Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 55

Thread: Reforming Levies

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Poach's Avatar Civitate
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    26,766

    Default Reforming Levies

    Problem: Several people in the OOC thread have expressed having an issue with the way levies work, believing it to be unrealistic and that there are better solutions to forming armies in the field than our current levy system. So let's have a dedicated discussion.

    For starters, I've thought up my own idea and I've listed what I understand about the idea formulated by Ponti.

    1. "Levy, Militia and Professionals"

    We move from a 2 tiered system to a 3 tiered system that works like this:

    - Levies are the points values currently in the rules but we change it so that they are comprised entirely of Light Infantry and Archers. You no longer get any other unit type.
    --- Levies now take 24 hours to mobilise rather than 12.
    --- Levies will only serve for a maximum of 2 years (2 RL weeks) before disbanding and going home. They will not answer a summons to arms again for 2 more years after that.
    --- If we move back to vaults, calling your levy incurs a 1 off fee of 10 dragons per point. If your levy is 5,000 points, you pay 50,000 Dragons to bring them into the field. High Lords and Lords Paramount pay only for their personal levies, not for the levies of all their vassals too. This makes mobilising the realm a mighty tool, but also a very expensive one that, once used, has a lengthy waiting period before being useful again.
    --- When a High Lord calls their levy (or an LP calls their personal levy only), everyone inside their "kingdom" (eg, within the Reach) knows immediately and Westeros knows after 24 hours. When a Lord Paramount calls all his Banners, Westeros knows immediately.

    - Militia will act the way levies currently do and are accessed through buildings and edicts. Militiamen can be any Light/Heavy Infantry, Polearms, Archers and Light Cavalry.
    --- Militia will mobilise in 12 hours.
    --- Militia are accessed by building buildings and enacting edicts, which will now give +x militia points instead of +x levy points.
    --- Militia represent freedmen, burghers, individual sellswords etc who will go to war for pay, but aren't in the permanent employ of a Lord.
    --- Militia will cost 5 Dragons for every point mobilised. Since militia are worth more points per man and the number you can get via edicts and buildings will be restricted, the troops you can deploy this way won't be excessive.
    --- To balance this the cost of the militia edicts and buildings will be reduced somewhat to represent maintaining the ability to summon them and paying their wages while on campaign.
    --- If a Lord Paramount is calling his High Lords and their militia to him as well (eg generally mobilising), Westeros knows about it after 12 hours. Moderators can decide whether or not the knowledge is Westeros-wide, and it will generally depend on whether or not you're calling your vassals up as well: call up more Lords, word travels further.

    - Professional Troops will be the paid-for points-capped troops you can hire via the normal process we're all familiar with. These men represent full-time soldiers and can be any type of soldier.
    --- The only way to access elite troops is through this mechanism.
    --- They're always mobilised.
    --- I propose discussion on further limitations of the points cap to shift the bulk of a Lord's available fighting forces onto the militia and levy pools as opposed to having a formidable field army. Thus this "unit pool" will be comprised of only a few hundred men at most. At 3,000 points, for example, you'd get 1,000 Elite Infantry, which I feel would be adequate for representing an elite company of a Lord's full time soldiers.

    - Changes to Castles
    --- To facilitate this I think we need to move away from the idea that every Lord sat in an imposing and militarily significant castle. Minor castles should be easier to occupy and be more widespread, with major fortifications being truly noteworthy. This would mostly mean fortresses that we already give regional bonuses to because the Lore identifies them as castles of significance, while other castles will have their +Siege bonus heavily reduced and their ability to wait out sieges much shortened.
    --- This would make seizing land easier, but seizing important land harder. Riverrun would be very difficult to capture unless you can reliably sit outside it for a long time, but the scores of minor provinces throughout the Riverlands could be more easily occupied and looted.

    Pros & Cons:
    - It still gives players a small amount of troops to throw about for their own plans and influence.
    - It means summoning an actual full-sized army (eg your levy) is a major undertaking that Westeros will know about.
    - Your huge field armies will only last for 2 weeks and won't come back for another 2 weeks after that, so use them efficiently.
    - Still helps stop player-stacked regions from overpowering everyone else. A single active player will probably be able to gather no more than 8-10,000 points worth of professionals + militia meaning even 5 or 6 players in a single region can launch a surprise attack with only ~15,000 points (professionals only, Westeros will know if a bunch of Lords are gathering a larger army). Can't take a castle with that before your victims can marshal their own militias or even levies to counter-attack.
    - Allows for escalating crises to occur. Fighting starts with professionals doing raids or attacking soft targets, so people call up militias to beef up border regions and man vital positions, which then might end up with someone summoning their full levy for a massed invasion.
    - It stops the trivial levy summoning we saw in past games where every time we rolled an NPC rebellion or invasion everyone and their dog would call their banners and go fight it because why the not?
    - It might stop Lords Paramount being control freaks and crushing their vassals every time they pursue their own grudges or agendas inside their realms. This is one major challenge we've regularly failed to overcome: even with experienced players taking up LP positions they always resort to micromanaging their vassals and preventing them doing things independently. Players are products of the 20th century: we understand nationalism and think the Reach is a country when it's not. Lords Paramount really shouldn't care what their vassals do as long as it isn't blatantly breaking the law, and even then the Boltons publicly claim Skagos partakes in First Night and the Starks never even sent someone to check.

    2. "Levies and Professionals - Enhanced"

    The same system we currently have but instead levies are restricted to Light Infantry and Archers, take 24 hours to call up, will only last 2 weeks and go home for 2 weeks once demobilised, cost money to summon, and instead players will rely mostly on their own professional troops. This system could integrate with a proposal made by Ponti to create a far more detailed "Retinue" system where players have a highly-customisable group of a few hundred elite troops at most.

    This would still make summoning your levy costly and alert everyone to your intentions and would shift the focus to building a retinue of troops that will outperform some other setups and be beaten by others. A new battle system would have to be created to integrate such customisable troops.

    I'd rather Ponti, or someone who knows more about this proposed system, flesh it out in greater detail and I'll happily quote it here in the OP.

    3. Any other ideas?
    Last edited by Poach; December 14, 2015 at 01:19 PM.

  2. #2
    The Mad Skylord's Avatar Tribunus
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    The RPG Forums
    Posts
    7,493

    Default Re: Reforming Levies

    (Question for whoever knows enough about military history to answer))

    Shouldn't levies be more pike based? Peasants usually just strapped their tools to a long handle to make a pole arm - a rudimentary weapon. Shouldn't pikes be in the levy as well?

  3. #3
    Poach's Avatar Civitate
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    26,766

    Default Re: Reforming Levies

    My own impression of the levies was "Light Infantry" encompassed basically the peasantry with whatever weapons they had while Polearms (being worth 1.5 points) represented a more organised pike formation made up of people who had the money to buy some basic armour and an actual military weapon.

    Basically, light infantry:



    Polearms:


  4. #4

    Default Re: Reforming Levies

    Kinda am interested in this rework, though I kinda question this point:
    --- Levies will only serve for a maximum of 2 years (2 RL weeks) before disbanding and going home. They will not answer a summons to arms again for 2 more years after that.
    It will most likely nullify any wars, takeing longer than two years like i.e. Dance of Dragons or Second Blackfyre rebellion.
    I think the cost on levies will already make it more unlikely for people to start a war without a reason - thus makeing a penalty on it would overstretch the goals of this.

    Unless of course we reimplement the "Loyality" trait in form of granting the leading Lord for each +1 trait point an additional week his soldiers fight for him. That way people can plan some of their characters like Stannis, who fought in lore probably the most unsuccessful war, but still came back into the Game of Thrones due to people still believeing in his cause, no matter how few those were.
    And if you fully stack this trait, the maximum would be 5 years - imo it prepares you for any serious war, of course, but people would have to wager their risk in what way they design their characters, since a 5-year war might never happen at all.



  5. #5
    Poach's Avatar Civitate
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    26,766

    Default Re: Reforming Levies

    The War of Five Kings lasted 2 years according to the wiki. Dance of the Dragons lasted 3, Second Blackfyre Rebellion lasted 1.

  6. #6

    Default Re: Reforming Levies

    I like these changes. Levies are the largest body of troops and will provide numbers, but the costs associated with doing so are appropriately large. The one area I disagree with are the financial aspects of raising the levy. Instead, I would impose a 50k levy upkeep cost a week into raising the levy that if not paid, causes mass desertion to simulate supplies running out.

    Militias are well done as long as we move back to (perhaps a 5 instead of 3 tier system?) a vault/building system.

    Professional troops are just as they should be.

    I also think we should do a 100/50/25 free elite retainers for LPs/HLs/minors lords respectively.

    The proposal in total brings the game a lot more in line with traditional high medieval fighting. Something more realistic than a vague "raising of the banners" and reflects an actual escalation in war. Wars could be won solely by militia and professional troops only, while a realm wide war or in defense of an invasion might warrant a raising of the levy. I like that flexibility.

    Quote Originally Posted by Skylord_Conor21 View Post
    (Question for whoever knows enough about military history to answer))

    Shouldn't levies be more pike based? Peasants usually just strapped their tools to a long handle to make a pole arm - a rudimentary weapon. Shouldn't pikes be in the levy as well?
    Technically they should be more farming tool related. Axes, scythes, hoes, wooden spears, pitchforks.

