Eternal_Flame said
can someone give me a link to good random name generator, i need that for some kind of purpose, any one?

Try chaoticshiny.com and seventhsanctum.com

I'm glad no one massacred the Elven population of Elthana. I was expecting "Four weeks? CHARGEEEEEEEE!!!!!"

Senor Herp said
Sheet fiddling continues. The history is rough, I feel, and too vague, and I am not certain the manpower is reasonable for too much or too little. Initially mistook the manpower for an abstract rather than one-to-one manpower to man. Feel less like standing armies proper and more the scale of house guard, not that that wasn't a significant portion of professional troops in the era besides men-at-arms, mind. What do you think, Syrian? And others, if they care to comment.

Looks fine to me. Accepted with immediate effect. *bangs gavel*

EDIT: Feel the need to elaborate on army numbers. Players are more than welcome to mobilize a great deal of their population in times of war - I haven't got beef with the idea of a warrior race saying "WE NEED TO GO KILL :D:D:D" and then lots of them go "OKAY :D:D:D:D"

What I've got beef with is keeping this large army fed and funded. Sure, you can acquire food by pillaging your victims' countryside, and maybe your men will survive on loot instead of pay - but at some point, those sources will run dry and you will be forced to feed and pay for them yourself. Now the regions at the start of this RP aren't very wealthy, they're okay, but not financially equipped to pay 30,000 people a gold piece every month.

If you're not importing a food resource, where the Hell is your food for them coming from? Your region will have a basic supply of food income, of course, because otherwise your people wouldn't be alive, but the idea is that by acquiring a food source, you have a significant means of keeping your men fed.

If you're not importing metal, where's your swords, spearheads, arrowheads etc coming from? Again, your region will have basic access to a supply of these materials, and you will be able to field a small army of well equipped troops. To supply a full army, and we're talking in the tens of thousands, you're going to need to have access to metal. The more food and metal, the more soldiers you can equip and feed - it's simple logic bolstered by my faith in you all treating things realistically and reasonably.

And funding? You're acquiring this through trade, resource ownership and taxation. The more trade and resources you have, the more likely there's money flowing throughout your nation, and therefore, the more money that's landing into the laps of your respective leaders. This money then goes to things like building forts, raising navies and of course, paying your troops.

*breathes*

Does this make sense to anyone?

haha, im no such people,
i wonder, is my RP good enough for you guys?
because, for real, i have never write so much in my life, :D

Panda-Man said
Try chaoticshiny.com and seventhsanctum.com

Thanks :D, it will do so much help for me.

The way I run as a mostly peaceful nation:

I have a small pool of professional soldiers. Before the increase in the musketeers, they totaled 1,000 troops; now they total 1,250, and some may die soon. Most of the army comes in the form of armed militia.

This is reflective of feudal times. You didn't see armies of men wearing full plate and carrying nice metal swords and shields. For one, that's heavy. Also, it's really expensive to field an army so well-equipped. Instead, you'd have a pool of professional soldiers, such as, yes, a house guard, that really did make a living out of warfare. Knights and huscarls are prime examples of such men. However, large professional armies didn't really become a "thing" until much later; a local lord would just gather up a bunch of peasants from his fields, equip them with weapons, and march them off to war. (Consequently, you usually saw a lot of people running away and deserting their armies in battle. This sort of behavior continued well into the 1700's. The Revolutionary War in the U.S.A. is riddled with examples of militia running away as soon as the enemy closes in on them.)

Making sure your armies are well fed and such is important. Most casualties in war have historically been from disease and injuries not being treated properly, so keep that in mind. A healthy, well-fed soldier is less likely to succumb to disease than a malnourished one.

Eternal_Flame said
haha, im no such people, i wonder, is my RP good enough for you guys?because, for real, i have never write so much in my life,

The best way to improve your writing abilities is to keep writing. Emulate others, draw upon what you like from their techniques, and you'll improve over time, likely developing your own style. Just keep writing and you'll be fine.

The one thing I'd watch for is your grammar and such. Also, always keep in mind what the limitations of the era are. Battlefield communications in the days of yore, especially the medieval era, were pretty awful; you didn't have radios, and you couldn't just yell across the battlefield to a subordinate. Thus, most orders were short and simple, and the tactics you use walking into a battle are usually going to be pretty straightforward. (I.E.: a general may tell his officers to "charge the enemy at the signal" or "move to their flank and attack" and leave the rest to their discretion, because you can't predict everything the enemy will do.)

In an upcoming battle Erimir will be in, I'll be trying to give a good idea of what sort of chaos the medieval battlefield may have had.

Meeky said
The best way to improve your writing abilities is to keep writing. Emulate others, draw upon what you like from their techniques, and you'll improve over time, likely developing your own style. Just keep writing and you'll be fine.

The one thing I'd watch for is your grammar and such. Also, always keep in mind what the limitations of the era are. Battlefield communications in the days of yore, especially the medieval era, were pretty awful; you didn't have radios, and you couldn't just yell across the battlefield to a subordinate. Thus, most orders were short and simple, and the tactics you use walking into a battle are usually going to be pretty straightforward. (I.E.: a general may tell his officers to "charge the enemy at the signal" or "move to their flank and attack" and leave the rest to their discretion, because you can't predict everything the enemy will do.)

In an upcoming battle Erimir will be in, I'll be trying to give a good idea of what sort of chaos the medieval battlefield may have had.

thanks for the feedback, i knew that i'm always bad at grammar,
i wonder is warcraft universe is counted as medieval, excluding magic and stuff though...

Eternal_Flame said
thanks for the feedback, i knew that i'm always bad at grammar,i wonder is warcraft universe is counted as medieval, excluding magic and stuff though...

Pseudo-medieval. Originally, it wasn't too far from the Renaissance era, what with its cannons and seemingly Leonardo da Vinci inspired flying machines, but it's quickly become a mish-mash of typical Medieval Fantasy and Steampunk and... various other sources of inspiration. It has steam tanks, laser beams, space ships... magic nukes... Lovecraftian-inspired monstrosities... yeah. The original Warcraft series was very medieval / renaissance, but WoW is a mish-mash of EVERYTHING.

I seriously should have first offered elthana a chance to surrender before I started the war. :/

SyrianHamster said Does this make sense to anyone?

Makes sense enough to me.

Meeky said
This is reflective of feudal times. You didn't see armies of men wearing full plate and carrying nice metal swords and shields. For one, that's heavy. Also, it's really expensive to field an army so well-equipped.

If I'm not being uncouth by butting into this line, that's not entirely true in case of our period to my knowledge, or at least were it not for the unusual circumstance of complete subcontinental balkanization causing two decades of chaos. It is around this time of serpentine gunpowder that we'd start seeing munitions-class armor start getting churned out by guild workshop. And for that matter, neither is a sword especially heavy, with the heavier end of the zweihander class reaching seven pounds at most; the issue of fatigue comes from extended combat action in less heavy and more suffocating armor, not that it wasn't heavy, but the primary source was lacking ventilation compounding extended actions. Chain-draped heavy quilt gets VERY hot, and chain is often rather heavier than homogenized plate.

Meeky said Instead, you'd have a pool of professional soldiers, such as, yes, a house guard, that really did make a living out of warfare. Knights and huscarls are prime examples of such men. However, large professional armies didn't really become a "thing" until much later; a local lord would just gather up a bunch of peasants from his fields, equip them with weapons, and march them off to war. (Consequently, you usually saw a lot of people running away and deserting their armies in battle. This sort of behavior continued well into the 1700's.

It is to my understanding that this is not entirely true either. Besides gentle-blooded or knighted house guards, there were also mercenaries in the employ of lords as said guard. This in addition to further mercenaries bought for a campaign, and in addition to whatever the crown would commission. This in addition to institutions of martial familiarity like those for the English longbow meant that the core of an army was to consist of professional troops, and the core would be quite a large portion, of mercenaries and men-at-arms (knightly or otherwise.) If a belligerent was using peasant conscripts from the field, in the field, it was likely a sign they were losing already to draw so recklessly from the harvest. Large professional armies they were not, but neither were they small, with support in the form of some number semiprofessional troops drawn from the commoner.

