Technology

[stv2brown1988]

I've been reviewing several old posts and it seems to me that several areas are pointed out as Bronze Age, Iron Age, etc... I was wondering what is the difference in BRCS between the ages? Not so much the weapons/armor as ther is a table for that in the rules.

How does a Bronze Age Vos family get water and cook meals? How does this differ from a Brecht (renaisance?) family? Has someone already looked at this in any detail at all?

I would guess that a spy glass is only available in Brechtur. What about glass containers?

Or even stirrups for mounts? Where those available during the Bronze Age? Iron Age? Without stirrups can you still use a lance? Or fight very well at all from a mount? If I remember correctly, American Indians did not have stirrups and therefore used their lances/spears quite differently. I believe they rode next to their targets and then threw the spear/lance into it. (I may be mistaken here, it's been a long time since American History.)

Steve

[kgauck]

Or even stirrups for mounts? Where those available during the Bronze Age? Iron Age? Without stirrups can you still use a lance? Or fight very well at all from a mount? If I remember correctly, American Indians did not have stirrups and therefore used their lances/spears quite differently. I believe they rode next to their targets and then threw the spear/lance into it. (I may be mistaken here, it's been a long time since American History.)

Even after stirrups, someone needs to re-think the lance. This was still work not complete by 1066.
http://home.mchsi.com/~gauck/Hastings.jpg
The heavy lance of knights is a carried low for control and to maximize shock by bracing the weapon. The light lance is a spear or javelin carried over the head for easy of use without bracing.

However, just because a culture has a technological description, keep in minds the three kinds of diffusion. Objects get moved from place to place. If they make spyglasses in Brectur, Vos may (or may not, DM's call) seek them out as desirable objects. Procedures (and other ideas) get diffused, so that knowledge of spyglasses, or sextants, or whatever, travels to everywhere. And finally people are diffused. That can be the Brecht trader who has been everywhere, or large migrations. No one would lack stirrups, but rather like the American Indian, who you mention, would adapt their own technology, obtain technology they could not produce themselves (Winchesters), through encounters as their people encounter the Europeans and the Europeans come to them. Of course in the case of stirrups, there was no need to immitate shock cavalry, because the Europeans came with a much more impressive (and assimilated) style of war with firearms.

If only the Brecht made spyglasses, spyglasses would still end up everywhere, but only a Brecht craftsmen of the right type could make one, and they would be very expensive elsewhere. But they would exist. Culture is borrowed in the form of objects, ideas, and processes. As closely as all the Cerilians are to one another, ideas will diffuse quickly.

[Sorontar]

Look at what archaeological digs keep telling us. Even in the Roman Empire, a "noble" over one side of the empire would own jewelry etc using products from the other side of the empire. Trading and gifts amongst nobles spread technology and products all around Europe, but as KGauck said, the production behind them and the knowledge associated with it was still limited. If you had the money, you could get lots of things, but finding it locally would be hard.

Similarly for weapons, a Vos could use a rapier as their weapon of choice, but they would be a little pressed to find a weapons master to train them in Vosgaard. The Vos culture would not treat it as normal, because rapiers are not commonplace there. The Vos don't need a rapier for their hunting, farming and raiding life. Other weapons are far more useful and resilient for their culture.

Anything is possible, but not everything is normal.

Sorontar

[RaspK_FOG]

Note here that the Europeans actually took the whole "charging on a horse with a lance" technique a step forward, what with advancing the ability to couch your lance; heavy armour (mostly plate harnesses, actually) had pins and the like against which you held the lance so that it certain that you did not lose your grip while striking.

Another issue is that, realistically speaking, some weapons are even subpar when it comes to some cultures. Realistically speaking, any Brecht wielding a rapier in combat against an Anuirean knight in a full plate harness is probably just asking to get his butt handed to him by said knight, despite how fantasy might be arguing about this at times.

In an economy, consider these things: Will the people who produce the product mind selling it (e.g. in 7th Sea, a Nibelung would never sell Dracheneisen to a non-Eisen)? Will the people outside them want to bu it? What would the increased costs be?

For example, a Brecht baron would probably appreciate a full plate harness for those times when he would be riding in battle against other nations, but I can imagine that many Anuireans would not want to make one for him (the dwarves are another matter entirely), and it would certainly cost him a little extra.

[Gman]

The Brecht Baron wanting to wear full plate may also face other problems.

Being unfamiliar with the weight/ fatigue of using plate. (which although not as limiting as most people think still makes a difference particularly if in protracted use - but what the hey most game systems ignore it). The movement rate of his unit may well exceed his if on foot. (In reality this is not the case over a short distance (having worn it and chain medieval metal weapon recreationist style) but is definately true over a long distance.

Finding a full plate helm hot and restrictive for periferal vision and neck turning - even when they are designed for maximising vision its still not the same as not wearing one or wearing lighter open face head protection. Its always a bit easier to get blindsided.
Fatigue and overheating is usually the problem for plate if exertion continues for any decent length of time - and once your tired you don't see those blindside attacks as quickly or react as fast. So you actually need to train for strength AND Fitness in a fairly different way. - If you just wacked it on for the first time and charged off into battle you would be in for a new world of painful fatigue and overheating problems as your body needs to train in it to get used to it. (Good luck on a hot day in a hot/humid climate).

Finding a mount that is suitable for use as a charger - or that can bear a rider comfortably. i.e. if horses in his area/units are lighter and faster mounts. The standard movement rate of his unit may well exceed his if he is on a unsuitable mount or on a mount breed to be fast on the charge and slow on the trot and bear a heavier loaded rider.
When charging multiple enemies being the lone guy with a lance on a fast charger isn't anywhere near as effective as being part of a massed lance charge.

If not having full plate was good enough for his family/Lord/Father then not having it should be good enough for him. (or his people or followers might think he's a bit uppity and is too good for them because wants to be one of those wanky Anuirian ponces encased in plate and not facing the fray like a real man). He can head off to train with them but then he's going to look even more like an Anuirian Lover. Mabey he's a bit of coward wanting to wear all that iron from head to toe??? (Insert cultural difference insults here):)

[RaspK_FOG]

Since we got that down already, I concur that armour is less restraining than most games show them to be in the short run, but more cumbersome in the long run and certainly way more protective from some form of attacks, while almost inconsequential when it comes to other areas.

Actually, it is true that the Brecht would find a full plate harness nigh barbaric in the sense that it's too much like war-mongering in their mindset. Not to mention that cultures that go back a couple of steps from armour-wearing generally consider the whole man-in-a-can imagery a little awful.

That being said, I'd expect any Brecht in his right mind to resort to at least an open-faced helm (probably some sort of steel cup or the like, with the tell-tale protrusions and what-not to protect from descending blades and more nastiness, metal or otherwise) and most certainly some sort of armour that has a breastplate; in fact, the ideal suit of armour for most commanders is a half a suit of plate (which, quite expectedly, has nothing to do with the imagery in the PHB; your typical half plate armour is like wearing just the upper half of a full plate harness sans the gauntlets).

Keep a mental note that knights and warriors did not go all day long in their suits of armour; sad as it may sound to many people, not only must you do something about those strained muscles, or else you will at some point be unable to sleep from the pain, you also have to oil and otherwise tend to it.

[stv2brown1988]

Finding a full plate helm hot and restrictive for periferal vision and neck turning - even when they are designed for maximising vision its still not the same as not wearing one or wearing lighter open face head protection. Its always a bit easier to get blindsided.

I"m not sure but didn't the knights in RL have people who were not as heaviliy armored whose job it was to watch their flanks? (Or was that from some movie/book?)

Steve

[RaspK_FOG]

You may be referring to squires; their job was more like knights-in-training under the tutelage of the knights whose equipment they took care of. A squire would usually help a knight wear his suit of armour, keep his arms in good condition, et cetera.

[Gman]

The term shield bearer comes to mind - A lord should have his own personal guard (body guard) the bigger the better to keep him out of trouble and his flanks protected.
You then start to get into the territory of disciplined troops protecting each others flanks rather than the disorder of crazy melee fighting where the cohesion of units on the battle field has broken down and everthing is intermingled. If a unit still has cohesion then pity help the units that are in disorder. I think we have discussed this in several other threads?

I imagine it would be a pretty hectic job with some gunho Lords wanting to charge off into the middle of another troop. And be riding the fastest horse. Sounds like a good job for a PC...

If it works though, then a hole is punched through the middle of a shieldwall/unit and it starts to fall apart.

[RaspK_FOG]

Well, there's a whole lot to be said about gung-ho warriors... Sun Tzu explains perfectly (in his magnificent "The Art of War") that you should hold your more skilled, talented combatants in check, lest they run headlong in the middle of the enemy and get crushed.

Still, one cannot argue that such charges have saved many a battle that would have otherwise been lost, but that's another thing entirely (even that is addressed in "The Art of War").

[stv2brown1988]

So if you have a knight, then he/she should have a squire and a shield bearer. Does anyone remember the old Cavilier from the original Unearthed Arcana? They had a whole group of followers each. I think they even had a herald and a standard bearer.

[RaspK_FOG]

Actually, if we go about the whole company thing there, you should be counting a lot of retainers, all in all.

[Gman]

The higher your prestige - the more personal guards and protectors you should have to stop you from being successful in getting yourself killed.

Gotta love those last desperate charges when all reserves are committed and the Leaders standards meet on the battlefield... (Sun Tzu would not recommend this but Lots of fun for BR players).

I tend to use and organic system of contested tactics rolls taken in part from Pendragon battles. If your king does well he positions the army well. If you king has done well then your Lord gets a bonus as he maneuvers your unit. If your Lord succeeds then your unit gets bonuses on the attack/defence.

[stv2brown1988]

I tend to use and organic system of contested tactics rolls taken in part from Pendragon battles. If your king does well he positions the army well. If you king has done well then your Lord gets a bonus as he maneuvers your unit. If your Lord succeeds then your unit gets bonuses on the attack/defence.

Gman,

I'm interested in your system. Do you any more info on the system you use that you could share with the rest of us?

Steve

[geeman]

At 06:50 AM 11/21/2007, Steve wrote:

>How does a Bronze Age Vos family get water and cook meals? How does
>this differ from a Brecht (renaisance?) family? Has someone already
>looked at this in any detail at all?

The various metal ages aren`t going to be fundamentally different in
terms of domesticity. The expense and abundance of various
implements will change, of course, but stew cooks in a bronze pot
just as it does in an iron one, and wells are still dug using bronze
tools just as they are using iron ones. Though there are plenty of
examples of large scale irrigation and water transport systems during
the Bronze Age one does see larger and more complex projects as
technology advances, so on average a Renaissance family is going to
have easier access to water than a Bronze Age family. That depends,
of course, on where the family lives. A family living in a Bronze
Age capitol city like Rome is probably more likely to have running
water than an Iron Age family living in, say, London.... It takes
longer and the work is more labor intensive, so the difference
between such families is a higher level of scarcity (expense of the
respective items) for such things, but not a basic change in kind.

You have to go back a bit before things start to become demonstrably
different. Earlier, Stone Age tech sometimes has techniques that
seem strange nowadays. If a culture is pre-metal then they may not
have done things like master fire fully. Certain cultures, for
example, don`t even have ceramic cooking pots, but they are able to
weave baskets so well that they are water tight and they can still
cook by filling those baskets with food and then placing a heated stone in.

More significant differences between your Bronze Age and Renaissance
families are likely to come in things like textiles, architecture,
the amount and variety of foods available, and the size of urban areas.

>I would guess that a spy glass is only available in Brechtur. What
>about glass containers?

The ability to use carefully refine glass of the quality that can be
ground into a lens is pretty advanced, but glass itself is very old
technology, so glass containers will still exist. Again, glass will
be relatively rare and expensive in early compared to later levels of
technology. In addition to lenses, glass for windows starts to
become practical at Renaissance levels of technology.

>Or even stirrups for mounts? Where those available during the
>Bronze Age? Iron Age? Without stirrups can you still use a
>lance? Or fight very well at all from a mount?

Nope, no lances without stirrups. In fact, I doubt one could even
level a heavy lance and stay in the saddle at a full gallop let alone
hit something with it and expect to keep one`s seat. If such a thing
is even possible one wouldn`t do appreciably more damage than
throwing a spear from horseback since one would have to drop the
lance immediately to keep from being knocked off the horse. The
stirrup means you can get a big guy wearing lots of metal on back of
a similarly heavy mount and have him locked in place so as to
withstand the shock of impact from all of that material.

In BR terms, the stirrup means two things. First, there is no heavy
cavalry (knights) without it since that technology is what allows for
a heavily armored warrior to wield a long spear in battle. There
will be an equestrian "knightly class" of warriors, but what we think
of as a "knight in shining armor" can`t really exist without a
stirrup. Second, other forms of cavalry are going to be slightly
less effective since the stirrup also allows a more stable platform
for other types of weapons. Even archers are more effective on
horseback with stirrups. Other things can compensate for the lack of
technology like stirrups (such as training, cultural aptitude,
etc.) All of those factors should be figured into the stats for the
various mounted units from various cultures and regions.

Some folks suggest that the stirrup leads to a sort of stratification
of the social order since a special class of people are designated to
fight from horseback, heavier and heavier horses are bred for that
purpose and the feudal system of government is developed to support
the financial costs of the whole process. So one might argue that
the most significant differences between the lifestyle of a Bronze
Age and a Renaissance level family is that the Bronze Age family is
dealing with social conditions that are going to lead into the feudal
system while the Renaissance family is living in social conditions
that are post-feudal and still shrugging off the feudal system.

Gary

[geeman]

At 01:06 PM 11/21/2007, Michael Romes wrote:

>With "glass" meaning the thick uneven stuff that looks like the
>bottom of coloured bottles and comes in small pieces that are held
>together by a wooden frame?
>Without explanation some might understand "glass for windows" as if
>from that age on they had glass windows as nowadays with large, thin
>sheets of glass.

Good question. Thanks for asking for the clarification.

By "glass for windows" I mean sheets of relatively clear glass that
could be cut into panes up to a foot or so across, but usually
smaller. Usually, the glass that looks like the bottom of glass
bottles comes along with actual sheets of (small) glass panes as part
of the same manufacturing process. During the "early" Renaissance
they figured out how to spin a bubble (a "crown") of molten glass
into a large circular disk 5-6 feet in diameter. Then they`d cut
that disk into squares for windows with the outer edge of the disk
having the nicer, thinner, more transparent glass squares while
towards the center the glass was thicker, more opaque, and rippled
panes, while at the very center there was a large "bulls-eye"
formation where the craftsman`s rod held the disk as he spun it.

You can still see this in various places where they are using "old
fashioned" glass that has a weird, circular dimple in some of the
panes. That`s the center of the circular plate where the craftsman
held it on a rod and spun out the glass. (Actually, a lot of the
"old fashioned" glass windows in which one sees that dimple feature
isn`t really classically produced glass at all. The dimple has been
stamped into it during the modern glass making procedure in order to
make it look like the old, hand produced stuff.) Historically, the
dimpled portion of the glass was often discarded, but people like
that feature now for some "old fashioned" buildings as it is a
reference to the old technique. Such window glass is generally
thicker and more likely to have bubbles and imperfections in it than
we might consider typical for window glass, but it basically worked.

Later they figured out how to blow the glass into a large cylinder,
reheat it, cut the ends off the cylinder and down one side then lay
out the glass flat to create one "broad piece" glass that was thinner
and more regular than the earlier type and less wasteful since the
"crown" method meant the rounded sections had to be cut away. Once
that technique was developed we start getting panes of glass that are
larger than few inches across, and not much later craftsmen created
"blown plate" glass by painstakingly polishing the inevitable ripples
and imperfections of a broad piece of glass to the point that it
could be used for "perfect" windows, mirrors, etc. That`s a pretty
similar to the process of crafting lenses.

Gary

[ConjurerDragon]

Gary schrieb:
...
>> I would guess that a spy glass is only available in Brechtur. What
>> about glass containers?
> The ability to use carefully refine glass of the quality that can be
> ground into a lens is pretty advanced, but glass itself is very old
> technology, so glass containers will still exist. Again, glass will
> be relatively rare and expensive in early compared to later levels of
> technology. In addition to lenses, glass for windows starts to become
> practical at Renaissance levels of technology.
With "glass" meaning the thick uneven stuff that looks like the bottom
of coloured bottles and comes in small pieces that are held together by
a wooden frame?
Without explanation some might understand "glass for windows" as if from
that age on they had glass windows as nowadays with large, thin sheets
of glass.

[RaspK_FOG]

Excellent information on glass making. :)

On the matter of the lance, though, I have to make a point: you are correct only when it comes to the modern notion of a lance; a lance is, in fact, a long, thin spear, commonly but not exclusively used by horsemen. In fact, the word lance is very ancient (i.e. the Latin word lancea, and its Greek cousin λόγχη). What we know is that cavalry did not benefit from the tremendous momentum of horses in the use of a spear; rather, the horseman would use the swiftness and bulk of the horse to deliver a blow to a possibly cowering or fallen foe and gallop to the next position he could make use of. On the other hand, people could swing some of their shorter melee weapons, benefitting from the ability to transfer part of that momentum without falling off their steeds.

[kgauck]

The reason I posted the picture from the Bayeaux Tapestry was because it depicts people using a lance over handed and people who have been speared by lances. Note how high the spearing is done. There are a lot of depictions of horsemen going way, way back, up to the 11th century showing horsemen carrying their lances over handed, as if to throw, rather than under handed, using the momentum of a charging horse to do extra damage.

In D&D, charging on horseback gives you double from a lance, and if you take a feat you can get double damage with all weapons and triple damage from a lance. This is all based on the stirrup. Without the stirrup, no double damage for any weapon, because the energy on impact would not go into extra damage it just knocks you off the horse.

There are rules for other kinds of dismounting actions based on the trip mechanic, this would be much easier without stirrups.

Without this invention, horse cavalry is primarily a platform for missile attacks, not shock.

[geeman]

At 10:51 AM 11/28/2007, kgauck wrote:

>The reason I posted the picture from the Bayeaux Tapestry was
>because it depicts people using a lance over handed and people who
>have been speared by lances. Note how high the spearing is done.
>There are a lot of depictions of horsemen going way, way back, up to
>the 11th century showing horsemen carrying their lances over handed,
>as if to throw, rather than under handed, using the momentum of a
>charging horse to do extra damage.

My favorite take on the Bayeaux Tapestry comes from the historical
satirist Will Cuppy in his book _The Decline and Fall of Practically
Everybody_.

"The Bayeaux Tapestry is accepted as an authority on many details of
life and the fine points of history in the eleventh century. For
instance, the horses in those days had green legs, blue bodies,
yellow manes and red heads, while the people were all double-jointed
and quite different from what we generally think of as human beings."

His take on Alexander the Great is similarly classic:

"He is known as Alexander the Great because he killed more people of
more different kinds than any other man of his time. He did this in
order to impress Greek culture upon them. Alexander was not strictly
a Greek and he was not cultured, but that was his story, and who am I
to deny it?"

Gary

[kgauck]

I could post other images of horses and warriors before the stirrup, but the Tapestry is a familiar source.

Alexander was strictly Greek. Macedonian royalty was even allowed to participate in the Olympic games, a competition ritually banned to non-Greeks. The Macedonian people were considered non-Greek by the Hellenes because they seemed primitive.

Like all satire, it plays on an intentional (one hopes) misunderstanding of the object of the satire.

[geeman]

At 07:12 AM 11/28/2007, RaspK_FOG wrote:

>On the matter of the lance, though, I have to make a point: you are
>correct only when it comes to the modern notion of a lance; a lance
>is, in fact, a long, thin spear, commonly but not exclusively used
>by horsemen. In fact, the word lance is very ancient (i.e. the Latin
>word lancea, and its Greek cousin λόγχη).
>What we know is that cavalry did not benefit from the tremendous
>momentum of horses in the use of a spear; rather, the horseman would
>use the swiftness and bulk of the horse to deliver a blow to a
>possibly cowering or fallen foe and gallop to the next position he
>could make use of. On the other hand, people could swing some of
>their shorter melee weapons, benefitting from the ability to
>transfer part of that momentum without falling off their steeds.

True. We have to be careful about nomenclature. By "lance" I mean
the specific, heavy weapon employed in the mid to later period of the
Middle Ages, and not what D&D separates out into spears and various
pole arms, any of which have been called "lance" at one point or another.

The overall point, though, is that without the stirrup one isn`t
going to get what in BR are called "knights" or what I prefer to call
"heavy cavalry" since that term is less loaded. and the various
values (particularly the "charge" value) should differ for such
units. I suppose one could have some other type of mounted soldiers
that didn`t use either stirrups or lances and still have stats
similar to BR "knight" units. Ogres mounted on mammoths or trolls in
giant lizards, for example, would have to qualify at least as heavy
cavalry, right? Whether such mounts have nice saddles with fixed
stirrups and wield long, vambraced spears has to be
incidental.... Generally, though, in BR such units are unique enough
that they get their own descriptor.

Gary

[Beruin]

Excellent information on glass making. :)


To add to this, look here, as we already discussed glass quite thoroughly few years ago.:cool:

[AndrewTall]

While not arguing against stirrups per se; I note that a saddle can be shaped and fitted to help the rider stay in place when swinging weapons etc albeit at the expense of mobility. I saw some recreations a while back showed that some saddle features previously thought of as purely decorative were in fact designed to help the rider lob spears, etc without falling off the horse. Shaped saddles could be even more effective with animals with different body shapes to a horse - if the animal is taller at the back than the front (varsks?) then a high backed saddle would for example be quite easy to build and use, although the ride might be precarious!

[Beruin]

I've been reviewing several old posts and it seems to me that several areas are pointed out as Bronze Age, Iron Age, etc... I was wondering what is the difference in BRCS between the ages? Not so much the weapons/armor as ther is a table for that in the rules.

How does a Bronze Age Vos family get water and cook meals? How does this differ from a Brecht (renaisance?) family? Has someone already looked at this in any detail at all?


This discussion has focussed mostly on military technology so far, but I'd like too come back too a more general view of technological development.
I'll always try to use technological differences to highlight different cultures, but I mostly use these for descriptive flavour, without many hard-and-fast rules. If an issue like a PC wanting to purchase a spyglass, a heavy warhorse or a longbow in Vosgaard crops up, I decide on the spot whether the item is available and what its price is.

As Geeman already pointed out, the problem with technological differences is that many of the changes between bronze and iron age, or early and late medieval, are rather minuscule, at least from our point of view, and only the sum of these small changes make the difference between the epochs. Putting these changes into game terms might quickly turn into a book-keeping nightmare, I guess.
The easiest way to incorporate technological differences is probably via the availability and price of equipment in a certain era and there are a number of RPG products that can help here, like GURPS' Low Tech or Rolemaster's ...and a 10-foot pole.
However, with a little common sense (and historical knowledge), most of these changes are fairly obvious and could be implemented without one of these supplements.

That said, I find it useful to use four interrelated general categories or terms to describe technological differences. These are quality, quantity, efficiency, and innovation.

Quality and quantity are both rather obvious. A more advanced society is able to produce a larger amount of commodities and goods of a better quality than a less advanced culture.

The most basic example for quantity is agriculture. Better irrigation systems, heavier plows, the systematic usage of manure and a more elaborate system of crop rotation all increase crop yields. This does not influence the daily meal of an average Brecht or Vos family very much, but it allows a more sophisticated culture to support a greater population density.
This is in part reflected by the province ratings in BR, which tend to be lower for Rjurik and Vosgaard, and it might be feasible to cap the highest province rating possible according to tech level. However, climate and terrain are also very important here.

The quality, or at least the outward appearance, of food might also change with development. By carefully selecting and cultivating seed plants, fruits will become larger and contain more edible parts. For instance, we might not even recognize a carrot from 600 years ago, it looked much more like a root than a carrot, and many cereals of today, including maize, contain more grains than a few hundred years ago. (this might also fit in under quantity, but hey, I said the terms were interrelated)

For D&D, the most obvious example of quality is in combat, when arms and armour of different quality, or materials, meet.

IIRC, Dark Sun assigned a damage penalty to weapons made of materials other than steel, but this was a bit haphazard at best. Hm, I should look whether our sister site at www.athas.org (http://www.athas.org)has anything on this subject...

The Slaine setting has rules for soft iron weapons, which bend when they deal a specific amount of damage and must then be straightened with a full-round action and a strength check or they cause a -2 penalty to attack rolls. This would be a significant disadvantage against steel-using enemies.

Another viable solution might be to use a different damage die for lower or higher quality materials. If medieval steel is the norm, a longsword made from high quality steel, with the accompanying craftsmanship, might use a d10 for damage, while iron uses a d8, but bends and bronze a d6.
If we go for a combat system using an armour penetrating factor, like outlined in the crossbow thread, different materials and tech levels might provide a different AP score.

Once again however, the more details you use, the more complicated combat gets, possibly even bogging down the game.

Continued soon...

[Beruin]

Efficiency means that a society is better able to use the available resources the more it advances. This term might seem a bit redundant, as it often leads to a greater quantity or better quality of goods, but I believe it's different enough to warrant its own entry.

Wind and water mills provide an easy example of a more efficient use of man/horse/ox power (though they might also qualify as an innovation, see below).

I take my other examples from mining and smelting metal.

A bronze age society might only be able to find and exploit the most obvious but often poorer mineral deposits near to the surface. A more advanced culture has the knowledge to find richer deposits and also the technology to dig deep mine shafts and secure them enough and to pump away ground water, enabling them to reach deeper and richer deposits. Of course, the dwarves are the most advanced culture in this regard.

When it comes to smelting the ore, a less advanced society throws away much of the metal with the slag, as its smelting technology is not advanced enough to cleanly separate the two. The resulting metal is also quite impure. A better smelting technology therefore yields more metal and also produces a higher quality.

The transport system a culture uses is another example where efficiency is important. Better roads, the use of wagons and draft animals instead of human coolies, faster, larger and more seaworthy ships all help to transport more goods in a shorter time.

Innovation describes a technology, method or gadget that no one else has, or that at least some cultures don't have. Stirrups would be an example already discussed, other examples would be gunpowder, the printing press, steam power, repeating crossbows, tame varsks, whatever.

IMC, Dwarves are the only culture that can use coal to smelt metal and only the Brecht and the Elves use a wheel to steer their ships, all other cultures use a tiller, which is a bit more awkward to handle, making Brecht and Elven ships a bit more maneuverable compared to similar ship designs of other cultures.

In conclusion, I believe that the four terms quality, quantity, efficiency, and innovation can chart the technological progress level of a culture when paired with different fields of technological development. These fields include, but are not necessarily limited to: Agriculture, Military, Transport, Mining&Metalworking, Architecture, and Communication.
Other fields might be possible, up to one for every craft or profession skill, but these are the most important imho.

A culture can be advanced in one field, and lacking in another. For example, the Aztecs and the Incas were basically stone age cultures, but AFAICR their agricultural systems were quite sophisticated and could support a large population.

[Beruin]

While technology certainly is one important aspect, we should bear in mind that it's not the only important descriptor for a society. Its culture, the natural environment the people live in, the available resources, the climate all shape the outlook and appearance of a people and help to differentiate between cultures.

Russia, for instance had a serious shortage of gold and silver, up until about 1600, when these metals were finally found in the Ural mountains. As a result, squirrel pelts were used as a coin substitute.

IIRC, both the Mongols and the Huns used stirrups, but never developed anything similar to the charging knight. They preferred to stick to their traditional hunting weaponry. Then again, they probably had the best bows of their time.

[stv2brown1988]

This discussion has focussed mostly on military technology so far, but I'd like too come back too a more general view of technological development.
I'll always try to use technological differences to highlight different cultures, but I mostly use these for descriptive flavour, without many hard-and-fast rules.

Originally that is what I was more interested in. When describing the regions what are the technological differences between the cultures. For example, as the PCs sail from Muden they see Brecht windmills and water mills lining the shores...(Which cultures would use wind mills and/or water mills?)

As they sail west they see the somkestacks of metal smelters...
If Dwarves are the only ones who can use coal for smelting, what do all of the copper and coke (is this coal?) mines in Brechtur do with their products? Is coal used for heating homes, if so how, in a fire place or stove?

As they leave Brechtur behind and sail near the shores of the Rjurik lands, gone are the smokestacks and mills, leaving only untouched wilderness. When they finally come ashore and stay in a inn they find it to be very smokey (sp?) inside with lots of ash on the walls from the constant burning fires. In Scotland didn't they use peat for heating homes? Is peat just dried out grass and something?


And so on...

The PS for Ariya mentions the Regent having a guild holding for water clocks/fountains or something. What would these be like?

[kgauck]

Windmills are a late midieval development and much more effecient than watermills. Both watermills and windmills need a reliable source of water or wind respectively. Water mills can be divided into the more effecient and more complex over-shot mill, where the water runs from a pond with some pressure over the water wheel generating more power. The under-shot mill is a waterwheel sitting on top of a flowing river attempting to get some energy from the passing water. Its easier to build and mantain than an over-shot, but has a serious limit to the power generated, since flowing water can just bypass the wheel. The undershot wheel is very ancient. The overshot wheel appears at the hieght of the Roman Empire, but disappears with the fall of the Romans until the high middle ages.

So Dark Ages cultures might be limited to the under-shot waterwheel, High Medieval cultures to both waterwheels, and Renaissance cultures might get both of those and windmills.

[stv2brown1988]

Windmills are a late midieval development and much more effecient than watermills. Both watermills and windmills need a reliable source of water or wind respectively. Water mills can be divided into the more effecient and more complex over-shot mill, where the water runs from a pond with some pressure over the water wheel generating more power. The under-shot mill is a waterwheel sitting on top of a flowing river attempting to get some energy from the passing water. Its easier to build and mantain than an over-shot, but has a serious limit to the power generated, since flowing water can just bypass the wheel. The undershot wheel is very ancient. The overshot wheel appears at the hieght of the Roman Empire, but disappears with the fall of the Romans until the high middle ages.

So Dark Ages cultures might be limited to the under-shot waterwheel, High Medieval cultures to both waterwheels, and Renaissance cultures might get both of those and windmills.

Would it be fair to consider these invovations part of a Research action by the PC regent? For example, Rogr Aglondier of Ilien may research the overshot mill or windmill to try to give Ilien an agriculture advantage of some sort. Maybe windmills for pumps to provide water for cattle? (I don't know, I'm just reaching here...) Or how about the roman acqudects (sp?) to provide running water to homes/village squares, would this be a research domain action to invent and then a "Wonderous Structure" to build?

Steve

[kgauck]

In general the progress of advancement is so slow, research might produce a 5% gain after one or two dozen years of serious work by a dedicated specialist. Once in a great while a major innovation comes along, but this is more like DM fiat than the progress of reserach in one person's life time. Plus you have to research stuff where there is an ability to learn stuff. Plenty of research is done down wrong alleys in learning. Minor discoveries that are true and interesting, but have nothing to offer waterwheels or other practical applications.

Its much easier to hire experts and pay for exotic building materials than it is to re-invent the wheel, water or otherwise.

[geeman]

At 12:12 AM 11/29/2007, stv2brown1988 wrote:

>Would it be fair to consider these invovations part of a Research
>action by the PC regent? For example, Rogr Aglondier of Ilien may
>research the overshot mill or windmill to try to give Ilien an
>agriculture advantage of some sort. Maybe windmills for pumps to
>provide water for cattle? (I don`t know, I`m just reaching
>here...) Or how about the roman acqudects (sp?) to provide running
>water to homes/village squares, would this be a research domain
>action to invent and then a "Wonderous Structure" to build?

The short answer would be that as long as none of your players freak
out about it or abuse the process then sure, why not?

The longer answer has to do with how you want to break up the various
periods of technology and deal with research/development. There are
any number of ways that technological periods can be broken up, and
how one wants the domain system to address technological
progress. Game mechanically, here`s how I`ve done it in the past.

First, we need to come up with a rough breakdown of tech levels like this:

1 Stone Age
2 Bronze Age
3 Iron Age
4 Early Medieval
5 Late Medieval
6 Early Renaissance
7 Late Renaissance

These levels can vary depending on how one views world history,
development itself, how detailed you want to make things, or how hard
you want to make progress (as we`ll see in a minute.)

Second, it`s a good idea if one can also break technology into
specific categories:

Agriculture
Military
Nautical
Textiles
Etc.

The number and types of categories can again vary on how you see
things working. The more categories you have the more detailed you
can be, and the more difficult advancement will be.

After categories are defined then associate various types of
equipment or techniques to those levels and categories. Let`s say
one had "metallurgy" as a category. Access to various metals could
then be listed like this:

1 Minerals
2 Copper, bronze
3 Iron, crude steel
4 Standard steel
5 Refined steel
6 Fine (dwarven?) steel
7 Steel composites

Once we have these things defined, we can start to see how to use the
research action in a broader sense. Depending on how you organize
your categories and tech levels you have a way of describing the
technology of a given culture. These categories are all somewhat
arbitrary and general, so what categories you use will depend on the
major emphasis of your campaign. Like many other settings, it makes
sense for there to be a "Magic" category of technology even though it
might seem counter intuitive to some folks, but in the long run it`s
a good idea to include.

So in the system I`ve used a regent who rules over a predominately
early medieval culture (TL4) can perform a research action to produce
items made from refined steel which are normally reserved to the late
medieval tech (TL5.) However, these prototypes are going to be
costly despite his research action, because being able to prototype
an item isn`t nearly the same as having the broad infrastructure that
is represented by an actual increase in tech level, so as a rule of
thumb costs are tripled.

If you want to actually raise the tech level of a culture then
research actions are also the way to go, but the process is long and
costly. Raising tech level comes in one of two flavors:

1. Innovative. Innovative research and development has no existing
precedent. A Brecht regent, for example, might be at TL6 and already
be at the forefront of nautical technology. In order to raise his TL
from 6 to 7 he`d have to perform 36 research actions (his current
tech level squared.)

2. Diffused. Diffused research comes from a nearby realm or culture,
but must be learned, disseminated and an infrastructure created in
order to support it. Increasing tech level from 6 to 7 when it
already exists somewhere that the regent has access requires 6
research actions (his current tech level.)

There are a few other aspects to this system: No tech level in any
particular category can be higher than 2 levels of any other except
for "Magic" which can be very different. Tech level then also
becomes a factor in determining things like how high a regent can
rule up the population level in his provinces, but that`s a whole
other thing....

Gary

[Thelandrin]

Well, if you're going to use tech levels and split levels and suchlike, the GURPS system already has a complete system for technology and how to research it. Perhaps that would be worth looking at and converting?

[irdeggman]

IMC, Dwarves are the only culture that can use coal to smelt metal and only the Brecht and the Elves use a wheel to steer their ships, all other cultures use a tiller, which is a bit more awkward to handle, making Brecht and Elven ships a bit more maneuverable compared to similar ship designs of other cultures.


Elves - a sea faring race in BR?

They didn't "migrate" to Cerilia and after the human invasion their provinces are mostly land locked - leaving pretty much only river movement. Not much of an incentive to progress their ship mobility.

I could see Khinasi instead of elves - sea faring culture and highly educated.

Isn't smelting a prerequisite to manufacturing steel? So all of the "knightly" cultures (Khinasi and Anuirean specifically) would have to import "steel" from the dwarves. And of course the dwarves do not trade heavily with other cultures (except possibly the Brecht due to the sharing of housing in the caves during the winter {Dauren} - but that is more along the line of "technology and how to fine and work metals as opposed to actual materials).

[Beruin]

As they sail west they see the somkestacks of metal smelters...
If Dwarves are the only ones who can use coal for smelting, what do all of the copper and coke (is this coal?) mines in Brechtur do with their products? Is coal used for heating homes, if so how, in a fire place or stove?
<snip>
In Scotland didn't they use peat for heating homes? Is peat just dried out grass and something?



Isn't smelting a prerequisite to manufacturing steel? So all of the "knightly" cultures (Khinasi and Anuirean specifically) would have to import "steel" from the dwarves. And of course the dwarves do not trade heavily with other cultures (except possibly the Brecht due to the sharing of housing in the caves during the winter {Dauren} - but that is more along the line of "technology and how to fine and work metals as opposed to actual materials).

Coke is essentially baked coal. Look here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coke_%28fuel%29) for more information, while peat is not really grass, but consists of only partially decomposed plant materials. Look here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peat).

With regard to smelting and steel production, I did not argue against smelting at all, just against the use of coal. Steel is basically an alloy based on iron, with a carbon content between 0.2 and 1.7%. To get from iron ore to steel, you first have to smelt the ore to get pig iron with a carbon content of about 4.5%. This is not yet workable and must be smelted again, covered with slag, to reduce the carbon content. The result is workable iron or steel with differing properties, depending on the exact carbon content and the presence of other metals like nickel and manganese.

Until the 18th century, only wood derived charcoal could be used to smelt iron ore (and would provide the necessary carbon component). The problem with coal or coke is that these also contain sulphur which ruins the iron in the smelting process, making it very brittle and unworkable.
To use coal for smelting iron, you must cleanly separate ore and coal and make sure that no smoke reaches the ore. This was difficult to achieve technically, and the process was only invented in 1709 in England, but only came into widespread use about 50 years later, with the start of the Industrial Revolution.

In RPGs, this is mostly ignored, but I found it fitting to implement into BR, it opens a number of new problems and possibilities. For example, both Avanil and Ghoere have large amounts of iron ore, but wood is becoming a scarce resource here, which must be carefully preserved or traded in. This also helps explain the large-scale deforestation in Anuire.

In effect, I have also given the dwarves a quite advanced technique, that really sets them apart from other cultures.

Coal can still be used for heating, for a number of other production processes like glass-making, and it might also be possible to smelt other metals with it (though I have to look this up), but on the whole, its importance for most cultures is limited. Coal mines certainly do exist, but are scarcer and not that profitable.

[Beruin]

Elves - a sea faring race in BR?

They didn't "migrate" to Cerilia and after the human invasion their provinces are mostly land locked - leaving pretty much only river movement. Not much of an incentive to progress their ship mobility.

I could see Khinasi instead of elves - sea faring culture and highly educated.


Well, yes, I do have seafaring elves in my Cerilia variant, but that's homegrown stuff. For official BR, I agree with you.

With regard to the Khinasi, I don't picture them has using a wheel to steer their ships, but they also have an advantage in advanced sail design and rigging.

[geeman]

At 02:37 AM 11/29/2007, Thelandrin wrote:

>Well, if you`re going to use tech levels and split levels and
>suchlike, the GURPS system already has a complete system for
>technology and how to research it. Perhaps that would be worth
>looking at and converting?

Sure, that`d be worthwhile. The thing that is important for BR
purposes is that the tech level numbers go with existing BR domain
level effects (the month long Research action in particular) while
the themes of the setting should be determine the categories of
technology employed. So if you can convert the GURPS system to make
it BR then by all means go for it.

Gary

[Lee]

In a message dated 11/29/2007 5:50:48 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET writes:

irdeggman wrote:
------------ QUOTE ----------
IMC, Dwarves are the only culture that can use coal to smelt metal


I`d change that to burning coke and making higher-quality steel, perhaps a
secret alloy or two. Like adamantium, in game terms.

Lee.



**************************************Check out AOL`s list of 2007`s hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)

[AndrewTall]

That said, I find it useful to use four interrelated general categories or terms to describe technological differences. These are quality, quantity, efficiency, and innovation.

Quality and quantity are both rather obvious. A more advanced society is able to produce a larger amount of commodities and goods of a better quality than a less advanced culture.


Like it! I'd note that quantity likely dictates population density, prevalence of goods etc; quality dictates type of goods available, versatility etc, innovation impacts responsiveness to change and therefore survivability over a prolonged period and likely social mobility and equity - but efficiency is the factor which impacts the economies actual wealth.

So for example nation A grows selectively grown carefully manured, etc grains using specifically bred beasts of burden, etc. Being very efficient each farmer can grow 10 'units' of grain on a farm of size 'X'. Country B grows rice, 10 farmers on the same size farm can grow 10 'units' of rice by constant care and attention. The people in Country A will in general be richer than in country B, leading to more leisure activities such as religion, art, wars, etc.

[Beruin]

First, we need to come up with a rough breakdown of tech levels like this:

<snip>
These levels can vary depending on how one views world history,
development itself, how detailed you want to make things, or how hard
you want to make progress (as we`ll see in a minute.)

Second, it`s a good idea if one can also break technology into
specific categories:

Agriculture
Military
Nautical
Textiles

The number and types of categories can again vary on how you see
things working. The more categories you have the more detailed you
can be, and the more difficult advancement will be.

After categories are defined then associate various types of
equipment or techniques to those levels and categories. Let`s say
one had "metallurgy" as a category. Access to various metals could
then be listed like this:

1 Minerals
2 Copper, bronze
3 Iron, crude steel
<snip>
Once we have these things defined, we can start to see how to use the
research action in a broader sense. Gary

Very nice ideas, Gary! I especially like your take on the research action, but I'd probably drop the requirement that no category can be more than two levels apart from each other - several cultures might have specialities in which they were quite advanced. Think of porcelain which was developed by the Chinese at least 800 years before Europeans were able to reproduce it.

For categories, I often use Aria Worlds as a reference, a quite obscure supplement for the early-Nineties-now-quite-dead-since-WotC-purchased-it Aria - Canticle of the Monomyth rpg, and it does something quite similar.

It uses 20 tech levels from Stone Age to Late Medieval/Early Renaissance and also assigns dominant materials for each level, ranging from 1: Stone & wood to 20: high-grade Iron / Steel.
It also breaks technology down in the following categories:


Power sources & Manufacturing
Agriculture & Environmental
Building Construction & Architecture
Transport & Communication
Military Innovation
Miscellaneous


Examples are given for each category and level, e.g. Gunpowder is Military 15, the Longbow Military 16, Windmills are Agriculture 16 and woodblock printing is Miscellaneous 14 . Breakthrough technologies that lead to other innovations or are able to seriously impact and change a society are highlighted.

The system is neat in itself, but imho needs some work for BR. Most BR cultures would already fall in the top 5-8 technology levels, and the system also lumps a lot of things together at higher tech levels. Granted, the pace of technological innovation took up speed with the start of the renaissance, but I wouldn't want my players to research too many things at once.

I believe we should also think about two more things:

1. What game effects do certain breakthrough technologies have, especially on the domain level?

Well, not all technologies might be directly employed, and for some, like gun powder, applications to use the innovation might first be necessary to research, but some technologies should also provide a small bonus on the domain level. In some cases this might simply be the ability to field a previously unavailable unit, like knights or heavy crossbowmen, but non-military innovations should also have a use. For instance the printing press might grant a non-priest regent a free agitate action like a priest or provide a bonus to agitate and decree actions. I believe we should try to come up with other examples.

2. Which technologies lead to other technologies and can we establish a chain of research actions that must be followed?

To explain what I mean, I'll use gunpowder as an example.
Once this breakthrough technology is developed, the developing regent must research applications for it. He might first use a research action to develop a weapon system that uses gunpowder, but still fires arrow-shaped objects (such devices were used by the Chines and the Mongols), he than has to come up with the idea to fire ball-shaped projectiles (another research action) and from there the first cannons and primitive handguns can be developed.

Such a chain of necessary research actions is of course a lot of work to develop for each and every technology, but I guess at least for major technologies it would be worthwhile to establish stepping stones.

[ryancaveney]

didn't the knights in RL have people who were not as heaviliy armored whose job it was to watch their flanks?

They certainly did have less-heavily-armored people who were used in part to watch the flanks, but the direction of causation was not quite what you're implying. One of the things D&D really badly glosses over is the economic dimension of warfare. From that (sadly missing) perspective, the reason for feudalism is that it was *enormously* expensive to outfit one guy in metal armor on a heavy warhorse. As a modern analogy, think of how many of your neighbors you would have to pool together to collect the four million dollars in surplus cash it would take to purchase a main battle tank, and then add to that how much it would take to pay the annual salaries of the necessary full-time professional crew and mechanics, spare parts, fuel (tanks get less than one mile per gallon), ammo, etc. In the same way, a medieval manor of a thousand people intensively farming two square miles is needed to support just one knight and the one to three medium cavalrymen in his retinue. They aren't armored as heavily as full knights because they can't afford to be. There is some variation in who dresses how, because Darien Avan can afford to equip a dozen squires in full plate, but many of his lowest vassal knights in mountainous provinces like Nentril and Vanilen can't afford full plate for themselves, much less the one squire they might be able to afford a light horse for. For most of history, governments did not provide equipment to their soldiers -- the soldiers brought their own equipment, and were then formed into units based on what they had brought. For example, in societies where infantry service is a social obligation, the skirmishers are the poor people and the heavy infantry are the rich, because only rich people could afford to supply their own metal armor and weapons. Therefore, a feudal Anuirean army, when formed of local noblemen, their enfeoffed knights and their squires, would end up with about twice as many "Cavalry" war cards as "Knight" ones just because of what the individual warriors could afford to wear -- they'd all prefer be in full plate as Knights if they could, but most of them can only afford enough armor to count as Cavalry. Given that as an input, the prudent general then picks scouting and flanking forces from among those who show up with lighter armor, because their equipment makes them better as it.

[ryancaveney]

If a unit still has cohesion then pity help the units that are in disorder. I think we have discussed this in several other threads? I imagine it would be a pretty hectic job with some gunho Lords wanting to charge off into the middle of another troop. And be riding the fastest horse.

This is the single biggest problem in medieval generalship. Your knights are independent nobles all seeking personal glory and not wanting to be commanded by anybody, so keeping them from just charging pell-mell whenever and wherever they desire is really, really hard. Many medieval wargames contain some kind of loss-of-control rule, in which an army containing noble knights suddenly has them decide to all charge at once, regardless of what the general really wants. Sun Tzu's advice is excellent, but feudal European nobility was way too undisciplined to be able to abide by it. That's one of the reasons rulers began to turn to professional mercenary armies: mercs were much better than nobles at following orders.

Birthright's lack of restrictions on how many knight units a realm can support is evidence Anuire is moving beyond feudalism into a more mercantile military setup; a variety of rules have been suggested to limit that by people who want a more early-feudal feel. My own preference is to use total number of province levels divided by four; for example, no matter how much money Medoere has lying around, I like to say that Suris Enlien can't field more than two units of knights until she adds at least three more province levels by Rule or Investiture. Another option commonly heard is each province can support no more knight units than its level minus three. Both these formulas (L/4 and L-3) are based on the observation that knights can only be mustered in a province of at least level 4.

[kgauck]

I'll just add that because some kinds of fighting is more glorious than others (which tends to overlap with being present at the moment of decision) certain units are valued out of proportion to their usefulness. Scouting, for example, is terribly valuable because it allows you to know the strenth, disposition, direction of movement of you enemy which helps you choose a time and place for battle. But as valuable as scouting is, its a force multiplier, not a hammer. It doesn't win battles by itself, it only makes the hammer more effective. The heavy troops are present when the enemy line breaks and they begin a disorderly retreat that turns into a rout. Then the light troops are the ones that actually kill the enemy by cutting down the fleeing forces. The glory goes to the heavy troops that broke the enemy, because only heavy troops can do that. Even if they were assisted by scouting and pursuit of the light troops.

Light troops by themselves without heavies just skirmish frequently and its an indecisive form of warfare.

[Gman]

Sorry Steve didn't read this thread for a while. Here's a description of how "organic" combat works.

Pendragon uses contested rolls on a D 20.

Skills usually range 1-20 but can go above.(which complicates things)

If your dice 20 roll is under you skill you have succeeded in using it - however if your opponents roll is also under their skill but higher than yours they win.

A critical is a roll equal to your skill level. A crit always beats a normal success or a failure. If both critical the higher critical (house rule) wins.

You can use any system however - in D20 beating your opponents "tactical skill" by margins of 5 will give better results for each lot of 5. Below 15 could be regarded as a fail.(or natural 1)

If two armies are about to engage those in charge have a roll vs roll. (situation modifiers can be used - fantastic scouting, subterfuge could have occured already)

The highest roll wins. - If a critical vs a failure occurs then one side has been caught with their pants down.
("Organic" Gm description may be that your High lord commands a suprise forced march through the night and manages to catch the opponent at dawn still encamped and unprepared)

Subgroups on the attack are then rewarded with a bonus on their rolls - just because they are placed in an advantageous position does not guarantee them anything.

Roll vs roll (sub commander vs sub commander).
Does the enemy sub commander manage to rally and face his troop or is he in complete disorder.

Roll vs roll (members of the troop) with bonus or penalty.
Smashing through a flank or into a shield wall - prepared or unprepared. caught by suprise or is everything even?

Luck rolls for quality of the opponent. Poor/average/good/excellent/superlative/named/renouned.


Footing, condition and facings of units is up to the commanders rolls.

The roll assumes that his assessment of the battle area and conditions is made to use these conditions /situation to his or her best advantage - or that the opponent has managed to use these better - responded faster - wheeled his unit to face and respond - caught you on the down slope of the hill etc.

[Hrandal]

Its true that most warriors would have used better armour if they could, but wasn't always why a knight would have less well armoured cavalry accompanying them. Precisely because a mounted knight was so horrendously expensive to outfit and train, it was easy to justify the much smaller expense of a man in lighter armour to help protect that investment by guarding the knight's flank/rear.

The Templars had local (non-christian) cavalry sergeants who rode alongside their heavy knights, and that was primarily a financial arrangement - in fact the sergeants were usually fighting against members of their own faith.

In any case, I do notice that nobody (at least in this thread - and I don't often check out BR.net) has mentioned that even mounted knights did a lot of their fighting on foot. I believe that historically a lot of cavalry was about simply getting foot-soldiers to a better position quickly. Granted, the knight and his charger is the classic example, but BR also seems to be from the age where sieges were the norm, and cavalry charges have limited utility in that situation.

In fact, that is one aspect of technology I think could be fascinating and easily used in a BR game - just figuring out different types of castle and what bonuses/restrictions each would give you. Perhaps "classical imperial" castles are better - maybe the skill to construct that style has largely been lost - or maybe they look lovely but modern siege tech can bring them down like a stack of cards. Dwarves build subterranean forts, where you don't have to worry about catapults, but you can be attacked from any angle by tunneling foes.

[RaspK_FOG]

Actually, the whole cavalry thing is as convoluted as any historical issue: light cavalry would almost never dismount, but it would also never charge blindly either, since a light cavalry unit has a lot openings when charging; only its speed and maneuverability help it in such a tactic. Knights and other heavy cavalry, however, usually engaged in these three tactics: charging and trampling everything in their path, dismounting and fighting on foot, and various weird feints (e.g. seemingly charging at an opponent, withdrawing, luring said opponent into a trap, outflanking, and finally routing him).