    Quote Originally Posted by Poach View Post
    The War of Five Kings lasted 2 years according to the wiki. Dance of the Dragons lasted 3, Second Blackfyre Rebellion lasted 1.
    Wars and should be a bit more decisive than we have had them in order to reflect that. The changes proposed here could do that. If you lose all your professionals and militia, would it even be worth raising the levy to try to continue an attack? Maybe levies are only defensive tools? The strategy is infinitely more open to interpretation and experimentation.

  7. #7
    Poach's Avatar Civitate
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    26,766

    Default Re: Reforming Levies

    Quote Originally Posted by Pontifex Maximus View Post
    I like these changes. Levies are the largest body of troops and will provide numbers, but the costs associated with doing so are appropriately large. The one area I disagree with are the financial aspects of raising the levy. Instead, I would impose a 50k levy upkeep cost a week into raising the levy that if not paid, causes mass desertion to simulate supplies running out.
    We need it to be cost per point rather than just cost, otherwise Kingdoms like the Reach benefit unfairly. That's why I proposed 10 Dragons a point as a starting point, we need to look at levy sizes and see what's appropriate.

    Militias are well done as long as we move back to (perhaps a 5 instead of 3 tier system?) a vault/building system.

    Professional troops are just as they should be.

    I also think we should do a 100/50/25 free elite retainers for LPs/HLs/minors lords respectively.
    Vaults should come back, Skylord counted the votes and everyone who expressed an opinion was mostly in favour.

    Free retainers already exist and I had no intentions of scrapping them.

  8. #8

    Default Re: Reforming Levies

    Quote Originally Posted by Poach View Post
    The War of Five Kings lasted 2 years according to the wiki. Dance of the Dragons lasted 3, Second Blackfyre Rebellion lasted 1.
    I'm speaking about our RP wars - those lasted definitly most of the times longer than two weeks, can already tell you that.
    I mean, yeah, sure we always stretched the length of a year during event wars, but what about custom wars, started by someone for certain reasons like Reach-rebellion during our Post-Greyjoy-Rebellion setting?
    If those wars mean to last longer than 2 years, it is mostly the downfall of minor coalitions as the rest of the realm just waits till they wasted their yearly ammount and the rebell lords are locked afterwards for 2 years into their castles for no apparent reasons, while their casus belli is not completely decided. It will only result in people lacking of motivation to even start any war as the mightier lords only wait for the opportunity to strike.
    Vice versa it can be unfair as well, if a LP returned after fighting a war, but some High Lords did not join said war and then go for open rebellion, just because the rules force the LP to wait for two years till he is able to form an army again.

    Thus, I'm not a fan of the proposed mechanic, as it can get abused too easily by both sides. Make levies cost gold, yes, but do not force armies by rules into an unrealistic cryostasis of just waiting.



  9. #9

    Default Re: Reforming Levies

    That's the problem with wars: fight battles or gtfo. Far too much time is spent trying to convince other people to fight with you.

  10. #10

    Default Re: Reforming Levies

    Quote Originally Posted by Pontifex Maximus View Post
    That's the problem with wars: fight battles or gtfo. Far too much time is spent trying to convince other people to fight with you.
    Worked pretty well with our recent setting. As much as I liked the attitude behind it, but the direct Manderly-Peake battle right at the beginning made it already into a direct win for the Gardeners due to Manderly haveing lost nearly his entire host, while Peake got crippled as well.
    The thing is, that these are not wars, however but pretty much small decesive battles - an overhaul on the period of time how long an army is allowed to stand will just turn the entire RP into small decesive battles only.
    And even though it was a defeat for me battle-wise, I wish future wars in RP to rather turn out like in the Blackfyre setting. Multiple fronts, single fights were able to decide stuff, but retreating of armies and relocateing them on other positions still mattered while this conflict lasted at least 3 weeks, if I recall correctly with some armies besiegeing positions like the Bloody Gate or Harrenhal, while at the same time a battle for Winterfell was fought.

    If we limit players too much in the ammount of time, they are able to plan a war and actually fight it, we limit as well the possibilities for battles like these.
    Which would be imo boring, as my aim is definitly on getting a larger conflict done than just the same plain one side VS the other side conflicts.

    Therefore: It is a good idea to make raising levies actually cost gold, so people do not only race for the best infrastructure/the best retainers and items in the game, but don't put a time limit on them. Vassals are not sellswords, who just look on a watch and say "Screw you!" right before the decisive battle after a long-lasting war, when you fought off already two major factions and only few single bulwarks are to be breached.



  11. #11
    Poach's Avatar Civitate
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    26,766

    Default Re: Reforming Levies

    Professional troops, militias and sellswords will form the fighting force you use for protracted conflict. Levies are meant to be an "all-in" move.

