Pointless asside: The Screed Co

[James Ruhland]

> >
> And who is the npc??? Azrai himself? hahahahaha A little guilder with 200
> unit?
> >
Like I said, I don't have 200 units all myself. I need my allies for that
(70 me, 60 Diemed, 40 "Haelynil", 30+ Mieres).
We have some "distaff" allies, too, but their energies are all absorbed in
little "sideshow bob" wars right now.
As far as if this NPC is Azrai himself, I'll have to remember that you
said that. Might come in handy for propaganda purposes later.

Now, as for 200+ units, I could easily make the case that for a
Renaissance level culture, an army of 100 units (20,000) is more realistic
than an army of 2,000 (10 units). And armies of 40,000 (200 units) while
rare were at least possible.
Also, from a realism stand point, the more units that are present in a
given battle, the less significant Battle Magic Spells are in determining
the outcomes.
Now, quibble away. 8-)

[veryfastperson@juno.com]

> Also, from a realism stand point, the more units that are
>present in a
>given battle, the less significant Battle Magic Spells are in
>determining
>the outcomes.
> Now, quibble away. 8-)

Haaa, i love it when people use the word "Realism" in a fantasy setting.
Sorta ironic i guess :)

I thought the whole idea was to get away from the reality, to where
anything and everythign is possible. but hey, if this is what some people
want, who am i to argue?

good gaming,
Erik

>************************************************* **************************
>To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the
>line
>'unsubscribe birthright' as the body of the message.
>

__________________________________________________ ___________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

[Ryan B. Caveney]

On Mon, 25 May 1998, Erik M Samhammer wrote:

> Haaa, i love it when people use the word "Realism" in a fantasy setting.
> Sorta ironic i guess :)
>
> I thought the whole idea was to get away from the reality, to where
> anything and everythign is possible. but hey, if this is what some people
> want, who am i to argue?

Get away from our present reality to a different *reality*, which
has its own set of physical laws -- but the remainder of which must follow
logically from them, or it isn't properly thought-out.
And yes, James is right in that if you have one person doing the
same thing with the same resources against a larger number of people, you
will obtain a lesser effect -- regardless of whether the means of action
is magical or otherwise. On the other hand, massed combat in a
magic-plentiful world, where there can be enough battle mages to keep a
fixed ratio with common infantrymen, will thereby not change much as the
scale changes: a 4th-level wizard with battle magic becomes a standard
company support weapon. ;)

- --Ryan

[James Ruhland]

>
> Haaa, i love it when people use the word "Realism" in a fantasy setting.
> Sorta ironic i guess :)
>
It was kind of meant that way because one of the points the initiators of
this thread (oh, the other initiator other than me, I mean). Where was I?
Oh, one of the points he made via ICQ was "Is that realistic????"

> I thought the whole idea was to get away from the reality, to where
> anything and everythign is possible. but hey, if this is what some people
> want, who am i to argue?
>
I myself play to have fun (though lately, turn results have been an
exersise in overcoming disapointment, I must say). I don't care about the
other stuff except in how it affects the fun of the game.
Which is one of the main things behind my "Mony Haul: Pro or Con" rants
when it seems to me that someone (initials T.S. and R.) preaches what they
don't practice (I mean, the same company that publishes a Drow Elven
Fighter/Ranger/Bard/Whatever will come next Level 30/30/30/infinite
shouldn't complain about other people's characters. Speaking of that du
Urden dude, you know).
Anyhow, before I get too deep into that rant: the point of it all is to
have fun. The point of this forum is to discuss ways of making it fun,
learning from each other, and having fun discussing it all.
And I must say this whole thread has been fun. Ahhh, memories of chits,
"round" dice (and not the kind that has the wieght in the center, the other
kind). Memories. . . .

[Shade]

> Now, as for 200+ units, I could easily make the case that for a
>Renaissance level culture, an army of 100 units (20,000) is more realistic
>than an army of 2,000 (10 units). And armies of 40,000 (200 units) while
>rare were at least possible.

Not really. It should take you a whole level 7 province (or something) to
raise a 40,000 man army.

Anyway, as for the War Card stuff, I agree with all of you who say
"warcards suck give us dice and complex systems."

[James Ruhland]

> And armies of 40,000 (200 units) while
> >rare were at least possible.
>
> Not really. It should take you a whole level 7 province (or something) to
> raise a 40,000 man army.
>
Ahh, but we're not drawing on the population of one Level 7 Province,
we're drawing on the populations of roughly a third of Anuire.
Again, not historically unreasonable: Italian City States in the
Renaissance were able to conduct musters of most of the available male
population, as were the Swiss.
And, in fact, that represented only a recovery to the
organizational/military capabilities of the Classical era; Peloponesian
War-era Athens, Punic War-era Rome and Carthage, were all able to muster
and maintain mass "citizen armies" which consisted of a large proportion of
the available population (goes to dig up something, comes back half an hour
later after diging through boxes to find it).
History of the Art of War, Vol. 1, Warfare in Antiquity (Hans Delbruck),
Chapter 11, "The Basic Stragegic Problem of the Second Punic War" has a big
discussion on musters, army strengths, proportions of the population, etc
(among other good junk).
At any rate, the ammount a Renaissance and even Classical state could
muster under arms during wartime, the percentage of the available
population, rather, was roughly equivilent to the proportion of the
population mustered at the height of the Second World War.
So as far as administrative capacity, we can see that not much really
changed between the Second Punic War and the Second World War, except that
in the latter the population had naturally increased, and the size of the
theatre was greater (though, if you use travel times rather than raw
distance, this isn't really the case, either).
And, of course, the weapons were a lot different etc. There are a lot of
differences, really, but as far as the raw % under arms, not so.

[Alain Pouliot]

- ----------
> From: James Ruhland
> To: birthright@MPGN.COM
> Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] - Pointless asside: The Screed Continues
> Date: 26 mai, 1998 16:04
>
>
> > And armies of 40,000 (200 units) while
> > >rare were at least possible.
> >
hahahahaha. A little guilder and a couples of friends can muster 200 units.
Roesone, Boeruine, Talanie, Avanil, Ghoere, Mhoried, Tuornen, Dhoesone,
Tuarhievel, Baruk-Azhik, Endier, Ilien and Gorgon's crown have only 163
unit together!!!!!!

How can you do best????

Snag
>
>> To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the
line
> 'unsubscribe birthright' as the body of the message.

[Shade]

> And, of course, the weapons were a lot different etc. There are a lot of
>differences, really, but as far as the raw % under arms, not so.

Really? What were the percentages? I was under the impression that not a
HUGE proportion of the male poplulation of the United States fought in WWII.

[Ryan B. Caveney]

On Tue, 26 May 1998, Shade wrote:

> Really? What were the percentages? I was under the impression that not a
> HUGE proportion of the male poplulation of the United States fought in WWII.

The US? No. Germany and the USSR, *yes*.

- --Ryan

[James Ruhland]

>
> Really? What were the percentages? I was under the impression that not a
> HUGE proportion of the male poplulation of the United States fought in
WWII.
>
As far as fought, no, not a huge proportion. But roughly 15% of the male
population saw service in some form (at greatest muster, circa 12 milion
out of a total population of roughly 180 million)
Of course, that's for the U.S. Figures for, say Germany and/or USSR would
be higher, percentage wise, but not orders of magnatudes higher.
Now, actually, % for the Classical world might be even greater for that
for admitedly brief flurries, though in some very long wars.
And then take our BR force, mustered out of an area which I'd have to
rougly guestimate the population of 600,000 (having checked the Province
Levels and did a quick guess based on adding them; and no, I didn't include
Boerune; thouse units are dead to me). This is roughly the same proportion
as for the US (above).
Now, our enemy on the other hand musters from a population that can't be
greater than 200,000 after having done a quick check of his provinces.
Admitedly, this is one of the more warmongering realms in the game, though.
20% of the population under arms is quite a bit. But some of his units are
mercenaries (a rather small proportion of the total, however), and he
probably has more like 180 units instead of 200, but in this case a 10%
reduction doesn't mean all that much, because it still means that roughly
36% of the male population is under arms, which is almost all the men
capable of doing anything once you exclude children (33%+ of the male pop)
and the old (say 25%). (actually, one could quible with these %s by saying
fewer old people, but then again I could retort more children, because high
infant mortality/low life expectancy societies make up for the deficiency
by having more).
Still, not impossible. Athens and Sparta could both match thouse figures,
as far as %s go, and they with their allies could field armies of that size
(40K).