fire from the battlements, the attackers could shelter behind ramparts and breastworks.

The siegeworks also provided defense in depth. To break out of the encirclement, a sortie would have to leave the castle, cross the "no-man's-land" between it and the siegeworks--a prime killing ground, should the attacking force have any number of archers or musketeers at all--then fight its way over or through the attackers' own fortifications. This would typically prove much more difficult than bursting through a relatively small force encamped directly outside the gate. Complete encirclement made it much more difficult for the defenders to send word of their predicament to allies who could come and relieve them. Finally, should relief finally come to the besieged fortification, the attackers would be deeply entrenched, equally ready to repel a sortie from within or an attack from without.

When magic, non-human troops and the occasional monster are thrown into the mix, investment takes on a totally new aspect. Sorties can be considerably more effective if led by a giant or two, the attackers must concern themselves with possible air-lifts, and supply takes on a new significance since hungry monsters are less likely to follow battle plans . . .

The options for the attacker are many. Magical spells like "wizard lock" or perhaps holy symbols might be used to deny the use of the castle's gates to its own garrison. The potential uses for powerful battle magic like "finger of death" spells are obvious, and the effects of such dweomers are covered in the BATTLESYSTEM miniatures rules. Even if the attacker prefers keeping up the investment to forcing entry, there's no reason why a magically-endowed character or group of characters couldn't enter the castle (via a "passwall" spell, for example), and engage in a little mayhem or assassination.

The attacker must also be on guard against the many options open to the defender. For example, the attacking troops must be ready to repel sorties led by fantastic "shock troops" that might or might not be illusory. It is usually a good idea to have mages stationed around the perimeter to analyze and perhaps counter these threats. Magic makes it much easier for the defenders to send troops over the wall without being observed. These troops might simply be on a mission to summon help, or might be charged with destroying the besiegers' supply dump or assassinating the attacking commander. Skirmishers stationed around the perimeter, or regular patrols, become more important. If a breakout in force occurs, cavalry should be available to run the enemy to ground and mop up.

The defenders can use flying creatures, or mages equipped with appropriate spells or items, to summon help, harass the attacking troops, or even ferry in supplies. The attacking commander must be prepared, with archers or wizards ready to engage from the ground, or flying creatures to dogfight with the enemy. Certain things become impossible for the attacker. There's nothing the most skilful general can do to prevent a spellcaster within the castle from teleporting elsewhere to recruit help. Similarly, a powerful enough mage can "summon" or "gate" in reinforcements, despite the tightest encirclement.

Historically, duels between single champions or small groups were sometimes used to decide victory in a battle. Similar circumstances could arise in a siege: single combat between opposing heroes, or a sorcerous duel between spellcasters. Of course, there's no guarantee that the losing side in such an exercise would follow through with their side of the bargain, but this is an age of chivalry and honor.

In a true medieval setting, reduction--that is, forcing entry into a castle by storming the walls or gates--was simply not a viable option in most cases. The technology just didn't exist to break down a well-built stone wall, and the greatly superior position of the garrison--shielded by battlements, towers and bastions--made it possible for a handful of troops to hold off an army many times superior in numbers. This is not to say that armies didn't try, of course. The value of a castle was just too great for an invading army to ignore.

While they could certainly bottle up the garrison and prevent them from having any say in current events, the castle continued to be a threat. As long as a castle and its garrison remained unconquered, the defenders could harass the invaders' lines of supply or communication and, when the attacking force withdrew, emerge from their refuge and regain control of the countryside. This changed with the introduction of gunpowder. If left to its own devices, a well-equipped attacking force skilled in the use of cannon could eventually reduce the strongest fortification to rubble. The bravery of the garrison's troops or the skill of its commander come to mean little when unopposed cannon systematically pound the walls into gravel. If the siege was conducted correctly, the attacker could be almost certain of eventual success. Of course, "eventual" is definitely the key word. The attacking general must be ready to commit a lot of effort and time, and to spend a lot of men, in order to succeed. Some historians state that, with the widespread introduction of the cannon, the day of the castle began to come to an end. The situation changes even more in a fantasy environment. In fact, it can be argued that traditional castles make no sense in a magic-rich fantasy campaign. Is it logical to invest years of labor and many thousands of gold pieces in a castle when a low-level mage could--theoretically, at least--approach the gate invisibly and open it with a "knock" spell? In any case, the attacking general has a number of options when it comes time to force entry into a fortification. The following examples are certainly the most commonly used.

Why bother to break down the walls of a castle when you can simply go over them? In renaissance times, the task of getting troops over the walls into the fortification was sometimes called "escalade." Methods for scaling walls include ladders, grapples and siege towers. The standard BATTLESYSTEM miniatures rules (page 80) cover the use of ladders and grapples, and the consequences of trying to scale a defended wall. More details are necessary on siege towers, however.

Siege Towers

These massive, cumbersome creations ranged from simple scaffolds of hastily-felled trees, sometimes with little or nothing to protect those within, to elaborate enclosed structures with such refinements as hinged shutters and even small draw-bridges to streamline access to the tops of the castle's walls. Siege towers often provide their occupants with some bonus to AR against missile weapons. Depending on the particular tower's construction, this bonus can range from -2 (for target figures protected by an open doorway or window) to -4 (for target figures behind loopholes or arrow slits). This variation in construction also affects the sturdiness and "survivability" of a siege tower. Although the figure for hits given in the BATTLESYSTEM rules--10 hits per 1" (10' in scale) of height--makes sense as an average, the actual number of hits can range from 6 hits per 1" of height to as high as 15 hits per 1" for singularly elaborate towers. Siege towers are vulnerable to fire attacks, as described on page 86 of the BATTLESYSTEM rules. Troops within an ignited siege tower suffer casualties as if they were the target of an AD 8 attack on each turn they remain in the burning structure. If they don't immediately leave the burning tower, they must also make a Morale Check, at a -1 penalty, at the beginning of the second turn. The weight of siege towers makes it very difficult to move them. The BATTLESYSTEM rules state (page 84) that they can be moved up only the gentlest of slopes, and at that only if propelled by twice the usual number of figures. Should it be necessary to move the siege tower downhill--in the rare case of a castle set in a depression or dell or surrounded by earth ramparts--the same rule applies: the tower can negotiate a slope no steeper than 1" rise or fall for every 12" of horizontal distance, and even then only if twice the normal number of figures propel it. Note that additional motive force won't make it possible for the tower to negotiate steeper grades. Sheer mass isn't the only problem: having a small base and high center of gravity, towers are typically rather unstable, and would topple on a steeper slope regardless of motive force.

Intelligent opponents would recognize that wrecking the wheels of an approaching siege tower will render it useless, and would probably concentrate their attacks on these targets. Assume that a siege tower that has sustained 25% of its total number of hits has been immobilized. Repairs can be made, but require the participation of at least 20 troops (two figures) equipped with tools and materials, and take 2-6 hours. During this time, these troops are exposed to missile fire.

Other Climbing Techniques

Thieves can use their climbing skills to help them scale a wall, in the absence of ladders or grapples. Although very unlikely, it's possible that a unit of one or more figures might be designated as having thief skills. This rare event might occur should one thieves' guild be trying to force entry into the stronghold of another such guild, for example. Since such troops could theoretically assist each other, it becomes easier to assume that all of them will complete the ascent unless they are opposed. If they are opposed, however, they suffer the same effects as troops scaling the walls on grapples, and must make the same Morale Check when they reach the top to determine if they can attack. It's much more likely that only one or at most a handful of attackers are trained thieves. In this case, their ascent of the walls should be handled using the standard AD&D game rules. The same is true for mages using spells like "spider climb", though it's almost unthinkable that a unit of wizards should be thrown against the wall of a castle as there are surely better ways of using their talents. Assaults on the walls by one or a few spellcasters should also be handled using role-playing rules.

In a fantasy world, it's easy to imagine many other techniques for getting troops over a castle wall. The BATTLESYSTEM rules (page 72) covers such tactics as pass-by attacks and vertical envelopment, but these rules must be somewhat modified (or at least clarified) to take into account the close quarters of a fortified environment. Ground attack--where a flying unit lands and then attacks a ground unit--is viable, but only if there's enough space for the entire flying unit when it lands. This becomes a significant issue in close quarters, such as in the courtyard of a castle. If walls or outbuildings make it impossible for the entire attacking unit to land, those figures for which there is no space are removed from play. They are assumed to have come to grief by slamming into walls or buildings. While an attacking commander might sometimes consider such losses to be worth the potential benefits of the attack, it's probably more likely that the attacker will realize that the space is inadequate only after moving a few of the figures in the attacking unit. In this case, the movement can't be aborted. The unit must complete its action, even if it means the loss of figures. The justification for this is that flying troops will theoretically be holding (at least loose) formation on leaders or wing-men. They are too busy concentrating on their formation to realize their danger until it's too late. This situation has caused the deaths of several members of aerobatic teams in the real world. Walls and other obstacles also represent real risks to flying troops conducting pass-by attacks. The attacking unit must have enough room to dive to the attack, and to pull out safely after the attack is complete. Diving causes a flying unit to accelerate (this is represented by the bonus of 1" to forward movement for each 3" dived), and this additional speed might be difficult to "bleed off." As a rule of thumb, a diving unit must expend (rounded down) of its total movement allowance for each 3" (or portion thereof) it dives.

For example, a flying unit (maneuverability class C) has a base movement allowance of 12", and it dives 6". For the turn in which it dives, its actual movement allowance is 14" (12" plus 2" bonusfor diving). During the dive it picks up so much speed that it must use of its total movement allowance, or 7". Some of this required movement allowance can, of course, be used up by climbing again after a pass-by attack. The real risk for a unit conducting a pass-by attack in close quarters is in the pull-up after the attack (remember that creatures of maneuverability class C, D, or E must move forward 1" for each 1" they climb in altitude). As an example, take the unit discussed above. It is currently at an altitude of 6", and it is 1" away from a unit in a castle courtyard. First, it dives 6" and moves 1" forward, to conduct a pass-by attack. After the combat, the rule above requires that it use at least another 6" of its movement allowance. At its steepest rate of climb, it can ascend 3", but it must also move forward by 3" (see the BATTLESYSTEM rules, page 72). If an obstacle such as a wall is less than 3" away from the unit, and 3" (30') or more in height, the flying unit can't avoid crashing into the wall. Figures forced to fly into obstacles by this rule are removed from play. After a vertical envelopment attack (BATTLESYSTEM rules, page 73), one or other of the units must be dislodged from its place on the battlefield. Obstacles might make this impossible, however (again, a castle courtyard is an example). If the combat result requires a unit to withdraw, but it is unable to do so because of walls or buildings, the unit is removed from the battlefield.

Note that flying units can make pass-by attacks against units atop a castle wall or tower. In such a case, the defending unit gains no benefit from battlements or crenellations since the attack is from above. Some pretty far-out situations might arise in a magic-heavy campaign world. Troops equipped with sufficient magical items or spells might be able to make a kind of "paratroop" attack. For example, take a unit of human cavalry riding flying mounts, each of whom is equipped with a "ring of feather falling". At any time in their movement, these riders may "dismount" and use their rings to descend safely to the ground. An attack from above like this would be a special form of vertical envelopment. Although events like this would probably be very rare, even the possibility should put defenders on their guard. A unit of enemy "paratroopers" skydiving into a castle courtyard might prove disastrous.

Giants

Giant humanoids pose a special case when it comes to scaling walls. Theoretically, a unit of giants could be equipped with ladders or grapples of a scale appropriate to the creatures' size. (Obviously, normal grapples or ladders would be useless to giants; conversely, such equipment for giants could not be used by normal-sized troops.) Giants can climb appropriately-sized ropes or ladders at twice the rate for other troops: in other words, 2" of movement allowance to climb 2" (20' scale) for ladders, and 3" of movement allowance to climb 2" for grapples. Giants are able to scale walls 1.25 times their height without using any equipment. (The height of different types of giants can be found in the AD&D MONSTROUS COMPENDIUM(R) accessories. A wall less than one-half the height of a giant qualifies as an obstacle (with the appropriate movement cost to cross). Climbing a wall between one-half and 1.25 times the giant's height takes one complete turn. Like troops using grapples, giants climbing such a wall must successfully make a Morale Check to be able to attack when they reach the top.

Sometimes an attacker has no options but to breach the castle's walls. In medieval times, this was attempted using a wide variety of siege engines--catapults, rams, and the like--which are discussed in more detail in a later section. Generally speaking, these siege engines had minimal effect on a well-built and stoutly-defended castle. In the early Renaissance period, however, matters changed. Cannon appeared on the battlefield, and the days of the castle were numbered. Most AD&D game campaigns take place in worlds where gunpowder either doesn't explode or hasn't been discovered. The BATTLESYSTEM rules bring in arquebusiers, however, and thus open the door for other firearms . . . including cannon, used by both defender and attacker. Details on siege guns are given in a later section.

The BATTLESYSTEM rules (page 82) list the number of hits certain building features can take before being destroyed. While the information provided there is fine for most miniatures games, it must be expanded upon for use here. The figures given for walls refer to sections 3" (30' scale) long. When the section is reduced to zero hits, a breach 1" wide appears in the middle of the 3" section. This isn't an instantaneous matter, of course, and if two breaches are created 1" or less apart, the wall between the breaches collapses as well. When an object such as a gate or a wall is reduced to zero hits, it doesn't simply disappear: wreckage or rubble is inevitably left behind. In the case of doors or gates, the wreckage is considered to be an obstacle (i.e., it costs 4" of movement to cross it). Troops receive a -1 modifier to their AR against missile fire that passes through such an obstacle. When a wall is breached, it collapses into rubble. This pile of shattered rock is considered as rough/rocky terrain for movement and combat purposes. Troops "holding the breach" will almost always be at a higher elevation than troops attacking into the breach. A breach is nobody's "favored terrain."

Note: This method is quite different from the system described on page 76 of the AD&D 2nd Edition "DUNGEON MASTER Guide". While the latter method is useful for "quick and dirty" situations where the DM has to decide the results of a PC's or NPC's actions, the system described above and in the BATTLESYSTEM rules is a more thorough and consistent treatment of the subject.

Fantastic Creatures

By their very mass, large creatures like dragons can be very effective against fortifications. Creatures of huge size have AD 10 against building features, while creatures of gargantuan size have AD 12. Certain creatures have significant effects against fortifications for reasons other than sheer mass. For example, because of their kinship with the stone, earth elementals can do great damage. Treants, too, can tear down walls by insinuating their root-like limbs between the stones and tearing them apart. Details on this are given in a subsequent section.

Magic

In addition to useful spells like "knock" and "passwall", there are several dweomers that do significant amounts of damage to fortifications. These are listed in the next section. Note that most of these spells don't appear in the BATTLESYSTEM rules spell list. Players engaged in a BATTLESYSTEM battle or campaign might agree to include them, using casting times and such as given in the AD&D game rules. If BATTLESYSTEM rules are being used to decide a siege in an AD&D game, the DM should probably allow these spells to be used.

The table below the AD values associated with various forms of attack. Traditional siege engines are described in more detail in a later section.

As a general rule, one figure (representing 10 troops) can dig a trench 10' deep by 20' wide and 300' long in 30 days, assuming normal soil. This will include a rampart of about 8' height, since the earth has to go somewhere. Extremely wet, swampy soil or heavy clay will double this time. If the workers are supervised by gnomes or dwarves (races known for their prodigious skill at excavation), the total time will be decreased by 25%. The above figures are based on human, half-orc, or half-elven troops. For other troop types, multiply the amount of time taken by the following factors:

Thus, one figure representing dwarf troops will dig a trench 10' deep by 20' wide and 300' long in 27 days, while an equal number of kobolds would take 36 days to dig the same ditch. (Note that the trench could take other dimensions, as long as the total volume of earth moved--60,000 cubic feet--remained the same. Thus, the trench could be 20' deep by 30' wide and only 100' long with a rampart 24' high.)

For troop types not listed above, use this rule of thumb based on size:

Theoretically, any infantry unit or units can dig trenches. In practice, however, the troops involved can wear no armor (heavy digging isn't possible while wearing chain mail). Thus, while a heavy infantry unit might be assigned to digging trenches, while they're actually digging their AR drops to 9 (representing no armor). These troops can stop digging at any time and re-armor themselves; however, donning armor takes one complete turn. During this turn, they retain an AR of 9 and are unable to attack (either in melee combat or with missile weapons). If they opt not to don their armor, of course, they can attack with their normal AD; their AR remains 9.

If cannon or other methods are unable to breach a castle's wall, the attackers have at least one other option: mining. In simplest terms, this involves digging under the walls of the castle and excavating a "gallery", the roof of which is shored up with posts and wooden supports. When the gallery is large enough, the miners burn out the supports -- or blow them up, using gunpowder -- which (hopefully) causes the gallery, and the wall above it, to collapse.

The practicality of this technique depends heavily on the type of ground the castle is built on. Soft stone or earth are ideal, since they're (relatively) easy to excavate and solid enough that the gallery won't collapse prematurely. Hard rock is a problem, simply because excavation will be so time-consuming. Sand is perhaps the worst of all, since it's almost impossible to dig out a gallery at all (of course, most castles won't be built on sand).

Theoretically, as with digging trenches, any infantry unit can assist in excavation. In practice, however, the troops involved can wear no armor (heavy digging isn't possible while wearing armor) and can carry weapons no larger than short swords. Thus, while a heavy infantry unit might be assigned to mining duty, while they're actually digging their AR drops to 9, and their AD to 6 (representing no armor and only personal weapons). The speed of excavation depends both on the nature of the ground and on the race of miners involved. This is shown in the following table which lists the volume of earth (in cubic feet) which can be

mined in an eight hour shift.

In general, only one figure can work in a tunnel; more can work in a large gallery, limited by the actual space taken up by the figures and bases. Thus, three figures of dwarven workers (representing 30 dwarves) digging a large gallery in hard rock could excavate a volume about eight feet high by five feet wide by five feet long in eight hours. Obviously, mining is a slow process, made even slower by the necessity of shoring up the ceiling with wooden supports. Excavation is gruelling work. Troops can work no longer than eight consecutive hours. After that, they must rest another eight interrupted hours before they can resume digging. There's no reason why troops can't work in shifts, of course.

Collapsing the Mine

Once the gallery has been excavated, the next step is to burn out the wooden supports so that the roof--and theoretically the wall above--collapses. Usually the wooden supports are splashed with oil, and flammable materials are packed around them. One figure equipped with torches can ignite the supports; alternatively, spells like "fireball" can be used. The supports will take 1d3 turns to burn away. Miners can also use gunpowder to assist the burning of the supports (historically, the Spaniards used this technique). Unless gunpowder is confined, it doesn't explode. Even so, however, bags of gunpowder piled around the supports burn very rapidly and improve the chances of collapsing the gallery.

Whether or not gunpowder is used, mining is never one hundred percent sure. This is reflected in the following table. When the attacker attempts to collapse the gallery, roll 1d10:

Note: Add +1 bonus to die roll if gunpowder is used.

If a mine fails to collapse, the miners must enlarge the gallery by 25% of its current volume before trying again.

The amount of damage inflicted on structures above by a collapsing mine depends on the volume of the gallery and the terrain on which the castle stands. A collapsing gallery inflicts the following number of hits for each 1,000 cubic feet of gallery volume:

For example, a castle is built on soft stone. The attackers have excavated a gallery 20' wide by 30' long by 10' high (6,000 cubic feet) beneath one of the walls. If the gallery is successfully collapsed, it will inflict 6d8 hits on the wall above.

Sometimes conditions can be arranged so that the gunpowder used in a mine actually explodes. Perhaps the gunpowder is packed tightly in earthenware containers or something similar. The most spectacular use of a gunpowder mine was at the fall of the French castle of Uovo, near Naples, in 1503. The castle was situated on a narrow peninsula separated from the mainland by a deep ditch, and cannon alone were powerless to reduce the place. The attacking Spaniards had an expert among them--Pedro Navarro--who had perfected the gunpowder mine. After spending three weeks digging a large enough gallery, Navarro packed it with gunpowder and touched it off. The powder exploded spectacularly, blowing much of the wall into the air, and killing the castle's governor and his council who were at debate in the chapel above the gallery.

The amount of damage done by gunpowder depends on the amount used. The base damage done to structures above the gallery is shown in the following table. The figures represent the number of hits inflicted for each 100 pounds of gunpowder used:

Note that the above tables are used only if suitable preparations are made to cause the gunpowder to explode, not simply burn.

Battles in the Tunnels

If the defenders know that mining is going on, there's no reason why they have to simply sit still while the attackers go about their business. Historically, counter-mining was not an uncommon tactic.

Once the garrison has established the location of the enemy mine (by observation, listening, or magical means), they might begin excavations of their own. The garrison would dig a tunnel that met up with the enemy's gallery, then send troops down it to kill the attacking miners. The weapon and armor restrictions on miners applies to both sides . . . at least while excavation is actually going on. Once tunnels are complete, however, fully-armed troops can be sent down them, limited only by the space in the excavations.

Counter-mining was raised to an art by the Muscovites when Moscow was besieged by the boyars in 1606. The Muscovite miners had prepared secret galleries under the walls, and from there, they dug under the foundations and out. They located the attacking mines and galleries, broke into them and killed the enemy miners. In some cases, they even excavated under the attacking galleries and blew them up with gunpowder.

Rules for morale and movement in tunnels are identical to those referring to buildings, with the following exceptions. Missile combat (except for spells such as "magic missile") is forbidden; there is simply not enough space to use such weapons effectively. If figures representing unarmored and lightly-armed miners are met by fully-armed troops, all Morale Checks made by the miners are at -2.

For movement purposes, tunnels are considered as rough/rocky terrain. Troops in tunnels and galleries can be ordered to "hold the breach."

The vast majority of fortifications--typically fortified towns--that fell during the Middle Ages and early Modern period did so to tactics other than standard siege warfare. In fact, almost as many European citadels were taken by bribing the castellan or suborning the governor as by any other means. If bribery was ineffective or inappropriate, there were many other options still open. The most famous stratagem in history is the Trojan horse, but there were other tricks almost as audacious. A good example might be the city of Ypres falling to the Dutch in 1578 after a wagon containing an unusually hairy "bride" and party of "bridesmaids" broke down by arrangement at the Messines Gate.

Magic--specifically illusion--offers many possibilities. Few garrisons would fail to open their castles' gates when they saw a well-armed column of "allies" approaching to reinforce them. More unpleasant tactics were sometimes used. Some historians claim (though others deny it) that a nasty version of biological warfare was used during the Middle Ages. Certain factions introduced material that they knew to be infected with bubonic plague (the Black Death) into enemy cities, or so the story goes, believing that soon the city would fall to them without a shot being fired. The rapid spread and terrible consequences of the Black Death might imply that this tactic was somewhat more effective than originally bargained for . . .

In a fantasy milieu, the viable options are wider. Unscrupulous attackers could taint a garrison's water or food supply with material carrying pathogens from virtually any form of disease. Of course, getting hold of these pathogens might be difficult. Alternatively, animals--or people--infected with lycanthropy or the wasting disease carried by mummies might be introduced into the castle. The consequences for the garrison--and for anyone taking possession of the castle later--would depend on the actual disease or infectious agent used.

Because of its generally unpleasant nature, initiating biological warfare is an inherently evil act. Races of evil alignment may use it, if practical or desired; any other commander who orders its use immediately becomes evil, with all the consequences of this change. The change can be reversed by such magic as "atonement", however.

Siege warfare is a long, drawn out process. Much of the time, the attacking army is involved in simply waiting for something to happen or in digging ditches--neither of which carries much of the excitement and glamour often described by military recruiters. Even if the siege is going well, and the opposing fortification will eventually fall, the attackers have a potential morale problem. The following table lists morale modifiers that apply to the besieging army. These modifiers are cumulative (except where common sense dictates otherwise), and are applied to every Morale Check made by any attacking unit while the conditions of the modifier(s) are in effect.-1 Defenders have cannon while the attackers do not.

-1 Defenders have used magic, while attackers have no spellcasters.

-1 Siege is taking place in winter.

-1 Weather is stormy (whether natural or magical in nature).

-1 Relief troops allied with the defender are expected to arrive within 24 hours.

-2 Relief troops allied with the defender are surrounding or challenging the attackers' position (includes double encirclement).

+1 Attackers have cannon while defenders do not.

+1 Attackers have spellcasters while defenders have (as yet) used no magic.

+1 At least one wall or gate of the fortification has been breached.

+2 Defenders have offered to surrender (whether or not this offer has been accepted by the attackers).

In addition to the factors above, the length of the siege carries with it its own modifiers. The following table shows how the length of the siege (in days) affects the morale of the attackers:

As stated before, all of these modifiers are cumulative. For example, an army of orcs--without benefit of spellcasters or cannon--have been laying siege to an elven fortress for 50 days in the depth of winter. The elves have no cannon, but their mages have been raking the orcish troops with fireballs. As if that weren't bad enough, rumors are circulating among the orcish ranks that a host of elven cavalry will arrive before nightfall to relieve the castle. The orcish commander has a serious problem: each Morale Check made by one of his units suffers a penalty of -4.

Acting Legate Talgilgalad shielded her eyes from the sun, and strained her elven vision to the utmost. Yes, that was dust on the horizon. Again, the sharp eyes of her commanding officer had picked out the approaching force before she was aware of it. It was shameful, she thought, for she was more than 300 years his junior. But, she admitted to herself, experience--not just sensory acuity--played a part. He knew where the orcs would be attacking from. Or, at least, where he would attack from, were he an orc.

Talgilgalad looked right and left along the battlements. The preparations were made. Vats of oil were readied to rain fire on the attackers, engines (called bombards by the dwarves) were positioned to duel with any orcish siege guns, cold-eyed archers tested bowstrings or used whetstones to touch up already razor-edged broadheads. And there, standing at the salient of the east bastion, stood Talgilgalad's father. Although he spoke no spell, wove no dweomercrafter's web about himself, still his power was evident--whether in his manner and bearing, or in something more mysterious. Every warrior on the walls could feel his determination, determination burning so strong that even his daughter feared to approach him. Gilgalad Mooncrow was preparing to kill. Preparing to sell his life as dearly as he could.

Yes--The castle was doomed, Talgilgalad and her comrades-in-arms knew that, and accepted it to the core of their being. Within one moon--two at the outside--the orcs would foul the marble courtyards and despoil the gold-chased floors of the council room. Certainly, surrender was possible; even orcs accepted surrender (sometimes). It was possible, but it was never an option. The elves would fight, and they would die, but they would take a legion of orcs with them.

When hope is gone, all that remains is duty.

