What shall be the resources that we'll have and will you be a banker of sorts to keep a ledger of those resources?

If I have any input allowed at all, I've found an interesting mechanic to allow players larger nations while being balanced is Centralization equating to Stability. BTW.

Theodorable said
What shall be the resources that we'll have and will you be a banker of sorts to keep a ledger of those resources?If I have any input allowed at all, I've found an interesting mechanic to allow players larger nations while being balanced is equating to Stability. BTW.

Your resources will be your crops, people, and extra income earned from natural resources, infrastructure, trading and raiding. To a lesser extent, they will also be your weapons, armor, and horses. I will be keeping track of everyone's resources, but it would be wise to know what they are yourself. And do elaborate on this mechanic.

As well, the rules finally finished:

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-sNYIZZQIltWnFJQ1pKcVp1LWM/edit

I am still in the process of adding mercenaries and polishing off in-game actions and their costs, but everything needed to build your kingdoms is there, unless I've overlooked something. Additional 'Optional Concerns' are on the way, once I figure some out that are challenging yet fair handicaps.

OOC on the way, along with a sign-up template. Expect them tomorrow.

Excellent rules. Can you send me a rough draft of what you'd like the map to look like and I'll cook up a much more professional one.

Theodorable said
Excellent rules. Can you send me a rough draft of what you'd like the map to look like and I'll cook up a much more professional one.

People will be making the provinces on the map, so very little has already been decided, but I can give you what I've already got for now. I have work tomorrow, and need to get to bed for now, but you can expect the map's rough draft tomorrow afternoon.

The rules look great. Regarding armies, is it possible to upgrade their discipline?

I can add the provincial system and even add relevant info to the map as well as names so people know which fiefs are which.

Question. Do we pick either a resource, infrastructure, or a castle per fief or do we pick one of each per fief?

I was reading over the costs for weaponry for armies. I find the idea of determining whether the person is armed with a mace or a sword to be kind of far too much ddelving into specifics. Especially since the statistics of the weapons are not their. (as in, paying for pikes or swords seems to have no bearing on the armies utility, other than to say as flavour text that I have 2000 Pikeman and 500 Swordsman) In regards to thsi the solution I would present would be to not have individual weapons purchased for soldiers, but to give the upfront cost of turning a peasant into either Light Infantry, Pikeman, Heavy Infantry, Crossbowman, Archer, Light Cavalry, Heavy Cavalry, Cavalry Archer. (As well the cost for any siege equipment is not present; good luck trying to siege a great wall, and a fortified manor without such implements).

In my mind this has the same affect as the system of weaponry buying you were going for, but simplifies the system down, without making it just generic troops. As it stands it seems to a rather pointless exercise to decide between maces, battleaxes, or regular axes.

Perhaps I'm missing some point or note or reason fro this very intricate system of arming or your peasants?

MouseKing said
I was reading over the costs for weaponry for armies. I find the idea of determining whether the person is armed with a mace or a sword to be kind of far too much ddelving into specifics. Especially since the statistics of the weapons are not their. (as in, paying for pikes or swords seems to have no bearing on the armies utility, other than to say as flavour text that I have 2000 Pikeman and 500 Swordsman) In regards to thsi the solution I would present would be to not have individual weapons purchased for soldiers, but to give the upfront cost of turning a peasant into either Light Infantry, Pikeman, Heavy Infantry, Crossbowman, Archer, Light Cavalry, Heavy Cavalry, Cavalry Archer. (As well the cost for any siege equipment is not present; good luck trying to siege a great wall, and a fortified manor without such implements). In my mind this has the same affect as the system of weaponry buying you were going for, but simplifies the system down, without making it just generic troops. As it stands it seems to a rather pointless exercise to decide between maces, battleaxes, or regular axes.Perhaps I'm missing some point or note or reason fro this very intricate system of arming or your peasants?

Hah, thank you for pointing out the lack of siege engine costs. Knew I was forgetting something.

As for listing out the cost of specific weaponry, the purpose is to allow for a wider degree of customization. Though I like the simplicity of having troop types instead of specific weaponry, I've found in my past experience in NRPs that this tends to stifle ideas. Suppose you wanted a set of soldiers resembling a band of galloglaigh. Would they be horsemen, infantry, or archers? If they're simply Cavalry Archers, then the argument could be made that all Cavalry Archers can fight on foot with equal skill to that of a Heavy Infantry. And if that were the case, the cost of having an army of nothing but cavalry archers would be offset by their superiority.

These problems could be easily fixed, of course, but I'd prefer to avoid these situations entriely. That said, I do like your idea, so how about we go halfway and create troop templates? Premade troops with the proper equipment, with their cost and upkeep pre-calculated. The best of both worlds, no?

