|
Post by tetramorph on May 18, 2021 12:39:30 GMT -6
I was reading Melan 's review of geoffrey 's new wilderness module. He linked out to this thread that was discussing geoffrey 's principles for increasing the level of danger the further from the keep (civilization). I know others have discussed this kind of principle, and I like it. The rules state that, when establishing a barony: We have been following this pretty strictly in our Hollow Lands (sub)campaign for some time now, with one exception. In terms of game-ability, for example, if we assume the settlements and strongholds already on the map have cleared the land for themselves (perhaps we ought not assume this, but anyway), then the whole 20 mile radius would leave almost no wilderness, proper, on the map. Which is not very fun when you are trying to play a wilderness game. It also seems large for a typical barony in a temperate climate. I've therefore ruled that we are to clear 10 miles, or a radius of two hexes from the hex within which the stronghold lies. This is 5 hexes across or 25 miles. So a messenger could travel across the whole barony in one day. Or go from the center to the edge and back in one day -- making command control make more sense. Also, it just makes for a more manageable campaign clearing 19 hexes rather than, what is that, 42 (sorry, numbers)? It also means less overlapping of boundaries leading to border disputes between baronies. (Again, maybe you want this, but most of my players want their characters to be in alliance with their former adventuring party members.) Anyway, that is what we are doing. (Perhaps there should be a difference between baronies based around strongholds compared to those based around the pre-existing settlements? Hmm.) It is fine as a game. But there is a way in which it does not feel "realistic." There is no way that you would just clear a circle from your keep. You would clear land that made sense in terms of natural resources and natural boundaries. For example, a lot of the strongholds are in mountains. You would not just clear a circle of mountains. You would head for plains or woods nearby and seek control over them. Or perhaps a mountainous stronghold would just never qualify for a barony, but would always serve as some kind of guard station along a trade route within a realm or between two allied baronies, etc. So I've been wondering about what the OS board would be like, in game terms, if you combined some of the following principles: 1. 19 or 20 clear hexes controlable per barony (you can argue with me on that one), without having to conform to a circle, with 2. The recognition of natural boundaries, such as (perhaps): a. no more than one-hex deep into a mountain range or desert b. no more than one-hex beyond a river, inclusive of the hex within which the river runs (unless there is a ford or bridge, maybe?) c. no more than two-hexes deep into a wetland or forest And then, from there, 3. Follow the basic principle that the further from the keep / cleared land, respectively, (and how to distinguish these effects from one another?) the more wild the wilderness becomes. Anybody want to produce a color-coded map of the OS board for me? Seriously, though, thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Punkrabbitt on May 18, 2021 14:33:58 GMT -6
Aww, geez, man, you're making my head hurt!
But, in truth, that makes a lot of sense. For me, using the 30-mile hexes of the Greyhawk map, I always figured the characters would clear the better part of a hex with the borders still a bit encroaching.
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on May 18, 2021 19:29:33 GMT -6
It also seems large for a typical barony in a temperate climate. I've therefore ruled that we are to clear 10 miles, or a radius of two hexes from the hex within which the stronghold lies. This is 5 hexes across or 25 miles. So a messenger could travel across the whole barony in one day. Or go from the center to the edge and back in one day -- making command control make more sense. Also, it just makes for a more manageable campaign clearing 19 hexes rather than, what is that, 42 (sorry, numbers)? It also means less overlapping of boundaries leading to border disputes between baronies. This makes a great deal of sense (including some of the later concerns about terrain effects on the WS board). It also matches the conditions for castle encounters in U&WA: in the stronghold hex itself - 3-in-6 chance occupants will come out; one hex away - 2-in-6 chance; two hexes - 1-in-6 chance. So the effect would be to make space three or more hexes away more likely to be a wilderness encounter. One caution about the effects of terrain - keep in mind that many castles have occupants and servitors who are capable of flight. So while terrain will have an effect, the flight ability will lessen that. Just a thought.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on May 18, 2021 20:21:28 GMT -6
It is fine as a game. But there is a way in which it does not feel "realistic." There is no way that you would just clear a circle from your keep. You would clear land that made sense in terms of natural resources and natural boundaries. A lot depends on how you see a "stronghold"; is it a strategic fortification that depends on imported supplies, or it is a (more or less) self sufficient manor? Land that is cleared of monsters can only really remain cleared if it is occupied (e.g., patrolled or farmed), otherwise monsters will just come back later. Moreover, the self-sufficient manor requires not just any land, but arable land. We can (with a bunch of assumptions) reverse engineer an estimate of "how much" arable land a stronghold requires to be self-sufficient. To start, U&WA says "there will be" 2-8 villages of 100-400 population within a stronghold. Okay, so that's an average of 5 villages with an average 250 population each or a total average of 1,250 people. According to Shattocke a 13th-century village family comprised an average of 3.5 to 4.5 individuals. Ish. Cleaves suggests 50-75 households per village. 62.5 households at 4 people per households = 250 people, which is bang on what U&WA is suggesting for an "average" village. But how much arable land does a village require? A Hide (or Carucate) was the area of land a single ploughman could cultivate and hence the land required to support a family. The exact area varied by land quality and conditions, but it was generally 60-180 acres. It was later (post 1066) standardised to 120 acres. A quarter hide was a virgate. An acre was the area of land an oxen team could plough in a day. The exact size varied by region and period but was eventually standardised to 1 furlong (40 poles, 660 feet) long by 4 poles (66 feet) wide. Which is 4,840 sq yards or 4,046 sq meters. So that gives us roughly 640 acres (or 5.33 hides) to every sq mile. Then we need to know the area of a map hex. www.omnicalculator.com/math/hexagon tells us that the area of a 5-mile wide hex = 21.65 sq miles = 13,856 acres = 116 hides. So with all this, we can figure out how much arable land a village requires, and therefore how many hexes it needs on our Wilderness map. Then we'll have a more-or-less "believable" picture of how many (arable) hexes a self-sufficient stronghold with X many villages should occupy on our map. Something like this: A village of 100 people will require 23% of an arable 5-mi-wide hex. A village of 150 people will require 32% of an arable 5-mi-wide hex. A village of 200 people will require 46% of an arable 5-mi-wide hex. A village of 250 people will require 60% of an arable 5-mi-wide hex. A village of 300 people will require 69% of an arable 5-mi-wide hex. A village of 350 people will require 83% of an arable 5-mi-wide hex. A village of 400 people will require 97% of an arable 5-mi-wide hex. So, essentially, we're talking three small, two medium, or one large-sized village per arable 5-mile hex. Forest, swamp, mountain, desert hexes shouldn't count as arable. That said, I find the 5-mile hex a bit coarse-grained for this kind of thing, and somewhat awkward in a game with 3" movement increments. 3 mile hexes are an alternative that works better for me. FWIW, Outdoor Survival actually has 5 km = 3 mile hexes anyway. The area of a 3-mile wide hex = 7.8 sq miles = 4,988 acres = 42 hides. So a 3-mile wide hex is roughly one-third the area of a 5-mile wide hex. From there we can figure: A village of 100 people will require 64% of an arable 3-mi-wide hex. A village of 150 people will require 90% of an arable 3-mi-wide hex. A village of 200 people will require 128% of an arable 3-mi-wide hex. A village of 250 people will require 167% of an arable 3-mi-wide hex. A village of 300 people will require 192% of an arable 3-mi-wide hex. A village of 350 people will require 231% of an arable 3-mi-wide hex. A village of 400 people will require 269% of an arable 3-mi-wide hex. So at this zoom-scale we're talking about one, two, or three arable 3-mile hexes required for each small, medium or large-sized village, respectively. Hope that's useful
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on May 18, 2021 23:38:42 GMT -6
So I've been wondering about what the OS board would be like, in game terms, if you combined some of the following principles: 1. 19 or 20 clear hexes controlable per barony (you can argue with me on that one), without having to conform to a circle, with 2. The recognition of natural boundaries, such as (perhaps): a. no more than one-hex deep into a mountain range or desert b. no more than one-hex beyond a river, inclusive of the hex within which the river runs (unless there is a ford or bridge, maybe?) c. no more than two-hexes deep into a wetland or forest For #1. Ideally, there'd be a clear relationship between the number of arable hexes the player is able to keep clear of monsters/invaders/trouble, and the number of villages and farmers (and hence tax income) that spring up/exist in his domain. Hence the player would have a financial incentive to expand/maintain his realm. Some more ideas for #2... Mountain: Is largely a strategic obstacle rather than useful land. Impassable except by air or by road or tunnel which could be found (by exploration) or developed (at a cost). Will not attract permanent farming but potentially has some development possibilities (quarry, mine, ...). Can nominally be counted as part of a domain, but is challenging to truly occupy, and essentially is a permanent obstacle and/or source of monsters. Swamp: Another obstacle. Passable only by air or by exploration with routes tending to be transient across years. Will not attract permanent farming and has dubious development value, but will be a haven for monsters who might raid nearby hexes. Can nominally be counted as part of a domain, but is essentially a nuisance hex that must be managed. Subject to periodic flooding. Desert: Passable but inhospitable land. Will not attract permanent farming and has minimal development possibilities, but can still shelter monsters and nomads who might raid nearby hexes. Can nominally be counted as part of a domain, but is really another nuisance hex. River: Impassible except by air, boat, or at a bridge or ford. Flood plains are fertile farmland so that each river hex counts as a full arable hex even when only one bank is occupied. Counts double if both banks are occupied. Development opportunities include fishing, bridge, shipbuilding, water mill, irrigation, water traffic taxes, and more. Subject to periodic winter flooding. Forest: Another obstacle. Mostly impassible except by air or by road which could be found (by exploration) developed (at a cost). Will not attract permanent farming but has development possibilities (road, lumber, hunting, trapping ...). Can shelter monsters and feys who might raid nearby hexes. Can nominally be counted as part of a domain, but is essentially an obstacle until developed. Subject to periodic summer fires in dry climates. Another important consideration is where the player chooses to build the stronghold itself; the seat of his domain. Ideally, it should be near enough to defend the villages and other assets. But perhaps it's also important to guard a mountain pass, road, or waterway? Should it command a wide open view of the plains or be carefully hidden? Should it be built near to local raw materials and the available workforce to control costs, or should no expense be spared in shipping everything from Timbucktoo to KingdomCome? All fun to think about...