Historians and military strategists have said that defensive tactics start with the building plans. Certainly, the defenders' options are affected by the "trace" (ground plan), and a well laid-out castle is easier to defend than one with design flaws. As it had altered strategy for the attacker, the introduction of gunpowder made the job of the military architect considerably more difficult. In addition to withstanding the assaults of a besieging army--and the pounding of siege batteries--the fortification's trace had to maximize the effect of the garrison's own artillery. These (sometimes conflicting) goals broke down along the following lines.

First, a rampart that was spacious and low-lying enough to provide a stable platform for artillery had to be built. Second, the walls had to maintain a low enough profile to make it difficult for the enemy to hit, while still being strong enough to resist the blows of the enemy shot. Further, a wall and ditch arrangement had to be formidable enough to deter attempts at escalade.

Lastly, a trace had to be so arranged that it left no "dead ground" through which an enemy might reach the rampart without coming under the defensive fire of the keep's weapons. Satisfying more than one of these requirements was not an easy task for the medieval architect. Probably the most significant advance in fortification architecture was the development of the "bastion" in the late Fifteenth and early Sixteenth, and its ascendancy over the round tower so typical of the Medieval period. Bastions were projections shaped like an ace of spades, positioned where older forts would place round towers. They were usually no higher than the walls from which they sprung, and had battlements and crenellations running around their tops. Bastions were sometimes hundreds of feet across. The bastion neatly met most of the requirements discussed above. Bastions had wide flanks, making it possible for the garrison to concentrate withering cross-fire on troops trying to approach the wall. Too, the angular salient--the meeting of the two faces of the bastion--eliminated the patch of dead ground which had existed in front of the circular medieval tower. Fields of fire were opened for the flanks of neighboring bastions, which meant that individual towers no longer were on their own when it came to close-range defense. Finally, the defenders could mount considerably more cannon on the walls of a bastion than they could on a circular tower of equal size (and cost).

Other Forms of Construction

Interior Ramparts

When a fortress was attacked, the defenders would often pile earth high against the inside of the wall, making an interior rampart (or "rampire", in Medieval parlance). This had the dual advantages of reinforcing the wall against impact, and of forming an additional ditch within the castle that the attackers would have to cross (the earth for the rampart had to come from somewhere, after all). The disadvantage--and a significant one, at that--was that this earth applied significant outward pressure against the wall. When the wall was weakened, this pressure would often cause it to collapse outward. The earth would then pour out through the breach, mixing with the rubble and making a hill which was easy for the attackers to walk over. In game terms, an interior earthen rampart adds 10 hits to the section of wall against which it's built. When the wall-plus-rampart is reduced to 20 hits remaining (i.e., when the wall is significantly weakened), the weight of the earth starts inflicting damage in addition to any done by the attackers. Each turn after the section of wall reaches this weakened state, roll an AD of 6. The resulting hits are applied to the wall. When a breach is formed (that is, when the section of wall is reduced to zero hits), the earth-and-rubble mixture filling the breach is treated as normal terrain (instead of rough/rocky, as with normal breaches).

The Pisans came up with an improvement to the standard rampart during their conflict with the French in 1500. They preferred an earthen interior rampart that wasn't in contact with the walls, but was separated from it by a wide ditch. This added no strength to the outer wall (and applied no outward pressure), of course, but when a breach was formed, the attackers would have to enter the breach (rough/rocky terrain), cross the interior ditch (an obstacle, costing 4" to 6" of movement allowance, depending on its depth), and then assault the rampart. During all this, the attackers would probably be taking fire from defenders on the rampart and maybe even on the surviving stretches of outer wall.

This interior rampart, usually thrown up in haste, would probably not be revetted and cross-beamed (although in some cases it might), and therefore would be able to survive 40 hits per 30' section. This technique became known as the "retirata" or "double Pisan rampart", and was very successful, even in improvised form. For example, in 1573 the Spanish were besieging the Dutch town of Haarlem. While the Spanish were pounding down the walls, the Dutch demolished a number of houses inside the walls and entrenched the town with ramparts and a large ditch. This made the old wall of the town (what little was left of it by that time) a counterscarp to their new fortification. A Spanish captain was recorded as exclaiming, "Who would believe that we are no further forward than on the first day of the siege!"

Although many advantages lie with the attackers in a siege, they also labor under a significant disadvantage. While they're waiting for the garrison to hurry up and starve, or while they're digging an extensive network of trenches and saps, the attackers are pretty much out in the open, and can't really go anywhere. The defenders-- although they can't go anywhere either--are under cover of walls and roofs, and can pick their moment to sally forth and wreak havoc on the besieging forces. A well-timed sortie can have catastrophic effects on lightly-armored troops digging trenches, destroy inadequately-guarded batteries or siege engines, or even punch through the encirclement and go for help. Sorties can be staged through breaches in the wall, but will more often issue through gates, which take time to open and close (particularly since they are often barred and latched). Opening or closing a large gate (single or double, larger than 20' across and 10' high) takes one-half of a turn; opening or closing a small gate or a door takes one-quarter turn. Obviously, there must be at least one figure adjacent to the gate to open or close it. This duration equates directly to a portion of a unit's movement allowance. Note that additional defensive measures--like a portcullis or drawbridge--doesn't add to the time required, since mechanisms exist to open both gate and portcullis simultaneously.)

Assume that a cavalry unit (MV 12") is within a castle, adjacent to a small gate, and wishes to make a sortie. The unit begins to

open the gate at the start of the defenders' turn. By the time the gate is fully open, one quarter of the turn has elapsed, which means that the unit can only expend three quarters of its movement allowance. In other words, this turn the cavalry unit has an effective movement allowance of 8". A gate can't be opened and closed on the same turn. For example, if a heavy gate is opened during Turn 4, it won't be completely closed and secure until half-way through the defender's movement phase of Turn 5. This means that opening a gate to allow a sortie can be a grave risk. The attackers will have one movement phase during which they can pass through the gate or attack its guardians. Remember, too, that the gate has to be opened again to allow the troops back into the castle . . .

Units must start a sortie with a frontage small enough to let them pass through the gate. Once through, they are free to change their frontage (standard costs apply, of course). Units can charge through a gate; however, their total movement allowance is decreased by one-half or one-quarter to represent the time taken to open the gate. Rules for minimum charge distance are still in effect.

If a unit engaged in a sortie is forced to retreat, it can retreat through an open gate back into a castle. If the gate isn't open at the beginning of the unit's retreat, however, the unit is eliminated.

Uncontrolled Charge

Sometimes creatures with intelligence of "low" or less forget their orders and act in an uncontrolled manner. This is particularly true when carnivorous creatures are hungry. As an example, take a unit of wolf-riding goblins who are making a sortie against besieging elves. Neither goblins nor wolves have had anything to eat for ten days. Is it likely that the wolves are going to obey the orders of their riders when they're surrounded by food (i.e., elves)? Not really.

To represent this, there is a chance that creatures with intelligence of "low" or less, which have undergone at least one attrition roll as a result of starvation, will charge uncontrollably whenever they're involved in a sortie. The base chance is 10% per turn (non-cumulative), with the following modifiers:

Thus, there is a 10% chance each turn that the wolf unit described above will charge uncontrollably (that is, 10% base chance +5% for animal intelligence -5% for acting as mounts for intelligent troops).

An "uncontrolled charge" roll is made at the beginning of each turn for every eligible unit. If the roll indicates that the unit becomes uncontrolled, it immediately charges directly towards the nearest "edible" unit, whether enemy or ally. ("Edible" is a key word; nothing will consider stone golems or trolls as edible.) No charge initiation morale check is necessary. The charging unit will engage the target unit in melee combat, and attempt to maintain contact by any means.

At the end of each turn, the player can try to regain control of an uncontrolled unit. The base chance to regain control is 50%, with the following modifiers:

If an uncontrolled unit fails a morale check, it automatically returns to control; this is in addition to any other consequences of the failed morale check.

Troop Tactics

Defending troops atop a wall, protected by crenellations and battlements, are in an admirable position. They can fire on or simply drop objects onto enemies outside the walls while still enjoying the protection of the surrounding stonework. Once the attackers have established a "beachhead" on the walls, however, the defenders' position is no longer a comfortable one. Thus, it's important for the defenders to make scaling the walls as difficult as possible for the attackers.

The current BATTLESYSTEM rules seem to imply that the defenders on the battlements have little recourse against attackers using grapples and ladders, other than waiting for them to reach the top then meleeing with them. In fact, troops atop the wall that are not engaged in other activities--such as missile combat--should have several options.

Wall top units can drop missiles on enemies at the foot of the wall or on figures attempting to scale the wall, as mentioned on page 83 of the BATTLESYSTEM rules. These rules state that the targets of these attacks gain their standard AR against small projectiles or regular weapons, but are allowed no armor checks against large projectiles or hot and corrosive substances. To reflect the vulnerable nature of troops on ladders or scaling the walls using grapples, this rule should be extended. Against small projectiles or regular weapons, scaling troops receive armor checks, but with a penalty of -1 to their AR. Against large projectiles, or hot and corrosive substances, they receive no armor checks.

