Military Deployment

[Lord Rahvin]

I have a quick idea I wanted to run by you guys. Actually, it`s not my idea
-- it was taken from the Battletech collectable card game.

Rather than actually having to keep track of where all military units are at
any given time, we can assume that much of the military can be sent to
"Patrol". When invaded, quick patrol units will be able to respond to
hostile incursions, while slower patrol units will not.

In order for this to work all all units (or possibly all Armies,
compromising multiple units) must have a certain assigned Speed or Move or
Initiative rating. When attacking a realm, only defending units that are
set specifically to guard the province you are invading (regardless of
Speed) and units assigned to Patrol that match or exceed your attackers`
Speed can respond to your attack. All units assigned to Patrol that are
slower than your attacking units, can not respond.

In order for this to work, there has to be some balancing factors between a
unit`s military effectiveness and its Speed. Slower units/armies should
generally be more powerful, while faster units should be weaker, but more
versatile.

There also has to be some reason to attack one province over another, and
currently there really isn`t one. There`s an easy way out in saying that an
opponent doesn`t know which provinces are being guarded and which are not;
but this just unnecessarily adds to a bookkeeping nightmare. I`d rather
have some provinces actually worth more than others somehow.

Military movements are more abstract, and there is less realism/simulation
concerning the strategic movement/deployment of troops. Also there`s not so
much emphasis on how far a unit can move, what type of terrain is involved,
or how much it costs to put an army on the march. Most of the
military-strategic decisions actually become economic-strategic decisions as
you decide which provinces to guard, and what kind of units to purchase for
your military.

This system does provide a greater emphasise on combinations of different
units, as you will need to balance Speed with overall effectiveness. You
*could* respond to every single incursion with units of weak Scouts from
your Patrol area if you really wanted to, but most likely you will also need
some cavalry and other specialized deployment-units, too.

For those who like the old system, you could still deploy every single
defender to guard a specific province if you really wanted to. But you have
some additional options under this system. Some armies for example, may
prefer slower, more powerful units to guard the capitol and other key
provinces. This same army may prefer to invade in full force with slower
units engaging massive amounts of enemy resistance in full bloody battles.
Another army, however, might prefer to harass an enemy with faster units
that can strike at unprotected provinces without worrying about the Patrol
-- these units wouldn`t do much damage, but they`d be able to get in and get
out quickly, and over time, they could be a significant threat.

I`ll post more details later.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[kgauck]

Its an interesting system, but it implies a high level of command and
control. Without radio, telegraph, &c, some form of magical communication
would be neccesary in every unit to get it to operate as you describe.
Otherwise the only units that would know what was going on would be those
actually fighting. And they only know what is going on where they are.

IMC, I keep track of scrying ability as a routine military intelligence
tool. Communication with the front can be more difficult because as soon as
you set out with a message, you lose the ability to get information.
Recently, Hjalmar Helder, the druidical advisor to the king of Stjordvik was
able to detect a large raiding party approaching Stjordvik. King Varri was
at Arvaby in Arvaald hunting with Eorl Olfjor. Lord Hjalmar cast Animal
Messenger and sent a bird to the druidical advisor of Eorl Olfjor. The
druid took the message to Arvaby, only to find the Eorl and the King on a
hunt. They were located and the King was given the message of a major
raiding party on the move. The Eorl offered his assistance and Ylvarrik
Castle was made an advance headquarters. Troops would be summoned there and
await further instructions. The local druid sent word of this to Hjalmar.
King Varri asked the one PC who was with him to gather the rest of the PC`s,
which took several days. When the PC`s were assembled back at Ylvarrik
Castle, they found out that Hjalmaar had identified Lofkirdik as the target
province. The King ordered his assembled army to move to Halmvik in
Lofkirdik. He sent a rider ahead to alert Eorl Arnora. She was in Scalby
in Udvika, and the rider had to go there to find her. While the king moved,
he was out of contact with anyone not travelling with him. Riders could be
sent to find him on his planned route of march, but should circumstances
force him to change his route, he would be difficult to locate. Lord
Hjalmar kept a close eye on the Hofors Pass in the Blood Skull province of
Vrallik. Hjalmar has been to the place and collected stone from the
mountains there in order to aid his scrying of the place. He saw a large
force moving across the pass toward to west, indicating that Hjorvaal was
the target. Hjalmar can wildshape twice per day, so he changed himself into
a swift sparrow and shot north looking for King Varri and his army. When he
found the army, he transformed back into his druidical shape only to find
out that the King had gone on ahead to Halmvik to see to defences there.
Some of the PC`s were with Varri, and some were with the army. The army was
halted and a war council was heald. The PC`s were convinced that the army
should be re-directed to Hjorvaal. With a little bit of debate, they
confinced some of the other commanders and the army turned around and made
for the road to Hjorvaal. A PC rode out to Njalby in Hjorvaal to inform
Eorl Njall. Hjalmar again adopted a wildshape as a bird again, this time an
owl, and took off for Varri. Varri and the PC`s were spotted in the hills
north of Halmvik thanks to an owl`s +8 nighttime spot bonus. Again, Hjalmar
assumed human shape and informed King Varri of the news. Varri confirmed
Hjalmar`s new orders to the army, and he and the PC`s set out to find the
army, mostly just by following what they assumed its route would be.
Hjalmar, who had no horse (obviously) made his way by foot to Halmvik and
spent the night in the Eorl`s longhouse. The following day, with Varri and
all but one of the PC`s with the army, Hjalmar set out on horseback. With
no Ride skill, he only rode 12 miles in half a day to the sacred circle at
Lojsthajd. There he scryed again from a blessed spring water pool and
decided to continue by horse. Hjalmar does have some Handle Animal, and
could calm his horse by spell if need be, or communicate with it. Hjalmar
joined the army as it entered Hjorvaal late that same day. The army arrived
two days later at Njalby and took a much needed rest. Two days later, Eorl
Olfjor arrived with 32 mounted housecarls who came by way of Halmvik, since
no one had gotten word to Olfjor that the destination of the army had
changed. A unit of pikes from Udvika was now more or less irrelevant since
it was marching in the wrong direction and no one knew how to find it. Well
they could if they needed too, but with way too much effort. Even if it
knew where to go, the pikes were a week away. Hjalmar was now without his
crystal ball, and no sacred spring has been adapted for scrying in Hjorvaal,
so scrying was not very effective. After this scry, counterspells by a
hobgoblin shaman kept the Bloodskullers concealed from further scrying.
From here on out, PC and NPC scouting was required to locate the
Bloodskullers. The PC`s located the enemy (surprise!) but then had to get
word back to the army of their scouting report. Only because the army was
camped at Njalby were they located. Had the army been on the move, it would
have been difficult to inform them of the scouting report. As it was, the
army set up an ambush, and fell on the Bloodskullers from two sides.
Overall, the battle was a victory, and the Bloodskullers withdrew in
disorder. But a well timed charge by a unit of 80 bugbears broke a unit of
Rjurik archers and left over 90 of them dead.

