Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-14-2009, 10:23 AM   #31
Icelander
 
Icelander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
Default Re: [Mass Combat] Statting a fantasy army

Also, I'm not sure what constitutes Good equipment, what is Basic and what is Fine.

What is an infantry unit which is trained to fight in battle lines, either with crossbows or spears and shields, and is issued the following: Standard GUPRS mail hauberk, mail coif, steel cap, medium shield, good-quality spear, good-quality crossbow, good-quality shortsword?

Are they medium or heavy infantry? Do they have Basic or Good equipment?

What about similar infantry that has more expensive armour by a factor of x2.5 (which is lighter) and a fine spear but otherwise carries the same gear?

If this constitutes Heavy Infantry, what does that make the guys in plate mail and munition plate that carry halberds? They are heavier infantry, for certain, but the cost of their gear is just +10% to 20% higher than that of the lighter troops. Certainly not enough to justify the added cost of Very Fine vs. Fine.
__________________
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Icelander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2009, 11:57 AM   #32
balzacq
 
balzacq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Seattle, Washington
Default Re: [Mass Combat] Statting a fantasy army

Quote:
Originally Posted by Icelander
Also, I'm not sure what constitutes Good equipment, what is Basic and what is Fine.

What is an infantry unit which is trained to fight in battle lines, either with crossbows or spears and shields, and is issued the following: Standard GUPRS mail hauberk, mail coif, steel cap, medium shield, good-quality spear, good-quality crossbow, good-quality shortsword?

Are they medium or heavy infantry? Do they have Basic or Good equipment?

What about similar infantry that has more expensive armour by a factor of x2.5 (which is lighter) and a fine spear but otherwise carries the same gear?

If this constitutes Heavy Infantry, what does that make the guys in plate mail and munition plate that carry halberds? They are heavier infantry, for certain, but the cost of their gear is just +10% to 20% higher than that of the lighter troops. Certainly not enough to justify the added cost of Very Fine vs. Fine.
Heavy vs. Medium vs. Light Infantry is based on how they fight: close order vs. open order vs. skirmishing. (pp. 16-17) It does not have to do with how they are armed and armored -- that's reflected in Equipment Quality. From p. 11:
Quote:
At TL0-4, it represents absolute equipment quality; its the difference between one TL3 Heavy Infantry element being outfitted with spear, cheap shortsword, shield, padded jacket, and leather cap (Basic equipment), and another whose men have a spear and a thrusting broadsword, and who are clad neck to toe in mail (Fine equipment).
So your munition-plate-and-halberd guys would have Very Fine equipment, while your hauberk-shield-and-spear guys would have Fine equipment. If the plate-and-halberd guys fight shoulder-to-shoulder, they're Heavies; but if they fight a halberd's-length apart, they're Mediums.

I'd classify your 1st of Foot as Good Heavy Infantry (specialists in complicated close-order drill) with Fine equipment, your 4th of Foot as Good Medium Infantry with Good equipment, and your 5th of Foot as Average Medium Infantry with Good equipment (I might even classify them as Inferior since they have little experience fighting together as a unit).
__________________
-- Bryan Lovely

My idea of US foreign policy is three-fold:
If you have nice stuff, wed like to buy it.
If you have money, wed like to sell you our stuff.
If you mess with us, we kill you.
balzacq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2009, 01:32 PM   #33
Rabiddave
 
Rabiddave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Virginia
Default Re: [Mass Combat] Statting a fantasy army

Quote:
Originally Posted by balzacq
I draw your attention to the hobilar, a medieval mounted infantryman, who according to wikipedia literally rode hobby horses (light, agile mounts) and were used by Robert the Bruce as guerrilla raiders.

If you don't have heavy warhorses plus armored knights (and the infrastructure to maintain both) on the one hand, and aren't steppe nomads on the other hand, but have plenty of light riding horses and live in poor cavalry-charge terrain, then mounted infantry makes a great deal of sense.
I was speaking on general terms, and left room for exception in earlier posts, but the fact is that on the medieval battlefield the cavalry charge was usually the determinant factor...In other words, if cavalry was fielded (terrain permitting and so on) they generally did not dismount for any tactical purpose (despite some exceptions, notably Charles Martel ordering his men to dismount and form a shield wall because the speed of the muslim forces' horses made his own inneffective).
Rabiddave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2009, 01:38 PM   #34
balzacq
 
balzacq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Seattle, Washington
Default Re: [Mass Combat] Statting a fantasy army

