Offensive Tactics (TCG)

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 roleplayed to great effect using standard AD&D® rules.
__TOC__
==Offensive Tactics==
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.
==Investment==
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.
==Starvation==
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 outand-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 defending 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 exam. ple) 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.
Day	Effect
1 	Decrease morale by 1
6 	Automatic morale check (no option for retreat)
7 	Attrition occurs
11 	Decrease morale by 1
14 	Attrition occurs; automatic morale check
21 	Decrease morale by 1; attrition occurs
22 	Automatic morale check
28 	Attrition occurs
30 	Automatic morale check
31 	Decrease morale by 1
35 	Attrition occurs
38 	Automatic morale check
41 	Decrease morale by 1
42 	Attrition occurs
On Day 45, any units still in good automatically order 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.
==Thirst==
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.
Day Effect	
1 	Decrease morale by 2
3 	Automatic morale check (no option for retreat)
4 	Attrition occurs
5 	Decrease morale by 1
6 	Automatic morale check
7 	Attrition occurs
8 	Decrease morale by 1
9 	Attrition occurs; automatic morale check
10 	Decrease morale by 1
11 	Attrition occurs: automatic morale check
On day 12, all units still in good order automatically 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 (lizardmen, 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.
==Fantastical Combat==
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 BATTLESYSTEMT™️ 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.