  12. #12
    Poach's Avatar Civitate
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    26,766

    Default Re: Reforming Levies

    Levies do need to go home to tend the fields, though. At this point I also feel like you're deliberately ignoring the other two types of troops. You know levies are one of three types, right?

  13. #13

    Default Re: Reforming Levies

    If levies are away from more than two years it should incur on a penalty, because your fields would have been abandoned for a couple of years, thus next year's income would be seriously reduced until the usual productivity is recovered. If levies had to stay longer you could have a roll penalty and anger your NPC vassals, who have been away from home more than needed. Also, the commander should do some rp to keep his army on the field, like a required upkeep, a symbol of purchasing supplies and such to keep the army fighting. Not paying the upkeep would incur on morale penalties, lessening the military prowess of the army. Also, we should do something to represent the atrition and how difficult is to mantain an army on service.

    What you think, Pontifex?

    Left: artwork by the great Duncan Fegredo.

    A link to my Deviantart's account.

  14. #14

    Default Re: Reforming Levies

    We need a food mechanic, I think. Doesn't have to be complex, but we need one. It would determine how long you could hold a siege, take a large body of troops on campaign, etc.

  15. #15
    The Mad Skylord's Avatar Tribunus
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    The RPG Forums
    Posts
    7,493

    Default Re: Reforming Levies

    Do remember that we can't pile on mechanic after mechanic. That would make wars far too daunting to actually commit to.

  16. #16
    Poach's Avatar Civitate
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    26,766

    Default Re: Reforming Levies

    People seem really unwilling to accept the idea of a levy being a temporary force.

    I also agree with Skylord. We're playing a forum RPG not an actual game with an engine: everything we do we must do, and police, manually. Complexity is not the way forward.

  17. #17
    Dirty Chai's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    17,263

    Default Re: Reforming Levies

    I think thats what the steep upkeep cost is for.

    But, we still should have a negative effect on weekly incomes for provinces that have their levies raised, after a certain amount of time.
    Imagine a Lannister LP who only raises his own levy of the Rock - he surely pay for that easily.
    So having it raised for a certain time should also greatly punish that province (perhaps escalating).

    @Siege and Castles,
    Yes, Poach, I do agree that most "castles" should be relatively easy to capture compared to places like Riverrun, Blackwood, etc.
    However, at the same time, all those minor lords should also be unable to capture each others' tiny tower keeps most of the time, they'd have to put tons of energy and money into it - so much so that its easier (for both sides) to just agree to a treaty at the point when one side manages to force his enemy into his keep.
    For the besieged - if you're sieged up in your keep, surrounded, you're not taking in ANY of your province's income, period. Besieged for half a year should take away -50% income, for example.

    The small minor fief-on-fief (imagine small time barons in southern France, just for historical example) warfare that we want to encourage should rarely include actually besieging and capturing holdings. In stark contrast, more powerful lords (like rich HLs and LPs) can bring in all the works - a tower house doesn't even need a catapult for an LP to bring that sucker down.

    Or maybe they should be fairly easy to capture, and it should only be the castles with regional bonuses that are interpreted to have walls, towers, etc? Those should definitely be hard to capture, holdfasts they are.

    I guess that I mean: The difficulty for minor lords to capture each others' keeps should be the same as the difficulty in LPs trying to capture each others' keeps.
    LPs trying to capture a minor lord's keep would be easy, etc (I'm pretty sure a trebuchet would only need a few shots to knock down a typical tower keep).

    ----------------------------

    With the possible Ironborn setting, Poach, we can just experiment a new system(s) for all this in a smaller framework, without doing away completely with the old rules (in case the new ones don't work right).
    Last edited by Dirty Chai; December 14, 2015 at 04:48 PM.

  18. #18
    Poach's Avatar Civitate
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    26,766

    Default Re: Reforming Levies

    So people want levies to be in the field indefinitely for as long as whoever commands them can keep paying the fee every 2 weeks? I don't agree with that in the slightest but we tend to be democratic, if people want peasant levies to be indefinite I suppose they'll be indefinite...

  19. #19
    Dirty Chai's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    17,263

    Default Re: Reforming Levies

    Actually I don't, I see them temporary too - I just think we should have negative effects make people not have them around for long.

  20. #20
    The Mad Skylord's Avatar Tribunus
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    The RPG Forums
    Posts
    7,493

    Default Re: Reforming Levies

    Rather than making them cost upkeep, we may be better with say - -30% income the first week they are raised, -40 the next, -50 the next and capping at -60? Bearing in mind that the fields wouldn't be allowed to just rot. Woman and children would burst themselves to take in the harvest rather than let it rot in the ground.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •