Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17
  1. #11
    Senior Member The Swordgaunt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Bergen, Norway
    Posts
    152
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Rowan, I was preparing to answer, but you beat me to it. I could not agree more. There is a difference between hired brigands and proffessional soldiers. A mercantile culture like the Brechts would not use the former unless there was no other options.

    What I meant by the saving-statement was that a regent could maintain garrison/policing-troops as well as a mobile force in peace-time, and hire quality soldiers if war is imminent. All cultures will muster rank-and-file, as well as drum out the levy, but this removes able hands from the working stock, in effect taxing the realm twice.

    The other aspect of the Brecht military is the militia. The merchants of the urban middle class are both vital to the economy as well as powerful (guilds). They will not accept a spear and a place in the line next to a lowly peasant. These militia-units would be better equiped and trained, but would most likely be opposed to prolonged campaigns and wars on foreign soil unless they stood to gain from it.
    -Harald

    Today, we were kidnapped by hill folk never to be seen again. It was the best day ever.

    Blog

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    130
    Downloads
    6
    Uploads
    0
    I like the idea of army based on culture and the new upgrade about mercenaries that in the pc games are totally worthless.

    About huskarl I seen them only in Age of Kings and they were strong against archer and weaker than regular infantry:that is not good.But if we use historical huskarl they should be resistant to archer (big shields),better than regular infantry and quite good against cavalry (danish axe) and they are overpowered.

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    439
    Downloads
    31
    Uploads
    0
    Huscarls would have light to medium armor and a heavy axe. Not so good on defense, great on offense, good on a charge. They could probably match regular cavalry on a charge (+2, but not +4 like for heavy cavalry), and have a higher melee bonus than normal elite infantry, but lower defense.

  4. #14
    Senior Member The Swordgaunt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Bergen, Norway
    Posts
    152
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    On Huscarls:
    If we approach them from a different angle. A housecarl is not a regular soldier, he is part of a household unit. While his arms and armor might be less advanced than that of the Anuirean medium infantry, he will be a tougher fighter. In effect, husecarls are guards, not regular troops.

    Since this is, after all, a level-based system, we can say that they have one or more hero-levels. Less sofisticated, perhaps, but still feared and respected for their abilities as warriors.

    I would say that they are regular medium infantry, with more hits, better attack, and a special ability (cleave, for instance).
    -Harald

    Today, we were kidnapped by hill folk never to be seen again. It was the best day ever.

    Blog

  5. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    439
    Downloads
    31
    Uploads
    0
    It looks like we're starting to get into the realm of unit statistics.

    What is the general consensus on the current statistics set used in the BRCS 3.x? Do they need revision to go along with this discussion?

    I find them mostly adequate. My main criticism of the existing stat set is that bonuses in +2 increments represent only 10% increases on a d20 base. I feel that a unit of trained and equipped infantry is much more than 10% better in melee, defense, and morale than a unit of untrained irregulars/levies. Environmental factors also have a much bigger impact than +1 or +2. So I'd say that the numbers need to be adjusted upwards.

    I've made mention of my problems with mercenaries already.

    Some of the other special unit powers could use some adjustment, such as the damage archers can do against massed, tightly packed infantry (but skirmish-order irregulars wouldn't be as vulnerable), and the fact that Infantry can carve through Archers as easily as any irregulars. Actually, Cavalry should carve through Irregulars, as well.

    The main deficiency, however, is the lack of a Discipline statistic and the impact of leadership. Solmyr has found a good basic system for Discipline. Leadership needs some more attention, and should involve more than just a single initiative roll based on Warcraft skill. I'm aware of problems arising from introducing too much complexity, but I do think something needs to be figured out. Warcraft might still encompass Leadership, Logistics, Siege, Tactics, Inspiration, Engineering, and other qualities affecting the performance of an army in various situations, but I'd be inclined to break it down just a little bit, at least.

    By the current statistic system, I would agree with Swordgaunt and place a Huscarl unit's stats at:
    Med Infantry + Elite training + (a modified combination of Berserker + Toughness to give +2 Charge, +1 Hit, +2 morale, -1 move)
    Melee +6, Missile --, Defense 14, 4 hits, 2 Move, +8 Morale, +2 Charge, +2 vs. Irregulars and Pike

    This would give them 1 more hit and +2 higher morale than Knights, and they would be cheaper (4GB) so they might slightly outnumber Knights in a Rjurik v. Anuirean engagement. However, they would have 2 lower defense and slower movement than Knights, and have not quite as much Charge power.

    Alternatively, Huscarls might cost 5GB and have both Toughness and a modified "Berserker" training that gives +2 melee and +2 charge, -1 speed, but no +2 to Morale -2 Defense. That would keep them as disciplined but fierce guard troops with a Melee prowess unmatched by all but the most elite of units (+8).

  6. #16
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    It this level of detail I can't imagine anyone agreeing with anything.

  7. #17
    I actually enjoy the way the armies are set up in 3.5 rules when it comes to adding in toughness and elite vs. green troops. I think most nations can come up with solid troop types staying within the rules we have or making special case rules for some but keep balanced.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Chapter six/Armies and warfare/Military units
    By BrennanHawkwood in forum BRWiki Discussions
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-29-2008, 12:18 AM
  2. Dhoesone military
    By Lee in forum BRWiki Discussions
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 07-04-2008, 08:52 PM
  3. Military Units in Birthright
    By gazza666 in forum BRCS 3.0/3.5 Edition
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-14-2006, 04:54 PM
  4. Military Units
    By Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 12-31-2002, 03:08 AM
  5. Military Deployment
    By Lord Rahvin in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 11-04-2002, 08:43 PM

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.