Meeky said (The Revolutionary War in the U.S.A. is riddled with examples of militia running away as soon as the enemy closes in on them.)Making sure your armies are well fed and such is important.

Wouldn't this be more that the militias were typically guerrilla fighters in the first place? My understanding is very basic, but they were not meant nor expected to hold a line against the British without a dugout, they were to harry the enemy long enough for responsive action, hold fortification, or else were bushwhackers killing in the woods and dying in the woods. Dying less than British line infantry, though.

Meeky said Most casualties in war have historically been from disease and injuries not being treated properly, so keep that in mind. A healthy, well-fed soldier is less likely to succumb to disease than a malnourished one.

Quite right there. Carry on!

This is Orysson, not Europe. Things have progressed and regressed differently. Twenty years of civil war have destroyed the region, politically and economically. Hundreds of thousands dead. Tradesmen, fallen, Kings and Lords overthrown. Brothers murdered by brothers, sisters sold into slavery. The fall of Bohaddon was a set back, not a leap forwards. We may have gunpowder, but this does not set us in the real 1600's.

Governments have not the resources to mass produce weapons and armor. Global trade has broken down. Professional soldiers demand pay, and are a much sought-after asset in this depressing landscape.

We haven't got millions of citizens, living under us and paying us a great deal in taxes. We have a few hundred thousand at best, and given that the land is so ravaged, the raising of an army of heavily armored knights, skilled archers and courageous skirmishers would take time.

Mercenaries are an option, but you better have the goods to pay them with, because they'll want more than your subjects would, I'd of thought.

---

But I digress. Get the resources. Get the wealth. Get the troops. I could go on until I'm blue in the face, so I'm just going to say this:

Carry on with what y'all doing, and if I see something I disagree with, I'll ask you to explain your actions and if I don't find them satisfactory, the World Events page will be mentioning you exclusively. :)

Developing our nation, is it right?

Just posted

I'll be posting in the thread later tonight, though I'm busy right now (playing a game).

While it may not be entirely relevant to the roleplay itself, I like talking about history, so I'd like to continue this conversation with Senior Herp.

If I'm not being uncouth by butting into this line, that's not entirely true in case of our period to my knowledge, or at least were it not for the unusual circumstance of complete subcontinental balkanization causing two decades of chaos. It is around this time of serpentine gunpowder that we'd start seeing munitions-class armor start getting churned out by guild workshop. And for that matter, neither is a sword especially heavy, with the heavier end of the zweihander class reaching seven pounds at most; the issue of fatigue comes from extended combat action in less heavy and more suffocating armor, not that it wasn't heavy, but the primary source was lacking ventilation compounding extended actions. Chain-draped heavy quilt gets VERY hot, and chain is often rather heavier than homogenized plate.

I'd like to go ahead and note that I was lumping the sword and plate armor together when dealing with weight, mostly because a footsoldier in plate armor with a metal shield and longsword is such a prevalent fantasy trope. The reality of it is that plate armor is heavy, and while it doesn't limit your mobility as much as one would think, running around on foot with it wears you out quickly. You're more likely to see such armor used by cavalry than by footsoldiers; thus why the knight is so often associated with plate armor.

Chainmail could be heavy, for sure. Note that a lot of plate armor was worn in conjunction with other protective gear though, from padded cloth to chainmail. That makes the total weight even heavier.

And yes, ventilation and breathing and heat are all huge problems when we're talking about armor like this. Other armors had this problem as well, but the point remains. Plate armor is just not something you often found worn by footsoldiers. It did happen, but... Still.

Also, firearms for the most part brought an end to plate armor. This isn't to say that the advent of firearms immediately spelled the end of all armor, as you can see such historical troops as the Polish Hussar wearing metal armor well into the development of firearms; but you really shouldn't be standing in front of a guy with a rifle and expect your armor to get you away from the scene unscathed.

It is to my understanding that this is not entirely true either. Besides gentle-blooded or knighted house guards, there were also mercenaries in the employ of lords as said guard. This in addition to further mercenaries bought for a campaign, and in addition to whatever the crown would commission. This in addition to institutions of martial familiarity like those for the English longbow meant that the core of an army was to consist of professional troops, and the core would be quite a large portion, of mercenaries and men-at-arms (knightly or otherwise.) If a belligerent was using peasant conscripts from the field, in the field, it was likely a sign they were losing already to draw so recklessly from the harvest. Large professional armies they were not, but neither were they small, with support in the form of some number semiprofessional troops drawn from the commoner.