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on May 21, 2021 16:55:47 GMT -6
One caution about the effects of terrain - keep in mind that many castles have occupants and servitors who are capable of flight. So while terrain will have an effect, the flight ability will lessen that. Just a thought. That is a good reminder. I often forget the affects of the fantastic on the "realism" of this so-called medieval fantasy world. (After all the magic and fantasy creatures, it doesn't feel so "medieval," in terms of "tech" and economics, anymore, does it?) Thanks man.
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on May 21, 2021 17:03:47 GMT -6
Land that is cleared of monsters can only really remain cleared if it is occupied (e.g., patrolled or farmed), otherwise monsters will just come back later. Moreover, the self-sufficient manor requires not just any land, but arable land. Okay, arable land: yes. In the main. I can imagine, however, enough lucrative investments in woods for timber, game and furs, in marshes for peat bog distilleries and rice paddies, in mountains for mining and in deserts for . . . okay I'm stumped there. But enough sources of wealth that they could reasonably trade with another nearby region for bread. So one barony with arable land might become the breadbasket for another barony that is chiefly engaged in mining, etc. That is straight up awesome. Thanks for all the calculations that led to that. I am consistently amazed at how well Gygax and Arneson just wound up eye-balling things so well. Sorry, I'm in deep too far to reconsider the hex scale. 5 miles it is, for the referee. Yes. As always.
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on May 21, 2021 17:15:48 GMT -6
Some more ideas for #2... Mountain: Is largely a strategic obstacle rather than useful land. Impassable except by air or by road or tunnel which could be found (by exploration) or developed (at a cost). Will not attract permanent farming but potentially has some development possibilities (quarry, mine, ...). Can nominally be counted as part of a domain, but is challenging to truly occupy, and essentially is a permanent obstacle and/or source of monsters. Swamp: Another obstacle. Passable only by air or by exploration with routes tending to be transient across years. Will not attract permanent farming and has dubious development value, but will be a haven for monsters who might raid nearby hexes. Can nominally be counted as part of a domain, but is essentially a nuisance hex that must be managed. Subject to periodic flooding. Desert: Passable but inhospitable land. Will not attract permanent farming and has minimal development possibilities, but can still shelter monsters and nomads who might raid nearby hexes. Can nominally be counted as part of a domain, but is really another nuisance hex. River: Impassible except by air, boat, or at a bridge or ford. Flood plains are fertile farmland so that each river hex counts as a full arable hex even when only one bank is occupied. Counts double if both banks are occupied. Development opportunities include fishing, bridge, shipbuilding, water mill, irrigation, water traffic taxes, and more. Subject to periodic winter flooding. Forest: Another obstacle. Mostly impassible except by air or by road which could be found (by exploration) developed (at a cost). Will not attract permanent farming but has development possibilities (road, lumber, hunting, trapping ...). Can shelter monsters and feys who might raid nearby hexes. Can nominally be counted as part of a domain, but is essentially an obstacle until developed. Subject to periodic summer fires in dry climates. What you are doing here is expressing the reasoning behind my more abstract and game-y "no more than one / two hexes deep" rule. I would factor things like fire and flood into the abstraction of general campaign / barony rules events. I love thinking about this. The next time (?!) I start up an OS board campaign (the one I am in has been following the circle rules for so long it is too late to reverse steam on that one) I will develop my rulings in this direction so that once players start establishing baronies they know that what they are going for, more or less, is arable land where anything other than "plain" counts as borders to their domain. In my experience so far, there is very little stronghold building. All baronies established on the OS board in my Hollow Lands sub-campaign within the Perilous Realms have been "hostile take overs." So they find the tower of the Nefarious Al'Nitak the Necromancer. They take him out. They take over. I do bleed them of some gold for "repairs and differed maintainance." Then they have to recruit and hire an army. They clear the land. Then they have their barony. It has been an awesome, large-scale, long-term OS board campaign. It has really been a lot of fun.
|
|
|
Post by cometaryorbit on May 24, 2021 2:21:34 GMT -6
Mountains and deep forests might be favored sites for dwarven and elven communities - not technically "strongholds" in this sense though, I suppose, as dwarves and elves don't reach "name level". It also seems large for a typical barony in a temperate climate. Yeah. I think the 20 mile radius (~1250 square miles) kind of implies a rather larger map, and is likely due to the authors being American - and thinking on an US scale rather than a medieval-kingdoms scale (the Great Kingdom map is loosely based on North America). 1250 square miles is not a terribly unusual size for counties in the western US... There are some really large ones, but these are mostly in desert areas with little population density. We can (with a bunch of assumptions) reverse engineer an estimate of "how much" arable land a stronghold requires to be self-sufficient. To start, U&WA says "there will be" 2-8 villages of 100-400 population within a stronghold. Okay, so that's an average of 5 villages with an average 250 population each or a total average of 1,250 people. Yeah - that's probably a "minimum to sustain the stronghold", a barony just carved out of wilderness - investments (except hunting and trapping) can increase it. (1 person per square mile is a super low density...)