Also, there are no statistics for each weapon because to do so would be arbitrary. After all, battles will only be decided by dice rolls if you are battling NPCs, or if a decision between players cannot be reached, and for that purpose I have a modifiable formula that takes into account certain weapon pairings. Certain weapons will be more effective against others, while others weapons will be simple, yet cheap. I should perhaps change the name of Battleaxe to Greataxe, since I had a two-handed Gimli-style axe in mind.

The point of having so many different weapons is to allow the players to field different types of troops or equipment for different purposes. Maces are excellent for taking out heavily armoured enemies. Axes are great for hacking in shields, and can act as the poor man's sword. Pikemen can defend against cavalry, and protect ranged units. Swordsmen can protect pikemen and ranged units who are engaged in direct combat. And so on.

Question. Do we pick either a resource, infrastructure, or a castle per fief or do we pick one of each per fief

You pick one of each per fief.

Example: King Giric buys a fair province. He wants the province to be wealthy, so he takes Some resources and Advanced infrastructure with it. But since the King already has a nice castle in his last province, he decides to simply have a wooden manor and wooden palisade for this one.

It's also perfectly acceptable to buy nothing for a fief. In that case, you'd simply pick all the '0 point' options in each category.

I can add the provincial system and even add relevant info to the map as well as names so people know which fiefs are which.

You're a saint, laddie.

The rules look great. Regarding armies, is it possible to upgrade their discipline?

I thought about adding a discipline stat, but decided against it. Your armies will be raised in a historically accurate fashion, so your peasants aren't going to have much time to train for battle if they're tending to the farm. I may add something about starting the game with a royal guard, or band of retainers, who will start off as disciplined, stern hardasses, but no promises.

I will say that it would be highly advisable to train and drill your soldiers for at least a season before sending them off into combat (more on time and training when I finish the Actions section).

Can you have a bailey and a military bailey in the same castle?

May I jump in on this?

Flooby Badoop said
Hah, thank you for pointing out the lack of siege engine costs.

Knew I was forgetting something.As for listing out the cost of specific weaponry, the purpose is to allow for a wider degree of customization. Though I like the simplicity of having troop types instead of specific weaponry, I've found in my past experience in NRPs that this tends to stifle ideas. Suppose you wanted a set of soldiers resembling a band of galloglaigh. Would they be horsemen, infantry, or archers? If they're simply Cavalry Archers, then the argument could be made that all Cavalry Archers can fight on foot with equal skill to that of a Heavy Infantry. And if that were the case, the cost of having an army of nothing but cavalry archers would be offset by their superiority.These problems could be easily fixed, of course, but I'd prefer to avoid these situations entriely. That said, I do like your idea, so how about we go halfway and create troop templates? Premade troops with the proper equipment, with their cost and upkeep pre-calculated. The best of both worlds, no?Also, there are no statistics for each weapon because to do so would be arbitrary.

After all, battles will only be decided by dice rolls if you are battling NPCs, or if a decision between players cannot be reached, and for that purpose I have a modifiable formula that takes into account certain weapon pairings. Certain weapons will be more effective against others, while others weapons will be simple, yet cheap. I should perhaps change the name of Battleaxe to Greataxe, since I had a two-handed Gimli-style axe in mind.The point of having so many different weapons is to allow the players to field different types of troops or equipment for different purposes. Maces are excellent for taking out heavily armoured enemies. Axes are great for hacking in shields, and can act as the poor man's sword. Pikemen can defend against cavalry, and protect ranged units. Swordsmen can protect pikemen and ranged units who are engaged in direct combat.

Sounds fair enough. I wasn't trying to criticize I just found the system to be very micromanagement oriented. Going halfway provides for more customization (a plus) without being too overbearing or requiring too much micromanagement (another plus).

How exactly will combat work? Assuming two players don't work out the solution on their own. Will it be one big dice roll? Will it work in smaller phases? Will you have options once battle starts? Or will you just go into a battle and either win or lose? (What I mean by this is, can I change a strategy? Are their strategies? What if I start losing? Is my entire army going to be obliterated? Will I have the option to retreat?) Will terrain affect the combat?

I'm also unsure what Bullis is for other than purchasing weapons and mercenaries? Can you buy walls? Manors? Towns? Infrastructure? As there only seems to be a point cost for world creation associated with each in the rules. I'm assuming that this will change?

Edit: Baileys and Military Baileys? Each are worth 2 points, but what bonuses do they convey. The manor and wall options are for defence, but the baileys are for?

MouseKing said
Sounds fair enough. I wasn't trying to criticize I just found the system to be very micromanagement oriented. Going halfway provides for more customization (a plus) without being too overbearing or requiring too much micromanagement (another plus). How exactly will combat work? Assuming two players don't work out the solution on their own. Will it be one big dice roll? Will it work in smaller phases? Will you have options once battle starts? Or will you just go into a battle and either win or lose? (What I mean by this is, can I change a strategy? Are their strategies? What if I start losing? Is my entire army going to be obliterated? Will I have the option to retreat?) Will terrain affect the combat?I'm also unsure what Bullis is for other than purchasing weapons and mercenaries? Can you buy walls? Manors? Towns? Infrastructure? As there only seems to be a point cost for world creation associated with each in the rules. I'm assuming that this will change?Edit: Baileys and Military Baileys? Each are worth 2 points, but what bonuses do they convey. The manor and wall options are for defence, but the baileys are for?

Dice combat is meant to resolve one situation at a time. I'd prefer to keep the formula secret, because I believe it will work better if the players aren't looking for ways to manipulate it, but it takes a great deal of each situation into account.

Anyway, one player or another is likely to start the game with NPC enemies, so NPC combat will work as such:

I will draw up a battlefield. It won't be super fancy, but will provide all the detail you'd need (if it doesn't, simply ask). In a post, you will send orders to to your men and commit to some strategy, and the enemy will either enact a plan of their own, or react to yours, depending on the situation and enemy. Once two forces meet, I will make the necessary dice rolls, factoring in number of troops, terrain, weather, weapon pairings, training/discipline, morale, and other conditions, like if either of them have been marching on an empty belly for awhile. A casualty number will be spat out, along with whether one side or the other breaks and retreats. From here, I will give a description of what exactly happened, and the battle will continue in this fashion for each such encounter. So long as you can communicate your wishes to your troops somehow (a horn, a drum signal, a bonfire, what have you) you should be able to give any sort of orders you'd like mid-battle.

When two players are fighting, the pace will proceed similarly, save for the situations when the two players can agree on an outcome. If the two players can't agree on exact casualties, I can draw those easily. I'm currently working on a formula that can decide whole battles as well, instead of just individual encounters.

Bullis will be used in-game to purchase things. One in-game, you can excavate for resources, or build a deep mine to perhaps increase the resource level of a fief. You could use it to build new infrastructure, fund a royal trade caravan, bribe or pay other players for services or goods, and of course pay for the arming and upkeep of your troops.

As for there being two types of Bailey, I decided that too much was afforded to having a single Bailey, making it a rather must-have thing, and decided to split them up based on what purposes the player might like to fulfil with them. As for the purposes of the baileys themselves, they are there to provide resources for the manor itself.

Suppose you have a manor with both Baileys. In peace, it means you will be able to stay inside the manor indefinitely, without needing to leave for town every time the pantry runs low, or some medicine needs to be bought. There main use is to provide convenience for its owner. Military baileys allow weapons, troops and horses to reside comfortably inside the castle. If they weren't there, the troops would have to sleep on the ground, would have no formal place to train, no place to safely store their weapons, and the horses would have no place to stay where they could be kept watch on.

tl;dr Baileys are useful conveniences, but aren't strictly necessary.

Warmonger said May I jump in on this?

Of course.

Can you have a bailey and a military bailey in the same castle?

Also of course.

I didn't see shields in the weapon sheet. Are we able to obtain shields?

VoiD said
I didn't see shields in the weapon sheet. Are we able to obtain shields?

I've been sneaking around a bit at work to polish up the rules, and one of the things I included is that purchasing armour comes with an appropriate shield (leather armour gets you a leather-dressed wood shield). The exception is if you're using a two-handed or ranged weapon, in which case you will have a shield, but will obviously not be able to wield it with your weapon.

Got home a bit ago, and I'm finishing up the mercenaries section and sign-up sheet template before putting up the OOC. Should be done around midnight, give or take.

I might join, a couple of my RPs are kinda inactive.

I was planning on having my own troops as mercenaries I.e. If someone wants to hire a unit of my region's soldiers, they can do it for a cost.
Is this acceptable?

HazmatMedic said
I was planning on having my own troops as mercenaries I.e. If someone wants to hire a unit of my region's soldiers, they can do it for a cost.Is this acceptable?

Depends, would I have to feed them?

I kinda want to make a trade based kingdom. Make other kingdoms so dependent that they couldn't go to war without having their economy collapse. :3

HazmatMedic said
I was planning on having my own troops as mercenaries I.e. If someone wants to hire a unit of my region's soldiers, they can do it for a cost.Is this acceptable?

I leave any dealings between players to themselves. If I see something wrong, I'll tell you. So, yes, that'd be acceptable.

And the OOC is up.

For the map, why don't you take a blank map with lines and colors for land masses and just let the players decide the landscape?