Size of a battle unit (i.e., abstract troop size)

[irdeggman]

Here is another poll to help with the battle system.

IMO it is important to realize that the number of individuals needs to remain an approximation otherwise if say the standard 200 is used, once 1 dies then ther is no longer a unit. Also, IMO, some units inherently have more indiviudals than other do. For example a mounted unit probably has less individuals than an infantry unit due to the size (and rarity) of sufficient horses to support 200 mounted riders.

This poll is just to set some basis for reference and, IMO we can never define exact numbers nor should we evenmake that attempt.

[MorganNash]

I've gone for 200 individuals in a unit as it feels about right. 100 would also be fine and is a nice, round number. Don't see a need for it to be any larger than 200.

[Thomas_Percy]

Assumption: in many many strategical games players try to buy only ultimate units. (In the "Gorgon's Alliance" that was knights).
This is boring and a-historical.
So rules (terrain, weather, population, reserves) must be done that way, that using of various units is beneficial for player.

So I assume every unit has the same CR and only non meta-game elements decide of what unit is choosen.
I do it by setting varius number of men-at-arms to the various units. The same is CR, about 17.
Typical well trained men-at-arms (longbowmen, infantry): 200 x Ftr2 or Rgr2.
Elite units (knights, elite infantry): 100 x Ftr4 or Ftr2/Ari2
Levies: 600 x Com1
Ultra-elite half-fiendish-griffonraiders Duke's personal guard :) : 25 x Ftr7
And so on, 1 dragon CR17 etc.

As always units are not composed entirely of duplicates of Ftr2, but there are recruits War1, Ftr1, veterans Ftr3 and my standard commanders: corporals Ftr4 and captains Ftr7.

[The Jew]

Originally posted by Thomas_Percy@Mar 4 2005, 07:26 AM
Assumption: in many many strategical games players try to buy only ultimate units. (In the "Gorgon's Alliance" that was knights).
This is boring and a-historical.
So rules (terrain, weather, population, reserves) must be done that way, that using of various units is beneficial for player.

So I assume every unit has the same CR and only non meta-game elements decide of what unit is choosen.
I do it by setting varius number of men-at-arms to the various units. The same is CR, about 17.
Typical well trained men-at-arms (longbowmen, infantry): 200 x Ftr2 or Rgr2.
Elite units (knights, elite infantry): 100 x Ftr4 or Ftr2/Ari2
Levies: 600 x Com1
Ultra-elite half-fiendish-griffonraiders Duke's personal guard :) : 25 x Ftr7
And so on, 1 dragon CR17 etc.

As always units are not composed entirely of duplicates of Ftr2, but there are recruits War1, Ftr1, veterans Ftr3 and my standard commanders: corporals Ftr4 and captains Ftr7.
But some unit are stronger than others overall. A unit of knights should be the best, but in the right situation they can be cut down by cheap archers or pikemen. Terrain and weather should definitely matter and did in the BRCS. I don't agree that they all have the same CR though, as knights are not only the best but also have a higher cost.

[Thomas_Percy]

Originally posted by The Jew@Mar 4 2005, 02:50 PM
I don't agree that they all have the same CR though, as knights are not only the best but also have a higher cost.
They are more expensive, because there is 100 knights in a units and 200 infantrymen in a infantry unit.
They are 2 x more expensive in fact.
It's a difference to have 100 or 200 soldiers.

Of course I'm not absolutely sure that system proposed above is perfect.
All units have the same maintenance costs = 4GB per domain turn. It's simple. Player choose only units which appropriate for tasks, terrain and muster possibilities. Knights are kings of the plains, but they are nearly helpless in eg. Erebannien, highlands of Thurazor, deck of caravel or in the Underdark.

[irdeggman]

I have to totally disagree with the cost of units being based soley on size of unit. The reason that knights typically cost more (including maintenance costs) is that their training and equipment cost more. Horses (and barding) cost more to maintain and raise then does equipping 200 people with spears (musters or irregulars). Training in how to use swords and bows is more intense and difficult than using spears and axes. Things along that nature are what determine muster (and maintenance) costs. How much training a unit has is also a factor (green to elite). Elite typically have better equipment, pay and quarters than do the raw recruits.

