Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 116
  1. #11
    Senior Member Beruin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    228
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by kgauck View Post
    I don't think we need to go back to foundational texts. Magical Medieval Society is a great place to start. Its d20, its entirely OGL, and it summarizes much of the kind of stuff we're going to need.
    Well, sadly I only have a few excerpts of this text, though its on my wish list for the near future. The new Silk Roads supplement also looks interesting with regard to trade.

    Quote Originally Posted by kgauck View Post
    If we do like a reading list, Marc Bloch's Feudal Society would have to be included, because of its focus on mentalities, which is what role players need most.
    Well, many of the books I use are in German, but I offer a few English titles:

    [
    • Cambridge Economic History of Europe
    • Vingradoff's Growth of the Manor
    • Braudel's Structures of Everyday Life
    • Seebohm's English Village Community
    • Bennett's Life on the English Manor
    • Caulton's Medieval Village, Manor, Monastery
    Last edited by Beruin; 05-22-2007 at 02:06 AM.

  2. #12
    Senior Member Beruin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    228
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by kgauck View Post
    My old document Calculations of Arable Land seems to be old enough to pre-date the forums, so I'll just re-post here.
    Thanks for posting this again. I remember seeing this, though must admit I had forgotten it. My thought on yields is similar, I also thought to go with a yield of 5:1 (for the winter field after lying fallow that is, for the summer field I'd go with 4:1). However, in my view, Anuirean agriculture is advanced enough to also plant part of the fallow with legumes like peas or beans and with fodder crops like clover, thus increasing yields.

    As a sidenote, in medieval Europe crop yields apparently got worse from west to east. Accordingly, for the Vos and Rjurik lands I might go as low as a yield of 3:1 (However what about the Druids?).

    Okay, I definetely come back to your post later in more detail.

  3. #13
    Senior Member Beruin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    228
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by kgauck View Post
    My 6 mile per hex maps use 14 terrain types, which I use to calculate the carrying capacity of a province as well as movement for day to day campaigning, and theoreticly military movement if a PC ever wishes to direct his war machine at that level.
    Ah, nearly forgot to ask: Could you post your terrain types and perhaps any accompanying rules?

    Please, please, please...

  4. #14
    Senior Member Beruin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    228
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Tiamat View Post

    I am very interested in your views of army supplies in order to improve my rules
    For now, I can only offer a general outline, but I'm thinking along the following lines:

    For starters, I want to calculate the produce of an average peasant holding and then a manor or village in detail, down to the bushel of wheat.
    This produce will then be grouped in larger cargo units like waggon or ship loads and abstracted into more general categories according to type and value/scarcity. Other resources from mining and craftsmanship shall also be figured in on the city or province level. This owes a lot to the cargo rules from Mongoose's Conan supplements Pirate Isles and Free Companies and will look something like this:

    Category

    Foodstuffs


    common
    • Grain
    • Ale/Beer

    uncommon
    • Meat
    • Fish

    rare
    • Exotic fruits
    • Spices


    Raw Materials

    common
    • Lumber
    • Wool
    • Stone

    uncommon
    • Leather
    • Wax

    rare
    • Silk
    • Furs

    Minerals/Metals

    common
    • Iron
    • Cooper

    uncommon
    • Silver
    • Jade

    rare
    • Gold
    • Gems

    Crafted goods

    common
    • Rope
    • Simple Tools

    uncommon
    • Paper
    • Clothing

    rare
    • Armour
    • Weapons

    Well, this is just off the top of my hat and more categories of goods as well as an additional rarity (very rare) might be useful, but you get the idea.

    Then you can assign what every type of unit needs for each warmove or domain turn. For instance, a unit of archers might need 10 cargo units of common foodstuffs and one common and one uncommon unit of raw materials (material for repairs, new bowstrings, wood for arrows and broken bows etc.) each month on campaign, while a unit of knights might need 20 units of common and 4 units of uncommon foodstuffs (knights eat more and better and then there are the horses), 2 units of uncommon raw materials and 2 units of uncommon crafted goods.

    I would then develop a new type of military unit, the supply train (not much combat ability, but carrying capacity and speed would be important). This unit, as a caravan, could also be required to maintain trade routes. Well, I have not really thought this all through, so this still needs a lot of work.
    Last edited by Beruin; 05-22-2007 at 02:01 AM.

  5. #15
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Basically, for ease of using d20, I use the standard terrain types (PHB p. 163-4, DMG pp. 86-102). The only additional terrain type I use is mixed forest and farm, which has the same movement characteristics of forest, but supports more people with additional farms.

    Armies move more slowly than individuals, normally a good army moves 12 miles per day, so I halve the numbers for individuals.

