Chap 6 discussion for revision

[irdeggman]

Since Ian and I will be going inactive soon, I thought it would be good to set up a few threads for the chapters that haven't been touched revision-wise.

I'll be posting a Word version of the chapter to aid everyone in their writing.

Chap 6 Armies and Warfare seems to be a recent hot topic on the boards so I'll start the threads with this one.

[Athos69]

I have a file that the local DM worked on in XLS format, showing all of the stats of the military units in the game. He noted that there were come errors in teh prices of several of the units, according to the unit creation rules, and subsequently reworked the entire table. Where can I send it to get it posted to the list?

He also sent me a list of suggestions:

Mercenaries. The costs for the limited number of mercenary units are so high as to be not economically feasible. I propose three changes.

First, make all military units (with the possible exception of Knights) available as mercenaries.

Second, make the cost (as mercs) equal to the muster cost for regular army units eg Mercenary Cavalry is 4 GB per season.

Third, make mercenaries demand a minimum 1 year (4 turn) contract so as to avoid regents 'loading up' for one turn of blitzkrieg style warfare.

[Osprey]

Here's the Battlesystem I created for Birthright, based on the existing BRCS/War Card rules and 3e combat rules - something of a conglomeration of the two. Like warcards, it requires a tabletop area to play on. However, it is far more detailed in that it uses a much larger battlefield (size is largely up to the DM), integrates terrain features that can vary on the map, includes new rules for command, castles, and a few new unit training options, Stealth and Skirmishers.

This is by no means a finished product, it is a work-in-progress, albeit one in its 3rd incarnation as the result of playtesting. However, I haven't done any recent revisions to it, but I figured I'd post it up here to download and discuss as a possible base system for our revised Ch 6 war rules.

-Osprey

[Athos69]

I have been giving alot of thought to what my friend was saying about Merc units, and while I agree with him on the point of contracts being for a minimum of 1 year, I disagree with the cost per season being full muster value.

I feel that the cost per season should be 3/4 of the muster value, to make it more attractive to Regnts to hire mercs.

Let me give a couple of examples.

At full muster cost/season, 1 year minimum contract.
Duke X hires a 4 GB unit for the entire year. Cost: 12 GB, payable immediately.
Duke Y raises a 4 GB unit. Cost for the 1st year of service, assuming 1 season of active duty: 4 GB muster (and first season's wage), 1 season at active status (2 GB), 2 seasons at garrison status (2 GB) for a total of 8 GB.

Hmmm.. 8 GB vs. 12. No contest, I'd raise my own troops to save 33%.

At 3/4 muster cost/season, 1 year minimum contract.
Duke X hires a 4 GB unit for the entire year. Cost: 9 GB, payable immediately.

Now here I can see a potential savings, especially if I expect the troops to be in a combat zone for more than one season during the contract. For purely garrison work, it should be cheaper to use your own troops, and only cost effective if you are in a constant state of war to hire mercs -- and even then, the cost of raising your own gets alot cheaper the longer they survive.

I'd also like to add in that merc contracts should be paid out fully in advance of service, to eliminate the cheap tactic of hiring 20 GB of troops to blow them all away in the first month of service and avoid paying out the remainder of the contract term.

[Osprey]

Athos,

If you pay mercs 1/2 their muster value each season, you're still paying double the garrisoned maintenance of regularly mustered troops. Paying 3/4 muster value each season becomes ludicrously expensive, especially if you have to do it for a full year. What regent in his right mind would do this?

I would prefer something more like this (tentatively):
Mercenaries require a sign-on fee equal to their normal muster value. In addition, they require seasonal pay equal to 1/2 their muster value. If they are required to fight, mercenaries expect hazard pay equal to 1/2 their muster value up front, in addition to their regular garrison pay at the end of a successful campaign or season, whichever comes first.

Merc Advantages:
-Mercenaries are available for action in the same month they are hired.
-Mercenary units of varying races and levels of experience, as well as some exotic/foreign unit types, are sometimes available, and these may prove a decisive advantage in certain battles. Examples include Dwarven Infantry, Vos and Rjurik Berserkers, Gnoll Marauders and Infantry, and Khinasi Horse Archers.

[Athos69]

Makes sense -- I just didn't go far enough :)

so what you are saying is that in addition to the 1/2 muster value each season for an entire year, if the mercs are expected to see combat, you only pay an additional 1/2 muster for the entire contract, no matter how many seasons or battles they see, or is it 1/2 per battle or season?

[Osprey]

Makes sense -- I just didn't go far enough

so what you are saying is that in addition to the 1/2 muster value each season for an entire year, if the mercs are expected to see combat, you only pay an additional 1/2 muster for the entire contract, no matter how many seasons or battles they see, or is it 1/2 per battle or season?

Actually, I didn't comment on the one-year contract (was too tired last night). Truth is, I'm not sure I agree with that. I can't say as I'm an expert in the history of mercenary companies, but my understanding is that they were as often short-term help as they were long-term contracts.

The basic advantage of being available immediately seems at odds with a one-year contract. The whole "buy 'em quick and go to war" tactic is what I thought was one of the main uses of mercenaries. The reason I made prices above the way I did was so that if mercs are hired for battle (likely), they will cost extra.

Also, I'm pretty certain the BRCS has it right wjen they say that dead mercs don't collect pay. It may seem cheap, but remember: the lords and kings were the ones holding the cards, not the mercenaries. Mercs had a hard life in general, in part because they were always at risk of getting screwed out of the pay they risked their lives for. Naturally, this will piss them off to no end, so banditry AND a bad rep for the lord (minor loss of regency) should be natural consequences.

Same goes for being on the winning or losing side.

Let me put the pay scheme in other words, hopefully it will clarify:

Mercenary Unit Costs

Hiring Cost: normal muster value in GB
Seasonal Maintenance: 1/2 muster value, paid at the start of the season following their hire (with normal troop maintenance)
Combat Bonus: +1/2 muster value

In other words, Merc Units have 2 x normal maintenance costs.
Now, as to when they get paid, I would expect that most companies don't get paid until after a battle - otherwise, the risk of them turning tail and deserting as soon as things start looking bad rises dramatically. This may be unfair to the mercs and to a regent's advantage, but I'd say that's probably just the way it was - who ever said life was fair, especially for a hard-bitten mercenary? of course, mercs expect combat pay in addition to a share of the plunder after a successful battle. Lords who don't want to plunder their foes' holdings shouldn't hire mercenaries.

Now, all that being said, if writing this chapter I would write in a bit about a merc companies of great repute, these being successful bands of veteran+ troops with a reputation for honoring their contracts and doing the job well. These sorts of companies would set much more favorable terms when negotiating a contract, and might be able to exact such specifics as combat pay in advance and one-year contracts of service. This in addition to their rather steep fees. However such professionals might be willing to forego the plunder of an enemy's lands if they're of the honorable sort (don't expect this from humanoids!).

Some other thoughts: What do you think of the -2 Morale rule for merc units? On the one hand, it makes sense: their loyalty is to money, which is useless if you're dead. On the other hand, you would expect mercs to be far more resigned to battle. hardened to the fear of a fight and generally disciplined on the field itself, even if they're an unruly lot off it.

