average lifetime of military equipment

[Sir Tiamat]

I need to know the average lifetime of military equipment for my game and reckoned I might just as well ask for your opinion.

So what should be the average lifetime of military equipment?

[Sir Tiamat]

The lifetime of equipment is important, because the shorter the lifetime the more expensive military equipment is and the greater part equipment forms of the total cost of a unit.

Relatively expensive equipment would mean that manpower is relatively cheaper, and consequently imply lighter armed units throughout anuire. Is matters greatly if the 1.5 GB for 200 chainmails have to be paid every two or every five years.

[kgauck]

What kind of equipment? Things made from durable materials can last a very long time indeed. These are the expensive things. Things made from non-durable materials are cheaply made. Any relation to how long things last that posits a relationship between garrison and campaign assumes that loss (I had it a moment ago, then the horn sounded, and now I can't find my ...) is the most common source of material attrition.

In fact, far more significant than loss is combat, which not only destroys physical persons, but destroys equipment too. An army on campaign that marches around northern Ghoere for two years will suffer far less loss of equipment than an army that fights a single battle.

[Dcolby]

Certainly a nobleman could and did purchase the best gear, mounts, arms, and armor he could afford and maintain. In a preindustrial setting however Military equipment and indeed all manufactured goods are so expensive and difficult at times to come by relative to the average person that such materials could be handed down through generations and extensive care was taken to maintain such items.

There are examples of craftsmen inheriting their fathers tools which were in turn passed down from Grandparents. The tendancy would be towards Maintenance and replacement of small parts or repair rather than wholesale replacement.

The wear and Tear on military arms and armor limits their life expectancy, however the average man at arms was unlikely to have been mustered with brand new arms and equipment. Looting the dead from the field was an excellent and accepted way of equiping your own units. I have thought to explore this by allowing the side that holds the field to upgrade some units for example say standard infantry to Elite infantry etc. by virtue of experiance and loot.

I have yet to work out the ratios and mechanics but it is an interesting idea.

As to the exact life expectancy of Medievil Military equipment,that is very difficult to know, more often a function of new tactics, weapon/armor developement and practices than actual loss of servicability/function I should think, but of course have little actual data to draw to.

[Dcolby]

What kind of equipment? Things made from durable materials can last a very long time indeed. These are the expensive things. Things made from non-durable materials are cheaply made. Any relation to how long things last that posits a relationship between garrison and campaign assumes that loss (I had it a moment ago, then the horn sounded, and now I can't find my ...) is the most common source of material attrition.

In fact, far more significant than loss is combat, which not only destroys physical persons, but destroys equipment too. An army on campaign that marches around northern Ghoere for two years will suffer far less loss of equipment than an army that fights a single battle.

Excellent points concerning the equipments initial value and the care taken in not loosing/ maintaining it...Perhaps the expendables, like new boots, canteens, kit bags etc are already accounted for in the Different maintenace costs of units in garrison vs Units in the field?

[Jaleela]

Looking at historical records from the 1460s - 1480s, a lot of armour and equipment was constantly repaired and reissued during its working life time. This includes items like saddles. As long as it is useful, it will be used. Maybe not by the lord, but certainly it might be gifted to a retainer or placed in the armory.

Armourers will remove dents and replace parts on harness. Things will be re-strapped, etc... Only those who can afford to have the latest and the greatest fashion will have it. For great lords, armour was a disposable resource.

I would tend to think that it would even out over time, unless your regent isn't heavily combat oriented. Ghoere might have a higher field expense if he's constantly in the field.

Does anyone utilize rules that consider calling out the feudal host and how many days they can actually have them in the field before they can return home?

[Dcolby]

It seems that in Birthright at least the Anuireans are heavily into the concept of Scutage and either loan a percentage of there forces to the ruler so as to maintain a standing army or just simply pay the ruler to maintain one.

Since the Gold bar has no specific value it may be the cost of garrisoned units in their home province vs units on the march or at war also represents the difficulty of keeping the fuedal host "active".

[geeman]

At 04:25 AM 5/8/2007, Sir Tiamat wrote:

>I need to know the average lifetime of military equipment for my
>game and reckoned I might just as well ask for your opinion.
>
>So what should be the average lifetime of military equipment?

As a couple folks have noted, it depends on what you mean by
"military equipment." If you mean large scale siege weapons (siege
towers, catapults, ballista, trebuchet, etc.) then the realistic life
expectancy is probably around 40-70% of a single battle. Such items
are as often as not built in place using local materials then
dismantled after a battle and the most important (expensive) bits are
transported with the army. In a fantasy game, of course, there is an
assumption that such things are rolled around in their fully
assembled form (maybe even loaded and ready to shoot) at any given
moment, but in reality they get packed away and carried on carts
along with the pots and pans.

