I was under the impression that each fief can only be raided once per year. Regardless of how much time it takes, I think we should work with Flooby to balance the amount of money made from raiding.

I know. 5 crops per infantry unit sounds pretty silly, but I came up with that number considering that a much smaller value would really not have much of an impact. Also, are there ways to prevent raids? IE, border guards and etc? Oh, and apparently raiding a fief's farmlands will prevent taxes from being collected that year. I think that's pretty big, and worth the cost of the raid. Here's how I think about the raid system currently. You want money? Raid the trade routes. Want food? Raid the manor. Want to hurt the enemy in a lot of ways including money, crops, people, and infrastructure? Farmlands. Now, I imagine that raiding towns will lead to some money, but maybe even some prisoners/slaves?

Gentlemen, please.

Psycho, you make an excellent points, and you deserve a longer answer, but sadly I can only echo what has already been said: I did not intend raiding farmland to be profitable, unless done en masse. Yes, if done without thought to the expense, it will cost you money, as upkeep is paid so long as the men are raised. It will also piss off people. It should therefore only be done unless you plan a very long campaign of raiding, or know that you need to keep your levies raised, and want a way to keep the upkeep costs low. I am indeed still working on the rules, so nothing I've said is final. The reason for my initial suggestion [which tied into So Boerd's suggestion well] was because the peasants simply do not have that much.

Most peasants deal in coppers, the semi-equivalent of pence. 1,000 coppers equal a single bulli, which itself is the semi-equivalent of a gold ducat [not the more common silver ones]. The average person will make six coppers in a day, and live off three a day. This means they'll make 2,190 a year, or 2 bullis. Since 1 is taken away by tax [1 bulli per 1 person; the convenience!] they are left with the bare minimum they need to live off of. This is a game, and of course it doesn't need to be this way, but I'd like to keep things realistic, and these were the most realistic results I could come up with. If these results are incorrect [I use The Economic History of England as my source], or not a good translation of my findings in the book, then I'd be more than happy to change them.

You are also correct on time: each round of posting will cover 1 season. The specific units of time are simply a way to keep track of specifics, and help avoid arguments or confusions. I have technically have time worked out, but it needs polish before I'd care to say anything more about it. And yes, a single fief can only be raided once in a year, but that's a single fief. There are dozens in Lundland.

As jiwon and So Boerd have said, its much better to raid trade routes if your concern is money. There are two more towns belonging to the Overlord and Archbishop [was actually going to post the Overlord's sheet tonight] that I made in the event that no one created a town, so there would at least be one trade route to raid. Manors are also made to be quite profitable, as if they have no garrison, they can be easily overcome, and offer a quick source of wealth.

And jiwon, a border guard would mean you would need to keep some of your raised levies on constant patrol around an area. A hundred or so soldiers will likely be enough to deter most bandits, but obviously will not stop an NPC or player army.

Again, no rules are finalized yet. I may consider adding crops, or an additional bulli to the amount gained from raiding farmland, or perhaps even base money gained on the fief's fertility, but I promise nothing.

Lastly, So Boerd was referring to raiding player and vassal Houses, the nobility that owns land. I think. He might have been referring to manors. But he certainly was not referring to real-life criminal activities.

EDIT: Got work for the next three days [the managers screwed me], but the rules I expect to have out this Monday. I can project a date for the map's completion once Mouseking [and Rare?] finish their sheets.

EDIT, THE REDUX: I didn't add extended family options because I assumed nobody would want them. But if that's not the case, I'd gladly add them. The rules as they are need a couple minor updates as-is, so I can patch it in along with doing the Overlord's sheet tonight.

Vassals still won't have extended family, however, as I'd prefer to not extend their details that far.

Would an army made of only mounted units go faster than an army of infantry?

Won't be on till sunday

So Boerd said
Would an army made of only mounted units go faster than an army of infantry?