P.S. - the anime/manga series Berserk has some great stories revolving around mercenary life. Check it out if you haven't already (the comic's especially great).

Osprey

[Don E]

Here are the rules we use in Ruins of Empire. They appear to work reasonably well, with regents preferring standing armies if they can but rely on mrecenaries if they need more forces quickly.

Hire cost and upkeep
When you hire mercenaries, you must decide for how many turns you are going to retain their services, and if they will be on active or garrison duty during those turns (you can mix, say 1 turn of active duty and 2 of garrison work).
Calculate the hired units normal upkeep based on status and turns hired, then multiply this by 2. This is the number of GBs you will have to pay the mercenaries. Half the payment is up front; the rest can be paid on the last turn of the contract.
Example: Suirs Enlien goes to Ilien to hire some mercenaries. She’s looking for 4 veteran swordsmen, 2 regular crossbows and one elite dragoon for 2 turns on active duty, which works out to (10GB upkeep x 2 turns x 1 for active duty x 2 for mercenaries) 40 GBs. She’ll have to pay 20 GBs the turn they are hired, and another 20 GBs when the contract expires in 2 turns.

[epicsoul]

A variant that we use is that you can hire for short term, but pay a premium... the regular rate for muster, plus a hire bonus... This allows for mercs to capitalize on a desperate regent. However, for long term, the rates are reduced. Not less than standard troops... what happens then is that the mercs get contracts with "retainer" clauses in them.

Also, a variant we have been toying with is to hire mercs for specific missions... if assaulting, costs more, if garrison duty, less...

And, privateering is also common; hire a merc unit CHEAP, telling them they can raid targets of opportunity, and pillage what they want. It allows the merc leader independent command, but the regent takes the chance that the pay for someone to do nothing. Works really well in naval warfare though. Not as well with land units, but I have seen it work.

[lord_arioch]

You spoke of Privateers.
It has been some time since I was on the board, but my last discussions were regarding ship descriptions and sea battle rules.

I found a rules system that is simple and it would be easy to convert birthright ships to this system.

The rules are called, Spanish Fury, Sail! and are available at the attached website.

Please note that the ship descriptions are ships armed with cannon. Any birthright ships would have their range and missle weapons stat changed significantly.


http://perfectcaptain.50megs.com/sfsail.html

thoughts?

[lord_arioch]

The Perfect Captain - Spanish Fury, Sail! rules are quite simple. There is no "battle map" with squares or hexes. The game is played on a flat surface. Each class of ship would have its own template (eg. Galleon, Roundship). These templates have the ships various stats (marines, missile,defense, etc) listed on them.

Movement is based on the 16 points of the compass and the ships ability to sail before, beating or into the wind.
This system can easily be adapted to the original sea battle rules as the ships already have stats.

[irdeggman]

One problem with trying to use this is the legal issues.

See the pinned topic (under FAQs) on what is meant by Official Fansite and how the rights for posted amterial falls. Basically if it is posted here then the material is jointly owned by WotC and the author.

I'm not certain those who put their effort into the The Perfect Captain - Spanish Fury, Sail! rules are willing to go for that. Just my opinion.

[lord_arioch]

Good point.
I do think that using a compass heading for ship movement makes more sense that a map using squares or hexes. Initially I thought this was fine but it causes issues in regards to ships movement.

[Don E]

Originally posted by lord_arioch@Aug 23 2004, 09:50 PM
I do think that using a compass heading for ship movement makes more sense that a map using squares or hexes. Initially I thought this was fine but it causes issues in regards to ships movement.
I think this depends on hwo detailed one want the game to be. MOving in 8 different directions is not that much worse than having the opportunity to move in 16 different directions. In this case I think something easily playable would be preferential.

[RaspK_FOG]

I could work based on Arms and Equipment guide; I find the rules it has can get a little glitchy, so we could work BASED on them, but change them as much as we can and like so that neither plagiarism is really an issue and that we have a better and easier system.

[lord_arioch]

using a 16 point compass is quite simple. Ship maneuverability and speed would play larger rolls in ship combat than the old system. The old system of a map of squares gave you an option of moving forward, back, left or right. using compass points allows tactics to enter the battle.

[RaspK_FOG]

Actually, the aforementioned book (and many others) have introduced rules for more complex maneuvers. AaEG has rulings for octagonal movement, maneuverability ratings, hp resolution, and of course wind speed. It also has a lot of reference regarding damage caused by ramming attacks and so on.

[The Jew]

You two should post the rules, rather than argue over vague descriptions. Ussualy the devil is in the details. Of course, their is also those copyright issues. Can either of these rule sets you have been talking about be posted here?

[Don E]

Originally posted by lord_arioch@Aug 25 2004, 10:32 PM
using a 16 point compass is quite simple. Ship maneuverability and speed would play larger rolls in ship combat than the old system. The old system of a map of squares gave you an option of moving forward, back, left or right. using compass points allows tactics to enter the battle.
Using a square gird allow you to move in 8 different directions, just like the standard character rules in D&D. In addition this removes the additional work of having to meassure distances and angles.

[RaspK_FOG]

That's the main reason I support 8-directional square-grid systems. I will see how I can work based on the original rules and provide a sum-up by the day.

[lord_arioch]

Square grid with 8 points. Yes, I didn't take into account the diagonal movement. I don't think the original rules allowed diagonal movement did they?
Anyways it sounds like squares would work.

Jew, I had tried some time ago to post my version of ship stats but the chart was in disorder. Aaeg rules sound interesting, is there a link to their website?

[Don E]

Originally posted by lord_arioch@Aug 26 2004, 10:34 AM
Square grid with 8 points. Yes, I didn't take into account the diagonal movement. I don't think the original rules allowed diagonal movement did they?
No, but I hope nobody here wants to continue using the system in the original rules. It wasn't even a square gird, just a 'battle-mat' with rectangualr boxes.

Another important issue is that the sea combat rules in BR should refelct the higher importance of ramming and boarding actions compared to ship rules where guns or magical siege weapons play a big role.

[RaspK_FOG]

What I meant by "original system" is what AeEG says... I will try to write up a similar set of mechanics, since copying them would be plagiarism on my part.

[lord_arioch]

Originally posted by Don E@Aug 26 2004, 12:45 PM

Another important issue is that the sea combat rules in BR should refelct the higher importance of ramming and boarding actions compared to ship rules where guns or magical siege weapons play a big role.
Yes I agree that the rules should reflect the main reliance on boarding actions. Ramming which is also important should only be available to the serpent galley's. All other ships should rely on boarding actions.

[Don E]

Originally posted by lord_arioch@Aug 27 2004, 11:29 AM
Yes I agree that the rules should reflect the main reliance on boarding actions. Ramming which is also important should only be available to the serpent galley's. All other ships should rely on boarding actions.
I disagree completly with you here. Ramming is a integral part of pre-gun sea combat and would be used extensively by all nations. The abilitity to ram another ship is after all one of the great advantages of an oar powered ship, and would not be left unused by any competent general. I would say it is general practice in Cerilia for all galleys and similar ships to be fitted with a ram to facilitate such actions.

Ok, so the serpent is the only one who got galleys in the original writeup, bot how reasonable is that. Pretending naval warfare in Anuire is predominantly performed by sailing ships seems like a too artifical constraint for it to be carried on into the a reviosion. Just like the army part of te rules have undergone a thorough shakeup I think the naval rules should too.

[Osprey]

Without cannons, I would think ballista would make excellent naval weapons - catapults perhaps to a lesser extent, though they'd be terribly inaccurate against moving targets fired from a moving ship. They would, however, be very effective as a means of naval bombardment against shore-based structures (like coastal forts and towns). Mangonels, the effective equivalent of a light catapult, would have reasonable accuracy against other ships, and their ability to throw flaming pitch and scatter-shot (clusters of fist-sized rocks) would make them invaluable, even if they hit only occasionally. In other words, low accuracy but high damage.

It's difficult to use purely historical precedents for naval combat in BR, as most of the seafaring nations have Renaissance levels of tech without gunpowder. Historically, cannons were being used on ships for some time before the Renaissance.

So instead I would prefer to see some creative use of siege weapons on board ships, even if medieval Europeans didn't utilize them very much. Ramming definitely relies on oars, so it would have to be determined if all warships are oared or not. I think the Anuirean Galleon is one ship that is very odd - it's modeled off an ocean-going, sailing, cannon-armed ship of the Renaissance era in a world where cannons don't exist. Why, exactly, would such a ship have ever been developed in Cerilia? If catapults and ballista are used as shipboard artillery, then it might work for a galleon to be purely a sailing ship that relies on ranged artillery and boarding but not ramming. A ramming warship would require a specialized hull design so that it could be rowed at high speed and still absorb the shock of impact. I could imagine Drakkars being built to such an end, as well as Khinasi galleys and zebecs, while Brechts and Anuireans might rely more on sailing and thus naval artillery plus boarding for close action.

[lord_arioch]

Yes it is odd how the only realm that has galleys are the Serpent. I agree that ram-armed galleys should be more common amongst the other realms. The point I was trying to make is that in the BRCS revision galleons and longships had rams. Galleons, being a sail only ship cannot have a ram.

[ryancaveney]

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Osprey wrote:



> Without cannons, I would think ballista would make excellent naval

> weapons - catapults perhaps to a lesser extent, though they`d be

> terribly inaccurate against moving targets fired from a moving ship.



The real trouble is that the physics of the catapult`s firing mechanism

induces stresses which contemporary shipbuilding techniques couldn`t

really handle. Most of the BR ships would probably shake themselves apart

if you fired all but the tiniest of catapults from them, and even those

which survived could easily capsize themselves! Ballistae are about the

best you can hope for, and even then the ship itself is so unsteady a

platform that effective missile fire is pretty much limited to one volley

before ramming and/or boarding.



> They would, however, be very effective as a means of naval bombardment

> against shore-based structures (like coastal forts and towns).



Ah, but for the construction reasons mentioned, unlike modern battleships,

naval catapult ranges and projectile sizes would be woefully small

compared to what the land forces could employ. Trying to bombard a

fortress from the sea is not a good plan with medieval tech -- you need to

land down the coast a bit, then use local timber to build a bigger

trebuchet than the defenders have on hand. To actually crack stone castle

walls in a useful fashion, the siege engines would have to be far too

large even to load onto a ship in one piece, much less fire from it safely.



> Mangonels, the effective equivalent of a light catapult, would have

> reasonable accuracy against other ships, and their ability to throw

> flaming pitch and scatter-shot (clusters of fist-sized rocks) would

> make them invaluable, even if they hit only occasionally.



Yes, flaming pitch is a much better choice for ship-to-ship than solid

stone shot, because you get much greater destructive power per weight, but

you need to be very careful not to drop it. =)



> Historically, cannons were being used on ships for some time before

> the Renaissance. So instead I would prefer to see some creative use

> of siege weapons on board ships, even if medieval Europeans didn`t

> utilize them very much.



Physics is a large part of the reason. Cannon-armed ships used lots of

relatively small weapons, arranged as near the waterline as possible and

mounted on wheeled carts to help absorb the recoil. Even the larger

warships of Nelson`s time probably couldn`t have mounted a catapult which

would have been an effective long-range weapon against another of their

class, as firing it would have flipped them clean over. For exactly that

reason, Cerilian ship armament should consist of a fair number of small

ballistas, not catapults. The ballistas should fire small solid shot

rather than huge arrows -- the point is that they fire straight ahead by a

crossbow-like mechanism, rather than by swinging things overhand on a long

lever arm. It`s that arm swinging that would capsize the firer, and that

arm crashing to a stop as the projectile is released which would shake the

firing ship to pieces.



> I think the Anuirean Galleon is one ship that is very odd - it`s

> modeled off an ocean-going, sailing, cannon-armed ship of the

> Renaissance era in a world where cannons don`t exist. Why, exactly,

> would such a ship have ever been developed in Cerilia?



They key word is ocean-going. Ships designed for ramming (low, long,

oared) are notoriously unseaworthy (Vikings aside). The Anuireans should

use both, actually, as navies did in the 1200ish-1500ish era: high, round

sailing ships for travel out of sight of land, and low, long oared (at

least optionally) for coastal travel, trade and combat. There is little

call for battle upon the high seas -- it`s pretty much impossible to find

the enemy out there, anyway.



> If catapults and ballista are used as shipboard artillery, then it

> might work for a galleon to be purely a sailing ship that relies on

> ranged artillery and boarding but not ramming.



One great advantage the galleon has over a drakkar is that it has a much

higher deck; this means it has an easier time boarding and repelling

boarders, and also that it is in a much better position for short-range

missile fire. When the Anuirean galleon goes to war, it should be packed

to the gills with (cross)bowmen, who could riddle rowers at little risk.





Ryan Caveney

[Athos69]

Originally posted by ryancaveney@Aug 27 2004, 02:20 PM
The real trouble is that the physics of the catapult`s firing mechanism induces stresses which contemporary shipbuilding techniques couldn`t really handle. Most of the BR ships would probably shake themselves apart if you fired all but the tiniest of catapults from them, and even those which survived could easily capsize themselves! Ballistae are about the best you can hope for, and even then the ship itself is so unsteady a platform that effective missile fire is pretty much limited to one volley before ramming and/or boarding.
What of the use of trebuchets? they create minimal stress, and could be used to launch pots of pitch or oil, to then be followed up by a volley of flaming arrows.

Further, you forget that a massed volley of arrows can be quite effective too...

[RaspK_FOG]

A common means of wrecking an enemy ship was to use the ever-faithful (...) arbalest and small balistae, since both were capable of launching fiery missiles as well as irons and chains that can rip sails apart.

[lord_arioch]

One concern for catapults and trebuchets is their swinging arm. There is a lot of sail and rigging that can become fouled in the swinging arm. Not to mention the weight of the catapult would be on the topmost deck. There would be a concern that the ship would become top heavy.

