Military Units revisited

[DaimosofRedstone]

Archers
We redefined them as a mix of whatever range weapons you can cobble together so you would see crossbows and bows in the same unit making another split along this lines unneccessary.

Cavalry
This stay as was, but we split it into three categories
- Heavy Cavalry
This is the armored, lance-wielding, charging your ass-type knightly cavalry cost stay the same, traits stay the same, etc.
- Light Cavalry
Practically Raiders on horses. Cost reduced by 2, no Moral-bonus (they are painfully aware that almost everybody on the battlefield, save for peasants and archers, is better armoured than them).
Armor Rating 1, no Armor Penalty, Bulk, Athletics as Fighting Damage, Agility-1 for close Range attacks (think javelins, axes, etc.), same key abilities as cavalry
They move at 12, instead of 8 since the horses carry less weight and are generally faster.
- Missile Cavalry
Light Cavalry with Long Range Marksmanship attack, at Agility +1, Key Abilities Agility, Animal Handling, Marksmanship.
They move at 10

Criminals
Stays as is.

Crusaders
Always wondered if GreenRonin just put it in to make a statement about religious fanatics.
We kicked it since it is basically infantry.

Engineers
Stays as is.

Garrison
Got a Short Range Marksmanship attack at Agility when inside fortifications.

Guerillas
Got same Morale Stat as Garrison, defining their 'land' as an area where they have connections with the smallfolk.

Infantry
Stays as is.

Mercenaries
Stays as is.

Peasant Levies
Stays as is.

Personal Guards
Mounted as Heavy Cavalry, can only have one per House (for Head of Hosue or his heir, though one can go to battle without the other).

Raiders
Key Abilities: Stealth, Endurance, Fighting

Sailors
Kicked them.

Scouts
Stays as is.

[Zaruthustran]

Interesting split for the Cavalry. Where in the book does it define equipment for the various troop types?

I added a couple troop types, taking the book's suggestion to expand a unit's skills by simply combining existing units. So:

Viking Commandos (Engineers + Guerillas). Cost: 4. Discipline: +6. Skills: Athletics, Endurance, Fighting, Marksmanship, Stealth, Warfare.

Wardens (Special + Garrison). Cost: 6. Discipline: -3/+3. Skills: Animal Handling, Agility, Awareness, Endurance, Fighting, Marksmanship.

The viking commandos are just that. They sneak up, hurl spears and axes, smash into melee, fade away. They excel at disrupting supply lines and demolishing depots/watchtowers.

The Wardens are mounted troops modeled after hussars. They use sabers (same mechanics as Braavosi blade) and recurve bows, what for to use Agility for both weapons' damage. Armored in breastplates, these guys are classic light cav: harass at range until the enemy breaks, then charge in and cut down.

With six skills, these guys don't really work unless Elite (7 skill points, so five skills at 3 and one at 4). I suppose the Viking Commandos can get away with a 2 in Warfare (the base level for any skill on a unit's list), allowing two 4s or one 5.

[DaimosofRedstone]

Where in the book does it define equipment for the various troop types?

?

I figure the Wayfinders are basically viking commandos. Sneak up, hurl spears and exes, smash into melee, fade away. They excel at disrupting supply lines and demolishing depots/watchtowers.

Wouldn't Raiders be that without Engineer addition? Watchtowers could/should be takable with a big axe to smash in the door and a second man with a big shield to see of stones and other nasty surprises from above. Since there are no flanking position that can protect the zones that the tower itself cannot protect extensive siege equipment is not needed and Raiders would waste one of their core abilities if they were to carry around equipment.

The Wardens are mounted troops modeled after hussars. They use sabers (same mechanics as Braavosi blade) and recurve bows, what for to use Agility for both weapons' damage. Armored in breastplates, these guys are classic light cav: harass at range until the enemy breaks, then charge in and cut down.

Nah, to exploity for me, especially since i do not see sabers in the same league as a fencing blade (first slashes, while the second pricks until you decide to run the other party through wit your blade).

[Cataphract]

Actually, Arakh works fine as a saber. Pretty much a curved, slashing blade, except the first looks more like a khopesh in aesthetics.

I doubt the Braavosi blade translates to a rapier in real life- especially considering the way Syrio Forel fights, both in the book and the series. Personally, I consider it more of a 1500's cut & thrust sword. (Check the entry at : http://www.thearma.org/SwordForms.html ).

[Zaruthustran]

Where in the book does it define equipment for the various troop types?

?

I'm asking for a page number that shows equipment for the various troop types. What sort of armor do Guerillas wear? What resource is spent if you'd like to upgrade unit equipment?

I figure the Wayfinders are basically viking commandos. Sneak up, hurl spears and exes, smash into melee, fade away. They excel at disrupting supply lines and demolishing depots/watchtowers.

Wouldn't Raiders be that without Engineer addition?

Raiders lack some key skills, notably Stealth, Athletics, and Warfare. Athletics is for damage and mobility, Stealth is so they can effectively infiltrate and hide, and Warfare is so they can determine where and what to hit--and operate independently.

The Wardens are mounted troops modeled after hussars. They use sabers (same mechanics as Braavosi blade) and recurve bows, what for to use Agility for both weapons' damage. Armored in breastplates, these guys are classic light cav: harass at range until the enemy breaks, then charge in and cut down.

Nah, to exploity for me, especially since i do not see sabers in the same league as a fencing blade (first slashes, while the second pricks until you decide to run the other party through wit your blade).

Suit yourself. The term "Saber" was for flavor; in-game, just use the stats for Braavosi blade and picture it however you like. There's no reason you couldn't use one from horseback. Saber works for me because it's certainly an Agility-based weapon. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBTtq2Gzm6w , if you'd like a dramatic example.

[Cataphract]

Where in the book does it define equipment for the various troop types?

?

I'm asking for a page number that shows equipment for the various troop types. What sort of armor do Guerillas wear? What resource is spent if you'd like to upgrade unit equipment?

That's another issue of the books- while it says that you can spend wealth to upgrade Armor, it doesn't say you also add Bulk or Armor Penalty- and who would? Another thing to address.

I figure the Wayfinders are basically viking commandos. Sneak up, hurl spears and exes, smash into melee, fade away. They excel at disrupting supply lines and demolishing depots/watchtowers.

Wouldn't Raiders be that without Engineer addition?

Raiders lack some key skills, notably Stealth, Athletics, and Warfare. Athletics is for damage and mobility, Stealth is so they can effectively infiltrate and hide, and Warfare is so they can determine where and what to hit--and operate independently.

I think that he also wants them to have sapping skills. Kind of a far fetch, but hey it's fantasy.

The Wardens are mounted troops modeled after hussars. They use sabers (same mechanics as Braavosi blade) and recurve bows, what for to use Agility for both weapons' damage. Armored in breastplates, these guys are classic light cav: harass at range until the enemy breaks, then charge in and cut down.

Nah, to exploity for me, especially since i do not see sabers in the same league as a fencing blade (first slashes, while the second pricks until you decide to run the other party through wit your blade).

Suit yourself. The term "Saber" was for flavor; in-game, just use the stats for Braavosi blade and picture it however you like. There's no reason you couldn't use one from horseback. Saber works for me because it's certainly an Agility-based weapon. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBTtq2Gzm6w , if you'd like a dramatic example.

[/quote]

Well, the video is kind of typical horrible movie stunt fighting which has nothing to do with actual sabers. Of course, since I see the Braavosi as a cut & thrust weapon which functions rather similar to a saber, I can see how Agility can fit with the equation, especially if you model later, lighter Saber models as opposed to the older, heavier ones. Contrast:

[DaimosofRedstone]

Raiders lack some key skills, notably Stealth, Athletics, and Warfare. Athletics is for damage and mobility, Stealth is so they can effectively infiltrate and hide, and Warfare is so they can determine where and what to hit--and operate independently.

They got all those, albeit only at 2. The Stealth part i share, Athletics i do not since they are not particular devastating they hurt by being mobile and as for warfare: units do not know where to hit and will not by getting Warfare (warfare, as far as i can make it out is for siegecraft), that is what a leader is for,a commander or subcommander.

Suit yourself. The term "Saber" was for flavor; in-game, just use the stats for Braavosi blade and picture it however you like. There's no reason you couldn't use one from horseback. Saber works for me because it's certainly an Agility-based weapon. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBTtq2Gzm6w , if you'd like a dramatic example.

Well, movies aint particular ahmm... accurate in depicting battles, though i would still like to point you, for a visual representation, to Braveheart.
Fencing, to me, is to 'stick it where it hurts'. Light cavalry is for riding down fleeing enemies, killing other outriders, pillaging and maybe charging into the back of enemy formation. Two of these are actually battlescenarios and in both cases the cavalry tries to hack down enemies. No finesse, no fancy fencing, just galloping up and splitting heads.
And i do not see how agility, e.g. fine manipulation, comes into play there?

Additional i would claim that a Braavosi Blade is about the worst weapon you can be stranded with on a battlefield since a narrow, straight blade neither gives you the bludgeoning power of a straight sword, nor the slashing power of curved blades and is likely to break before you can get it out of your opponents body after you skewered him.

[Cataphract]

Additional i would claim that a Braavosi Blade is about the worst weapon you can be stranded with on a battlefield since a narrow, straight blade neither gives you the bludgeoning power of a straight sword, nor the slashing power of curved blades and is likely to break before you can get it out of your opponents body after you skewered him.

While I agree that a rapier is not as good a battlefield weapon as a civilian one, I will disagree that a sword "bludgeons" (Well, unless you hit somebody with the pommel or the cross!), it cuts (and thrusts, of course, but that's another thing). Rapiers are absolutely unable to cut (except for minor tip cuts against the face), much as Hollywood tries to convince us otherwise (Three Musketeers, I'm looking at you).

Also, I will state again that I doubt the Braavosi blade is an actual rapier. Arya's sword isn't even a rapier- it's an 1800s smallsword, especially the one they show in the movie, but of course that was the intended design. Here's a nice video from ARMA about the sidesword/cut & thrust: http://www.thearma.org/Videos/LessonOnSideVLong.mp4

Some more Cut & Thrust videos (albeit older):
http://www.thearma.org/Videos/routine1.avi
http://www.thearma.org/Videos/routine2.avi
http://www.thearma.org/Videos/Redo1.1.avi
http://www.thearma.org/Videos/Redo1.2.avi

[DaimosofRedstone]

Additional i would claim that a Braavosi Blade is about the worst weapon you can be stranded with on a battlefield since a narrow, straight blade neither gives you the bludgeoning power of a straight sword, nor the slashing power of curved blades and is likely to break before you can get it out of your opponents body after you skewered him.

While I agree that a rapier is not as good a battlefield weapon as a civilian one, but I will disagree that a sword does not bludgeon (Well, unless you hit somebody with the pommel or the cross!), it cuts (and thrusts, of course, but that's another thing). Rapiers are absolutely unable to cut (except for minor tip cuts against the face), much as Hollywood tries to convince us otherwise (Three Musketeers, I'm looking at you).

It cuts and thrusts as well, but medieval swords also did bludgeoning, especially against anything stronger than chainmail, with more advanced armor you got more and more swords that would counter armor not by cutting or thrusting through it but by transmitting blunt force to the body beneath the armor. It is obvious that you would not spend a lot of time honing the edge of a sword that will be blunt everytime you use it (especially since you still can do a world of hurt to somebody who is unarmored by hitting him with a metal 'stick').

Also, I will state again that I doubt the Braavosi blade is an actual rapier. Arya's sword isn't even a rapier- it's an 1800s smallsword, especially the one they show in the movie, but of course that was the intended design.

Whatever it is, i would not want to be caught with a small sword or a rapier on a battlefield where people wield axes, clubs, maces, swords and spears, in one word real close quarter weapons. For that matter i would also prefer a rifle with or without a bayonet or an entrenching tool to a smallsword.

[Cataphract]

It cuts and thrusts as well, but medieval swords also did bludgeoning, especially against anything stronger than chainmail, with more advanced armor you got more and more swords that would counter armor not by cutting or thrusting through it but by transmitting blunt force to the body beneath the armor. It is obvious that you would not spend a lot of time honing the edge of a sword that will be blunt everytime you use it (especially since you still can do a world of hurt to somebody who is unarmored by hitting him with a metal 'stick').