Anyway, the command and control issues here were based on the Scry skill,
wildshape, and spellcasting of a 6th level druid. Without Lord Hjalmar or
someone like him, its likely that the Bloodskuller`s raid would have been
carried off with little resistance, and Njalby would have been put to fire.
All that would have remained would have been a Rjurik raid into the Barony
to even the score. Had the strategy of attack been more complicated,
Hjalmar would have been unable to deal with it. He can scry more or less as
much as he needs to from his crystal ball in his sanctuary in Ravenroost
Castle in Hollingholmen, but casting the 4th level Scry spell is challenging
for Hjalmar, and only possible in the first place because of my alternate
divine spellcasting system. Archdruid, Herkja Hollenviker, has no scry
skill ranks and is only 5th level. Only one other character (who shall go
un-named) has any kind of sophisticated scrying ability in Stjordvik, and
that character is not an ally of the King. Had Hjalmar decided he needed to
stay with his crystal ball and all the maps, artifacts, and objects stored
in his sanctum at Ravenroost, he would have been forced to rely on Animal
Messengers, riders, or convincing Revered Herkja to wildshape and deliver a
message. Command and control can be tricky, even with magic and special
powers.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Lord Rahvin]

> Its an interesting system, but it implies a high level of command and
> control. Without radio, telegraph, &c, some form of magical communication
> would be neccesary in every unit to get it to operate as you describe.
> Otherwise the only units that would know what was going on would be those
> actually fighting. And they only know what is going on where they are.


I don`t know. I figure the Birthright realms are a pretty small scale, and
it seems like it doesn`t take more than a few days for a mounted rider to
get from one side of Rhoesone to the other. I think an active "Patrol"
mechanic can be used without stretching believability too far... and it
would cut down a lot on paperwork. (Especially for NPC domains -- you could
just assume all their Medium and Fast units are on patrol, and all their
Slow units are in castles.)

My main problem with this system is justifying why a slower unit would be
more powerful. With infantry this is fairly easier, but under this system,
mounted cavalry and knights would have to be less effective than infantry
and I`m just not sure that`s the case.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, D20Modern Moderator wrote:

> I figure the Birthright realms are a pretty small scale, and it seems
> like it doesn`t take more than a few days for a mounted rider to get
> from one side of Rhoesone to the other.

True. But you need an awful lot of mounted riders going constantly back
and forth to keep a pair of eyes on every mile of the frontier of the
whole country, especially in difficult terrain. I figure you`d need at
least a whole unit per province just to keep a watch on the local border:
200 men per 30-40 miles is spreading them quite thin; certainly they`d be
incapable of actually fighting off a serious raid at that density -- the
best they could do is send for help.

And what about the Gorgon? Would you allow a single central reserve of
"patrol" units to effectively defend all of the Gorgon`s Crown, Kiergard,
Markazor and Mur-Kilad? What this system does is tilt the balance in
favor of larger realms, since they would no longer need a much larger army
to effectively defend their much longer borders, which increases the force
they can afford to amass to attack a single neighbor.

If I were to change the current province-based patrolling system, I`d be
more inclined to make it harder to watch the borders, rather than easier.

> My main problem with this system is justifying why a slower unit would be
> more powerful. With infantry this is fairly easier, but under this system,
> mounted cavalry and knights would have to be less effective than infantry
> and I`m just not sure that`s the case.

The variable you`re leaving out is price. Knights are both faster and
stronger than infantry, which should be balanced by making them much more
expensive.


