Re:- Guns (muster costs)

[Tim Nutting]

Nice calc's Pieter. But I ran similar calcs on a unit of knights and was floored by the cost. Even assuming that a "unit"
is only 25 men on horseback - the cost is still outrageous and far more than the 6GB muster cost. What was the must cost
calced by? Don't know, but certainly not by the cost of making things and equipping the men and paying them. The equipment
must come from elsewhere....

Tim Nutting

[Gary V. Foss]

Tim Nutting wrote:

> Nice calc's Pieter. But I ran similar calcs on a unit of knights and was floored by the cost. Even assuming that a "unit" is
> only 25 men on horseback - the cost is still outrageous and far more than the 6GB muster cost. What was the must cost calced
> by? Don't know, but certainly not by the cost of making things and equipping the men and paying them. The equipment must
> come from elsewhere....

I was looking at this a while back, and it occured to me that the most effective way to raise quick cash in BR is to raise a few
units of knights, slaughter them and sell their equipment off. You make something like 40GB off every unit....

Gary

[James Ray]

Maybe its assumed that the nobles who make up the unit have their own
equipment. Werent knights usually of noble birth, anyway? Im not an
expert in any case, but its a suggestion :)

James

- ----------
> From: Tim Nutting
What was the must cost calced by? Don't know, but certainly not by the
cost of making things and equipping the men and paying them. The equipment
must come from elsewhere....
>
> Tim Nutting
>> To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the
line
> 'unsubscribe birthright' as the body of the message.

[James Ray]

Who's going to do the slaughtering? To whom are you going to sell the
equipment? Who will answer your NEXT mustering call? What if the knights
have relatives that are highly upset? Might be better to muster the unit
and then chase them off, bare naked, and plunder their belongings while
they are gone :)

- ----------
> From: Gary V. Foss
> I was looking at this a while back, and it occured to me that the most
effective way to raise quick cash in BR is to raise a few
> units of knights, slaughter them and sell their equipment off. You make
something like 40GB off every unit....
>
> Gary

[Daniel McSorley]

From: Tim Nutting

>Nice calc's Pieter. But I ran similar calcs on a unit of knights and was
floored by the cost. Even assuming that a "unit"
>is only 25 men on horseback - the cost is still outrageous and far more
than the 6GB muster cost. What was the must cost
>calced by? Don't know, but certainly not by the cost of making things and
equipping the men and paying them. The equipment
>must come from elsewhere....
>
I think that to calculate the muster cost, they used the terribly
scientific method of "How many troops do I want the players to get, given a
reasonably sized domain." IE it wouldn't make sense for Avan to have only
one or two units of infantry and nothing else. They did kind of scale them
relative to each other, but that's about it.
However, I think there are some in-game explanations for this.
1) Regents have more buying power for the buck. Since the troops are
quasi-feudal, they also serve for reasons of loyalty, obligation, honor,
glory, and chances to loot, stuff like that, also, they may have their own
equipment to some extent, though then you get into "How many knights can I
get out of one province?" Thus, they aren't as expensive.
2) In the recent postings about the form GB take, it was suggested that
they might not consist of coinage at all, thus you have to use a Finances
action to get actual money. Some of it is in cabbages, or sheep, or shoes,
or whatever people do for a living, they give a cut to their beloved
oppressor. I mean, regent. Some of this is bound to take the form of
weapons at one point or another. Over time, regents will stockpile a blade
here, a quiver of arrows there, and you suddenly find that you can equip a
whole unit with those casks of swords you found in the attic! They might
have a herd of horses grazing on the royal lands, mostly left alone, until
suddenly you need a hundred or so mounts.
3) If the regents have to buy the weapons new, well, they probably have
smiths and armorors and such working for them, so they only have to pay for
materials and labor, not the price listed in the PHB.
So, you could pull down the costs, explain it away a little bit, probably
not enough to justify the costs they have listed, but hey, this isn't
exactly economic modelling, either.

Daniel McSorley- mcsorley.1@osu.edu

[MANTA]

> However, I think there are some in-game explanations for this.
> 1) Regents have more buying power for the buck. Since the troops are
> quasi-feudal, they also serve for reasons of loyalty, obligation, honor,
> glory, and chances to loot, stuff like that, also, they may have their
own
> equipment to some extent, though then you get into "How many knights can
I
> get out of one province?" Thus, they aren't as expensive.

One unit per each 3 levels of each province [one (4/1) province gives one
unit but three (1/6) provinces do NOT].
Muster cost = 0
Maintenance cost = as per BR oficial rules
But if you lose a knightly unit you cannot muster another until your home
province has enough new noble knights (those who were captured are
ransomed, their children grow up, new nobles are created or such).

At least that´s how I handle it in my campaign...


