Balance between troop unit type

[Bearcat]

>Compare the 5th level fighter with a 16 STR (+1 dam), weapon
>specialization, AC of 2 or 3, plus put him on a horse with the +1 to hit,
>+1 AC benifit, against a hoard of 1st level fighters without weapons
>specialization or any other special bonuses.

I think that you maybe overestimating the capabilities of both the knights
and the infantry. If you look on page 28 of the DMG you will see that "since
fighters tend to rise above the level of the common soldier few armies are
composed high- or even low-level fighters", thus most of the infantry will
be comprised of 0-level fighters, not the 1st level fighters that you
mention above. Most generals would kill for troops as skilled as that.

As for the knights if you look at page 38 of the PHB the knights listed as
_elite_ units are 1st level not fifth. And this number is much more
optimistic than the elite "knight" body guards that are mentioned on page 10
of the BR rule book.

Anyway, going back to page 28 of the DMG we find that "there is little
difference in ability between the typical foot soldier and the 1st level
fighter". This means that the only difference between your elite knights and
the infantry are the weapons, armor and mounts that they are using. This
usually is not enough when you have "10 knights and 15 squires to 25
knights" against a unit of 200 infantrymen. However, when there are 200
knights involved the warcard numbers begin to make sense.

All of this IMHO of course,


Bearcat
lcgm@elogica.com.br
Come visit Bearcat's Birthright Homepage at:
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/6204

[Daniel McSorley]

I tend to go with a combined arms type force, not all knights, for one
simple reason: knights are expensive!!! For the price of that unit of
knights (6 GB muster/ 2 maint), I can get a unit of pikes, a unit of
archers, and a unit of infantry, for a total of 6GB/ 3GB. AND, pretty much
pick that unit of knights apart. That is what did in the real world
knights, I think. Cheaper weapons, easier to use, too, could take them out.
Daniel McSorley
mcsorley.1@osu.edu


>Is one troop type overwhelmingly better that the others? I am playing in
>one game where everyone thinks Knights are IT.

[c558382@showme.missouri.]

On Fri, 30 Jan 1998, John Campbell wrote:

> Is one troop type overwhelmingly better that the others? I am playing in
> one game where everyone thinks Knights are IT. Each unit type is
> supposed to have some advantages, but has everyone found them to be enough
> to require that players keep balanced army compositions? Or is getting
> tons of knights always the winning force?

The best troop type depends on what you are trying to do and what your
enemy is trying to do. Some players have said "my pikemen and archers
will chew up your knights", which is true. But infantry will chew up
pikemen and archers. A tactical array should look like paper-scisors-
stone. The BR warcards do have that feel. Of course in some races the
numbers give some weight to one troop type. But more important is to
asses the enemy your trying to fight. PLay to their weakness, while
minimizing your own.

I also prefer limits to most troops types from a given recruiting area, as
menmtioned in a previous post.

Kenneth Gauck
c558382@showme.missouri.edu

[c558382@showme.missouri.]

On Fri, 30 Jan 1998, Daniel McSorley wrote:

> For the price of that unit of knights (6 GB muster/ 2 maint), I can get
> a unit of pikes, a unit of archers, and a unit of infantry, for a total
> of 6GB/ 3GB. AND, pretty much pick that unit of knights apart. That
> is what did in the real world knights, I think.

In the real world, the English and Welsh had the longbow, the Swiss and
Low Countries had the pikes, the French had more knights than anyone else.
BR favors one different troop types along the various races, but does
allow a grossly a-historical variety of troops. Players of the Avalon
Hill Game "Kingmaker" will recall that there was only one card of each
foriegn troop type. DM's might consider thinking about the tactics
favored by each realm (or region) and increasing costs of other kinds of
troops (or establihsing limits of recruitment). Forcing players in
pike-loving *** to hire mercenary archers if the players want more than a
few. Other things to consider are inferior versions of troops. Coeranys
might be able to raise an aweful lot of the regular cavalry (3351) but in
wooded Cariele cavalry might only be (3340) or something.

Kenneth Gauck
c558382@showme.missouri.edu

[Neil Barnes]

On Fri, 30 Jan 1998, John Campbell wrote:
> Is one troop type overwhelmingly better that the others? I am playing in
> one game where everyone thinks Knights are IT. Each unit type is
> supposed to have some advantages, but has everyone found them to be enough
> to require that players keep balanced army compositions? Or is getting
> tons of knights always the winning force?

Yes. Historically if Knights could charge their enemy, they'd win. This
happened a lot in the Crusades & the Hundred Years War.

The best tactic to use against Knights is to take advantage of terrain.
Prevent the knights from reaching your troops & slaughter them with
archers.

If you haven't got terrain on your side, try stacking units of archers
with units of levies or pikemen. The pikemen or levies soak up the
damage, while the archers kill the knights.

The biggest disadvantage with Knights is the cost (which I forget
the details of).

neil

[c558382@showme.missouri.]

Also, while the rules don't emphisise unit facings, pikemen only have
charge bonuses and attack and defence ratings in one direction (the
front). Get around to the side and rear of this unit, and you should get
an attack on the +3 table, with no counter atttack by the pikes.

Kenneth Gauck
c558382@showme.missouri.edu

[Geniver]

Unless the pikes know how to form squares.

c558382@showme.missouri.edu wrote:
>
> Also, while the rules don't emphisise unit facings, pikemen only have
> charge bonuses and attack and defence ratings in one direction (the
> front). Get around to the side and rear of this unit, and you should get
> an attack on the +3 table, with no counter atttack by the pikes.
>
> Kenneth Gauck
> c558382@showme.missouri.edu

[DKEvermore@aol.co]

In a message dated 98-02-03 04:36:13 EST, you write:

> Also, while the rules don't emphisise unit facings, pikemen only have
> charge bonuses and attack and defence ratings in one direction (the
> front). Get around to the side and rear of this unit, and you should get
> an attack on the +3 table, with no counter atttack by the pikes.
>
Of course on a battle-mat scale, those pikes have plent of time to shift their
facing. Also, I believe pikes are able to change facing quite rapidly if
organized.

Lieutenant: "Raise Pikes! Left Face! Lower Pikes!"

From personal experience in medievel style combat, I did find that once
engaged, their flanks are relatively vulnerable. Perhaps this is what you
meant?

- -DKE

[E Gray]

- -----Original Message-----
From: c558382@showme.missouri.edu
To: 'birthright@MPGN.COM'
Date: Monday, February 02, 1998 7:35 PM
Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] - Balance between troop unit types


>Also, while the rules don't emphisise unit facings, pikemen only have
>charge bonuses and attack and defence ratings in one direction (the
>front). Get around to the side and rear of this unit, and you should get
>an attack on the +3 table, with no counter atttack by the pikes.


Swiss Pike formations were known as hedgehogs for just this reason,
the flanks are vulnerable, so they were protected....or put some cavalry
on the wings to cut any flanking movements..

[Rich Baker]

Actually, the Swiss pike formations were remarkably self-sufficient. While
the Swiss mercenaries were the terror of battlefields across Europe,
serving in the "combined-arms" role, they got their start fighting the
Austrians and Burgundians a century or more before they became famous as
mercenaries. The Swiss philosophy was attack, attack, attack! They would
put the dense pike formations into motion with such speed and agility that
the enemy commanders had no choice but to accept the Swiss attack at the
point the Swiss chose to hit. When threatened on their flanks, the Swiss
could instantly "turn turtle", shifting to an unbreakable defensive square.

Historically, there were only three answers to the Swiss pikemen:

1. The German pikemen, who modeled themselves after the Swiss. When these
two forces encountered each other on the battlefield, the slaughter was
terrible (just imagine two formations of pikemen hitting each other at the
same time).

2. The Spanish sword-and-buckler formations of the 15th and 16th century.
These lightly armed troops were able to pass the line of pikes and wreak
dreadful havoc inside the pikes' defensive square. (Interestingly enough, a
throwback to the Roman legion vs. the Greek phalanx.)

3. Field artillery, which by 1500 or so proved capable of inflicting
ghastly damage to a tightly-packed formation of men with spears.

In Europe, no other tactical system managed to beat the Swiss pikemen in
battle. Interestingly enough, the Swiss pikeman and English longbowman--the
two principal instruments of the demise of the knight--never seem to have
faced each other on the battlefield.

Rich Baker
Birthright Designer


>Onm Tue, 3 Feb 1998, E Gray wrote:
>>
>> Swiss Pike formations were known as hedgehogs for just this reason,
>> the flanks are vulnerable, so they were protected....or put some cavalry
>> on the wings to cut any flanking movements..
>
>That's right. So many battles opened with the cavalry on the flanks
>fighting first. If your cavalry won, you attack. If you lose you
>retreat. Most often it would be indecisive and the infantry would fight.
>
>If you engage your infantry while your cavalry is fighting, and your
>cavalry is routed (!) then your flanks are toast.
>
>Another solution is to "anchor" your pikemen's flanks with a terrain
>obstacle, like woods. You can't maintain formation, much less charge
>through woods. I am admittedly stronger on early modern (as opposed to
>late medieval) tactics, but it was common in the era I study to put a weak
>unit (scouts, irregulars) in the woods and have your pikemen extend from
>that. You'll note the war cards terrain "woods" could be used this way.
>
>Kenneth Gauck
>c558382@showme.missouri.edu
>

[prtr02@scorpion.nspco.co]

It was wriiten:

> Swiss Pike formations were known as hedgehogs for just this reason,
> the flanks are vulnerable, so they were protected....or put some cavalry
> on the wings to cut any flanking movements..

That's right. So many battles opened with the cavalry on the flanks
fighting first. If your cavalry won, you attack. If you lose you
retreat. Most often it would be indecisive and the infantry would fight.

If you engage your infantry while your cavalry is fighting, and your
cavalry is routed (!) then your flanks are toast.

Another solution is to "anchor" your pikemen's flanks with a terrain
obstacle, like woods. You can't maintain formation, much less charge
through woods. I am admittedly stronger on early modern (as opposed to
late medieval) tactics, but it was common in the era I study to put a weak
unit (scouts, irregulars) in the woods and have your pikemen extend from
that. You'll note the war cards terrain "woods" could be used this way.

Yes. These are vintage 30 years war tactics. Remember in the 30 years war
there were muskets and field artillery. Late medieval tactics (circa 1415)
usually involved trying to get your heavily armored MAA (men-at-arms:includes
knights) to charge at some point, or moving quickly to the attack (Swiss Pike)
before the enemy could organize. The English liked to use their longbowmen, and
so maneuvered to be on the tactical defensive (akin to American Civil war
tactics). The Cavalry on the flanks and Infantry "up the gut" standard army
formation was a result of the shocking firepower musket armed infantry could
now deliver against charging horsemen. An Infantry musket/pike formation (the
dreaded Spanish tercio) was virtually immune to cav charge, unless artillery or
infantry loosened it up first.

Late Med. tactics weren't nearly as well defined as those of the 30 years war.
It was during these times that people were trying various things to cope with
the advent of the pike and musket.

Randax

[c558382@showme.missouri.]

On Wed, 4 Feb 1998, Jonathan Picklesimer wrote:

> [Hans Delbruck's] description that has been given of the use of
> the Swiss pikes sounds identical to the tactics used by the Greek phalanx
> up through, and including Alexander the great. ...
>
> Before I get flamed, yes, I know they are different units and could not
> operate in identical ways, but there are a remarkable number of
> similarities.

While for a strict historical sense they are different &c, the military
world of Cerilia is different in certain key respects, and I think this
justifies considering pikes to be based on either the Swiss/Flemish or the
Phalanx of either classical times.

Rich Baker mentioned that no other tactical system beat the Swiss during
its day. Which is more or less true, but a little bit deceptive. The
Swiss success with the pike proved hard to duplicate. Swiss should be
considered a variety of elite pikemen. Its kind of like arguing about the
supremecy of the phalanx based on the Spartans.

Looking at the card, its hard to see this unit as invincable. Rather, the
card might represent the regular formation of pikes, 3-3, and flankable;
while an elite pike unit might be closer to the Swiss, 4-3 and not
flankable. Alternatly, those DM's desiring a more ancient feel might
prefer the Macedonian phalanx as the ideal elite pike unit 4-4, and
flankable. Cost goes up of course. One might also limit access to the
"swiss" elite pikemen. Are they the secret of Cariele's defense?

Rich also mentioned the Spanish sword and buckler men, the Roman solution
to pikes. It would seem infantry have that advantage, an Anuire anyway.

Thanks to Randax for clairifying the era of the tactics I was describing.
Re, the cavalry on the flanks, infantry "up the gut".

To expand on the differences between the historical and the Cerilian,
there are more troop types avaliable to any regent than historically. The
English, for example could only raise knights (and few of them), infantry,
a few elite infantry, and archers. The French had lots of knights,
infantry, elite infantry, and could hire Italain crossbowmen. In the
civil war in Rohrmarch, one might see the full array of Brecht units:
infantry, elite infantry, irregulars, cavalry, as well as dwaven units
from Baruk-Azhik, mercenaries from Anuire or the Khinasi plains states.

This means there would be greater tactical sophistication. The
proliferation of unit types is more like the ancient world, then the late
medieval/early modern. Its more like the Napoleonic era in the diversity
of troop types. Which is not to say, there would be Napoleonic tactics,
just something of greater sophistication than Agincourt.

Kenneth Gauck
c558382@showme.missouri.edu

[Jonathan Picklesimer]

Hey,

I German military historian named Delbruk wrote a 5 book series on war,
starting with war in antiquity and moving through to Modern (1900 era)
warfare. Good stuff! The description that has been given of the use of
the Swiss pikes sounds identical to the tactics used by the Greek phalanx
up through, and including Alexander the great. For good defensive use of
the phalanx, see the Battle of Marathon. For offensive use of
phalanx/cavalary combos, see the stuff on Alexander's battles. The Greek
phalanx tactics and composition do not sound terribly different from that
of the pikes.

