Hi,
I’m one of those that think Cerilia is undersized. I play with 50x50/2500 sq mi/province. I find that much more acceptable both in terms of the size and number of cities, climate, and the many cultures and races that fit into the place.
What does the community think?
B
I also use the 50x50 mi. average size IMC. It ups the travel time to more like 1-2 days mounted on roads/highways, 2-3 days mounted overland in hills,forest. etc. Even at that size, one can travel across a large region fairly quickly. And a well-organized infantry army can easily march 20 miles a day, 30 miles if they’re willing to outpace the wagon supply trains behind them. An all-veteran army might even do better than that!
So the military moves are still WAY slow IMO, unless one believes that every army forages and attacks every wee fortification along the way (a crock of sh*! IMO). IRL if an army wanted to march all the way from Shieldhaven to the Imperial City, it could probably do so in one to two weeks, plus any delays due to hostile defenses/terrain (river crossings being the main obstacle).
Now I’m not saying change everything, but making it clear that even expanding the provinces to 50x50 avg., the war moves are still plenty generous in terms of armies taking their good 'ol time during war moves.
I will make an experiment in my new campaign at Anuire.
I made a map 2 x larger, without changin anything else:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v226/Anu…ternMarches.jpg
It’s unacceptable for a professional world builder, but I’m only DM.
i’ve voted 50*50 for all reason Osprey say
a light horse travel 48 miles by day..it’s good for messager 
30*30 is very too small
Originally posted by Osprey@Jan 18 2005, 06:58 PM
So the military moves are still WAY slow IMO, unless one believes that every army forages and attacks every wee fortification along the way (a crock of sh*! IMO). IRL if an army wanted to march all the way from Shieldhaven to the Imperial City, it could probably do so in one to two weeks, plus any delays due to hostile defenses/terrain (river crossings being the main obstacle).
In addition to increasing province size I’ve also been forced to increase the speed of units. It is now much more related to character speed anyway…
Med, Hvy Inf (Regular and elite infantry, pikes etc.) - 2
Lt Inf (Archers, irregulars etc.) -3
Hvy Cav (Knights) - 4
Med Cav (Anuirean Cavalry) - 5
Lt Cav - 6
Even now infantry will move only about 100 miles through open terrain in one (8 day week). If we consider the above speed to be an average, non-forced, rate - then it isn’t too bad.
If a unit marched every day it’s still on the slow side, but a marching army would need to rest 1-2 days each week to avoid fatigue (it doesn’t HAVE to rest but unless in a rush that would be prudent).
Now, this is still slower than character level movement - but an ARMY does not move at the same rate an individual/small group does. Not in modern times, and certainly not during ancient times (friction increases by the size of the group among other things). If you add the need to allow the supply train to keep up and the tendency for ancient armies to forage a bit, then the values are pretty good I think.
It’s not an exact fix, but the increase in size AND speed at least means that the figures are believable.
B
This is so anoying…I have TWO users, one called The Green knight and one called just Green Knight :huh:
I never use the former, but whenever I reply to mails, that is the one the board decides to use… 
Anyway, with the increases in size there must of course be a similar increase in population x2,5 the listed one. Oh, I suppose you could use another multiplier, but that would change population density.
I’ve seen various calculations as to the total population in Anuire/Cerilia several times, and they seem to point in the direction of Cerilia being a rather low-population-density place.
IMO that’s probably right, but I’m not so sure its such a bad thing. If you compare Cerilia to Earth, there are a lot more hostile creatures that might conflict with human settlement. Not just the non-human nations, but awnsheghlien, ogres, dragons, wandering gnolls marauders and what have you not. Earth never had any of that - it had disease and a couple of wolves, but nothing this. Would not these factors account for a lower overall population density - perhaps forcing people to live closer together in smaller areas and leaving more areas devoid of settlement that would otherwise be the case?
I’m not sure. Anyone have any thoughts on the subject?
B
[b]IMO that’s probably right, but I’m not so sure its such a bad thing. If you compare Cerilia to Earth, there are a lot more hostile creatures that might conflict with human settlement. Not just the non-human nations, but awnsheghlien, ogres, dragons, wandering gnolls marauders and what have you not. Earth never had any of that - it had disease and a couple of wolves, but nothing this. Would not these factors account for a lower overall population density - perhaps forcing people to live closer together in smaller areas and leaving more areas devoid of settlement that would otherwise be the case?