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Lord Rahvin]

> True. But you need an awful lot of mounted riders going constantly back
> and forth to keep a pair of eyes on every mile of the frontier of the
> whole country, especially in difficult terrain. I figure you`d need at
> least a whole unit per province just to keep a watch on the local border:
> 200 men per 30-40 miles is spreading them quite thin; certainly they`d be
> incapable of actually fighting off a serious raid at that density -- the
> best they could do is send for help.

So? Why not just assume every province has these, either as part of the
definition of a province, or of its level, or of its law holdings? It would
be a similiar assumption to that of every province having a certain amount
of common guards for the streets or tax collectors to collect all the taxes.
It adds a lot to ease to bookkeeping and it`s not that far a stretch to say
that if one unit is needed to watch a province, then every province has
enough watchers to perform its basic function.


> And what about the Gorgon? Would you allow a single central reserve of
> "patrol" units to effectively defend all of the Gorgon`s Crown, Kiergard,
> Markazor and Mur-Kilad?

I don`t know much about the Gorgon`s Crown, but aren`t these all individual
realms? And yes, a single unit deticated to patrol would be able to be
deployed to anywhere that hundreds of slower-moving men are invading -- at
least in this alternate system. I don`t know if that`s such an advantage
since the idea is that these faster units will either have to be much more
expensive or much weaker than slower-moving units.


>What this system does is tilt the balance in
> favor of larger realms, since they would no longer need a much larger army
> to effectively defend their much longer borders, which increases the force
> they can afford to amass to attack a single neighbor.

Interesting. I had thought quite the opposite: Since slower units would be
more powerful (or a lot cheaper), it would be easier for smaller realms like
Medeore or Endier to buy a bunch of slower units and set them all to guard
while larger realms like Rhoesone would have to buy weaker or more expensive
fast units to patrol.

While its true that larger realms would be easier to defned in this
alternate system than in the current system, I think this alternate system
is balanced pretty well within itself.


> If I were to change the current province-based patrolling system, I`d be
> more inclined to make it harder to watch the borders, rather than easier.

Okay, I could understand that. I think this system would have a lot less
bookkeeping, and still maintain useful war/battle mechanics that provide
plenty of options. If you`d like, I suppose you could add a somekind of
patrol check to do it, in addition, perhaps with the DC based on the size of
the realm, and the modifier based on the realm`s law holdings and military
set to Patrol. But I don`t think it would be a good idea to discourage the
use of the Patrol mechanic, or it would kind of defeat the purpose. But I
think it would help both the players and the DM if the option was available.


>> My main problem with this system is justifying why a slower unit would be
>> more powerful. With infantry this is fairly easier, but under this system,
>> mounted cavalry and knights would have to be less effective than infantry
>> and I`m just not sure that`s the case.
>
> The variable you`re leaving out is price. Knights are both faster and
> stronger than infantry, which should be balanced by making them much more
> expensive.

True, but with the exception of Scouts and possibly Light Cavalry, it still
seems like all units that would be faster would also be better in battle.
When I get around to making the new unit types for this alternate system, I
want 25% of the standard units to be Fast and weak, 25% to be Slow and
powerful, and 50% to be some medium between the two. Cost will vary in each
category based on the degree of power/weakness, but generally Fast units
should be weaker than Slow units.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lord Rahvin" <lordrahvin@SOFTHOME.NET>
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 5:00 PM


> So? Why not just assume every province has these, either as part of the
> definition of a province, or of its level, or of its law holdings? It
would
> be a similiar assumption to that of every province having a certain amount
> of common guards for the streets or tax collectors to collect all the
taxes.

First of all, such an assumption makes the territorial state more powerful.
It won`t be long before clever players begin to extend the application of
this assumption to conflicts with other kinds of holdings. Such an
extensive bureaucracy is a powerful tool.

Second, it eliminates the purpose of the fortification, which was to tie
down enemy troops until a relief column arrived. If you can just summon up
the troops from afar by use of a patrol function, this roll of the
fortification is lost. It is reduced to an expensive way to temporarily
absorb a small part of the army.

Third, this assumption just ignores the command and control issues raised by
just assuming they have been resolved. By the way, so does an assumption of
a street guard or tax collectors. These imply a highly bureaucratic state
direction legions of civil servants. But even the Romans accepted that the
frontier either had to be fortified or a reaction zone in place to respond
to things that they could not prevent.

Of course one`s own creation need not be bound by such constraints, but
there are at least three reasons why one should not assume that patroling
and communicating defenders are an integral part of a province.

> True, but with the exception of Scouts and possibly Light Cavalry, it
still
> seems like all units that would be faster would also be better in battle.

Based on what evidence? If these troops are meant to reflect real world
formations, then in fact heavy troops would handily defeat light troops
every time. The problem that heavy troops present, is that they often are
incapable of bringing light troops to battle, because they can run away and
go places the heavy troops have difficulty going. During a battle with
light troops present, they are nearly always kept in reserve and not
deployed directly against enemy formations. Speed and power are a trade
off. Light infantry is faster, but less powerful than heavy infantry.
Light cavalry is faster, but less powerful than heavy cavalry. We can, as
Ryan suggests, include the concept of cost. This explains why heavy cavalry
is both faster and more poweful than heavy infantry. Although it should be
added that these improved speeds are tactical, not strategic. Over the long
march, cavalry is no faster than infantry. Likewise troops that are both
weak and slow (levies) are very cheap.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[geeman]

At 07:12 AM 10/31/2002 -0600, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

> > So? Why not just assume every province has these, either as part of the
> > definition of a province, or of its level, or of its law holdings? It
> would
> > be a similiar assumption to that of every province having a certain amount
> > of common guards for the streets or tax collectors to collect all the
> taxes.
>
>First of all, such an assumption makes the territorial state more powerful.
>It won`t be long before clever players begin to extend the application of
>this assumption to conflicts with other kinds of holdings. Such an
>extensive bureaucracy is a powerful tool.

