View Poll Results: What should be the approx. size of a battle unit (i.e., troop)?

Voters
18. You may not vote on this poll
  • 1. Approx 200 individuals (the 2nd ed standard)

    15 83.33%
  • 2. Approx 100 individuals

    2 11.11%
  • 3. Approx 20 individuals

    1 5.56%
  • 4. Other - please specify

    0 0%
  • 5. Abstain

    0 0%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12
  1. #1
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,946
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Here is another poll to help with the battle system.

    IMO it is important to realize that the number of individuals needs to remain an approximation otherwise if say the standard 200 is used, once 1 dies then ther is no longer a unit. Also, IMO, some units inherently have more indiviudals than other do. For example a mounted unit probably has less individuals than an infantry unit due to the size (and rarity) of sufficient horses to support 200 mounted riders.

    This poll is just to set some basis for reference and, IMO we can never define exact numbers nor should we evenmake that attempt.
    Duane Eggert

  2. #2
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    10
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    I've gone for 200 individuals in a unit as it feels about right. 100 would also be fine and is a nice, round number. Don't see a need for it to be any larger than 200.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Thomas_Percy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    139
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Assumption: in many many strategical games players try to buy only ultimate units. (In the "Gorgon's Alliance" that was knights).
    This is boring and a-historical.
    So rules (terrain, weather, population, reserves) must be done that way, that using of various units is beneficial for player.

    So I assume every unit has the same CR and only non meta-game elements decide of what unit is choosen.
    I do it by setting varius number of men-at-arms to the various units. The same is CR, about 17.
    Typical well trained men-at-arms (longbowmen, infantry): 200 x Ftr2 or Rgr2.
    Elite units (knights, elite infantry): 100 x Ftr4 or Ftr2/Ari2
    Levies: 600 x Com1
    Ultra-elite half-fiendish-griffonraiders Duke's personal guard : 25 x Ftr7
    And so on, 1 dragon CR17 etc.

    As always units are not composed entirely of duplicates of Ftr2, but there are recruits War1, Ftr1, veterans Ftr3 and my standard commanders: corporals Ftr4 and captains Ftr7.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    california
    Posts
    317
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Originally posted by Thomas_Percy@Mar 4 2005, 07:26 AM
    Assumption: in many many strategical games players try to buy only ultimate units. (In the "Gorgon's Alliance" that was knights).
    This is boring and a-historical.
    So rules (terrain, weather, population, reserves) must be done that way, that using of various units is beneficial for player.

    So I assume every unit has the same CR and only non meta-game elements decide of what unit is choosen.
    I do it by setting varius number of men-at-arms to the various units. The same is CR, about 17.
    Typical well trained men-at-arms (longbowmen, infantry): 200 x Ftr2 or Rgr2.
    Elite units (knights, elite infantry): 100 x Ftr4 or Ftr2/Ari2
    Levies: 600 x Com1
    Ultra-elite half-fiendish-griffonraiders Duke's personal guard : 25 x Ftr7
    And so on, 1 dragon CR17 etc.

    As always units are not composed entirely of duplicates of Ftr2, but there are recruits War1, Ftr1, veterans Ftr3 and my standard commanders: corporals Ftr4 and captains Ftr7.
    But some unit are stronger than others overall. A unit of knights should be the best, but in the right situation they can be cut down by cheap archers or pikemen. Terrain and weather should definitely matter and did in the BRCS. I don't agree that they all have the same CR though, as knights are not only the best but also have a higher cost.
    Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a night. Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Thomas_Percy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    139
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Originally posted by The Jew@Mar 4 2005, 02:50 PM
    I don't agree that they all have the same CR though, as knights are not only the best but also have a higher cost.
    They are more expensive, because there is 100 knights in a units and 200 infantrymen in a infantry unit.
    They are 2 x more expensive in fact.
    It's a difference to have 100 or 200 soldiers.

    Of course I'm not absolutely sure that system proposed above is perfect.
    All units have the same maintenance costs = 4GB per domain turn. It's simple. Player choose only units which appropriate for tasks, terrain and muster possibilities. Knights are kings of the plains, but they are nearly helpless in eg. Erebannien, highlands of Thurazor, deck of caravel or in the Underdark.

  6. #6
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,946
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    I have to totally disagree with the cost of units being based soley on size of unit. The reason that knights typically cost more (including maintenance costs) is that their training and equipment cost more. Horses (and barding) cost more to maintain and raise then does equipping 200 people with spears (musters or irregulars). Training in how to use swords and bows is more intense and difficult than using spears and axes. Things along that nature are what determine muster (and maintenance) costs. How much training a unit has is also a factor (green to elite). Elite typically have better equipment, pay and quarters than do the raw recruits.
    Duane Eggert

  7. #7
    Senior Member Thomas_Percy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    139
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Originally posted by irdeggman@Mar 4 2005, 04:03 PM
    I have to totally disagree with the cost of units being based soley on size of unit.
    What You disagree?
    That elite soldier hires 2 x much than standard soldier?

    Don't mix muster costs with maintenance costs, please.

  8. #8
    Site Moderator Ariadne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    near Frankfurt/ Germany
    Posts
    801
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    I voted 1, because I don’t think, we need a change of the 2nd Edition versions here. If it would not be available, I would prefer 100 Individuals, more or less is not needed, I think…
    May Khirdai always bless your sword and his lightning struck your enemies!

  9. #9
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,946
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    This is what I disagreed with

    They are more expensive, because there is 100 knights in a units and 200 infantrymen in a infantry unit.
    They are 2 x more expensive in fact.
    It's a difference to have 100 or 200 soldiers
    That is equating cost with number of members in a unit and making that number different for each type of unit. For one too many variables, for another experience and equipment have much more to do with costs than does the number of individuals in a unit.
    Duane Eggert

  10. #10
    Senior Member Osprey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Ashland, NH
    Posts
    1,377
    Downloads
    6
    Uploads
    0
    I voted 200, with the understanding that this is a regular infantry company.

    I assume regulars to be 1st and some 2nd level warriors, with a few higher-level sergeants and officers.

    Units mustered as veterans I assume to be mostly 1st-3rd level fighters (or rangers or rogues, depending on the unit). Knights and elite infantry are included here, of course. Plus a bunch of other specialty units like rangers, assassins, marines (a Swashbuckler class is excellent for veteran marines), and so on.

    One good reason to know the typical class and levels of a unit is it serves as potential recruiting grounds for advisors, lieutenants, and other retainers.

    I used to assume that veterans were in smaller units, to help keep their CRs' down.

    Now I realize that's silly: a full company should be a full company - say that 200 men was the Imperial standard for time out of mind.

    Cavalry are different, of course, as horses are significant weapons,very expensive, and rather large.
    Historical cavalry units were most always smaller than infantry ones.

    You pay more for a better company, they should have a higher CR. Unit experience should be the primary factor here, along with special training options. (unit experience should add more to muster cost than in the BRCS, given its terrific benefits).

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.