Before I get flamed, yes, I know they are different units and could not
operate in identical ways, but there are a remarkable number of
similarities.

Jonathan

[Tim Nutting]

> Is one troop type overwhelmingly better that the others? I am playing in

> one game where everyone thinks Knights are IT. Each unit type is
> supposed to have some advantages, but has everyone found them to be
enough
> to require that players keep balanced army compositions? Or is getting
> tons of knights always the winning force?

I can't remember the battle's name, but the first full use of the English
long bow against the French later titled the battle the "deflowering of the
French chivalry" - I think :)

Anyway... the point is that no, k-nigits are not "IT", and the war cards,
despite their flaws, support this. Try pairing pikes and archers agains
the knights... the charge is eliminated, and the knights get to meet all
those nice sharp points.

Also, knights are next to useless against a fortification. If the defender
can pull back behind walls, the charge is nothing. Oh, yeah, watch out for
the artillerists when they try. *boom*

If you can buy two light cav to one knight, then the light cav is certainly
better here, team them up, and the knights have to defend twice every time
you have to defend once. The odds are on the light cav. Plus with this
option you get the knights only real advantage... the ability to ride down
those that run when the battle ends.

Lastly, if your players start compaining about how "whimpy" this game
treats knights when you start kicking @$$ and taking names, tell them to
change their tactics and stop whining, DON'T change the rules for their
benefit.

Good Gaming!
Until the Gorgon rules Anuire!

Tim Nutting

[c558382@showme.missouri.]

On Wed, 4 Feb 1998, Tim Nutting wrote:

> If you can buy two light cav to one knight, then the light cav is certainly
> better here, team them up, and the knights have to defend twice every time
> you have to defend once. The odds are on the light cav. Plus with this
> option you get the knights only real advantage... the ability to ride down
> those that run when the battle ends.

I'm going get get back on my hobbyhorse of limitation again. This kind of
exchange (buy two cav instead of one knight) doesn't work at all well
where horses are scarce. Numbers of horses are always a limiting factor
in wartime (even WWII) and this kind of substitution can't happen in every
realm.

Knights are the strongest unit in the game. Not without their
vulnerability to be sure, but when used wisely, they are decisive. Their
chief liability is their cost. In combat against pikes they're still
4-4's against adjusted 4-4's, and against archers, they take a hit 50% of
the time before the charge (and are destroyed 10% of the time), but after
that the knights are +2 on both attack and defence. If you can afford it,
the knights are good troops.

Horses, archers, and elite troops are not unlimited commodities.

Also, knights are best in melee, as opposed to set piece battles. It was
the formation of pikemen, not the pike itself which made pikes formidable.
It was the numbers of arrows that makes archers formidable.

Take fighter with AC 2, put him on a horse and run him after a longbowmen
with AC 8 and a bunch of arrows, and you'll see my point. Multiply that
by 200, and things turn around.

I think every realm can do with a company or two of knights. Whole armies
of them is not only counter-intuitive, but bad tactics.

Kenneth Gauck
c558382@showme.missouri.edu

[Samuel Weiss]

Time for my two cents on this topic.
The combat system in BR is for roleplayers, not wargamers. So you can do
things like buy endless nubers of knights, or elite infantry, or whatever
other kind of unbalanced force you like, becasue there are no rules against
it. Not that I blame the designers. They had to make a game roleplayers
would buy. But for those of us in the know, it does look kind of silly.
Which is why this list is a good thing. So people can ask about these
things and learn to tell their players to behave when it comes to buying
hordes of knights.
But that does not solver the problem. Maybe the wonderful designers will
see this and go to work on a nice involved combat system for us wargamer
and historical types. I know I would put out money for a nice wargame
supplement to the base system. Optional of course, so those who want to
stay basic can.

Samwise

[Geniver]

One might expect that cavalry horses are more plentiful than war horses,
just like riding horses are more plentiful than calvalry horses.


c558382@showme.missouri.edu wrote:
>
> On Wed, 4 Feb 1998, Tim Nutting wrote:
>
> > If you can buy two light cav to one knight, then the light cav is certainly
> > better here....
>
> I'm going get get back on my hobbyhorse of limitation again. This kind of
> exchange (buy two cav instead of one knight) doesn't work at all well
> where horses are scarce. Numbers of horses are always a limiting factor
> in wartime (even WWII) and this kind of substitution can't happen in every
> realm....

[gandalf]

>For good defensive use of
>the phalanx, see the Battle of Marathon.


Actually I'd like to note that in Marathon, defense was the last thing on
their minds. They actually attacked with everything they had (it wasn't
much). The persians did not call the Greeks' bluff, so they got circled and
slaughtered. If anything, it was a charge.

