View Full Version : How big is Cerilia in miles?
Mirviriam
06-06-2010, 08:43 AM
Edit: Work in progress, I didn't take out the coastal area's ... see my other post in this thread for explanation.
Edit: #2 -- I went back and checked for version of map I used: Drakkon's 2.12.2006 v1
I was up late & my ADHD is kicking in again while crunching numbers for the Web Play project. So I took a detour & was exploring map of Cerilia they have in PDF forms for giggles. This is quick so give or take 75 miles for each direction.
It occurred to me that, if the key scale is correct & using a ruler:
17 lengths x 75 miles east to west is 1275 miles across
11 lengths x 75 miles north to south is 825 miles across
1,051,875 miles squared is the size of Birthright's world. 3,930,000 square miles is Europe by way of comparison.
From this we can take the number of provinces (847 minus up 30 for off shore) & then find the average size in squared miles of each province :)
Which turns out to be ~1243miles squared or ~35 miles north to south & 35 west to east. This of course is an average. There's bigger & smaller. Also you should note that 1275 divided by 25 miles per day (an armies speed) for 17 months to cross continent is done "...as a crow flies..." & not following roads if they are even available.
Sorontar
06-06-2010, 12:13 PM
Which turns out to be ~1243miles squared or ~35 miles north to south & 35 west to east. This of course is an average. There's bigger & smaller. Also you should note that 1275 divided by 25 miles per day (an armies speed) for 17 months to cross continent is done "...as a crow flies..." & not following roads if they are even available.
So theoretically an army could move from one province to another in 2 days? That sounds a little quick.
Sorontar
AndrewTall
06-06-2010, 12:32 PM
No army will move 25 miles a day, 10-12 would be good and that if it has roads to follow.
Add in the need to forage, stop to negotiate & trade for food etc and the speed reduces further.
A few armies went faster, but not many. Frankly an individual will have to be pretty healthy to consistently make 25 miles a day, an army which takes several hours just to get up and form into marching order will go much much slower.
Standard BR suggests 20-30 miles across a province, a number of people have suggested doubling this. It depends how big you want the continent to be really.
Gwrthefyr
06-06-2010, 04:45 PM
Even up to the 20th century army movement was pretty low: Napoleon's armies were considered extremely fast for their time and their speed varied from 10 to 15 miles a day (the original Grande Armée did about 15, the Grande Armée that invaded Russia, more or less 9-10; the Italian campaign is his record, though, almost 18 miles iirc, but that was the young idealistic general Bonaparte; these generals need good roads, and even then will trigger a "oh, shit" moment in the opposition when they realize where he is). The further back in time the slower you get: for the middle ages until the early modern period (partially poor logistics, partially poor discipline and partially the heavy artillery before the Gribeauval and Liechtenstein systems was really ridiculously heavy and slow (and even then it would remain so for the Russians up to the french revolution, the Ottomans until about 1808, and almost a generation more for Persia)), you'd be lucky to march 5-6 miles a day with an army: it's not just making one person walk, it's organizing logistics and movement for a few thousand people. Although tbh, I could see detachments of a single warcard in size having bonus movement speed but how often do people send only a fraction of their army unless for scouting. Also, poor roads would slow it down and since a lot of the medieval networks were basically whatever was left of roman roads, yeah, maybe even more like 3-4.
Also, depending on what you want: using a province size of about 50 miles across on average gives a situation where the land area of Cerilia is the size of Europe minus Russia; the 30 miles default is barely the the Western Roman Empire, doubling one dimension to 60 miles will give you still a bit smaller than Europe or China.
An average 8 provinces realm under each of those is in increasing order the size of Tuscany, Catalunya and Scotland. A single province will be the size of modern-day Luxemburg, more or less the size of Touraine, or the size of Flanders before it lost Artois (which is a bit of a problem there). However, the bigger the scale, the more problematic it also becomes to represent the reality of the smaller nobility and the people with the rules, which imho is a bit of a hole.
Anuire, for a last example (including the Awnshegs and the Dwarves, Elves, Goblins, Caelcorwynn, Albiele and Mieres) is either the size of Spain, Peru or Mexico, more or less.
Mirviriam
06-06-2010, 09:21 PM
Yea, "...as the crow flies..." was meant to convey even with roads - there's no direct route from west to east across the continent. Realize too, I'm painting an imaginary rectangle over the land mass and measuring the rectangle (it was supposed to have been a 5 minute tour of the mind, just I found it interesting & there was no size for the continent when I searched on forum to verify).
Solonar - that 25 miles a day is based on current reported statistics. Andrew & Gwrthefyr likely closer to correct (which one is more so, I tend to like G's napolean argument - but for game purposes Andrew's might be safer). The biggest reason was conditions of roads or lack of roads. When they say, "..an army marches on their stomach..." they literally mean the old armies had to as slow as their baggage train, which was pretty slow. Humans on foot with a backpack can do some pretty incredible mileage - but when the food in the pack runs out - that's it! Stories of the Scots travelling across the land two days to meet & fight the same day aren't much of exaggerations - they didn't have baggage trains sometimes.
As to the size of each province, get a ruler & measure each one.
I'm sure there's examples that fit Gwrthefyr's description - as I said this is an average of the continent. One thing I didn't mention was that you need to subtract the sublets, inlets, bays, harbors, lakes, tributaries etc from the main number - as there are several province sized chunks of the sea squeezed in there.
