Horses, encumbrance and travelling speed

[robertsconley]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

Icelander's right. Historically there was no such thing as a knight with a budget. If you didn't meet minimum wealth requirements then you couldn't be a knight. Its as simple as that. GURPS will let you get around that with things such as Signiature Gear. I like Shawn's suggestions and also encourage him to expand this thread into an e23 publication.

I disagree there were Knights supported solely by their liege in a manner similar to a man-at-arms. Status was important as it gave access but Status do not equate to wealth in a medieval society.

The classic example is of a younger son, noble born, but no inheritance. That son would be forced to seek service with another lord relying on that lord for all his support. All he would have to offer is his skill at arms. Of course that lord would have to be wealthy enough to support multiple knights on what Harnmanor calls his household budget.

That unlanded Knight through war, rebellion, luck, or good service could wind up with a manor of his own. His arms and his horse likely be given as a gift by his liege along with the manor.

Now I am not saying this is typically but it wasn't rare either. And as the Middle Ages edged to the renaissance it became commoner and commoner as paid mercenary service becomes the norm instead of the feudal levy.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by robertsconley

I disagree there were Knights supported solely by their liege in a manner similar to a man-at-arms.

Of course, but depending on how well they're equipped, they might still qualify for Filthy Rich in GURPS terms.

Originally Posted by robertsconley

Status was important as it gave access but Status do not equate to wealth in a medieval society.

In GURPS terms, it usually has to, unless the character is supposed to have trouble maintaining his lifestyle.

In game terms, a knight who owns a destrier, palfrey and a couple of rouncies as well as arms and harness is usually Filthy Rich. The value of just this equipment, not counting anything else the knight may possess, is about 50 times starting wealth at TL3. Even a more modest knightly outfit of one courser and one rouncy plus less fancy arms and harness will not be available for under Very Wealthy levels. Whether he earned this wealth by serving another knight or he inherited it doesn't matter.

In game terms, such a knight has a job that is Very Wealthy or Filthy Rich and therefore takes that wealth level.

With the Patron (Provides expensive equipment +100%) Advantage, it's possible to create a knight who doesn't have any Wealth of his own and is utterly reliant on his lord, but that will generally not be much cheaper than buying Wealth. Indeed, if the character lives on his lord's manor, he can easily pay 60 points for his lord as a Patron.

[robertsconley]

Originally Posted by Icelander

In GURPS terms, it usually has to, unless the character is supposed to have trouble maintaining his lifestyle.

Unless it is a feature the society you are trying emulate. In western feudal societies 3rd, 4th and onwards sons have status but little wealth. Of course even this rule isn't absolute. Kings and Dukes usually had enough estates to provide to provide for their sons by grants or donations to the church. As you go down the noble chain the ability of each level to provide an estate for all their kids become less.

But younger sons had the status to again an advantage in seeking service with other nobles either as a warrior or a court functionary.

Originally Posted by Icelander

In game terms, such a knight has a job that is Very Wealthy or Filthy Rich and therefore takes that wealth level.

With the Patron (Provides expensive equipment +100%) Advantage, it's possible to create a knight who doesn't have any Wealth of his own and is utterly reliant on his lord, but that will generally not be much cheaper than buying Wealth. Indeed, if the character lives on his lord's manor, he can easily pay 60 points for his lord as a Patron.

I don't agree. I consider the Bachelor Knight having a Job that one of the requirements is high Status. As his equipment is provided as part of his job. Patron doesn't enter into it. Unless his relationship with his liege is close enough.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by robertsconley

Unless it is a feature the society you are trying emulate. In western feudal societies 3rd, 4th and onwards sons have status but little wealth. Of course even this rule isn't absolute. Kings and Dukes usually had enough estates to provide to provide for their sons by grants or donations to the church. As you go down the noble chain the ability of each level to provide an estate for all their kids become less.

But younger sons had the status to again an advantage in seeking service with other nobles either as a warrior or a court functionary.

It's entirely canonical for those sons or daughters who aren't the primary heirs to have a lower Status than their noble parent and thus lower required Wealth to maintain their lifestyle.