Again, I'll disagree. Swords have been documented to be able to break mail links, true, but against plate armor your best bet is half-swording to find a gap. At best, you could strike someone's helmet with force, to stun them, but consider that aside from the armor you're also wearing a padded gambeson underneath that cushions you and protects you from any shock short of a dedicated bludgeoning weapon such as a warhammer. The only case where I can see that blunt force was effective was, as I said, the head or the hands (gauntlets or no, you can still break fingers with a powerful strike).

Also, swords were honed. They were sharp, but not razor sharp- there was no point in that (pun intended ). Instead, they had robust, durable edges that could cut with forceful blows (http://www.thearma.org/essays/howacutworks.htm). There was no need to slice apart hair or handkerchiefs- a sword was made to cleave through flesh and bone. Otherwise, if you're going to have a metal stick, get a mace or iron-shod club- much cheaper and more durable than a sword. A sword did not have the reach of the spear, the force of the warhammer, or the cleaving edge of the axe- but where the above were specialized, a sword was much more versatile and able to adapt. Unarmored? Cut him up. Armored? Thrust at him, or pummel him, or mordschlag him (hit him with the cross, like a warhammer).

Whatever it is, i would not want to be caught with a small sword or a rapier on a battlefield where people wield axes, clubs, maces, swords and spears, in one word real close quarter weapons. For that matter i would also prefer a rifle with or without a bayonet or an entrenching tool to a smallsword.

Definitely. While some early rapiers did see battlefield use, they were not particularly popular, and they were shadowed by the more versatile and battlefield-savvy cut & thrust swords of the era (such as the English Broadsword, Scottish Claymore (the term correctly refers to the basket-hilted single-hander, not the two-handed greatsword) etc.).

Smallswords even more so- Military men of the era preferred the saber (Not the light italian duelling sabers, from which the sport of saber fencing evolved).

[DaimosofRedstone]

It cuts and thrusts as well, but medieval swords also did bludgeoning, especially against anything stronger than chainmail, with more advanced armor you got more and more swords that would counter armor not by cutting or thrusting through it but by transmitting blunt force to the body beneath the armor. It is obvious that you would not spend a lot of time honing the edge of a sword that will be blunt everytime you use it (especially since you still can do a world of hurt to somebody who is unarmored by hitting him with a metal 'stick').

Again, I'll disagree. Swords have been documented to be able to break mail links, true, but against plate armor your best bet is half-swording to find a gap. At best, you could strike someone's helmet with force, to stun them, but consider that aside from the armor you're also wearing a padded gambeson underneath that cushions you and protects you from any shock short of a dedicated bludgeoning weapon such as a warhammer. The only case where I can see that blunt force was effective was, as I said, the head or the hands (gauntlets or no, you can still break fingers with a powerful strike).

Pity is, that you cannot carry your own arsenal. Sometimes you just need to pick one and make the best out of it.
So if i had to get somebody in plate armor with a sword i would go for bludgeoning, which would still to me much more good than slicing and dicing. I someone would not feel confident that i would be able to exploit gaps in the armour. I would rather keep him occupied until somebody else (always close in a battle) bludgeons him with something.

[Zaruthustran]

Raiders lack some key skills, notably Stealth, Athletics, and Warfare. Athletics is for damage and mobility, Stealth is so they can effectively infiltrate and hide, and Warfare is so they can determine where and what to hit--and operate independently.

They got all those, albeit only at 2. The Stealth part i share, Athletics i do not since they are not particular devastating they hurt by being mobile and as for warfare: units do not know where to hit and will not by getting Warfare (warfare, as far as i can make it out is for siegecraft), that is what a leader is for,a commander or subcommander.

Certainly, if you don't intend to train any abilities higher than 2, then there's no need to expand a unit's skill list. That's why I pointed out it's only worthwhile to combine units (forming the Viking Commandos, for example) if you intend to make them Elite, and take advantage of the broadened skill list by training them to 3 or more.

The Warfare skill is detailed on page 68. Among other things, "Warfare is used extensively in combat and warfare but may also be used outside of combat to look for areas or opportunities for strategic or tactical advantage." The specialties are Command, Strategy, and Tactics. By giving this skill to the Commandos, it's reasonable to conclude that they can operate independently (NC commander within the unit) and intelligently assess, plan, and execute missions.

Suit yourself. The term "Saber" was for flavor; in-game, just use the stats for Braavosi blade and picture it however you like. There's no reason you couldn't use one from horseback. Saber works for me because it's certainly an Agility-based weapon. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBTtq2Gzm6w , if you'd like a dramatic example.

Well, movies aint particular ahmm... accurate in depicting battles, though i would still like to point you, for a visual representation, to Braveheart.

Well, sure, movies are entertainment, and often take dramatic license from reality. Keep in mind, though, that the purpose of Song of Ice & Fire RPG is to model a fictional fantasy series of books. Not history.

Braveheart's a good flick, though I admit I don't recall too many sabers. If you're looking for cinematic depiction of sabers in battle, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9x5ADYWXeo .

Fencing, to me, is to 'stick it where it hurts'. Light cavalry is for riding down fleeing enemies, killing other outriders, pillaging and maybe charging into the back of enemy formation. Two of these are actually battlescenarios and in both cases the cavalry tries to hack down enemies. No finesse, no fancy fencing, just galloping up and splitting heads.
And i do not see how agility, e.g. fine manipulation, comes into play there?

Keep in mind that all melee weapons use the same ability: "Fighting". Fencing is one of many specialties, and each of those specialties describes skill with an item (as opposed to a particular style of fighting). So yes, while in your mind the term "Fencing" brings to mind Princess Bride 1:1 dueling, the game rules don't care. Style isn't part of the equation. All the game cares about is the tag on the equipment list on Table 9-3. Braavosi Blade uses the Fencing specialty, in the same way that Longaxe uses the Axes specialty.

Agility comes into play because the Braavosi Blade bases damage on Agility. Again, see table 9-3. It doesn't matter why; that's what the rules say.

Additional i would claim that a Braavosi Blade is about the worst weapon you can be stranded with on a battlefield since a narrow, straight blade neither gives you the bludgeoning power of a straight sword, nor the slashing power of curved blades and is likely to break before you can get it out of your opponents body after you skewered him.

Well, with no damage bonus (it's just straight Agility), a Braavosi Blade wielded by a Agility 3 Fighting 3 trooper is certainly not going to crack plate. It's not intended to. The unit in question is light cavalry, designed to harry and chase down lightly-armored foes: archers, support troops, peasant levies. I'm comfortable with the units ability to accomplish that task.

But by all means, feel free to house-rule your own game and impose extra battlefield restrictions on Braavosi Blades, or any other weapon you wish.

[DaimosofRedstone]

The Warfare skill is detailed on page 68. Among other things, "Warfare is used extensively in combat and warfare but may also be used outside of combat to look for areas or opportunities for strategic or tactical advantage." The specialties are Command, Strategy, and Tactics. By giving this skill to the Commandos, it's reasonable to conclude that they can operate independently (NC commander within the unit) and intelligently assess, plan, and execute missions.

Well, the page you are citing is in a chapter called Character Creation. And as for independent operation due to commanders:
Well, if you think you need that in order for your Vikings (They are Iron Islanders), suit youself, but i think that is something that is completly unnecessary in a game since it is either uninteresting since your players are not involved in the operation or the point is moot because the players are with the raiders, in which case there is a commander anyway.

Well, sure, movies are entertainment, and often take dramatic license from reality. Keep in mind, though, that the purpose of Song of Ice & Fire RPG is to model a fictional fantasy series of books. Not history.

At that point all discussion becomes moot. Because you basically said:
Common Sense does not matter its a game.
That is a valid concept for a game but not particular useful for a discussion.


No, i do not look for cinematic depictions of saber fights.
Movies are supposed to look good and ...well the fighters are duelling and showing off and would be begging for a cut to the back or the knee in a battle (there is nothing that takes the fight out of somebody faster). The objective in a battle is not to fight your opponent with all that swirls and show-off, the objective is to kill the enemy as quickly as possible and get back to the whoring, the drinking and the general lifing.

Keep in mind that all melee weapons use the same ability: "Fighting". Fencing is one of many specialties, and each of those specialties describes skill with an item (as opposed to a particular style of fighting). So yes, while in your mind the term "Fencing" brings to mind Princess Bride 1:1 dueling, the game rules don't care. Style isn't part of the equation. All the game cares about is the tag on the equipment list on Table 9-3. Braavosi Blade uses the Fencing specialty, in the same way that Longaxe uses the Axes specialty.

Your point being?

[Cataphract]

Pity is, that you cannot carry your own arsenal. Sometimes you just need to pick one and make the best out of it.
So if i had to get somebody in plate armor with a sword i would go for bludgeoning, which would still to me much more good than slicing and dicing. I someone would not feel confident that i would be able to exploit gaps in the armour. I would rather keep him occupied until somebody else (always close in a battle) bludgeons him with something.

Which is why the sword (the two-handed longsword, specifically) had the advantage- it could be used to cut, thrust, slice, hammer or crush, with one or two hands, with a shield or other weapon, and could also be used to aid in grappling, locks, throws etc. But just bashing away at an armored person with a sword will simply annoy him at best, or if you get a lucky shot might crack a finger or two.

Of course, occupying somebody while another hits him from behind with something heavy is always a viable tactic!

[Cataphract]

Well, sure, movies are entertainment, and often take dramatic license from reality. Keep in mind, though, that the purpose of Song of Ice & Fire RPG is to model a fictional fantasy series of books. Not history.

Braveheart's a good flick, though I admit I don't recall too many sabers. If you're looking for cinematic depiction of sabers in battle, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9x5ADYWXeo .

Well, it does model a fictional fantasy series of books that is heavily based on reality. I don't see anime fights anywhere- on the contrary, in GRRM's bibliography he mentions reading books by John Clements from ARMA, which means he does try to portray as much realism as his artistic licence will allow and he's doing quite well.

Keep in mind that all melee weapons use the same ability: "Fighting". Fencing is one of many specialties, and each of those specialties describes skill with an item (as opposed to a particular style of fighting). So yes, while in your mind the term "Fencing" brings to mind Princess Bride 1:1 dueling, the game rules don't care. Style isn't part of the equation. All the game cares about is the tag on the equipment list on Table 9-3. Braavosi Blade uses the Fencing specialty, in the same way that Longaxe uses the Axes specialty.

Agility comes into play because the Braavosi Blade bases damage on Agility. Again, see table 9-3. It doesn't matter why; that's what the rules say.

The rules could say that you need to wear a pink hat to wield a halberd, doesn't mean we have to follow it- that's what house rules are for. Both armor and weapons in the game need a serious rehaul.

Also, the Princess bride duelling was extremely hilarious- and extremely ridiculous. Definitely not what most people who want a bit of realism in their combats should have in mind.

Well, with no damage bonus (it's just straight Agility), a Braavosi Blade wielded by a Agility 3 Fighting 3 trooper is certainly not going to crack plate. It's not intended to. The unit in question is light cavalry, designed to harry and chase down lightly-armored foes: archers, support troops, peasant levies. I'm comfortable with the units ability to accomplish that task.

One of the good things of the game is that unless somebody over-specializes, then there's not that much of a difference. Considering an average Agility 3 Athletics 3 Fighter, whether it's Braavosi Blade or Arakh, if it's held in one hand it does the same damage.

No, i do not look for cinematic depictions of saber fights.
Movies are supposed to look good and ...well the fighters are duelling and showing off and would be begging for a cut to the back or the knee in a battle (there is nothing that takes the fight out of somebody faster). The objective in a battle is not to fight your opponent with all that swirls and show-off, the objective is to kill the enemy as quickly as possible and get back to the whoring, the drinking and the general lifing.

I'll agree with that. Especially when it comes to armed combat, movies are notoriously ridiculous.

Because I have a feeling for where this conversation is going: Zaruthustran, you like your adaptation, obviously, and you have little desire to add any concerns of realism or tinker with the game rules too much, which I respect- it's your game, and that's how you roll. So, I think this one's pretty much done, stick it with a fork!