BR Campaign without Wargame aspect?

[AndrewTall]

Of course rather than slaughtering your foes, you could always capture them - mercenaries may turn, peasants settled or be ransomed en masse, and of course any noble is a prize worth more than simply prestige to their captor...

It would be nice to have some ransom rules - currently with muster and maintenance costs so similar, the benefit of ransom is purely social, but a supporting mechanic would be good.

[Kitch]

I've been trying to mold out a decent ransom ruleset myself, and the only thing I have been able to hand my players is that the total value of estate owned (holdings owned) is generally the factor. Most of my players have agreed that a value equal to half of their holdings in Gold Bars is the best system to run with.

For the nobles that are not land owners but instead just heroes or members of the Court, I apply the same system for their ECL. (Keep in mind I play using a 3.5 edition system). So, if Gavin Tael is 9th level, his random would be 9 Gold Bars. It doesn't seem like much, but in my game, characters are usually much more powerful than this ruling over much smaller realms than Ghoere.

The other system I have tried is percentage. You ransom a prisoner or a group of prisoners back for an agreeable percentage of one's income or value. In the case of a captured unit, a percentage of their muster cost (or a percentage of units they destroyed). In the case of a noble or hero, a percentage of your net or gross income, based upon the importance of the hero/noble. Naturally this amount is always subject to the good, old fashioned Diplomacy action.

[kgauck]

The medieval ransom was 2 shillings per hide, or about 2 sp for 30 acres.

A ransom of 9 GB would be something like 2.7 million acres, or 4218.75 Square Miles. Or a box, 65 miles by 65 miles.

The Baron of Ghoere would have a ransom more like 23 GB, I think.

Knights would be a minimum of 20 sp. A knight's fee, the amount of land assumed necessary to support a knight was reckoned at 10 hides. So the knights in a unit a probably close to this amount, or as much as 30 sp.

I would assume a petty noble's ransom is somewhere between 50 and 100 sp.

A lord is double that.

A count would need to know the area of their province. But 2 GB is a ball park figure for a slightly smaller than average province.

[Rowan]

Great info, Kgauck! Where'd you get it?

I drew up some proposed unit casualty and ransom rules for Julian's (ericthecleric's) game, but can't find them right now. I included ship ransoms and bounties, because I had a particular interest in those (I was playing Mieres).

Kitch's system is pretty generalized and so would work as is. Kgauck, if we are going with such a strong historical parallel (which I suspect may only have applied during a particular period in history), we should also use history to inform us of about how many knights, petty nobles, and lords are associated with each unit, and how likely it is that they died or escaped capture.

I do think that ransoms and realistic (low) casualty rates are very important if you want BR to play out as a good wargame where war is fairly common. They lower the immediate risk of war--losing whole, expensive armies for little gain--while creating longer term roleplay situations (just how are you going to come up with the ransom for your captured nobles, or how long will you have to wait for your defeated foe to pay for those you've captured). I think it also encourages small skirmishes as much as large wars, as the hope of victory is not just prestige or strategic gain, but to recoup the costs of raids and skirmishes through pillage and ransom.

[kgauck]

I took the value of a high medieval ransom, from Richard II to Philippe IV (fortunately the medieval world had little inflation and didn't understand it when it did occur so values are mostly fixed) and then did the rest by simple math.

[Thelandrin]

What a good mechanic for ransoms, Kenneth. Consider that officially yoinked

[AndrewTall]

Hmm, would the maintenance cost of captured units be lower to their captor - they would still need to eat, but I'd expect that other costs (maintenance of weapons, etc) would be cut back. Otherwise holding them for even a single season would probably outweigh the ransom - you'd wind up with a system that encouraged slaughtering/enslaving/etc the peasants, turning the mercenaries, and ransoming the lords...

[Kitch]

When it comes to captured units, I usually just force a garrisoned cost of the base unit price. So; Infantry, Archers, Pikemen and Irregulars only require 1/8 GB to feed.

[kgauck]

Maintenance is payroll, not upkeep. The cost of an army is so overwhelmingly payroll, other costs are negligible. The problems of supply were almost entirely access to supplies, not the cost of them.

Captives (and only knights and above are taken captive) were kept in a style fitting their station, not merely maintained, but the cost amounts to one extra person for dinner. Large courts have so many people in them, dinner for one more is hardly a cost at the domain scale.

[kgauck]

you'd wind up with a system that encouraged slaughtering/enslaving/etc the peasants, turning the mercenaries, and ransoming the lords...

Just like the middle ages.