While a landed Baron is Status 4 and his heir might be Status 3, his youngest son might be operating at Status 2 (but if he acquires Wealth enough to maintain Status 3, he's got a good in-game explanation for buying more Status).

Originally Posted by robertsconley

I don't agree. I consider the Bachelor Knight having a Job that one of the requirements is high Status. As his equipment is provided as part of his job. Patron doesn't enter into it. Unless his relationship with his liege is close enough.

It depends. If the character can use the equipment for anything he wants, not just performing his job, he's got an Advantage of some sort. Whether that's Wealth, Patron or Signature Gear (or more gear bought with points) can be a matter of taste, but in GURPS terms; if you have the stuff, you have to pay for it somehow.

[Icelander]

Do any of the horse savvy people here have an idea about the proper way to handle the prices from Campaigns?

Without debating whether the base prices are accurate, how does one handle the multipler?

As an example, a Cavalry Horse with IQ 4, MV 9, Lifting ST +2 and an extra two years of war training training is clearly much better than a normal Cavalry Horse. According to Campaigns, the value of the horse is x4 for the IQ increase, x2 for the Move increase, +10% for the ST increase and +50% twice for the extra training.

But should that be done as with Fine and Very Fine weapons, i.e. base value+(300%)+(100%)+(10%)+(50%)+(50%)? Or should it be handled as V*4*2*1.1*1.5*1.5 when V represents base value? The two methods yield a cost of $24,400 or $79,200, respectively, so the difference is substantial.

Another thing is the war training. While it's obvious that a good horse that's been trained for war is a much more precious commoditity than one that hasn't been so trained, it's somewhat counter-intuitive that it's much more expensive to train a fast, strong or even an intelligent horse for war than one who isn't any of these things. In other words, the cost of this training is not fixed, but instead dependent upon the quality of the horse.

If a PCs already has a horse and has paid the premium for its potential as breeding stock or stud, shouldn't it be possible for him to have the horse war trained without being charged the purchase price (which can reach hundreds of thousands of $) again?

By the same token, war training at TL3 and below is assumed to include teaching the horse to fight. If one wishes merely to train the horse to be reliable transportation on a battlefield, even at lower TLs, shouldn't that be cheaper and faster than teaching it to fight? How much cheaper?

How would you treat a horse with better HT than normal? Should +1 HT multiply price like Move increases do or should it be treated as a proportional increase in price more like ST increases?

Looking at the Heavy Warhorse, it doesn't seem that HT 12 adds all that much to its cost compared to the Cavalry Horse. Perhaps the reduced Move and increased HT are assumed to pretty much balance out, with the extra $1000 being for size and ST.

And a FP increase over HT is clearly a benefit, but how much of a one? Should it be treated proportionally like ST or multiply price like Move? I'm leaning towards using the same method as for ST.

What about Fit and Very Fit? How much more does an endurance horse with either trait cost?

[MechDrek]

Originally Posted by fredtheobviouspseudonym

Other nations, of course, had extensive experience in cavalry training, and their requirements might be different. I'd be curious to see, for example, the German or British regulations on this topic.

I have a book on German cavalry regulations from 1901 on my desk. It is for the officer of the reserve so it is not a "specialist's handbook" but better than nothing.

What I found about endurance and speed is the following: When on reconaissance patrol the speed in a secure area should be as follows:

1 km in approx. 6-7 minutes.
On 10km you should trot (about 250m per minute) for 5 minutes followed by walking horse for 10min.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by MechDrek

I have a book on German cavalry regulations from 1901 on my desk. It is for the officer of the reserve so it is not a "specialist's handbook" but better than nothing.

What does it say about training remounts? How long does it take for a trained riding horse to be acclimatised to battlefield conditions and familiar with drill?

How many people does it take to train horses in that way? One person for every horse, give or take, or can one trainer handle multiple horses?

Originally Posted by MechDrek

What I found about endurance and speed is the following: When on reconaissance patrol the speed in a secure area should be as follows:

1 km in approx. 6-7 minutes.
On 10km you should trot (about 250m per minute) for 5 minutes followed by walking horse for 10min.

How many hours were the horses expected to patrol per day?

[MechDrek]

Originally Posted by Icelander

What does it say about training remounts? How long does it take for a trained riding horse to be acclimatised to battlefield conditions and familiar with drill?

Unfortunately the book does only deal with the stuff of immediate use to the reservist and much is taken for granted. And of course I can't use the index properly as I don't know the military terms. Also, there are 7 pages missing - those dealing with travelling.

I've always wanted to know more about cavalry training so I have ordered a book with the title "Anleitung zur Ausbildung der Cavallerie-Remonten" which should cover this exhaustively. This will take several weeks. I've also ordered the Cavalry Field Manual of 1890. I hope this one has all the pages. As soon as I know more I will post it. But it seems like the US was held in high esteem when it came to cavalry training as even the ultra-conservative Austrian Ulans sent one of their trainers to the US and the Germans tried to copy the uni-color squadron of the 7th US Squad.

So the US should be pretty much state of the art in the late 19th, early 20th century cavalry training.

P.S.: I found a lecture on cavalry training. There the lecturer states that 3 year old colts were used. I am no horseman so my vocabulary is limited.


Training began in September.

September: accustoming the horse to the rider
October: Tact, "relinquishedness" (sorry, I am at a loss what "Losgelassenheit" means. Something like "less restraint")
November-February: More stuff I can only translate directly. Something with more "uprightness, dependence, and permeability" (Verbesserung der Anlehnung, des Geraderichtens und der Durchlässigkeit)
March-September: Accustoming the horse to military noises
October-December: Elan and collection
January-March: further training of collection
April: Horse is "mustered", at the beginning young horsed don't participate in bigger exercises

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by MechDrek

P.S.: I found a lecture on cavalry training. There the lecturer states that 3 year old colts were used. I am no horseman so my vocabulary is limited.


Training began in September.

September: accustoming the horse to the rider
October: Tact, "relinquishedness" (sorry, I am at a loss what "Losgelassenheit" means. Something like "less restraint")
November-February: More stuff I can only translate directly. Something with more "uprightness, dependence, and permeability" (Verbesserung der Anlehnung, des Geraderichtens und der Durchlässigkeit)
March-September: Accustoming the horse to military noises
October-December: Elan and collection
January-March: further training of collection
April: Horse is "mustered", at the beginning young horsed don't participate in bigger exercises

Thanks. This apperars to be basic Training to IQ 3 level plus about half a year of war training. Full fighting training takes a year in addition to IQ 3 training, according to Campaigns, so this is about half that time.

That means that if full fighting training doubles cost, such reduced war training should probably add 50%. That seems fair.

I'd say that the game effects are the removal of the Brawling skill and the horse will not normally make attacks. However, neither does it have the Bad Temper trait that fighting stallions have.

Very fair and useful.

[Icelander]

Another thing is the effect of Styling (Ultra-Tech p15 and High-Tech p10) on horse prices.

While horses aren't inlaid with gems or graven with the owner's name, it seems very plausible that certain horses will have a premium associated with them that grants a similar reaction bonus from collectors and breeders. A x2 for a +1, x5 for a +2, x10 for a +3, etc. The problem is, do I multiple the final price of the horse (which may already reach hundreds of thousands of $) or do I add a multipler of the base price of a horse of the given type?

On one hand, prime stud stallions should go for incredible amounts. On the other, there is at least some correlation between the factors that influence a horse's price to an adveturer (speed, endurance, strength and intelligence) and those that breeders and collectors see as desirable and stylish. Of course, gait, looks and proven lineage might exist independently of such statistics; but at least some of the factors that are reckoned beautiful in horses are so reckoned because they are thought to be indicators of horse quality.

To illustrate the difference, a prime destrier with Stylish +2 (x5), three years of war training, +1 to MV, +25% to Lifting ST and +1 to IQ comes to $56,250 with the lenient model above applied for all factors (add multiples of base price), but comes to $562,500 with the less lenient method. That's an order of magnitude of difference.

We're not in the same ballpark anymore. Does someone have an insight?