    Mobs of civilians (say refugess fleeing invasion) move even slower, perhaps at one quarter the rate of an individual.

  6. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    165
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Rahvin View Post
    Sir Tiamat suggested that a province should be of a certain province level
    to maintain so many military units, but there`s another factor to this issue
    for those of you interested in such details. A large army (or even a small
    one) existing in a province is basically a large surplus of money, potential
    cultural exchange, and a demand for labor entering into a province
    simultaneously. The demand to muster troops, or at least to maintain
    existing troops, within a province would likely be a huge burden on a small
    province, but at the same time, would allow the use of untapped economic
    resources within a recessive province.

    I mention this to allow for the possibility that supporting a continued
    military presence might actually be beneficial for provinces, increasing
    their province levels. Whether or not the actual population increases would
    depend on your views regarding labor migration and the flexibility of guild
    structures.

    Even if the soldiers aren`t directly *in* your province, the act of
    maintaining those troops would mean lots of gold (or, ahem, alternative
    abstract measurements of currency if you`re in to that sort of thing) payed
    for in maintenence costs, and these gold (or other) would be going to the
    various provinces to pay for food, weapons, horses, alchohol, etc. Since
    this gold would further enhance the economy in these provinces, and likely
    find their way, eventually, into the hands of realm rulers, temples, and
    guilds, this could very well be abstracted as an increase in province level
    for each province in the realm.

    I`m just trying to suggest that "must be X level to maintain Y military
    units" might be a bit too simplistic if your goal was to go into
    macroeconomic detail.
    You have got a point, but the implications of the (minor) beneficial effects of troops are great if one intends to incorporate them.

    Every goldbar spent in a region (closed system) will generate more revenue than a single GB. However since the GB’s are first taken from the entire population this effect is limited. Moreover it depends on the capacity of a region to provide for demand, whether this is a good thing. It will only work in times of lesser demand; if the only blacksmith is already swamped with work it will only cause inflation.

    That said, troops are a special way to spend resources in a region since they themselves do not provide an economic benefit. A GB spent on a harbour or road may increase revenue apart from the extra work they generate in the province. A unit does not however provide extra revenue, apart from the extra demand: troops tend to eat the food the province provides without helping to create additional crops –not to speak of plunder.

    Especially in an abstracted medieval society like birthright it may be best to assume that economic all costs and benefits are already incorporated in the price. The size of a province will nonetheless limit the maximum size of a friendly or raiding army it can feed. Still, the amount of troops a province can support can be great or small, whatever we want it to be.

    I really like simplicity BTW , one can easily make things more complicated, but it takes a lot of effort to introduce an extra layer of option and detail, while at the same time keeping it simple and playable.

  7. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    California, near LA. (Mo
    Posts
    143
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Side issue related to my discussions with Sir Tiamat related to this topic:

    (too much to quote directly)


    I don`t remember what the population levels are supposed to repreent
    off-hand. Let`s say, for the moment, that population level is 5,000 people
    although that`s probably way off. Now, let`s assume that the economy
    `settles` at this population level. There`s no reason to assume that at a
    settled population/economic level, the economy is `maxed out`. That is, the
    blacksmith in your example would welcome more work. If there`s a lot more
    work than can handle, more people will want to become blacksmiths. The
    amount of blacksmiths that can be supported in a province are directly
    controlled by the Guild, probably represented by the percentage of Guild
    control in the province (and thus, the amount of Guild holdings in
    proportion to the province level.)

    Let`s assume a province level of 3 and 15,000 people. Now, add in two
    military units. Let`s say, that`s 400 people, or about 2.5% increase in
    foreign demand with no noticeable increase in production. If troops buy
    goods from villagers, villagers will be richer and turn around and spend
    that money, giving their gold to villagers. Total spending will thus
    increase. Total demand will increase. As demand increases, supply
    increases. More people work to full the demand. Villagers from nearby
    provinces come to the new markets. The town utilizes and exploits whatever
    comparative advantage it has. Trade via trade routes is increased. Taxes
    are increased, increasing government spending for roads and troops and other
    stuff which utilizes labor and resources from nearby provinces.

    It`s likely that an economy can support any increase or decrease in
    population of about 2% or less per domain turn without a signficicant BAD
    THING happening. Beyond that, you`re probably looking at economic
    destabilization in the form of random events and losses of morale. I would
    imagine a strong guild structure could prevent the random events, while a
    strong temple structure could prevent the morale losses. (That is, a strong
    guild structure is one where that are no "vacant" guild holdings left.)

    On the other hand, "safe" population increases and military deployments
    could result in increases to the overall population and productivity, in the
    form of additional `virtual` province levels for purposes of collecting
    income from existing holdings and trade routes. The amount of total virtual
    province levels a province could support would probably depend on it having
    a strong law holding structure (no "vacant" law holdings). Of course, these
    economic advantages probably wouldn`t apply if the village wasn`t at a high
    morale or if the military units were acting as law holdings into themselves
    (in which case, you could just plunder the province for money, if you`re
    into that sort of thing).



    The implications are huge whenever money, information, and people are moved
    around from place to place.

    Of course, now imagine what happens to the town when 10 military units (or
    about 2000 people, 12% of the population). That`s probably way too many.
    Worse, imagine what happens to the town if 4 military units (about 800
    people, 5%) suddenly leave, die off, or are mustered into the army from the
    villages...?

    If you`re looking for detail, these effects are not minor by any means.

    If you`re looking for simplicity... well...
    Last edited by Thelandrin; 05-22-2007 at 09:38 PM. Reason: Removed lengthy >> quote to save vertical space.

  8. #18
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Rahvin View Post
    There`s no reason to assume that at a
    settled population/economic level, the economy is `maxed out`. That is, the
    blacksmith in your example would welcome more work. If there`s a lot more
    work than can handle, more people will want to become blacksmiths. The
    amount of blacksmiths that can be supported in a province are directly
    controlled by the Guild, probably represented by the percentage of Guild
    control in the province (and thus, the amount of Guild holdings in
    proportion to the province level.)
    Because the guild controls the supply of blacksmiths, its safe to assume that the number of blacksmiths is correct for normal smith work. The existing smiths will not welcome more smiths (and in the towns at least) can control access to market entry. A manor can employ as many smiths as it pleases, but you have to pay them to stand around if you want slack, and they will attempt to obtain additional business to earn money on the side, which will annoy the town smiths. A medieval economy generally doesn't have enough surplus to support idle hands (soldiers took day jobs in cities into the 18th century because their garrison pay was too low to live on). Typically civilian products were just displaced by war-time production.

    Let`s assume a province level of 3 and 15,000 people. Now, add in two military units. Let`s say, that`s 400 people, or about 2.5% increase in foreign demand with no noticeable increase in production. If troops buy goods from villagers, villagers will be richer and turn around and spend that money, giving their gold to villagers. Total spending will thus increase.
    Again this assumes unused capacity in the system, and medieval economies don't have unused capacity. Feeding the 400 soldiers means that food once in the mouths of others is now in the mouths of soldiers. If the province has a food suplus, the food is not being sold to towns If the province has no food surplus than its the local towns who get less food. This means the price of food goes up as towns folk are effectivly bidding against one another for food. To cover the costs of bread, towns folk may try and raise the prices of their goods. This 400 new mouths, far from being good for the economy has probabaly produced inflation, and may produce actual want.

    Total demand will increase. As demand increases, supply increases. More people work to full the demand. Villagers from nearby provinces come to the new markets. The town utilizes and exploits whatever comparative advantage it has. Trade via trade routes is increased. Taxes are increased, increasing government spending for roads and troops and other stuff which utilizes labor and resources from nearby provinces.
    In a free market economy things work this way, but in exchange we accept certain ills, such as a business cycle, structural unemployment, and a welfare system to prevent structural unemployment from being starvation. Medieval economies who experienced people moving from nearby provinces to our towns would actually experience a labor shortage in the nearby provinces, reducing wealth there, and extra mouths to feed here, causing inflation, off-setting their productive gains here, possibly by quite a lot.

    Medieval economies are not flexible and adaptive. This is in part because of the high investment required for the start-up of any economic activity, and also because the suplus generated by any activity is so small. The peasant leaving can't sell a house, (in part because his house may not be his to sell, and because there are no buyers) but he must aquire one. He has spent 10-15 years learning a profession, and cannot learn a new one (the one in demand in the new market) quickly. New tools must be aquired, and in the mean time, he must eat. If he has a family (and most certainly must if the population is not in decline for this very reason) they must eat too.

    We are all familiar with the requirement that a person must live a year and a day in town before he is freed of other (peasant) obligations, and the reason for this is that the default expectation, based on cold experience, is that such a move is not likely to work out, even one peasant at a time. This dismal evaluation of economic flexibility and adaptation already assumes a high medieval death rate in cities (and elsewhere). If these places are not so full of lethal disease because of temples and priestly magic, then the situation is more troubled, as there are few places for new people.

    So it must be until industrialization makes it possible for the new people to cheaply aquire new goods and for the new people to find unskilled labor.

  9. #19
    Administrator Green Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,018
    Downloads
    20
    Uploads
    0
    kgauck has a lot of good points here; Cerilian economics should be based on medieval standards rathern then modern-day models and theories.

    Even the existing domain system used in BR assumes that provinces and holdings generate a vast amount of capital that can be invested in various endeavours; some of which will have an almost guaranteed return rate.

    I'm not saying I have a perfect fix for this; but I would like to point out that it would be an error to assume that taxation and trade should produce large amounts of capital that can be freely moved about and invested.
    Cheers
    Bjørn
    DM of Ruins of Empire II PbeM

  10. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    California, near LA. (Mo
    Posts
    143
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Because the guild controls the supply of blacksmiths, its safe to assume
    that the number of blacksmiths is correct for normal smith work. The
    existing smiths will not welcome more smiths (and in the towns at least) can
    control access to market entry. A manor can employ as many smiths as it
    pleases, but you have to pay them to stand around if you want slack, and
    they will attempt to obtain additional business to earn money on the side,
    which will annoy the town smiths. A medieval economy generally doesn`t have
    enough surplus to support idle hands (soldiers took day jobs in cities into
    the 18th century because their garrison pay was too low to live on).
    Typically civilian products were just displaced by war-time production.
    As you can tell, my knowledge of economics is based on current day models,
    not midieval ones, but my understanding of guilds weren`t that they would
    create a shortage of craftsman, but rather that they would centralize
    economic power on selected Masters. That is, a master might have countless
    apprentices of incredible skill that would be limited to apprentice status
    until the Guild approves them (or they pay guild fees), and thus, they
    couldn`t setup their own competing shops against other masters. It was my
    understanding that most of the gear an army needs would be delegated to
    apprentices anyway, with the master blacksmith acting as a sort of
    combination of trainer, merchant, and supervisor.

    Also, I vaguly recall the guild structure resulting in an excess of
    apprentices ready to become a master who couldn`t because of the needs of
    their village as dictated by their guild. If those needs went up, the
    Guilds have a vast potential of unused capacity to increase thier supply of
    trainers, merchants, and supervisors. The only requirement for this is the
    assurance that they these "promotions" won`t result in reducing the current
    business income of other masters in the city. Of course, once the soliders
    leave, the Guild may have some problems with too many blacksmiths about, but
    it seems to me Birthright guilds that span many provinces and realms are
    within their rights to migrate masters that are to heavily concentrated in
    one area.

    Again this assumes unused capacity in the system, and medieval
    economies don`t have unused capacity. Feeding the 400 soldiers means that
    food once in the mouths of others is now in the mouths of soldiers. If the
    province has a food suplus, the food is not being sold to towns If the
    province has no food surplus than its the local towns who get less food.
    This means the price of food goes up as towns folk are effectivly bidding
    against one another for food. To cover the costs of bread, towns folk may
    try and raise the prices of their goods. This 400 new mouths, far from being
    good for the economy has probabaly produced inflation, and may produce
    actual want.
    Okay, this seems silly to me. By this argument there could never be trade
    or trade routes. Or Rule for that matter.
    I understand the dangers in raising the population significantly, but it
    seems absurd to assume the current level of production is the maximum
    possible safe output.


    In a free market economy things work this way, but in exchange we
    accept certain ills, such as a business cycle, structural unemployment, and
    a welfare system to prevent structural unemployment from being starvation.
    Medieval economies who experienced people moving from nearby provinces to
    our towns would actually experience a labor shortage in the nearby
    provinces, reducing wealth there, and extra mouths to feed here, causing
    inflation, off-setting their productive gains here, possibly by quite a lot.

    Medieval economies are not flexible and adaptive. This is in part because
    of the high investment required for the start-up of any economic activity,
    and also because the suplus generated by any activity is so small. The
    peasant leaving can`t sell a house, (in part because his house may not be
    his to sell, and because there are no buyers) but he must aquire one. He has
    spent 10-15 years learning a profession, and cannot learn a new one (the one
    in demand in the new market) quickly. New tools must be aquired, and in the
    mean time, he must eat. If he has a family (and most certainly must if the
    population is not in decline for this very reason) they must eat
    too.
    This arguments strike me as very logical, especially the reference to the
    time required to learn a profession. It still strikes me as odd that you`re
    saying we should assume a lack of excess labor in a mideival economy as a
    basic premise. And it seems to me that guilds (or masters within a guild)
    would make accomodations to attract and maintain additional apprentices for
    as long as it is profitable to do so. Thus, they wouldn`t own their own
    home in either province.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Project standing?
    By Drakkan in forum BRCS 3.0/3.5 Edition
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-18-2006, 10:46 PM
  2. Birthright economics & Monetary system
    By Beruin in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 03-21-2003, 02:40 PM
  3. Update on 3E project?
    By Ulairi in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-04-2002, 02:47 PM
  4. NWN Birthright Project
    By soudhadies in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-28-2002, 12:21 AM

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.