Making the province rulers more militarily influential seems like a good
idea to me. The politics of province rulership have (historically as well
as in the BR domain rules) a decidedly military slant. Province rulers are
the military commanders where law holders represent legal/policing, temples
the religious life, etc. of the provinces. In the present rules the
military role of provincial rulers is something that really only gets
reflected by their access to various troop types. Rather a shoddy
reflection of the province ruler`s role in the military life of his domain.

Aside from that, however, if the province and holding levels don`t
represent that bureaucracy/infrastructure then what do they represent? The
published materials suggest in several places that such a bureaucracy, its
staff and accoutrement is what the province and holding levels are meant to
reflect.

>Second, it eliminates the purpose of the fortification, which was to tie
>down enemy troops until a relief column arrived. If you can just summon
>up the troops from afar by use of a patrol function, this roll of the
>fortification is lost. It is reduced to an expensive way to temporarily
>absorb a small part of the army.

The suggested system of patrol and interdiction doesn`t _eliminate_ the
purpose of fortification. One could still have fortifications and there
are still good reasons for building them. It just suggests another
possible use of military units. Given the current rules there is no
defensive posture for companies of soldiers other than to have them
garrison a fortification. Some sort of "patrol" function is reasonable, if
for no other reason than to maintain some verisimilitude. A player could
very easily say "I`ll send the royal guard to patrol the border" and we
should have some sort of mechanic to describe what that actually does other
than just placing them in a particular province at the edge of the domain.

>Third, this assumption just ignores the command and control issues raised by
>just assuming they have been resolved.

It`s an abstracted idea (and in its early stages at that) so I don`t think
this is really a reason not to adopt such a concept. It`s just another
issue that one might take into consideration in coming up with the
system. Since this concept came from a car game we should consider how it
might fit into the D&D/BR system which means making it interact with
character in some way. Should command and control issues be handled by the
relative skills of the regents? Should it be a factor in determining a DC
for a successful "patrol" check? Sounds like a possible use of the
"Command" skill or something similar. The BR system of warcards is already
pretty heavily abstracted, so similarly abstracting issues of command and
control would seem a reasonable stance.

Personally, I think a rough system of determining which companies can
appear in a battle makes some sense. It reflects issues of tactical
maneuver that is pretty sorely lacking in the BR system of large scale
combat. Exactly how that should be implemented I`m not sure, but just
brainstorming a few ideas here... some sort of numerical rating of a
company`s "initiative modifier" based on its movement and including a few
modifiers for role or training (scouts or specifically trained "home guard"
units) makes some sense. The large scale combat system is pretty heavily
abstracted, so this could be rationalized twenty different ways. The time
scale of such a battle, for instance, needn`t be defined like the BR battle
rounds are (5 minutes each) at all, so the "initiative order" of units as
they appear on the battlefield could represent hours or even days. Using
such a system one could determine which units can appear on the battlefield
at what time. Slower units would then have to be "brought up" from the
rear, and would appear on the battlefield two or more battle rounds after
faster, more maneuverable units had arrived and could engage in the
battle. Opposing commanders might be able to use their skills to continue
the battle or disengage, meaning certain troops with a slower "initiative
order" might not be able to engage in the battle at all.

Such a system could be used to reflect a commander of fast, maneuverable or
otherwise sneaky/specialized troops performing hit and run tactics and
raids. It could be used to reflect the way troops are brought up in a set
piece battle. It could be used to interact with the fortification of
provinces and holdings and add another level of strategy when "buying"
units of troops because one could specifically buy units with low
"initiative order" numbers to garrison such strongpoints.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[kgauck]

The issues I have trouble with are those that make
patroling, an inherently difficult task automatic, as
well as automatically bringing up a reserve to the
correct location to fight a battle against an invader.
Suggesting that a check be added certainly changes the
mechanic, since it could have a relativly high DC for
those who think its a difficult thing to do. I oppose
automatic scouting intelligence for the same reason. A
scouting check is altogether different.

I`m not sure that anyone has disputed that provincial
rulers are military in nature. I rather take that for
granted. Controlling territory is essentially military,
even when performed by institutions other than military
ones.

As for an assumption of bureaucracy, this is certainly a
questionable proposition. Clearly the Rjurik and Vos
have no bureaucracy, so 2/5th`s of the map easily must
function on some other basis. Whether or not the
Brecht, Anuirians, and Khinasi have bureaucracies,
rather than household administrations, is going to be a
matter of interpretation. My take is that this is one
of the new movements in government. PC`s establish
bureaucracies in place of the households. But others
might see that differently, esp those who see Anuire as
a Romanesque state.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Lord Rahvin]

> The issues I have trouble with are those that make
> patroling, an inherently difficult task automatic, as
> well as automatically bringing up a reserve to the
> correct location to fight a battle against an invader.
> Suggesting that a check be added certainly changes the
> mechanic, since it could have a relativly high DC for
> those who think its a difficult thing to do. I oppose
> automatic scouting intelligence for the same reason. A
> scouting check is altogether different.