[Tim Nutting]

Kenneth Gauck wrote:

> I'm going get get back on my hobbyhorse of limitation again. This kind
of
> exchange (buy two cav instead of one knight) doesn't work at all well
> where horses are scarce. Numbers of horses are always a limiting factor
> in wartime (even WWII) and this kind of substitution can't happen in
every
> realm.

Very true... I wasn't really taking limitations or availability of troops
and/or mounts into consideration. Another limitation, now that I think
about it, is that historically knights were drawn from nobility. If the
regent passes resolutions to allow commoners in, just how will the nobles
react? And yes, every regent SHOULD have petty nobles to deal with.

Side note:
I don't really believe that a unit of knights (or even cav) = 200 soldiers.
That was an approximation for foot soldiers. Calc it, in a realm that can
support the creation of that much goods, the total cost without labor is 85
gb per unit of 200 knights. Plus, if they ARE drawn from nobility, damn
those blue bloods better be breeding like rabbits.

I usually use this
foot/archers = 200 soldiers
light cav/advanced foot = 100 soldiers
knights and such = 25 soldiers

[c558382@showme.missouri.]

On Sat, 7 Feb 1998, Tim Nutting wrote:

> I usually use this
> foot/archers = 200 soldiers
> light cav/advanced foot = 100 soldiers
> knights and such = 25 soldiers

Good points in Tim's post. I also consider elite infantry to be a smaller
number of men at arms (50 to 100) wearing good armors and being retainers
of noblemen, mercenaries (some only hire out for pay when the homefront is
quite), and even third sons of minor nobles. While standard infantry are
the 200 footmen in jerkin type armors with adequate skill at arms, far
inferior man to man than men at arms.

When knights fought regular footmen, its not uncommon for a single knight
to defeat even thrity footmen. Not kill mind you, just kill and injure
enough to cause a failed morale check.

Compare the 5th level fighter with a 16 STR (+1 dam), weapon
specialization, AC of 2 or 3, plus put him on a horse with the +1 to hit,
+1 AC benifit, against a hoard of 1st level fighters without weapons
specialization or any other special bonuses.

knight's THACO= 14 (w/ specialization and horse) damage = d8+3 (STR, Spec)
doing an average of 3 hp damage per round (against AC 4), 4 vs AC 8

our footmen's THAC0= 20, damage d6 or d6+1, doing an average of .4 hp per
round aginst an AC of 1 (plate and shield plus horse).

Our knight does ten times the damage, and has five times the hp's of any
one footmen.

Anywhere from 10 knights and 15 squires, to 25 knights, is plenty to
achive the warcard's effect.

Kenneth Gauck
c558382@showme.missouri.edu

[E Gray]

- -----Original Message-----
From: Bearcat
To: birthright@MPGN.COM
Date: Saturday, February 07, 1998 9:05 AM
Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] - Balance between troop unit types - limits



>I think that you maybe overestimating the capabilities of both the knights
>and the infantry. If you look on page 28 of the DMG you will see that
"since
>fighters tend to rise above the level of the common soldier few armies are
>composed high- or even low-level fighters", thus most of the infantry will
>be comprised of 0-level fighters, not the 1st level fighters that you
>mention above. Most generals would kill for troops as skilled as that.


Well, probably not 1st Level Fighters, as there isn't much difference
between
them....now second-level fighters, they might be worth something..

And you really have to look at one thing, a very minor, but critical thing,
that AD&D combat is scaled for small-scale individual Melees with
precious little on handling large units....for example a Company of
0-Level Knights could charge a 10th Level fighter, and going by the
AD&D rules, guess who would win?

It should be noted though that the largest and most powerful mercenary
unit(well ARMY really) of the Forgotten Realms, widely regarded as
power-trip central, is the Flaming Fist, a group of around 2000 soldiers,
composed of fighters of at least 4th Level....with Mages and Clerics to
boot...

BTW: It only costs 10,000 gp a day..}:+)

[c558382@showme.missouri.]

On Sat, 7 Feb 1998, Bearcat wrote:

> I think that you maybe overestimating the capabilities of both the knights
> and the infantry.

I made the infantry first level to demonstrate the gulf between knights
and even low (well the lowest) level fighters.

> As for the knights if you look at page 38 of the PHB the knights listed as
> _elite_ units are 1st level not fifth. And this number is much more
> optimistic than the elite "knight" body guards that are mentioned on page 10
> of the BR rule book.

The elite infantry *automatically* [emphasis in rulebook] given are
freebee's, so of course their not the Argonauts. By elite I read elite
morale and possibly weapon specialiazion or other special skills, better
than the run of the mill.