In addition to dropping heavy objects or unpleasant materials on attackers, wall top defenders can sever grapple lines and wreck ladders. A defending unit atop a wall being climbed by a grapple-equipped unit can forego all other actions in order to deal with the grapples. This action has the same effect as an attack with AD 4 (no armor check allowed, since this damage represents troops falling when their grapple lines are cut). In addition, it increases the movement cost for scaling the wall to 5" per figure moving up 10'. Although the attack component is unlikely to inflict as many casualties as other forms of attack, this might sometimes be an appropriate tactic--when an attacking unit must be delayed until enough defender reinforcements arrive to deal with them properly, for example.

Ladders are another matter. Rather than concentrating on slaying the troops on the ladders, the defenders above can try to push the ladders over or otherwise wreck them. The chance of overthrowing or wrecking a ladder is 7% per wall top figure that is adjacent to the top of the ladder. Figures trying to overthrow a ladder can do nothing else in that turn. If the dice roll indicates success, each figure on the ladder suffers 1d6-1 hits (falling damage). There is also a 50% chance that the ladder is no longer usable.

The BATTLESYSTEM rules state on page 82 that, in melee combat between wall top defenders and units that have climbed ladders and grapples, the defenders receive the AR benefit (-2) of being protected by a wall. This is true only during the first turn of melee between these units. On the second and subsequent turns, the attacking unit is considered to have attained the same position--i.e., the walkway or turret-top--as the defenders. In the case of a narrow walkway, the rules for "Fighting in Narrow Passages" (page 81) come into play. Being at the foot of a wall, or attempting to scale it, while the wall top is defended is a tense situation, to say the least. This is even more true when death in particularly nasty forms is raining down upon you. To reflect this, a unit in such a position must make a morale check on each turn that it loses a figure from a particularly terrible attack launched by the troops above. Such "terror" attacks include fire (it's definitely demoralizing to see comrades burning to death around you), corrosive materials, and magical spells that are "visually spectacular.". Fireball, lightning bolt and meteor swarm spells would fall into this category while a magic missile, cone of cold, or creeping doom spell does not. Note that this morale check is in addition to checks required for other reasons (such as taking 4 or more hits in one step).

Holding the Breach

Once a breach has been opened in a wall, or once a gate has been bashed down, the garrison must find some way to defend the gap. There are other methods in addition to packing it with troops ordered to "hold the breach."

If manpower or time were in short supply, the garrison could try to block the breach with rubble, empty barrels, broken wagons… literally anything they could lay their hands on. While not as effective as an earthen rampart, blockades like this would qualify as "obstacles", costing 4" of movement allowance to cross, and lending defenders a -1 or -2 benefit to AR. Blockades of this type would typically be able to withstand 10 hits.

Magic can also be invaluable. The wizard spell wall of fire will remain in effect as long as the caster maintains concentration--and escapes being hit in combat--and is very effective in closing a breach. Slightly less effective, but still useful, is the "wall of thorns", particularly since the caster doesn't have to maintain concentration. In a full AD&D® game campaign, the list of useful spells is greatly enlarged, to include more wall spells, glyphs, symbols, and many others. Illusions might also do the trick, if the attackers can be made to believe that there's another wall behind the one they've just breached, or that they haven't really breached the wall at all. Given enough time, the garrison could repair the breached wall (or at least construct a smaller wall in its place). Use the construction rules earlier in this book to calculate time and requirements for this work. Note that, during a siege, it's very unlikely that the garrison will be given the time to do any real construction as defined in the section on castle construction, so all of the figures given here are assumed to be for makeshift structures.

Counter-mining

Magic can be invaluable. In an AD&D game campaign, clairvoyance, clairaudience and other scrying spells and items can tell the defender exactly where enemy excavations are. In the BATTLESYSTEM rules, however, there are no spells that would prove of any use.

Note that all these means of detection work both ways. While the defenders must know where the attackers are digging in order to counteract them, the attackers themselves would be quite interested to know the exact progress of the defenders' counter-mines in order to avoid them. Defenders should consider carefully the consequences of counter-mining. While a successful battle in the tunnels can slay numerous enemy troops and prevent the castle walls from being breached, there is a risk. If it turns out to be the attacking miners who are victorious, the counter-mine gives them a passage into the castle interior--unless, of course, the defenders have guarded or blocked off their end of the tunnel.

Special "Terrain" and Obstacles

Castles are designed so as to make it as difficult as possible for invaders to move, fight, and survive within their walls. Military architects, particularly in the Middle Ages proved to have fertile (and rather nasty) imaginations in this regard. Among their triumphs were such things as "killing passages", spiral staircases, spikes, and trip steps. Most castles have arrow slits and loopholes on the outside. Many, however, also had them on the inside. A common design--and one seen in more modern constructions, up to and including Alcatraz Penitentiary--was the double gate or "killing passage." Once attackers had broken down a door or gate, they found themselves in a high-walled passage or anteroom. The only exits were the gate by which they'd just entered, and an equally reinforced gate at the far end of the anteroom. Set into the walls of the passage were many arrow slits or loopholes, through which the defenders, totally protected, could shoot down upon the invaders. The attackers could either turn tail, or try to breach the second gate while all the while suffering withering crossfire. To represent the close quarters, limited mobility and horror of a killing passage, troops trying to operate in such an area suffer a +1 penalty to their AR against missile attacks from the wall slits, and suffer a penalty of -1 to morale while in the killing zone. Even such simple things as staircases could be turned into obstacles for the attacker and advantages for the defender. Psychologically, people expect that the riser of each step in a flight of stairs will be of about the same height. If one riser is significantly lower or higher than the others, the chances are good that someone who doesn't know about this "trip step" will stumble or fall when they reach it. Historically, this was a very common trick, and trip steps can be found in many castles still standing in England (usually painted white or otherwise marked so tourists won't break their necks).

In game terms, a unit must pay a movement penalty of 2" the first time it uses a staircase that includes a trip step. For each subsequent time that the same unit uses that stairway, there is no movement penalty. Defending units--who theoretically know about the trip step--pay no such movement penalty. In addition, any unit--invader or garrison--forced to melee while on a staircase that includes a trip step suffers a +1 penalty to AR (because it's more difficult to concentrate on defending yourself when you're trying not to fall over). This penalty is in addition to any other penalties (for example, due to lower elevation). The vast majority of spiral staircases--even today--form a counterclockwise helix (that is, someone climbing the stairs turns left or counterclockwise). In fact, this convention is so pervasive that, when people use one of the few staircases that turns "the wrong way", they get the feeling that "something's strange" about the staircase, even though they can't put their finger on the difference. This convention developed from a conscious design decision of castle architects. They knew that most warriors were right-handed; they also knew that most invaders would have to fight their way up a staircase. That's why a counterclockwise spiral makes sense: right-handed warriors will find their sword swings hampered by walls of the spiral. Defenders above have no such hindrance. To reflect this in game terms, units equipped with slashing or bludgeoning weapons (particularly long- or broad swords, maces, or hammers) who are fighting their way up a spiral staircase suffer a penalty: from each AD the unit rolls, subtract 1. Units using piercing weapons such as short swords suffer no such penalty.

Other Obstacles

In addition to features of castle design, the garrison can use a number of unpleasant pieces of equipment to make life difficult for invaders. A commonly employed object is the caltrop, which looks some-thing like a four-limbed spiked jack from the child's game of "ball and jacks." These range in size from an inch or so across to three inches or more. The four-limbed arrangement makes sure that, no matter how the caltrop lands, one spike is always pointed up. Defenders can lay caltrops along the approaches to the castle, scatter them from the walls, or strew them across the courtyard when the wall is breached. In each case, the purpose is the same: to cause attacking units to slow down while they sweep away the caltrops (assuming they notice them) or press on through the area, suffering damage all the while. Any unit equipped with caltrops can "sow" them as they move through an area. The area sown is equal to the size of the unit in its current formation, plus 1/2" on each side. When thrown from atop a wall, the caltrops cover an area as wide as the frontage of the unit doing the sowing, plus 1/2" on each side, and 1" deep (i.e., away from the wall). Infantry or dismounted cavalry can clear away caltrops, by moving through the sown area at a cost of 5" for each 1" moved; mounted cavalry cannot clear away caltrops. Alternatively, units can choose to move through a sown area without clearing the caltrops. The unit pays 2" for each 1" moved, and suffers damage based on the type of caltrop (discussed later). Routing units, or units retreating for morale reasons, which pass through a sown area cannot elect to clear away the caltrops. Charging units who pass through a sown area cannot elect to clear away the caltrops, and suffer double damage from the devices. Caltrops come in two main varieties: infantry and cavalry. Infantry caltrops are smaller, and do more damage against foot units. Such devices have an AD of 4. Cavalry caltrops are larger, and do serious damage to cavalry or units composed of size L or larger creatures (AD=6). These caltrops are so large that it's easy for M or smaller sized infantry to step around them. This negates damage to the infantry units, but they still must pay the movement penalty discussed above.

Caltrops take no sides: any unit, attacker or defender, suffers the same consequences from entering a caltrop-sown area. Another effective tactic is to set spikes in the earth, either in the bottom of trenches, or along the approaches to the castle. Like caltrops, a spiked area slows down movement and has the potential to inflict damage. An infantry unit (or dismounted cavalry unit) equipped with spikes can plant them as they move through an area. The area so spiked is equal to the size of the unit in its current formation. Setting spikes costs 4" of movement allowance.

Unlike caltrops, a placement of spikes can have a definite facing. This is because the spikes are set at an angle so their points are aimed in a certain direction. The unit setting the spikes can select any facing or combination of facings for the spikes (i.e., the spikes can all point north, half can point north while half point south, or the spikes can point in all directions like spines on a sea urchin). This facing must be marked somehow when the spikes are originally set, and can't be changed unless the spikes are cleared (see below) then re-set.

Infantry or dismounted cavalry can clear away spikes by moving through the spiked area at a cost of 6" for each 1" moved; mounted cavalry cannot clear away spikes. Alternatively, infantry units can choose to move through a spiked area without clearing the spikes at a cost of 3" for each 1" moved. Each infantry figure of size M or smaller moving into a spiked area against the area's direction of facing suffers an attack of AD 6; no damage is done if the unit enters from a non-facing direction, although the movement cost still applies. For example, take an area with spikes all facing north. A unit moving south into the area suffers damage. If the unit had entered the area heading west, however, it would have suffered no damage. Areas of spikes facing in all directions cannot be entered safely, regardless of direction of approach. Routing infantry units, or units retreating for morale reasons, which pass through a spiked area cannot elect to clear away the spikes. Charging units who enter a spiked area in a direction opposite to its facing cannot elect to clear away the spikes, and suffer double damage from the devices.

Mounted cavalry and creatures of size L or larger cannot enter an area set with spikes, unless they pay the movement cost to clear the area. Figures of this type that rout into a spiked area are eliminated.

While morale effects on the attacker during a long siege can be severe, they are much more profound are on the defender. The consequences to morale of being out of supply have been discussed in an earlier section. There are many other factors that come into play, however. The following table lists morale modifiers that apply to the besieged garrison. These modifiers are cumulative (except where common sense dictates otherwise), and are applied to every Morale Check made by any defending unit while the conditions of the modifier(s) are in effect. -1 Attackers have cannon while defenders do not.

-1 Attackers have used magic, while defenders have no spellcasters.

-1 Siege is taking place in winter.

-1 Attackers have flying troops (whether or not defenders do also).

-1 Defenders have tried to break encirclement with a sortie, but failed.

-1 At least one sortie has suffered 50% casualties.

-3 The attackers are known (or believed) to have performed "atrocities" on prisoners in the past.

+1 Relief troops allied with the defender are expected to arrive within 24 hours.

+1 Defenders have cannon while attackers do not.

+1 Defenders have spellcasters while attackers have (as yet) used no magic.

+1 At least one sortie has inflicted casualties on the attackers without suffering more than 10% casualties itself.

+2 Relief troops allied with the defender are surrounding or challenging the attackers' position (includes double encirclement).

In addition to the factors above, the length of the siege carries with it its own modifiers. The following table shows how the length of the siege (in days) affects the morale of the defenders:

As stated before, all of these modifiers are cumulative. For example, an elven garrison has been encircled by an orcish force for 45 days. The orcs have no spellcasters among their number, while the elves have a handful of mages. Unfortunately, the orcs have a number of cannon, and have been reinforced by a unit of evil bandits mounted on griffons. An elven sortie, in an abortive attempt to break the encirclement, inflicted casualties on the orcs, but suffered grievous harm itself: only one in ten of the elven troops returned. On the bright side, a small force of elven cavalry has arrived from elsewhere, and is harrying the orcs' supply lines. The elves' morale is suffering, but not much: each Morale Check made by an elven unit suffers a penalty of -2.

Good commanders know when it's time to cut their losses and surrender a bad situation. Even if the commander doesn't accept the necessity of surrender, the troops will often take the initiative. If (in AD&D game terms) the commander of a besieged fortification is a Player Character, the decision of whether or not to officially surrender is up to him or her. There is no rule to force a player to capitulate against his or her will. An NPC commander, however, will officially surrender at the first opportunity whenever the average morale (including modifiers) of all surviving garrison troops drops to 4, or is 10 or more points less than the average morale of all attacking units.

The above rule refers to official surrender, where the commander capitulates in the name of all troops under his or her command. Sometimes the decision is taken out of the hands of the commander, of course. If the condition arises where all defending units are shaken, the troops will look for the first available chance to offer surrender. Any friendly unit that is within 1" of an enemy unit but is not engaged in melee combat must make a special Morale Check. If the unit fails, it immediately offers surrender to any enemy unit within 1". To qualify, enemy units must be on the same level (a unit atop a wall isn't going to offer surrender to a unit 40' below on the ground).

The enemy unit now has a choice: accept surrender and take the friendly unit prisoner, or refuse the offer and attack the surrendering unit.

Prisoners of War

If an enemy unit accepts surrender, the figures of the surrendered unit are interspersed with those of the unit taking them prisoner. The prisoner figures are moved by the player who owns the capturing unit. The combined unit has the movement allowance of the slower of the two types of figures (i.e., a cavalry unit with infantry prisoners moves at the same rate as the infantry unit). In addition, it suffers a movement allowance penalty of 2". A unit with prisoners must always be in irregular formation, and cannot initiate melee combat (it can initiate missile combat, however). If a unit with prisoners is the victim of missile fire, half of the attacking figures (rounded down) are considered to be attacking the prisoner figures, while the remainder are considered to be attacking to the captors.

For example, an orcish unit with an AR of 8 has taken prisoner a unit of peasants (AR 9). The combined unit is attacked by 7 figures of longbowmen (AD 6). By the rule above, the components of the combined unit suffer damage as though it's the victim of two distinct attacks: the peasants suffer an attack by 3 figures of longbowmen (half of 7, rounded down), while the orcs suffer an attack by 4 figures (the remainder).

If a unit with prisoners is attacked in melee combat, the prisoners instantly break free and move 4" in the direction of the"friendly" side of the table. At the end of this movement, they are routed (but can be rallied normally). For the first step of combat, the captor figures suffer a penalty of +1 to their AR. As can be seen, taking (and keeping) prisoners isn't the easiest matter. In some cases, however--and in some scenarios--there should be some significant benefits to taking prisoners. Perhaps they can give the attackers valuable information about the castle's defenses, or should the siege fail, maybe they could be ransomed back for a handsome profit.

Refusal of Surrender

Traditionally, evil armies aren't always keen about accepting surrender. They'd much rather not be hindered by prisoners. If a unit decides to refuse surrender, it immediately attacks the surrendering unit in melee combat. The unit offering surrender cannot attack that turn (i.e., the enemy unit gets a free attack), and for that turn it receives no roll for AR. If the surrendering unit survives, its condition is routed (but it can be rallied normally).

Siege engines break down into two main classes. These are bombardment engines which are designed to hurl large missiles, often with little or no accuracy, but doing a great deal of damage if they hit. This category also includes cannon and mortars, which might not be allowed in all campaigns. The other category, crushing engines, includes all non-missile devices designed to breach gates or walls through impact or other methods.

Bombardment Engines

Bombardment Engine Statistics

All bombardment engines make use of the same concepts and terms. These are listed below:

AD is the size (and number) of attack dice rolled when the device is fired. Attacks can be rolled against specific target units or reasonably large building features; to be eligible as targets, building features must be at least 3" along one dimension. Apart from the ballista (discussed below), no bombardment engine can fire at a single figure, whether that figure is a hero or part of a unit. Targets of artillery attacks are not allowed to make armor checks; every hit does damage. A bombardment engine only inflicts half the actual hits it rolls (rounded up) when firing at a unit in skirmish formation. If 7 hits were indicated, for example, a skirmish unit would only suffer 4.

Hits is the number of hits required to disable the machine. "Disable" has different definitions, depending on the engine in question.

Range is given in minimum and maximum distances. There are no short, medium and long range categories for these weapons, and they don't receive a range bonus for elevation. Crew is the number of figures required to operate the weapon at full effectiveness. The weapon can operate with less than a full crew, but its rate of fire is slowed to half speed. A weapon cannot fire or be loaded if its crew has been reduced to less than half the number given here. Crew members can defend themselves against a melee attack, but they cannot fire missile weapons or make a melee attack. If they do either, they are considered not to be crewing the weapon during the turn in which the attack is made.

Rate of fire is the number of turns required for the weapon to be reloaded.

Move is the distance the weapon can travel in one turn over clear, flat terrain. A bombardment engine is treated as cavalry for purposes of determining what types of special terrain it can negotiate, and how quickly it can move through special terrain--half speed through light woods or when ascending a slope, and one-third speed through shallow water or brush/scrub. A weapon can only be moved when it has a full crew. An artillery weapon cannot move and fire in the same turn, though it can be moved fully loaded, ready to fire the turn after it moves. A turn in which a bombardment engine moves does not count for reloading or for purposes of determining rate of fire. Such a weapon can change facing during a turn when it is being reloaded.

