pay, and no hope. So troops desert when they don't get paid.
as you all have problems with flying caravans, surely you all have
problems with flying paymasters too? perhaps an army has to carry gold
on the march? I doubt they are going to accept cheques in the
mail.....
ps. I do like the idea of being able to name characters outside your
capitol, perhaps a limit of one named per MT? This could help the
freep out in long games, I'm sure they don't win too many of those...
John Stagoll wrote:
>pay, and no hope. So troops desert when they don't get paid.
ps. I do like the idea of being able to name characters outside your
capitol, perhaps a limit of one named per MT? This could help the
freep out in long games, I'm sure they don't win too many of those...
I was thinking of something like this except it was a skill check in a MT or
City (other than capital) and an automatic Success in your capital.
Kurgan
I think you've raised another interesting inconsistency.
A modern paid army (and let's look at Cromwell's New Model Army as the
first) needs to carry its coin with it, or have its coin regularly
delivered through supply lines. So if that's our concept, we should
look perhaps at gold being in your supply train in exactly the same way
as food. When the gold runs out, you start taking morale penalties in
the same way as movement penalties when the food runs out. Similarly,
you'd capture the payroll, when you defeated an army.
However, the root of the problem lies in the 1st ed. notion of troop
maintenance anyway. Most early mediaeval soldiers fought because they
were under feudal obligation to do so - they were paying their taxes by
their military labour, not being paid. The main costs for the
commanders were food (and lots and lots of beer). Later, more and more
soldiers fought for what they might gain - loot. And then there were
mercenaries, who fought for pay, and loot, though the pay might not be
due to them until the end of a campaign.
To address this in 2nd ed. we might look at:
More expensive food,
No pure gold maintenance cost,
Much more serious penalties for armies without food - how on earth do
10,000 men forage in deserts, or polar wastes anyway?
Loot from captured/destroyed pops.
Regards,
Laurence G. Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/
John Stagoll <john.stagoll@airservices.gov.au> wrote
as you all have problems with flying caravans, surely you all have
problems with flying paymasters too? perhaps an army has to carry gold
on the march? I doubt they are going to accept cheques in the
mail.....
"Laurence G. Tilley" schrieb:
>as you all have problems with flying caravans, surely you all have
>problems with flying paymasters too? perhaps an army has to carry gold
>on the march? I doubt they are going to accept cheques in the
>mail.....
I think you've raised another interesting inconsistency.A modern paid army (and let's look at Cromwell's New Model Army as the
first) needs to carry its coin with it, or have its coin regularly
delivered through supply lines. So if that's our concept, we should
look perhaps at gold being in your supply train in exactly the same way
as food. When the gold runs out, you start taking morale penalties in
the same way as movement penalties when the food runs out. Similarly,
you'd capture the payroll, when you defeated an army.
--> I do not like that concept, maybe playable with a 2950 army, but not with
those huge 1650 armys..... how should an Eothraim player make sure to have
gold in all of his armys?
This would cry for a whole new game set up, with more gold etc... don�t like
that
However, the root of the problem lies in the 1st ed. notion of troop
maintenance anyway. Most early mediaeval soldiers fought because they
were under feudal obligation to do so - they were paying their taxes by
their military labour, not being paid. The main costs for the
commanders were food (and lots and lots of beer). Later, more and more
soldiers fought for what they might gain - loot. And then there were
mercenaries, who fought for pay, and loot, though the pay might not be
due to them until the end of a campaign.
Don�t like that kind of "but in history they...." discussiopn.... fun in
gaming should be the most important task to fulfill, not realism (which I
think to be a nice thing, but not at the cost of a playable game).
To address this in 2nd ed. we might look at:
More expensive food,
No pure gold maintenance cost,
---> what would you do additionally
Much more serious penalties for armies without food - how on earth do
10,000 men forage in deserts, or polar wastes anyway?
Loot from captured/destroyed pops.
I agree with those
Two more points I like to mention:
What about the possibility to unite armys of different nations under one
banner?
One Charakter of the nation that gives his army under another nations banner
has to be sub com in that army.....
I�d like to see mercenary troops travelling around giving their power to
anybody who wants to pay the price.....
Another one in Agents
We had a long talk about the power that agents have.....
I think a kidnap or assasination atemp that does not kill the enemy, should
have bigger consequences....(more dead agents, more serious wounds)
I think there should be a chance for the pray, to see his hunter coming,
before beeing killed which ends in a chellange instead of another killed
enemy.....
Stealth becomes more important an any 40 CL agent would think twice about
killing a 50 commander...
Greetings
Stefan
John Stagoll <john.stagoll@airservices.gov.au> wrote
A standard infantryman at present consumes 1 food and 4 gold per turn.
He continues to consume the 4 gold even if he is 1000 miles from home,
and his nation is about to go bankrupt. Mediaeval armies had lots of
beer, and some meat - many soldiers probably ate rather better than they
did at home (until the campaign turned against them, and the food ran
out. There's also the costs of the camp followers and the supply train
itself, all those people get thier food and money from the sponsor or
from the soldiers themselves. So if we treated ordinary food as bread,
and considered that the soldier requires 1 gold of meat and 1 gold of
beer, and 2 gold in coin, we have exactly the same costs, BUT it would
have to be put into the supply train at the same time as the food.
So you'd give the order:
770 HrArmy 400 hi br st 1200
where the last figure is no longer food, but supply units, that is 1
unit of ordinary food (bread), 1 unit of meat bought with gold, 1 unit
of beer bought with gold, 2 gold coins.
To run this army for 3 turns, costs exactly the same as at present, but
you have to pay all the costs up front. (1200 food and 4800 gold in this
case, plus your 5000 HrArmy cost, if we are keeping that.) If your army
is defeated in turn 2 a proportion of the gold and food is captured. If
your army is still alive and kicking on turn 4, it will start to suffer
severe morale drops, and possible desertions, BUT it will not be
bankrupting your nation.
Regards,
Laurence G. Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/
Stefan Maas <Joker_Macy@gmx.de> wrote
To address this in 2nd ed. we might look at:
More expensive food,
No pure gold maintenance cost,---> what would you do additionally
Just noted the discussion on paying for troops. Isn't this merely
a "cost of doing business" to maintain a military? This is a
simplistic cute little game here. Troops cost money. We're not
dealing with direct deposit pay cheques here (New order, Steal
Credit Transfer Information...???). It costs money to run an army.
For purposes of game mechanics, it was most simple to merely
parallel those costs with troop type, and call it "gold", as is
everything else, in this "game". Doesn't have to mean that each HI
"troop" is receiving his 4 gold coins every fortnight.
Regards,
Brad Brunet
ditletang@canada.com wrote
Just noted the discussion on paying for troops. Isn't this merely
a "cost of doing business" to maintain a military? This is a
simplistic cute little game here. Troops cost money. We're not
dealing with direct deposit pay cheques here (New order, Steal
Credit Transfer Information...???). It costs money to run an army.
For purposes of game mechanics, it was most simple to merely
parallel those costs with troop type, and call it "gold", as is
everything else, in this "game". Doesn't have to mean that each HI
"troop" is receiving his 4 gold coins every fortnight.
Yes, but the point is, most of the cost of a mediaeval army was paid out
at the start of the campaign. The money has gone into buying the food,
beer, and any weapons and armour that you may wish to give your men over
and above what they arrive with - the pitchfork, and the helmet that
grandad found after the battle of X. The supply wagon drivers have to
be paid, or their wagons bought, everyone gets their food, and some
pocket money, but sergeants get twice as much, etc. So 4 gp per man is
a total averaged cost.
A modern US infantryman in the field, so I'm told, has 22 other people
backing him up - administrators, technicians, medics etc. But a
mediaeval soldier doesn't. He might have 1 (a page, or female camp
follower - they were legit wives, laundresses, nurses, more than just
the traditional image of army tarts). So an army is approx twice the
size of its actual fighting force. (Again the best source is John
Keenan)
It doesn't however have the ongoing costs of a modern standing army.
You recruit it, you stock its baggage train, and you send it off on
campaign. It costs you a fortune to send it off (Henry VII filled the
English treasury, Henry VIII emptied it with unsuccessful wars.)
You have the option to supply a distant army in the field, but that's
difficult - you either establish a camp, and wait a turn, or you hire
100 cav with a big supply, and chase after them. I've done both of
these in 1st ed. If armies got their gold and their food from the
supply train, this aspect would be more important in 2nd ed. Again, I
like it, because it adds internal consistency, but does not add any new
orders. If anything, it simplifies the game, making it easier to budget
- you recruit an army, and equip it for 4 (or whatever) turns, to
achieve a specific objective, after that, you know you won't have to pay
for it.
Regards,
Laurence G. Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/
However, the root of the problem lies in the 1st ed. notion of troop
maintenance anyway. Most early mediaeval soldiers fought because they
were under feudal obligation to do so - they were paying their taxes by
their military labour, not being paid.
So maybe we should look at reducing tax income, rather than a specific payment to troops. Let’s call the reduction “Armies/Navies” in the maintenance cost section. Net effect on the game - 0. Of course, in this interpretation, it’s clear that leaderless armies would have to still be ‘paid’ i.e. they would still reduce tax income, at least until the troops decided to desert & go home.
``