Detailed info on individuals within a unit

[Sir Tiamat]

A problem I see with creating the numbers of a unit as detailed is twofold.

Firstly, military units tend to be of specific sizes, or have a uniform understood means of orginization. Historically, Medieval infantry units were based on counting in tens or twenties, with NCO's commanding ten or twenty men, and officers at the level of 100 men, or a thousand men (Disiniers, Vintiniers, Centenairs, and Millinairs respectively) For the sorts of weapons employed to be effective, they have to be employed by sizable numbers of men, roughly drawn up in lines or blocks.

Cavalry was organized into lances, gleves, Conrois, Banners, Escadres, ranging from 2 men, up to 25, and companies usually arranged into 100 lances (conveniently 200 men, when you count the knight and his squire or coustilier). For them to be effective, they trained to attack in a mass, with loose reins, and riding knee-to-knee. Otherwise shock cavalry isn't shock cavalry. 30 or 40 men will have little effect on a battlefield, and any unit of knights will have squires integral, as well as grooms or valets, and spare horses.

Thank you for your reply, I could not agree more

I totally agree, my primary reason for doing this was to provide an option to custom build units. Numbers, experience and equipment you choose…

My system is not based on real world balance, but rather on the D&D balance and stats. 6 GB gets you 30 3rd level fighters with feats like spirited charge, clad in heavy armour, skilled like ride and intimidate, 30 heavy warhorses also able to deal massive damage and clad in studded leather barding…

In D&D 30 knights go through 100 warriors like a hot knife through butter… Whether that is historically correct is arguable, but it is part of the grand heroic theater that is D&D…

As for the squires, they are already part of the pay… a single knight, being a 3rd level fighter receives 800 gp in pay each year… This is not a lump sum of gold…

No, it rather involves a title, some squires and other privileges, a house, as well as a piece of land ploughed by some peasants that offer part of their produce to the knight.

A last problem I see is that all you account for is the teeth of a unit, without any tail to support it. A unit of archers needs bowyers and fletchers, or arblatiers and bolt makers, a unit of cavalry needs farriers, loriners, and saddlers - not to mention veterenarians. I believe these would be accounted for in the basic unit costs, as they certainly were detailed in medieval muster rolls and retinues. And to top it all off, a number of these men will have their wives or girlfireinds, and their kids tagging along to boot. Campfollowers have on occassion turned the tide of a battle, when they were mistaken for reenforcements arriving on a battlefield.

Every year a regent provides for 40% of the total equipment cost as upkeep, which is a huge sum.

Again this is not paid in gold, but this is rather the fealty to the state of the bowyers, fletchers, arblatiers, bolt makers, farriers, loriners, saddlers, and veterinarians. They provide the skilled support any army needs. Though a plate mail may well last a dozen of years, upkeep is nonetheless extremely expensive when we take the skilled support into account.

[Sir Tiamat]

Your other points also deserve a reply

The second problem I see, and what is a problem with a lot of wargame systems with the emphasis on gaming, is it seems geared to building armies that are balanced, or equal matches for one another. One of the most important points in warfare is to essentially be unfair to your opponent, to bring overwhelming force on a critical point - not to have an evenly matched battle, based on armies created around a point system.

Actually, states balance against power, or threat through a delicate and unstable system of alliances. And though the costs of military units should be balanced, state power should not be… The big fish in the pond with the biggest army will still win by overwhelming force.

Maybe I'm just not understanding the point of the detailing of individuals within a unit.

At any rate, in our campaign, game mechanics are less important than role-playing, and making things seem logical or going with the probable is more often done than going by a rigid system of tables. But thats the nice thing about roleplaying games, they can be altered to suit any number of tastes, and have as much or as little detail as the players and DM like.

I aimed to achieve two things…

First I wanted my players to be able to design their own elite units, as fitting their characters and domains… how would one create the “Protectors of the Erebannien”, my players can also take ten soldiers to accompany them on a diplomatic mission.

