Slitherine

ianiow wrote:Roughly, what is the starting date of this campaign? I only ask because I would like to google up what was historically happening in my province at this time - who was the leader, what battle campaigns where being fought etc.

Since ya'll are starting with early armies, lets pick an early time frame, near say 1337-1345ish. The Kingdoms are probably more scrambled than they were at that time, but it allowed us to fit in more players.

I just checked the army you got, looks fun to play, I really like the military order units!

Yes they do seem interesting.

I noticed that some of the kingdoms, i.e. mine cant afford to maintain their army, is that on purpose?

I dont mind if it is, I just wondered.

A monday start seems good to me.

MARVIN_THE_ARVN wrote:

I just checked the army you got, looks fun to play, I really like the military order units!

Yes they do seem interesting.

I noticed that some of the kingdoms, i.e. mine cant afford to maintain their army, is that on purpose?

I dont mind if it is, I just wondered.

A monday start seems good to me.

Yes the money is still a bit of a problem, and will probably need adjusting as we go. I think the best way to deal with it may be to increase everyones treasury to an amount where they can keep the first army for one year, then see how it goes. The army you start with is free, and you have some savings, so I hope you will make it through the first year without too many problems. Also, you can always go to the money lenders and get a loan.

I had envisioned that everyone would be strapped for cash and struggle to keep an army in the field, but it may be too stern. We will give it a go and see how it works, and the money is the one real worry I have, finding the right balance.

[/b]RULE CHANGE

Money is still an issue, and finding the right balance. So I have increased all of the Kingdoms starting teasury amounts. Each Kingdom can now afford the costs of their starting armies for one full year (you are not required to build the full amount). We will review the money situation as we go through the first year, and may need to tweak the incomes for each Kingdom the first winter. I will know better when I see the losses and armies costs while we go through the first year.

G. Armies & Treasury at Start
France: Starts with 700 army points and may form as many armies as it wants subject to army maximum (in any province it controls) & 2800 Silver Marks.
England: Starts with 600 army points...& 2400 Silver Marks.
Burgundy: Starts with 400 army points...& 1600 Silver Marks.
Duke of Brittany: Starts with 500 army points...& 2000 Silver Marks.
Count of Flanders: Starts with 500 army points...& 2000 Silver Marks.
Duke of Normandy: Starts with 500 army points... & 2000 Silver Marks.
All others: Starts with 400 army points...& 1600 Silver Marks.

Scar, I actually like the sound of us not having enough money to keep a large army in the field.

We could knock our armies down to 200 points and beable to afford it, well most of us anyway

Or we could even half the cost for army upkeep if it is in a friendly province and keep it at the current rate if outside (And therefore keep the starting money the same). This could represent the soldiers having other jobs and being partially supported by the people. It might also keep campaigns to a limited length and allow a breather between big battles and better represent the 100 years war.

Im just trying to get my head around the cost of keeping an army in the field.

You mention 'seasons' in the rules. How many seasons are there per year? I am assuming Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter.

So a starting 400pt army will cost 4x400 silver in upkeep (1600 silver per year)? A one city state gets 700 silver income each winter season. So by next winter when his starting 1600 silver has been spent, and if his army doesnt lose too many casulties, his army will be down to 300 in Summer and down to 0 in Fall through desertions!

I guess most people will have to start with 200 or 300pt armies. But here a problem arrises because:-

a) We are using 1000pt size maps (our tiny armies will get lost in the terrain!)
b) Small armies are less fun to play.

Have I got it wrong? (It wouldnt be the first time!)

MARVIN_THE_ARVN wrote:Scar, I actually like the sound of us not having enough money to keep a large army in the field.

We could knock our armies down to 200 points and beable to afford it, well most of us anyway

Or we could even half the cost for army upkeep if it is in a friendly province and keep it at the current rate if outside (And therefore keep the starting money the same). This could represent the soldiers having other jobs and being partially supported by the people. It might also keep campaigns to a limited length and allow a breather between big battles and better represent the 100 years war.

Good ideas here.

ianiow wrote:Im just trying to get my head around the cost of keeping an army in the field.
You mention 'seasons' in the rules. How many seasons are there per year? I am assuming Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter.
So a starting 400pt army will cost 4x400 silver in upkeep (1600 silver per year)? A one city state gets 700 silver income each winter season. So by next winter when his starting 1600 silver has been spent, and if his army doesnt lose too many casulties, his army will be down to 300 in Summer and down to 0 in Fall through desertions!
I guess most people will have to start with 200 or 300pt armies. But here a problem arrises because:-
a) We are using 1000pt size maps (our tiny armies will get lost in the terrain!)
b) Small armies are less fun to play.
Have I got it wrong? (It wouldnt be the first time!)

My goal with the income was to get most of the armies to around 350-400 points for a Kingdom with two provinces. A Kingdom with four provinces, like France, I expected to be able to field two 350-400 point armies. Then as the game proceeded, and kingdoms gained provinces through conquest, I saw the armies increasing in size. The problem is finding a good balance. I also expected Kingdoms to lose points from their armies through fighting, which would make upkeep easier. But, say a small kingdom, two provinces, with a yearly income of 1400 fields an army of 400 points. Does not attack or really do anything for the year. The army will cost 400 points per season, spring, summer fall and winter, for 1600 silver marks. If we take Marvin's idea, and armies inside of a province only cost 1/2 a silver mark per build point, it would only cost that 400 point army 200 silver per season, for 800. The Kingdom could then stash away almost half of its income for more agreesive ideas later. It would require players to save up for a campaign, but still be able to field a defensive army, which seems realistic to me. What do you guys think. I really like this idea, and it may fix the money issues simply without too much of a rewrite.

What about a tiny state like mine?

Deeter of Navarre

deeter wrote:What about a tiny state like mine?

Deeter of Navarre

I am really worried about your kingdom, as you have only one province. I think the Pope may take an interest in your kingdom and decide to gift you the equivelent to a small city level of income each year. That way you can actually take some offensive actions.

The Pope also sends his most blessed wish that you make allies quickly!

Yes. It should be cheaper to field/maintain an army in your own borders. Supposedly it would be more dispersed, and a bit easier to maintain. Maybe this could be tied to army size? Under 300 pts costs x but over 500 costs x+ or something like that.

A couple questions:

1. Is there a "size" to armies? I ask this because it seems like you will want some sort of force in each province so that it can't be pillaged or overrun. But something as small as 200 pts would suffice. Could we set "army size" at 400 pts maybe? This way, if you can only field one army, you could have it split up into your provinces.

2. Recruitment. Can I recruit into a beseiged force? Can another force/army of mine coming into the beseiged province join with the defenders for a battle against the beseigers? (This way, for example, my two "split" 200 pt forces could become a 400 pt DAG army.)

Blathergut wrote:Yes. It should be cheaper to field/maintain an army in your own borders. Supposedly it would be more dispersed, and a bit easier to maintain. Maybe this could be tied to army size? Under 300 pts costs x but over 500 costs x+ or something like that.

A couple questions:

1. Is there a "size" to armies? I ask this because it seems like you will want some sort of force in each province so that it can't be pillaged or overrun. But something as small as 200 pts would suffice. Could we set "army size" at 400 pts maybe? This way, if you can only field one army, you could have it split up into your provinces.

2. Recruitment. Can I recruit into a beseiged force? Can another force/army of mine coming into the beseiged province join with the defenders for a battle against the beseigers? (This way, for example, my two "split" 200 pt forces could become a 400 pt DAG army.)

Yeah it seems the 1/2 cost for armies in your own province will be a good solution. I hate to get much more complicated than that so it won't be too hard on the campaign admin guy, he's not the brightest star in the sky.

In answer to your questions, most kingdoms will only have one army, a few two, and France gets three. The provinces garrisions are just kinda lumped into the abstract pillage and siege rules. If an army is pillaging one of your territories, you have to bring your army to chase him away, no local armies or such. Once we get through a year or so of the game, depending on how smooth things are going, or if there is a great need, we can decide to allow each province to raise an army when invaded. A beseiged force can not recruit to the army. This isn't stated in the rules, but seems correct to me. I hope this works, but again, till we see how the first year goes, we won't really know if some things must be changed as unworkab;lle.

On the subject of pillaging. A pillaging force will get 20 silver per season for pillaging an average city, but the cost of upkeep per season of operations in enemy territory (as opposed to staying at home) will not make this cost effective. Fun, but not cost effective

Up with pillage! Down with upkeep!

Ok guys here is where I am on the money issue after some great mails with ideas and issues. Please let me know how this fits with everyone.

Each province (small or large) will be worth 700 per year in income. Armies outside of your home territory cost 1/2 mark per build point per season for upkeep. Armies at home, inside your own territory cost 1/3.

When you recruit new troops they still cost 1 silver mark to build, but then the much cheaper upkeep. Also, I hated to do this, but we may have to put a 700 cap on army size, as this may result in a surplus of money for a few Kingdoms.

Please throw out any thoughts you have on this issue. In the end, I want the campaign to be fun and work the way you guys will enjoy it the most, tight with money or loose.

Scar wrote:

ianiow wrote:Roughly, what is the starting date of this campaign? I only ask because I would like to google up what was historically happening in my province at this time - who was the leader, what battle campaigns where being fought etc.

Since ya'll are starting with early armies, lets pick an early time frame, near say 1337-1345ish. The Kingdoms are probably more scrambled than they were at that time, but it allowed us to fit in more players.

Ooh, you guys are in trouble! I've just googled the Duke of Normandy (me) for the above dates. His name is Jean le Bonne (John the Good) and he went on to become King of France and Duke of Burgundy! I have a lot to live up to. lol

Hi all,

Those ideas all sound good.

Personally I like tight money as it means that I have to consider the risk of fighting a war with someone rather than just throwing armies of clone warriors at the enemy. Of course others may not agree.

I would still go for x1 silver for invading and x1/2 silver for garrison and keep the money the same as at the start. You could up the money gained from pillaging by taking half or all the points of the armies value and taking that much from the enemy but only allow it once a year. It will offset the cost of some of the attack but still put a drain on peoples resources, again I like the idea of war being a dangerous gambit and not always a fight to the death as the enemy may run out of money.

My chap is...

Alfonso XI known among Castilian kings as the Avenger or the Implacable, and as "He of Salado River."
The first two names he earned by the ferocity with which he repressed the disorder of the nobles after a long minority; the third by his victory in the Battle of Rio Salado over the last formidable Marinid invasion of Iberian Peninsula in 1340.
Alfonso XI never went to the insane lengths of his son Peter of Castile, but he could be bloody in his methods. He killed for reasons of state without form of trial. He openly neglected his wife, Maria of Portugal, and had an ostentatious passion for Eleanor of Guzman, who bore him ten children. This set Peter an example which he failed to better. It may be that his early death, during the Great Plague of 1350, at the Siege of Gibraltar, only averted a desperate struggle with Peter, though it was a misfortune in that it removed a ruler of eminent capacity, who understood his subjects well enough not to go too far.

Sounds awesome

I would suggest plundering would halve army upkeep as your living off your enemy's land.

Deeter of Navarre

Odo IV, Duke of Burgundy

(Connected to French Throne. Elder sister married to King of France. Uncle to Queen of Navarre.)
(Claims to throne of Thessalonica and Achaea!!!)
(Kinda was the "cause" of the Hundred Years War!!!)(Wife claimed Artois>Robert III claimed Artois>he forged documents>fled to England>French king used this as excuse) )

Emperor Louis the IV, King of the Romans is running things in Aachen. Quite an interesting character - he was an early proponent of church / state separation (just becasue he was excommincated - what a grouch) - and an distant ancestor of "Mad" King Ludwig II - so I get to build extravagant palaces for half cost.
He also recognize Swiss independence very early (1316) which is why there are swiss troops in the list, and Swiss Allies..

Cheers and Charge!

Tom

PS - Small biting fleas with Yersinia pestis are travelling along the silk road from China even as we prepare to settle Edward III's claims to France, and they will make our
wars look like childrens games when they reach Kaffa in 1346...

PPS - Make this good - Barbara Tuchmann's gonna write us up in a book