If you mean personal equipment then realistically we`re talking about
maintenance before and after every major encounter along with regular
maintenance on a monthly if not weekly basis depending, of course, on
what it is we`re talking about. Even metal equipment still needs a
lot of care to prevent blunting, rust, etc. and every bit of armor
has non-metallic bits to it that have a very short lifespan when used
ruggedly. Leather straps, cloth underclothes, wooden fixtures, etc.
all go pretty fast and need to be replaced. Anyone who does not
check such things both before and after a battle is either
hard-pressed or irresponsible.

Again, though, fantasy gaming tends to assume such things, and not
account for them realistically. Knights wander about without so much
as a change of underclothes let alone saddlesoap....

Gary

[Jaleela]

Things the game doesn't consider are methods of preventing rust on harness: blueing, tinning, leaving it black from the forge, browning, etc...


Anyone who does notcheck such things both before and after a battle is either hard-pressed or irresponsible.

Again, though, fantasy gaming tends to assume such things, and not account for them realistically. Knights wander about without so much as a change of underclothes let alone saddlesoap....

A knight in our campaign has a minimum of three horses, and a baggage cart and a squire or two for arming, cleaning, and other tasks. If he is a great lord like Avan or Boeruine, he has a baggage train complete with the proper household guard, squires, valets, etc...

And I'm one of those DMs that keeps track of mundane little details like equipment care. You don't keep your saddle clean or check it for damage, you could end up breaking a girth or having one of the reins come unattached at the most inopportune moment. :D (I've had the rein detach happen to me in real life; stupid Chicago screw.)

If you're squires are tired or lazy, they may not point your armour to your doublet properly and your pauldron could slip or your arms might slide preventing proper movement.

[RaspK_FOG]

I will have to repeat the aforementioned: "What sort of equipment?"

Shields weren't really meant to last very long; all metal parts were collected, if possible, but none took any sort of care as to the remains of the wooden parts (a very reasonable act, if I may say so). Arms and armour, on the other hand, could theoretically last for centuries.

[Sir Tiamat]

Your replies are very helpful, but you have requested me to clarify and so I will.

I was referring to the equipment available in the PHB and their average lifetime, because I intend to take equipment out of the muster and upkeep costs to allow for customized units. Naturally the costs for maintaining and replacing equipment depend on the type of equipment and its usage. The lifetime of a shield would likely be far less than that of a armour, and what about the lifetime of a warhorse? As always there is a gap between detail and playability however and I intend to take the yearly upkeep as well as the costs for squires, housing and replacement as a factor of the PHB cost.

When taking these costs into account, how many years would it take before the costs of repair, upkeep and replacement would equal the costs of a new set of equipment; on average, discarding the fact that these items are so very different.

[kgauck]

It very much depends how musters occur.

At one end let us postulate a totally feudal arrangement where the war machine owns the means of production, where the blacksmith serves the knights, the knight raises horses, his serfs grow staple crops. Costs of things are included in the cost of operations. However, things are only produced at the rate of domestic production. That is, if I have three blacksmiths, I don't have to buy the production of the three blacksmiths. They serve me. However, I cannot obtains objects beyond the number of blacksmiths I have, because there is no market surplus.

On the other hand, suppose a totally commercial maketplace, where everything, horses, hammers, swords, and shields must be purchased at market prices. Always keeping in mind that prices will increase significantly (probabaly between 50% and 200% increases) and that equipment bought during wartime will cost substantially more than the same gear bought before war loomed on the horizon.

Depending on how we imagine things, supply can be the real limting factor, and costs can remain stable, or price can fluctuate and reflect supply in higher prices.

[geeman]

At 03:05 AM 5/10/2007, Sir Tiamat wrote:

>I was referring to the equipment available in the PHB and their
>average lifetime, because I intend to take equipment out of the
>muster and upkeep costs to allow for customized units. Naturally the
>costs for maintaining and replacing equipment depend on the type of
>equipment and its usage. The lifetime of a shield would likely be
>far less than that of a armour, and what about the lifetime of a
>warhorse? As always there is a gap between detail and playability
>however and I intend to take the yearly upkeep as well as the costs
>for squires, housing and replacement as a factor of the PHB cost.
>
>When taking these costs into account, how many years would it take
>before the costs of repair, upkeep and replacement would equal the
>costs of a new set of equipment; on average, discarding the fact
>that these items are so very different.

The solution I came up with for this sort of thing is to assume
maintenance is going to be a straight line relationship to purchase
price. It depends quite a bit on how one wants to view such things,
but I found 10% cost as maintenance per domain turn to be workable.