[Thomas_Percy]

Originally posted by irdeggman@Mar 4 2005, 04:03 PM
I have to totally disagree with the cost of units being based soley on size of unit.
What You disagree?
That elite soldier hires 2 x much than standard soldier?

Don't mix muster costs with maintenance costs, please.

[Ariadne]

I voted 1, because I don’t think, we need a change of the 2nd Edition versions here. If it would not be available, I would prefer 100 Individuals, more or less is not needed, I think…

[irdeggman]

This is what I disagreed with


They are more expensive, because there is 100 knights in a units and 200 infantrymen in a infantry unit.
They are 2 x more expensive in fact.
It's a difference to have 100 or 200 soldiers

That is equating cost with number of members in a unit and making that number different for each type of unit. For one too many variables, for another experience and equipment have much more to do with costs than does the number of individuals in a unit.

[Osprey]

I voted 200, with the understanding that this is a regular infantry company.

I assume regulars to be 1st and some 2nd level warriors, with a few higher-level sergeants and officers.

Units mustered as veterans I assume to be mostly 1st-3rd level fighters (or rangers or rogues, depending on the unit). Knights and elite infantry are included here, of course. Plus a bunch of other specialty units like rangers, assassins, marines (a Swashbuckler class is excellent for veteran marines), and so on.

One good reason to know the typical class and levels of a unit is it serves as potential recruiting grounds for advisors, lieutenants, and other retainers.

I used to assume that veterans were in smaller units, to help keep their CRs' down.

Now I realize that's silly: a full company should be a full company - say that 200 men was the Imperial standard for time out of mind.

Cavalry are different, of course, as horses are significant weapons,very expensive, and rather large.
Historical cavalry units were most always smaller than infantry ones.

You pay more for a better company, they should have a higher CR. Unit experience should be the primary factor here, along with special training options. (unit experience should add more to muster cost than in the BRCS, given its terrific benefits).

[irdeggman]

Time to close this poll. Here are the results:

What should be the approx. size of a battle unit (i.e., troop)?
1. Approx 200 individuals (the 2nd ed standard) [ 15 ] [83.33%]
2. Approx 100 individuals [ 2 ] [11.11%]
3. Approx 20 individuals [ 1 ] [5.56%]
4. Other - please specify [ 0 ] [0.00%]
5. Abstain [ 0 ] [0.00%]
Total Votes: 18


People want to keep the 2nd ed/BRCS-playtest concept of abtract troop size of 200 members.

[doom]

On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 04:28:12AM +0100, irdeggman wrote:

> 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=3020

>

> irdeggman wrote:

> Time to close this poll. Here are the results:

>

> What should be the approx. size of a battle unit (i.e., troop)?

> 1. Approx 200 individuals (the 2nd ed standard) [ 15 ] [83.33%]

> 2. Approx 100 individuals [ 2 ] [11.11%]

> 3. Approx 20 individuals [ 1 ] [5.56%]

> 4. Other - please specify [ 0 ] [0.00%]

> 5. Abstain [ 0 ] [0.00%]

> Total Votes: 18

>

>

> People want to keep the 2nd ed/BRCS-playtest concept of abtract troop size of 200 members.



Not to muddy the waters or anything, but it may be worth considering the fact that

the number of individuals isn`t as important as effective deployment of strength.

It would probably be an ineffective deployment of strength to send 200 hardened Varsk

Riders against 200 individuals in a levy. One might be far better of sending 20

or 30 Varsk riders out and sending the others to fight a different force. Thus, I`d

argue that, in the spirit of abstraction, the number of individuals in a fighting

unit is not as important as its measure of "power" (for which CR/EL seems to be an

appropriate measure).



If a unit is defined as some arbitrary CR/EL then a "unit" of levies

might include 400 1/2 CR individuals and a "unit" of Varsk Riders might

include only 50 soliders with mounts. On the field, they might be

"roughly" appropriate numbers to send at each other.



If the system is re-designed to simply use numbers of individuals, then the war

card metrics are going to have to be signiciantly more varied (as 200 levies Vs.

200 Varsk Riders will hardly require a roll and should be solvable in one war

round).



- Doom