It would depend. Horses can't be ridden faster than a walking pace when you're taking them across a long journey. Horsemen will definitely go faster in battle, and could certainly cover ground faster than a troop of infantry. If your purpose is to raid a village, then get the fuck out of dodge, said horsemen would have covered a lot of ground before any non-mounted infantry could show up.

I'm encountering a lot of these little situations while making rules, and I think I'm just going to need to relegate them to the 'solve it via roleplay' pile, since creating specific rules for them would introduce needless complexity.

So, what I'm hearing is that we should use our best judgement and common sense? Sounds good to me.

Works for me.

Heyitsjiwon said
So, what I'm hearing is that we should use our best judgement and common sense? Sounds good to me.

Except that"s what every other NRP does and most others go down in an argument spiral. So the rules framework wil bstter ensure this thread is longlived.

Nvm

So Boerd said
Except that"s what every other NRP does and most others go down in an argument spiral. So the rules framework wil bstter ensure this thread is longlived.

That's my fear. On one hand, creating a rule means that what might logically happen in a certain situation might be overidden by said rule, while leaving the decision to roleplay between competing players would cause an argument.

It's tricky to rock around.

EDIT: Minor updates made to the current rules. Siblings have been added for purchase, and children for said siblings are available at a -1 point cost, to a minimum of 1. You may buy parents as courtiers, if you so desire. Darts and sling upkeep has been reduced to 1, and javelin upkeep to 2.

The minimum age for all adolescent girls is now 12, so I'll be looking at everyone's sheets to comply with changes. I know this affects jiwon and Nex.

Nope, just jiwon needs to account for the extra point gained from his Child becoming an Adolescent, and FortunesFaded can account for his Uncle character becoming a sibling, though the point cost for an elderly brother and elderly courtier are the same.

Just to clarify;

Do I or do I not need to make separate receipts for my territories and the territories of my vassal(s), with separate incomes, growth, crop production, etc?

Now that brothers exist, I downgraded my manor in Jorvik from Great to Stone and now I am turning another fief point into family points. Haven't spent it yet though.

The Nexerus said
Just to clarify;Do I or do I not need to make separate receipts for my territories and the territories of my vassal(s), with separate incomes, growth, crop production, etc?

You do, and I apologize for the confusion. I had hoped to introduce vassals in a less messy fashion. If you have any irk toward me, I deserve it.

Flooby Badoop said
That's my fear. On one hand, creating a rule means that what might logically happen in a certain situation might be overidden by said rule, while leaving the decision to roleplay between competing players would cause an argument. It's tricky to rock around.EDIT: Minor updates made to the current rules. Siblings have been added for purchase, and children for said siblings are available at a -1 point cost, to a minimum of 1. You may buy parents as courtiers, if you so desire. Darts and sling upkeep has been reduced to 1, and javelin upkeep to 2. The minimum age for all adolescent girls is now 12, so I'll be looking at everyone's sheets to comply with changes. Nope, just jiwon needs to account for the extra point gained from his Child becoming an Adolescent, and FortunesFaded can account for his Uncle character becoming a sibling, though the point cost for an elderly brother and elderly courtier are the same.

I find that the easiest way to deal with such situations is to let the GM decide the outcome. It's essentially the same as having a rule and allows for logical roleplay situations. Anyone who would object to a GM ruling would probably object to a rule that lacked flexibility in the same situation.

There is ever an ambiguity between people who object due to the illogic of a decision and those who object because it didn't go their way. What we do by workshopping heavily the rules before the IC while everyone has a minimal stake is eliminate most complaints of the first kind.

Added brothers Raudebjorn, Valgard, and Yngvar.

When making separate sheets for our vassals, should we edit out the provinces in our sheets?

VoiD said
When making separate sheets for our vassals, should we edit out the provinces in our sheets?

I have no preference for how you organize it. You do what works best for you, so long as all the information is clearly displayed, and it is obvious which provinces are yours, and which belong to your vassals.

EDIT: Tomorrow's my day off, so nothing but working on the rules that day.

Good good. I will review what we have so far, and see if I can't spot any loopholes.