View Poll Results: What is the optimal size for a province (and thus Cerilia) in your opinion?

Voters
27. You may not vote on this poll
  • Size is fine as is (30x30 miles, approx 1000 sq mi/prov).

    9 33.33%
  • Size should be slightly greater (50x50 miles, approx 2500 sq mi/province).

    16 59.26%
  • Size should be significantly bigger (100x100 miles, approx 10000 sq mi/province).

    2 7.41%
  • Other, please specify

    0 0%
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 30
  1. #1
    Administrator Green Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,012
    Downloads
    20
    Uploads
    0
    Hi,

    I'm one of those that think Cerilia is undersized. I play with 50x50/2500 sq mi/province. I find that much more acceptable both in terms of the size and number of cities, climate, and the many cultures and races that fit into the place.

    What does the community think?

    B
    Cheers
    Bj°rn
    DM of Ruins of Empire II PbeM

  2. #2
    Senior Member Osprey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Ashland, NH
    Posts
    1,377
    Downloads
    6
    Uploads
    0
    I also use the 50x50 mi. average size IMC. It ups the travel time to more like 1-2 days mounted on roads/highways, 2-3 days mounted overland in hills,forest. etc. Even at that size, one can travel across a large region fairly quickly. And a well-organized infantry army can easily march 20 miles a day, 30 miles if they're willing to outpace the wagon supply trains behind them. An all-veteran army might even do better than that!
    So the military moves are still WAY slow IMO, unless one believes that every army forages and attacks every wee fortification along the way (a crock of sh*! IMO). IRL if an army wanted to march all the way from Shieldhaven to the Imperial City, it could probably do so in one to two weeks, plus any delays due to hostile defenses/terrain (river crossings being the main obstacle).

    Now I'm not saying change everything, but making it clear that even expanding the provinces to 50x50 avg., the war moves are still plenty generous in terms of armies taking their good 'ol time during war moves.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Thomas_Percy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    139
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    I will make an experiment in my new campaign at Anuire.
    I made a map 2 x larger, without changin anything else:

    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v226/Anu...ternMarches.jpg
    It's unacceptable for a professional world builder, but I'm only DM.

  4. #4
    Administrator Arius Vistoon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Paris ( france )
    Posts
    291
    Downloads
    268
    Uploads
    1
    i've voted 50*50 for all reason Osprey say
    a light horse travel 48 miles by day..it's good for messager

    30*30 is very too small

  5. #5
    Administrator Green Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,012
    Downloads
    20
    Uploads
    0
    Originally posted by Osprey@Jan 18 2005, 06:58 PM
    So the military moves are still WAY slow IMO, unless one believes that every army forages and attacks every wee fortification along the way (a crock of sh*! IMO). IRL if an army wanted to march all the way from Shieldhaven to the Imperial City, it could probably do so in one to two weeks, plus any delays due to hostile defenses/terrain (river crossings being the main obstacle).
    In addition to increasing province size I've also been forced to increase the speed of units. It is now much more related to character speed anyway...


    Med, Hvy Inf (Regular and elite infantry, pikes etc.) - 2
    Lt Inf (Archers, irregulars etc.) -3
    Hvy Cav (Knights) - 4
    Med Cav (Anuirean Cavalry) - 5
    Lt Cav - 6

    Even now infantry will move only about 100 miles through open terrain in one (8 day week). If we consider the above speed to be an average, non-forced, rate - then it isn't too bad.

    If a unit marched every day it's still on the slow side, but a marching army would need to rest 1-2 days each week to avoid fatigue (it doesn't HAVE to rest but unless in a rush that would be prudent).

    Now, this is still slower than character level movement - but an ARMY does not move at the same rate an individual/small group does. Not in modern times, and certainly not during ancient times (friction increases by the size of the group among other things). If you add the need to allow the supply train to keep up and the tendency for ancient armies to forage a bit, then the values are pretty good I think.

    It's not an exact fix, but the increase in size AND speed at least means that the figures are believable.

    B
    Cheers
    Bj°rn
    DM of Ruins of Empire II PbeM

  6. #6
    Administrator Green Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,012
    Downloads
    20
    Uploads
    0
    This is so anoying...I have TWO users, one called The Green knight and one called just Green Knight :huh:

    I never use the former, but whenever I reply to mails, that is the one the board decides to use...

    Anyway, with the increases in size there must of course be a similar increase in population x2,5 the listed one. Oh, I suppose you could use another multiplier, but that would change population density.

    I've seen various calculations as to the total population in Anuire/Cerilia several times, and they seem to point in the direction of Cerilia being a rather low-population-density place.

    IMO that's probably right, but I'm not so sure its such a bad thing. If you compare Cerilia to Earth, there are a lot more hostile creatures that might conflict with human settlement. Not just the non-human nations, but awnsheghlien, ogres, dragons, wandering gnolls marauders and what have you not. Earth never had any of that - it had disease and a couple of wolves, but nothing this. Would not these factors account for a lower overall population density - perhaps forcing people to live closer together in smaller areas and leaving more areas devoid of settlement that would otherwise be the case?

    I'm not sure. Anyone have any thoughts on the subject?

    B
    Cheers
    Bj°rn
    DM of Ruins of Empire II PbeM

  7. #7
    Senior Member Osprey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Ashland, NH
    Posts
    1,377
    Downloads
    6
    Uploads
    0
    IMO that's probably right, but I'm not so sure its such a bad thing. If you compare Cerilia to Earth, there are a lot more hostile creatures that might conflict with human settlement. Not just the non-human nations, but awnsheghlien, ogres, dragons, wandering gnolls marauders and what have you not. Earth never had any of that - it had disease and a couple of wolves, but nothing this. Would not these factors account for a lower overall population density - perhaps forcing people to live closer together in smaller areas and leaving more areas devoid of settlement that would otherwise be the case?

    I'm not sure. Anyone have any thoughts on the subject?
    They would, as well as the depopulation due to infighting between human factions. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that wars are probably more frequent in Cerilia (particularly Anuire) than in medieval Europe. Regardless of its technology, Anuire has been in something of a dark age since the fall of the empire - a bunch of feuding warlords struggling either to maintain their sovereignty or expand their borders and enforce vassalage on weaker lords. The rate of attrition from this sort of situation would be...pretty bad.

    Khinasi, Brechtur, and Vosgaard suffer from less-hospitable terrain and comparatively more danger from inhuman threats. Anuire seems to have it pretty easy in comparison, but they make up for it by killing each other more often.

    So yeah, there are some very good reasons for lower population densities compared to Europe and Asia Minor. This translates to why there are so many lower province levels, though, and shouldn't directly affect the populationrovince level figures. There's no reason Anuire shouldn't be capable of reaching population levels of say, medieval France, England, or Germany. So high level provinces should have population levels that are somewhat equivalent.

    Osprey

  8. #8
    Senior Member Osprey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Ashland, NH
    Posts
    1,377
    Downloads
    6
    Uploads
    0
    In addition to increasing province size I've also been forced to increase the speed of units. It is now much more related to character speed anyway...


    Med, Hvy Inf (Regular and elite infantry, pikes etc.) - 2
    Lt Inf (Archers, irregulars etc.) -3
    Hvy Cav (Knights) - 4
    Med Cav (Anuirean Cavalry) - 5
    Lt Cav - 6

    Even now infantry will move only about 100 miles through open terrain in one (8 day week). If we consider the above speed to be an average, non-forced, rate - then it isn't too bad.
    One of the confusing things about BR unit descriptions is naming them by their armor type (light, med, heavy). Later use of these terms (18th-20th century) might refer in part to their arms, but mainly to the amount of gear and supply they carry. Modern light infantry are "light" because they are designed for long-distance mobility and terrain adaptation. Heavy infantry would carry a big pack with a good supply of rations, a cookset, tent, plenty of ammo/powder, etc.

    So the they were named according to their strategic mobility and resupply needs. Light infantry could cover a lot more ground than heavy infantry, but needed seperate resupply unless they were to rely on foraging (a risky proposition for any army).

    Anyways, I just wonder if there wasn't some crossover in terms when the original movement values were set for BR war cards and strategic movement.

    Your revised movement values are interesting. Can veteran units still move further than regulars? Greater marching endurance and discipline is a fairly typical trait of veteran troops, it makes more sense than giving them increased tactical speed (although even that can be justified by greater discipline and expertise in formational movement). IMC I cut off increased movement at veteran, though - elite and crack troops keep improving attack, defense, morale, and hits, but not move. Otherwise elite light troops start outpacing cavalry at an embarrasing rate.

    Perhaps medium and light cavalry should have the same Move, similar to the infantry? As there are only light and heavy warhorses in D&D, it seems odd to have 3 speeds for cavalry units. Heavy cavalry, though, are the units that would have serious encumbrance - med. or heavy barding plus a heavily armored rider. This is already implied by the improved charge bonus they recieve, a product of the sheer mass of such a unit when they charge with lance and trampling.

    Conversely, medium cavalry are probably light warhorses with decently armored riders (chainmail or breastplate) and maybe light barding (which doesn't encumber much). They could probably keep up the same speeds as light cavalry except at the extremes of speed and endurance - but technically light encumbrance doesn't slow a person (or steed) down in D&D.

    Interesting that you've increased all cavalry speeds though, so that heavy cavalry now are faster than light infantry (whereas before they were the same). Good decision IMO, knights have always been a bit embarrasing in their lack of mobility. Also gets them slaughtered by archers if they can't cover ground reasonably quickly (in my battlesystem archers have actual range, so closing ground to engage them becomes essential, especially for cavalry).

    All in all, some good work, Bjorn. Infantry and cavalry are distinctly seperate in mobility (though scouts and veteran light troops might match heavy cavalry in overland speed, which is OK I think), but heavier infantry can still move 2 provinces a week (4 on highways, which equates to roughly 200+ miles in a week, or 12.5 miles per day marching every day).

    If a unit marched every day it's still on the slow side, but a marching army would need to rest 1-2 days each week to avoid fatigue (it doesn't HAVE to rest but unless in a rush that would be prudent).
    I'm not sure about this fact - I don't recall ever hearing about the importance of resting an army on the march in terms of taking whole days without marching. My recollection is that it was far more important that they get enough rest each day, but doing so would allow a supplied army to march for a long, long time. In fact, a well-disciplined army could probably handle at least 8-10 hours of marching a day, with a few rests during the day's march.

    While medieval armies aren't often the model of discipline and efficiency, I think this is already accounted for by the decreased speed of Green units. Most medieval European armies included mobs of levies, which would of course bog down the army's speed significantly. Those armies that were entirely professional (such as the English armies in much of the Hundred Years' War) were significantly more mobile.

    In BR, most invading regents with any sense won't rely on levies for their main offensive power, though they might drag them along to occupy provinces that are overrun. Those tyrants who DO use levies as front-line fodder, well - even when they win, high levy casualties mean big problems back home, which makes a war of any duration pretty hard to sustain.


    OK, one final thing: will highways still double a unit's move? Consider then that a company of Light Cavalry could travel 12 provinces a week on highways! That's about 600 miles in 8 days, or 75 miles a day! And a forced march could push that even further! A bit out of control, perhaps. Any thoughts on this?

    Osprey

  9. #9
    Birthright Developer
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    388
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    > So yeah, there are some very good reasons for lower population densities

    > compared to Europe and Asia Minor. This translates to why there are so

    > many lower province levels, though, and shouldn`t directly affect the

    > population:province level figures. There`s no reason Anuire shouldn`t be

    > capable of reaching population levels of say, medieval France, England, or

    > Germany. So high level provinces should have population levels that are

    > somewhat equivalent.



    They do. A level 10 province has a population of about 100,000 people. A

    province is 30 to 40 miles on a side (they aren`t regularly shaped), which

    comes out to about 1000 square miles. That`s a population of 100

    people/square mile, which is almost exactly the maximum population density

    reached in the fertile areas of Europe during the middle ages.



    --

    Daniel McSorley

  10. #10
    Senior Member Osprey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Ashland, NH
    Posts
    1,377
    Downloads
    6
    Uploads
    0
    They do. A level 10 province has a population of about 100,000 people. A
    province is 30 to 40 miles on a side (they aren`t regularly shaped), which
    comes out to about 1000 square miles. That`s a population of 100
    people/square mile, which is almost exactly the maximum population density
    reached in the fertile areas of Europe during the middle ages.
    --
    Daniel McSorley
    Cool. So bigger provinces, at 50x50 miles avg. size (2500 square miles), would have a population of about 250,000 at level 10. That also fits Bjorn's estimate of multiplying the given levels by 2.5. Nice.

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. ę2002-2010 Wizards of the Coast, Inc.