Scatter is a concept common to all missile weapons. When a projectile misses its target, the concept of scatter determines exactly where the projectile does hit. The odds that a given shot will scatter vary from weapon to weapon, and are given in the individual descriptions, as are the possible distances that shots might be off the mark. In all cases, however, the method for determining direction of scatter is the same.

If a shot scatters, roll 1d10 and consult the following chart:

For example, a heavy catapult shot at an enemy unit scatters. The 1d10 roll is 7, which means that the shot is long and slightly to the right. Checking the text following the table that describes this weapon, we find that the shot misses its mark by 1d3 inches.

If the shot is aimed at a vertical surface, the scatter diagram is still used to determine the impact point. A roll of 1, for example, indicates that the shot fell short of its mark. If this is the case, but the round still reached the target, then the point of impact was lower than intended. If a roll indicates that a scattered shot went high and the target is too low to be struck, then the missile will continue past the target and strike the ground beyond it. Thus, a shot fired at the top of a wall or flanking tower still has a chance of doing damage to the keep inside the walls even if it misses its mark.

Dungeon masters who are running an AD&D game campaign, not just a skirmish fought with the BATTLESYSTEM rules, might consider adding the "artillerist" weapon proficiency:

Those with this skill are trained in the use of various siege engines. In addition to preventing the drawbacks of non-proficient weapon use, if a character with this skill commands the crew of a bombardment engine (i.e., is within 1" of the weapon when it fires), the chance of a shot scattering is halved. Warriors may specialize in this skill, but there is no change to the weapon's rate of fire for experience levels or specialization.

Ballista

Also referred to as a mangonel or scorpion, a ballista looks like a huge crossbow. It fires projectiles that look like oversized spears. Although not as effective as catapults or trebuchets, ballistae could inflict impressive damage against buildings (the projectiles aren't as heavy as trebuchet missiles, but their moment of inertia--and hence their "stopping power"--is very high).

Ballistae were used by the Romans, both as land weapons and as shipboard devices for firing grapples at enemy vessels to pull them alongside for boarding. The potential energy stored in a bent and cocked ballista is considerable, making the loaded weapon somewhat fragile. As the old saying goes, "A bent bow is seven-eighths broken." If the ballista has suffered serious structural damage (that is, if it has been reduced to 2 hits), there is a 20% chance each time the weapon is reloaded that it will misfire, destroying the weapon. If a ballista misfires, it fires as soon as reloading is complete, whether or not the crew wants it to. The shot is very inaccurate, however: it automatically scatters, and the scatter distance is twice normal. Each figure within 1" of the device suffers 1d3-1 hits (no armor check) as the ballista shatters. Of course, the device is useless from then on. A ballista shot has a 15% chance of scattering; scatter distance is 1d3", half that (rounded up) if the range is 13" or less. A ballista with full crew can fire at a single large-sized individual figure (a dragon or the leader of a troop of giants, for example).

Bombard

Over the centuries, weaponsmiths developed a staggering variety of different gunpowder-fired devices--many of which were more dangerous to their crew than to their target. The most visually impressive of these were definitely the bombards. The medieval bombard was a massive pipe constructed of wrought-iron rods or bronze, which fired a very large--but relatively light--ball of stone. The barrel of a bombard was usually set into a solid block of wood, which would hold the weapon steady and absorb the considerable recoil. This design was far from easy to move, however. For transport, the bombard had to be lifted bodily onto a heavy wagon. To support the weight of the gun, the cart usually ran on disc-like wheels which, whenever the cart was canted over to one side, threatened to collapse and dump the contraption to the ground again. In game terms, wagons carrying bombards are limited to flat, clear terrain. They can be moved up or down hill only on well-paved roads, and then only if the hill has a rise (or fall) of less than 1" for each 24" horizontally.

Historically, bombards came in virtually all shapes and sizes. The statistics given here refer to an "average" bombard. If players and/or referees agree, larger or smaller bombards may be used. The burning properties of the gunpowder used in early cannon was inconsistent at best (quality control wasn't particularly strict), leading to a significant chance of misfires. European artillerists soon learned their lessons, and guns became much more dependable. For game purposes, however, the risk of misfire should be quite high. This will lessen the desirability--and hence the significance--of gunpowder-fired artillery, which might otherwise come to dominate the game. Each time a bombard fires, there is a 10% chance of a misfire. If the weapon itself has suffered any hits, any rolls on the misfire table below suffer a +1 modifier. If the weapon misfires, roll 2d4 and consult the following table:

A result of "hangs fire" means that the gunpowder has simply failed to ignite, or has failed for one reason or another to explode properly (perhaps it just flared up, without enough force to expel the ball). The weapon must be reloaded. A bombard that explodes is destroyed. Any figure within 1" of the weapon suffers 1d4 hits with no armor check allowed. The flame, smoke and noise associated with a bombard frequently panicked pack animals, and even mounts that hadn't been trained to handle the chaos of war. In a fantasy world, this would also be true for troops composed of "primitive" races or creatures who would normally fear fire and thunder. In game terms, lesser-trained cavalry--those units with a morale equal to or less than 10--are susceptible to morale effects. The susceptibility of other troop types is left up to the players, or to the DM.

Each turn in which a susceptible unit is within 4" of a bombard--friendly or enemy --that fires on that turn, the unit must make a morale check with a bonus of +2 to the roll (bombards are frightening, but not "that" frightening). Susceptible troops will not rout towards a firing bombard. The impact of a bombard shot was so great that it would smash splinters from any hard surface it hit. This "shrapnel" was so lethal that it frequently caused as many or more casualties than the actual shot itself. To represent this, each time a bombard shot strikes rock or stone (either a wall or a horizontal stone surface like a paved courtyard), each figure within 1" of the impact point suffers an attack of AD 10. Obviously, to be affected the unit must be on the same side of a wall as the impact point. Firing a shot against the exterior of a keep will do no splinter damage against on troops within that keep.

A bombard shot has a 45% chance of scattering; scatter distance is 1d4", half that (rounded up) if the range is 12" or less.

Cannon

As with bombards, cannon came in many designs. These ranged from "pocket cannon" with barrel lengths of little more than one foot, to monsters that fired shot weighing 100 pounds. Of these bizarre guns, the most appropriate for siege warfare were the 48-pounder full cannon (our heavy cannon) and the 24-pounder demi-cannon (our light cannon).

Introduced in the late Fifteenth Century, the full cannon was a highly effective weapon, devastating against stonework and lethal against "soft" targets like troops. Although the full cannon never disappeared, the demi-cannon swiftly became the preferred weapon for use in siege batteries. Round for round it performed almost as effectively as its larger sibling, while weighing little more than half as much, consuming half the charge of powder, taking up less space in the batteries and being much quicker to load.

Both were smooth-bore muzzle-loaders, with homogenous bronze barrels no more than eight feet long. They could be transported and loaded with relative ease, and they fired wrought-iron cannon balls. French gunsmiths improved the basic design by casting two trunnions, or prongs, into the barrel just forward of the center of gravity. These prongs rested almost directly over the axle of a two-wheeled gun carriage. The barrel of the gun could be easily elevated or depressed around the fulcrum formed by the trunnions. For traversing, the trailing end of the gun carriage was lifted from the ground and swung to right or left. The chance of a misfire was lower for cannon than for the less standardized bombards, but the chance still did exist. Each time a cannon fires, there is a 5% chance of a misfire. If the weapon misfires, roll 2d4 and consult the table below. If the weapon itself has suffered any hits, all rolls on the misfire table suffer a +1 modifier.

A "hang fire" result is the same for cannon as it is for a bombard. Similarly, cannon have the same chance to panic animals and primitive troops that bombards do. Cannon rounds which strike a stone or wooden surface create large sprays of shrapnel, just as bombards do. Be sure to read the section on bombards if you are firing one or more batteries of cannon in the battle. A cannon that explodes is destroyed. Any figure within 1" of the weapon suffers 1d4 hits in the case of a full cannon or 1d3 hits for a demi-cannon (no armor check allowed). A cannon shot (either kind) has a 10% chance of scattering; scatter distance is 1d2", half that (rounded up) if the range is 15" or less.