Second I desired to abandon the abstract war-game-like birthright combat system and have my players be present at the field of battle. This system allows me to zoom in on the surrounded count Luqian and his routing army... That when all fails and his attempts to rally fail miserably he is joined by his loyal company of knights, well the three knights that are left of it…. Now Luqian and his three companions can attempt to break through the enemy lines consisting of 100 warriors with chain shirts and Halberds…

[kgauck]

Our real enemy here is that in D&D pay increases by level, and the power of a character increases exponentially as they increase in level, so they can command a much larger wage. Historically a veteran of a few battles wasn't going to collect a significantly higher wage (though he might well have aquired some handsome pillage).

In part what we need to decide is how level effects pay, going from a medieval view (that it almost has no effect, because of medieval price theory) or is it more like D&D, which increases incomes exponentially based on a variety of D&D assumptions.

[Sir Tiamat]

Our real enemy here is that in D&D pay increases by level, and the power of a character increases exponentially as they increase in level, so they can command a much larger wage. Historically a veteran of a few battles wasn't going to collect a significantly higher wage (though he might well have aquired some handsome pillage).

In part what we need to decide is how level effects pay, going from a medieval view (that it almost has no effect, because of medieval price theory) or is it more like D&D, which increases incomes exponentially based on a variety of D&D assumptions.

Historically veterans are still vulnerable it still takes only one well placed arrow or strike to kill a veteran, and a single veteran fighting against three or four non-veteran combatants will likely not live… Therefore an increase in cost would not make sense… costs increase when demand is greater than supply… demand for veteran troops was not so high that regents would be willing to pay a substantially higher amount. Still a wise regent treats veteran troops well.

In D&D 3rd level fighter is a hero, who will not be dropped by a single arrow or blow and can easily take five 1st level warriors without breaking a sweat. Prices should therefore represent the power of higher level characters for game balance reasons. Moreover these rare individuals are in great demand… and are also worth more protective equipment.

[ShadowMoon]

Historically veterans are still vulnerable it still takes only one well placed arrow or strike to kill a veteran, and a single veteran fighting against three or four non-veteran combatants will likely not live… Therefore an increase in cost would not make sense… costs increase when demand is greater than supply… demand for veteran troops was not so high that regents would be willing to pay a substantially higher amount. Still a wise regent treats veteran troops well.

In D&D 3rd level fighter is a hero, who will not be dropped by a single arrow or blow and can easily take five 1st level warriors without breaking a sweat. Prices should therefore represent the power of higher level characters for game balance reasons. Moreover these rare individuals are in great demand… and are also worth more protective equipment.

Not if You use Wound system (as presented in Unearthed Arcana)...

Still Veterans shouldn't get payed better, but will be respected, and will prolly live longer, not for his increased durability (LOL) but for his experience on the battlefield...

[Sir Tiamat]

Not if You use Wound system (as presented in Unearthed Arcana)...

Still Veterans shouldn't get payed better, but will be respected, and will prolly live longer, not for his increased durability (LOL) but for his experience on the battlefield...

I do not think I really understand you…

I base my units on PHB and DMG classes and equipment… A veteran is simply higher level or a pc class, they are much more powerful with more feats and all. Therefore they should cost more

[ShadowMoon]

I was reffering to that higher level has more hit points, nothing more...

[ryancaveney]

Historically, Medieval infantry units were based on counting in tens or twenties, with NCO's commanding ten or twenty men, and officers at the level of 100 men, or a thousand men (Disiniers, Vintiniers, Centenairs, and Millinairs respectively)... Cavalry was organized into lances, gleves, Conrois, Banners, Escadres, ranging from 2 men, up to 25, and companies usually arranged into 100 lances (conveniently 200 men, when you count the knight and his squire or coustilier).

True, but essentially irrelevant, because, as you say,

For the sorts of weapons employed to be effective, they have to be employed by sizable numbers of men, roughly drawn up in lines or blocks... For them to be effective, they trained to attack in a mass, with loose reins, and riding knee-to-knee. Otherwise shock cavalry isn't shock cavalry. 30 or 40 men will have little effect on a battlefield

Small-scale organization doesn't matter to medieval generalship. You simply take whoever shows up (each individual landholder and some number of his personal followers, tenants, and suchlike), form them into 3 to 5 really big groups, and use them as huge, indivisible blocks. The apparent articulation of having subunits and NCOs is an illusion, because with medieval command-control, you simply can't effectively give orders to more than a tiny handful of units. As I've said before (many years ago), the 3x5 warcard map is actually a very realistic medieval battle model, if it is interpreted as meaning that whether you show up with ten companies or a thousand, you have to form them into a line of no more than five stacks, and move them around as such, because there's just no way to give individual orders to individual companies.

Of course, magic changes that, too. D&D magic, if present on a battlefield, gives communications selectivity even better than that of a modern-day, real-world army. However, as you say, because of the weapons systems used, you still can't achieve the modern line of battle, which relies on the ability of small groups to support each other at a distance by long-range weapons fire.

In BR, the 200-man unit is best thought of as simply a bookkeeping device, like the gold bar. It gives realms the size of those in Anuire armies of 6-18 units, which is a nicely manageable number from an accounting perspective, but not for battlefield command.

The second problem I see, and what is a problem with a lot of wargame systems with the emphasis on gaming, is it seems geared to building armies that are balanced, or equal matches for one another. One of the most important points in warfare is to essentially be unfair to your opponent, to bring overwhelming force on a critical point - not to have an evenly matched battle, based on armies created around a point system.

Exactly so. The importance of a point system is simply as a quick way to calculate by how much one side outmatches another. If you are a DM running a PBEM, you want a way to determine the winner of a battle and the casualties suffered by each side without having to play out a whole engagement; ideally, you'd do it all with a single die roll. For this purpose, Solmyr's "BR War Machine", based loosely on the strategic battle rules from the old D&D Companion Set, works quite well.


Ryan

[Jaleela]

I agree with You Jaleela completely, tho my regiments have Command Groups.
Command Group consist of three named NPCs (Commander, Sargeant, Standard Bearer). Only a Commander has a chance for a trait (random roll at NPC creation) with a newly trained/mustered unit. Trait might be advantageous or disvantageous. But as that unit gain experience and veterancy, so their Command Group gain levels, and potentially traits.
Basic unit modifiers gained from a Command Group are bonuses on Moral, Attack, Defense, and Organization.

PCs also could have traits, and also modify Moral, Attack, Defense, and Organization of a regiment they lead.

Oh yes, you have to have banners!. Pretty much in our campaign the (Anuirean) standing units have on average 200 soldiers, 30 NCO's (a disinier for every 10 men, file closer, whatever you want to call them), a vintinier for every 20, 2 officers called centiniers, and the captain. A banner either the regent (or sub-regents) livery banner or standard, and a trumpeter, we also usually throw in a chaplin, a cirgeon, and a clerk to round things off administratively. We assume only 200 of them will ever make it into combat best case scenario (given malingerers, the sick, and cowards), and that doesn't of course count any fletchers, bowyers, or smiths, and the units baggage carts.

It doesn't come up in quick battles, but it is useful to have the detail when role-playing a military campaign. We have actually had a few NPC's rewarded, heroic soldiers being promoted to NCO's, NCO's very rarely making it to officers, but officers occassionaly being rewarded by being elevated into the gentry, or knighted, or given a minor title for good service.

[Jaleela]

Our real enemy here is that in D&D pay increases by level, and the power of a character increases exponentially as they increase in level, so they can command a much larger wage. Historically a veteran of a few battles wasn't going to collect a significantly higher wage (though he might well have aquired some handsome pillage).

In part what we need to decide is how level effects pay, going from a medieval view (that it almost has no effect, because of medieval price theory) or is it more like D&D, which increases incomes exponentially based on a variety of D&D assumptions.

I agree wholeheartedly.

In our campaign, experienced soldiers and commanders are rewarded not by increases in pay, based on level, but they are rewarded by promotion, and being awarded status, and land, and titles. Thats what people were serving for in the middle ages, at least the hope of these things, and really, the game itself was geared to the same from the beginning, by having high level characters achieve titles and get strongholds and followers.

I just like the feel of this better than mere pay increases, but whatever floats players and DM's boats. The beauty of the game is we can use, add, or ignore rules as suits the group.