It would be very dangerous to use pitch and oil as a weapon on a ship. Ships are wood sealed with tar. some ropes were coated in animal grease.
Putting pitch onto a ship engaged in a battle would be a recipe for ruin.

[Osprey]

What of the use of trebuchets? they create minimal stress, and could be used to launch pots of pitch or oil, to then be followed up by a volley of flaming arrows.

It doesn't get much more inaccurate than trebuchets with medieval siege artillery. Can you imagine trebuchet on a rocking ship trying to hit even the broadside of a castle at several hundred yards?

What I am curious about is the potential of lower, more stable ships - like heavy war galleys and barges - to handle things like catapults. Galleys could operate effectively in a fair majority of the Cerilian coastal waters (the Great Bay, maybe the Straits of Aerele, the Arnienbae, and the seas of southern Khinasi), barges on lakes and great rivers (the Maesil).

New ship designs, or modifications of known ones, could open a rich potential for a uniquely Cerilian development of naval warfare. Without the advent of gunpowder, but with the survival of advanced militant cultures, there lies the potential of branching off from historical European models while evolving unique designs.

I agree - oceangoing vessels are ill-suited for mounting artillery other than direct-fire weapons: archers, arbalests, and ballistae. Heh, Ryan's comments brought visions of fire-throwers (slingshot-style alchemical fire launchers). Rarely even magical bombs if the proper mage could be found. :o


Rasp, I wonder if arbalests really could throw chain and shot very far or effectively? Ballista, certainly...but an arbalest is really just a super-heavy mounted crossbow. Within a few hundred yards, an arbalest bolt could certainly fly with the power to punch through armor and shield and still strike a man with killing force. Ballistas, on the other hand, could decimate squads at a time. They would be far better vessels for chain shot.

Someone mentioned getting the one volley before engagement, then closing to ram or board. Well, what if the ship with the better ranged weapons manages to run alongside the enemy ship and continue to rake her? Wouldn't this be a viable maneuver?

Contested P/Sailor checks could be made by rival captains when one attempts to board the other - winner can choose to evade or engage. If your ship is faster than the enemy, and better armed with long range ballista and arbalests...just hang back and snipe their decks clean...then slowly close and start launching fire arrows, and watch the scurrying begin as men hurry from belowdecks to snuff out the fires, only to be picked off by waiting arbalesters.

Dang, I shoulda been a pirate captain... :D

[ConjurerDragon]

lord_arioch schrieb:



>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=36&t=2773

>

> lord_arioch wrote:

> Yes it is odd how the only realm that has galleys are the Serpent. I agree that ram-armed galleys should be more common amongst the other realms. The point I was trying to make is that in the BRCS revision galleons and longships had rams. Galleons, being a sail only ship cannot have a ram.

>

A possible explanation for only the serpent having such ships would be

that only that area of sea is suited to that type of ship.

Perhaps only in that area the sea is calm enough, like in the

mediterranian sea the old triremes, to allow ships with multiple lines

of rows without sinking from heavy sea? So that in the Sea of Storms or

in the Krakenauricht the larger sailing ships prevail as triremes could

never survive the sea there.

bye

Michael

[The Jew]

Let me try with some basic rules, see what people think. Every ship should have these stats

-strategic movement=non-combat movement; sails will be significantly faster that oar based ships
-tactical movement=combat movement; same as tactical for sails, but oars will be faster than their strategic movement
-defence=DC of check versus melee, normal ranged attacks or grappling
-melee=ramming attack; Oars will have an advantage in this, but larger ships will have an advantage to. If a ship is not destroyed from the ramming damage (only 1 hit) the two ships will be locked and only a ship with oars will be able to seperate during a battle. Locked ships can be boarded by each other. A ramming attack can also be used to destroy the oars of a ship, slowing or immobilizing it, called shearing.
-ranged=ranged damage from war machines. A normal hit will deal a hit, fire damage will not immediately inflict a hit, the defenders will have one round to put the fire out using a morale check. If the fire is not put out a hit is inflicted and the next rounds morale check to put the fire out will be higher
-grappling=attack to grapple two ships together to allow soldiers to board.
-manuverbility=a grade ranging from A to F, similar to flying. Essentially the amount a ship must move forward, or the amount of movement that a ship must use to turn 45 degrees.

-Ships move on a square board, but can move diagonally.
-A ship that has been sheared can not move for a combat round. In following combat rounds it moves at half speed and manueverbility is reduced by one grade.
-Combat units on board can also attack. Archers can do one of three attacks. They can attack the crew which count as a unit of irregulars or light infantry depending on type of ship. They can attack a unit on board the ship. They can attack the ship with fire arrows as the rules above.
-Once two ships are locked or grappled units can board the enemies ships to try to take it.
-If ships are next to each other whether graplled, locked or just sailing closely their is a chance for a fire on board one to light the other ship.
-For the purposes of ranged attacks, if either or both of the ships is not moving, the ranged attack will recieve a bonus. Archers shooting from from higher groung (larger ships) recieve a bonus to attack.
-The direction and strength of the wind or else a storm should play a major role.

[tcharazazel]

It may be a good idea to mention the advantages for soldiers attacking from higher ground as some ships, like the Galleon, are definately higher than others, like a Coaster. Since such advantages are a major part of naval combat and the tech to make the ships increasingly higher above the water (even if it was to add more cannons to the broadside), it would be appropriate to include them.

[Athos69]

You may also want to take into account a favoured attack of antiquity -- that of achieving a ramming peed, but narrowly missing the enemy ship, bow on while raising the facing bank of oars. This attack was designed to splinter the bank of oars on teh target ship, and thus render it virtually immobile. Of course such a maneuver left the ramming ship open to grappling...

[The Jew]

I will add in your suggestions to the above post, rather than make a new post.

[Osprey]

You may also want to take into account a favoured attack of antiquity -- that of achieving a ramming peed, but narrowly missing the enemy ship, bow on while raising the facing bank of oars. This attack was designed to splinter the bank of oars on teh target ship, and thus render it virtually immobile. Of course such a maneuver left the ramming ship open to grappling...

"Shearing", I believe, was the name for that particular maneuver you describe. Vicious and effective against galleys and other oared ships, though given time some ships could switch oars and get a crippled pace...perhaps this would create a Stun effect on the target vessel if it hits, and have a 'hamstring' type effect, reducing the target to 1/2 rowing speed.

Osprey

[ryancaveney]

On Sat, 28 Aug 2004, Athos69 wrote:



> What of the use of trebuchets? they create minimal stress,



Not the ones they built and fired in the various "let`s build ancient

siege weapons" documentaries I`ve seen! There is still lots of recoil.

In fact, that seems to be what the wheels were for: not transportation,

but recoil absorption. Furthermore, anything the size of the ones usually

imagined, hurling stones to crack castle walls from great distances, would

be far too large to mount on a sailing vessel: the mass of the

counterweight alone would be enough to sink most of the BR ships. The

sudden movement is not a good thing for the ship -- the projectiles fired

have to be negligible in mass compared to the vessel itself, or you are in

real trouble.



