Out of Character thread

**econ21** · 01-06-2007, 19:19

On historical armies, let's follow Lucjan's idea. I propose the following army list for a full historical stack:

1-2 Generals
2-8 knights or dismounted men-at-arms (MAA)/foot knights
0-4 other cavalry (mted crossbows, mtd sergeants, reiters etc)
2-8 spears or pikes; peasants and town guard
0-4 zweihanders, halberds & other swords apart from dismounted knights/MAA
1-6 foot missiles (archers, crossbows, handguns etc)
0-5 artillery

Plus a final provisio: no more than half the stack can be mercenaries (not inappropriate, as HRE used these a lot).

For half a stack, just halve the above list. Stacks less than 7 units strong or in settlements don't have to follow the above.

My proposal is based on Terry Gore's Medieval Warfare army lists for miniatures. His system works in "stands", but I'm going to assume 4 of his stands is roughly one unit. I am going to allow more artillery if we want a siege train for assaulting settlements.

Here's Gore's draft army list for an early HRE army:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

Here's the late period one:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

Here's the abbreviations for those interested in the details:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

Lucjan your idea for distributing battles is interesting but seems rather complex. I'll leave it to individual Chancellors to adopt or not.

Ituralde: yes, people can take agents as avatars. I think we have a diplomat, maybe a spy and a priest. They would all be suitable.

On Dukes etc, TinCow, I think the Duke has a fair amount of power - they allocate settlements to players (after the Emperor has allocated settlements to Dukes) and they can take them away from players who are not their natural sons. Most ancillaries are not tradable and personally, I don't want players to change other player's traits. I suspect the Houses will work fairly well due to the geographic angle - go east, west, north etc. That was quite pronounced in WotS.

Lucjan: I thought of creating more than four Houses, but then we lose the neat family tree division. I'd prefer to keep it to a simple four, like the Aemili etc in WotS. The Emperor should try to balance out the Houses when distributing settlements. I will when allocating avatars. I guess we should include a provision that the Diet cannot allocate settlements - I want these powers not to be democratic.

On the turns per year, I would prefer people hold their noses and just go with the game as it was designed. The passage of events is designed to be a certain speed and I'd rather we enjoy bumping into Mongols, discover gunpowder, go to America etc in a decent time frame than worry too much about temporal paradoxes. I'm not a great fan of 4tpy mods etc.

Mount - good luck with the house move. I hope this PBM lasts a decent interval so you can join it in due course.

EDIT: Nice to have you on board, Emperor GeneralHankerchief (sounds like a character from Spaceballs).

Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief

As far as the screenshot issue (which popped up in WotS Post-Mortem), perhaps we could keep them full size but put them under spoiler tags (or iFrames, courtesy of Tosa). That way we could click them and they would load one-at-a-time. In addition, it keeps that nasty little horizontal scrollbar from showing up.

Yes, I was thinking of that - let's use spoiler tags for images. Just wrap the link with [ spoil] and [ /spoil] without the spaces.

**Lucjan** · 01-06-2007, 21:52

Agreed on the images, but disagreed on this.

I thought of creating more than four Houses, but then we lose the neat family tree division. I'd prefer to keep it to a simple four, like the Aemili etc in WotS.

I don't think familial loyalty was always of the utmost importance at the time. Emperors' and kings' biggest enemies were often the next person in line for their inheritance. Medieval loyalties were a spider's web of politics and personal desires rather than the familial inclinations of the old Rome Empire.
To back my statement. Here's a map of the HRE on something of a ducal scale even in its later years. It was even worse earlier on.

http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~ma68/Co...HREmap1789.jpg

I could live with only 4 duchies, but I disagree with keeping the neat family tree division of loyalty. I'd gladly keep track of both the family tree and a "Political Tree", as it is far more likely that something of this nature will and would have developed than expecting blind family loyalties to prevail in the middle ages.

I'm also not convinced that following Terry Gore's example is all that great of an idea.

Under that idea, I wouldn't be surprised to see something like this.
2 Generals
2 spears
2 archers
5 knights
4 mounted sargeants
5 artillery

Putting that aside, I also can't see justifying the use of a tabletop game's army draft, which uses stands in its selection method, in direct comparison to TW's "units". I am familiar with tabletop wargames, as I have played several of them and am not ignorant of their mechanics.

My issue with that method is that saying the army draft from terry gore's game allows 2-8 stands of knights and 2-8 stands of spears. This cannot possibly be realistically applied to M2. Because whereas a stand of knights in his game may only contain 5 knights (pulling numbers out of my butt for sake of arguement), a stand of spears in his game may contain 20 spearmen. Therefore, you can see the gross miscalculation in the conversion of gore's stands to TW's units. The numbers just simply don't add up equally at all. 2-8 stands of his knights might only yield you 10-40 knights, but 2-8 stands of spears brings 40-160 spearmen. On normal size settings That adds up, at maximum, to 1 unit of TW's knights and slightly more than 2 units of TW's Spearmen. It just doesn't translate equally in terms of numbers.

Not to mention that seeing an army like the example I put above would be incredibly unhistorical and wildly unbalanced. Mercenaries and/or drafted peasantry/militia made up, from my understanding, the largest part of almost all medieval armies until the development of the English and French professional soldiery.

Terry Gore would have us playing with up to 2 generals, 320 knights, 160 mounted sargeants, 10 catapults, 120 archers and 150 spears. His tactics of cavalry riding through the spears and then retreating back through aren't even applicable with something like this. The cavalry are the line, and an enemy with a decent number of pikes or spears and a few countercharging cavalry would put this army to shame in a heartbeat.

I have to suggest that my own army formation formula, not just the idea, be seriously considered. It gives us a balanced army, it's highly game applicable as it was created specifically with our game in mind, and it tries harder to maintain the historical balance of nobility:peasantry in the army. Though perhaps due to historical context we reduce the required ratio for mercenaries to a 1:1, I really don't see us making much use of them at all, as they're immensely expensive to hire and maintain, and take significantly longer to become available again than our own native troops.

One last note - Unit Sizes, thought to make the game more attractive to everybody we were going to stick with Normal unit sizes, not large?

**econ21** · 01-07-2007, 00:08

Originally Posted by Lucjan

I could live with only 4 duchies, but I disagree with keeping the neat family tree division of loyalty.

You don't need to be politically loyal to your House (think of the infighting among the Aemili...). Other competing forms of political division - by piety, by judgement, by chivalry etc - can and should emerge. The Houses are just to make the regional element significant, as I believe it was in the HRE. Don’t worry - the map can get messy, as the Emperor could gift Bologna to the Duchy of Franconia.

Originally Posted by Lucjan

I'm also not convinced that following Terry Gore's example is all that great of an idea.

Under that idea, I wouldn't be surprised to see something like this.
2 Generals
2 spears
2 archers
5 knights
4 mounted sargeants
5 artillery

The 5 artillery are my addition, not Terry Gore's. IIRC, the only artillery in his lists are only 0-2 stands of organ guns very late in the period. So that would be half a M2TW unit (by my 4 stands = 1 unit equation). But I wanted to allow for an "artillery park" and so the 5 max is a way of doing that.

Why don't we say instead:

0-2 artillery for field battles; 0-5 for sieges [if you have more than 2 at the beginning of a field battle, you must retreat them off the field]

My issue with that method is that saying the army draft from terry gore's game allows 2-8 stands of knights and 2-8 stands of spears. This cannot possibly be realistically applied to M2. Because whereas a stand of knights in his game may only contain 5 knights (pulling numbers out of my butt for sake of argument), a stand of spears in his game may contain 20 spearmen.

No, I don't think that's true. A stand of knights and spears in his game are roughly comparable to units in M2TW.

Mercenaries and/or drafted peasantry/militia made up, from my understanding, the largest part of almost all medieval armies until the development of the English and French professional soldiery.
...I have to suggest that my own army formation formula, not just the idea, be seriously considered.

