Cry Havoc for B-right

[Sir Tiamat]

I found Cry Havoc is a good source for playing unit combat, but sadly is not compatible with B-right because CH units are built from the level of the individual (as per phb), whereas B-right units have been pre-made at the unit level…

The two different economic systems result in serious balance issues when simply trying to convert a B-right unit into a CH unit.

Last year I have begun work on building birthright units from the individual level, as to become compatible with Cry Havoc. As a result the costs of the units have somewhat changed, and some units (notably knights) have become considerably smaller.

The first results are promising but it will still need more play-testing. Consequently I was wondering whether others have experience with Cry Havoc and their solutions. I am also willing to share my findings to those interested, for feedback

[irdeggman]

Someone did an attempt at Anuirean units in the download section.

http://www.birthright.net/forums/downloads.php?do=file&id=25

[Panics]

For me, Cry Havoc is a must if you want to play mass battles (10 or more units) !

For the price of the unit, I took information in Stronghold Builder (WotC). A knight is around 12 gp (per knight/per level/per month).

I can't reference with BR since I never found the battle system interesting.

[kgauck]

What do you make of Heroes of Battle?

[Panics]

"Heroes of battle " is a miniature handbook. Try run an army of 200 men vs 200 men with it. Its design to play "a la" Call of Duty. ie a small group doing small missions.

Cry Havoc is for the real Mass Combat, like seen in all those wonderful movies (LotR, Braveheart, etc.).

I've looked at the Anuire, and it's stated that they have 3,000 men. Assuming they are all Warrior 1st, they would cost 27 GB.

3,000 men x 6 gp (per month) = 18,000 gp x 3 month = 54,000 gp / 2,000 gp = 27 GB.

Don't know if Anuire could support this army. Don't have the stats ;o) Can they ?

[kgauck]

The Avanil page shows a per turn income is 102 GB per turn.

It also lists a population of 167,000, which the DMG suggests 5% should be 1st level warriors. This is 8350, which means you can easily assemble 3000 men under arms from a population of this size. Based on the medieval examples of 2% of a population being a practical maximum, 3340 men under arms for any sustained period of time also makes sense.

Avanil seems to be much closer to its population maximum than it is to its fiscal maximum (which suggests there is no pressure to modernize the state) and so probabaly invests in castles to maximize the fighting effectiveness of the men it does have.

[irdeggman]

Fields of Blood by Eden is also a very good mass combat system.

The "unit" size of Cry Havoc is smaller, around 20 and much more detailed while that of Fields of Blood is around 100 and much less detailed.

Fields of Blood also has a domain level gaming system which is pretty good too.

[irdeggman]

What do you make of Heroes of Battle?


Massively disappointing. It is designed for an individual PC on the battlefield and not for unit size combat. It does have some pretty good information on siege engines though.

[kgauck]

I really like the flowcharts, the design of an army from the single character up, the military characters, and actually the whole book, but as has been noted, it is for standard D&D in a war scenario, rather than serving our purposes of mass armies and realms at war.

I had passed on Cry Havoc because I picked up Heroes of Battle, but I'll have to go back and give it a serious look.

[Panics]

I must admit that "heroes of Battle" is very good to prepare for war. I've used it for my last mass combat. With combat made via "Cry Havoc". It took me around 4 hours to prepare a one night battle. A simple strike of 300 men vs 1000 men ! The PC won... a 3 PCs of 12th-level are quite devastating on the fields !

For Kingdom rules you also have "Empire". But I disliked because you need to manage resources and too much other information. That's why I turned myself to BR. You manage a realm in general, not in details.

[Sir Tiamat]

Someone did an attempt at Anuirean units in the download section.

Yeah, I have seen that one… It looks good, but it looks like the author takes a different approach.

I am attempting to balance the gold cost to hire and equip an individual and its upkeep, based on level and equipment… with this information players and DMs alike can create any unit they can imagine… large or small, elite or under equipped…. This is one of the strengths of Cry Havoc…

Moreover I am aiming for slightly smaller unit sizes than the birthright 200, because smaller units are much better for play.

[Sir Tiamat]

Costs for Unit consisting of 10 individuals (multiply for larger units)

A unit’s Muster Cost is:
10 x PHB + Quarterly Pay
A unit’s Garrisoned Upkeep Cost per quarter/domain turn is:
PHB + Quarterly Pay
A unit’s Active Upkeep Cost per quarter/domain turn is:
2 x Garrisoned Upkeep Cost (PHB + Quarterly Pay)

-PHB is the total cost of the Equipment in the Player Handbook that the Unit holds.
-The Quarterly Pay according to the level and class of the unit is shown below on table 1.
-Additionally, when designing units with equal Muster Cost and Yearly Garrisoned Upkeep Costs, as in the Birthright-Play-Test, use a PHB equipment value of half the unit’s Quarterly Pay.



