01-14-2009, 10:23 AM | #31 |
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
|
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! |
01-14-2009, 11:57 AM | #32 | ||
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Seattle, Washington
|
Re: [Mass Combat] Statting a fantasy army
Quote:
Quote:
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, we’d like to buy it. If you have money, we’d like to sell you our stuff. If you mess with us, we kill you. |
||
01-14-2009, 01:32 PM | #33 | |
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Virginia
|
Re: [Mass Combat] Statting a fantasy army
Quote:
|
|
01-14-2009, 01:38 PM | #34 |
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Seattle, Washington
|
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) 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 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, we’d like to buy it. If you have money, we’d 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. |
01-14-2009, 07:28 PM | #35 | ||
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
|
Re: [Mass Combat] Statting a fantasy army
Quote:
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:
__________________
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela! |
||
01-15-2009, 12:18 AM | #36 |
Join Date: Oct 2004
|
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.
|
01-15-2009, 02:36 AM | #37 | |
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Re: [Mass Combat] Statting a fantasy army
Quote:
|
|
01-15-2009, 04:56 AM | #38 | |
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
|
Re: [Mass Combat] Statting a fantasy army
Quote:
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! |
|
01-15-2009, 04:59 AM | #39 | |
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
|
Re: [Mass Combat] Statting a fantasy army
Quote:
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! |
|
01-15-2009, 05:39 AM | #40 | |
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Re: [Mass Combat] Statting a fantasy army
Quote:
|
|
Tags |
forgotten realms, mass combat |
|
|