Catapult

Catapults of various kinds have been in use for millennia. From simple, hastily-improvised de-vices--small trees that could be bent then released to cast projectiles--the catapult evolved into mechanically sophisticated wheeled devices used to great effect by the Romans and later forces. Although the actual source of the weapon's motive force ranged from flexible beams of wood (shades of the bent tree) to torsioned ropes, the device depended on leverage to propel projectiles. The very nature of the device made it somewhat difficult to adjust elevation. On smaller devices, the rear of the frame or base could be raised or lowered, but on larger examples this was impossible. The only method of altering the range of the shot was to change the amount of torsion or modify the weight of the projectile. Neither of these were particularly precise, making the catapult a notoriously inaccurate weapon. The construction of the catapult also constrained its role. In most cases, it could only be used as an indirect fire device, similar to a modern howitzer: the shot would arc high, and then fall on the target. The only exception to this was when the catapult was so close to a wall or building that the missile struck its target before it reached the apex of its trajectory. Although they were usually used to hurl rocks or other heavy projectiles, there were no practical restrictions on what could be fired from catapults. The most common "alternative" loads were quantities of small stones, gravel, and even lengths of chain. This medieval shrapnel was next to useless against "hard" targets such as walls and the like, but it was brutally effective against "soft" targets like troops. In game terms, a catapult--light or heavy--loaded with this kind of shot does no damage against structures, but all damage against units is multiplied by 1.5. Thus this kind of load is useful for "sweeping the battlements" of defenders before an assault. Catapults can also cast flaming missiles, or even canisters of Greek fire. Typically, these projectiles are much lighter than the usual loads used (it's hard to set fire to a rock, after all), but considerably more susceptible to crosswinds; thus the effective range is halved, and the chance of scatter is doubled (although the scatter distance is halved as well). Flaming loads do no damage to structures from their impact, although they have normal chances of igniting flammable materials. Rules for igniting targets are covered on page 86 of the BATTLESYSTEM rules. Against units, however, flaming loads do inflict damage from their impact alone.

This equates to an AD of 2d6 for both light and heavy catapults. Enterprising commanders can use their catapults with more unpleasant loads, of course. During the siege of Minas Tirith in J. R. R. Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings", the orcs fired the heads of slain defenders into the city. These examples of nastiness are devastating to the morale of the enemy, and must be dealt with on an individual basis.

The chance of scatter is 40% for a light catapult and 50% for a heavy catapult. The chances drop to 25% and 35% respectively if the catapult is loaded with small stones or the like. The reason for this is simply that you don't have to be as exact with a scattering round as you do with a solid one. Just as you don't have to be as precise with a modern shotgun as with you do with a rifle to hit your target. Scatter distance is 1d3". If the catapult is being used against a wall or building (direct fire) and the range is less than one quarter of the catapult's maximum range, the chances for scatter drop to 15% for light and 25% for heavy, and the scatter distance is 1d2".

Catapult, arrow

Many weaponmakers throughout the ages experimented with large weapons that fired multiple arrows or spears with great force (and usually abysmal accuracy). These were mostly ineffective against structures (those few that were useful in such a role have been subsumed under the category of ballista) but quite lethal against massed troops. In game terms, all engines of this type do no damage against structures.

One design that actually seemed to work comprised a rack holding four or so large arrows perhaps the size of javelins. Behind this rack was a sheet of flexible wood that could be bent backwards. When this sheet of wood was released, the upper portion would snap forward and "slap" the butt ends of the arrows, firing them forward.

The actual number of arrows shot from one of these devices varied from two or three to as high as a dozen. The statistics given are for an "average" device, shooting four or five projectiles. (Weapons doing more or less damage can be used if players and DM agree.) A shot from an arrow catapult has a 60% chance of scattering. Scatter distance is 1d3".

Trebuchet

As they built larger and larger catapults to fire ever-increasing loads, military scientists soon reached the limits of standard catapult technology. There was just so much force that could be generated from bent wood or torqued rope. Luckily for the weapon designers--and unluckily for those on the receiving end--there was another force that could be used: gravity. While gravity doesn't work quite the same in the AD&D game universe as it does in our own (see the SPELLJAMMER(R) boxed set for details), the trebuchet still functions in the same way. While standard catapults depended on the potential energy tied up in bent or otherwise stressed materials, trebuchets used the potential energy contained in a heavy weight. On one end of the trebuchet's long arm was a sling or basket to contain the load. On the other, across a fulcrum, was a mass of metal or rock. To load the weapon, the crew pulled the basket end down, which raised the countermass off the ground. When they released the arm, the countermass fell, accelerating the basket and load. Some very large trebuchets were built and used. Theoretically, the only limits to their size and power were the strength of the material used and the amount of mass that could be lifted by the crew.

Since they were such simple machines, trebuchets were usually built on-site. This meant that they were difficult if not impossible to move, and thus to aim. In game terms, once a trebuchet is positioned, it can only fire directly forward, or within 5 degrees to either side of its center line. Range could be varied by changing the mass of the load, the weight of the countermass, or the distance that the arm was pulled down. As with other catapults, trebuchets could be loaded with many small stones for use against "soft" targets like troops. In game terms, a trebuchet loaded with this kind of load does no damage against structures, but all damage against units is multiplied by 1.5 (rounded down). Trebuchets can also cast flaming missiles, or even canisters of Greek fire. Typically, these projectiles are much lighter than the usual loads used, but considerably more susceptible to crosswinds; thus the effective range is halved, and the chance of scatter is doubled (although the scatter distance is halved as well). Flaming loads do no damage to structures from their impact, although they have normal chances of igniting flammable materials. Rules for igniting targets are covered on page 86 of the BATTLESYSTEM rules.)

Against units, however, flaming loads do inflict damage from their impact alone. This equates to an AD of 2d8. The chance of scatter for a trebuchet is 55% (their lack of accuracy was balanced by the impressive damage they inflicted when they did hit). The chance of scatter drops to 40% if the trebuchet is loaded with small stones or the like. Scatter distance is 1d6".

Crushing Engines

As their name implies, crushing engines transmit and concentrate the efforts of the troops using them against structures with which the devices are in direct contact.For example, the small battering rams described on page 82 of the BATTLESYSTEM rules are crushing engines. Their larger brethren are more massive, more destructive, and often comprise mobile canopies or other structures to protect the troops using them. They are usually wheeled. At least eight figures are needed to move a crushing engine at its full speed of 3" per turn. Four to seven figures can move it 2", and two or three can move it 1". Crushing engines can only be moved over clear, flat terrain (including roads, but not trails). Twice as many figures are required to move a crushing engine up even a gentle slope (1" rise for every 12" of horizontal distance), and movement up a steeper incline is impossible. A crushing engine gets two attack dice of the appropriate size for each figure helping to operate the device. At least two figures must be available to operate it, and no more than four can contribute to the crushing engine's attack strength. The engine must be touching the surface to be attacked before it can cause damage.

All crushing engines make use of the same terms and concepts, which are defined below: Hits is a two-number entry because, in most cases, a crushing engine is enclosed within a structure (generally a heavy wooden roof supported by a framework of timbers) that provides protection for the device as well as for the figures (maximum of four) that are operating it. The first number represents the number of hits that the engine itself can withstand before being destroyed; the second is the number of hits that the protective framework and roof can withstand. This framework must be destroyed before the device inside can suffer damage. Troops under this framework are totally protected against attacks from directly above, and gain a -2 bonus to AR against missile attacks launched from ground level. In certain cases, players might use crushing engines that do without the protection of a framework. These would have a single "hits" number, representing the device itself. Troops operating the device are unprotected.

AD columns show the size of attack die (4-sided, 6-sided or 8- sided) used when the engine is attacking a certain type of material. The number of attack dice rolled is determined by the number of figures operating the device, as described above.

Crushing Engine Statistics

Ram

In this context, a ram is a long wheeled gallery. Slung from the roof beam by chains is a large log. This log is frequently capped with a heavy metal end-piece to increase its impact and damage. Historically, this end-piece was often shaped like the horned head of a ram, hence the device's name. Under cover of the protective roof, troops could swing the log to strike with great force against a wall or gate. This design of ram, where the log is suspended by chains, is much more efficient than the "standard" troop-carried battering ram improvised from a large log. For one thing, the troops had to expend no energy simply holding the ram off the ground, and could concentrate all of their might on swinging the heavy thing; thus heavier rams could be used. Also, once the ram had been swung back, simply releasing it to swing forward would cause considerable impact; if the troops added their strength to the forward swing of the ram, the impact could be staggering. This increased efficiency is reflected in the statistics listed above. This kind of ram applies one AD for each figure operating the device. In comparison, troop-carried rams apply one AD for each two figures involved. The galleries protecting the rams were often elaborate enough to qualify as small buildings in their own rights. As such, their destruction can inflict damage on the troops operating the rams, as discussed on page 85 of the BATTLESYSTEM rules.

Bore

Bores (also called "sows") resembled rams in construction: a long, wheeled gallery protecting the central mechanism, which is suspended from roof beams. This central mechanism is usually a log, suspended in slings so it can turn about its long axis. The metal headpiece is a large screw bit, designed to chew through stone. These engines were designed to be used in one of two ways. In some, the log was pulled back and swung against the target like a ram. Because of the twist to the screw bit, the log would turn a little on impact. Eventually, the bit would bite into the wall and do some damage. This is similar to driving a screw by hitting it with a hammer: not the most efficient way of doing things, although it eventually gets the job done.

The second design has the same log suspended in slings, with the same screw-bit headpiece. Here, however, the log has stakes of wood or metal driven into it along its length to act as handles. In this design, the log isn't swung; using the handles, troops push the bit against the wall and turn the log so that the bit eventually bites. This is more like using a screwdriver. The galleries protecting the bores were often elaborate enough to qualify as small buildings in their own rights. As such, their destruction can inflict damage on the troops operating the rams, as discussed on page 85 of the BATTLESYSTEM rules.