Table 1. Rounded Quarterly/domain turn Pay of a Unit Consisting of 10 creatures

NPC-Class Pay in garrison
Level 1 200 gp
Level 2 500 gp
Level 3 1000 gp
Level 4 2000 gp
Level 5 3500 gp
Level 6 5500 gp

PC-Class Pay in garrison
Level 1 500 gp
Level 2 1000 gp
Level 3 2000 gp
Level 4 3500 gp
Level 5 5500 gp
Level 6 8000 gp

Optional rule: The upkeep and Muster cost can be further rounded into GBs as directed by the DM

-------------------------
This may seem complicated, but allows the building of various kinds of units. based on the game-balance provided by DMG and PHB.

[kgauck]

These costs look fine for normal recruits, what is the pay for mercenaries? People with no obligations to the land (being from elsewhere).

[Sir Tiamat]

Both the upkeep and muster should be considerably higher...

One might simply double the cost as per the play test... This is the simplest option that most likely will retain game balance.

Or one may try to double or triple only the quarterly pay; this would require a lot more playtesting for balancing....

[Panics]

Personnally... I found your rating strange... I would go like that:


Level | 1 character | 10 characters | Per Domain Turn

1 | 6 gp | 60 gp | 180 gp
2 | 12 gp | 120 gp | 360 gp
3 | 18 gp | 180 gp | 540 gp
4 | 24 gp | 240 gp | 720 gp
5 | 30 gp | 300 gp | 900 gp
6 | 36 gp | 360 gp | 1080 gp
etc

For PC-class you could double.. as for mercs.

Taking the cost of unit per "Stronghold Builder" (Wotc).

This cost represent standard monthly payroll for a Warrior (war).

When Mustering you should had PHB prices for equipment (since the Regent is providing the equipment) but I wouldn't have a maintenance price. Soldiers take care of their stuff most of the time. If something broke, they can replace it without the Regent having to really pay for it.

For Active duty, I would double the cost. Mercs on active duty would receive 4 times standard payroll (2x (2x180gp (for mercs))).

Also, you should respect a hierarchy. Rare will you see a unit of 10 level 6 or 50 level 6. At level 6, you should be a sergeant or captain more than 100 mens at your command. Who would give orders to 10 fighters level 6 ? one captain level 12 ? DM should control a logic in the army. In my last battle, I had a level 3 fighter (subcommanders) for every 100 men (1st-level orcs fighters). And a Commander level 8. My army had 300 orcs.

[kgauck]

I do see one use for characters like the unit of 10 level 6, and its the trusted personal guard of an elite figure who has cultivated such a unit.

[Panics]

yep that could be... but he won't use it in a mass battle :oP but when you will confront this elite character in a DnD adventure !

[kgauck]

I think it depends on the elite figure. If he goes into battle, he probabaly does so surrounded by his guard. Perhaps a dozen picked men who have been with him on several campaigns and who he knows and trusts. Men whose devotion is based on experiences, not on a contract or a schedule of payments.

[Sir Tiamat]

An elite unit consisting of level 6 individuals would be extremely rare indeed. I have included this because I would regard this as the highest level imaginable. These would not be individuals mustered by a simple domain action, these would be loyal handpicked companions and nobles, serving for honour and duty. A PC regent would probably need quite some successful adventures before being able to field such a unit and the unit would probably be extremely small. The costs of this unit would ordinarily consist of privileges and lands rather than a simple payroll. Still, these costs are represented in a GB or gp cost, for bookkeeping purposes. According to the B-right setting a GB represents more than simple gold value.

[Sir Tiamat]

Personnally... I found your rating strange...

To answer I will have to revert to my calculations…

For a level 1 warrior I initially took a daily pay of 3 sp (as per DMG I think), which would make a monthly pay of 96 sp and a quarterly pay 288 sp…

Then I thought let us give the poor souls an extra day of pay each month and one more each quarter, because of festive days etc. making a nice round figure of 30 gp a quarter per individual.

I considered a straight line as you did, going from 30 for level 1 to 60 for level 2; 90 lvl 3; 120 lvl 4 etc. However, these costs did not coincide with the greater power of higher level individuals. Looking for a nice formula I thought why not take a similar formula as for XP:

Lvl1= X
Lvl2= lvl1+1X
Lvl3= lvl2+2X
Lvl4= lvl3+3X

I first took a base of 3 sp daily for NPC classes and a base of 5 sp daily for pc classes. However after some testing I found that for game balance reasons the NPC classes could best be a little cheaper compared to the PC classes. So I changed the first level price for 30 to 20 and based the higher level price of the NPC classes on the price of the PC classes of a lower level.

Though one might feel need to change the costs I would argue that the relative distances between levels and npc and pc class kept similar. Still, I would gladly hear good reasons for changing them or better formulas.

