Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 30 of 30

Thread: Unit Experience

  1. #21
    Now you are adding that in order to benefit from the random rolls that have already been made you must make yet another one that can just as easily fail. Take as an example that a single unit of green infantry somehow manages to survive and win against 5 units of Elite cavalry. While not likely it is still possible using the randomness of combat. After all of that the unit must make the DC check in order to gain experience. This check now fails so the unit doesn’t get any experience even though they have clearly succeeded and should by any sense of logic used. That is the result of randomness in any situation.
    Apparently you dont follow how his system works. You do not roll for experience you roll to see if they reach the next level. The unit will always get at least a +1 to the roll for each battle, hence they would always get some exoperience from the battle. The qustion is: did they get enough exp to reach the next level?


    If you make the system then it is the system that DM will use, unless they come up with house rules instead. Forget how many individuals are in the unit, that is the whole point of treating them as a unit. They function as an entity. If you try to break things down to the individual level then you are into an extremely unwieldy system that would by default use the exact methodology and tables from the DMG.
    Apparently this is the major difference of opinion here. irdeggman argues for the unit being considered 1 entity while Ospery argues that is it a group of individuals. I believe that equating a military unit to a PC or NPC is definately not the way to go about handling their exp.

    However, I am basing my belief on not allowing veteran units be mustered, except those units the region is famous.

    Not from the way I read this comment. All he is saying is that the maintenance costs for units should be increased as their level goes up (that is a green unit should cost less in maintenance than an elite one.) Since people want to make comparisons to real world effects this is actually a very accurate statement. Maintenance cost are more based on experience. People with more experience get paid more (i.e., higher salary), they have better equipment, etc.

    And since Elite unit costs more than a green one, if someone wanted to hire a unit of elite soldiers (i.e., mercenaries) and they paid the cost why shouldn’t they be allowed to?
    Heheh, I was only talking about the consequences of allowing this course of action, not the action itself and its obvious that you are in conflict with advocating low level campain with high level units...

    If you want to go with the idea that you can hire replacements what are of equivalent level, then I would have no problem with equating units to a PC as they will always be able to get good replacements of equivalent level. However you have been arguing for a low level game, so why would you be able to easily find elite unit replacements? or better yet muster entire elite units? Your suggestion of mercs makes sense, however, why woud you bother with mercs, who are less loyal, when you could just as easy muster a loyal elite unit, who would also cost less?

    Continuing on this track, as you can muster elite units why would you bother musterng lower level units, and thus there is no point to unit experience as all units that you muster would be the highest level. This was the point I was making.
    "Who was the first that forged the deadly blade? Of rugged steel his savage soul was made." --Tibullus

    "Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum." --Vegetius

    "Men grow tired of sleep, love, singing and dancing sooner than war." --Homer

  2. #22
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,945
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    QUOTE
    Now you are adding that in order to benefit from the random rolls that have already been made you must make yet another one that can just as easily fail. Take as an example that a single unit of green infantry somehow manages to survive and win against 5 units of Elite cavalry. While not likely it is still possible using the randomness of combat. After all of that the unit must make the DC check in order to gain experience. This check now fails so the unit doesn’t get any experience even though they have clearly succeeded and should by any sense of logic used. That is the result of randomness in any situation.



    Apparently you dont follow how his system works. You do not roll for experience you roll to see if they reach the next level. The unit will always get at least a +1 to the roll for each battle, hence they would always get some exoperience from the battle. The qustion is: did they get enough exp to reach the next level?
    QUOTE
    Now you are adding that in order to benefit from the random rolls that have already been made you must make yet another one that can just as easily fail. Take as an example that a single unit of green infantry somehow manages to survive and win against 5 units of Elite cavalry. While not likely it is still possible using the randomness of combat. After all of that the unit must make the DC check in order to gain experience. This check now fails so the unit doesn’t get any experience even though they have clearly succeeded and should by any sense of logic used. That is the result of randomness in any situation.



    Apparently you dont follow how his system works. You do not roll for experience you roll to see if they reach the next level. The unit will always get at least a +1 to the roll for each battle, hence they would always get some exoperience from the battle. The qustion is: did they get enough exp to reach the next level?



    QUOTE
    If you make the system then it is the system that DM will use, unless they come up with house rules instead. Forget how many individuals are in the unit, that is the whole point of treating them as a unit. They function as an entity. If you try to break things down to the individual level then you are into an extremely unwieldy system that would by default use the exact methodology and tables from the DMG.



    Apparently this is the major difference of opinion here. irdeggman argues for the unit being considered 1 entity while Ospery argues that is it a group of individuals. I believe that equating a military unit to a PC or NPC is definately not the way to go about handling their exp.

    However, I am basing my belief on not allowing veteran units be mustered, except those units the region is famous.


    QUOTE
    Not from the way I read this comment. All he is saying is that the maintenance costs for units should be increased as their level goes up (that is a green unit should cost less in maintenance than an elite one.) Since people want to make comparisons to real world effects this is actually a very accurate statement. Maintenance cost are more based on experience. People with more experience get paid more (i.e., higher salary), they have better equipment, etc.

    And since Elite unit costs more than a green one, if someone wanted to hire a unit of elite soldiers (i.e., mercenaries) and they paid the cost why shouldn’t they be allowed to?