MANTA
ip209007@ip.pt
ICQ: 17080887

[Pieter A de Jong]

At 10:51 PM 8/27/98 -0700, Tim Nutting wrote:
>Nice calc's Pieter. But I ran similar calcs on a unit of knights and was
floored by the cost. Even assuming that a "unit"
>is only 25 men on horseback - the cost is still outrageous and far more
than the 6GB muster cost. What was the must cost
>calced by? Don't know, but certainly not by the cost of making things and
equipping the men and paying them. The equipment
>must come from elsewhere....
>
The argument that I found convincing about the low cost of combat units, was
that you are recruiting men who are already equipped. For example to make a
unit of knights, you are recruiting from the younger sons of local barons,
etc., who already have their own personal arms and armour etc. However, I
don't see any individual owning a personal cannon, especially as cannon will
be the latest newly developed weapon. At which point, your going to have to
supply your own.

Pieter A de Jong
Graduate Mechanical Engineering Student
University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada

[Tim Nutting]

Yes they were, and historically a knight or slightly higher would preside
over a village or two, with his men at arms to defend his pallisade or
castle. These men would sally forth and gather up musters of lesser
peasants to serve as soldiers, so in event actually a very few number of
armored men on the field were actually knights, in the titled sense.

- ----------
> From: James Ray
>
> Maybe its assumed that the nobles who make up the unit have their own
> equipment. Werent knights usually of noble birth, anyway? Im not an
> expert in any case, but its a suggestion :)
>
> James

Later

Tim

[Kyle Foster]

Once again I'd recomend some of the Pendragon books for those
interested in the Knights privligaes and resposibilites. Lordly Domains
gives an excellent example of what was expected of knights and what they
were allowed. The main book gives a good discription of the requirments
of knighthood. The historical accurecy, I can not vouch for though it
is accurate to the Arthurian legends of knighthood.

Kyle

[prtr02@scorpion.nspco.co]

- ----- Begin Included Message -----
At 10:51 PM 8/27/98 -0700, Tim Nutting wrote:
>Nice calc's Pieter. But I ran similar calcs on a unit of knights and was
floored by the cost. Even assuming that a "unit"
>is only 25 men on horseback - the cost is still outrageous and far more
than the 6GB muster cost. What was the must cost
>calced by? Don't know, but certainly not by the cost of making things and
equipping the men and paying them. The equipment
>must come from elsewhere....
>
The argument that I found convincing about the low cost of combat units, was
that you are recruiting men who are already equipped. For example to make a
unit of knights, you are recruiting from the younger sons of local barons,
etc., who already have their own personal arms and armour etc. However, I
don't see any individual owning a personal cannon, especially as cannon will
be the latest newly developed weapon. At which point, your going to have to
supply your own.

- ----- End Included Message -----

The exact same could be said for artillery units. Why do they cost only 4GB?
No one has a personal catapult at home. I was forced to conclude the unit had
only one or two of each seige engine (the unit should include cats, a seige
tower and the like since it allows one to siege a castle). Even at that it was
woefully underpriced- seige engines aren't cheap. I don't think bombards should
be either- esp. at the beginning. Then again, they're about 3 times more
effective.

Randax

[Pieter A de Jong]

At 03:01 PM 9/1/98 -0500, Randax wrote:
>
>----- Begin Included Message -----
>At 10:51 PM 8/27/98 -0700, Tim Nutting wrote:
>>Nice calc's Pieter. But I ran similar calcs on a unit of knights and was
>floored by the cost. Even assuming that a "unit"
>>is only 25 men on horseback - the cost is still outrageous and far more
>than the 6GB muster cost. What was the must cost
>>calced by? Don't know, but certainly not by the cost of making things and
>equipping the men and paying them. The equipment
>>must come from elsewhere....
>>
>The argument that I found convincing about the low cost of combat units, was
>that you are recruiting men who are already equipped. For example to make a
>unit of knights, you are recruiting from the younger sons of local barons,
>etc., who already have their own personal arms and armour etc. However, I
>don't see any individual owning a personal cannon, especially as cannon will
>be the latest newly developed weapon. At which point, your going to have to
>supply your own.
>
>----- End Included Message -----
>
>The exact same could be said for artillery units. Why do they cost only 4GB?
>No one has a personal catapult at home. I was forced to conclude the unit had
>only one or two of each seige engine (the unit should include cats, a seige
>tower and the like since it allows one to siege a castle). Even at that it was
>woefully underpriced- seige engines aren't cheap. I don't think bombards
should
>be either- esp. at the beginning. Then again, they're about 3 times more
>effective.
>
Was it not common practice for artillery to be built on-site at the siege,
as in those days, it was an utter bitch to transport. With the skills of a
siege engineer/artillerist, a sufficient supply of labour, and raw materials
(rope, carpentry equipment, and a local forest or buildings to pillage beams
from) it is relatively simple to make field artillery, rams, etc. It seems
a much simpler process to build the artillery on site, rather than transport
it to the siege site given the common quality of roads back then.
Unfortunately, it is much more difficult to hide a cannon foundry in ones
back pocket.

Pieter A de Jong
Graduate Mechanical Engineering Student
University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada