psychopathickids

Church and State: An Early-Modern Fantasy Vassal RP

Well, it's not necessarily. However, combining elements of the two disparate cultures into a single autonomous society is far more interesting than simply carbon copying one or the other with slight tweaks and twists thrown in to make either seem, "original,". Headhunting tribesmen protecting sacred groves and standing stones garbed in the bones and skulls of their enemies wearing painted, wooden masks and howling wildly to the beat of drums as they whirl about a burning wicker man in the light of the setting sun, rattling rain sticks carved of petrified wood filled with the knuckles of their ancestors whose sound is nearly drowned out by the screams of their dying, burning foes seems more interesting to me than, "this is my society. It's basically the Iceni celts, but I tweaked the names a little so now we have, 'drudai,' rather than druids,".

EDIT:

This of course is what their society was like before the introduction of Aed and the Southern backed monarchy, as well as the current state of the most zealous keepers of the old ways. My monarch certainly isn't running around in face paint burning people in wicker cages and collecting heads. Then again, everyone but the most extreme pro-Aed or pro-tradition is somewhere in between the two cultures.

Church and State: An Early-Modern Fantasy Vassal RP

Well then, color me interested. I'll start work on the history of my civilization if you'd be interested in having me aboard. I'm thinking something along the lines of Boudica-era Iceni/Celtic tribal cultures with a splash of West African hoodoo for flavor.

Church and State: An Early-Modern Fantasy Vassal RP

As for our fiefdoms, I can't imagine everyone involved is especially happy with the new order of things. Presumably there would be several independent proto-revolutionary elements in each of our territories, from displaced elements of former religious institutions to bitter children of deposed and disenfranchised lords and ladies, perhaps even members of the extended royal families, uncles, aunts, cousins and the like, who are unhappy with the growing influence the South exerts over their traditional lands and freedoms. Will this be a central theme in the role play itself, keeping the peace with our Southern overlords whilst appeasing nationalist factions and traditionalists within our own borders? Or would this simply be an optional concern one could choose to have to deal with should they so please?

Church and State: An Early-Modern Fantasy Vassal RP

Is there a certain ascetic or overall, "culture," if you will shared throughout the North? IE is the North representative of say Celtic/Germanic/Norse culture at the time of their respective Christianization, or would it be kosher to have a society based on whatever the players feel like? I mean, if someone wanted to have a society based on Ming Dynasty Chinese culture, albeit with acknowledgement of Aed, would that be allowed? Or should these societies be based on European cultures as they were first Christianized?

To Lund ap Lunds

FiendishFox said
Also thank you for the earlier compliment about my nation, that is what I had in mind when I made it.

You're quite welcome. :D There's nothing more important to me in creative writing than being true to your characters and setting, and when bordering a frozen wasteland it seems like having mostly scrubland and the occasional infertile fiefdom is more reasonable than having green pastures overlooking ice and rock. ^^

To Lund ap Lunds

Far more nonsensical than having up to thirty sub actions in a turn that's supposed to cover an entire season, sure. Have fun with that micromanagement nightmare. The point of my solution is that you don't have to spend hours strategizing up to (apparently) thirty posts worth of tactics and maneuvers to either catch up to raiders or, on the flip, raid without being murdered by a vassal's host, not to be realistic, which if you had been paying attention you would have picked up on by now. Also, your contingencies for raiding houses? Do try not to get your head blown off, and keep in mind that anyone whose information on doing anything illegal worth trusting will not be found spouting their immature little finger mouths off on the internet about it. <3

EDIT:

Then again, assuming the hyper in depth raid strategizing doesn't get to be too much for most people to handle, I'm sure it'll make for an interesting read, so from a purely roleplaying/creative writing perspective I do greatly prefer your system as mine is basically just, "sent one hundred spearmen to raid so-and-so's fiefdom. Stole six hundred bullis," where yours requires actual, you know, content. From a roleplayers perspective, however, even if you only write one hundred words per leg of the raid you'll end up writing novels worth of strategy by the time you're fifty seasons into the IC, which sounds, just, dreadful to have to write.

To Lund ap Lunds

Heyitsjiwon said
Suggestion. What if raiding farmlands also gets you crops as well? For example, a single infantryman can raid and take upto 10 crops? A horsemounted unit can carry 50. And if you also attack with ships, then they double your total unless your ships carrying capacity is less than that. In which case you can only take up to how much the ships can carry as well. Also , seasons. Spring = 1/4, Summer = 2/3, and fall = full value? Winter will yield no crops.Edit: Actually... numbers don't work. 5 for infantry and 20 for horsemen?

Just gonna conveniently double post real fast, because the thought of an infantryman carrying a year and a season's worth of food is just hilarious. ^^ And, I mean, five years worth of food on the back of a horse? Awesome.

EDIT:

Titanic said
Didn't they offer soldiers pillaged loot as pay back thenEdit: since no one would pay an army a season worth of pay, they could just offer a part of the loot to the raiders. Some goes to the raiders and some to The Lord.

Yes, they did, however this still isn't... I mean, are you guys trolling me? This is ridiculous. Assuming you can only raid once per season then giving them the entire proceeds wouldn't cover their expenses. Assuming you can raid thirty times in a season (which I'm pretty sure So Boerd just made up on the fly and is running with) the biggest worry your going to have is the fact that, at some point, someone's gonna show up and kill you all, and if they don't it's going to bankrupt their fiefdom, and assuming each post covers a season it's going to require some extreme micromanagement on your parts to decide just how many days it takes for someone's vassal to figure out your raiding his territory and bring a host to bear to kill you all, and... I still can't see how any of these suggestions are actually better than my very simple solution made all those posts ago, so I'm just gonna assume (hope) your trolling me at this point, and if not I seriously recommend signing up for an economics 101 class and/or drinking a cup or two of coffee.

To Lund ap Lunds

Well, shit, alright then. I wasn't aware there was an established rule that a raid lasted three days, suppose if anyone's fielding units that have more than sixty upkeep they deserve not to make any money raiding.

To Lund ap Lunds

Your missing the point. Three, six, ten, it makes no difference ~ it's the risk/reward ratio that matters. How many times can one raid in a season? That's the only way to know whether it's even feasible to have a set max that has nothing to do with the upkeep of the unit.

EDIT:

Also, how long are your turns supposed to be? I mean, really, your going to post every in game week saying, "yup, my soldiers are still pillaging the countryside,"? I thought the point of having seasons was that your posts each covered one season. I mean, I suppose you could order your units to just stay in an area until enemy soldiers came and made them leave, but even so how long can a group of soldiers stay in a territory pillaging before the enemy shows up with a host and kills you all?

To Lund ap Lunds

I kinda feel like you skipped to the end here, without reading the whole thing... That is the point I was making (half of it, at least). You literally lose money raiding. It is more expensive by far to raid than not to raid. If raiding can't at least cover your expenses it is not worth it unless it is doing pretty tremendous damage to the enemy, which as my numbers show it really isn't. The upkeep of a simple bowman is twice the maximum they can make raiding. However, I was under the impression that the two bullis max was per season. Assuming you can raid more than once in a season with the same unit, obviously my entire point up until now is void.

EDIT:

Although, no, my point really isn't void even then. Assuming you're exclusively using bowmen and spearmen then sure, you could make money doing it, or at least cover your losses depending on how many times per season a unit can effectively pillage said two bullis, but what of knights and other relatively expensive units? A knight's upkeep is what, seventeen (dunno, not checking)? So if you can raid nine times in a ninty day season then alright, you've covered your losses. Otherwise, assuming it takes longer than ten days to pillage each time anything with an upkeep of six or so is still going to be bleeding money in a raid. Another thought, you act as though you'd make more money attacking richer targets, but with a max of two bullis per pillage no matter how wealthy the target (not including raiding caravans) your still making, you guessed it, two bullis per soldier per pillage.