I’m not sure. Anyone have any thoughts on the subject?[/b]
They would, as well as the depopulation due to infighting between human factions. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that wars are probably more frequent in Cerilia (particularly Anuire) than in medieval Europe. Regardless of its technology, Anuire has been in something of a dark age since the fall of the empire - a bunch of feuding warlords struggling either to maintain their sovereignty or expand their borders and enforce vassalage on weaker lords. The rate of attrition from this sort of situation would be…pretty bad.
Khinasi, Brechtur, and Vosgaard suffer from less-hospitable terrain and comparatively more danger from inhuman threats. Anuire seems to have it pretty easy in comparison, but they make up for it by killing each other more often. 
So yeah, there are some very good reasons for lower population densities compared to Europe and Asia Minor. This translates to why there are so many lower province levels, though, and shouldn’t directly affect the population:province level figures. There’s no reason Anuire shouldn’t be capable of reaching population levels of say, medieval France, England, or Germany. So high level provinces should have population levels that are somewhat equivalent.
Osprey
[b]In addition to increasing province size I’ve also been forced to increase the speed of units. It is now much more related to character speed anyway…
Med, Hvy Inf (Regular and elite infantry, pikes etc.) - 2
Lt Inf (Archers, irregulars etc.) -3
Hvy Cav (Knights) - 4
Med Cav (Anuirean Cavalry) - 5
Lt Cav - 6
Even now infantry will move only about 100 miles through open terrain in one (8 day week). If we consider the above speed to be an average, non-forced, rate - then it isn’t too bad.
[/b]
One of the confusing things about BR unit descriptions is naming them by their armor type (light, med, heavy). Later use of these terms (18th-20th century) might refer in part to their arms, but mainly to the amount of gear and supply they carry. Modern light infantry are “light” because they are designed for long-distance mobility and terrain adaptation. Heavy infantry would carry a big pack with a good supply of rations, a cookset, tent, plenty of ammo/powder, etc.
So the they were named according to their strategic mobility and resupply needs. Light infantry could cover a lot more ground than heavy infantry, but needed seperate resupply unless they were to rely on foraging (a risky proposition for any army).
Anyways, I just wonder if there wasn’t some crossover in terms when the original movement values were set for BR war cards and strategic movement.
Your revised movement values are interesting. Can veteran units still move further than regulars? Greater marching endurance and discipline is a fairly typical trait of veteran troops, it makes more sense than giving them increased tactical speed (although even that can be justified by greater discipline and expertise in formational movement). IMC I cut off increased movement at veteran, though - elite and crack troops keep improving attack, defense, morale, and hits, but not move. Otherwise elite light troops start outpacing cavalry at an embarrasing rate. :o
Perhaps medium and light cavalry should have the same Move, similar to the infantry? As there are only light and heavy warhorses in D&D, it seems odd to have 3 speeds for cavalry units. Heavy cavalry, though, are the units that would have serious encumbrance - med. or heavy barding plus a heavily armored rider. This is already implied by the improved charge bonus they recieve, a product of the sheer mass of such a unit when they charge with lance and trampling.
Conversely, medium cavalry are probably light warhorses with decently armored riders (chainmail or breastplate) and maybe light barding (which doesn’t encumber much). They could probably keep up the same speeds as light cavalry except at the extremes of speed and endurance - but technically light encumbrance doesn’t slow a person (or steed) down in D&D.
Interesting that you’ve increased all cavalry speeds though, so that heavy cavalry now are faster than light infantry (whereas before they were the same). Good decision IMO, knights have always been a bit embarrasing in their lack of mobility. Also gets them slaughtered by archers if they can’t cover ground reasonably quickly (in my battlesystem archers have actual range, so closing ground to engage them becomes essential, especially for cavalry).
All in all, some good work, Bjorn. Infantry and cavalry are distinctly seperate in mobility (though scouts and veteran light troops might match heavy cavalry in overland speed, which is OK I think), but heavier infantry can still move 2 provinces a week (4 on highways, which equates to roughly 200+ miles in a week, or 12.5 miles per day marching every day).
If a unit marched every day it’s still on the slow side, but a marching army would need to rest 1-2 days each week to avoid fatigue (it doesn’t HAVE to rest but unless in a rush that would be prudent).