    Heheh, I was only talking about the consequences of allowing this course of action, not the action itself and its obvious that you are in conflict with advocating low level campain with high level units...

    If you want to go with the idea that you can hire replacements what are of equivalent level, then I would have no problem with equating units to a PC as they will always be able to get good replacements of equivalent level. However you have been arguing for a low level game, so why would you be able to easily find elite unit replacements? or better yet muster entire elite units? Your suggestion of mercs makes sense, however, why woud you bother with mercs, who are less loyal, when you could just as easy muster a loyal elite unit, who would also cost less?


    Continuing on this track, as you can muster elite units why would you bother musterng lower level units, and thus there is no point to unit experience as all units that you muster would be the highest level. This was the point I was making
    Cost and maintenance involved. Not every kingdom can afford to maintain higher level units if their maintenance costs are high. That what the gist of the point being made about higher maintenance costs for higher level units. A Regent would go broke if he had to constantly pay maintenance on higher leveled units, assuming the costs were set correctly.



    QUOTE
    If you make the system then it is the system that DM will use, unless they come up with house rules instead. Forget how many individuals are in the unit, that is the whole point of treating them as a unit. They function as an entity. If you try to break things down to the individual level then you are into an extremely unwieldy system that would by default use the exact methodology and tables from the DMG.



    Apparently this is the major difference of opinion here. irdeggman argues for the unit being considered 1 entity while Ospery argues that is it a group of individuals. I believe that equating a military unit to a PC or NPC is definately not the way to go about handling their exp.
    The rules do not support either the present BRCS or the 2nd ed rules treated units as 200 individuals. There designated a unit for a reason. That is to make it easier to keep track of them and to reflect how their work as a whole. Treating them as 200 individuals really skews how things are done. And Osprey's exp method is actually a reflection of the unit being treated as a single entity.

    However, I am basing my belief on not allowing veteran units be mustered, except those units the region is famous.


    QUOTE
    Not from the way I read this comment. All he is saying is that the maintenance costs for units should be increased as their level goes up (that is a green unit should cost less in maintenance than an elite one.) Since people want to make comparisons to real world effects this is actually a very accurate statement. Maintenance cost are more based on experience. People with more experience get paid more (i.e., higher salary), they have better equipment, etc.

    And since Elite unit costs more than a green one, if someone wanted to hire a unit of elite soldiers (i.e., mercenaries) and they paid the cost why shouldn’t they be allowed to?

    This really doesn't matter. It all depends on the availability of a unit and how much money the regent trying to acquire it has. Just because a regetn wants to hire an experienced unit does not mean that the DM has to allow the unit to be available. That is part of what a DM does - determining what is and isn't available where and when the player's try to acquire things. This is something that should never change.


    Heheh, I was only talking about the consequences of allowing this course of action, not the action itself and its obvious that you are in conflict with advocating low level campain with high level units...
    Why would you say that? The level of the campaign realy has nothing to do with this statement. If a DM is runing a low-level campaign then he should adjust things appropriately so that his player-regents have income and assets appropriate to the level being run.

    If you want to go with the idea that you can hire replacements what are of equivalent level, then I would have no problem with equating units to a PC as they will always be able to get good replacements of equivalent level. However you have been arguing for a low level game, so why would you be able to easily find elite unit replacements? or better yet muster entire elite units? Your suggestion of mercs makes sense, however, why woud you bother with mercs, who are less loyal, when you could just as easy muster a loyal elite unit, who would also cost less?
    Again what you are advocating reflects the treatment of units as a set of individuals and not as a single entity. If they are individuals then how can they reasonable be assumed to pick up any of the special qualities assigned to units? Think about how you are trying to apply this. The special qualities of units are real similar to feats and the comparison should be relatively obvious I would think. In 3.5 the monster progression was more greatly defined to give skills and feats at levels - this is what the revision to the war chapter will really need to embrace if it is to be a true 3.5 compatable revision.

    Continuing on this track, as you can muster elite units why would you bother musterng lower level units, and thus there is no point to unit experience as all units that you muster would be the highest level. This was the point I was making
    See all of the points above concerning relative costs. If all regents have infinite income then this is a real issue, but if the regents are properly challenged on the domain level they will need to maintain many assets that eat up their income and they won't have sufficient funds to hire higher level units (or at least not enough of them to make a real diference).


    One other point - as you have said that keeping track of exp for a unit is more cumbersome than Osprey's system - I suggest you read Osprey's more carefully. The modifiers per unit defeated are cumulative which means that each unit is actually keeping track of an exp point equivalent system. So a player/DM is keeping track of each unit's level and modifiers to the d20 roll to see if the next level is obtained.

    It then becomes not too difficult to make the conversion to 3.5 by setting exp point requirements to advance levels. Just drop the random roll to see if the next level is obtained - it really has no logical meaning here it that is what is totally against the d20 system mechanics.
    Duane Eggert

  3. #23
    Senior Member Osprey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    1,475
    Downloads
    34
    Uploads
    8
    One other point - as you have said that keeping track of exp for a unit is more cumbersome than Osprey's system - I suggest you read Osprey's more carefully. The modifiers per unit defeated are cumulative which means that each unit is actually keeping track of an exp point equivalent system. So a player/DM is keeping track of each unit's level and modifiers to the d20 roll to see if the next level is obtained.
    But what T'Char was saying was that you only keep track of a unit's performance on a per-battle basis. After that, the only XP you keep track of is how many battles have been fought since the unit last advanced (if at all).