Yes, this was an early idea, and only one part of a revised military system.
The idea is to make the system as playable as possible while keeping with
certain campaign-specific ideologies. The "ideology" part is going to come
from a large list of (relatively simple) optional rules that can be added to
the basic system. To revise the patrol mechanic, I`m thinking of adding
optional elements requiring checks for successful defense form the patrol,
requiring fortifications for guarding units, assigning stealth ratings or
using domain actions to provide units ways to avoid patrols, to limit the
amount of patrol units that can be sent to a specific incursion based on
infrastructure and terrain, adjust patrol attempts based on size of realm,
have astract attack forms (Harass) in addition to abstract defense forms
(Patrol), and otherwise making Terrain and possibly Technology relavent to
the deployment of military troops, and to provide other types of military
operations that can be done in addition to invasions and occupations.

I want this system to be easily playable military system for running "To
Each His Throne"-type games, providing an emphasis on "playability" with
added optional rules to provide greater "realism". So whenever possible,
I`ve tried to make actions automatic or abstracted, and when its possible to
provide greater detail or strategy I`ve tried to make it a fairly modular
(easily removeable or changeable) optional rule.

I admit that the system as it stands now is very abstract and still in early
stages of design, but I would appreciate any rules/ideas you can contribute
that would help flesh it out.


> As for an assumption of bureaucracy, this is certainly a
> questionable proposition. Clearly the Rjurik and Vos
> have no bureaucracy, so 2/5th`s of the map easily must
> function on some other basis. Whether or not the
> Brecht, Anuirians, and Khinasi have bureaucracies,
> rather than household administrations, is going to be a
> matter of interpretation. My take is that this is one
> of the new movements in government. PC`s establish
> bureaucracies in place of the households. But others
> might see that differently, esp those who see Anuire as
> a Romanesque state.

I was primarily interested in Anuire, as most of my BR experience comes from
the Southern Coast. I hadn`t yet thought of the Brecht or Rjurik areas yet
-- but game mechanically they aren`t much different as they stand now.
Rjurik and Vos still have province levels, law holdings, temple holdings,
roads, trade routes, etc. Are you sure the rules regarding the methods in
which they attack or defend with their military should be different from
Anuire or Khinasi? Maybe their differences could simply be reflected by
having different types of military units with different scores and Speed
ratings.

(Upon reflection, the regions of Vosgaard and Rjurik actually seem more
likely to use the Patrol method rather than the Guarding method.)


-------

Does the addition of a "Patrol check" to determine whether an incursion can
be defended with "patrol reserves" or to determine how many units can defend
against the incursion alleviate your concerns about the system?


-Lord Rahvin

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Lee]

Just a thought: perhaps a unit on "Patrol" might require (slightly?)
increased maintenance costs, since they are putting wear on their boots,
uniforms and saddle gear; dragging rations around with them, and so forth,
rather than sitting about the castle.

Lee.

In a message dated 10/30/02 8:05:41 PM Eastern Standard Time,
lordrahvin@SOFTHOME.NET writes:

<< > If I were to change the current province-based patrolling system, I`d be
> more inclined to make it harder to watch the borders, rather than easier.

Okay, I could understand that. I think this system would have a lot less
bookkeeping, and still maintain useful war/battle mechanics that provide
plenty of options. If you`d like, I suppose you could add a somekind of
patrol check to do it, in addition, perhaps with the DC based on the size of
the realm, and the modifier based on the realm`s law holdings and military
set to Patrol. But I don`t think it would be a good idea to discourage the
use of the Patrol mechanic, or it would kind of defeat the purpose. But I
think it would help both the players and the DM if the option was available.
>>

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[geeman]

Lee Hanna writes:

> Just a thought: perhaps a unit on "Patrol" might require (slightly?)
> increased maintenance costs, since they are putting wear on their boots,
> uniforms and saddle gear; dragging rations around with them, and so forth,
> rather than sitting about the castle.

Absolutely. In fact, there should be other factors that effect the
maintenance value of various troop types. I have a few rules for creating
troops that have training/mustering options such as "forager" that allows
troops to live off the land which not only reduces their maintenance, but
allows them to operate away from a base or supply line without suffering any
damage. Standard troop types must have access to resupply either from
friendly provinces or by pillaging. There are all kinds of specialties that
troops might have that influence their maintenance costs. Troops
specifically trained to patrol might be better able to avoid the cost of
living in the field, for example.

I also allow castles to reduce the maintenance costs of companies that
remain in their garrison by about 1GB/domain turn. One company per level of
the castle. The catch being, of course, that those troops cannot sally out
of the castle during that turn.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Lord Rahvin wrote:

> Ryan Caveney wrote:
> > True. But you need an awful lot of mounted riders going constantly back
> > and forth to keep a pair of eyes on every mile of the frontier of the
>
> So? Why not just assume every province has these, either as part of the
> definition of a province, or of its level, or of its law holdings?

Because I want to make their absence easy to denote. I want to make the
ungarrisoned province the default, so as not to have to make special note
of interior provinces that have had their scouting garrisons removed. I
want to make all military units explicit, so as to enable realms in dire
straits to pull all their border guards to go fight elsewhere, or simply
disband them in order to save money (because surely the presence or
absence of this war card`s worth of troops should have a financial effect
one way or the other). I really like each province having a specific list
of the military units which are quartered in and regularly patrol it alone.

> It would be a similiar assumption to that of every province having a
> certain amount of common guards for the streets or tax collectors to
> collect all the taxes.

This is assuming that provinces necessarily contain law holdings. The
rules already provide for this infrastructure as well, and specify that it
is to be accounted for separately. You think your way is easier, I think
the rulebook way is easier (though in other cases I often don`t).

> It adds a lot to ease to bookkeeping and it`s not that far a stretch
> to say that if one unit is needed to watch a province, then every
> province has enough watchers to perform its basic function.

And if a full-size law holding is needed to collect severe taxation
without a loyalty change, it`s not that far a stretch to say every
province has one? There is a big difference between what a ruler would
like to have, and what can actually be obtained. The basic function of a
province is to sit there and generate RP. It can have other things in it,
for an extra cost in both resources and complexity. I prefer to have all
military resources listed explicitly, so as to avoid notations like "the
Basilisk owns three provinces, and negative three units of border patrol".

> And yes, a single unit deticated to patrol would be able to be
> deployed to anywhere that hundreds of slower-moving men are invading
> -- at least in this alternate system.

I think that`s just too powerful, and assumes a degree of magical command
and control that I would want regents to pay dearly for.

> If you`d like, I suppose you could add a somekind of patrol check to
> do it, in addition, perhaps with the DC based on the size of the
> realm, and the modifier based on the realm`s law holdings and military
> set to Patrol.

This is a good idea. I`d do the same even in the standard province-based
garrison system: a couple of fast units should be able to sneak past a
single unit of slow guards with little trouble. Racial modifiers should
also be applied: any number of elves should be able to sneak past any
number of humans patrolling a forested province, and similarly dwarves
should be able to pass at will through humans guarding mountains.

> But I don`t think it would be a good idea to discourage the
> use of the Patrol mechanic, or it would kind of defeat the purpose.

=) I would discourage all use of the Patrol mechanic.

It`s an idea that`s very appropriate to BattleTech (as is the fast=weak,
slow=strong dichotomy), with its futuristic communications networks and
sensor systems, but one I think that is out of place in D&D.

> with the exception of Scouts and possibly Light Cavalry, it still
> seems like all units that would be faster would also be better in battle.

As a further scary thought, the unit (as I have said before) that should
be by far the fastest strategically is the Legion of Dead -- on the
battlefield, they are no faster than regular infantry, but on the march
they should be able to go about six times as fast. Using the war cards as
is, it is also one of the strongest units.


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, D20Modern Moderator wrote:

> There also has to be some reason to attack one province over another,
> and currently there really isn`t one.

Sure there is!

I also fail to see how your patrol system changes this in any way.

> I`d rather have some provinces actually worth more than others somehow.

Province level, and the levels of holdings contained therein, already
reflects this. Some provinces are worth much more money than others, and
striking at that money also tilts the balance of military power in your
favor: stealing some of your rival`s tax base increases the size of the
army you can support and decreases the size he can; in addition, in doing
so you increase the number of units that you can raise in a season and
possibly add a unit type you couldn`t before, and reduce the enemy`s
capacity similarly.

There is also geographic worth, in terms of how the changing frontier
affects the two (or more) sides` abilities to move troops efficiently from
one part of the realm to another. Geography can also have an economic
consequence, in terms of access to the sea, or to a new terrain type for
making trade routes.

Fortifications will also cause significant changes in operational
planning, depending on the strategic goal.


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[geeman]

Ryan B. Caveney writes:

> On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, D20Modern Moderator wrote:
>
>> There also has to be some reason to attack one province over another,
>> and currently there really isn`t one.
>
> Sure there is!
>
> I also fail to see how your patrol system changes this in any way.

I think he`s talking strategically/tactically. If you look at a province
map as a wargame it`s probably easier to visualize. Without some sort of
mechanic to "patrol" particular provinces it makes more sense to go straight
after the higher level provinces first for the reasons you note. A patrol
mechanic could be used to make those provinces more defensible, less
vulnerable to attack and reflect the costs/difficulty of a spearhead attack
rather than a war of attrition. With the current system there`s very little
reason not to dive right into the more "valuable" provinces, making a
"border war" something less than an all-out land grab. Castles and
fortifications, of course, do slow that process but by themselves there`s
not a real need to perform a piecemeal military action, which a system of
patrol could be used to reflect.

As for how it could be used to reflect that... if a unit is set to patrol a
border province and it has some sort greater than normal effect then one
could "blockade" a frontier province and/or patrol the more valuable
provinces in a way that made them demonstrably more difficult to take than
other, less valuable ones.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

On Thu, 31 Oct 2002, Gary wrote:

> Making the province rulers more militarily influential seems like a
> good idea to me.

I think they`ve already got what they need. Having empty provinces
represents the potential for military power; raising troops based on
province level and supporting them with taxes is the actualization of
military power.

> In the present rules the military role of provincial rulers is
> something that really only gets reflected by their access to various
> troop types. Rather a shoddy reflection of the province ruler`s role
> in the military life of his domain.

And in province taxation, which represents the wealth needed to keep a
large army on hand. The fact that access to this money is controlled by
law regents simply demonstrates that the system is reasonably well set up
to model both effective military rulers and ineffective ones. Don`t
assume into existence additional support structures that make every landed
regent necessarily effective. Keep anarchy, incompetence, bad luck, and
being undermined by a more powerful neighbor possible.

> A player could very easily say "I`ll send the royal guard to patrol
> the border" and we should have some sort of mechanic to describe what
> that actually does other than just placing them in a particular
> province at the edge of the domain.

Why? If they`re just going to make a circuit of the whole country in one
big column, it`s a purely symbolic gesture -- which might have a game
mechanic as a small diplomatic bonus/penalty with a neighbor, but not as
increased scouting effectiveness. If they are actually to control passage
in and out, they must be concentrated in a relatively small location. If
you want to watch the whole border very tightly, you need either a small
country or a very big royal guard. Maybe let their elite status enable
them to patrol two provinces, or count as two units in the one they`re in.
Don`t give them more effectiveness than this unless every six-man patrol
has a mid-to-high-level spellcaster assigned to it, or a pretty spiffy
magic item (e.g., one that allows Sending (Wiz 5) at will to anyone
holding a similar item). The only regents on Cerilia I can envision
having the kind of communications necessary to do this are the Sidhelien,
and to a lesser extent the Magian with his Riders and the various
necromancy spells that allow seeing through individual undead.

> Should command and control issues be handled by the
> relative skills of the regents?

It needs to depend on the skills of the individual unit and sub-unit
commanders as well, which is a "national doctrine" sort of thing. I might
envision Rjuriks or Khinasi being slightly better than Anuireans at
small-band operations in general, but there should be essentially no
difference between Anuirean realms.

> The time scale of such a battle, for instance, needn`t be defined like
> the BR battle rounds are (5 minutes each) at all, so the "initiative
> order" of units as they appear on the battlefield could represent
> hours or even days.

Comparing those two scales, it seems to me that you want to fight several
small battles with different units in each one, rather than one battle per
province per war move. Since each war move is only a week, and I suspect
much of that time is spent just trying to find the other side so that you
can fight them, I think I prefer the current system, clunky as it is.

> Using such a system one could determine which units can appear on the
> battlefield at what time.

I might use this if I changed it to be "which units can appear on the
battlefield at all", if it was intended to represent being on the other
side of the province when battle was joined, but in a small scale contest
with just a couple of potential units on either side, that might make
things too random (even if more realistic, though I`m not sure about that
either).

> Such a system could be used to reflect a commander of fast,
> maneuverable or otherwise sneaky/specialized troops performing hit and
> run tactics and raids.

I think this already exists. If your troops are faster enough than the
enemy`s, you can move past them, pillage, and move back out before they
ever manage to be in the same province as you for a battle, though it
takes three separate war moves to happen. Adding the detection check, as
I think is a good idea, would increase that possibility.

Real counter-marching pursuit and evasion is a day-to-day or week-to-week
thing in the middle ages, not a minute-to-minute or even hour-to-hour one.
There certainly was a lot of marching around trying to catch an enemy who
was trying to get away or get past, but rather than modern-style "meeting
engagements", there tended one night to be a realization on the part of
the evading commander that his opponent could probably force battle on the
morrow, so it would be best to form up for battle in the morning. A
continuously interdicted march-battle as at Arsouf was massively atypical;
most field campaigns were several weeks or even months of marching around
each other, until a suitable spot for battle was reached, often
accidentally.

> It could be used to reflect the way troops are brought up in a set
> piece battle.

The reserve already accounts for this, if it is acknowledged that the
"friction" (as Clausewitz put it) inherent in moving thousands of men
around in a small area renders the official five minutes an excessively
short amount of time for a war card round.


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[geeman]

Ryan B. Caveney writes:

>> Making the province rulers more militarily influential seems like a
>> good idea to me.
>
> I think they`ve already got what they need. Having empty provinces
> represents the potential for military power; raising troops based on
> province level and supporting them with taxes is the actualization of
> military power.

I`m not sure I follow how that dichotomy expresses the military influence of
a province ruler any better than it does that of any other type of regent.
If the taxation of provinces is the actualization of military power isn`t
the revenue generated by guilds, trade routes and temples also an
actualization of military power?

>> In the present rules the military role of provincial rulers is
>> something that really only gets reflected by their access to various
>> troop types. Rather a shoddy reflection of the province ruler`s role
>> in the military life of his domain.
>
> And in province taxation, which represents the wealth needed to keep a
> large army on hand.

Province taxation doesn`t differ much from the revenue collected by guilds
or temples. In fact, guilders can collect quite a bit more revenue than
provinces given their more ready access to trade routes and various GB
generating domain actions. So using revenue as the basis for military
capability makes guilders at least as influential as provincial rulers.
Arguably much more influential given their much greater capacity to generate
revenue.

The only thing that BR does to limit this is to allow the mustering of
certain troop types only to provincial rulers unless the province ruler
gives permission to the other regent--a prohibition that is a little
artificial IMO. Lots of folks house rule that temples can muster units of
knights, for instance, without the permission from a provincial regent, and
I`d suggest that logically the restriction doesn`t make a whole lot of
sense. Mustering troop types of just about any type should be without
restriction to anybody with deep enough pockets. I could see a few
limitations as to particular advanced troops, but in general the standard
restrictions don`t really make a lot of sense.

> The fact that access to this money is controlled by
> law regents simply demonstrates that the system is reasonably well set up
> to model both effective military rulers and ineffective ones.

Law holdings don`t exactly _control_ money generated in a province, and even
the GB they are able to skim from other regents doesn`t amount to much. A
few GB here and there... not something that is going to very much influence
the relative ability of the provincial ruler to have a role as a military
leader of the region.

> Don`t
> assume into existence additional support structures that make every landed
> regent necessarily effective. Keep anarchy, incompetence, bad luck, and
> being undermined by a more powerful neighbor possible.

I don`t think this patrol function would prevent any of those things from
existing at the domain level. In fact, I don`t think they`re very
accurately reflected in the current rules, and such a system would actually
aide in potraying the relative anarchy, incompetence, bad luck and influence
of neighbors on other regents. How are those factors more accurately
represented without a "patrol" status?

>> A player could very easily say "I`ll send the royal guard to patrol
>> the border" and we should have some sort of mechanic to describe what
>> that actually does other than just placing them in a particular
>> province at the edge of the domain.
>
> Why? If they`re just going to make a circuit of the whole country in one
> big column, it`s a purely symbolic gesture -- which might have a game
> mechanic as a small diplomatic bonus/penalty with a neighbor, but not as
> increased scouting effectiveness.

A rule like this would simply have a different status for troops that were
"on patrol" in a province as opposed to garrisoning those same areas.
There`s a pretty obvious difference between actively policing and guarding a
region and staying at home in the castle, and something like this could
reflect that.

Also, there are certainly symbolic gestures involved with troops making a
circuit around the country, but the symbolism has a pretty direct
relationship to the readiness aspect of those troops, which is largely
domestic. A diplomatic effect is a much more modern influence in which
intelligence services are much more capable of reporting on troop movements
and status. I don`t think I`d have patrolling units have any particular
effect on domain actions themselves apart from a role-playing.

> If they are actually to control passage
> in and out, they must be concentrated in a relatively small location. If
> you want to watch the whole border very tightly, you need either a small
> country or a very big royal guard. Maybe let their elite status enable
> them to patrol two provinces, or count as two units in the one they`re in.
> Don`t give them more effectiveness than this unless every six-man patrol
> has a mid-to-high-level spellcaster assigned to it, or a pretty spiffy
> magic item (e.g., one that allows Sending (Wiz 5) at will to anyone
> holding a similar item). The only regents on Cerilia I can envision
> having the kind of communications necessary to do this are the Sidhelien,
> and to a lesser extent the Magian with his Riders and the various
> necromancy spells that allow seeing through individual undead.

I don`t think this option really conveyed the sort of over-reaching
influence on the system that you`re suggesting. The original suggestion was
that units in a province respond immediately to an invading force (which is
how it works now) with an additional group of units that could be placed "on
patrol" which would also be able to respond to an invasion if their movement
rate (or some other number representing their ability to respond) could
place them on the battlefield in time. Such a "rapid deployment" force
isn`t such a big deal. It could be costly, might require special training,
could have limitations on it`s range, etc. but the it`s not going to be so
drastic an influence. A war move is a week and provinces are 30-40 miles
across on average, so the kind of communications required could be a few
riders.

What is a reasonable range for such patrolling units? That`s debatable.
Personally, I don`t think I`d extend it much more than a province or two.
That would be enough, however, to cover most domains. In fact, even
allowing a unit to respond to invasions in adjacent provinces would quite a
bit of the provinces in most landed domains.

>> Should command and control issues be handled by the
>> relative skills of the regents?
>
> It needs to depend on the skills of the individual unit and sub-unit
> commanders as well, which is a "national doctrine" sort of thing.

Sure, but we abstract that sort of thing into the power of the regent and
his domain as a matter of course in BR, so why should that be a problem?

> I might
> envision Rjuriks or Khinasi being slightly better than Anuireans at
> small-band operations in general, but there should be essentially no
> difference between Anuirean realms.

I think that depends a lot on the strategy of the leader rather than the
culture.

>> The time scale of such a battle, for instance, needn`t be defined like
>> the BR battle rounds are (5 minutes each) at all, so the "initiative
>> order" of units as they appear on the battlefield could represent
>> hours or even days.
>
> Comparing those two scales, it seems to me that you want to fight several
> small battles with different units in each one, rather than one battle per
> province per war move. Since each war move is only a week, and I suspect
> much of that time is spent just trying to find the other side so that you
> can fight them, I think I prefer the current system, clunky as it is.

I don`t want to conduct more than a single "battle" in a war move, but I do
think the large scale combat system of BR is (and should be) assumed to be
abstracted enough to represent more than one actual skirmish in a single war
move. A system of "initiative" for bringing up units on some sort of
"patrol" wouldn`t change that, though it would give a less abstracted feel
to large scale combat by giving some sort of order of battle sequence to
events.

When it comes to this particular issue, I think the way I`d reflect it is to
have a special training type for various troops that allowed them to respond
to incursions in adjacent provinces. Maybe two provinces in the case of
cavalry. Being "on patrol" would probably make a unit have a slightly
higher maintenance cost. That seems like the simplist solution.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.