I’m not sure about this fact - I don’t recall ever hearing about the importance of resting an army on the march in terms of taking whole days without marching. My recollection is that it was far more important that they get enough rest each day, but doing so would allow a supplied army to march for a long, long time. In fact, a well-disciplined army could probably handle at least 8-10 hours of marching a day, with a few rests during the day’s march.
While medieval armies aren’t often the model of discipline and efficiency, I think this is already accounted for by the decreased speed of Green units. Most medieval European armies included mobs of levies, which would of course bog down the army’s speed significantly. Those armies that were entirely professional (such as the English armies in much of the Hundred Years’ War) were significantly more mobile.
In BR, most invading regents with any sense won’t rely on levies for their main offensive power, though they might drag them along to occupy provinces that are overrun. Those tyrants who DO use levies as front-line fodder, well - even when they win, high levy casualties mean big problems back home, which makes a war of any duration pretty hard to sustain.
OK, one final thing: will highways still double a unit’s move? Consider then that a company of Light Cavalry could travel 12 provinces a week on highways! That’s about 600 miles in 8 days, or 75 miles a day! And a forced march could push that even further! A bit out of control, perhaps. Any thoughts on this?
Osprey
> So yeah, there are some very good reasons for lower population densities
> compared to Europe and Asia Minor. This translates to why there are so
> many lower province levels, though, and shouldn`t directly affect the
population:province level figures. There
s no reason Anuire shouldnt be
capable of reaching population levels of say, medieval France, England, or
Germany. So high level provinces should have population levels that are
somewhat equivalent.
They do. A level 10 province has a population of about 100,000 people. A
province is 30 to 40 miles on a side (they aren`t regularly shaped), which
comes out to about 1000 square miles. That`s a population of 100
people/square mile, which is almost exactly the maximum population density
reached in the fertile areas of Europe during the middle ages.
–
Daniel McSorley
[b]They do. A level 10 province has a population of about 100,000 people. A
province is 30 to 40 miles on a side (they arent regularly shaped), which comes out to about 1000 square miles. Thats a population of 100
people/square mile, which is almost exactly the maximum population density
reached in the fertile areas of Europe during the middle ages.Daniel McSorley
[/b]
Cool. So bigger provinces, at 50x50 miles avg. size (2500 square miles), would have a population of about 250,000 at level 10. That also fits Bjorn’s estimate of multiplying the given levels by 2.5. Nice.
It does fit quite nicely. Some areas of late-edieval Europe did in fact have a higher than 100 person/square mile population density, but this was rather the exception than the norm. However, the most fertile parts of Europe could easily be provinces 7+ Not a few scattered province 7’s but a whole lot of them…
Incidentally, this makes the Imperial City of Anuire quite a bit bigger also…
B
Originally posted by Osprey@Jan 19 2005, 07:02 PM
One of the confusing things about BR unit descriptions is naming them by their armor type (light, med, heavy). Later use of these terms (18th-20th century) might refer in part to their arms, but mainly to the amount of gear and supply they carry. Modern light infantry are “light” because they are designed for long-distance mobility and terrain adaptation. Heavy infantry would carry a big pack with a good supply of rations, a cookset, tent, plenty of ammo/powder, etc.
Ancient troops can really be grouped into four:
Light Infantry - Skirmishers and missile troops
Heavy infantry - Shock infantry
Light Cavalry - Missile armed cavalry
Heavy Cavalry - Shock cavalry
For the purposes of my BR games medium and heavy units are considered heavy in this context. The difference is rather in quality of training and equipment - Anuirean Cavalry is still shock cavalry just like knights, but they are not that heavily equipped. Same goes for regulars/pikemen and elite infantry.
B
Originally posted by Osprey@Jan 19 2005, 07:02 PM
So the they were named according to their strategic mobility and resupply needs. Light infantry could cover a lot more ground than heavy infantry, but needed seperate resupply unless they were to rely on foraging (a risky proposition for any army).
Most composite armies would do well to keep together and move at the slowest unit’s speed…armies which lack one or more of the four components can get into really trouble really quickly…but then again, light troops are more suited for foraging anyway.
Originally posted by Osprey@Jan 19 2005, 07:02 PM
Your revised movement values are interesting. Can veteran units still move further than regulars? Greater marching endurance and discipline is a fairly typical trait of veteran troops, it makes more sense than giving them increased tactical speed (although even that can be justified by greater discipline and expertise in formational movement). IMC I cut off increased movement at veteran, though - elite and crack troops keep improving attack, defense, morale, and hits, but not move. Otherwise elite light troops start outpacing cavalry at an embarrasing rate. :o
Not really. Movement stays the same. However, veteran troops have a higher Morale, so they can get away with force-marching more than green units (its a morale save to avoid nonleathal damage).
Originally posted by Osprey@Jan 19 2005, 07:02 PM
[b] Perhaps medium and light cavalry should have the same Move, similar to the infantry? As there are only light and heavy warhorses in D&D, it seems odd to have 3 speeds for cavalry units. Heavy cavalry, though, are the units that would have serious encumbrance - med. or heavy barding plus a heavily armored rider. This is already implied by the improved charge bonus they recieve, a product of the sheer mass of such a unit when they charge with lance and trampling.
Conversely, medium cavalry are probably light warhorses with decently armored riders (chainmail or breastplate) and maybe light barding (which doesn’t encumber much). They could probably keep up the same speeds as light cavalry except at the extremes of speed and endurance - but technically light encumbrance doesn’t slow a person (or steed) down in D&D.
Interesting that you’ve increased all cavalry speeds though, so that heavy cavalry now are faster than light infantry (whereas before they were the same). Good decision IMO, knights have always been a bit embarrasing in their lack of mobility. Also gets them slaughtered by archers if they can’t cover ground reasonably quickly (in my battlesystem archers have actual range, so closing ground to engage them becomes essential, especially for cavalry).
[/b]
I’ve given the matter some serious though, but no, cavalry speeds are more diverse than infantry speeds.
Hvy cav rides hvy warhorses with medium or heavy load, which gives a speed of 40 ft.
Med cav rides lt warhorses with medium or heavy load, which gives a speed of 50 ft.
Lt cav rides light horses with light load, which gives a speed of 60 ft.
Thus the 4, 5, 6 movement values. In addition it feels better - not only are the knights lazy slobs 
but they are the ones wearing field-plate and using heavy barding. They would probably ride in lighter amror and on other horses between battles, and only suit up for the real action. In all the knight unit isn’t very strategically mobile. It fits well, in my head at least
Cavalry speeds are now more accurate, not only in relation ot DnD, but in the actual strategic mobility of cavalry. When it comes to battle, even knights cn get into trouble when not used correctly. They need to charge in when the moment is right, not prance around the battlefiled as target practive for archers :lol:
I also use range for missile troops, and my battle mat does have a few more squares than did the original…
Originally posted by Osprey@Jan 19 2005, 07:02 PM
[b] [quote]If a unit marched every day it’s still on the slow side, but a marching army would need to rest 1-2 days each week to avoid fatigue (it doesn’t HAVE to rest but unless in a rush that would be prudent).
I’m not sure about this fact - I don’t recall ever hearing about the importance of resting an army on the march in terms of taking whole days without marching. My recollection is that it was far more important that they get enough rest each day, but doing so would allow a supplied army to march for a long, long time. In fact, a well-disciplined army could probably handle at least 8-10 hours of marching a day, with a few rests during the day’s march.
While medieval armies aren’t often the model of discipline and efficiency, I think this is already accounted for by the decreased speed of Green units. Most medieval European armies included mobs of levies, which would of course bog down the army’s speed significantly. Those armies that were entirely professional (such as the English armies in much of the Hundred Years’ War) were significantly more mobile. [/b][/quote]
Well, I’ve done my bit of marching as (modern) light infantry, so I’m not sure I agree with not requiring rest :lol:
Seriosuly speaking, there is indeed a rest requirement (that even goes for mechanized modern troops, riding in an AFV is no fun either even if it beats marching on foot). Especially if the terrain is difficult or the weather is bad, there is need to rest the whole formation on a regular basis. Soldiers are only human (not always in Cerilia though) and life in the field does constitute a serious drain on the physical resources of a human being. There are many modern studies on how physical excertion over time and under different conditions affect a sodlier’s performance over time.
Now, try applying this to a medieval/ancient army. They will likely be travelling on bad, if any, roads. They may not even have propper boots/other appropriate footwear. Food is likely a bid problem - the body requires vast amounts of calories to relenish itself under field conditions. The food served ancient soldiers probably isn’t going to cover that (its hard even in modern armies). Heat and heat-induced exhaustion will be a big problem even i Anuire (most wars are fought during the summer/autumn). So people get fatigued and undernourished, they body becomes more suceptible to disease and injury. I could go on…
The sum of it is that any army in the field is gonna get weary, jsut from being in the field. Add some marching and a bit of weather and we’re looking at a serious problem for the commander…
All this aside - time is often in short supply during a warm so even if soldiers SHOULD have been rested more, they rarely are But if you march me and 2500 other people for 8-10 hours for 8 days with a 70 pound kit with sandals on bad roads, then we’re only going to be 1250 at the end of the journey, and we won’t be fit to fight…
:blink:
Originally posted by Osprey@Jan 19 2005, 07:02 PM
OK, one final thing: will highways still double a unit’s move? Consider then that a company of Light Cavalry could travel 12 provinces a week on highways! That’s about 600 miles in 8 days, or 75 miles a day! And a forced march could push that even further! A bit out of control, perhaps. Any thoughts on this?
Not under my system.
Highways enable armies to ignore most weather effects and also reduces the movement cost for non-plains provinces, but otherwise its just a straight x1 multiplier. Oh, I’m sure a good road would indeed speed up movement, but not by a factor of x2 when compared to open terrain.
Indeed, one of the main benefits of highways IMC is the ability to trace supply lines along them with relative ease.
B
Actually the difference between knights and cavalry is more about use then equipment. The Arabs Heavy Cavalry were just about as heavily armed as the Franks and Normans Kinghts during the Crusaders, just that the Arabs were used to a more fluid type of battle, one of manuver and flanking. The Crusaders just charged and charged. Part of it was the warhorse devolped in Western Europe at the time, but most of it was just attiude. Of Course, Saladin figured this out and used it to his advantage and drew the knights away from the infantry support at Hattin. That didn’t mean the Arabs didn’t know how to charge, they just were never believeing that a cavlry charge would break a formed unit of alright infantry.
Also, some of the best cavarly units were doubled armed with lance and spear. The Beucellari of the Belisarian Byzantines, the Khurasani of the Abbasid dynasty, noble cavarly units of the Mongols were master horse archers and master chargers on thier horses. Now these were in the minority of forces but many times these units were desicive in battles.
the thing about moving armies of units is that any reasonable general will not just force his march his army through enemy land. a certain slaughter of three legions of the Caesar’s finest is a great example of trying to move troops to fast. Generals would have scouts and skirmishers out to be his eyes and ears. The Roman armies didn;t move real fast if they were in enemy territroy either. They may have made 20 miles a day, but only in the Empire and on the road system that still exist in many areas.
(I play a ‘historical’ minature game known as De Bellis Multitudinus. I play Belisarian Byzantine and my most common foe in my area is Normans. The game classifies units by uses and tactics then technology. Normans are the epitome of the hard charging knight. I have just as many victories as defeats aganist them even if my army is 500 years behind the time against them. I use my manuverablity aganist his powerful punch. Basically my 'lighter units may not win a striaght up fight, but the knights will always get them in trouble by pursing my forces. This cause them to picked of piecemeal by my more manuverable elements.)
Originally posted by Belisarius@Jan 20 2005, 08:51 AM
Actually the difference between knights and cavalry is more about use then equipment. The Arabs Heavy Cavalry were just about as heavily armed as the Franks and Normans Kinghts during the Crusaders, just that the Arabs were used to a more fluid type of battle, one of manuver and flanking. The Crusaders just charged and charged. Part of it was the warhorse devolped in Western Europe at the time, but most of it was just attiude. Of Course, Saladin figured this out and used it to his advantage and drew the knights away from the infantry support at Hattin. That didn’t mean the Arabs didn’t know how to charge, they just were never believeing that a cavlry charge would break a formed unit of alright infantry.
Yes, and IMC Khinasi hvy cav gets a 5 movement value to reflect the fact that they are more mobile. They can still charge, but their lack of focus on the charge mean they get a lower charge rating than do Anuirean knights.
There are also elite units that combine elements of both light and heavy unit types - like elite Khinasi shock cavalry (hvy cav) which also sport composite shortbows and thus can be employed as light cav.
B
Medieval France had an AVERAGE population density of around 100 per square mile. So on the average all of France’s provinces should be level 10.
Paris is believed to have around 125.000 inhabitants and even modern day Paris isn’t more than 41 square miles, which is an area close to 7x7 miles. Paris would be a level 13(?) province.
In general it looks very much like Birthright is based off Great Britain, where the population density was closer to 40 per square mile.