    And yes, it is much like an XP award system, and yes, it is also different than the 3.5 DMG XP awards for player characters.

    The difference, as I've tried to illustrate for you, is that I'm treating units not as single entities and not as 200 individuals, but as a group of 200 individuals who are part of a team. However, that doesn't mean every team learns and advances as fast as every other team. Put aside 3.5 official mechanics for a minute and look at real life. This is our fundamental difference in approach: I check my systems against believability and playability; you check them against the official rules. I don't think the official XP rules adequately reflect the reality of unit and group experience and advancement. And I think static awards (i.e., a unit needs to damage or destroy so many units, and then it automatically gets better) are boring and utterly predictable. The more things become predictable, the more static and stagnant the game becomes. I'd prefer to avoid that, personally.

    While a unit may not go from regular to veteran in one battle despite overwhelming success, the odds of this happening are very slim. Using your example of a green unit killing off 5 elite units, they could only fail to get better if they rolled a 1 on the XP check, and then only if your DM rules that 1's always fail. I specifically didn't make rules for this because I wanted to leave the results of botches and critical successes on things like this up to the DM to decide for special effect value. The green unit thus failing to become regular would be a freak event, but one easyt to explain: their success was more a result of pure luck than anything else, and obviously they are none the wiser for the experience. Probably end up more rowdy and undisciplined, more likely to do something brave and foolish in the next battle and get themselves killed right off. On the other hand, they must have learned something, so their odds of advancing if they actually survive and participate in the next battle will be improved.


    I had more to say, but I can't seem to come up with anything that doesn't devolve into flaming and personal attacks, so I guess I'll stop. Later.

  4. #24
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,945
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    QUOTE*
    One other point - as you have said that keeping track of exp for a unit is more cumbersome than Osprey's system - I suggest you read Osprey's more carefully. The modifiers per unit defeated are cumulative which means that each unit is actually keeping track of an exp point equivalent system. So a player/DM is keeping track of each unit's level and modifiers to the d20 roll to see if the next level is obtained.




    But what T'Char was saying was that you only keep track of a unit's performance on a per-battle basis. After that, the only XP you keep track of is how many battles have been fought since the unit last advanced (if at all).

    And yes, it is much like an XP award system, and yes, it is also different than the 3.5 DMG XP awards for player characters.
    Again, why? If a unit is counting battles as exp then this exp stays with them throughout their career.

    The difference, as I've tried to illustrate for you, is that I'm treating units not as single entities and not as 200 individuals, but as a group of 200 individuals who are part of a team. However, that doesn't mean every team learns and advances as fast as every other team. Put aside 3.5 official mechanics for a minute and look at real life. This is our fundamental difference in approach: I check my systems against believability and playability; you check them against the official rules. I don't think the official XP rules adequately reflect the reality of unit and group experience and advancement. And I think static awards (i.e., a unit needs to damage or destroy so many units, and then it automatically gets better) are boring and utterly predictable. The more things become predictable, the more static and stagnant the game becomes. I'd prefer to avoid that, personally.

    Never said that every team advances as fast as every other team. But every team that passes the markers placed gains the same awards. That is if the line is 5 successful batttles then any team that successfully passes 5 battles would get the same award.

    Oh and I am looking at real life. Have I mentioned that I live in the area of the United States with the largest concentration of military in the world? Check out an atlas for the stats on military units in Norfolk Virginia and surrounding areas. Navy, Marines, airforce (the least present but still here), army and coast guard all have major stations here as well as the headquarters for NATO.

    Ship's get drilled on things that the Navy uses for standards. When the team (i.e., entire ship's company as a whole by working together) pass the test then the ship gets the credit and is classified as fully qualified.

    Any military worth a darn places greater value on teams (i.e., units) working together and meshing as a units then on individual performance. This leads to the concept used of treating a unit as single entity. Military units train to the point that they 'act' as an individual that is the goal of their training programs.

    And the problem I have is that the random roll to see if the level stuck is what is unbelievable. Either a unit has gained sufficient experience to advance or they haven't. This experience is proven by the outcome of the events that led to the conclusion of the battle. The system fails in the believeability test when compared to normal real world standards.

    While a unit may not go from regular to veteran in one battle despite overwhelming success, the odds of this happening are very slim. Using your example of a green unit killing off 5 elite units, they could only fail to get better if they rolled a 1 on the XP check, and then only if your DM rules that 1's always fail. I specifically didn't make rules for this because I wanted to leave the results of botches and critical successes on things like this up to the DM to decide for special effect value. The green unit thus failing to become regular would be a freak event, but one easyt to explain: their success was more a result of pure luck than anything else, and obviously they are none the wiser for the experience. Probably end up more rowdy and undisciplined, more likely to do something brave and foolish in the next battle and get themselves killed right off. On the other hand, they must have learned something, so their odds of advancing if they actually survive and participate in the next battle will be improved.
    And how fast a unit advances is determined by its successes on the battle field. The 'differences' in performances between units is reflected by the outcome of the rolls made during the combats. That is where the randomness comes into play. If the score to be a marksman is 98 on a target range, than all marksmen will have a 98 (or better). But not all of them will reach that point at the same time. That is the rolls made during the testing. This corresponds to skill checks or combat rolls not a roll to see if the training/experience stuck.
    Duane Eggert

  5. #25
    So far the heart of you argument is that units need to be considered single entities. The strongest evidence you have used to support this argument is that BR treats military units as single entities for military stats for combat.