> Further, you forget that a massed volley of arrows can be quite effective



Actually, later on in the same post, I recommended that as a form of

missile fire which is superior to siege weapons for shipboard use.





Ryan Caveney

[ryancaveney]

On Sat, 28 Aug 2004, Osprey wrote:



> Can you imagine trebuchet on a rocking ship trying to hit even the

> broadside of a castle at several hundred yards?



A trebuchet capable of tossing a projectile capable of hurting the castle

at that kind of range would make the ship rock much worse than waves would!



> What I am curious about is the potential of lower, more stable ships -

> like heavy war galleys and barges - to handle things like catapults.



The catapults and their projectiles would have to be very small, and

provision would have to be made for their recoil. I`m actually

envisioning something like putting them on wheels on some kind of track,

and firing them directly forward and letting them roll back along the

length of the ship to soak up the momentum transfer. I doubt it would

work very well, but firing a catapult from a fixed position is a recipe

for disaster, given the stresses it puts on the hull.



> Heh, Ryan`s comments brought visions of fire-throwers (slingshot-style

> alchemical fire launchers). Rarely even magical bombs if the proper

> mage could be found.



Exactly what I had in mind, in fact. =)



> Someone mentioned getting the one volley before engagement, then

> closing to ram or board.



That was me.



> Well, what if the ship with the better ranged weapons manages to run

> alongside the enemy ship and continue to rake her?



If you can manage this, it would be ideal. Naval vessels definitely do

not turn on a dime, however, so it would be really hard to get close

enough to fire really effectively without getting grappled, rammed, or

otherwise fouled. It would also take a fair amount of time to turn around

to come back for another pass. But yes, you`d really like to be able to

do this, if you have a good enough captain and an agile enough ship.





Ryan Caveney

[RaspK_FOG]

Originally posted by Osprey@Aug 28 2004, 08:46 AM
[QUOTE]Rasp, I wonder if arbalests really could throw chain and shot very far or effectively? Ballista, certainly...but an arbalest is really just a super-heavy mounted crossbow. Within a few hundred yards, an arbalest bolt could certainly fly with the power to punch through armor and shield and still strike a man with killing force. Ballistas, on the other hand, could decimate squads at a time. They would be far better vessels for chain shot.

Contested P/Sailor checks could be made by rival captains when one attempts to board the other - winner can choose to evade or engage. If your ship is faster than the enemy, and better armed with long range ballista and arbalests...just hang back and snipe their decks clean...then slowly close and start launching fire arrows, and watch the scurrying begin as men hurry from belowdecks to snuff out the fires, only to be picked off by waiting arbalesters.

Dang, I shoulda been a pirate captain... :D
Yes, you are right about that; rapid typing is not always good. What I meant is that both arbalests and balistae can fire flaming bolts, while the latter can also fire lengths of chain and hooks or razors that can shear sails and ropes quite effectively, possibly even snapping at an nemy sailor or two on their way. :rolleyes:

B) Pretty much what I envisioned! Care for a shipmate? :lol:

[Ksaturn]

Alchemist's fire plays well into this... a vial rather then a point that burns down a ship... nice for 20 gp. also glass balls could work well for shorter range and greater power.

Note for land combat in a siege rocks need not be all you throw... a corpse ridden with plagues would be a very demoralizing lawn ornament.

[RaspK_FOG]

Remember, here, that Craft (alchemy) requires spellcasting ability, something not overly common; and I doubt clerics of Nesirie would be making lots of such product to provide the military with an efficient killing weapon.

[tcharazazel]

Heheh, though the paladin's probably would.

Unless were to believe that all followers of Neserie are whiney, crying, moping women, like the goddess who is married to Haylen is supposed to be... Damn that would suck to have a wife like that, she needs a new self image, cause what they hell would have attracted Haylen to her? The god of nobility and war attracted to a whiney, crying, moping goddess, just doesnt make much sense I mean, get over it already, the Masesians and Masela are gone. She's portrayed as being so weak, so really why would he be interested in her? I'm really curious to find out what kind of wedding that must have been cause the bride isnt the one who is supposed to be crying are her wedding.

[RaspK_FOG]

I guess you share much of your time with Belinik and Kriesha... <_<

[tcharazazel]

Heheh, they do not exercise enough forthought for me to really bother spending time with them. I value being patient, calculating the best method to achieve ones goals, via force, cunning, and will, and in general, the goals are for long term results that ensure the ability to succeed in completing ones future goals.

Most dieties values these things, prob is they always differ on how the goals are achieved. I was always of the group that says the ends justify the means, and sacrificing the one for the good of the many are some good rules to live by, ie morals are just another means of controling the weak minded, heheh, same with religion, law, time, ect all human contructs that humans self impose to reduce their responsibilty for their actions, so they can cry out to their god for help, like kid crying to a parent. Damn kids, never wanna grow up and take responsibilty for their actions and choices... they say they want free will and then they create all these rules to take it away from themselves... HAHAHAAHAHAHA, mortals... definately one of the most entertaining ideas we have come up with so far.

[Ksaturn]

The notorious Fireships... ancient ships mounted with flamethrowers and micro catapults (that launched greek fire) were in fact built by a temple... specifically... damn i forgot. Some huge important 'heart of a religion' type temple. It was on a (historical) show or something...

[RaspK_FOG]

Well, one could do that...

The funny part is that the greek wording for "greek fire" is "liquid fire"! :P

[The Jew]

Any ideas how to put all these various historical facts into a balanced rule set?

[lord_arioch]

The ship stats that were provided in the brcs are usable in any new ship battle system (with a few modifications). The ship movement rules have to be changed. I would agree with a square grid system that had 8 points of movement. Ships maneuverability would be based on how many points a ship can turn in a move.

How does one post a grid on the discussion board. I tried once before to post my RTF document but it came out all jumbled up.

[Ksaturn]

It would be very dangerous to use pitch and oil as a weapon on a ship. Ships are wood sealed with tar. some ropes were coated in animal grease.
Putting pitch onto a ship engaged in a battle would be a recipe for ruin.

That's the idea!!! But put it on the Enemies' ships...

anywho anyone here ever look at spelljammer? It's heavy swashbuckling elements and ship focused combat give a myriad field of ideas.... if you can weed out the physics defying stuff... like... check the links...

Oh yeah about Mercenaries...
Also, I'm pretty certain the BRCS has it right wjen they say that dead mercs don't collect pay. It may seem cheap, but remember: the lords and kings were the ones holding the cards, not the mercenaries. Mercs had a hard life in general, in part because they were always at risk of getting screwed out of the pay they risked their lives for. Naturally, this will piss them off to no end, so banditry AND a bad rep for the lord (minor loss of regency) should be natural consequences.
I can just imagine my players running thier little kingdom on the fringe hireing out thier armies for merc level pay... and dead mercs with a king behind them DO get paid if you know what i mean. Screwing over a bunch of dead hooligans is one thing... but a 'little' debt can really do some damage in the political arena... say goodbye to your RPs would-be cheap-skate. It dosent have to be dishonorable work either... those men have families who get some reparations in most cases.

And, privateering is also common; hire a merc unit CHEAP, telling them they can raid targets of opportunity, and pillage what they want. It allows the merc leader independent command, but the regent takes the chance that the pay for someone to do nothing. Works really well in naval warfare though. Not as well with land units, but I have seen it work.
THIS IS AN AWESOME SETUP... can no one see it? are you all blind?? :huh: Imagine a 'privateer' leader with a group of 'mercs' hired on the loot at the end... A PC leading a company in raids against...(who? the Gorgon? Ghoere? I really new here...)...and gaining Grants in reparation. Paying his men from his own considerable pockets at first(he is of course an adventurer) then from the loot and the 'grants'.
B) B) B)
One beatiful thing about this setup is it isn't official... He doesent take orders from any regent directly but won't stay on the side of anyone who doesent "pay for his services" with grants of land maybe, or a few GBs... Who can point a finger at the regent when a pirate\rogue\privateer is involved? of course the other side of the border sees him as a hero... a good enough PC could get a Cohort unit Core for his army DM allowing! And i can see how many a regent woulden't mind having an 'independant' army around who had a stake in his land's future... led by a Hero\Adventurer who gets (froom the regents view) small donations of money or land or perhaps a noble title or four...

This is the Charismatic guy with leadership and a Chaotic Good attitude i envisioned... I can see a Bard/Paladin of Cuiracuen as a truely awe inspiring leader with great influence... perhaps a level or 2 or 4 of fighter to round him off? Even without a bloodline(which such a PC would rarely pass up) such a character could change the fate of nations... Plus how many regents would sneak off at night with a handful of adventurers to raid enemies' treasuries(and kitchens)?

(like in the old game Defender of the Crown!!!)

[lord_arioch]

Privateers (or pirate bands) should be the heart and soul of Grabentod and the Zweilund Islands. Those two nations should have very few capital warships the majority of their navy being independent pirate captains. These ships travel and raid at will always returning to a safe harbour. All these captains would understand the importance of a safe harbour and would therefore fight to keep those harbours out of enemy hands (if they had a good chance of winning and there was a profit in it of course).

My comment about the oil and pitch is that most captains would see its use as too dangerous. One accident and your own ship would be engulfed in flames.
Fireships on the other hand are an excellent idea. :)

[RaspK_FOG]

Actually, fireships should be rather uncommon if we use core rules for the Craft (alchemy) that require that you must be a spellcaster (which doesn't stop a bard or magician from making greek/liquid fire, but that's another thing); and I generally believe that fireships should be uncommon anyway...

Furthermore, fire was always available on ships; it was not uncommon for archers to fire flaming arrows from aboard one ship to the other and its crew. Top that with the unlikely spellcaster casting flaming arrow on the batches of arrows used by said archers or the ballista bolts, and you have it!

[lord_arioch]

I'm refering to the type of fireship was was commonly used in the Reneissance period. (eg. English against spanish, dutch against spanish, dutch aganist english, etc)
You take a small sailing ship. Pack it with combustibles, (wood, tar, oil) sail the ship towards your enemy, set your fireship alight and crash it into your enemies ship.
You wouldn't need an alchemist for this type of fireship. Just a very brave crew (or a drunk crew :lol: )

Flaming arrows are one thing but firing pitch from a catapult and liquid fire from a throwing device are another.
I'm not saying captains don't use fire. There are just dangers to using it.

[tcharazazel]

The old fire galleys of the eastern mediteranian used naptha and hoses. So the secrets of the Greek fire may have been an alchemist secret (held only by the Kenasi in the R world) however you dont really need to be an alchemist to use it properly. Just point the hose in the right direction, start spraying the enemy ship and then lite it up. Prob wiser to spray the ship with the compound and then shoot some fire arrows at it... though I heard they lit the compound on fire just after they started to spray it from the hose so it looked like the hose was shooting fire.

[RaspK_FOG]

:angry: Greek fire was reported by its users and creators for one nasty little attribute: it caught on fire when exposed to air! And frankly, while it would not need an alchemist to project the naptha-based substance, that does not mean you wouldn't need a LOT of time for even one ship...

As for the kind of ship you described, Arioch, I am not sure of its correct name, but I am almost sure it is "fireship". If any DM uses black powder (should not be a very common item in my opinion for the same reasons as with greek fire), it would be easier to use "demolition ships" (that's what I will call them for now) with it instead of inflammable matter; I do know, though, what you are talking about, and we Greeks even have a local holiday on one of our islands were they celebrate the destruction of the turkish flagship.

[tcharazazel]

Ah yes, thanks for the reminder, been a while since I read about Greek fire. Hmm, I wonder if some wizards could combine pitch and oil so it would be liguid enough to be shot out of a hose and sticky enough to stay on the sails and other parts of the ship.

[Ksaturn]

Ask the dragons! they seem to have the napalm thing down pretty good... B) The Draconomicon's clinging breath feat would be a nice touch too ya know!

[lord_arioch]

Units Cost Sail MC Seaw Cargo Bunks Missile Hits Defence
Caravel 6 3 B +6 3 1 +3 2 14
Coaster 2 4 A +5 0 0 0 1 10
Cog 5 2 C +7 3 1 +3 2 14
Dhoura 4 3 B +6 2 1 +2 2 14
Dhow 2 4 A +4 0 0 0 1 10
Drakkar 8 1 D(2) +3 1 1 +1 2 14
Galleon 15 3 E +5 6 3 +6 4 16
Galley 8 2 B(2) +2 1 1 +1 2 12
Keelboat 1 2 C(1) 0 0 0 0 1 8
Knarr 6 2 C(1) +6 2 1 +2 2 14
Longship 3 2 C(2) +4 1 1 +1 1 12
Roundship 12 3 E +8 5 2 +5 3 16
Zebec 17 3 B +5 2 2 +2 3 14



still didn't work very well <_<

[RaspK_FOG]

A piece of friendly advice: use the {CODE} tag (always includes all spaces) and never use tab stops; prefer the use of spaces instead.
Units * * *Cost *Sail ** MC **Seaw* Cargo Bunks*Missile Hits* Defence
Caravel ** * 6 ** *3 ** *B * **+6 * **3 * * *1 ** *+3 ** *2 * **14
Coaster ** * 2 ** *4 ** *A * **+5 * **0 * * *0 ** * 0 ** *1 * **10
Cog * * ** * 5 * **2 * **C * **+7 * **3 * * *1 ** *+3 ** *2 * **14
Dhoura ** * *4 ** *3 ** *B ** *+6 ** *2 * * *1* * *+2* * *2 ** *14
Dhow * ** * *2 ** *4 ** *A ** *+4 ** *0 * * *0* * * 0 ** *1 * **10
Drakkar ** * 8 ** *1* * *D(2)* +3* * *1 * * *1* * *+1* * *2 ** *14
Galleon ** *15 * **3* * *E * * +5 ** *6 * * *3 ** *+6 ** *4 * **16
Galley * ** *8 * **2 ** *B(2) *+2 ** *1 * * *1 ** *+1 ** *2 * **12
Keelboat* * *1 * **2* * *C(1)* *0 ** *0 * * *0 ** * 0 * **1 * ** 8
Knarr * ** * 6 * **2 ** *C(1) *+6 ** *2 * * *1 ** *+2 ** *2 * **14
Longship* * *3 ** *2* * *C(2)* +4* * *1 * * *1* * *+1* * *1 ** *12
Roundship* *12* * *3* * *E * **+8* * *5 * * *2* * *+5* * *3 ** *16
Zebec * * **17 ** *3 ** *B * * +5 ** *2 * * *2 ** *+2 ** *3 * **14

[Osprey]

Why use letters for Maneuverability Class (MC)? This just requires referring to yet another table to decipher the code. Is there no way to give the MC a number that tells us exactly what the score means. For example, MC 2 might mean the ship must sail 2 spaces forward before turning 45 degrees, MC 1/2 = move 1, turn 2 (90 degrees).

Dunno, just some outside perspective on that.

Osprey

[lord_arioch]

I agree Osprey. This was an old chart I had done. I used a letter for the maneuverability because that's how it was done originally. But you are correct. A simpler method is needed.
If we were to use a square chart and use eight points of movement then the letter MC can be changed to points moved.
Eg. MC: E would be one point, D=2 points, C=3 points,B=4 points, A=5 points.

therefore a coaster in one turn of movement can turn 225 degrees or from going North to South-west in one turn of movement.

thanks for the tip RaspK.

[RaspK_FOG]

Osprey, it's simple: D&D flight works that way as well. I believe your idea is very helpful since, unlike with flight, there is no 3rd dimention when it comes to seafare (unless you count sinking :P ).

Anytime, Arioch.

[Thomas_Percy]

Part 1 of my observations about Chapter 6 Armies & Warfare.

1. Move

Speed of unit depends of speed of train (wagon with supply), so every unit with an exception of light cavalry/scouts has a base Spd 20 ft -> 2mph -> 16 miles per day.
It is far more than 1 province per week.

2. Attack modifiers against certain types of units (eg. archers vs cavalry).

It should depend of unit's feats combo.
For example Hold the Line feat is effective for pikemen and infantry.

3. Units critical hits.

Why this is changed due to the D&D PHB weapon critical hits rules?

4. Morale

Morale save roll with every hit. Not too much rolls?

5. Garrisoned units

An army unit is considered to be in garrison if it rests in its home province for one month. Naval units can garrison in any friendly shipyard.
It means a player must take a book keeping for every unit.

A morale save is a d20 + the unit's morale rating. A scion commander may modify the morale saves of their units by spending regency to provide a one-for-one bonus.
I think there are NON-regent great commander which can be allowed do do the same without spending RP.

6. Unit armor and missile attacks

A unit whose modified missile rating (due to armor) is below +0 loses the ability to make a ranged attack.
It's an ahistorical and inconsistent with D&D rules (eg. Tordek with full plate and a bow)

7. Goblins

Although goblin units are usually undisciplined and poorly equipped, they compensate with sheer numbers and bloodlust.
Where is a game mechanics for such an idea?

8. Number of soldiers in the unit

If we assume that the soldiers in the unit are a 1st-level warriors (CR 1), then we can determine that it requires 128 soldiers CR 1 soldiers to create a standard EL 15 unit.

Maybe I'm wrong, but Warriors as other NPC classes has a CR 1/2 (I'm not sure).
Anyway it is weird that horses are more formidable enemies than knight. It's one of many weird things emerging of 1st level NPC classes.

9. Cog

Is a cog a 2-masted ship?

10. Muster troops

A regent must have access to military resources to muster a unit and can muster an army unit in a province only if one of the following mustering conditions are met: (1) the regent controls a law holding in the province equal to or greater than the GB cost of mustering the unit; or, (2) the regent controls a temple or guild holdings in the province equal to or greater than 2 + the muster cost of the unit + levels of opposing law holdings in the province.
Why an owner of a guild can muster a troops? Why a cleric in chief of the province can?

11. Military Intelligence

There is no a word about magic such as Scrying spell, about familiars, animal companions, homunculi, flying scouts (griffonriders).

[The Jew]

Since we're done with chapter 1, I though I would bring this up again. Revised rules for ship stats and naval combat. I think these are better than what is in the BRCS, not that these can't be improved upon.

-strategic movement=non-combat movement; sails will be significantly faster that oar based ships
-tactical movement=combat movement; same as tactical for sails, but oars will be faster than their strategic movement
-defence=DC of check versus melee, normal ranged attacks or grappling
-melee=ramming attack; Oars will have an advantage in this, but larger ships will have an advantage to. If a ship is not destroyed from the ramming damage (only 1 hit) the two ships will be locked and only a ship with oars will be able to seperate during a battle. Locked ships can be boarded by each other. A ramming attack can also be used to destroy the oars of a ship, slowing or immobilizing it, called shearing.
-ranged=ranged damage from war machines. A normal hit will deal a hit, fire damage will not immediately inflict a hit, the defenders will have one round to put the fire out using a morale check. If the fire is not put out a hit is inflicted and the next rounds morale check to put the fire out will be higher
-grappling=attack to grapple two ships together to allow soldiers to board.
-manuverbility= Essentially the amount a ship must move forward to turn 45 degrees. Represented by numbers, with 0 being able to spend a move to turn 45 degrees without going forward.
-Cargo space=number of GB's worth of goods for a trade route the ship can carry
-Bunks=Number of units that can be carried. Cavalry takes up 3 spaces.

-Ships move on a square board, but can move diagonally.
-A ship that has been sheared can not move for a combat round. In following combat rounds it moves at half speed and manueverbility is reduced by one grade.
-Combat units on board can also attack. Archers can do one of three attacks. They can attack the crew which count as a unit of irregulars or light infantry depending on type of ship. They can attack a unit on board the ship. They can attack the ship with fire arrows as the rules above.
-Once two ships are locked or grappled units can board the enemies ships to try to take it.
-If ships are next to each other whether graplled, locked or just sailing closely their is a chance for a fire on board one to light the other ship.
-For the purposes of ranged attacks, if either or both of the ships is not moving, the ranged attack will recieve a bonus. Archers shooting from from higher groung (larger ships) recieve a bonus to attack.
-The direction and strength of the wind or else a storm should play a major role.

[Osprey]

Big question yet unresolved re. ships: is a ship one ship or a unit of ships (several ships)?

If a single ship, could any ship really carry more than one unit? A galleon or other heavy ship might carry a full company, smaller ships could hold only a fraction of a company - if a galleon has bunks 3 but really holds only one company, a caravel would carry only 1/3 of a company.

If ships and units are to be at all compatible, it will probably be necessary to make each "ship" a unit or squadron - 3 ships per unit/squadron is about right IMO.

The other option is gving heavy ships 1 company capacity, and smaller ships less, which gets messy and hard to handle. I prefer squadrons myself, though resulting cargo capacity of 3 ships vs. one should be carefully considered.

[The Jew]

Originally posted by Osprey@Feb 21 2005, 02:25 PM
Big question yet unresolved re. ships: is a ship one ship or a unit of ships (several ships)?