Knights, on the other hand, if you mean anything remotely like medieval
knights live to fight. They have little else to do. Even in managing
their little landholdings they are just preserving the income provided to
aquire armor and horse. Turned over to the company of men at age seven, to
serve as a page or varlet, he already begins his on-the-job training.
There he takes care of arms, armor, horses, gear, and so forth. At fourteen
or so, he becomes a squire, drilling in sword and shield, taking part in
mock battles, following his knight to war, learning knightly behavior and
campaigning first hand. By 19 or 20, he might be ready for knighthood.
Here he might be 1st level, but a comapny of knights would have all ages.
Veterans of many campaigns (and knights will go on many campaigns) we be
in their company. These guys live for this. A random collection of
knights does not yield a bunch of first level fighters. When the
demographics charts say there are a few who climb beyond the lower levels,
these are knights and adventurers. Examine the real exploits of knights.
They are not first level fighters.

> Anyway, going back to page 28 of the DMG we find that "there is little
> difference in ability between the typical foot soldier and the 1st level
> fighter". This means that the only difference between your elite knights and
> the infantry are the weapons, armor and mounts that they are using.

Knights are not typical foot soldiers. The difference is the difference
between combat hardened rangers and the guy who signed up for the GI bill.

A demand for service in England in 1229 yielded some five or six hundred
knights. All Engalnd able to raise three warcards of knights? The Earl
of Warwick was obligated to pay the crown six and a half knights in 1277,
and five in 1310. The Earl of Cornwall, 15 knights. The Earl of
Winchester, 10. As we know, the realms of Cerilia are about the size of
these kinds of noble lands. Baruk-Azhik is half the size of Wales, about
the size of Lancaster.

I suspect your knights are not my knights.

Kenneth Gauck
c558382@showme.missouri.edu

[James Ray]

Forgotten Realms is so full of game-breaking characters, though, there has
to be an army like that to keep abusive players from ruling the whole
planet.

- ----------
> From: E Gray
> To: birthright@MPGN.COM
> Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] - Balance between troop unit types - limits
> Date: Saturday, February 07, 1998 6:13 PM
> It should be noted though that the largest and most powerful mercenary
> unit(well ARMY really) of the Forgotten Realms, widely regarded as
> power-trip central, is the Flaming Fist, a group of around 2000 soldiers,
> composed of fighters of at least 4th Level....with Mages and Clerics to
> boot...
>
> BTW: It only costs 10,000 gp a day..}:+)

[E Gray]

- -----Original Message-----
From: James Ray
To: birthright@MPGN.COM
Date: Saturday, February 07, 1998 11:32 PM
Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] - Balance between troop unit types - limits


>Forgotten Realms is so full of game-breaking characters, though, there has
>to be an army like that to keep abusive players from ruling the whole
>planet.


Excuse me? Please don't be making blanket statements about the Forgotten
Realms and abusive players. They can happen anywhere, all it takes is the
right combination of DM and player...

[Denakhan]

>From: James Ray

>>Forgotten Realms is so full of game-breaking characters, though, there has
>>to be an army like that to keep abusive players from ruling the whole
>>planet.
>
>
>Excuse me? Please don't be making blanket statements about the Forgotten
>Realms and abusive players. They can happen anywhere, all it takes is the
>right combination of DM and player...
>

...and the setting and rules to back them up. ;-)

I agree that the mojority of the responsibility lies with the players
and DM, however, if the setting/rules "back up" these so-called
game-breaking characters I must lay some of the blame on it.

DM: WHAT!? You are a 1st level elven fighter and you have a THACO of 12 with
your bow?
Player: Yup. You said we could use "Book X", and I did. Besides, look at
(insert FR NPC with simmilar THACO and level).
DM: Uh, well, hmm. Ok then. I guess if NPC's can do it, so can you.

The FR seems to fit this bill. Heck, there are whole ARMIES of 2nd or
higher level fighters running around. BR doesn't seem to be falling into
this...yet. We will just have to see in the comming months...

Denakhan the Arch-Mage.

[Tim Nutting]

> Anyway, going back to page 28 of the DMG we find that "there is little
> difference in ability between the typical foot soldier and the 1st level
> fighter". This means that the only difference between your elite knights
and
> the infantry are the weapons, armor and mounts that they are using.

Morale & training? Fear factor?

Ummm... how likely mr spud infantryman (with a halberd and shortsword,
dressed in a drape of leather with metal studs on it) to stand in the way
of a man on a VERY big horse dressed in a full suit of metal armor with a
very long lance who is bearing down at him on full gallop? How about your
12 buddies in the first rank? How many of you will certainly die? I don't
think I am a coward, but that would put the fear of God into me and I just
might run rather than be skewered.

Keep in mind that if the AD&D combat system is used as a comparative that
Armor Class (none of these 0-level spuds has Dex bonuses) gives that knight
a +7 to hit on his attack roll. Same for his horse, which gets two
attacks. Oh yes, mounted combat gets the knight a +1 to hit. Those
infantrymen get a +2 from the knights AC and a -1 from attacking a mounted
man. Or they could hit the horse and have a +4 to their rolls (barding).

3 attacks at a to hit of 12/20
vs.
5 attacks at a to hit of 19/20 or 16/20 (vs. something with about 20hp)

odds favor the smaller numbers of men with the better equipment and the
superiority of being on a fighting beast.

> This usually is not enough when you have "10 knights and 15 squires to 25
> knights" against a unit of 200 infantrymen. However, when there are 200
> knights involved the warcard numbers begin to make sense.

Even when the cost of raising 200 men to that level of equipment is 80 gold
bars? Use the equip list from the PHB and check it out.

[Tim Nutting]

Perhaps the word "raising" was not clear. You are right, these men (and
women - we ARE in a fantasy world here, not history) are collected from
existing an existing stock of individuals.

For Manta - What did you think I meant by "raised"?

On a second issue that seems to be highly debated here. I will throw in
that I do not believe that ANY member of the average raised fighting force
in question is above 1st level, or even that. Remember that 1st level is
something special, it is something above the normal person, even the normal
soldier, and the normal noble. Look at the rulers of Cerilia, for the most
part the average is 4th level.

Second:
If the knights (even assuming a low number and not the 200 generalized
figure) _were_ of higher level, why aren't the bodyguards. A regent's
"elite guard" consists of a few dozen 0-level warriors. Why doesn't he
just tell them all to go away and pay for the knights to guard him 24 hours
a day?

Third:
We've all played 4th and 5th level characters before. How much would
anyone here, as a your 5th level character with horse and plate armor and
all you needs charge for your services, knowing you were in such high
demand because your fighting skill equals that of your ruler? (Or at least
is pretty close)

Well, my "humble" opinions (they aren't are they?)

Good Gaming
Tim Nutting
Servant of the Gorgon :)

[c558382@showme.missouri.]

> Third:
> We've all played 4th and 5th level characters before. How much would
> anyone here, as a your 5th level character with horse and plate armor and
> all you needs charge for your services, knowing you were in such high
> demand because your fighting skill equals that of your ruler? (Or at least
> is pretty close)

Knights are bound by obligation to serve. While some may try to evade
that obligation, they are not professional mercenaries hiring themselves
out, they are part of the politico-military fabric of a given realm.

The Cavalier, Myrmidon, Noble Warrior, any paladin, all would make a good
faith effort to answer the call of their overlord. They would not crassly
demand a charge for service. While they would expect land, title, and
ransom, this only futher enmeshes them in a system of mutual obligation.

If you don't want knightly units in your campaign, more power to you, but
what you are describing is just heavy cavalry.

Kenneth Gauck
c558382@showme.missouri.edu

[Espen Andre Johnsen]

>
> Another reason to consider knights to be a very small band of higher level
> (averaging maybe 5th) fighters rather than what the rules generalized
> about elite troops would be the very high saving throw knights recieve.
>
> Kenneth Gauck
> c558382@showme.missouri.edu

Are we back at discussing this again. I remember a while back when it
was concluded that it was not 200 menn but 200 HD of troops( including horses )
so a night unit had perhaps 60 Knights( that is 1lvl/0lvl ). If the knights are
as high as 3lvl then there are perhaps only 40 Knights in each unit.

Just my 4000gp.

Espen A. J.

[DKEvermore@aol.co]

> I agree with just about anything you said.
> Remember though, Knights are gathered (from a regent´s nobles and their
> trusted men at arms)not raised. It´s one more reason for their number to be
> smaller than 200 (unless you have a really BIG province).
> And if they were raised, how would you do it?How do you raise third, let´s
> say fourth level fighters?

Here's a suggestion. Muster a basic unit in the usual way. Involve them in a
bunch of battles (where they actually fight!) and training (use "muster unit"
again). By now, those 100+ original knights may be whittled down to 50+, but
are really mean, skilled, and Veteran. Give 'em a plus on charge or melee.

Obviously this is not a specific rule, but since it's less common to have
veteran units than "green" I would think a hard and fast rule would be less
"realistic" then simply reaching a unit-by-unit agreement with a PC. It'll
make more of an impact on a PC when a long-surviving unit who'd supported and
bled for king and country dies...

- -DKE

[prtr02@scorpion.nspco.co]

> Are we back at discussing this again. I remember a while back when it
> was concluded that it was not 200 menn but 200 HD of troops( including horses )
> so a night unit had perhaps 60 Knights( that is 1lvl/0lvl ). If the knights are
> as high as 3lvl then there are perhaps only 40 Knights in each unit.