I am seriously considering your idea. How about this as a synthesis of your proposal and Gore's army lists?

First off, let's take the mercs out of the equation. They are going to be capped by an overall maximum of 1 merc: 1 native unit restriction, so they don't need to complicate the discussion of unit types.

Now,combining your ideas with Gore's Army List, I propose:

For full stack armies (15+ units):

Generals - max 2
Knights - cavalry or foot, max 8 units inc. generals
Total cavalry - maximum 8 units, inc mounted knights and generals

Artillery - maximum 2 units (5 in a siege)
Foot missiles - maximum 6 units including artillery

Zweihanders, halberdiers & other heavy infantry, max 4 units

Spears, pikes, peasants, town militia etc - unlimited

For half stack armies (7-14 units), we just halve the above.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

I don't think we need to bother with minima - the key thing is to limit the possibly overpowering elites (knights, cav, missiles, artillery). We want to keep things simple - no Chancellor is going to want to be calculating percentages when putting together armies (I am pretty sure Servius did not).

Note that I think we should cap knights collectively whether mounted or not. A TW knight is essentially what in the day was called a "man-at-arms" i.e. a melee fighter with best practice armour of the time. He usually had a horse and could fight dismounted if needed. M2TW does not allow dismounting, but the point remains.

I think my synthesis restrictions differ from your restrictions only in allowing 40% cavalry, rather than 25%. But I think my more liberal allowances are probably more historical. For example, if we look at the French army at Crecy, Gore puts it at 39% knights. (He puts the English at 62% missiles.) For the Sicilian Normans at Durazzo in 1081, he puts them at 37% cavalry and 42% missiles. We're capping missiles a little tight at 30%, but I think that may be needed against the AI (don't want this to be a turkey shoot).

Here's Gore's version of the French at Crecy:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

Gore's version of the Sicilian Norman Army of Robert Guiscard at Durazzo - 1081:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

**econ21** · 01-06-2007, 22:34

At the risk of repeating myself, a few more notes on the role of the Houses, as TinCow is right, this is the main difference from WotS (although governors are also different). I will integrate these with the first post in due course.

Players are born into a noble House. It is in their blood and cannot be changed. It is determined by which of the four lines on the family tree their avatar falls under (except for the three starter Generals, for whom it is determined by their initial geography).

Houses are led by Dukes. Members of a house do not have to follow their Dukes in terms of politics. However, the Duke can make players a Count by giving them a settlement (granting them +1 influence). Only the Duke of your House (not another Duke) can make you a Count. The Duke can also take away the settlement (and title of count, incl. the +1 influence) unless you are his son by blood.

The Duke of a House is the oldest male in the relevant blood line of the family tree but can never be replaced except on death (so if an older male is adopted or marries in, the newcomer does not become Duke). The Emperor will determine bloodlines and Dukes, in the unlikely event of disputes.

The Emperor controls the initial allocation of settlements (e.g. upon conquest). At the start of the game, we have:

Frankfurt - capital of Franconia, home of the Duke (TBC)
Stafen - capital of Swabia, home of the Duke (Prince Henry)
Nuremburg - capital of Bavaria, home of the Duke (TBC)
Innsbruck - second city of Bavaria
Vienna - capital of Austria, home of the Duke (Leopold)
Bologna - is not assigned to any house

There are no Counts at the start of the game. Capitals of a House need no Counts and cannot be given to them - they belong to the Duke (or his Steward). The Emperor could allocate Bologna to a House at any time, but after that, it will permanently belong to that House. There is an expectation that Franconia will extend north, Swabia west, Bavaria south and Austria east but this should not be followed too rigidly - e.g. the Emperor does not have to give Bologna to Bavaria.

Bavaria and Franconia have no Duke yet, so there are Stewards to act in their place until them. Until there is a Duke, they receive the +2 influence of a Duke. However, they cannot create Counts. (There will be no Count of Innsbruck until Bavaria has a Duke.) The Stewards themselves are not Counts. Like Otto in Innsbruck, they are just soldiers, self-made men of lesser station [think Denethor in Lord of the Rings]. They could be rewarded by being made a Count by their Duke when he spawns, though. And they could marry into the Royal line, potentially becoming the Duke themselves.

