BR Campaign without Wargame aspect?

[Rusted Cage]

Hello :)
Please forgive me if this question is posted in the wrong forum, it seemed the most appropriate place to me. Also, please forgive me if I have started too many topics. I know I'm a newbie and don't wish to offend anyone.

Ok, so it maybe a silly question but is it possible to play a Birthright Campaign without the wargame aspect? See, it's been a fair few years since I last played Birthright but even then I could never get to grips with the wargame rules. I loved every other aspect of the setting, even the domain management, therefore my games tended to be of a focus on roleplaying and political intrigue.

However, I have to admit that without the wargame element, domain management tended to become rather pointless. So do any of you have any pointers on how to run a BR campaign without mass scale warfare, or even better, pointers on how to make mass scale warfare more simple?

Sorry about the long post :) Thanks folks!

[kgauck]

Running a campaign without warfare is easy. If you want a campaign with a focus on politics and intrigue, run one about politics and intrigue.

The simplest form of mass combat rules go like this, heads these guys win, tails they lose. The winner suffers 10% casualties, and the loser suffers the same. Done.

[Birthright-L]

At 05:56 PM 5/23/2009, Rusted Cage wrote:

>Ok, so it maybe a silly question but is it possible to play a
>Birthright Campaign without the wargame aspect? See, it`s been a
>fair few years since I last played Birthright but even then I could
>never get to grips with the wargame rules. I loved every other
>aspect of the setting, even the domain management, therefore my
>games tended to be of a focus on roleplaying and political intrigue.

>However, I have to admit that without the wargame element, domain
>management tended to become rather pointless. So do any of you have
>any pointers on how to run a BR campaign without mass scale warfare,
>or even better, pointers on how to make mass scale warfare more simple?

I never liked the BR large scale combat rules either, so I never
really used them. There are a LOT of problems with warcards. There
are several different rules that you can use to resolve that kind of
thing, and I`m sure if you poke around you can find one that you`d prefer.

Personally, I tend to fuze systems into other systems to come up with
some sort of hybrid, but what makes the most sense to me lately is to
have military be represented as a value that compares to a
holding. That is, regents raise an Army(X) or Navy(X) just the same
way a regent creates and rules up holdings. Conflicts are then
resolved in a way that mimics the domain rules. A battle is a sort
of Contest action. Castles, terrain, troop types, commanders and
tactics all represent modifiers on the checks to resolve that
action. That way the large scale combat system meshes well with the
existing domain rules, and is as easily resolved as any other domain action.

Gary

[Rusted Cage]

Thank you fellas, I'll think on what you have said. I suppose there is no point in feeling guilt at not using all the rules, is there?

[kgauck]

Absolutely not.

[Birthright-L]

At 04:39 PM 5/25/2009, Rusted Cage wrote:

>I suppose there is no point in feeling guilt at not using all the
>rules, is there?

Many folks around here are rules tweakers, so you`ll not get a lot of
folks who are particularly worried about such things. In fact, I`d
be interested in anything you come up with for resolving large scale combat.

Gary

[Kitch]

While I am still doing, as you said, tweaking the system, I've had some relative success with still using the warcard-idea of gameplay. Only, I have expanded the size of the map and use minitures (if in person) or MS Paint (if online) to move pieces like a chess game. In this manner, war is alot like any other DnD encounter, only the minitures are armies, not heroes.

[Rey]

That is a classic mathematical approach, something we've used in our games. It resolves combat quickly, but... if you lose, you lose much more than one, two, or three soldiers.

[Kitch]

Well, such is the cost of war. You can't take a province without expecting to lose a few lives in the process.

But I have also toyed with the concept of a unit making morale checks everytime they are either killed or routed from the field. My general rule of thumb is that is routed faces a morale DC based on enemy units and friendly units at the end of the battle, whereas a 'destroyed' unit could make the same morale check only if their side proves to be the victor - and potentially return recover from the battle (wounded, unconscious, etc being recovered and re-enlisted.)

[kgauck]

Units don't normally fight to the death. Doing so requires retreat being cut off. Normal units become ineffective and run away or always fall back, once they reach about 30% casualties.

Do destroyed units should be recoverable after battle with 30-40% losses, if they weren't run down and killed or captured by light cavalry, scouts, or other especially mobile units after the battle.

Units that are themselves swift, are almost impossible to run down, so the vulnerable units are heavy infantry, pikes, and so on. Plus, once the general retreat has begun, its possible for still functioning swift or ranged units to attempt to engage pursuers to protect such destroyed units. It would be silly to pursue a defeated foe with more functioning swift and ranged units than you sent to pursue.

It presents one of those nice opportunity cost situations war is so full of- light units are poor or useless in main battles, but are very useful before and after battles. So deploying heavy units to win battle means less resources to deploy light units to exploit and pursue. Too many light units, and you can only harass armies, not defeat them.

[AndrewTall]

Of course rather than slaughtering your foes, you could always capture them - mercenaries may turn, peasants settled or be ransomed en masse, and of course any noble is a prize worth more than simply prestige to their captor...

It would be nice to have some ransom rules - currently with muster and maintenance costs so similar, the benefit of ransom is purely social, but a supporting mechanic would be good.

[Kitch]

I've been trying to mold out a decent ransom ruleset myself, and the only thing I have been able to hand my players is that the total value of estate owned (holdings owned) is generally the factor. Most of my players have agreed that a value equal to half of their holdings in Gold Bars is the best system to run with.

For the nobles that are not land owners but instead just heroes or members of the Court, I apply the same system for their ECL. (Keep in mind I play using a 3.5 edition system). So, if Gavin Tael is 9th level, his random would be 9 Gold Bars. It doesn't seem like much, but in my game, characters are usually much more powerful than this ruling over much smaller realms than Ghoere.

The other system I have tried is percentage. You ransom a prisoner or a group of prisoners back for an agreeable percentage of one's income or value. In the case of a captured unit, a percentage of their muster cost (or a percentage of units they destroyed). In the case of a noble or hero, a percentage of your net or gross income, based upon the importance of the hero/noble. Naturally this amount is always subject to the good, old fashioned Diplomacy action.

[kgauck]

The medieval ransom was 2 shillings per hide, or about 2 sp for 30 acres.

A ransom of 9 GB would be something like 2.7 million acres, or 4218.75 Square Miles. Or a box, 65 miles by 65 miles.

The Baron of Ghoere would have a ransom more like 23 GB, I think.

Knights would be a minimum of 20 sp. A knight's fee, the amount of land assumed necessary to support a knight was reckoned at 10 hides. So the knights in a unit a probably close to this amount, or as much as 30 sp.

I would assume a petty noble's ransom is somewhere between 50 and 100 sp.

A lord is double that.

A count would need to know the area of their province. But 2 GB is a ball park figure for a slightly smaller than average province.

[Rowan]

Great info, Kgauck! Where'd you get it?

I drew up some proposed unit casualty and ransom rules for Julian's (ericthecleric's) game, but can't find them right now. I included ship ransoms and bounties, because I had a particular interest in those (I was playing Mieres).

Kitch's system is pretty generalized and so would work as is. Kgauck, if we are going with such a strong historical parallel (which I suspect may only have applied during a particular period in history), we should also use history to inform us of about how many knights, petty nobles, and lords are associated with each unit, and how likely it is that they died or escaped capture.

I do think that ransoms and realistic (low) casualty rates are very important if you want BR to play out as a good wargame where war is fairly common. They lower the immediate risk of war--losing whole, expensive armies for little gain--while creating longer term roleplay situations (just how are you going to come up with the ransom for your captured nobles, or how long will you have to wait for your defeated foe to pay for those you've captured). I think it also encourages small skirmishes as much as large wars, as the hope of victory is not just prestige or strategic gain, but to recoup the costs of raids and skirmishes through pillage and ransom.

[kgauck]

I took the value of a high medieval ransom, from Richard II to Philippe IV (fortunately the medieval world had little inflation and didn't understand it when it did occur so values are mostly fixed) and then did the rest by simple math.

[Thelandrin]

What a good mechanic for ransoms, Kenneth. Consider that officially yoinked :)

[AndrewTall]

Hmm, would the maintenance cost of captured units be lower to their captor - they would still need to eat, but I'd expect that other costs (maintenance of weapons, etc) would be cut back. Otherwise holding them for even a single season would probably outweigh the ransom - you'd wind up with a system that encouraged slaughtering/enslaving/etc the peasants, turning the mercenaries, and ransoming the lords...

[Kitch]

When it comes to captured units, I usually just force a garrisoned cost of the base unit price. So; Infantry, Archers, Pikemen and Irregulars only require 1/8 GB to feed.

[kgauck]

Maintenance is payroll, not upkeep. The cost of an army is so overwhelmingly payroll, other costs are negligible. The problems of supply were almost entirely access to supplies, not the cost of them.

Captives (and only knights and above are taken captive) were kept in a style fitting their station, not merely maintained, but the cost amounts to one extra person for dinner. Large courts have so many people in them, dinner for one more is hardly a cost at the domain scale.

[kgauck]

you'd wind up with a system that encouraged slaughtering/enslaving/etc the peasants, turning the mercenaries, and ransoming the lords...

Just like the middle ages.

[rjurikwinds]

I see a case where I would actually pay good GBs to get a unit of "Levies" back, instead of Infantry; Levies are people that were depleted from your province: if you don't get them back the level loss is permanent!

I guess I'd pay back units only if I got hurt from them being missing (i.e. if musters are fixed on province level and you can't re-muster another unit for one that is currently captive)

[kgauck]

I can't imagine a circumstance where people would take captives of any but the few knights and nobles. There are compelling reasons why its far more common for armies to kill prisoners despite the ransoms (Henry V at Agincort) than to take prisoners of commoners. The common practice when commoners were taken prisoner was to simply parole them.

Peasants don't own enough land to calculate a ransom for. Given 10 acres per adult male, maybe 3 males per silver piece. Since it costs 1sp per day to hire a common soldier, you have a break even point for one day of 1 soldier guarding 3 peasants. If it takes more guards, or it takes longer than a day to ransom them, this is a money losing situation. And this assumes you pay zero for upkeep.

[AndrewTall]

Hmm, so the peasants know that if captured they will be killed - and fight to the death? That's impractical if you want to win battles.

Now a roaming cull that decimates the population to weaken a lord or draw them out is one thing - a tactic used in medieval times that Nemanja drew to my attention, massacring captives is another, it encourages your enemy to fight and is therefore counter-productive.

Of course putting your captives to work building your barricades, etc, confiscating their weapons, and chasing them well away should be more profitable even if they are worthless as ransom - although a lord needing their harvest brought in should be willing to pay something - they may get paid 'x' sp a day, but the lord gets much of his money during the harvest making the ransom profitable...

That said, 'nasty brutish and short' is a fair description of much life in medieval times, and being worthless as ransom would certainly explain low morale and ready routs amongst peasant troops.

[kgauck]

Hmm, so the peasants know that if captured they will be killed - and fight to the death? That's impractical if you want to win battles.


Units don't normally fight to the death. Doing so requires retreat being cut off. Normal units become ineffective and run away or always fall back, once they reach about 30% casualties.

Peasants would only fight to the death if they thought surrender was worse than death in battle, like torture by evil humanoids. And, they couldn't simply run away.

Units that are "destroyed" are not killed, but rendered combat ineffective. Once you've seen enough of your comrades cut down, you lose the ability to fight. The long term trauma from this is shell shock, combat fatigue, or whatever you want to call it. In the short term, during battle, troops just loose the capacity to fight.

When this happens depends on how well trained troops are. Levied peasants are basically untrained, so they lose effectiveness pretty quickly. They can endure a single hit and then are removed as "destroyed". This doesn't mean every peasant was killed, it means the peasants not killed are so panicked that they can't fight properly, and won't be rallied by a good looking man on a horse.

[AndrewTall]

So after a battle the idea is relatively few captives or dead, but lots of fleeing soldiers trying to get home / hide?

[kgauck]

Yes.

They run for a while, and what happens is highly dependent on circumstances. They could:

1) get run down by pursuing cavalry
2) go home
3) end up as bandits
4) eventually get rounded up and re-join their units

In enemy territory this is the worst case to the best case scenarios. In friendly territory that stays friendly, going home is preferable to becoming bandits. Under normal circumstances, #4 can be a sizable number of troops. The more catastrophic the defeat, the less you get of #4, and more you get of the rest. If the regent is killed in battle, the whole army could dissolve. Armies had a tendency in the middle ages to fall apart if the commander was killed. After Hastings, where the King was killed, the English army never reformed and William was free to capture towns, fortresses, bridges, and strategic places.

Typically in the bloodiest battles, the winner loses a quarter of his troops, is able to rally all his broken units within a day or so, is ready to resume operations in a week, and continues to function as an army.

Typically the loser loses a third of his troops in battle, some additional losses to desertion, and depending on how many units were routed or "destroyed" could be ready to operate again in a month, or may be reduced to holding together the core of the army, too small to face the adversary a second time.

[Rowan]

Something I've wondered in larger battles: what happens when the ranks of troops are so deep that retreat is flight back into lines behind, and the press of troops is crushing?

I realize that having the front ranks panicking and fleeing back into ranks behind would cause the following ranks a severe morale test (easily representable in BR as having a unit behind make a morale check if the unit in front routs).

But what are casualties like? The front ranks can't escape easily, and the following ranks may even be commanded to cut down fleeing soldiers. Seems to me that these, like with routed units getting run down by skirmishers, could suffer terrible loss.

It seems to me existing rules easily handle either a high casualty or low casualty scenario, but not both. If a "destroyed" unit only suffers 10% to 30% casualties, it can be reformed. If it routs, however, and then is cut down in greater numbers due to aforementioned causes, how do we represent that? Allow further Attack actions to bring units down to -2 hits, at which point they are diminished to the point of not being able to be reformed?

[kgauck]

But what are casualties like? The front ranks can't escape easily, and the following ranks may even be commanded to cut down fleeing soldiers. Seems to me that these, like with routed units getting run down by skirmishers, could suffer terrible loss.
Yeah, they're all dead.


If it routs, however, and then is cut down in greater numbers due to aforementioned causes, how do we represent that? Allow further Attack actions to bring units down to -2 hits, at which point they are diminished to the point of not being able to be reformed?

No need for attacks. That assumes defense and a some chance of failure. Basically I get very good results by just assuming that one pursuing unit kills one fleeing unit. The question at hand is defenders in the rear guard. If the defeated army can, they'll field defenders to cover their retreat. General George Washington knew how to handle a retreat. Its why he kept his army in being until the end of the war. You can stop every pursuer by throwing a proper unit at it. This creates a skirmish after the main battle. You can use regular attacks and defense here.

[Rowan]

So how do you know if the defenders are effective in time?

[kgauck]

Only units that withdrew in good order can be used to counter pursuers. If they weren't in good order at the end of battle, they won't be in good order by the end of the pursuit. If you like, PC's might be able to rally a single fleeing unit because PC's are special, powerful, and courageous.

[Mirviriam]

The medieval ransom was 2 shillings per hide, or about 2 sp for 30 acres.

A ransom of 9 GB would be something like 2.7 million acres, or 4218.75 Square Miles. Or a box, 65 miles by 65 miles.

The Baron of Ghoere would have a ransom more like 23 GB, I think.

Knights would be a minimum of 20 sp. A knight's fee, the amount of land assumed necessary to support a knight was reckoned at 10 hides. So the knights in a unit a probably close to this amount, or as much as 30 sp.

I would assume a petty noble's ransom is somewhere between 50 and 100 sp.

A lord is double that.

A count would need to know the area of their province. But 2 GB is a ball park figure for a slightly smaller than average province.

Do you have a pdf reference of population numbers (from your castle post) & this thread's land mass reference for Bright's continent?