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 3, 2021 22:12:38 GMT -6
He linked out to this thread that was discussing geoffrey 's principles for increasing the level of danger the further from the keep (civilization). I know others have discussed this kind of principle, and I like it. The important piece re: threat-level increasing with distance-from-home hasn't received much discussion (at least not in this topic). I see that geoffrey improvised a perfectly reasonable approach, but I wonder: has anyone found/seen anything in the published OD&D (or closely related) rules that implies this type of threat progression in the wilderness?
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Jul 4, 2021 7:03:30 GMT -6
The important piece re: threat-level increasing with distance-from-home hasn't received much discussion (at least not in this topic). I see that geoffrey improvised a perfectly reasonable approach, but I wonder: has anyone found/seen anything in the published OD&D (or closely related) rules that implies this type of threat progression in the wilderness? Yes, this is more to the heart of my OP. I have not been able to find anything like this. Recently I started studying the JG Wilderlands. But they still seem basically to have a random approach to lairs and the like. Ways, you helped me reason out most of what became the base of my own campaign house rules and what I shared in my little retro-supplement. Maybe you could help me reason this out, while I have the brain and time for it because it is summer? I'll try to post some ideas soon.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 5, 2021 20:17:02 GMT -6
Sure tetramorph. I've been looking into the whole "distribution of monsters & treasure" and encounter frequency in the wilderness lately. It's a bit of a gap in the 3LBBs (U&WA) despite wilderness map building and lair allocation receiving detailed treatment in Arneson's FFC. U&WA essentially gives us two tools: 1. The "Wandering Monsters" frequency by terrain type (U&WA pp17-18), 2. The wilderness encounter tables (U&WA pp 18-19). We miss out on the whole section on lair placement in hexes given in FFC Considering 1., U&WA has it that players are 50% likely to encounter monsters in swamp or mountain terrain on any day; 33% likely to encounter monsters in woods, desert, or river terrain; and only 17% likely each day in "city" or "clear" terrain. Personally, I'm reading "city" more as "developed" cos obviously genuine cities would be rare. FFC has "human habitation" covering cities, castles, villages, and hamlets. So, crudely, it's telling us there are three danger levels insofar as frequency of monsters: . Mountain and swamp are the most dangerous terrain. . Woods, desert, or river terrain are middling. . City and clear are the least dangerous terrain. The ecological habitability of terrain (i.e., abundance/scarcity of water, food, life) doesn't appear to be the main factor. I.e., one might imagine that "city" terrain would be absolutely teeming with life compared to desert terrain, but not according to U&WA. Climate and season also appear to be largely ignored. Anyways. Considering 2., U&WA's tables are pretty clearly a rewrite/adaption of Arneson's tables in FFC, where the types of monsters that could be encountered are based on terrain types. So... terrain types are also differentiated by the more or less dangerous types of monsters that can be encountered in them. A closer examination of FFC would be helpful, but ultimately I think the challenge level associated with tracts of wilderness is a macro concept left largely to the referee. E.g., FFC has: <<Other color can be added at the referee discretion, who should have enough to go on now to finish the job>>. It could be driven at the generic "terrain type" level--possibly introducing additional or mixed terrain types for variation. Or a finer level of detail could be achieved, if desired, by designating encounter frequencies and encounter tables by map region rather than terrain type. E.g., not all forests or swamps or plains need be equal; some can be more or less perilous than others based on what is going on within them in the campaign setting.
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Jul 6, 2021 11:03:50 GMT -6
@thewaysoftheearth, I've been going back and doing a lot of reading in this old thread: odd74.proboards.com/thread/9063/outdoor-survival-mapOne thing I think would help me would be the exact ratios of villages (settlements), castles and lairs/dungeons to one another and to the # of hexes. Everyone seems to have a slightly different hex count. Were there different versions of the board? One thing that makes me crazy is that it seems like there are way too many castles. I also wish I had the mad computer skills to manipulate the board and, for example, at some lakes and a coastline. What does the FFC say about lair placements? Right, the issue is how dangerous the terrain is: dangerous terrain = monsters more likely to live there. I kind of like that. I also don't mind the abstraction of not paying any attention to weather or seasons. I can just layer that on top. It suits me fine because, with regards to monsters, I don't want any "ecology" beyond the very basic (dragons have locale inclinations; dinosaurs are in swamps, etc.). I want them to be the aberrations that they are. I don't want them to become naturalized and just big scary animals. But you are right, there are three levels of threat, and they are bound to the difficulty of the terrain for a human being. This makes some sense. We know that clearing land and placing a stronghold more or less holds monsters at bay. There are just more monsters where it is more difficult for human beings to live and pass through and keep them at bay. I love how JG has the expected villages and castles, but also lurid lairs and ruins and relics. Good stuff. Also, if there was a coastline and the mountains were islands, we could have some idyllic isles as well. Good stuff to start chewing on. Thanks, Ways.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 6, 2021 18:44:54 GMT -6
One thing I think would help me would be the exact ratios of villages (settlements), castles and lairs/dungeons to one another and to the # of hexes. That information is in the 6th table in my post here. Everyone seems to have a slightly different hex count. Were there different versions of the board? Probably because the OS board is not cut perfectly along hex edges or centerlines. There are fractions of hexes around the edges of the boards, so the final count will depend somewhat on how the person counting deals with these. What does the FFC say about lair placements? Quite a lot. It has a whole section of several pages dedicated to wilderness map construction and what's found in each hex. I also don't mind the abstraction of not paying any attention to weather or seasons. I can just layer that on top. In my current musings I'm leaning toward wrapping climate into variations of the basic terrain types. I.e., the "clear/open" terrain type becomes: steppe, grassland, or savanna in cold, temperate, or tropical climates, respectively. Most kingdoms/domains/game settings tend to be built around a single climatic zone, so I wouldn't expect to see these variants side-by-side on a map, but they can help to illustrate transition into different climate zones on a map (i.e., from the temperate south into the frozen north), and influence the flavour of monster types in a region. I.e., white dragons in cold climates, versus blue dragons in hot climates. Seasons can be ignored, I think, with the basic operating assumption that adventures generally occur during a (spring-summer) campaign season, and that everyone is holed up in their village or castle over winter. But you are right, there are three levels of threat, and they are bound to the difficulty of the terrain for a human being. I think a 4th threat level is: the patrolled stronghold, which is (notionally) free of monsters. An implied 5th threat level might be: the unpatrolled stronghold, which is becoming monster-infested again. This is more or less explicit in FFC, which has a section on annual monster migration restocking unprotected areas. Notable that the dungeon environment achieves 8 (or 9 with the upper works) threat levels by distributing monsters from 6 monster level tables to each dungeon level. So... one could conceivably mirror this approach in the wilderness. I.e., by having 6 monster level tables, and pulling monsters from across them based on terrain type and/or distance from civilisation. Conveniently, the number of terrain types in U&WA (6, ignoring "city" which could theoretically occur in any of the others) aligns with the number of underworld Monster Level Tables (6). But inconveniently, the terrain types appearing in U&WA (clear, woods, desert, mountain, swamp, river, and "city") don't align neatly with either Earth's major topographies (coast, mountains, plains, plateaus, and hills) or biomes (rainforest/jungle, temperate forest, desert, steppe/tundra, boreal forest/taiga, grassland, and savanna). So, it's a bit of an odd mashup that adds in rivers and swamps but also ignores oceans and coast. Aaaand... then there are a bunch of additional, cross-over, or niche terrain types and other possibilities that pop up when you start thinking about it (e.g., farmed/cultivated, littoral, wetlands, glaciers, volcanos, undersea, underground, cloudscapes, asteroid belts, etc). All good
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Jul 7, 2021 12:04:39 GMT -6
But inconveniently, the terrain types appearing in U&WA (clear, woods, desert, mountain, swamp, river, and "city") don't align neatly with either Earth's major topographies (coast, mountains, plains, plateaus, and hills) or biomes (rainforest/jungle, temperate forest, desert, steppe/tundra, boreal forest/taiga, grassland, and savanna). So, it's a bit of an odd mashup that adds in rivers and swamps but also ignores oceans and coast. Aaaand... then there are a bunch of additional, cross-over, or niche terrain types and other possibilities that pop up when you start thinking about it (e.g., farmed/cultivated, littoral, wetlands, glaciers, volcanos, undersea, underground, cloudscapes, asteroid belts, etc). All good :) Yes, I know what you mean. That said, I assume the OS board is more or less within the same climate zone. So if we place it near the equator, then we have jungles, sand dune deserts, mangrove swamps, and savannas. If we place it in a temperate zone, then we have forests, scrub brush, marshes and plains or grasslands. If we place it in a subarctic zone, then we have pine forests/ taiga, tundra, mires and steppes. Also, I like the notion of a kind of fantasy compression of zones, either caused by a compressed climate, like in the JG wilder lands, where we are in an ice age and the 1K miles NtoS are hemmed in by encroaching glaciers on either side. Or just because magic and ancient alien technology are screwing with the climate. Then you could have it range from jungle, through woods, up to pine trees on the same board. I thing the topographies are the biggest bummer. It was just designed to be a not so great board game. Avalon Hill asked, can we make a hex and chit game that is NOT a war game and OS is what they came up with. So here are some simple fixes: assume foothills along the lea of any mountain range unless there is a valley with a river in it. Perhaps the whole board is on a plateau. Or, we could assume the mountains indicate uplifts and place plateaus in the plains surrounding them. That would allow us to make some canyons where the river flows from upland to lowland. Then, you could flood the board with some water on one or more side, make the mountains into chains of islands, then turn the land nearest the water into coastland. This would take work and you would have to be able to fiddle with it. I could self-publish out of MSWord alone. But that is pretty much the only program I have true facility with. I wouldn't know the first thing about making an awesome hex map on my computer!