If a single ship, could any ship really carry more than one unit? A galleon or other heavy ship might carry a full company, smaller ships could hold only a fraction of a company - if a galleon has bunks 3 but really holds only one company, a caravel would carry only 1/3 of a company.

If ships and units are to be at all compatible, it will probably be necessary to make each "ship" a unit or squadron - 3 ships per unit/squadron is about right IMO.

The other option is gving heavy ships 1 company capacity, and smaller ships less, which gets messy and hard to handle. I prefer squadrons myself, though resulting cargo capacity of 3 ships vs. one should be carefully considered.
I don't know much about ships. but I'm reading a historical novel right now, set in napolieonic war. The 3rd largest class of English galleons can carry at least 650 sailors and 65 marines.

A question I have, is it realistic for ships to carry horses at all. First of all there is the question of space. a soldier can be given 5 1/2 feet by 2 1/2 feet by 1 1/2 feet (vertical) to sleep in. Then their is room for his equipment. Horses can't be stacked vertically, and will probably need at least 8 feet by 4 feet. More importantly I thought there was a great risk of horses panicking and/or breaking their legs. I know a horse with its owner calming it can cross a river on a barge, but packing the horses into the hold seems entirely different.

[Osprey]

I don't know much about ships. but I'm reading a historical novel right now, set in napolieonic war. The 3rd largest class of English galleons can carry at least 650 sailors and 65 marines.

Napoleanic-era ships were much bigger than medieval ones. Those galleons you're referring to had so many sailors to crew all the cannons (c. 2/3 of total crew might be for cannons) and sail the ship (1/3).

For historical comparisons, look at ships up to Renaissance era (up to 1600 or so), minus their compliment of cannons.

Non-cannon galleons with oars would need a huge number of rowers. Sailing galleons might have a great deal more bunk/cargo capacity. IMO galleons shouldn't have oars. The space where cannons would have been ona a Ren. galleon can be replaced by arrow loops beneath the main deck, and battlements around the main deck - this would provide two banks of archers on either side, plus a few ballistae (one on the forecastle, one on the aftcastle).

Historic caravels and cogs were a LOT smaller than galleons as I recall. I doubt they'd fit more than 50 fighting men plus the crew. More troops could possibly be shipped in the cargo hold, though those would be poor conditions for any time period.


A question I have, is it realistic for ships to carry horses at all. First of all there is the question of space. a soldier can be given 5 1/2 feet by 2 1/2 feet by 1 1/2 feet (vertical) to sleep in. Then their is room for his equipment. Horses can't be stacked vertically, and will probably need at least 8 feet by 4 feet. More importantly I thought there was a great risk of horses panicking and/or breaking their legs. I know a horse with its owner calming it can cross a river on a barge, but packing the horses into the hold seems entirely different.

You'd be surprised at how often horses were carried in ships. Ancient and medieval eras have many accounts of cavalry being hauled by ship. I think there's little doubt that they would do poorly in long voyages or bad weather, but a ship with a properly-designed cargo hold could carry a decent number of horses.

Rather than have horses take up bunk space, they should take cargo space - I was thinking 2 GB worth per cavalry company. This also assumes cavalry companies are only 50 or so horsemen.

For that matter, I use a rule IMC that carrying any shipboard troops on a long voyage (more than one day) requires 1 GB worth of supplies per company per month. So 1 cavalry unit would need 3 GB worth of cargo space for a long voyage.

A harsher rule might force a cavalry company to make a Morale check per full day of sea travel (DC 10 + 1 per day traveled). A failed check could inflict 1 hit of subdual damage.

Or just have cavalry units add +4 (or more) to the DC's to resist nonlethal damage from bad weather.

[Thomas_Percy]

Yes, horses can be transport by ships.
It was a normal way of transport durning crusades for example.
There is a medieval joke about a knight who lost his horse durning a storm on La Manche.

About ships from sourcebook "Sailing Ships" by Stefan Gulas.

A Cog - 80-200 tons, even 300 tons. A caravel the same.
So if a horse weights 0,5 ton, 0,7 with knight, barding and armor, there is a place for a unit of knight on the board.

Original Brt rules about ship are good, maybe the roundship is a non precise due to historical sources.

Info in the DMG is not a-historical, too.

This is from a Gulas book - a Golden Hind, light galleon of Francis Drake (sorry for Polish language legend :) ):
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v226/Anuire/Places/takielunek.jpg

This is from our future book:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v226/Anuire/Places/cog.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v226/Anuire/Places/caravel.jpg

[Athos69]

One thing that has always bugged me is that "Coasters", which would be roughly equivalent to a Pinnace or a Sloop, are dead the moment they enter the tactical grid with no chance to run away from a Caravel or a Galleon, due to their slower tactical speed. In truth, a Sloop or Pinnace would be able to outpace a Galleon or Caravel, primarily due to their more streamlined hull and their ability to sail closer to the wind.
This inaccuracy in the game throws the ages-old tactical doctrine of having the light ships on picket duty to detect enemy fleets into chaos and makwes the class of shp virtually useless.
I am working with someone locally to redevelop the naval aspect of the game, should the BRCS crew allow me to continue.

[Osprey]

One thing that has always bugged me is that "Coasters", which would be roughly equivalent to a Pinnace or a Sloop, are dead the moment they enter the tactical grid with no chance to run away from a Caravel or a Galleon, due to their slower tactical speed. In truth, a Sloop or Pinnace would be able to outpace a Galleon or Caravel, primarily due to their more streamlined hull and their ability to sail closer to the wind.
This inaccuracy in the game throws the ages-old tactical doctrine of having the light ships on picket duty to detect enemy fleets into chaos and makwes the class of shp virtually useless.
I am working with someone locally to redevelop the naval aspect of the game, should the BRCS crew allow me to continue.

I'm pretty certain the naval combat rules will be revised to allow for fast sailing speeds to actually mean something, rather than the old 2e assumption that non-oared sailing ships are useless and pathetically slow on the battle map.

I don't think coasters are really the equivalent of sloops, I think they're smaller and less advanced as sailing ships.

IMC I made sloops a revolutionary medium ship ship designed, where cargo space is sacrificed for greater sailing speed (sloops were some of the fastest sailing ships of their day). Imagine taking a caravel or cog, then stretching it out to be longer and narrower, with a 2-3 masts plus a lateen sail in the fore, and this is a decent approximation of a sloop-of-war.

The sloop IMC isn't a feasible ship design until the advancement of naval science, and the invention of gunpowder, make it a practical fast warship. here were the stats I decided upon, incorporating later gunpowder technology (culverins and musket-era, similar to late Renaissance and the age of exploration):

Sloop: Medium Ship w/ Gunpowder 3; Sail 16, Move 2, Cargo 2, Bunks 1
Melee +2, Missile +6 (19-20/x2, Range: 6), Defense 14, Hits 2, Morale +4
Cost: 12 GB

A sloop without cannons would have much weaker missile stats (probably just one ballista and a few squads of archers, so +2 missile would be reasonable).

As you can see, it has the base speed of a coaster, but is far more battle-worthy. A coaster is more like a generic European medieval light cargo vessel, I think.