level distribution in units (wa

[Gary V. Foss]

Kai Beste wrote:

> > >Just out of curiosity, does anyone have any information on what the actual
> > >level distribution would be in a military unit? The majority of soldiers
> > are
> > >0-level fighters, of course, but what about the rest of the crowd?
> > >
> I agree that most soldiers would be 0 level. However, I decided to
> divide a typical infantry unit of 200 men (IMHO the size of a unit
> varies with its type) into four squads of 50 men each. The squad
> leaders are 1st level soldiers. The whole unit is lead by a 2nd level
> lieutenant. On larger campaigns a medic (0 level priest) should be
> included.

This seems a little light as far as leveled characters is concerned. A total of
five leveled characters is just 2.5% of the unit. This is about the same ratio
of leveled characters to 0-level in the regular population. A unit of soldiers
would be (hopefully) able-bodied, so they would have a higher percentage of
leveled characters.

- -Gary

[Gary V. Foss]

Kai Beste wrote:

> I agree that a unit can potentially have a higher percentage of
> leveled characters, but IMHO that changes with the unit. Knights are
> better trained and more experienced than elite infantry, and elite
> inf more than standard infantry. A unit of knights has fewer soldiers
> than a unit of infantry, but those few are far superior on a 1 on 1
> basis. "Basic" units hold less leveled characters thatn"advanced"
> units.

Knights are a weird case. They are without a doubt the best bargain in BR. The
6GB cost to raise such a unit wouldn't even buy 30 heavy warhorses, let alone the
armor and weapons that the knights would need. I know the rationalization for this
is that a unit of knights is made up of the lesser nobles who would supply their
own gear and mounts, but it still seems like a pretty good deal.

You're also right that it would seem like these units would have a higher
percentage of leveled characters in their midst. Anybody want to take a stab at
the make up of a unit of knights or elite infantry?

Incedentally, are all blooded characters levelled?

- -Gary

[Eric Dunn]

>I agree that a unit can potentially have a higher percentage of
>leveled characters, but IMHO that changes with the unit. Knights are
>better trained and more experienced than elite infantry, and elite
>inf more than standard infantry. A unit of knights has fewer soldiers
>than a unit of infantry, but those few are far superior on a 1 on 1
>basis. "Basic" units hold less leveled characters thatn"advanced"
>units.
>This raises an interesting point: What happens to a unit that has been
>part of many campaigns? By defeating enemy units individual soldiers
>would get XP, and in time rise in level. Then what happens to the
>unit? Can a standard infantry unit "promoted" to elite infantry after
>a few wars and with some better equipment?
>
>just some food for thought
>
>Kai

I would think so--of course, this being the equivalent of the "Basic" Set,
it's up to the DM's discretion. I think a simple rule might be to simply
add 1 point to either melee or defense for a given unit, for every "X"
number of battles they've been in. In a way, it would be unfair to have
them "promoted" to an elite unit, or knights, as their maintenance would go
up--but it could be argued either way..(I.e. they've been around longer, so
they deserve more pay?)

Do they need the better equipment to gain the +1 for melee or defense?
It's arguable too--remember, as you gain levels your thaco goes down.
Gaining level 2 from level 1 has the exact same affect on your thaco as
picking up a +1 sword at level 1.

I know for my pbem, I don't think I'd use any such rules though-- part of
the elegance of BR is it's simplicity. I would go beserk having to track
that many individual units--I"m sure it's much more applicable in a RL
setting.

E

[Kai Beste]

> > I agree that most soldiers would be 0 level. However, I decided to
> > divide a typical infantry unit of 200 men (IMHO the size of a unit
> > varies with its type) into four squads of 50 men each. The squad
> > leaders are 1st level soldiers. The whole unit is lead by a 2nd level
> > lieutenant. On larger campaigns a medic (0 level priest) should be
> > included.
>
> This seems a little light as far as leveled characters is concerned. A total
> of
> five leveled characters is just 2.5% of the unit. This is about the same rat
> io
> of leveled characters to 0-level in the regular population. A unit of soldie
> rs
> would be (hopefully) able-bodied, so they would have a higher percentage of
> leveled characters.

I agree that a unit can potentially have a higher percentage of
leveled characters, but IMHO that changes with the unit. Knights are
better trained and more experienced than elite infantry, and elite
inf more than standard infantry. A unit of knights has fewer soldiers
than a unit of infantry, but those few are far superior on a 1 on 1
basis. "Basic" units hold less leveled characters thatn"advanced"
units.
This raises an interesting point: What happens to a unit that has been
part of many campaigns? By defeating enemy units individual soldiers
would get XP, and in time rise in level. Then what happens to the
unit? Can a standard infantry unit "promoted" to elite infantry after
a few wars and with some better equipment?

just some food for thought

Kai

[Eric Dunn]

>Besides, if you want to look at your 200 man unit as compared to a
>modern infantry unit, you are looking at something like a reinforced
>company.
>
>A "squad" is usally between 8 and 15 men today, certainly not 50, which
>is more akin to a platoon.
>
>Consider this, your Company is led by a 3rd level Captain, 4 Platoons of
>50 led by 2nd level Lt's, each platoon has 5 Squads containing a 1st
>level Sergeant.
>
>Assuming 200 common soldiers, and then the leadership factored in, we
>have 200 Level 0 soldiers, 20 Level 1 Sergeants, 4 Level 2 LT's, and 1
>Level 3 Captain for a total of 225 men with 1 of 9 being greater than
>0th level.
>
>Tripp

The only problem is that is using modern day tactics/compositions, and
these are medieval units. I know more about the "Ancient" units, than I do
medieval and they didn't have all that much, by way of "middle management"
so to speak. Even Roman Centuries weren't littered with "sergeants" or
"corporals".

I would be surprised if in midieval times a company of 50 men DID have more
than 1 LT. Of course, that is based on opinion, and not fact, so I'm sure
someone on this list knows their midieval unit composition, better than I,
and can enlighten us-- :)

E

[lialos@crosslink.ne]

Gary V. Foss wrote:
>
> Kai Beste wrote:
>
> > > >Just out of curiosity, does anyone have any information on what the actual
> > > >level distribution would be in a military unit? The majority of soldiers
> > > are
> > > >0-level fighters, of course, but what about the rest of the crowd?
> > > >
> > I agree that most soldiers would be 0 level. However, I decided to
> > divide a typical infantry unit of 200 men (IMHO the size of a unit
> > varies with its type) into four squads of 50 men each. The squad
> > leaders are 1st level soldiers. The whole unit is lead by a 2nd level
> > lieutenant. On larger campaigns a medic (0 level priest) should be
> > included.
>
> This seems a little light as far as leveled characters is concerned. A total of
> five leveled characters is just 2.5% of the unit. This is about the same ratio
> of leveled characters to 0-level in the regular population. A unit of soldiers
> would be (hopefully) able-bodied, so they would have a higher percentage of
> leveled characters.
>
> -Gary
>
> ************************************************** *************************
> > Besides, if you want to look at your 200 man unit as compared to a
modern infantry unit, you are looking at something like a reinforced
company.

A "squad" is usally between 8 and 15 men today, certainly not 50, which
is more akin to a platoon.

Consider this, your Company is led by a 3rd level Captain, 4 Platoons of
50 led by 2nd level Lt's, each platoon has 5 Squads containing a 1st
level Sergeant.

Assuming 200 common soldiers, and then the leadership factored in, we
have 200 Level 0 soldiers, 20 Level 1 Sergeants, 4 Level 2 LT's, and 1
Level 3 Captain for a total of 225 men with 1 of 9 being greater than
0th level.

Tripp

[lialos@crosslink.ne]

Eric Dunn wrote:
>
> >Besides, if you want to look at your 200 man unit as compared to a
> >modern infantry unit, you are looking at something like a reinforced
> >company.
> >
> >A "squad" is usally between 8 and 15 men today, certainly not 50, which
> >is more akin to a platoon.
> >
> >Consider this, your Company is led by a 3rd level Captain, 4 Platoons of
> >50 led by 2nd level Lt's, each platoon has 5 Squads containing a 1st
> >level Sergeant.
> >
> >Assuming 200 common soldiers, and then the leadership factored in, we
> >have 200 Level 0 soldiers, 20 Level 1 Sergeants, 4 Level 2 LT's, and 1
> >Level 3 Captain for a total of 225 men with 1 of 9 being greater than
> >0th level.
> >
> >Tripp
>
> The only problem is that is using modern day tactics/compositions, and
> these are medieval units. I know more about the "Ancient" units, than I do
> medieval and they didn't have all that much, by way of "middle management"
> so to speak. Even Roman Centuries weren't littered with "sergeants" or
> "corporals".
>
> I would be surprised if in midieval times a company of 50 men DID have more
> than 1 LT. Of course, that is based on opinion, and not fact, so I'm sure
> someone on this list knows their midieval unit composition, better than I,
> and can enlighten us-- :)
>
> E

Hmm, yes, maybe there is someone out there with the specific knowledge
we require, but I do know this.

A Roman Legion did have decurions(leading 10 men[a decade/squad?]) and
centurions leading 10 decades(or a century). Of course, I believe
Centurions and Decurions were not officers, but were rather senior
enlisted personnel.

Anyone out there have a degree in Roman Military History or something?

Tripp

[Richard the Mighty]

>Hmm, yes, maybe there is someone out there with the specific knowledge
>we require, but I do know this.
>
>A Roman Legion did have decurions(leading 10 men[a decade/squad?]) and
>centurions leading 10 decades(or a century). Of course, I believe
>Centurions and Decurions were not officers, but were rather senior
>enlisted personnel.
>
>Anyone out there have a degree in Roman Military History or something?
>
>Tripp

Well, I was going to sit down and study for my Roman Life and Culture
midterm tomorrow, but this was sort of on the subject and interesting,
so here we go.

Yikes, these numbers are about to get ugly, because the Romans were a
little messed up.

We got the legions, which each contained about 4-5000 infantry, as well
as 300 cavalry. Each legion was split into 30 maniples, each containing
2 centuries, which actually only had about 80 men in it.

Now, the legion was split into four parts, the velites, hastati,
principes, and triarii. The velites being the youngest and pansiest and
going up from there. So, there are a total of 60 centuries. 60 men are
therefore chosen to be the centurions, although those men can't be from
the velites because they are just too much like that kid with bad acne
on the Simpsons... anyways.

That gives us 60 centurions, with two per maniple, just in case one got
really sick or something. And when both were there, they each took their
century. However, one of them remained in command as 1st Centurion.
Then, from each maniple, they chose two additional men to be the
standard bearers, one for each century.

Out of this, class ranking comes in based on which section men were put
into. For instance, the velites were poorest, and the triarii were able
to purchase the heavier chain mail and spears and the like. There were
10 maniples from each of the highest three class areas with the velites
spreading evenly throughout the ranks.

The Consuls provide the main leadership for the bunch (this is during
Rome's republican period) and they also appoint tribunes to take charge
of the individual legions.

Okay, I'll stop ranting now. Here's how I think this works in game
terms.

There's the velites... they suck. Lvl 0, since we can't make them -1.
All the other three main classes (hastati, principes, triarii) should be
lvl 0-1. They are better than the velites...

Standard bearers were better than average. lvl 2.
Centurions were lvl 3, even though one of the two in a maniple was often
given real charge.

Tribunes were very high people, but could buy their way in, like
politicians usually do. I recommend lvl 2-4.

Consuls? Well, what level was Caeser? They could be anywhere, as these
are the regents.

Totals per century

Lvl 0 -- 48 (levites, half of others)
Lvl 1 -- 28 (half of others)
Lvl 2 -- 2 (standard bearers)
Lvl 3 -- 2 (centurions)

Applying this to the whole legion gives us

Lvl 0 -- 1488
Lvl 1 -- 868
Lvl 2 -- 60
Lvl 3 -- 60

Wow... that's a lot of leveled people. Now you know why I'm doing
medieval/classical studies and not game designing!

Thanks for listening to my documentary on the Romans... hope I get an A
on the test tomorrow! :)

Richard/Alenecht...

PS. Tripp and Eric! Can I have extra credit? I did my homework... :)

"I don't want the world, I just want your half..." -- TMBG

[Richard the Mighty]

>Hmm, yes, maybe there is someone out there with the specific knowledge
>we require, but I do know this.
>
>A Roman Legion did have decurions(leading 10 men[a decade/squad?]) and
>centurions leading 10 decades(or a century). Of course, I believe
>Centurions and Decurions were not officers, but were rather senior
>enlisted personnel.
>
>Anyone out there have a degree in Roman Military History or something?
>
>Tripp

Well, I was going to sit down and study for my Roman Life and Culture
midterm tomorrow, but this was sort of on the subject and interesting,
so here we go.

Yikes, these numbers are about to get ugly, because the Romans were a
little messed up.

We got the legions, which each contained about 4-5000 infantry, as well
as 300 cavalry. Each legion was split into 30 maniples, each containing
2 centuries, which actually only had about 80 men in it.

Now, the legion was split into four parts, the velites, hastati,
principes, and triarii. The velites being the youngest and pansiest and
going up from there. So, there are a total of 60 centuries. 60 men are
therefore chosen to be the centurions, although those men can't be from
the velites because they are just too much like that kid with bad acne
on the Simpsons... anyways.

That gives us 60 centurions, with two per maniple, just in case one got
really sick or something. And when both were there, they each took their
century. However, one of them remained in command as 1st Centurion.
Then, from each maniple, they chose two additional men to be the
standard bearers, one for each century.

Out of this, class ranking comes in based on which section men were put
into. For instance, the velites were poorest, and the triarii were able
to purchase the heavier chain mail and spears and the like. There were
10 maniples from each of the highest three class areas with the velites
spreading evenly throughout the ranks.

The Consuls provide the main leadership for the bunch (this is during
Rome's republican period) and they also appoint tribunes to take charge
of the individual legions.

Okay, I'll stop ranting now. Here's how I think this works in game
terms.

There's the velites... they suck. Lvl 0, since we can't make them -1.
All the other three main classes (hastati, principes, triarii) should be
lvl 0-1. They are better than the velites...

Standard bearers were better than average. lvl 2.
Centurions were lvl 3, even though one of the two in a maniple was often
given real charge.

Tribunes were very high people, but could buy their way in, like
politicians usually do. I recommend lvl 2-4.

Consuls? Well, what level was Caeser? They could be anywhere, as these
are the regents.

Totals per century

Lvl 0 -- 48 (levites, half of others)
Lvl 1 -- 28 (half of others)
Lvl 2 -- 2 (standard bearers)
Lvl 3 -- 2 (centurions)

Applying this to the whole legion gives us

Lvl 0 -- 1488
Lvl 1 -- 868
Lvl 2 -- 60
Lvl 3 -- 60

Wow... that's a lot of leveled people. Now you know why I'm doing
medieval/classical studies and not game designing!

Thanks for listening to my documentary on the Romans... hope I get an A
on the test tomorrow! :)

Richard/Alenecht...

PS. Tripp and Eric! Can I have extra credit? I did my homework... :)

"I don't want the world, I just want your half..." -- TMBG

[Eric Dunn]

>Applying this to the whole legion gives us
>
>Lvl 0 -- 1488
>Lvl 1 -- 868
>Lvl 2 -- 60
>Lvl 3 -- 60
>
>Wow... that's a lot of leveled people. Now you know why I'm doing
>medieval/classical studies and not game designing!
>
>Thanks for listening to my documentary on the Romans... hope I get an A
>on the test tomorrow! :)
>
>Richard/Alenecht...
>
>PS. Tripp and Eric! Can I have extra credit? I did my homework... :)
>
>"I don't want the world, I just want your half..." -- TMBG
>
>

Hahahaha, Umm, sure, you can get extra credit.

Thanks for the highly detailed info :) Also what I was looking for.

E

(Oh, and Tripp--"I told you so!" )