|
|
|
Post by cometaryorbit on Jul 9, 2021 0:56:48 GMT -6
The ecological habitability of terrain (i.e., abundance/scarcity of water, food, life) doesn't appear to be the main factor. I.e., one might imagine that "city" terrain would be absolutely teeming with life compared to desert terrain, but not according to U&WA. Climate and season also appear to be largely ignored. Anyways. This may be because only potentially dangerous things count as "encounters" - the "Men" in Vol. 2 are all warlike/bandit-type or at least aggressive (Cavemen) types. Ordinary peasant farmers or townspeople -- or even merchants and pilgrims (which are in the AD&D Monster Manual) -- aren't included.
City/clear are probably terrain with some human use, so there's lots of life, but it's people and their domestic animals (not necessarily farmland - the "clear" terrain would presumably also include plains/steppes with nomadic horse cultures, etc.)
|
|
|
Post by cometaryorbit on Jul 9, 2021 1:16:05 GMT -6
But you are right, there are three levels of threat, and they are bound to the difficulty of the terrain for a human being. I think a 4th threat level is: the patrolled stronghold, which is (notionally) free of monsters. I agree, a patrolled stronghold is more clear/safe than "clear".
[Not sure how "city" encounters fit with the safety of strongholds though. Perhaps this is for a Greyhawk type city with a very dangerous underground that may include vampires & other undead, lycanthropes, etc.]
I think the U&WA ones implicitly assume a more or less temperate or temperate/subtropical environment ... grassland, temperate forest (woods), desert, and mountains are the major terrain types (with swamps and rivers getting special treatment because of their travel relevance, maybe?) -- tropical rainforest/jungle, boreal forest, and tundra aren't considered.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 9, 2021 7:17:26 GMT -6
City/clear are probably terrain with some human use, so there's lots of life, but it's people and their domestic animals (not necessarily farmland - the "clear" terrain would presumably also include plains/steppes with nomadic horse cultures, etc.) Perhaps. On the other hand, cities and towns are the economic power centres. They attract and generate wealth, which attracts thieves, bandits, circuses, pageants, cults, heroes and superheroes, villains and super-villains, mercenary companies, hunting parties, spies, plots, pretenders, and all manner of intrigue and adventure. Meanwhile, a desert is quintessentially about miles and miles of hot sand
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 9, 2021 7:33:19 GMT -6
I thing the topographies are the biggest bummer. It was just designed to be a not so great board game. Agree. The scale is of the OS map is clearly a bodge. Mountain ranges and rivers, in particular, are waaay larger in reality than depicted in OS. A mountain range is typically (on Earth) 75-100 miles wide, which would be at least 25 (3-mile) hexes, or 15 (5-mile) hexes wide. The 186 rivers listed here are between 600 and 4,000 miles long. Clearly, this isn't going to work on a board at the OS scale. One remedy might be to call mountains "hills" and rivers "streams", or similar. So bring it all back to a more localised experience. The other way would be to increase the size of hexes, maybe 20-fold. With 60 mile hexes, 1-3 hex wide mountain ranges would be believable, and rivers could be hundreds--or maybe even over a thousand--miles long. But this would have serious implications for outdoor movement. Perhaps then each wilderness move would need to be a month rather than a day?
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Jul 9, 2021 9:26:26 GMT -6
waysoftheearth , good points. The river thing doesn't bother me as much. I always imagined that the OS board was kind of the source of this river and that the river continued on a considerable length to the north beyond what is shown on the board. The mountain thing is a problem. What about 25m hexes? Then assume that on either side of any mountain range extending at least one hex into whatever terrain is depicted that there are large foothills. We could put the move rate by week instead of day. This would also move the OS board from being about the size of Slovakia or North Carolina to being about the size of a small continent, like Europe. Maybe that is a good thing?
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 9, 2021 18:18:58 GMT -6
This would also move the OS board from being about the size of Slovakia or North Carolina to being about the size of a small continent, like Europe. Maybe that is a good thing? Outdoor Survival actually uses 5 km wide hexes, so the board area is something near to 30,916 sq km. Slovakia (49,000 sq km) and North Carolina (139,000 sq km) are both substantially larger. The OS map truly covers a land area nearer to that of the US states of Hawaii (28,313 sq km) and Maryland (32,131 sq km), or the Kingdom of Lesotho (30,355 sq km) in South Africa, the country Belgium (30,528 sq km) in western Europe, or the Great Bear Lake (31,080 sq km) in Canada. See other similar sized entities here. If we instead assume 5 mile wide hexes (as does U&WA), then the board area is immediately scaled to 267% of its actual size, which is then 30,916 sq miles or 80,072 sq km--still only around 57% the size of North Carolina. Entities close to 80,000 sq km include: the US state of South Carolina (82,933 sq km), Scotland (78,772 sq km), the Czech Republic (78,886 sq km), and the medieval Kingdom of León (81,342 sq km) which was basically the northern part of modern Spain. See other similar sized entities here.
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Jul 9, 2021 18:53:31 GMT -6
Wikipedia says "In a survey of seven English counties in 1279, perhaps typical of Europe as a whole, 46 percent of farmers held less than 10 acres"..."Thirty-three percent of farmers held about one-half virgate of land (12 acres (4.9 ha) to 16 acres (6.5 ha))".... "Twenty percent of farmers held about a full virgate"...."A few farmers accumulated more than a virgate of land"..."Thirty-two percent of arable land was held by the lord of the manor." 46% * 10 acres per farmer + 33% * 14 acres per farmer + 20% * 30 acres per farmer + 1% * 60 (lets assume) acres per farmer = 15.82 acres per farmer But we also need to factor in demense land, which accounts for 32% of cultivated land... 15.82 acres / (100% - 32%) = 23.26 acres per farmer So the max village size of 400 inhabitants / 4 people per family = 100 farmers... would require 100 farmers * 23.26 acres per farmer = 2326 acres of land So cultivated land for the largest village would take up 16.7% of the land in a 5-mile hex. Even adding in the manor house, common pasture, and village proper only a small portion of the hex is utilized.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 9, 2021 19:44:12 GMT -6
Nice Red Baron I also calculated how much land area each village should occupy, in a different way, over in another of tetramorph's thread recently. Might be interesting to see how those results align to these. For Red Baron's calculation, is it worth considering that a farmer's "holdings" might not be all the land he worked? Serfs were obliged to work their Lord's land as well as whatever they had to sustain themselves. Perhaps we shouldn't exclude the 32% of arable land held by Lords (if it was "arable" land, then presumably somebody was farming it)? Also, note these farmers held less than the amount of land quoted. We don't know exactly how much less, but perhaps we should take the half-way point of each category as the average? This would imply a village occupied less arable land than indicated. Overall, I'm keen on adding some kind of farmland, pasture, or arable terrain type that represents the "civilised" part of the setting. This is excluded from OS because it is set entirely in a wilderness (that is the whole point of it), but a D&D setting can have broader coverage than just exclusively wilderness. So it would definitely be useful to know "how much" arable land area a village or town should occupy.
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Jul 9, 2021 20:10:35 GMT -6
Nice Red Baron I also calculated how much land area each village should occupy, in a different way, over in another of tetramorph's thread recently. Might be interesting to see how those results align to these. For Red Baron's calculation, is it worth considering that a farmer's "holdings" might not be all the land he worked? Serfs were obliged to work their Lord's land as well as whatever they had to sustain themselves. Perhaps we shouldn't exclude the 32% of arable land held by Lords (if it was "arable" land, then presumably somebody was farming it)? Also, note these farmers held less than the amount of land quoted. We don't know exactly how much less, but perhaps we should take the half-way point of each category as the average? This would imply a village occupied less arable land than indicated. Overall, I'm keen on adding some kind of farmland, pasture, or arable terrain type that represents the "civilised" part of the setting. This is excluded from OS because it is set entirely in a wilderness (that is the whole point of it), but a D&D setting can have broader coverage than just exclusively wilderness. So it would definitely be useful to know "how much" arable land area a village or town should occupy. Yep, I think this is the same thread. I was replying to say that the one hide per family of four is way too big, and it seems that the average family of four cultivated closer to 1/8 of a hide. As for the demense land, the land per person INCLUDING the lords demense is 23 acres per family, whereas the land per family NOT INCLUDING the lords demense is 15 acres, so the 30-something percent is actually what is increasing that value from 15 to 23.
|
|
|
Post by rsdean on Jul 10, 2021 3:59:30 GMT -6
Depending on your arrangements, the cultivation of the demesne land is probably where your 10gp/ivillager value is coming from…
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Jul 10, 2021 6:51:48 GMT -6
Depending on your arrangements, the cultivation of the demesne land is probably where your 10gp/ivillager value is coming from… Agreed. A hide is supposed to generate one pound silver of revenue, but is only taxed at 1/10 of a pound (2 shillings). Therefore, revenues from tenant land are (15.82 acres per family) / (1 hide per 120 acres) * (1/10 pound per hide) = 0.01318333 pounds per family. And revenues from demesne land are ((23.26 - 15.82) acres per family) / (1 hide per 120 acres) * (1 pound per hide) = 0.062 pounds per family. Per hundred village inhabitants (or 25 farmers) this works out to Hide tax per 100 villagers: ~0.33 pounds Demesne revenues per 100 villagers: 1.55 pounds Demesne revenues are 4.7 times greater than tenant tax revenues. For a new barony with an average of 5 villages of 250 individuals, revenues would be Hide tax for 1250 villagers: ~4.12 pounds Demesne revenues for 1250 villagers: 19.38 pounds Which sums to 23.5 pounds per year. The Baron would not likely collect this entire revenue, as many of the manors and their associated incomes would be enfoeffeled to the baron's knights and retainers.
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Jul 10, 2021 11:02:20 GMT -6
waysoftheearth, I was assuming the U&WA rules of 5m hexes. I had forgotten the countries and pulled them out of my head. Yes, South not North Caroline. Yes, Czech Republic, ,not Slovakia. My bad. My main point was that moving to 25m hexes makes the place continental in size and that turns in weeks might work well. Red Baron, thanks for all this helpful math. I go the opposite direction. I assume the 100-400 populate indicates the number of able-bodied men. I also assume a slightly larger, more medieval extended family of 5 souls per able bodied man. So a village of 100 is 100 able bodied men for a total of 500 souls. How would that effect the calculations for the use of an arable 5m hex?
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Jul 10, 2021 11:25:06 GMT -6
waysoftheearth, I was assuming the U&WA rules of 5m hexes. I had forgotten the countries and pulled them out of my head. Yes, South not North Caroline. Yes, Czech Republic, ,not Slovakia. My bad. My main point was that moving to 25m hexes makes the place continental in size and that turns in weeks might work well. Red Baron, thanks for all this helpful math. I go the opposite direction. I assume the 100-400 populate indicates the number of able-bodied men. I also assume a slightly larger, more medieval extended family of 5 souls per able bodied man. So a village of 100 is 100 able bodied men for a total of 500 souls. How would that effect the calculations for the use of an arable 5m hex? Medieval English villages had about 100-400 people total, but if you wish to use able bodied men instead (for a wilderlands-style writeup?) it is pretty easy to convert. The acres cultivated per farmer remains the same if we increase the number of farmers (about 15 acres of tenant land and 8 acres of demesne per farmer). If the number of farmers was increased from 25-100 to 100-400 then the total land used and total revenues collected in a village are both just scaled up by a factor of 4. We also need to factor in common pasture for land use since each 15 acres of land needs an ox to plow it. Assuming free grazing with lots of waste, let's say 5 acres per ox (since they aren't using rotational grazing or mob grazing or other best practices). So we need to add 5 acres pasture for every 15 of cultivated land. Including both pasture and cultivated area: For a village if 100 families this results in 22% land utilization. For a village with 250 families this results in 56% land utilization. For a village of 400 families this would be 90% land utilization. The remaining portion of the hex would be filled by the village, manor, and some light woods and hedges where firewood can be gathered. Hilly and rocky areas can be used for common pasture leaving the more arable land for cultivation.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 11, 2021 3:31:28 GMT -6
I was replying to say that the one hide per family of four is way too big, and it seems that the average family of four cultivated closer to 1/8 of a hide. Thanks RB. I agree it is important to figure this out correctly Wikipedia has more detail on the definition of a Hide: and (further down): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hide_(unit)So I guess a hide was originally meant to be the land required per family, but eventually, it was more about the income generated by the land; 1 hide being the amount of land that could produce £1 of income annually. So the difference between our calculations might be due to: 1) the differing definition of a "hide" over time (from: the amount of land required to sustain a family, to: the amount of land required to generate £1 of income), and/or 2) the proportion of land that was actually utilised. E.g., take a look at the illustration at the top of the page here. Clearly, it's not showing wall-to-wall, total land utilisation! and/or 3) the portion of land (or "holdings") dedicated to farming. E.g., some land was left fallow each season (typically one-half or one-third), and some portion of land was used to pasture livestock rather than grow crops. I'm as keen as the next guy to understand the farming footprint of towns and villages, so I can make "convincing" maps. I use "scare quotes" because the main person that needs convincing is, of course, me! All a part of this glorious hobby
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 11, 2021 6:35:08 GMT -6
Red Baron, from the wikipedia section you quoted upthread: So... this is saying that almost half of farmers had insufficient land to feed their families. So an important question is: How did almost half the farmers in England survive?The same wikipedia section also says: So one-quarter hide--also known as a virgate--or roughly 30 acres (even though a hide was by now not a fixed size!) was enough land to be considered wealthy. Also, from another source: Life in a Medieval Village describes a manor of 500-600 people who farmed an area of 758 ha (1,872 acres). 182 ha (451 acres) belonged to the Lord of the manor (an abbot); the rest fed the villagers. The manor had 113 "tenants" (i.e., named farmers); the remaining 437 people were their families (women, children, and the elderly). 1,872 acres (total) - 451 acres (belonging to the Lord) = 1,421 acres split between the 113 families. 1421/113 = 12.5 acres per family. So, these numbers are much nearer to Red Baron's than my numbers upthread
|
|