Chapter 6: Armies & Warfare

[DM B]

Editors should be pleased to know that Chapter 6 is almost done. Would have tomorrow if I hadn't fallen ill. Grrr.

It contains nothing really new in the sens that this is the way wars have been conducted in RoE. It is new in the sense that for the first time its coherently written down and share with the players.

But since everything from Warfare and out is pretty new it will probably require greater effort to edit than other parts of the RG.

[DM B]

Chapter 6 will receive a pretty big overhaul. A lot of the nitty-gitty stuff will be moved into a War appendix. The revised chapter 6 will focus on mothly war moves, regiment-sized units (about 1000 men) and a much simplified way of resolving battles.

The war appendix will keep all the good stuff we already have - detailed units, weekly moves, alternative battle resolution etc.

The 'new' system will be toted as the default for larger games/PbeMs will the appendix system will be reccomended for smaller/PnP games. With suggestions of how to use some or all of the detailed rules for larger games.

I'll also add a lot more sidebars to explain how stuff works.

The goal is simple: Wars should not be on a whole different magntitude of complexity, nor should they slow turn resolution to a crawl and make the DM grow grey hairs.

[X-Osoerde (Alan)]

I thought you liked the grey hairs because they make you look distinguished.

[DM B]

I thought you liked the grey hairs because they make you look distinguished.

I now have grey spots in my stubble - a small circle on each side of the chin (which is very manly btw)

[X-Osoerde (Alan)]

Hey Bjorn, do your changes to armies mean that I won't need to detail 100+ units or to track them?  If so, I would be appreciative.

[DM B]

Hey Bjorn, do your changes to armies mean that I won't need to detail 100+ units or to track them?  If so, I would be appreciative.

That would the general idea. So instead of tracking 100 units you would be tracking 20 heavy infantry, 5 light infantry, 5 heavy cav and 5 light cav. Should make things mucho simpler.

[X-Osoerde (Alan)]

With less concern for the particulars of what the 'units' are?  I.E.  No need to know swordsmen, or regulars, archers, etc.

[X-Haelyn's Aegis/RK (Andy)]

Sigh, I <like> the detail, I've named all my units for crying out loud!  Sob.  Admittedly I don't have many units compared to landed realms but even so.

Unit differences, like great buildings are ways to differentiate otherwise similar domains, I guess that the fluff won't be affected but some crunch difference would be nice to encourage such differentiation.

[X-Osoerde (Alan)]

It is considerably less fun when you are dealing with 80+ units along with vassals whatnot. In fact, I use to think that I liked the detail until I spent 3 hours trying to name and arrange units only to have some of them destroyed.

[X-Ghieste & HOT/GH (Matt)]

I like the detail personally also and I am not running a small army either. Once you have it set up it provides emotional attachment too, as you should IC, to the loss of those men.

[X-Tuornen/LF (Geir)]

There is much flavor in those details 

[X-Haelyn's Aegis/RK (Andy)]

It is considerably less fun when you are dealing with 80+ units along with vassals whatnot. In fact, I use to think that I liked the detail until I spent 3 hours trying to name and arrange units only to have some of them destroyed.

I've played too much Feng Shui, I figure that any unit without a name will be scragged, a named unit has a much better chance ;-)

Of course his Archduke-ness could always make do with a smaller army...

[X-Osoerde (Alan)]

To me units are no different from holdings.  How many people take the time to completely flesh out their holdings?  It is very time consuming and while it add some flavor, it is considerably less important than say turning in a DO or making dispatches.

[X-Haelyn's Aegis/RK (Andy)]

A fair point, but historically there have been mechanical differences and so we are starting from a position of differentiation and reducing, if historically it had been important to note the type and make up of holdings and the differentiation was to be reduced I expect that we'd have exactly the same argument and those who'd spent actions researching new holding elements or switching types to get the domain desired would feel short-changed by the move just as those who have spent time fine-tuning their armies may feel like they wasted their time.

That said war is the part of the game that's caused the most trouble - by far - and if this change simplifies battles and speeds it up then it is a definite improvement.  In practice I suspect that the losers will be the realms with relatively small armies who have optimised them for terrain type and enemy composition - larger realms inevitably have a "take all comers" generality to their forces regardless.

But I'm still naming mine 

[X-Aerenwe/TS (Miloš)]

Won't 1000-men units leave domains that were unable to support more than a couple of units with 0 units?

Concerning fleshing out the units, I don't think it's the same as the holdings. The holdings are much more abstract since they represent influence in a province. Units are much better defined as representing a certain number of men with certain equipment and training. I gave names to all my units but never did anything similar with the holdings except writing description of what is being done when I'm trying to rule or contest one.