I'd need to go back and research this to confirm, but I'm pretty sure this was the case at least during the beginning of the Medieval Era. The fact of the matter is a LOT of soldiers in any given battle would run away after a solid clash, and most of those would be non-professional soldiers. I'll go and do some research on this to confirm.

Wouldn't this be more that the militias were typically guerrilla fighters in the first place? My understanding is very basic, but they were not meant nor expected to hold a line against the British without a dugout, they were to harry the enemy long enough for responsive action, hold fortification, or else were bushwhackers killing in the woods and dying in the woods. Dying less than British line infantry, though.

Sort of.

This is taken from a higher level U.S. Military History class I took a couple years ago, so bear with me if I forget a couple details. I'm trying to remember the name of the battle I'm going to bring up as an example soon, but I can't seem to. It was, however, a famous battle.

The prevalent method of warfare at the time was, well, line warfare. You'd have lines of guys with guns shooting at each other. This is the basis on which both the British and American military was based upon, more so the Continental Army than the militia, and understanding that is key. The Continental Army was trained for this sort of warfare. The militia was trained a little, but essentially they acted as a mixture between that and a mob or, as you said, as guerrilla infantry.

Do note, however, that the militia actually were not exemplary troops at all. They didn't whoop the British, and indeed ran away a lot. We really didn't start performing all that well as an army until about the time we got some training from a certain German drill instructor you may know as Friedrich Wilhelm Von Steuben. Many of the policies in his "blue book" are, last I recall, still core tenets in U.S. military policy. (Interestingly, "don't ask; don't tell" was one of them. He was forced out of his homeland for having possible homosexual affairs with a German prince.)

Anyway, one of the notable problems the U.S. militia had, a problem that a lot of non-professional armies in general had, is they would run as soon as the enemy charged. That's pretty much fact. If the British put on their bayonets and charged, the militia would scatter to the wind. This behavior was actually depended on in one battle by American generals that they planned the battle with a considerable portion of the tactics based on the fact that their militia would run.

Here's how it went: the militia were standing in front, firing at the enemy. The British charged them, and predictably the militia ran away in the opposite direction of the British. The trouble is a river was blocking their escape... so the militia were forced by the obstacle that was a big honking river to turn around and fight. Then, the Continental Army came in and surrounded the British by the flanks, and that's how we Americans won that battle. Again, I forget the name of the battle, but it was important enough of one that we spent a good 10-15 minutes discussing this in class and talking about exactly why the battle was planned the way it was.

I need to go and research plate armor in this general time period still, since I have a bit of a gap in knowledge at the time when firearms haven't quite forced the swordsman and the archer and the crossbowman to disappear.

Meeky said Also, firearms for the most part brought an end to plate armor. This isn't to say that the advent of firearms immediately spelled the end of all armor, as you can see such historical troops as the Polish Hussar wearing metal armor well into the development of firearms; but you really shouldn't be standing in front of a guy with a rifle and expect your armor to get you away from the scene unscathed.

Nonsense! They existed side-by-side for quite a long time. What changed was how much was worn and where, thickening up around the center of mass while the rest often got lighter. There's a reason we have the term bulletproof, and it refers to proofing of plate armor by close-range firing. Eventually, with the advent of cheaper & more effectual firearms and the bayonet, pike & plate were out entirely for the regular and eventually cavalry, too.

Interesting anecdote about the war, though. I was aware of the involvement of Prussian mercenaries and drill instructors, but not the Blue Book, or the use of militia as an unwilling anvil. Very interesting!

Titan, Re-read PM

This post I just made is very short because I think I'm making a second post today. Syrian, send me a message whenever you get the chance so we can figure out if we're handling the battle today.

Any hint on what the next world event is?

Titanic said
Any hint on what the next world event is?

Why? You short of earthquakes and plagues?

SyrianHamster said
Why? You short of earthquakes and plagues?

No, I just have nothing to do until either blackbishop or orangebox get on