If someone wanted the real land mass, below is for you to crunch the numbers.
Complete list of all the borders which need to be subtracted to account for where the sea fell in to my box. (when I say measurement it's the length of the ruler that matches 75 miles on the legend of the map):
Tael Firth: 3 x 3 measurement -> 75 miles x 75 miles is 5625 squared miles you need to take from the original number
Krakennauricht: 4 x 6 measurement -> 100 miles x 150 miles is 15000 squared miles
At the corner of Roykenskapa: 2 x 3 & 2 x 6 area should be removed, lets call it 375 mi^2 & 7500 mi^2
Leviathan's Reach: 1 x 1, 4 x 7 (half for triangular), 2 x 3
Just south of L.R.: 2.5 x 3 (half for triangular)
Meire El-Mersaf: 2 x 2
Half of Sea of Dragons: 1 x 2
Bay of Araji Deeps: 1 x 1
Baire El-Mehare: 8 x 3 (half for islands/continent in measure box)
Island of Harpy to Straits of Aerale: 7 x 3 (half for islands/continent in measure box)
Miere Rhuann to the Straits of Aerale: 1.5 x 3
The significance of the the map is we have hard line rules of what the game makers envisioned for size. All it would take is someone to go pull a ruler & use the map scale in upper right corner. Mathematically correct distances which to base & apply terrain/seasonal/elevation effects too. There's another post where they are thinking of going without province levels, this would probably be an aid for it, if indirectly.
Endier: 1.25 x 1.20 at 25 mile per measurement scale(note previously when measuring continent the length of rule was 75 miles per measurement). Thus, Endier is 31.25 miles west to east & 30 miles north to south at it's greatest points, with a square mileage of 937. (Remember, this is at the greatest point, you can cross it with less times walked if a road ran from the slimmest boarder to the other.
When I need another break, I might finish number crunching. It doesn't really take a math minor to do this, so don't feel like you have to take my work as "the word." On this forum I noticed, to argue effectively, you have roll your sleeves up & do the work yourself, then bring the goods to the table.
Birthright-L
06-06-2010, 11:15 PM
Please excuse the length of this response and for semi-hijacking the thread, but it`s related to the topic at hand and is inspired by the comments of posters....
Bear in mind that when talking about the speed of armies in history that our examples are almost always of military units much larger than the units at the BR level. Speed goes down as size goes up because travel becomes a matter of logistical organization as much as feet on the ground. Few "armies" in BR terms are going to be more than 4-2,000 men/horses. That`s a good deal smaller than the tens of thousands of troops that Alexander, Napoleon, etc. were moving.
The other thing to keep in mind is that BR units travel during action rounds (1 month) or war moves (1 week.) So, most of the time we`re talking about how far a unit might travel in a day x6 or x25 (assuming some "slippage" in movement for rest & recuperation.) That means if we assume a low figure for most armies (10 miles/day) and then modify that for the small size of the BR military units (a number that might as much as double the movement speed) then we`re talking about 120 miles/week for a war move and 500 miles/week for action rounds.
Provinces are irregularly shaped, but generally about 25-30 miles across. So the norm for a military unit would be to move 5 provinces in a war move or 20 in an action round.
There are a lot of other factors that could influence troop speed. The very basic numbers described above could easily be tweaked one way or another by someone who sees "average" speed as a little higher or lower, or the effect of size as more or less significant. Plus, I`m only going to mention briefly the following things that also are very important to the travel times of units:
1. Cavalry travels faster than foot (not by as much as many people think, but it is a factor.)
2. Supply trains. An army travels on its stomach, and it`s meals travel on wagons or pack animals. Armies travel at the speed of their slowest component, and marching without supplies to "live off the land" is a rather risky move. (We hear about how successful it is a lot in military history, but people don`t point out as often how that decision has backfired. Most of the time, when you hear about starving troops, that`s the result of the decision to go forward without supply going wrong.)
3. Season. It`s harder to travel in winter and during rainy seasons.
4. Terrain is, of course, hugely important.
5. Roads and bridges. Their existence and quality are obviously very significant.
6. Experience. Veterans travel faster.
7. Leadership. A commander motivates his troops to march as much as to fight.
8. Morale. Troops with more esprit de corps travel faster. Depressed troops shuffle along at a snail`s pace.
9. Intelligence. I mean "military intelligence" by this one, not the ability score. Most of us are actually used to satellite mapping systems at our disposal, but for most of human history maps were vague and metaphorical, and very few people had a lot of knowledge about what was on the other side of nearby terrain features (rivers, mountains, forests.) The existence of a ditch between points A and B can literally mean the difference between getting someplace or not for an army. We play the game using maps that are, effectively, very much like satellite photos, and players are almost never willing to forego that knowledge for the sake of realism. Without knowledge of the area, travel is extraordinarily slow. Access to a spy, ranger or scout can mean the difference between getting there or not.
10. Size of the army.
11. There`s an X factor in that certain racial groups have advantages in movement. Dwarves are sometimes considered better marchers than other races and should get a bonus in mountainous terrain. Not noting that elven troops will move through forested provinces faster
than human ones would be a problem. Orogs can probably "force march" better than other troops.
So, if one wanted to come up with a number for travel speed then the best way would be have a base number (let`s say 20) for how far someone can travel in a day on average. Then all the factors above should be given a number that would be a multiplier ranging from 0.5 to 1.5. Put it all together and you get an average daily movement for an army.
However, in the standard BR system of war, units couldn`t be moved over a border into another province unless the regent who controlled them had a treaty with the regent who controlled the province, or had declared war on that domain. Most domains are only three or four provinces wide. In a week of travel (the shortest amount of time at the domain level) the troops will go 100 miles on average +/- about 50%. All we really need to know for the purposes of the BR domain system is the number of provinces that an army can travel in a war move or in an action round. To come up with an answer to that one needs to divide the result of the factors above by 25 or 30. One would then get a number (probably around 4-7 and 15-30 respectively) that would be how far an army could travel in those periods.
Given the restrictions on movement over borders in BR, one is probably not going to need the second number very often. I see it only really being a factor if a regent made a treaty with another regent on the other side of the map, and in that case he couldn`t move his troops across the map without running into several domains that intervened. He would, therefore, have to move troops by ship... and that is a whole `nother set of numbers....
Gary
Mirviriam
06-07-2010, 12:08 AM
I welcome hijacking so long as it's tangential in nature - some of the best discussions I've seen were such things.
Great point on the size of the great armies & petty squabbles more of Anuire is fighting!
Also, score points for the racial element.
If we're pushing the well developed, 2,000 years lived in area - I think spy actions or conquest would turn up reliable maps for each province as you cross. Those of course do cost turns/time.
Gwrthefyr
06-07-2010, 01:00 AM
While the armies are much smaller than the standard you'll find for the 18th century, they're pretty much in line for the bigger realms with what would be fielded in the 14th-15th and even some of the 16th century when taking into account that a lot of these armies were not those of the crown but of various princelings put to the service of their crown, if at all. The regular french army, when Henry IV was crowned, was about 180 BR units in all, and would often be detached in troops the size of a single major duchy's forces, say about 30 or so units at most. And they still moved slowly: armies became faster despite size increasing because they also rebuilt roads and set up better depot systems; the typical army here doesn't have much in the way of logistics. And any more than 40 miles in a week of travel on a common basis is vastly irrealistic for a pre-modern army (unless it's imperial Rome or China), no matter the size: the small piemontese army (still admittedly 100 units) during the Italian Campaigns in 1798 could barely manage 6 miles per day against the ferocious french advance.
For an idea, if I was to take 15th century equivalents, a ducal/marquesal army would be about the size of a Tercio with a cavalry wing (some states are obviously less or more powerful than that, that assumes the rough average of 21 levels to a domain) - 12-18 foot units, 6-9 horse units basically.
Mirviriam
06-07-2010, 05:18 AM
From what I understand of your example most of these forces arrayed against the French were unmotivated, green & marched with baggage trains. Where the French lived off the land because of their divisional structure allowing their armies to spread over different roads, but still support each other if needed. (http://www.napoleon-series.org/military/organization/c_rma.html)
This leads me to believe the depots & such are not needed (severe penalties if things go wrong). I'm looking at the part where they state, that in 1800-1900's the marching beat was 70 steps per second. The French took it to 130 steps per second. The French were motivated, possibly green for 2/3's of their army (part of the same document references two new demi-battalions attached to a seasoned battalion of soldiers).
Gwrthefyr, we need some sort of reference & explanation of what you're saying - from what I understand in the BCRS, a unit is 200 units including support...like 40 knights in full plate, barded horses with another 80 in chain & rest lightly armored at best (memory hazy). Do you operate under the assumption that all provinces has some form of roads & ignore weather as most people on the forums do?
As it stands now, BR rules imply that if you pay the $$$, the supplies magically exist & move with the army. I only say this, as BR rules have no living off the lands sort of rule system or max army size per province rating (which would imply food supplies).
Ugrush
06-07-2010, 07:44 AM
I did a ruck march with 35 lbs ruck 16 miles in 4 hours and im no He-man so a trained infanty unit could do 25 miles a day no problem
Mirviriam
06-07-2010, 07:53 AM
I did a ruck march with 35 lbs ruck 16 miles in 4 hours and im no He-man so a trained infanty unit could do 25 miles a day no problem
Thank you for that fact! It's definitely in line with what I heard at the bar from other guys who served. Was that on the road or what sort of terrain?
Every agrees that the armies move slower than current day armies, we're just quibbling over the details of how slowly :)
Gwrthefyr
06-07-2010, 07:57 AM
"includes support" is extremely silly, until the 18th century, support would consist of a crowd of unofficial civilians following armies (easily as many if not more people), and not be integrated in a unit, barring a few cases (Rome, China, a few others). I disregard it for all but knights (which I consider to be lance units: a third knights, a third pages and a third squires). I tend to run under the assumption that the typical infantry unit is about 250, and cavalry about 120, though. More or less. Averaging at 200 to be practical. The unit numbers I gave assume a mid-16th century version of the tercio, although it might have been earlier (the tercio as a unit dates from the 15th century after all, fantasy gun control be damned): it is made of roughly 3.000 soldiers: half are pikemen (1.500, 6-8 units of pikes), a third are light infantry fighting with sword and javelin (4-5 units of irregulars) and the remaining 500 are arquebusiers (let's say 2-3 units of mixed archers/crossbowmen to give an idea - this is where I crack open Mighty Fortress ;) ). Add a company of mounted guards (I take for granted that a regent's bodyguard is almost always a cavalry unit unless stated otherwise), a retinue of knights for the few domains that can afford it (even then I count only about an average of 2 units per realm on average using the optional knight limitation house rule), and various other non household cavalry, typically about 4 units. Adding one troop of scouts and artillery and that's about it. Anything beyond is likely raised in emergency. Militias vary from vaguely functional to rabble, and in the worst cases your burgers might even end up paying off the poor of the city to take their place, leading to inexistant morale (the spanish knew about it during the french wars of religions, they gained at least one city just by luring away the famished town militia with food, leading to ransomed burgers, and a fed populace who would be less inclined to bite the spanish hand).
I also do not operate under the assumption that major roads are in all provinces, no, it's as ridiculous as assuming 95% literacy in the late middle ages as the 3rd edition PHB does. Medieval troops also do not have uniforms or much of a marching beat, this kind of drilling comes from the gunpowder armies of the 16th-17th century, again exceptions exist, and obviously some units do need a form of discipline but not as seen in the modern era. And what good is playing a game of rulership if weather is not taken into account.
Also they were not particularly unmotivated, no, they were typical of the period; the 3-5 miles extreme low I gave is actually numbers I've seen for the middle ages and the early renaissance (particularly the italian wars). But that was also because the artillery train was extremely slow; supply trains would similarly bog down, and stopping so much that you wonder if you've moved: yes the army likely moved more than that, but not in a straight line. You're still moving an entire tent city after all. And with population numbers as assumed, living off the land is not just an anachronism, it's an impossibility.
Anecdata about how good you march won't change the issue at hand: it's not moving one person, it's moving a lot of people: I have a NYC pace even with a slight limp and can hike well enough (and regularly go through the city on foot), that still won't change my position, anything above 6 miles per hour requires advanced logistics, or will risk a lot of eventual attrition. When the Army of Italy did 18 miles a day they were seen as Heman, when the Grande Armée did 15 miles they were seen as He-man, hell, when they did 10 miles they were still feared.
And while a single unit might fare better: a single unit is mincemeat waiting to happen.
Ugrush
06-07-2010, 08:06 AM
I did that 16 miles on dirt road around baghdad airport for the german armed forces badge. but 25 miles on a dirt road or trail wouldn't be a problem most units would have a support vehicles following along wagons in fantasy or medival times with wagonkitchen and food stuff they would not just move out without any type of foodstuff or water.
Gwrthefyr
06-07-2010, 08:24 AM
And yet almost no army moved anywhere near that fast until the 18th century. These are not roman legions, they're landsknechten and medieval footmen. The typical food rations of a soldier were on the order of a pint of beer, a pound of meat and a pound of bread a day: feeding 200 soldiers for two weeks requires about 4 tons of food, plus food for the animals (the meat tags along, it's not already packed, so pigs, sheep, bull), for their handlers, for the other camp followers: more like 10 tons (I'm tempted to do these calculations at some point actually: food/camp followers to campaign planning length). A walking army of the time period is basically a weaponized nomadic city.
But it's a bit of a digression I guess...
Ugrush
06-07-2010, 08:40 AM
well we can over analyze this till we all turn blue, but 25 miles a days for infantry along a road or trail is not a superman feat.
Mirviriam
06-07-2010, 09:03 AM
We are basically just trying to find the range. We know two facts:
Humans can do 25 miles a day with luggage.
Any military organization moves at the speed of it's slowest part (in this case ox/horse/monster driven carts which probably rely on roads (ignore weather for purposes of the game as it's built into the terrain type movement cost).
Both of you have helped greatly in the discussion, thank you guys!
G - I was going to add that 18th century with entire units outfitted with flintlocks is a bit too much for birthright campaign settings.
Green Knight
06-07-2010, 09:43 PM
The important bit is not how fast a typical soldier can march - I can do 30 miles carrying 70 pounds in one day if I have to. And that's not even along a road - I can do it in rough terrain. And not only that, but I can do it with a company-sized formation without any serious delay. Not that I could keep it up for many days though...then I'd have to go somewhat slower...
The important bit is how fast the baggage can travel. Ox-drawn carts on poor roads. Not so many miles...
Mirviriam
06-08-2010, 09:02 AM
The important bit is not how fast a typical soldier can march - I can do 30 miles carrying 70 pounds in one day if I have to. And that's not even along a road - I can do it in rough terrain. And not only that, but I can do it with a company-sized formation without any serious delay. Not that I could keep it up for many days though...then I'd have to go somewhat slower...
The important bit is how fast the baggage can travel. Ox-drawn carts on poor roads. Not so many miles...
True, I'm just trying to figure out Gwrthefyr's argument ... he's mentioning division structured armies with flintlocks (which birthright's seasonal or elite pre-blackpowder armies don't have) & the fact he's not operating with BCRS's representation of units into this thing. I think it was like a unit of varsk riders is 50 + a 100 of support personal (in a clump as mentioned, but for unit break down's it's simpler to establish a ratio).
After that we have a commonly established base movement across plains without roads. From there we apply terrain modifiers & have a speed for every part of the continent & can judge how long it would take for an honor guard of one kingdom to cross (not conqueror) the continent :)
Green Knight
06-08-2010, 10:16 AM
The BR box clearly states that a province is approx. 20-30 miles across and 1.000 sq./miles on average. As can be seen from the map actual sizes do vary, the above figure is pretty much etched in stone.
Now, it never sat very well with me, which is why I changed it. I played around with several figures, but eventually ended up with 50 miles across and 2.500 square miles per province (on average). The end result you can see on my Aebrynis world-maps (http://www.birthright.net/forums/downloads.php?do=file&id=44) (the Earth-comparison maps is especially useful).
Why?
Primarily three things:
1. Scope. Anuire became very small indeed, not at all to my liking in terms of the scope of things. The Anuirean 'Empire' wasn't all that large after all...and I had a hard time seeing all those diverse cultures fitting in that tiny continent. I wanted something grander, so I ended up multiplying the area by 2.5, which felt about right for me.
2. Climate and terrain. Despite an lengthy e-mail from the designers detailing why Cerilia made sens in terms of climate, I never bought it. It actually made a lot of sense...but only if applied to a significantly bigger continent.
3. Armies and warfare. Try as I might I could not get a coherent system working that allowed for warfare and movement on a weekly scale with such small province. Given the small size of provinces and the relatively small number of provinces in any realm movement became effectively meaningless; even heavy infantry co go pretty much anywhere in a week.
Mirviriam
06-08-2010, 04:23 PM
So the maps aren't BCRS, besides yours?
Vicente
06-08-2010, 10:58 PM
I agree if Anuire is like Spain it feels sooo small :(
Gwrthefyr
06-08-2010, 11:14 PM
True, I'm just trying to figure out Gwrthefyr's argument ... he's mentioning division structured armies with flintlocks (which birthright's seasonal or elite pre-blackpowder armies don't have) & the fact he's not operating with BCRS's representation of units into this thing. I think it was like a unit of varsk riders is 50 + a 100 of support personal (in a clump as mentioned, but for unit break down's it's simpler to establish a ratio).
After that we have a commonly established base movement across plains without roads. From there we apply terrain modifiers & have a speed for every part of the continent & can judge how long it would take for an honor guard of one kingdom to cross (not conqueror) the continent :)
I mention later armies because we have numbers on those along with numbers on some campaigns of the 14th, 15th and 16th centuries, and the numbers some of you want for movement were only ever reached in the 19th centuries: I'm pointing out how anachronistic it is when even with more advanced supply systems and roads it still was almost impossible to pull off. The point flew over your head entirely, it's not about the armament, it's about the organization: we're not dealing with the roman legions. Also she, if you want to use something neutral use they, he is not.
I don't operate with the more anachronistic elements just as I don't use the nonsensical assumption that the Brecht armies fight like in an Errol Flynn movie; the varsk riders might be indeed 50 people but the rest of the warcard is also men at atms. A knight unit won't all be knights because there was no such thing as an all-knights unit, the knightly formation was based on the lance where each knight would have a squire and a page fighting along. 100 support personnel doesn't mean this in the sense it's understood today, what would be support personnel then was not personnel at all, just camp followers, and they would not be paid or included in army numbers. And no army before the middle to late 20th century ever had official numbers that had a "bayonet strength" under 50%, in fact under 60% of the total people even, especially not in ancient times.
And while Spain might feel a bit small, until the fall of Leon, the kings of Leon were considered emperors of Spain; technology changes the scale of things a lot ;)
Sorontar
06-09-2010, 12:48 AM
Don't we have historical data from Europe about army sizes and movements in the middle ages/Renaissance ? For example, the various crusades, invasions and defensive maneuvers. What can they tell us about it all?
Sorontar
Gwrthefyr
06-09-2010, 01:29 AM
The highest numbers I find are 10-12 miles a day, and they're for late anglosaxon England; in both cases they led to exhausted anglosaxon armies (Stamford Bridge and Hastings) - Stamford bridge was only won by the english because they caught the vikings by surprise and unarmored and were almost three times their number (15.000 vs 6.000), Hastings, well, we know what happened to the english there. These are armies in home terrain, following the equivalent of wood and dirt roads on mostly flat land. I had a book somewhere listing around 6-8 miles as the highest average speeds (50-ish miles a week) but I lost track of it. The 3-4 I've seen is for very harsh terrain, mountain combat and the like. Exhaustion in the worst cases can lead to almost no movement: at Hattin the franks were so exhausted they didn't even attempt a breakthrough. The 7th crusade took 3-4 months to get to Constantinople by sea, embarking in Provence (my mistake, the 5th was the failed bid of the latin empire; some sources call this one the 6th, obviously miffed that the only crusade to have any lasting chance at peace was led by an excommunicated near agnostic whose realms had freedom of religion, among other things ;) ).
A lot of the variation seems to be based on the general, which makes slight sense as the general makes the strategic decisions; having a system to represent the effects of overextended forced marches, surprise, and supplies might be the best bet: it wouldn't be too terribly hard really to take into account camp followers (which could get beyond ridiculous as the highest nobles would end up having the suites of the suites of their suites tagging along). The problem with much faster is not your soldiers, it's your supply train and your organization: sure an individual soldier can walk 20 miles a day, and cavalry on the rush can even do four times that if they push hard, but whether they can do it as a unit is a complete other matter.
Vicente
06-09-2010, 09:42 AM
And while Spain might feel a bit small, until the fall of Leon, the kings of Leon were considered emperors of Spain; technology changes the scale of things a lot ;)
Well, probably my problem is that in Spain at that time there were very few realms: Leon, Castilla, Galicia, Navarra, Aragon, Portugal and Al-Andalus (if I remember things more or less right). While in Anuire there are a ton of realms out there. So that's why the two images don't work together in my head :p
Gwrthefyr
06-09-2010, 10:18 AM
Well, probably my problem is that in Spain at that time there were very few realms: Leon, Castilla, Galicia, Navarra, Aragon, Portugal and Al-Andalus (if I remember things more or less right). While in Anuire there are a ton of realms out there. So that's why the two images don't work together in my head :p
Al-Andalus was divided into 24 principalities when it broke apart; the long titulature of the kings of Portugal and Spain adds up to 17 royal and 2 princely crowns (including Asturias), plus Viscaya.
Green Knight
06-09-2010, 01:30 PM
So the maps aren't BCRS, besides yours?
That one I didn't quite understand...
The Aebrynis world maps I made are not related to the BRCS in any way; quite the contrary - they are breaking canon.
Mirviriam
06-11-2010, 08:39 AM
I mention later armies because we have numbers on those along with numbers on some campaigns of the 14th, 15th and 16th centuries, and the numbers some of you want for movement were only ever reached in the 19th centuries: I'm pointing out how anachronistic it is when even with more advanced supply systems and roads it still was almost impossible to pull off. The point flew over your head entirely, it's not about the armament, it's about the organization: we're not dealing with the roman legions. Also she, if you want to use something neutral use they, he is not.
...
Gwrthefyr: I as a personal choice on this forum, do not use ' "argumentum ad hominem" ', your profile & posts in my thread at the time of my previous post simply didn't have any indicator that you were female. The fault is entirely yours for taking offense, no one could have known you were female without previous knowledge...UNLESS: they cast a realm spell! You consistently use poor taste in your language. Once you have been around for awhile, you will notice that many arguments on theoretical relationships here use certain basic assumptions or canon as the term is thrown around, it's perfectly reasonable for someone to verify you're operating with the same rules.
I forgive you for getting catty. Welcome to my thread. I will say your last post was much better than your previous, thank you for those details.
I was serious when I said I was trying to realize why you were using your anachronistic arguments? We already had established that weather, supply depots, resource levels in provinces were not factors & that we were searching for a base movement - yet there has to be a reason you brought it up. Especially after knowing elements like that developed later for "modern armies" of the French Revolution? This is where the confusion entered, like you came late to a conversation.
GreenKnight: I'm not sure how to work your versions of the maps in there? If what you're saying about a week to cross a province, then we can just count the number of provinces & add weeks to the end for how long to march (minus terrain? maybe?). I was on your site last night for some other research & took a peak - very cool stuff by the way!
So as the thread stands:
We want a basic movement rate on plains without roads...minus weather/supply availability (as BR has no mechanics for them).
-We know the modern man can march 15 miles in 8 hours with 30-50lbs & on rough, non-road terrain.
-We don't know the pack & armor + weapon weight of particular armies...but don't want specifics based on racial armies of the humans - just an average.
-We need to allow for armies without baggage trains & with baggage trains...two base speeds.
New ideas to the thread on my part:
Modern man is both taller & stronger than men from previous times? I have heard it both ways, back in the day English bow men supposedly had at least one arm bigger than the average thigh of modern men or that the average man now is taller by 4" or more than those of the dark ages. So maybe that's why they march slower? (Idea is hogwash, but amusing)
We've got better carts/wagons to move the bulk of our supplies. It's the last thing I can think of besides laziness & no motivation (who wants to march in a conscript army anyways).
Mirviriam
06-11-2010, 08:51 AM
we're not dealing with the roman legions.
Why not? These guys from the south banded together & conquered a continent? At least in the Imperial City we should be talking basically roman legions...if not the south & east coasts entirely.
(Oh lord, another tangant ... how many can one thread support?!)
Mirviriam
06-11-2010, 09:08 AM
GreenKnight: I mapped a province by province route using only plains & 3 mountain terrain types ... 53.
If we use week = province that's 12 months to cross continent (assuming we don't stop to fight anyone, have unlimited food, march everyday, have paid the soldiers, promised new sneakers to every peasant & to plant their fields in their stead, etc, ...yes humor)
Gwrthefyr
06-11-2010, 04:00 PM
I forgive you for getting catty. Welcome to my thread. I will say your last post was much better than your previous, thank you for those details.
Besides the ridiculous bit that precedes (if I have no indicator that I'm female it's exactly to avoid the kind of sexist comment this here is: I did not get "catty", I simply remarked on something that annoys me), male is only a default for people who are too lazy to use the proper neutral pronouns.
For the rest I'm using anachronistic but much more advanced societies to illustrate my point: if I still had my direct data on the italian wars and the french wars of religion I could find the exact numbers, but they're even lower. It has nothing to do with the capacities of an individual but the capabilities of an organization. An army is not an adventuring party, it's a large nomadic horde, even if temporarily so.
And no, there is no unit that compares to the roman legion in its makeup or training if we go by canon, they're typical medieval units.
Thelandrin
06-11-2010, 06:49 PM
Men can be just as catty as women and I would prefer that people keep it to a minimum.
Mirviriam
06-13-2010, 05:10 AM
Men can be just as catty as women and I would prefer that people keep it to a minimum.
Agreed, the first two who I bumped in to on here before the server wipe were dudes & I used the same word "catty" for them. Though, I reread Gwrthefyr's posts in the thread & that's what finally prompted me to bring it to attention(note most/all threads in question have been under the edit gun). I had four ideas of what to put here, but in the end it looks like we lost all but the regulars already. So plainly seems best. If you're here to help us understand Gwrthefyr, then do it & leave the extra adverbs or negative/belittling commentary on some other forum. We can all wipe out the thesaurus, we just don't bother. We don't need forum trolls or gremlins.
As to the roman thing: I'm thinking all collapses don't happen at the same time, that's why the last strong hold of the old order - The Imperial City should be using old uniforms & traditions or training methods - as time goes on, they cling more to their tradition. The old guy running the city has enough real power to make it too expensive for it to be worth subjugating the city - maybe that's why, they can hold till someone else arrives to rescue. It's just one place I think the cannon is off. Like I said before, my opinion.
Michael Romes
06-13-2010, 09:13 AM
I did a ruck march with 35 lbs ruck 16 miles in 4 hours and im no He-man so a trained infanty unit could do 25 miles a day no problem
It should have lots of problems compared to you.
Really Trained infantry is a rarity as long as no standing army exists beyond an enlarged bodyguard. And standing large armys are a novelty compared to medieval times.
Then nowaday you have roads to travel. Roads not even in the sense of Autobahnen or tracks covered with tar - but at least regularily maintained and repaired roads. That too is a novelty compared to medieval times. Someone in a PBEM once suggested the books of Paksenarrion as a good read to me - and in those an army travels across roads which turns to a muddy nightmare with mudfilled holes as deep as a man as soon as it starts pouring rain.
Equipment is another factor to consider. What you carry in your backpack nowadays usually is light. At least I don´t carry a waterproof mantle made from heavy wool or such stuff. There are no really lightweight synthetic materials whatsoever in old times.
AndrewTall
06-13-2010, 10:16 AM
There are two ways of looking at the design/etc for any new mechanic.
1. Look at history, and extrapolate forward/sideways to come up with a mechanic with the desired level of realism and simplicity - that's how Gwrthefyr appears to be approaching the question
2. Look at the existing mechanics and work backwards. That seems to be how Mirviriam is looking at things.
In the first approach, logistics are key. In the second they are irrelevant as the existing mechanics didn't want that level of detail/realism so simply ignored them.
Neither approach is wrong, both simply suit different styles of play and different people. Both are quite capable of being constructive and useful.
The end result, whichever method is chosen, should however be consistent with making the game more interesting and fun, while not turning us (well everyone else) into accountants.
I prefer the first approach, and want to end up with a system that allows for:
* random spanners in the works that might slow/stop an army as obstacles PCs can overcome or which they can inflict on enemies.
* relatively slow movement to encourage positioning and scouting to give low level PCs adventure opportunities.
* give an advantage to defenders in their own realms (good maps/local knowledge, known places for supply) to reduce the risk approach to domain play.
* realism, so that PCs can plan and have a good idea of whether 'x' will cause 'y' or 'z'.
So I'd incorporate logistics where interesting, mainly as matters of justice, or other random events, and slow armies to a nice easy 10 miles a day to keep the math easy. Particularly crap armies do 5, extra-ordinary ones do 15. Unrealistically simple, but perfectly viable.
Delays that haven't been mentioned:
* Nobles and others have rights over land, to avoid making enemies armies must often win the right to cross land, trade in cities, etc - there isn't a lot of surplus in a medieval world and a large army can lead to famine or strip every horse/etc from a community even if it pays for what it takes, meaning that even friendly people may refuse to sell all goods that the army needs. Simply taking what you want is highly risky - even in your 'own realm'.
* If you are lucky enough to have an organised baggage train, it is heavily laden carts of food, clothes, weapons etc - perfect for every bandit to raid, every landowner or church to tax, etc, etc - it must be properly camped each night and rest point to stop it being looted one way or the other, and it probably has to detour around a hundred petty manors where the lord is unfriendly in addition to avoiding bad terrain - no baggage cart is going to travel in a remotely straight line, so it may move a fair distance but only have net movement of the amounts suggested above.
* If you are feeding off the land, the army is generally either small or very slow. You can have point-to-point rapid travels where armies know that they can get food at 'X' and then simply load up with the day or two they need, move like the blazes and then rest at the other end without ever worrying about supply - but that's only safe inside the realm usually.
* Slowing the main army you have diseases such as epidemic typhus which was the scourge of many armies (it probably changed the course of a number of wars) - troops may not even move at all for days on end if stricken by typhus or a host of other diseases. Clerical healing may cure the leading officer reducing the delays due to lack of command, but most troops are loyal to 'their lord' and will be hard for the general to move if the minor lord is struck down - and clerical healing can only cure a very small number of people from illnesses.
* You also have internal dissent in the army. Every feudal lord knows best, some will take the chance of moving through 'friendly territory' to settle old scores, or when moving through other territory to crush competition for their workers (rival weaving villages for example) or expand their territory - the army may have to stop often to deal with the diplomatic outcomes.
* Hostile forces. If moving in hostile terrain most armies will be at least slightly cautious. Modern armies have exceptional abilities of communication and visibility. Only a mage can provide either of these abilities to a birthright army. Most armies rely on scouts, who must physically travel to a place to look for enemies and then return to tell the tale, or tales from bribed locals who are unreliable. An army could sit still for days or weeks while waiting to find out where 'the other' army is before risking moving across hostile terrain.
I'd add that a modern army is, by medieval standards, ridiculously healthy and extremely well fed. Pay is not something I feel I have a right to comment on as it is still far from good for most soldiers, but was so bad that it was routinely the cause of mass desertions in the past.
Mirviriam
06-17-2010, 06:15 AM
I loved that part of the new robin hood movie, where Richard the Lionheart is sacking his way back across France with that tiny little army! :)
As for technique - I don't care which direction you work - so long as no one attacks anyone...this community is not big enough to survive such foolishness.
If someone can build a full argument for the historical side, they'd make great level three rules. Once we have a web play system, adding in other Editions & level 3 rules wouldn't be far behind. I have no idea how long, but coming up with a more realistic game of role play in fantasy settings is where I eventually seeing birthright going. I doubt it will carry the name, but a child none the less.
Green Knight
06-17-2010, 05:59 PM
After a lot of think I decided upon some figures for my own games.
These are averages - representing a 'typical' medium-sized army that's fairly well-supplied, well led etc. and moving through non-friendly, but not necessarily openly hostile provinces.
From this base number I can work out endless permutations - some of the common, like terrain and infrastructure, others applied on the fly as campaigns play themselves out.
Assuming provinces of 50x50 miles.
Assuming 8 day weeks
Assuming 1-2 rest days per week of marching
The average infantry unit would have Speed 2 - i.e. it can move two plains provinces in one week. Since almost all armies will contain infantry this is also the speed of armies on the march - the baggage train and camp followers can keep up this pace.
That's 100 miles in one week. 12 or so miles per day on average.
I find this to be a reasonable base figure - and it also has the advantage that (given the above province sizes) of making speed matter. You can't be everywhere in Anuire in just one war move.
AndrewTall
06-19-2010, 08:14 AM
I came across a post on the web on the subject of soldier's loads a while back and wiki'd a summary of some parts of it:
http://www.birthright.net/brwiki/index.php/User:AndrewTall/Soldier%27s_load
Based on: Battlefield Mobility And The Soldier's Load by Major William L. Ezell, USMC
Rowan
06-22-2010, 03:32 AM
I'm curious, Greenknight: with a 2500sqmi province, what did you do with populations?
I prefer a larger Cerilia, both in terms of landmass and population, for various reasons, but note that even in ancient times, population density tended to be quite a bit higher than what is often assumed by the Province Level = Population crowd.
Regarding marching distances, this has been a good discussion.
I wonder if good abstractions can be made for some of the major factors identified. One might assume, then, a base of 6 miles/day (maybe 4 if artillery is included, 8 if only cavalry). That would yield about 50 miles in a week (2 provinces by normal BR standards, 1 by GK's)
1. Small forces without baggage trains can move faster than large ones with (double move?). Presumably these could move maybe a week without the baggage trains and then need to resupply by pillage, or maybe they could live off the land (forage); either way, the capacity of the land to support them would be limited (say, 1 unit per max province level by terrain)
2. Large forces with baggage trains but traveling on roads can obviously move faster (this is already nicely built into the standard BR system, where roads double movement rates)
3. Well-disciplined forces move marginally faster than not (I'd say these would simply gain bonuses to discipline checks to reduce the effects of forced marches, or would gain initiative over opponents)
4. Forced marches fatigue troops quickly, but can cover greater ground (double?)
Thus, over plains terrain, we have a variance of 4 miles (artillery included in large armies, conventional baggage trains) to 32 miles (cavalry only, either on roads or small forces without supply trains, forced march in either case). Most commonly, between 6 and 12 miles per day (2-4provinces per week at standard size).
Green Knight
06-22-2010, 04:23 PM
I'm curious, Greenknight: with a 2500sqmi province, what did you do with populations?
I prefer a larger Cerilia, both in terms of landmass and population, for various reasons, but note that even in ancient times, population density tended to be quite a bit higher than what is often assumed by the Province Level = Population crowd.
Since the area increased by a factor of 2.5 it was natural to increase the population by a similar amount. I did not radically alter the pop/sq. mi.
I did, however, increase the province LEVEL in most parts of Cerilia, especially in the more civilized parts, so that indirectly caused an even greater shift in population.
Anuire = Lvl 11
Ariya = Lvl 10
Ilien = Lvl 9
Endier = Lvl 8
Calrie = Lvl 7
Caercas = Lvl 6
Rural provinces in Anuire = Lvl 4.6 (with just a few lvl 3 thrown in at the fringes).
Endier, for example, has a pop of around 180.000 people.
Alamie, 530.000.
I would agree on Green Knight's maps for Cerilia (and population). I've always considered Cerilia to be about the size of Europe. Think of the various terrains, climates, etc. that exist there.
When I read that Cerilia was the size of Western Europe, I was shocked. I figured it was done by the same guys who tell a woman:"No, that's 6 inches, really!" :D
And the topic is titled How big is Cerilia in miles, yet half of the topic is spent on how many miles could an army traverse or carry. But I think it's an important issue. I've seen a campaign fall apart because of a disagreement on that part.
Yet another issue that arises if you make Cerilia as big as Europe is the population. And I prefer larger figures, they make more sense.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.