Here's how I'd do the completed stats:
Code:
Name            Type     TS  Class   WT  Mob  Raise  Maint TL  Qual  Equip
1st Hussars      Lt Cav   6   Cv, Rec  2   Mtd   400K   48K     3   good  fine
2nd Dragoons     Med Cav  4   Cv, F    2   Mtd   255K   51K     3   good  good
  (dismounted:)  Med Inf  4.5 -            Foot                     avg
1st of Foot      Hvy Inf  10  -        1   Foot  120K   17.6K   3   good  fine
4th of Foot      Med Inf  6   -        1   Foot  75K    10.2K   3   good  good
5th of Foot      Med Inf  4.5 -        1   Foot  45K    9K      3   avg   good
1372 DR          Med Inf  5   -        1   Foot  15K    10.5K   3   avg   good
  Impetuous, Semi-Mercenary*

*Semi-Mercenary: Raise*0.25 (city issues equipment), Maintain*1.25 (high pay)
I don't know offhand whether we're supposed to round TS up or down or not at all. If down then note that the 1372 has been rounded up to reflect their semi-heroic status; if up then the 5th Foot and 2nd Dragoons (dismounted) should be 5s; if no rounding the 5th Foot and 2nd Dragoons (dismounted) should be 4.5. EDIT: Never mind about the rounding -- from the examples in Appendix A it becomes clear that no rounding is done. I've changed the 5th Foot and 2nd Dragoons (dismounted) to 4.5 TS.

Notes on units:

1st Hussars: Classed as Light Cavalry due to the lightness of their mounts and their lances -- lancers in the Napoleonic Wars were considered light cavalry and regularly made charges against infantry, so "Light" doesn't mean "exclusively skirmisher."

2nd Dragoons: Classed as Medium Cavalry instead of Infantry+Mount since they are cavalry-trained. When fighting dismounted, I gave them only Average quality to reflect having to be better at one thing or another. (If you want them to be Good quality at both, increase the Raise/Maintain costs to Elite level (but not the actual troop quality) to reflect that they would have to be highly trained but trying to do too much.)

1372 DR: As noted, I rounded this unit's TS up instead of down to reflect their semi-heroic status. Their quality is only Average, because they are an "enthusiastic and skilled part-time militia." (p. 11) without a lot of unit cohesion.

To make your comparison of the 1st Foot (best regiment in the army) vs. heavily armored city knights with halberds, I'd rate the latter as:
Code:
City Knights      Hvy Inf   14  -        1   Foot  200K   23.2K   3   elite  v.fine
They would be elite due to being "raised from childhood as full-time soldiers" (p. 11) and very fine equipment for "personal equipment of warrior nobility." (ibid.)

And here's another thought about the 1372 DR: in the Napoleonic Wars, the French and Russian armies (at least) would strip off the grenadier companies from all the regiments in a corps or army and "converge" them into a separate scratch regiment. To reflect the extraordinary nature of some of the 1372's troops, you could make the majority of the elements regular medium infantry (TS 4) with the costs as above, and a few elements as Hero medium infantry. This might give you the effect you desire, reflecting the presence of a few super-highly-skilled members in an otherwise only somewhat extraordinary force.
__________________
-- Bryan Lovely

My idea of US foreign policy is three-fold:
If you have nice stuff, wed like to buy it.
If you have money, wed like to sell you our stuff.
If you mess with us, we kill you.

Last edited by balzacq; 01-14-2009 at 05:03 PM.
balzacq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2009, 07:28 PM   #35
Icelander
 
Icelander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
Default Re: [Mass Combat] Statting a fantasy army

Quote:
Originally Posted by balzacq
So your munition-plate-and-halberd guys would have Very Fine equipment, while your hauberk-shield-and-spear guys would have Fine equipment. If the plate-and-halberd guys fight shoulder-to-shoulder, they're Heavies; but if they fight a halberd's-length apart, they're Mediums.
They are definitely Heavy. But I wonder, is an extra +10% or +20% of equipment cost enough to rate an upgrade from Fine to Very Fine?

I mean, there are knights and even retainer cavalry that have harnesses which cost (and provide benefits) several times what the gear for these soldiers costs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by balzacq
I'd classify your 1st of Foot as Good Heavy Infantry (specialists in complicated close-order drill) with Fine equipment, your 4th of Foot as Good Medium Infantry with Good equipment, and your 5th of Foot as Average Medium Infantry with Good equipment (I might even classify them as Inferior since they have little experience fighting together as a unit).
But how much does it cost that they are capable of functioning as a Fire unit if desired?
__________________
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Icelander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2009, 12:18 AM   #36
Pomphis
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Default Re: [Mass Combat] Statting a fantasy army

I am considering a house rule permitting to add F to class for a cost increase of 20 or 25%, comparable to Night or Neutralize. And maybe capped at units never counting more than TS 3 for F as a result of this, to avoid Heavy Cavalry with crossbows becoming super archers.
Pomphis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2009, 02:36 AM   #37
Dinadon
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Default Re: [Mass Combat] Statting a fantasy army

Quote:
Originally Posted by Icelander
But how much does it cost that they are capable of functioning as a Fire unit if desired?
Then I'd say they'd be based off bowmen, not infantry. Otherwise they'd be really ineffective in a battlefield role they weren't trained for. More realistically, you should be raising archers for use on the battlefield, rather than using your best (and only) frontline infantry. Note that the notion of having bows is fine, light infantry have them but don't get fire class. Yet on the battlefield, you're wanting to put out sustained fire over the course of the battle, whilst infantry want to close with the enemy quickly. If you do have limits on men, then disbanding one of the regiments and retraining them, probably as Good or Elite quality bowmen to reflect the fact they use to be infantry.
Dinadon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2009, 04:56 AM   #38
Icelander
 
Icelander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
Default Re: [Mass Combat] Statting a fantasy army

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dinadon
Then I'd say they'd be based off bowmen, not infantry. Otherwise they'd be really ineffective in a battlefield role they weren't trained for. More realistically, you should be raising archers for use on the battlefield, rather than using your best (and only) frontline infantry. Note that the notion of having bows is fine, light infantry have them but don't get fire class. Yet on the battlefield, you're wanting to put out sustained fire over the course of the battle, whilst infantry want to close with the enemy quickly. If you do have limits on men, then disbanding one of the regiments and retraining them, probably as Good or Elite quality bowmen to reflect the fact they use to be infantry.
They are, effectively, cross-trained to the extent that they can do both jobs.

Why is it impossible to keep a regiment that can function either as Bowmen (in case of a siege or when defending someting) or as Heavy Infantry (during battles where they want to close)? The tactical flexibility is worth something and though a larger country might gain more benefit from specialising, this is specifically a small city state that has comparatively few men, but has historically been very rich for its size.

I understand that this capability should cost more, but I'm mystified why the rules don't allow for it at all.

In fact, I think that a lot of historical units would be capable of switching between two roles depending on the tactical situation. British infantry battalion had a company of Light Infantry that was equipped and trained to stand in the line of battle as normal Line Infantry during intense battles, but was also capable of serving as Skirmishers.

Those were simply men picked from the rest of the battalion for their intelligence and ability to function outside of the battleline, but that didn't mean they suddenly lost the ability to perform as the Line Infantry they had been trained as.

I think that an ability representing such capability (Multirole +20% or +25%) is necessary. It would take a round or so to switch roles and the TS might be different in each of them (in fact, it nearly certainly would be).
__________________
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Icelander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2009, 04:59 AM   #39
Icelander
 
Icelander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
Default Re: [Mass Combat] Statting a fantasy army

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pomphis
I am considering a house rule permitting to add F to class for a cost increase of 20 or 25%, comparable to Night or Neutralize. And maybe capped at units never counting more than TS 3 for F as a result of this, to avoid Heavy Cavalry with crossbows becoming super archers.
I'd allow units to count as more than one type, but only one at a time. That is, the Old Red One is either Heavy Infatry with Fine equipment or Bowmen with Very Fine (since Bowmen are usually more lightly equipped). It would probably have to disengage for one round (not contribute its TS) to switch roles.

Would add +20% to +25% to cost, as you say. Raise and Maintain would be based on the more expensive unit.

Or use Alternative Ability rules. Each extra role costs 1/5 of what it would cost to add a whole new unit with the capability. In fact, that's an elegant solution and I think I'll adopt it.
__________________
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Icelander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2009, 05:39 AM   #40
Dinadon
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Default Re: [Mass Combat] Statting a fantasy army

Quote:
Originally Posted by Icelander
Or use Alternative Ability rules. Each extra role costs 1/5 of what it would cost to add a whole new unit with the capability. In fact, that's an elegant solution and I think I'll adopt it.
It is, and I was about to suggest something similiar (base cost, and thus time to train, didn't get the reduction).
Dinadon is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
forgotten realms, mass combat

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.