Gary

[Sir Tiamat]

The solution I came up with for this sort of thing is to assume maintenance is going to be a straight line relationship to purchase
price. It depends quite a bit on how one wants to view such things,
but I found 10% cost as maintenance per domain turn to be workable.

Gary

Yeah I was thinking that myself, but I started to doubt wether it should be 5%, 10% or 12,5% per domain turn, respectively 20%, 40% or 50% per year

[geeman]

At 09:09 AM 5/10/2007, Sir Tiamat wrote:

>I started to doubt wether it should be 5%, 10% or 12,5% per domain
>turn, respectively 20%, 40% or 50% per year

I started off with 20%/domain turn but realized that game
mechanically that doesn`t work well as it means the total cost of the
unit is itself nearly (80%) paid every year, which just seems a bit steep.

Gary

[DanMcSorley]

On 5/10/07, Gary <geeman@softhome.net> wrote:
> >I started to doubt wether it should be 5%, 10% or 12,5% per domain
> >turn, respectively 20%, 40% or 50% per year
>
> I started off with 20%/domain turn but realized that game
> mechanically that doesn`t work well as it means the total cost of the
> unit is itself nearly (80%) paid every year, which just seems a bit steep.

Steep, yeah, but maybe realistic. Nobody in Europe really had a
standing army in the middle ages, they just called their vassals when
they needed to go to war. Maintaining an army was expensive. It
wasn`t until states started to centralize and collect sufficient taxes
that they had any large collection of active troops.

It would definitely encourage a "muster for war, disband when it`s
over" management style.

--
Daniel McSorley

[Gheal]

Pool question is not correct, I think. Leather boots on active duty cannot last more, than 1 year (test it myself 20 years ago:D ), but in garrison duty it can be 2, even 3 years. Wooden parts (oaken especially), if kept well-painted/oiled can stand several years of active duty with ease, and museum, where I work, had some poles from polearms maked in 16-17 c. but still in good (if well-worn) condition. As my museum exist only from 1756, I can suppose these weapons have at least several decades of garrison duty under the belt.;) Even ships made from pine planks in the early 19 c. have 11+7 years terms of service (second number - after capital repair). Metal equipment... I know how to destroy metal equipment by neglection in several years, but when I was soldier-in-training, my AKM was 18 years old, was mercilessly disassembled and cleaned weekly, was carried on guard duty about 50 days in a year, had shooting sessions at least four times per year, but he still was in working condition.:eek:
Uniform is another matter. Cotton and silk cannot stand more than 1 year (if used daily), even several months, IMO. Wool is much better, standing about 1 year of active duty or 2-3 years of less active duty. Items made from felt (surcoats and overcoats) can stand at least 2 years of heavy garrison duty. (This is term of service for russian soldier overcoat.)
I think, swords and armor must be repaired more after major battles and some active duty (replacing wooden handles and leather straps). All other times they need regular oiling only. Without it, however, items can be ruined in several months and 2-3 rains.
All this is only my POV.
And I'm sorry, if my English was poor.
Good day to all those, who support their units. :)

[kgauck]

The abstract values of gold bars and what the represent and how a units is raised are so loose that it makes as much sense as anything to decide what you want to represent and go backwards from there until you get a result you are happy with, rather than working from the PHB forward.

DanMcSorley mentions the muster and disband system, and I know that in a wargame for the Hundred Years War, also based on paying troops quarterly, the cost of recruitment was twice the seasonal maintenance cost of the troops, so that if I wanted 500 men, I paid 2000 ducats to raise the troops and 1000 ducats to support them from season to season. As you can imagine, we did not hold troops any longer than we had to, for example, over winter, unless we were garrisons for important cities. Winter attrition was also outrageous, so who would pay to keep troops over the fall-winter seaonal change only to see many of them die? Again, cities were nice and warm. While the ducat was a money of account for the game (not corresponding to real ducats), the ratios did stand up nicely to comparison to real Hundred Years War situations.

In the old rule book for BR, the muster costs generally were double the maintenance costs. And this reflects some of the same cost ratios, though without rules to make winter a dead period with reduced movement, higher attrition, limited effectiveness, there is no incentive to just maintain your troops forever. Disbanding for winter, at the end of the fall season would save you paying the maintenance for the upcomming season (troops being paid in advance) for winter and then spring, but recruitment costs being double, if you needed the troops again, you break even. But bothering to do so only makes sense under winter conditions 1) that you are safe from assault because your places can easily defend themselves from attackers camped in snowfields, and 2) attrition makes any movement outside of winter quarters a waste of good soliders.

[Gheal]

And still there is great distance between abstract "support cost" (well, 0.5-0.25 of muster cost will work well enough) and lifetime of military equipment (as serious detalization). When I was trying too hard to make my game "more real", I usually make things more complicated, than necessary. FE: lifetime of military equipment for scouts (light armor with lots of leather, spears, bows and arrows) is much shorter, than for equipment for elite infantry (even if chainmails have bad habit for spilling the rings, they have sturdy, even metal shields, swords, armor made from metal plates). Elves, having nature affinity, made superior wooden items, which lasts longer. Vos lands have no problems with cheap wood and food conservation at winter, Khinasi have great number of (and so relatively cheap source of) horses. Greatest of these all is fact, that all theocracies have unfair advantage over other states: 0-level spell mending. :)

[Sir Tiamat]

The abstract values of gold bars and what the represent and how a units is raised are so loose that it makes as much sense as anything to decide what you want to represent and go backwards from there until you get a result you are happy with, rather than working from the PHB forward.

I had already arived at that conclusion myself... The PHB cost is important for the cost relation between different kinds of equipment... It is helpfull to know the amount how many chain mails can be exchanged for one plate...

I am keeping the PHB GP cost an then I modify the value of the GB for military units

[kgauck]

I also highly recomend a new Magical Medievel Society chapter called Magical Medieval Warfare. The various PDF's put out will be collected in a book at some point, but now they are being sold by the chapter.

Magical Medieval Warfare doesn't have a comprehensive maintenance calculation as this thread has sought after, but it does include a "kit" start up cost for types of soldiers. Plus it uses the D20 city materials for developing a pillage table. For a $5 download I think its worth it. The larger section called a Magical Medieval Society is very valuable for calculating the income of a manor or city from the point of view of a lord.

Their chart for troops looks something like this:
Infantry (greatsword) 2 sp 25 cp -- -- 2 sp 25 cp 63 gp 103 gp 303 gp
Infantry (halberd) 2 sp 25 cp -- -- 2 sp 25 cp 23 gp 63 gp 263 gp

The last three amount in gp are for supplying them with a given kit based on the armor, and the other numbers are daily pay based on race, with dwarves and half-orcs costing more and halflings and goblins getting -- -- for not wielding standard greatswords and halberds.

[Jaleela]

In our game, we operate on a silver standard, directly derived from historical Europe, and adapt it to the rulebook by integrating the crown as a small gold coin. Even on a silver standard, and giving 3 deniers (pennies) as the average daily pay for an infantryman or archer, the bottom line of pay for a unit is a staggering sum of money. We work it out that food and clothing is either deducted as pay for standing troops, or considered a part of the pay.

Somebody mentioned the feudal system in the game as a means of fielding armies - GM's should keep in mind that any country employing a feudal system has the regent able to call on the feudal levy of knights and retainers for free for a period of 40-60 days, and then they must be paid to keep them in the field longer. We limit the regent’s benefit from the feudal levy by making such troops as a little less professional and a little less controllable on the battlefield (especially units of knights). The feudal due from towns and cities are reluctant to serve outside of a country, and unlike noblemen serving their feudal obligation, they tend to want to go straight home as soon as their time is up. Sometimes they don't want to fight at all - anyone wanting to see what sort of headaches craft-guild militias from towns can cause their regents is advised to read accounts of the men of Ghent turning out for the feudal obligation due to the dukes of Burgundy. They were always more willing to fight against their lords than for them, in the worst scenarios.

Even before standing armies were formed in the later middle ages (the French ordinance Companies of the 1440's, and the Burgundian companies of ordinance of the 1470's), kingdoms tended to keep small professional standing forces, mostly as garrisons of castles on hostile borders (like Carlisle in the North of England, or Calais). The French began keeping small standing companies from the middle of the 14th century at the latest, although not organized as an army, and under independent captains. These usually worked out to a few thousand soldiers constantly employed by a country, and maybe a dozen warships for a big country like France, which had a shipyard devoted to making war gallies from the late 13th century.

In our game, the mechanics of domain turns reflect what happened in the middle ages almost exactly, and not due to intent on our part, but due to the mechanics being so well worked out by the original game designers. My only gripe is with population densities, which in some official modules are kind of laughable - I think Medore is the worst, not having enough people working the land to possibly support the towns in the region. Anyhow, most kingdoms in our game have small standing forces of a few thousand soldiers, either raised locally, or mercenaries that garrison important towns and castles. If they take the field, it is from spring to fall, and very rarely in winter due to factors so ably pointed out already. Regents can also call out the feudal host, but have to plan this carefully, so they aren't caught with their chausses and braies down when they really need the numbers. We differentiate between the feudal host, which is composed of the lords, knights, and their retainers of a province, and the games "Levy", which you have to be even more careful in calling out, and which represents the "arrie-ban", because if you call out the levy during planting season, or harvest time, you are courting famine.

In game terms, a regent has a few thousand men who are semi-professional soldiers. He can usually easily double to triple those numbers calling out feudal knights or lords’ obligations, and the militias of towns. If a regent is desperate, they can call out a horde of ill-armed peasants, which might get a realm of say, six well populated provinces a total from all sources, between 10,000 - 20,000 men in a field army. This is a close approximation of how real medieval armies worked, which we find to be pretty cool.

Another way we work things is you can raise more men in a hurry if you have the money and hire mercenaries - right from the boxed set rules, but this is a double-edged sword, as we have the regents having to closely watch these armies with mercenaries, or suffer their own territory being looted. If a regent in our campaign disbands mercenaries in their country, they automatically suffer brigandage in any province such soldiers are disbanded.

I think the poll question should be worded differently. It assumes a fast rate of wearing out equipment, which as others have pointed out should not be assumed. Things like armour and weapons wear out slowly, except in certain cases (the low-quality 'Almain rivet' ordered by Henry VIII in the tens of thousands in the early 16th century). Mail for instance lasts for a very long time, and can be easily repaired. Historically, mail remained in circulation for a long time, and some experts in the field of arms and armour have seen mail fragments and hauberks that have very old mail in their fabric. The general belief is that mail was rare in the 'dark ages; after the fall of Rome, up into the early middle ages, and very expensive, but from that point onward as mail was recycled and manufactured new, an ever-increasing supply of mail circulated in Europe, so that a hauberk of mail that would only have been worn by a wealthy man in the 11th century had become the infantry haubergorn of the late 14th century, which with a padded gambeson became almost a standard and common soldiers defence. Mail got cut up into 'voiders', 'brayettes', and standards during the 15th century, to be worn with ever-increasing numbers of plate defences and brigandines, and still remained a common defense for common soldiers.

The bottom line is that things like swords, polearms, and mail shirts might have active service lives of a *hundred* years, not just a couple of years. Lots of swords existing today have early medieval blades with new hilts put on them in the 14th, 15th, and 16th centuries - lots of 18th century highland basket-hilted broadswords had medieval blades mounted with new hilts.

Something like an infantryman’s gambeson, of linen stuffed with tow, or layers of linen stitched together might only last a couple of years, a heater shield might not last a campaign season, but a helmet might last 50 years, even with regular use. The stuff that wore out fast as a general rule was the cheap stuff, the expensive things fortunately tended to last for a long time.

As had been pointed out, clothes could wear out fast, but even then, a doublet could last for years, and shoes could be re-soled to last more than a season. A lord was expected to provide clothes for his household servants, including soldiers in his household, but I don't believe that a regent was expected to provide anything more than a livery jacket for soldiers who were not household troops and these were expected to buy their clothing and shoes out of their pay.

Pay always seems to be the thing that eats up the regent’s money. Just be thankful that most of you aren't in a campaign where a regent is responsible to his feudal knights and sergeants for the cost of rumunda, or their best horse if it is killed or dies of disease on campaign! :)

[kgauck]

There is a lot here :-)


In our game, we operate on a silver standard, directly derived from historical Europe, and adapt it to the rulebook by integrating the crown as a small gold coin.
I tried to do the same, and ultimatly concluded that the PHB and the like are already based on a silver standard. The reason we mostly deal in gold is because the game was designed for hauling off great riches. Gygax talks at some length on this. If you try and find historical prices and salaries, what's given for costs in the PHB and the daily wage of hirelings in the DMG, you end up with accurate incomes (1 sp per day, a sword costs 150 sp, or half a year's labor, assuming you had no cost of living). The problem for recreating an historical feel to the money is that we don't have expences, other than adventuring gear. Ye Olde Quickbookes is not suficiently heroic to make living expences a part of the game.


We limit the regent’s benefit from the feudal levy by making such troops as a little less professional and a little less controllable on the battlefield (especially units of knights).
This is a great idea. Every warcard could be given a discipline and an initiative rating. Commanders would have so many command points. Commanders pay command points to move units. Units with a high initiative number would be likely to move on their own, and when they have high morale they run off to attack, when low morale they fall back.


The feudal due from towns and cities are reluctant to serve outside of a country, [...] read accounts of the men of Ghent turning out for the feudal obligation.

Indeed, I would not allow municipal levies to leave their town. Getting a municipal levy to go elsewhere (say to relieve a siege of the neighboring town) would require a diplomacy check everytime the agreement needs to be altered. Except for the defense of the town, hiring mercenaries would be much easier.


My only gripe is with population densities, which in some official modules are kind of laughable - I think Medore is the worst, not having enough people working the land to possibly support the towns in the region.
I think the population figures are one tenth what is likely, so I just increase by one order of magnitude.

[AndrewTall]

I think the population figures are one tenth what is likely, so I just increase by one order of magnitude.

Well, I think the population numbers are strictly numbers of taxpayers only. This could be hearths (so listing the number of families), exclude the very poor (who rarely pay taxes as they have no real transferable surplus income), tax collectives as single individuals, etc, or a number of other possibilities to justify the low figures bandied about in the books. I'd increase the number by 5-10 to get a 'truer' figure.

But yes, when you get the 'big city' in a major province numbering just 3-4,000 it looks a little low, particularly when under the rules you can raise units of 200 plus a time month after month from provinces with just 1,000 or so people...

[kgauck]

...Under the rules you can raise units of 200 plus a time month after month from provinces with just 1,000 or so people...
I'd say that 50 people can be raised from 1000 for local defense and 20 can be raised to wander off somewhere. In any long term struggle, 900 people are required to feed 1000, so even if you abandon all crafts and just keep the farmers at home, you can muster 100 people. At some point you run out of tools to fight and farm. Between planting and harvest, you can call out the farmers, but half of the faming population is children and the old or infirm, and half is female, so now we have 250 during summer, of which 50 can fight part time, including the 20 who can become permenant fighters.

Any deaths of farmers in battle reduces the harvest in subsequent years.

So it certainly looks like raising a unit of 200 people month after month from a province of 1000 people doesn't work once, unless we mean a levy in summer, let alone six or seven seasons in a row.

[DanMcSorley]

On 5/13/07, AndrewTall <brnetboard@birthright.net> wrote:
> But yes, when you get the `big city` in a major province numbering just 3-4,000 it
> looks a little low, particularly when under the rules you can raise units of 200
> plus a time month after month from provinces with just 1,000 or so people...

I think Anuire in particular and Cerilia in general has a lot of
semi-mercenary, semi-professional soldiers floating around it. The
region has had quite a bit of war in the past generation, and is
currently mostly at peace, meaning a lot of experienced soldiers are
around and underemployed. You can see this not just with the ease of
raising soldiers, but with the relatively common random domain events
featuring brigands- after all, what is an unemployed soldier with few
life skills to do when he can`t find soldiering to do?

Conversely, once you start hiring soldiers, I imagine the news will
circulate and more will appear in your province as if by magic by the
next time you want to hire some.

--
Daniel McSorley

[Jaleela]

On 5/13/07, AndrewTall <brnetboard@birthright.net> wrote:
> But yes, when you get the `big city` in a major province numbering just 3-4,000 it
> looks a little low, particularly when under the rules you can raise units of 200
> plus a time month after month from provinces with just 1,000 or so people...

I think Anuire in particular and Cerilia in general has a lot of
semi-mercenary, semi-professional soldiers floating around it. The
region has had quite a bit of war in the past generation, and is
currently mostly at peace, meaning a lot of experienced soldiers are
around and underemployed. You can see this not just with the ease of
raising soldiers, but with the relatively common random domain events
featuring brigands- after all, what is an unemployed soldier with few
life skills to do when he can`t find soldiering to do?

Conversely, once you start hiring soldiers, I imagine the news will
circulate and more will appear in your province as if by magic by the
next time you want to hire some.

--
Daniel McSorley

Yes, with a "but".

You cannot get around the iron law of pre-industrial agrarian societies, which is 90% of the population must be engaged in raising food to feed themselves and the remaining 10%.

The easiest method of getting the appropriate numbers of soldiers is to increase the population levels to a realistic number, by a magnitude as suggested. That way you have the neccessary craftsmen, farmers, priests, nobles, and soldiers, without having to suspend disbelief over what is really a silly oversight in the original game mechanics. Besides, no way is 1000 people in an agrarian society, living in a province 30 miles on a side, with 900 of the thousand being farmers going to make any serious environmental impact to reduce the 'magical potential' of a province - even if they were practising the most destructive form of slash-and-burn farming, and simultaneously using every stream as communal toilets, instead of using dung for fertilizer. 1000 people is a large village, not even a proper town, and they wouldn't be a spec on the face of a standard size game province.

Mercenaries don't spring fully formed and armed from the ground, as athena springing from the forehead of zeus, they have to come from somewhere. Usually they come from marginal societies that offer poor opportunities for young men, and these provinces are typically marches with other countries where warfare and raiding is endemic.

Raising the actual population numbers is the only way to get the numbers of soldiers envisioned in the game rules, and really, the only way to have the developed civilizations described in the boxed set and supplements.

[The Swordgaunt]

Does anyone utilize rules that consider calling out the feudal host and how many days they can actually have them in the field before they can return home?

Although I use a different battlesystem, I have used a "Call to Arms" rule, where a Regent can field a unit of Knights and a unit of men-at-arms on short notice. To do so, the Regent must use an Agitate action each turn and bay the upkeep-cost for the duration.

These unit can be lots of fun playing, since these men are free gentlemen, and may choose to follow the demands of honour more or less independently. Should they fall in a battle, loyalty may drop and ransom will brobably have to be payed. In an offensive campaign, they have land-claims as well.

[ConjurerDragon]

kgauck schrieb:
> This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
> You can view the entire thread at:
> http://www.birthright.net/forums/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=3742
> kgauck wrote:
> ------------ QUOTE ----------
> ...Under the rules you can raise units of 200 plus a time month after month from provinces with just 1,000 or so people...
> -----------------------------
>
>
> I`d say that 50 people can be raised from 1000 for local defense and 20 can be raised to wander off somewhere. In any long term struggle, 900 people are required to feed 1000, so even if you abandon all crafts and just keep the farmers at home, you can muster 100 people. At some point you run out of tools to fight and farm. Between planting and harvest, you can call out the farmers, but half of the faming population is children and the old or infirm, and half is female, so now we have 250 during summer, of which 50 can fight part time, including the 20 who can become permenant fighters.
>
> Any deaths of farmers in battle reduces the harvest in subsequent years.
>
> So it certainly looks like raising a unit of 200 people month after month from a province of 1000 people doesn`t work once, unless we mean a levy in summer, let alone six or seven seasons in a row.
>
Why month after month? Wasn´t there in 2E already the rule that only 1
unit/province level could be mustered every domain turn=3 month?

[kgauck]

Why month after month? Wasnt there in 2E already the rule that only 1 unit/province level could be mustered every domain turn=3 month?

Yeah, but the numbers don't make any more sense that way. It only takes longer to get to the absurd result.

[AndrewTall]

I think the designers saw the problem to a degree - which is why if a levy got wiped the province dropped a level, but they didn't build in a cap on the maximum number of units you can raise.

To get that to really work you would need to track the actual population and a subset thereof being the number of potential warriors (i.e. surplus young men). That would have added to complexity badly - remember this is before we all had computers and the like to track this sort of stuff.

I'd suggest that you need to put an annual cap on raising units aside from mercenaries, possibly a longer period for slow breeding races. Or if you use the province growth rules recently posted by Evan Sørgjerd's (http://www.birthright.net/brwiki/index.php/House_Rules_Province_Growth) and 'use up' some of the growth points in a province when you raise troops so putting an automatic cap on the number that can be raised without reducing the province level.

[dalor]

My method to limit unusually large armies was to
simply say a province could only support one unit per
province level and left it alone at that.

The players then actually kept track of the various
units home provinces. If a unit was destroyed then a
new unit could be raised from the province, but only
after a period of time...can`t remember the number I
used.

If they wanted more units than that, they had to hire
mercenaries...and woe to the ruler that had too many
of those compared to his native forces.


--- AndrewTall <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET> wrote:

> This post was generated by the Birthright.net
> message forum.
> You can view the entire thread at:
>
http://www.birthright.net/forums/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=3742
>
> AndrewTall wrote:
> I think the designers saw the problem to a degree -
> which is why if a levy got wiped the province
> dropped a level, but they didn`t build in a cap on
> the maximum number of units you can raise.
>
> To get that to really work you would need to track
> the actual population and a subset thereof being the
> number of potential warriors (i.e. surplus young
> men). That would have added to complexity badly -
> remember this is before we all had computers and the
> like to track this sort of stuff.
>
> I`d suggest that you need to put an annual cap on
> raising units aside from mercenaries, possibly a
> longer period for slow breeding races. Or if you
> use the province growth rules recently posted by
> Evan Sørgjerd`s
>
(http://www.birthright.net/brwiki/index.php/House_Rules_Province_Growth)
> and `use up` some of the growth points in a province
> when you raise troops so putting an automatic cap on
> the number that can be raised without reducing the
> province level.
>
>

>
> Birthright-l Archives:
> http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
> To unsubscribe, send email to
> LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
>
>




__________________________________________________ __________________________________Ready for the edge of your seat?
Check out tonight`s top picks on Yahoo! TV.
http://tv.yahoo.com/

[Sir Tiamat]

I think the designers saw the problem to a degree - which is why if a levy got wiped the province dropped a level, but they didn't build in a cap on the maximum number of units you can raise.

To get that to really work you would need to track the actual population and a subset thereof being the number of potential warriors (i.e. surplus young men). That would have added to complexity badly - remember this is before we all had computers and the like to track this sort of stuff.

I'd suggest that you need to put an annual cap on raising units aside from mercenaries, possibly a longer period for slow breeding races. Or if you use the province growth rules recently posted by Evan Sørgjerd's (http://www.birthright.net/brwiki/index.php/House_Rules_Province_Growth) and 'use up' some of the growth points in a province when you raise troops so putting an automatic cap on the number that can be raised without reducing the province level.

I am actually working on this, as part of my project to build units from the individual level…

(http://www.birthright.net/brwiki/index.php/Cry Havoc in Birthright (by Sir Tiamat))

Under availability of manpower… But it is still a draft

[The Swordgaunt]

My method to limit unusually large armies was to
simply say a province could only support one unit per
province level and left it alone at that.

The players then actually kept track of the various
units home provinces. If a unit was destroyed then a
new unit could be raised from the province, but only
after a period of time...can`t remember the number I
used.


I've used the same rule, with a few add-ons.

Levies/Pressgangs:
In addittion to the regular troops, a province can support one unit of peasantry per level. These will be rabble, and their anihilation will affect the population level.

Gentlemen Cavalry:
By a "Call to Arms" (described in an earlier post), landed nobility and their retinue can be mustered. The loss of such a unit can lead to the losss of the "Rose of Nobility", and decreased loyalty of a province/Realm

[ShadowMoon]

In my campaign:

Muster takes time, like 1GB per season + 1GB per Law/Castle Level (or Guild/Temple Level /2).
Maximum units mustered in a province equal the province level.
Levies are addition to maximum units per province.
Levies reduce effective province level. If disbanded it takes one month to restore the level. If destroyed, level decrease is permanent.
Unit can be in Reserve only in it's home province.
Unit can be in Garrison only in Forts/Castles.
It takes one month to change unit status from Reserve to Garrison and from Garrison to Active.
Mercenaries are not always available; Province check (modified by regent's reputation, regional situation, etc.) shows what mercenary troops, if any, are available for hire.

[Gman]

So in summary - you need a base cost percentage.

This is modified by the disipline of the unit - slovenly units will cause more wear and tear. + loss of equipment (sold, misplaced).

Also modified by Duties of the unit. Garrison - continuous active duty.

Also moderated by Blacksmith/ repair facilities.

[kgauck]

City Works by Legends and Lairs includes a section on city guard training. Their ranks go from rabble, to poor, average, good, and elite. They asume, quite rightly, I think, that no one will invest in equipment for men they don't bother to train.

Rabble guards get a club and padded armor. They are Commoner 1.
Poor guards get studded leather and longspear as well as a club. They are Warrior 1.
Average guards get scale armor and a longsword with a large wooden shield and a light crossbow. They are also Warrior 1.
Good guards get the same as average, except their longswords are silvered and they get the Weapon Focus (Longsword) feat. They are Warrior 2.
Elite guards get silvered halberds, light mace, the light crossbow, and banded mail. They are Fighter 2.

I have a bunch of quibbles with this setup, but the thing I like here, is that it links training an equipment. Its unlikely that you'll have a slovenly unit with high quality gear. If you raise a rabble they are armed like a rabble. Once a unit is trained they will continue to maintain their gear, because their gear is for their own benefit.

[Sir Tiamat]

City Works by Legends and Lairs includes a section on city guard training. Their ranks go from rabble, to poor, average, good, and elite. They asume, quite rightly, I think, that no one will invest in equipment for men they don't bother to train.

Rabble guards get a club and padded armor. They are Commoner 1.
Poor guards get studded leather and longspear as well as a club. They are Warrior 1.
Average guards get scale armor and a longsword with a large wooden shield and a light crossbow. They are also Warrior 1.
Good guards get the same as average, except their longswords are silvered and they get the Weapon Focus (Longsword) feat. They are Warrior 2.
Elite guards get silvered halberds, light mace, the light crossbow, and banded mail. They are Fighter 2.

I have a bunch of quibbles with this setup, but the thing I like here, is that it links training an equipment. Its unlikely that you'll have a slovenly unit with high quality gear. If you raise a rabble they are armed like a rabble. Once a unit is trained they will continue to maintain their gear, because their gear is for their own benefit.

In my houserules higher level chars get more expensive gear:a warrior lvl 1 gets 100 gp, while a fighter lvl 2 would get 500 gp