    I’m going to consolidate some of your points that support this argument a little more clearly here:

    Cost and maintenance involved. Not every kingdom can afford to maintain higher level units if their maintenance costs are high. That what the gist of the point being made about higher maintenance costs for higher level units. A Regent would go broke if he had to constantly pay maintenance on higher leveled units, assuming the costs were set correctly.
    See all of the points above concerning relative costs. If all regents have infinite income then this is a real issue, but if the regents are properly challenged on the domain level they will need to maintain many assets that eat up their income and they won't have sufficient funds to hire higher level units (or at least not enough of them to make a real diference).
    This really doesn't matter. It all depends on the availability of a unit and how much money the regent trying to acquire it has. Just because a regetn wants to hire an experienced unit does not mean that the DM has to allow the unit to be available. That is part of what a DM does - determining what is and isn't available where and when the player's try to acquire things. This is something that should never change.

    Why would you say that? The level of the campaign realy has nothing to do with this statement. If a DM is runing a low-level campaign then he should adjust things appropriately so that his player-regents have income and assets appropriate to the level being run.
    The rules do not support either the present BRCS or the 2nd ed rules treated units as 200 individuals. There designated a unit for a reason. That is to make it easier to keep track of them and to reflect how their work as a whole. Treating them as 200 individuals really skews how things are done. And Osprey's exp method is actually a reflection of the unit being treated as a single entity.
    Ok so what you are saying is that:

    1st: The cost of unit maintenance should include replacements if the regent can afford them.

    2nd: Properly challenged regents shouldn’t be able to afford to hire elite units.

    3rd: Unit availability is determined by the DM.

    4th: There is no precedent for treating military units as groups of individuals.

    Now, to address these points then.

    1st: Well if the regent can’t afford to maintain higher level units then why would he want too use any form of the unit exp system? He wouldn’t because eventually those regular units he could maintain suddenly have become veterans and elites and he can no longer afford to maintain them. Hence, the argument to have any type of replacement available does not make any sense or contribute to the discussion of creating a unit exp system. Thus, it should be discounted.

    2nd: Actually, you don’t need nearly as many elite units as you would regular units. Your average elite unit is worth many regulars. Hence, you can easily have the same maintenance costs as you need less elite units to defend your boarders. Hence, the cost and maintenance isn’t the issue here, only how they acquire the exp needed to raise in level.

    3rd: Of course this all depends on the DM, it always does, that question was never brought up nor should it need to be. That said, any unit exp system is obviously intended for the campaign where the unit availability is restricted, ie you cannot muster veteran or elite units. For if there is no restriction upon the level of individuals that can be found to form a unit then there is no point to concern yourself with the units exp as you can always just upgrade the unit via training.

    4th: Actually treating 200 individuals as 1 entity is never done in the BR or D&D exp system. Actually in the D&D system groups of characters are treated as groups of individuals with each member contributing to the group’s total EL, each member then gains the same amount of exp, however, as they may not be all of equivalent level some may go up in level while others do not. Thus, they are not considered a single entity for the D&D exp system.

    If we wanted to get more accurate about it we would give exp to squads in the unit, a squad consisting of about 10 characters, as they are the only ones who would really be helping each other and thus be considered a group for the D&D EL and CR system. However, as not every member of the squad is likely to survive the battle their net EL may decrease due to the new recruits who will then join them. So in short, is one of the reasons it’s better either use the D&D system accurately, like how the PC game Medieval Total War does it keeping track of each individual’s exp in the unit.

    For example: If we use the EL system a group of 10-12 1st level characters = EL of 8, if you wanted to expand that to the entire unit it would be an EL of 17 as 10 EL 8 = 15 and then 2 EL 15 = 17. Now if we wanted to get to elite units then were talking roughly 5+ level characters really for the grunts, so that will be an EL of 12 for the squad and then EL of 21 for the unit. Now this is not really including the officers as they are likely to be higher level than the grunts. Thus, the EL for the non elite unit will probably be about EL 18-19 while the elite unit will have an EL of 22-24 (wider range as their officers may be much higher level).

    Now we can recalculate this number every damn time the unit gets fresh replacements, or accept the fact that doing so is just way to much work to bother with and thus decide to use a different system that follows the spirit of the D&D system along with reality that replacements from the training camps will never be equal to the battle hardened vets.

    I say we should accept the fact that D&D does not offer a good system to deal with large groups of people gaining exp and thus use a system that simplifies and at least somewhat mimics the fact that the unit as a whole may not be experienced enough, due to the replacements and not all the squads got to see equal amounts of action, to gain that next level of proficiency as a unit. Thus, Osprey’s system does simply this process and uses the idea of chance for the determining if the unit as a whole has gained enough exp to reach the next level. The reasoning for the use of chance by the die roll is to simplify the huge and cumbersome calculations that will otherwise be required if one were to truly follow the D&D system of exp.


    Again what you are advocating reflects the treatment of units as a set of individuals and not as a single entity. If they are individuals then how can they reasonable be assumed to pick up any of the special qualities assigned to units? Think about how you are trying to apply this. The special qualities of units are real similar to feats and the comparison should be relatively obvious I would think. In 3.5 the monster progression was more greatly defined to give skills and feats at levels - this is what the revision to the war chapter will really need to embrace if it is to be a true 3.5 compatable revision.
    Ok the point you present here is that somehow groups of individuals cannot acquire feats that result in the unit having a special ability, like scout or shield training. Heheh, well for scouts they are likely to be rangers first of all and not warriors or fighters, and have good hide and move silently skills. However, with regard to the shield training they do have some new feats in the Complete warrior, namely the tactical feats like Formation Expert.


    Oh and I am looking at real life. Have I mentioned that I live in the area of the United States with the largest concentration of military in the world? Check out an atlas for the stats on military units in Norfolk Virginia and surrounding areas. Navy, Marines, airforce (the least present but still here), army and coast guard all have major stations here as well as the headquarters for NATO.

    Ship's get drilled on things that the Navy uses for standards. When the team (i.e., entire ship's company as a whole by working together) pass the test then the ship gets the credit and is classified as fully qualified.

    Any military worth a darn places greater value on teams (i.e., units) working together and meshing as a units then on individual performance. This leads to the concept used of treating a unit as single entity. Military units train to the point that they 'act' as an individual that is the goal of their training programs.
    This is an example of mustering a unit, a modern unit for that matter. Firstly, Do you remember when such standardization came about? It certainly wasn’t in the Middle Ages. So as an example it really should be discounted.

    However, I will offer you a modern example to counter yours. If you had been to Nam, you would know how green the replacements were and how much battlefield exp they need to become even considered regulars. Thus, you cannot treat the entire unit as being equivalent level from training alone as it is battlefield exp that really makes a unit veteran, elite ect.


    And the problem I have is that the random roll to see if the level stuck is what is unbelievable. Either a unit has gained sufficient experience to advance or they haven't. This experience is proven by the outcome of the events that led to the conclusion of the battle. The system fails in the believeability test when compared to normal real world standards.
    Now, this is the 2nd most important point of your argument (the 1st being treating military units as single entities) and the origin of your reluctance for accepting a different system. Personally, I agree with you that once the individual has gained the exp they should advance to the next level. However, as we are considering a large group of individuals that have each acquired different amounts of exp, it becomes very difficult to determine exactly when the group as a whole advances to the next level as a unit. Hence, to simplify this real aspect of the military unit, and the random chance that some of the higher level characters died during the battle and their replacements were not of equivalent level. This is also addressed more in detail above.
    "Who was the first that forged the deadly blade? Of rugged steel his savage soul was made." --Tibullus

    "Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum." --Vegetius

    "Men grow tired of sleep, love, singing and dancing sooner than war." --Homer

  6. #26
    Senior Member Osprey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    1,475
    Downloads
    34
    Uploads
    8
    OK, Irdeggman, I'm going to try and work at it from your angle and see what we can come up with. I'm not convinced yet, but that's partly because there have been no concrete alternatives to compare to. That comparison can't be a fair one as long as we're sitting here wasting our time arguing theory instead of looking at some hard facts, like what does a CR-type system look like, and is it in fact workable or too complex.

    Assigning CR's to a unit

    The only fair way to measure a unit's CR is by its muster cost in GB. For simplicity's sake, we'll assign a generic power level equal to a unit's muster cost. I'm going to work with my edit of +2 GB to muster cost for veteran units here, which will become essential if GB is also a measure of a unit's power level.
    Typical Anuirean Units:
    Levies [Green Irregulars]: 1
    Regular [Light/Medium] Infantry: 2
    Irregulars [Lt Regulars]: 2
    Archers [Lt Regulars]: 2
    Marines [Lt Irr Marines, Regulars]: 3
    Elite Infantry [Heavy Veterans]: 5
    Engineers [Regular]: 4
    Cavalry [Lt Regular Cavalry]: 4
    Knights [Hvy Vet Cavalry]: 7
    Elite Knights [Elite Hvy Cavalry, Tough]: 10


    Assuming elite adds another +2 GB, it's possible to get some pretty expensive units and thus units worth 10+ GB on the high end. In fact, if one piles on special training options (another feature made possible by a War Academy IMC), you could see units reaching 15-20 GB muster value, even higher if you use the RoE levels of experience (Crack and Guard above Elite).

    So let's assume the base scale is about 1-10, and elite levels can stretch to 20 or so. This gives us a rough power scale.

    Now, here is where things get foggy for me. I'm at a loss to figure out a way to keep this fairly simple and still parallel the D&D xp award system. While GB muster value can replace character level/CR, what are we measuring? Every hit in a battle represents kills, so basing awards only on units defeated doesn't seem appropriate. I would prefer to base xp on unit performance, but keep the numbers low.

    Hmm, also nigh-impossible to do tables in this forum, which is what you're suggesting. Any ideas for where to go from here? Some constructive specifics would be helpful here.

    Osprey

  7. #27
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,945
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Osprey,
    Sorry for seeming so beligerent here. You deserve more respect than that. I do get sensitive when someone (not necessessarily you) tell me (or impy) that I do not know what I'm talking about and that I am a 17 year old with no experience in the real world.

    For the record I am 46, a degreed Engineer (BSChe for the University of Michigan, class of '81) and have been working at Norfolk Naval Shipyard going on 22 years now.

    I have not been to 'Nam, but I seriously doubt if anyone on this board has either - since at 46 I missed the draft and I do believe that I haven't seen anyone on line here who is older than I am. I have said that dirt and I are on a first name basis .

    I work with military people on a daily basis and have routinely briefed Captains (Navy) on various issues. My circle of friends include people who are military brats (i.e., children of career military). One is the son of a retired Air Force officer (pretty high ranking too), another was a decryption specialist in the Army (whose sone just got out and was a cav specialist (i.e, tanks)) several others are officers (or were) in the Army in various positions. Another close friend is a person that works at Avalanche press (one of the premier and award winning war game producers - their War at Sea series received a whole lot of awards). So when it comes down to issues relating to how the military (especially shipyards) function I do believe that I know what I'm talking about.


    No as far as coming up with tables, etc. I think an assumption that shouldn't be made is that Chap 6 of the BRCS is going to look like what is in the current playtest version. IMO this is a bad place to start. I don't think Dan has managed to get very far (and I haven't seen what he got to) on his revision. I believe that he has succumbed to real world pressure. I really hate it when life gets in the way of my fantasy gaming

    I will see what I can find as far as word versions of the 'remaining' chapters and post them so people have something to work on towards revising them. I won't be doing much, since I keep trying to get onto my sabbatical soon (it is always good to have goals ).

    IMO things in Chap 6 that should be kept are the battle magic system (at least the feat requirement and simplified effects). The levels of units (green to Elite). It looks like people like the options for specialty training (or abilities) for units. Based on the changes that 3.5 made (especially to monters) I think I would lean towards something on the order of acquiring special abilities when 'leveling up'. That is when a unit gains a level of experience they get a means of acquiring some type of special ability. This could be in the form of points (like skill points) that can be used to 'purchase' abilities or feats that would exchange for an ability. I think I'mleaning towards a system of points with each ability having a variable cost associated with it.

    Now if people want to keep the concept that a unit can spend time training to gain an ability without combat experience then applying a LA based on the ability being acquired would seem appropriate.

    Off the top of my head it would look like it would be easiest to treat each level exactly like a character level in regards to exp. That is to use the existing exp tables. While the number may appear to be high, the process could be more readily followed as being an extension of the character advancement system

    Note that I have never ever said that the existing exp system wasn't cumbersome, only that it is being used. Most of the DMs I have talked with think that the 3/3.5 system is page flipping encumbered but the 'concept' of different exp for each character based on their level and the CR being overcome is very good - only the actual mechanic is a pain in the behind.

    Back to the subject on hand. Using 'muster costs' seems a reasonable place to assign an equivalent level for a unit. Don't get caught up with specific damage (i.e., hits being kills). Treat every battle (not individual dual) as you would an encounter. This is logical since an encounter involves many different individual combats and it is the overall encounter (that is how opponents are placed, terrain, number of opponents, capabilities of opponents, etc.) that determines the EL.

    Every unit that doesn't remain in the reserve during the combat has contributed. So just like the way it is done for characters the exp that each unit receives is based on the CR of the unit being encountered and the ECL of the unit that exp is being awarded to, diviing by the total number of particants on the friendly side.

    IMO I would not treat damage into the equation. This is based on not counting how many hitpoints a PC inflicts on an opponent in awarding exp.

    The 'winning' side should get treated as if they 'overcame' or defeated all opponents on the field.

    Now here is where things can easily get weird. IMO awarding partial exp for surviving a battle is appropriate (while not IAW the core process) - perhaps a percentage of the award given to the winning side. That is calculate the exp the units would receive and then multiply by a certain percentage. Maybe 1/4 for the lossing side and 1/2 if it is a 'draw'. Whether or not the opponents are destroyed or just routed shouldn't really matter (it doesn't matter on the character level - both are considered overcoming the obstacle).


    Now the other point that becomes an issue is what do we do with a unit that has taken some damage? Again this needs to be included in the Chap 6 revision, but off the top of my head it seems to me that a unit that takes 1/4 of its hits can readily be refreshed, while a unit that takes 1/2 or more has been diminished. In the case perhaps lowering the 'level' of the unit by 1 for each 1/4 damage taken (after the first 1/4) would be logical. Again this is just a suggestion for how to look at things when the chapter is scrutinized by the masses.


    I think that if the above (and the CR you came up with) are just plugged into the DMG tables a reasonable number/system can be derived. Note again, I never said it would be easy or that the system you proposed wasn't easier. The only thing that happens this way is that the mechanics used become similar (if not exactly the same) as those used for characters. This will definitely serve to not scare new players off when they have to try to learn an additional system.

    I hope this rambling made some kind of sense. If you come with some kind of tables e-mail me and I'll post them for all to see. I just don't have the time to get that involved in a new issue that will delay my break.
    Duane Eggert

  8. #28
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,945
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    tcharazazel,



    Ok so what you are saying is that:

    1st: The cost of unit maintenance should include replacements if the regent can afford them.

    2nd: Properly challenged regents shouldn’t be able to afford to hire elite units.

    3rd: Unit availability is determined by the DM.

    4th: There is no precedent for treating military units as groups of individuals.

    Now, to address these points then.
    1st: Well if the regent can’t afford to maintain higher level units then why would he want too use any form of the unit exp system? He wouldn’t because eventually those regular units he could maintain suddenly have become veterans and elites and he can no longer afford to maintain them. Hence, the argument to have any type of replacement available does not make any sense or contribute to the discussion of creating a unit exp system. Thus, it should be discounted.
    For one because as the units gain experience so does the regent. That is as his units have engaged enemies (and hopefully vanquished them) he has gained additional assets (re: income) and can now sustain a greater military. If he loses then he has lost inclome and con no longermaintain the forces he had before.


    2nd: Actually, you don’t need nearly as many elite units as you would regular units. Your average elite unit is worth many regulars. Hence, you can easily have the same maintenance costs as you need less elite units to defend your boarders. Hence, the cost and maintenance isn’t the issue here, only how they acquire the exp needed to raise in level.
    True. I never said otherwise. But one unit of Elite, while having more value to the regent than several lesser units cannot adequately patrol all the borders that are necessary. A unit can only be in one place at a time. Part of that logic in being capable of sustaing (i.e., supporting) 2 major conflicts simultaneously and having the capability to respond to a minor one. (The latest US military strategy for the 'correct' size of military)

    3rd: Of course this all depends on the DM, it always does, that question was never brought up nor should it need to be. That said, any unit exp system is obviously intended for the campaign where the unit availability is restricted, ie you cannot muster veteran or elite units. For if there is no restriction upon the level of individuals that can be found to form a unit then there is no point to concern yourself with the units exp as you can always just upgrade the unit via training.
    Correct

    4th: Actually treating 200 individuals as 1 entity is never done in the BR or D&D exp system. Actually in the D&D system groups of characters are treated as groups of individuals with each member contributing to the group’s total EL, each member then gains the same amount of exp, however, as they may not be all of equivalent level some may go up in level while others do not. Thus, they are not considered a single entity for the D&D exp system.
    I never said there was no system that did as you say I was. I said that neither the 2nd ed BR rules nor the BRCS-playtest broke miltary units down to the individual level.

    If we wanted to get more accurate about it we would give exp to squads in the unit, a squad consisting of about 10 characters, as they are the only ones who would really be helping each other and thus be considered a group for the D&D EL and CR system. However, as not every member of the squad is likely to survive the battle their net EL may decrease due to the new recruits who will then join them. So in short, is one of the reasons it’s better either use the D&D system accurately, like how the PC game Medieval Total War does it keeping track of each individual’s exp in the unit.
    Not specifically true. While it is easier to see how a squad can immediately benefit each other, a company (consisting of squads) uses each squad to perform a function that aids/benefits the entire company. Whether this is as a diversion or a rear attack or supply for the company, all portions contribute. This is even more obvious when taken from an overall tactical viewpoint. The supreme commander of the forces in the Pacific during WWII treated every unit as a unit for his purposed. They were, in simple terms, chess pieces to be moved about in order to 'capture' the opponent's king. This is the level at which the battle system in BR is conducted not at the character level.

    For example: If we use the EL system a group of 10-12 1st level characters = EL of 8, if you wanted to expand that to the entire unit it would be an EL of 17 as 10 EL 8 = 15 and then 2 EL 15 = 17. Now if we wanted to get to elite units then were talking roughly 5+ level characters really for the grunts, so that will be an EL of 12 for the squad and then EL of 21 for the unit. Now this is not really including the officers as they are likely to be higher level than the grunts. Thus, the EL for the non elite unit will probably be about EL 18-19 while the elite unit will have an EL of 22-24 (wider range as their officers may be much higher level).

    Now we can recalculate this number every damn time the unit gets fresh replacements, or accept the fact that doing so is just way to much work to bother with and thus decide to use a different system that follows the spirit of the D&D system along with reality that replacements from the training camps will never be equal to the battle hardened vets.
    Too much time in the weeds here. Get back to the chessboard comparison. Some pieces are worth more than others but each pieces (i.e., unit) has a function and purpose to gain victory.

    I say we should accept the fact that D&D does not offer a good system to deal with large groups of people gaining exp and thus use a system that simplifies and at least somewhat mimics the fact that the unit as a whole may not be experienced enough, due to the replacements and not all the squads got to see equal amounts of action, to gain that next level of proficiency as a unit. Thus, Osprey’s system does simply this process and uses the idea of chance for the determining if the unit as a whole has gained enough exp to reach the next level. The reasoning for the use of chance by the die roll is to simplify the huge and cumbersome calculations that will otherwise be required if one were to truly follow the D&D system of exp.
    Again there is still no real logic for this 'final' chance roll. The unit has either gained enough experience to advance or it has not. The details should be in gaining the experience not in whether or not a 'level' has been learned. Back to the too much time in the weeds comparison. IMO you are losing the forest for the trees by getting stuck in the individual character level of management. A domain cannot be managed at that level and managing a military is an extension of managing a domain.




    Again what you are advocating reflects the treatment of units as a set of individuals and not as a single entity. If they are individuals then how can they reasonable be assumed to pick up any of the special qualities assigned to units? Think about how you are trying to apply this. The special qualities of units are real similar to feats and the comparison should be relatively obvious I would think. In 3.5 the monster progression was more greatly defined to give skills and feats at levels - this is what the revision to the war chapter will really need to embrace if it is to be a true 3.5 compatable revision.



    Ok the point you present here is that somehow groups of individuals cannot acquire feats that result in the unit having a special ability, like scout or shield training. Heheh, well for scouts they are likely to be rangers first of all and not warriors or fighters, and have good hide and move silently skills. However, with regard to the shield training they do have some new feats in the Complete warrior, namely the tactical feats like Formation Expert.
    You've lost me in the comparison you are trying to make here.


    This is an example of mustering a unit, a modern unit for that matter. Firstly, Do you remember when such standardization came about? It certainly wasn’t in the Middle Ages. So as an example it really should be discounted.
    No, but IIRC the Romans used training units 'as a whole' extensively.

    However, I will offer you a modern example to counter yours. If you had been to Nam, you would know how green the replacements were and how much battlefield exp they need to become even considered regulars. Thus, you cannot treat the entire unit as being equivalent level from training alone as it is battlefield exp that really makes a unit veteran, elite ect.
    I take it that you have been to Nam. Funny I didn't realize that you were in your 50s. Since the war ended in the '71-72 IIRC and being 46 now I was around 14 or so at the time (too young to be in the service).



    QUOTE
    And the problem I have is that the random roll to see if the level stuck is what is unbelievable. Either a unit has gained sufficient experience to advance or they haven't. This experience is proven by the outcome of the events that led to the conclusion of the battle. The system fails in the believeability test when compared to normal real world standards.



    Now, this is the 2nd most important point of your argument (the 1st being treating military units as single entities) and the origin of your reluctance for accepting a different system. Personally, I agree with you that once the individual has gained the exp they should advance to the next level. However, as we are considering a large group of individuals that have each acquired different amounts of exp, it becomes very difficult to determine exactly when the group as a whole advances to the next level as a unit. Hence, to simplify this real aspect of the military unit, and the random chance that some of the higher level characters died during the battle and their replacements were not of equivalent level. This is also addressed more in detail above.
    And so is my response to your response.
    Duane Eggert

  9. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Victoria BC, Canada
    Posts
    368
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    This is an example of mustering a unit, a modern unit for that matter. Firstly, Do you remember when such standardization came about? It certainly wasn’t in the Middle Ages. So as an example it really should be discounted.
    Here's the quick and dirty historical answer.

    While soldiers have fought in specific units since at least the Egyptian Imperial days of the Pharoahs, the concept of mustering a 'unit' from the recruitment phase was unknown. Until this point, an army was an ad hoc collection of recruits and levies from a wide variety of villages who were gathered en masse and pointed at the enemy. The Spartans had, IMHO, the first Professional or standing army -- that is, men who did nothing but stand ready to defend the interests of their city or nation or be sent off to secure the interests of the same through conflict.

    The next example of recuritment of units from the ground up came in Rome during the 7 Conusulships of Gaius Marius, who instituted major reforms in the Republic's military, and shifted the Roman army from a collection of Patricians and Eques gathering together and forming informal units. The reforms of Marius saw a shift in the way that recruitment was done. Instead of taking men who would serve on the front lines from the elite of society, and could therefore afford their own armour and horse, he used state funds to equip the Head Count men -- the poor and (generally) disenfranchised. In agreement for 25 years or ten campaigns of service, these men were paid, fed, clothed, equipped and cared for by the State. Training was in unit tactics from the first session with a Decurion (a commander of 10 men). These individual units of ten (Decuries) served together for the entire 25 years that the men served, thus forming 'true' units, but on a smaller scale. The next level up was a unit of 5 Decuries, called a maniple (hand). Two maniples formed a Century, commanded by a Centurion. 5-8 Centuries with support troops and Cavalry formed a Legion.

    After the collapse of the Roman Empire, the concept of a standing army disappeared along with any strong central organization. The concept was not revived until Gustavus Adolphus, King of Sweden instituted reforms during the 30 Years War to give Sweden a professional, standing army. Ever since that point, the armies of Europe and the Modern world have maintained standing armies, with dedicated units.

    Since the source material indicated that Anuire has much in common with Imperial Rome, it is quite possible to have standing armies and a recruitment system that mirrors the modern day style.
    "It may be better to be a live jackal than a dead lion, but it is better still to be a live lion -- and usually easier."

    - R. A. Heinlien, from The Collected works of Lazarus Long

  10. #30
    Senior Member Osprey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    1,475
    Downloads
    34
    Uploads
    8
    Bjorn [Green Knight],

    I'm interested in hearing some more of the nuts and bolts of your XP system for RoE. What are the guidelines for earning XP on the field? Also, what system (DC's, etc.) is used for training units? Can units be trained to any level of XP, or do the DC's become prohibitive? I'm leaning towards your system as asimpler alternative to keeping track of thousands of XP per unit, but would like to get the details. Also, what are the unit stat modifiers for each level of XP?

    Osprey

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
BIRTHRIGHT, DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, D&D, the BIRTHRIGHT logo, and the D&D logo are trademarks owned by Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and are used by permission. ©2002-2010 Wizards of the Coast, Inc.