[Sir Tiamat]

As for equipment upkeep, I feel that equipment prices should not be paid only once, mainly for game balance reasons.

However, game balance aside, we could well imagine that plate would require a higher upkeep costs than leather, and what to think about mounts… Would a 1st lvl warrior with light warhorse, steel shield, sword and plate make ends meet by begging at the side of the street, while the simple pikeman lives like a king.

There should be a cost for equipment to the regent, either in increased pay or in an upkeep cost. The upkeep cost should be based on the price in the PHB because these prices are already balanced. I took an arbitrary 1/10 of the PHB price mainly because of easy calculation. Moreover this means that muster and yearly upkeep costs are equal when the equipment costs are half the unit’s quarterly pay. (lvl 1 war. 100gpof equipment; lvl 2 war. 250 gp)

I am not sure whether this is best and would gladly hear of better ways.

[kgauck]

The real cost of war is not to be found in the payroll of soldiers or is it related to their muster costs, though these are real costs and very likely go up in war as troops in garrison are usually paid less than troops in combat.

But consider, a medium size realm might have 1000 troops. In peace time they are housed near food supplies in castles on manors. All they need is to be fed, and the costs of getting food to them and preparing it are built in, because they are by the food and the castle has the means to feed its garrison.

However, consider the army on the march. A man consumes 3000 calories a day in wartime, and since he is getting raw foodstuffs (mostly staple grains) figure 2 pounds per man. The PHB figure of 1 lb per man assumes prepared foods that are much more costsly than raw foods. A wagon carries 1000 lbs, so our thousand man army on the march requires 2 wagons a day, or 14 wagons per week (a war move) to keep the army fed (let alone supplied with new shoes, clothes, weapons, tools, and so on). Aside from the cost of these wagons, which will wear our quickly in the hardships of war, we must move these wagons, and the animals that do so require a great deal of the food being carried. A normal animal might require 20 times the calories of a man. Two wagons, two beasts per wagon, food per day is now 2000 lbs plus 160 lbs per day towards the army. And the longer it takes to get the food to the troops, the more of it has been eaten by the animals who carry it there.

Consider also how prices will respond when war demand comsumes an unusual proportion of goods. If prices double, then the cost to supply the army doubles. Prices going up by 50%, 100%, even 200% are quite normal. The cost to keep your soldiers in shoes may suddenly go from the cost of shoes (made near your garrison) to 200% the cost in shoes plus the cost to transport them.

[Sir Tiamat]

You are right off course; however it is extremely hard to quantify these costs for game purposes. I reckon this is the main reason for doubling the costs of the Unit when it is not garrisoned, I do not think the soldiers get a double paycheck during war. We also assume that parts of the needs of any army are provided by the lands they are moving through. Moreover, beast of burden may graze where terrain allows it.

If we were to find a better way to measure these costs other than doubling the costs of a garrisoned unit, we should also try to change this in the B-right playtest. However, I think the doubled cost may fit these costs, without placing too big a burden on play.

It might be an option to require extra costs to any regent that orders legions through a province that greatly exceeds the province level, or when the regent goes out of his way not to burden the local population. This would make war even more costly.

[Sir Tiamat]

In my system a regent can field for 6 GB of muster costs and 6 GB of yearly upkeep cost roughly:

10 knights: 3rd lvl fighters on heavy warhorses equipped with banded mail, steel shields, lances and bastard swords.
120 Pikemen: 1st lvl warriors equipped with scale mail & pikes
120 Infantry: 1st lvl warriors equipped with scale mail & halberds
100 Longbowmen 1st lvl warriors equipped with leather armour, longbows & arrows and handaxes

This system implies significantly smaller units than the units consisting of roughly 200 men in Birthright. Taking into account that large units hamper play and become burdensome in the Cry Havoc system, should I modify costs to increase unit size? Or should my players accept the fact that while militarily Avanil is still the biggest fish in the pond, it is a bit smaller in a smaller pond…

[Panics]

Well... I would tell you to reduce cost. For the simple reason that usually you don't send ALL your troops to fight one war. There are still troops left for defense, so you could do small battles. Even if All your troops are on the battlefield, I would suggest to use "Heroes of Battle" to lay-out the ground. Not all units will fight in the same area. One might take up the bridge while they other goes around the forest. Making 2 battles...

On my last mass battle, I used this principle to split the fight. One group was taking the West Outpost, while the other was taking the East Outpost. Next time, one group will take the West part of the village while the other will take the East side. When they will come to the Castle gate, they should have reduced so that I can do one big fight ;o) When the Castle Gate will be open, I may bring the battle has a DnD adventure and they shall defeat (or be killed...) the Minotaur king !

I do like your idea of making the payroll per the XP chart. Rises the cost a bit. But should be like that ?:

level | Month | Domain
1 | 60 | 180
2 | 120 | 360
3 | 240 | 720
4 | 420 | 1260
5 | 660 | 1980
6 | 960 | 2880

[Sir Tiamat]

Well... I would tell you to reduce cost. For the simple reason that usually you don't send ALL your troops to fight one war. There are still troops left for defense, so you could do small battles. Even if All your troops are on the battlefield, I would suggest to use "Heroes of Battle" to lay-out the ground. Not all units will fight in the same area. One might take up the bridge while they other goes around the forest. Making 2 battles...


My current system would force players to break-up their units in smaller groupings, but I guess you’re right; bigger units would probably be just a playable. Moreover the players generally like to command bigger armies. Makes them feel powerful, more king than warlord ;)

However, reducing the unit cost is not as easy as it seems. For I would like to roughly halve the cost but doing so would involve not only changing the pay but also the PHB equipment cost and upkeep cost… I could simply halve all costs, which would be easy but not very pretty

I guess it’s back to the drawing table ;)

[Sir Tiamat]

I do like your idea of making the payroll per the XP chart. Rises the cost a bit. But should be like that ?:


Your price chart looks much more balanced: still the figures should be a little more rounded

[Panics]

I've checked back my Stronghold handbook and found something different.

a Warrior 1st should receive 6 gp per month
an Officer (War2) should receive 18 gp per month

calculating...

Level | per month | per month 10 individuals | per domain turn
1 6 60 180
2 18 180 540
3 36 360 1080
4 60 600 1800
5 90 900 2700
6 126 1260 3780

Method: (level*6gp)+last level

that's for NPC classes.

PC class start at 30 gp per month...

1 30 300 900
2 90 900 2700
3 180 1800 5400
4 300 3000 9000
5 450 4500 13500
6 630 6300 18900

Makes a more reasonable cost for a group of 10 fighters !... 19 GB ouch !

[Sir Tiamat]

But would these costs not include equipment… Because I am aiming to take equipment out of the costs and calculate them separately...

[Panics]

Really I don't know... would have to re-check the book but I believe this is the payroll without equipment. Equipment is provided by the ruler.

But as I stated before, I wouldn't include a maintenance for equipment and even there. Even if I would, it would be 1% of the equipment cost per month. In Stronghold Builder, maintenance for the castle is 1% total cost.

You could doulbe everything when in Active Duty.

So for a domain turn, War1 with Full Plate, Heavy Shield and Longsword would cost 333 gp (180+150+1.5+1.5) or... 330 gp

[Sir Tiamat]

I am currently contemplating an upkeep cost for equipment of 20% per year, which equals 5% per quarter/domain turn. Also see the average lifetime of military equipment thread. I would not go for 1% per month (12% a year), because I consider it to be too cheap and inconvenient for calculation purposes.

--------
If X is the quarterly pay of a unit of 10
and Y is the cost for one set of equipment


then my formula for muster was X + 10Y
and for yearly upkeep was 4(X+Y)
to equal muster and yearly upkeep: X+10Y=4(X+Y) --> Y=1/2X
equipment Y would need to be 1/2 of quarterly pay X

now I am contemplating changing the formula to

Muster: 2X+10Y
Upkeep: 4(X+0.5Y)=4X+2Y
to equal muster and yearly upkeep:2X+10Y=4X+2Y --> Y=1/4X
equipment Y would need to be 1/4 of quarterly pay X

[Jaleela]

Really I don't know... would have to re-check the book but I believe this is the payroll without equipment. Equipment is provided by the ruler.

But as I stated before, I wouldn't include a maintenance for equipment and even there. Even if I would, it would be 1% of the equipment cost per month. In Stronghold Builder, maintenance for the castle is 1% total cost.

You could doulbe everything when in Active Duty.

So for a domain turn, War1 with Full Plate, Heavy Shield and Longsword would cost 333 gp (180+150+1.5+1.5) or... 330 gp

Looking to historical medieval models, this wasn't neccessarily the case, and it didn't generally become so until the renaissance. Most kingdoms had laws requiring property owners to maintain a certain ammount of arms and armour, based on personal income - even poor kingdoms like Scotland. When we get documentation regarding armies mustering. Even into the 1470's, the soldiers are expected to bring at least a part of their equipment with them, although presumably in game terms a regent would take over maintenence costs of equipment.

Most lords, and towns maintained small armouries , to outfit retainers or help equip town militias, - and from what I have researched, even in these cases the retainers were expected to have some pf their equipment. After all, who would muster or hire a knight without horses and armour, and without owning a weapon?

Things changed in the renaissance, as large centeralized governments begain to maintain and equip standing armies, and for various reasons, soldiers were less inclined to own or accumulate their own armour.