I was going to write a typical long-winded essay on this but, yeah; the above paragraph
pretty much says it all. It's important for some list members (myself included) to
remember that while Cerilian cultures are modeled on those of fuedal Europe, they aren't the
same. The fact that most cerilian peasents are free, let's call them yeomen, throws a wrench into the manorial system that in the RW supported the knight.

IMO, there's about 100 knights, squires and mounted sargents (about half being sargents) in
a unit of knights. In the RW during this time period (hypocritical aren't I?) many mounted
men-at-arms were no longer "knights" in the traditional, land holding sense but professional
soldiers paid for their services by the government or another lord/organization. I wouldn't
say they were mercenaries per se, but they weren't above pillaging in, say, a Latvian
"crusade" with the Tuetonic knights when things were dull in France.

The reason I went with 100 is 1) it's simple 2) HD in D&D also translates into combat power.
The knight unit (charge 6) is twice as good as INF (melee 3) so the war cards should reflect
the same order of magnitude of troops 3) I didn't think the horses HD should translate
directly, the rider is the lions share of the team's combat potential 4) people above first
level are the NCOs/officers/war band cheifs/heros scattered throughout all units to lead
them. I'd agree the number per card would be reduced if you somehow managed to collect a
bunch of 3rd level fighters into a unit. By D&D rules this would be quite a feat. For this
type of unit detail I would suggest (gasp!- another game!) C&S, which does a much better job
of representing the dynamic of medieval europe than D&D.

So much for not being long-winded. I really didn't type lots that I wanted to- really.

Randax

[c558382@showme.missouri.]

On Thu, 19 Feb 1998, Espen Andre Johnsen wrote:

> Are we back at discussing this again. I remember a while back when it
> was concluded that it was not 200 menn but 200 HD of troops( including horses )
> so a night unit had perhaps 60 Knights( that is 1lvl/0lvl ). If the knights are
> as high as 3lvl then there are perhaps only 40 Knights in each unit.
>
> Just my 4000gp.

It doesn't need to be 200 HD, it needs to be a combination of HD, THAC0,
AC, and such factors to represent a Melee 4, Defense 4, and Charge 6.

Kenneth Gauck
c558382@showme.missouri.edu

[Manta]

I think that unlike pikemen,infantary or archers who are mustered and given
basic training with their weapons, Knights are gathered from the nobles in
the province in question.Not all nobles are fighters, but those who are
tend to become knights(noble warrior kit from The comp.FTRHb.).Fighting is
their life, not their job.In times of peace the soldier from infantary
unitX or Y goes home to his faily and relaxes for a while.The noble warrior
quests,takes part in tournaments and trains for battle because battle is
glorious and glory is his goal.I´m not saying that knights progress in
levels and footsoldiers and bodyguards stay 0level for the rest of their
lives-it would make no sense!-The thing is footman veterans die more
often(they gain experience but their armor is the same!) than Knights,and
so,infantary(or archers or whatever!)units are constituted of a mix of
veterans and green members.Inmy campaign I give XP to all NPC´s ,bodyguards
included(if after 12 lucky skirmishes against huge goblins-ie bugbears- a 0
level bodyguard manages to survive why doesn´t he gain first level or pass
to second after that?He´s a person just like every PC.)

I´m sure some of you do not agree with me but this is the way I see it!
My humble 2 escudos
MANTA

- ----------
> From: Tim Nutting
> To: birthright@MPGN.COM
> Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] - Balance between troop unit types - limits
> Date: quinta-feira, 19 de fevereiro de 1998 2:41
>
> Perhaps the word "raising" was not clear. You are right, these men (and
> women - we ARE in a fantasy world here, not history) are collected from
> existing an existing stock of individuals.
>
> For Manta - What did you think I meant by "raised"?
>
> On a second issue that seems to be highly debated here. I will throw in
> that I do not believe that ANY member of the average raised fighting
force
> in question is above 1st level, or even that. Remember that 1st level is
> something special, it is something above the normal person, even the
normal
> soldier, and the normal noble. Look at the rulers of Cerilia, for the
most
> part the average is 4th level.
>
> Second:
> If the knights (even assuming a low number and not the 200 generalized
> figure) _were_ of higher level, why aren't the bodyguards. A regent's
> "elite guard" consists of a few dozen 0-level warriors. Why doesn't he
> just tell them all to go away and pay for the knights to guard him 24
hours
> a day?
>
> Third:
> We've all played 4th and 5th level characters before. How much would
> anyone here, as a your 5th level character with horse and plate armor and
> all you needs charge for your services, knowing you were in such high
> demand because your fighting skill equals that of your ruler? (Or at
least
> is pretty close)
>
> Well, my "humble" opinions (they aren't are they?)
>
> Good Gaming
> Tim Nutting
> Servant of the Gorgon :)
>> To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the
line
> 'unsubscribe birthright' as the body of the message.