It is expected that settlements will not be gifted lightly by the Emperor and by Dukes/Stewards - they should be regarded as precious rewards. There is no particular value to settlements in themselves, however. Avatars will be assigned according to the family tree, so more settlements does not mean more family members in a House - nor does it raise influence (beyond the one-off +1 for being a Count). A player cannot be the Count of more than one settlement. Dukes can have more than one settlement not dispersed to counts (and given the ratio of settlements to generals in a game, this is inevitable), but this provides no particular benefits.

I envisage the Emperor as the "chairman" of the HRE. He will keep order in the Diet and try to make things run smoothly. He has the right to Chancellor once, and ideally should do this on being crowned to make his mark (and allow him to be disinterested). Emperors do not belong to factions - if crowned, they leave their House and - if Duke - are replaced by their eldest son. They are expected to act for the good of the Empire and be impartial, above petty regional politics.

The Chancellor should also act for the good of the Empire, but - having a limited term - is less likely to be impartial. He has no control over settlements or titling Counts. However, he does have some powers of patronage - he can appoint army commanders (+1 military influence) and governors (+1 civic influence).

To be an army commander, you must first be a knight (ie have your deeds in battle recognised by an army commander). All starting avatars are already knights. Then you must command a stack of at least 7 units. And finally, your appointment must be formally posted by the Chancellor. In reconition of your abilities, you get +1 military influence and that, unlike your army, can never be taken away from you.

If you win 5 major battles, you become a Field Marshall and get +2 influence forever (not cumulative with the +1 for army commander). You get to keep your army for 20 turns - the Chancellor may not take away any units without your consent.

To be a governor, you must be designated governor of a settlement by the game for two turns. The Chancellor must then formally post that you are governor and must formally post when you cease to be. While you are governor, you get a +1 influence as a reward for your work [this is not in the FAQ, but I think it's necessary to give the incentive to govern]. You cannot govern a Count's settlement (or a Duke's capital) without him approving your appointment. On appointment, you can set the tax rate and building queue (for buildings only) for 10 turns. The Chancellor must obey this instructions, although he need not build anything - it's just, if he does build anything, it must be the first building on your queue. You can be dismissed (moved out of the settlement) at the Chancellors' whim, but he must formally post your dismissal and must still abide by your build queue until the 10 turns are up. If you are moved out for whatever reason, you are no longer governor and lose the +1 influence bonus. The starting characters are all governors of the settlements they are initally in.

That's all I can think of - let me know if anything is unclear or objectionable.

**flyd** · 01-06-2007, 23:06

I'd like to officially sign up to be an elector of Franconia.

I can't say I have any issues with the rules as they currently stand.

**Lucjan** · 01-06-2007, 23:39

I'll capitulate on the ducal houses bit, perhaps I read too far into the distribution of titles and took too much of a M1 look in regards to their being granted to anyone, not just family members.

My only issue stands with the historical armies. As soon as we get a general consensus from our players and potential players, and lay some kind of unanimously acceptable decision on army composition and how we should go about that, I'll be ready to go.

EDIT - Ahh, Flydude! You and I get the chance to play as allies this time around! Welcome to the neighborhood. I'll be playing out Dietrich von Saxony, First Elector of Franconia, hopefully we'll get an avatar for you soon.

**StoneCold** · 01-06-2007, 23:46

One question, why not just let Bologna be permanently Emperor's territory? As you have already noted, once a Duke becomes the Emperor he will leave the family and acts in the best interest of the empire, but where will he be based then? Will he just be a free roaming agent then?

Regarding armies and generals. Who is deciding the composition of the Armies? I mean each house will be vying for powers, I would assume armies is an important means to do that, if the chancellor concentrated on building on one Duke's army, the land he conquered will be his, to the detriment of other houses or will that be decided by the Diet? Same thing goes to hiring and disbanding mercs, and the disbanding troops in time of relative peace to maintain budget?

Also how are we to decide on the general to send to the crusade to the Holy Land, how do we armed them? Do we create a new Duchy there? (I am thinking this will be a good way to role play the holy land politics as the I remember the Kingdom of Heaven is almost always begging for troops, crusade to rebuild his kingdom.)

With regards to rotation of generals, I was suggesting that an army unit composition be fixed such that once built, it cannot just rebuild it to full strength by adding new units transferred to the frontline, but instead have to rotate back to base city to rebuild? (R&R) It can only be rebuild using freshly trained units and merging the units to existing unit in the stack? This will remove the rebuilding cheat, which I think it is still there, right? Or is this system too complicated?

**econ21** · 01-07-2007, 00:32

Originally Posted by StoneCold

One question, why not just let Bologna be permanently Emperor's territory?

I think we can just leave it up to the Emperor. If he wants a nice Italian pad, he can keep it. But to be honest, I can't see why he would - using it to play power politics with the Dukes sounds much more fun.

Regarding armies and generals. Who is deciding the composition of the Armies? I mean each house will be vying for powers, I would assume armies is an important means to do that, if the chancellor concentrated on building on one Duke's army, the land he conquered will be his, to the detriment of other houses or will that be decided by the Diet? Same thing goes to hiring and disbanding mercs, and the disbanding troops in time of relative peace to maintain budget?

Army composition, recruitment of mercs etc are all decided by the Chancellor (although he should abide by the historical guidelines when finally agreed). Armies won't provide houses with powers, except indirectly through the influence boost for their commanders and the fact that a House which conquers a settlement might be more likely to be gifted it by the Emperor. But the Emperor is free to give it to whoever. I don't want people to begin thinking about civil wars and fighting each other - unlike WotS, we're not going to do that. We're going to fight the AI, not each other.

Also how are we to decide on the general to send to the crusade to the Holy Land, how do we armed them? Do we create a new Duchy there? (I am thinking this will be a good way to role play the holy land politics as the I remember the Kingdom of Heaven is almost always begging for troops, crusade to rebuild his kingdom.)

Good question. Let's say crusades, like declarations of war, must be authorised by the Diet EXCEPT when another faction starts one (it's a race, so the Chancellor should not have to wait to start running). We should send more than one general (bitter solo experience here), but let's leave that to the Chancellor as he picks army commanders. On reflection, I don't want the Kingdom of Heaven to be a Duchy (although it's a neat idea) - rather I want it to be the particular concern of the crusaders, the pious and the Chancellor (who presumably is aiming for Jerusalem as one of the victory conditions - as indeed should everyone).

With regards to rotation of generals, I was suggesting that an army unit composition be fixed such that once built, it cannot just rebuild it to full strength by adding new units transferred to the frontline, but instead have to rotate back to base city to rebuild? (R&R) It can only be rebuild using freshly trained units and merging the units to existing unit in the stack? This will remove the rebuilding cheat, which I think it is still there, right? Or is this system too complicated?

The rebuilding cheat is much less important now, as you can only build/retrain 3 units per settlement so your whole army can't be resurrected in a turn or two. Plus experience matters less - even at 9 experience, it's only a +3 to stats (which don't always seem to matter in the ways you might expect). Personally, I don't bother with the "no retraining" houserule in M2TW, whereas it was obligatory in RTW/RTR. I think a no reinforcement and compulsory R&R rule would be too much of a constraint on the Chancellor - I have a feeling we will be fighting for our lives here (unlike the Romans in RTR).

**Warluster** · 01-07-2007, 00:35

I'll join!

**econ21** · 01-07-2007, 03:12

Originally Posted by Warluster

I'll join!

Welcome on board - which "House" do you want to join? Franconia, Swabia, Austria or Bavaria?

**Warluster** · 01-07-2007, 04:22

House of Swabia please

Thread: Out of Character thread

Thread Tools

Display

Hybrid View

Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread

Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread

Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread

Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread

Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread

Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread

Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread

Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread

Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread

Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread

Re: King of the Romans - OOC thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions