Author Topic: The lords and knights of Westeros  (Read 60761 times)

Sparehawk

  • Guest
Re: The lords and knights of Westeros
« Reply #15 on: March 31, 2008, 03:00:22 am »
I believe neither he nor his father are currently in the game, Crakehall being held by Tyrion Lannister. I believe that should be corrected. I think another warrior NPC would fit the mod well. Tyrion, at the least, is not a warrior. He is more of a planner, in truth.

Just to be honest, Crakehall is currently given to Stafford Lannister. Tyrion has no own castle, just a random village.

Offline HokieBT

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 514
    • View Profile
Re: The lords and knights of Westeros
« Reply #16 on: March 31, 2008, 07:37:07 am »

as discussed earlier I'm trying to figure out what the 20 NPC hero's should be renamed to.  The current list is the following: 

Anguy, Beric Dondarrion, Biter, Bronn, Chella, Gendry, Grand Maester Pycelle, Jaqen H'ghar, Lem Lemoncloak, Osha, Petyr Baelish, Qyburn, Rorge, Sandor Clegane, Shagga, Syrio Forel, Thoros of Myr, Timmet, Tom of Sevenstreams, Vargo Hoat

Does it make sense for any of these to be in our party?  I'm thinking no....  I liked the idea of creating random names and I think we should use many of the bastard last names so I found the following list on a wiki:

Each of the Seven Kingdoms have bastard surnames decreed by custom.
    * Flowers is the bastard name in the Reach
    * Hill is the bastard name for the westerlands
    * Rivers is the bastard name in the riverlands
    * Pyke is the bastard name on the Iron Islands
    * Sand is the bastard name of Dorne
    * Snow is the surname for bastards north of the Neck, generally referred to as the North
    * Stone is the bastard name in the Vale
    * Storm is the bastard name in the stormlands (II: 119)
    * Waters is the bastard name of Dragonstone and the Crownlands (III: 929)

So I figure we can just grab some first names from this page and add them to a few of these last names above.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_characters_in_A_Song_of_Ice_and_Fire

Now I'm trying to figure out the breakdown of the types of hero's?  How many knights, maesters, and other types of characters do we need?  Can we think of any other titles/roles for these hero's like squires, septons, trainers, traders, slavers, rangers, etc?  What should the breakdown be?

6 Knights - Ser Jared Stone, Ser Symon Rivers, ..., etc? (fighting skills)
2 Squires - Squire Beron Storm ? (fighting skills)
2 Rangers - Ranger Torrhen, Ranger Alyn ? (archery, tracking skills)
2 Maesters - Maester Loren, Maester Raymun ? (int, engineering skills)
1 Septons - Septon Martyn ? (healing skills)
1 trainer?
1 trader?
1 slaver?
4 random character names?

Jheral

  • Guest
Re: The lords and knights of Westeros
« Reply #17 on: March 31, 2008, 08:05:12 am »
Now I'm trying to figure out the breakdown of the types of hero's?  How many knights, maesters, and other types of characters do we need?  Can we think of any other titles/roles for these hero's like squires, septons, trainers, traders, slavers, rangers, etc?  What should the breakdown be?

6 Knights - Ser Jared Stone, Ser Symon Rivers, ..., etc? (fighting skills)
2 Squires - Squire Beron Storm ? (fighting skills)
2 Rangers - Ranger Torrhen, Ranger Alyn ? (archery, tracking skills)
2 Maesters - Maester Loren, Maester Raymun ? (int, engineering skills)
1 Septons - Septon Martyn ? (healing skills)
1 trainer?
1 trader?
1 slaver?
4 random character names?

Too much emphasis on knights, I think. I'd move half of those to the squire(actually, I'm not sure I feel comfortable calling them squires, since it implies that they're on the way to becoming knights themselves, thus making the two categories very similar, which I assume you didn't intend, but nvm that) and ranger categories. Also, it would be nice to have some wildlings/clansmen as npcs, perhaps even a dothraki(I doubt Vargo Hoat is the only dothraki on this side of the narrow sea, even if I can't remember anyone else at the moment).

Nahadiel

  • Guest
Re: The lords and knights of Westeros
« Reply #18 on: March 31, 2008, 09:06:35 am »
Executions often failed for psychological reasons - the executioner would not be too keen on the idea of killing someone, especially if he thought they were wrongly accused, or if they were nobility to whom he still had some sense of loyalty.  This usually manafested itself in either flinching or making a half-hearted strike, thereby getting far worse results than you would expect even from a good clean blow from a kitchen cleaver.  Also, in the case of the French revolution, their blades were just dull - this happens when you have 5000 executions to do today.  For game reasons, it's probably reasonable to expect troops to go in with their weapons sharpened and fight for their lives, making the execution analogy a little off.

An axe or the guillotine don't kill by their sharpened edge (slashing injury) , but for a mix of their weight and their shape (called blunt-slashing injury) so don't matter if the edge is not perfectly sharpened. I mentioned the analogy cause is the easiest situation to chop a head or a limb: stationary and unarmored with a prepared weapon/killing tool. In a combat is difficult to aim for the head or shoulder to cut them in a single strike.


And actually, the femur - the upper leg bone - is the largest bone in the human body (and most other large animals).  Almost anything is easier than cutting that.  Having processed some meat from various animals, and so tried this, I'll say any bone on the body is going to cut easier than that.

The femur is naturally designed to support vertical forces, indeed. That's why horizontal and hellycoidal fractures are the worst while vertical ones only happen in its surgery neck (near the waist) and usually in old people cause it bends to fit the waist bones. I know that cause I study medicine and have assisted to some forensic and trauma lessons. It's easier to break a bone with a blunt weapon or even easier with a blunt-slasing weapon like an axe than with an only slashing weapon. A single vertebrae (inside the body, not over a table) is more difficult to break with a slashing strike than the femur if you don't use a blunt weapon.

The British cav would lead with the point of the saber because they were not being issued lances, like they really needed.  A slash from horse requires a little bit of timing to be effective, plus the formation must be loose enough to allow you to swing, while the point of a lance just has to be on target.  But since they weren't being issued lances, they made do with their sword points.  (George Patton proposed U.S. cav trade in their sabers on straight double-edge longswords, for exactly this reason ... but they traded their horses for tanks instead.)  Good, heavy, sharp swords instead of those flimsy cav sabers would have fixed the problem too... but rapier dueling was popular, so everybody was designing their swords MUCH too light at the time.  (This was never a problem before 1500 or so.)

British Lancers regiments had lances and sabers as backup weapons in case the enemy came really near after the charge. Other cavalry regiments as Hussars or Dragons had sabers as main close combat weapon. I'm reading a book of Crimean war and it shows some declarations of soldiers preferring to hit with the point cause the saber just didn't passed trough Russian coats in a swung hit.

As for armor, it was still a question of what you "can" do or what you "want" to do.  You "can" carry 200 pounds of junk, if you're determined to do so.  You probably don't want to try to fight like that.  In fact, you probably dislike that idea so much that, as soon as whoever gave you the junk looks the other way, some of the stuff is going to disappear.  But if someone were big, tough, and practiced carrying that much stuff around ... it is possible he could adjust to fighting in it.  In the case of body armor, a particularly paranoid person could train himself to wear a LOT of armor, if he was determined to do so.  But it is going to hurt, both in limited mobility and increased fatigue ... so most people would not WANT to try that.

The knights needing help to stand ... that could be a myth.  True, it is harder and slower to get up in armor than without - so your buddy giving you a hand would be most welcome.  Also, it's much harder to get up when you're hurting, and presumably they weren't down there just taking a nap - something knocked them down, and so probably knocked the wind out of them, armor or no.  But neither of those are the same as really being unable to stand when wearing your armor.  Modern reconstructions of armor have repeatedly been used to prove that you can even put on a pretty good gymnastics presentation in full plate armor, at least until you get extremely tired from carrying around the extra weight.

Maybe it is a question of both things, what you CAN and what you ARE WILLING to carry. :)

We are talking about medieval wars, in where many lords were dressed in full plate of armor and everyone used a chainmail if could get one; so maybe it wasn't a so bad idea to wear heavy armor. In a battle you cannot avoid every single strike, so you 'd like to be protected by the toughest armor available. On the other side it is clumsy and a tired combatant is a slower one, being easily hit and a weak attacker.

In a little skirmish in where you don't expect to face more than 2 or 3 enemies at a time in the worst case, maybe you'd prefer mobility so you can parry/block incoming attacks.

About those knight being unable to stand: being unable to stand due the pain, injuries or being tired is part of the combat itself. Anyways,I've realized M&B hasn't a stamina bar or something like that, so maybe this is a bit pointless. I'm sorry to have started a discussion about encumbrance and mobility restrictions on the thread. :-[

shevchenko65

  • Guest
Re: The lords and knights of Westeros
« Reply #19 on: March 31, 2008, 10:00:57 am »
Maesters were the primary healers/educators in the books, so I think they and not the Septons should have the healing potential.

Jheral

  • Guest
Re: The lords and knights of Westeros
« Reply #20 on: March 31, 2008, 10:06:50 am »
Maesters were the primary healers/educators in the books, so I think they and not the Septons should have the healing potential.
Indeed. I would also suggest that a way to keep companions out of combat be added, as neither maesters nor septons really have a place on a battlefield.

ser Jeekim

  • Guest
Re: The lords and knights of Westeros
« Reply #21 on: March 31, 2008, 04:10:27 pm »
May be OT, but I would really like if Inventory Management and Prisoner Management would be made Party skills instead of Leader skills. I really do not see any rationale behind them being Leader skills. Why shouldn't I have a gaoler/slaver or a quartermaster/treasurer among my men?!

Offline HokieBT

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 514
    • View Profile
Re: The lords and knights of Westeros
« Reply #22 on: March 31, 2008, 04:38:41 pm »
Too much emphasis on knights, I think. I'd move half of those to the squire(actually, I'm not sure I feel comfortable calling them squires, since it implies that they're on the way to becoming knights themselves, thus making the two categories very similar, which I assume you didn't intend, but nvm that) and ranger categories. Also, it would be nice to have some wildlings/clansmen as npcs, perhaps even a dothraki(I doubt Vargo Hoat is the only dothraki on this side of the narrow sea, even if I can't remember anyone else at the moment).
Maesters were the primary healers/educators in the books, so I think they and not the Septons should have the healing potential.
Indeed. I would also suggest that a way to keep companions out of combat be added, as neither maesters nor septons really have a place on a battlefield.

these are all some good points.  few comments:

1) Keeping a hero out of combat would have to be something that was scripted in the game and I'm not sure how easy/difficult that would be.  We could ask Sparehawk to add it to the to-do list but I think there are more important tasks so I'd consider it a lower priority.  Also, I currently put my healer/skill type hero's at the bottom of my troop list which means they are the last to enter battle which is how it would be in a real battle.  If I'm down to my last 5-10 troops then I'm probably in trouble and should retreat anyway.  :)

2) I agree that my original breakdown was too many knights/squires.  My thinking was we needed at least 3-5 warriors and 4-5 skill type hero's for things like healing, tracking, training, trade, tactics, engineer, etc, and we'd give them some base skills to start the game depending on their role.  I would like to be able to designate these characters by a title to make them easy to recognize.  Possible titles I've been considering are knight, maester, septon, ranger, minstrel, merchant, steward, constable, etc.  But what should the breakdown of types/skills and format of the names be...  Maybe something like this?

5 Skill Hero's
2 Maester's - wound treatment, surgery, first aid, engineering - or 1 Maester and 1 Septon (surgery may apply for them?) - Maester Loren...
2 Ranger's - tracking, pathfinding, spotting, and training (?), also have high archery skill - Ranger Alyn....
1 Steward (any better title?) - Tactics, Trade, what else? - Steward Beron....

5 Warrior Hero's
3 Knights - polearm, sword, shield, riding, etc. - Ser Jared Stone....
2 Clansmen? - 2 handed, axe, throwing, athletics - Ulik of the Stonecrows or Clansman Ulik ?

10 random named hero's - player can customize as they choose

anyway, we'd give these hero's higher skills in the categories I have listed to start the game and then you could customize them as they increased in levels.  this is just some initial thoughts, any feedback?
« Last Edit: March 31, 2008, 04:42:50 pm by HokieBT »

shevchenko65

  • Guest
Re: The lords and knights of Westeros
« Reply #23 on: March 31, 2008, 06:42:00 pm »
Sounds good to me. Personally, in my own groups I usually have one healer, one trader, and one person with spotting and tracking, and everyone else I just build up into warriors. Because as far as I know healing/trading skills are not cummulative.

Jheral

  • Guest
Re: The lords and knights of Westeros
« Reply #24 on: March 31, 2008, 11:09:28 pm »
Sounds good to me. Personally, in my own groups I usually have one healer, one trader, and one person with spotting and tracking, and everyone else I just build up into warriors. Because as far as I know healing/trading skills are not cummulative.

Correct, they aren't. Only 'Personal' skills are.

these are all some good points.  few comments:

1) Keeping a hero out of combat would have to be something that was scripted in the game and I'm not sure how easy/difficult that would be.  We could ask Sparehawk to add it to the to-do list but I think there are more important tasks so I'd consider it a lower priority.  Also, I currently put my healer/skill type hero's at the bottom of my troop list which means they are the last to enter battle which is how it would be in a real battle.  If I'm down to my last 5-10 troops then I'm probably in trouble and should retreat anyway.  :)

It has been done before. Bandit King has something like this.

2) I agree that my original breakdown was too many knights/squires.  My thinking was we needed at least 3-5 warriors and 4-5 skill type hero's for things like healing, tracking, training, trade, tactics, engineer, etc, and we'd give them some base skills to start the game depending on their role.  I would like to be able to designate these characters by a title to make them easy to recognize.  Possible titles I've been considering are knight, maester, septon, ranger, minstrel, merchant, steward, constable, etc.  But what should the breakdown of types/skills and format of the names be...  Maybe something like this?

5 Skill Hero's
2 Maester's - wound treatment, surgery, first aid, engineering - or 1 Maester and 1 Septon (surgery may apply for them?) - Maester Loren...
2 Ranger's - tracking, pathfinding, spotting, and training (?), also have high archery skill - Ranger Alyn....
1 Steward (any better title?) - Tactics, Trade, what else? - Steward Beron....

5 Warrior Hero's
3 Knights - polearm, sword, shield, riding, etc. - Ser Jared Stone....
2 Clansmen? - 2 handed, axe, throwing, athletics - Ulik of the Stonecrows or Clansman Ulik ?

10 random named hero's - player can customize as they choose

anyway, we'd give these hero's higher skills in the categories I have listed to start the game and then you could customize them as they increased in levels.  this is just some initial thoughts, any feedback?

Yes, that sounds good. By the way, I wouldn't include 'titles' in the names of the npcs, save for the knights ('Ser'), maesters and septons/septas. Having too long names in the player list has always annoyed me. So, no 'Clansman Ulik', but just 'Ulik', for instance.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2008, 11:13:02 pm by Jheral »

Offline monsterfurby

  • Apprentice
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: The lords and knights of Westeros
« Reply #25 on: April 01, 2008, 12:52:14 am »
I think this distribution of NPC characters would be quite fitting - I second that.

As for the armor-issue, just on a side note: Sure there is a popular urban myth about knight needing some sort of machinery to get on their horses while, in fact, even in full plate, they would still be able to get up there themselves. Plate armor is actually much lighter than chainmail (because it is thinner* - note that I am talking about early plate armor, not the later versions which were made to keep off bullets or for tourneys). As for what one can do.. as someone doing LARP I have the pleasure to see a couple thousand people in armor every summer fighting on a field in Germany ( yup, it's fun :D ), and let me tell you that some of them are quite capable of fighting (unmounted, mind you) at about 70°F in full chain and plate for about one or two hours (with small breaks in-between). Sure, the carried weapons are not made of steel, but I think it's pretty close to reality, although the armors are, of course "approximate guesses" since there is little to no information available concerning the construction of actual medieval armor.

* - even than 4-in-1-chainmail. Probably the more important leaders might have worn 8-in-1-chainmail, which is twice as heavy and can truly only be worn while mounted. In turn, it does keep off pretty much everything except bullets, well-fired arrows and bolts.

Offline Ron Losey

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 4418
    • View Profile
Re: The lords and knights of Westeros
« Reply #26 on: April 01, 2008, 02:08:55 am »
Um ... while I somewhat agree with that last post, there are two issues there that got my attention as a historian:

One, there are plenty of surviving examples of armor from the 1400's or so.  Earlier, sure, there is not so much to go on, but the early plate is certainly not in the "little information available" category ... there's tons of that junk scattered around here and there, if you check with the right museums.  And so there is very little question about how it was constructed - it's pretty obvious.

Two, although there is a lot of text and not much surviving maille to back them up, I do not know of any surviving sections of 8-ring maille from these periods.  There are numerous text references that could mean anything: "double mail", "Crusader mail", "Islamic mail", "Russian mail" ... the list goes on.  However, since the labels did not come attached to actual pieces, there is no way to know what any of those actually meant.  And while everyone has a theory on some of them, all surviving pieces have either been variations on 4-1 pattern maille, or loose weave like Japanese kusari (which is more of a ring armor than true maille).  From the standpoint of a historian, the 8-ring maille is a myth.

(I personally figure that at least one of those terms probably referred to 6 or 8-ring pattern - but from the standpoint of a historian, I have to admit that I have exactly zero evidence to back that up.  It's purely a personal opinion.)

And as a side note, maille can be anything.  How protective it is - that's purely a question of weight of material.  You use heavy enough steel for your rings, and weave it tight enough, and, well... I've made some that will reliably stop modern handgun rounds.  (Not the most efficient way to stop bullets, mind you, but it does work.)  The exact pattern matters less than just weight of material.  Same is true of plate armors, or scale/lamellar type stuff - you can make them light or heavy.  Enough quilted cloth will stop hunting rifles, if you can figure out how to walk and carry it (but for the weight and bulk, some kind of hard trauma plates in it would probably be more efficient).  There's no real trick to armor designs.  It's just physics - mass of material against incoming force.

Your re-enactment does sound fun.  A good fight can be quite entertaining if you know you won't really get hurt.

shevchenko65

  • Guest
Re: The lords and knights of Westeros
« Reply #27 on: April 01, 2008, 09:06:23 am »
Bandit King does have an option to set two of the NPCs as aids, where they would be removed from your party during combat. But I know they had problems with that, with party stats being reset for some of the NPCs, adn I'm not sure if they worked out how to fix it.

Nahadiel

  • Guest
Re: The lords and knights of Westeros
« Reply #28 on: April 01, 2008, 01:26:27 pm »
About something stopping bullets I've read somewhere that some Indian leather round shields stopped musket ammo in spanish-indian "wars", so I don't think this is a proof of armors hardness. Even a simple human bone can deflect a bullet (of course being broken in the process), even more true with modern ammo as it tends to be lighter and lighter (you know, less encumbrance, more rounds in a clip...).

About chainmail and plate I think the main problem of chain is that its whole weight rests upon its wearer's shoulders. Plate armors with all those straps and joints distribute better their weight around some support points in their wearer's bodies. So maybe plate armor is not as tiring as it should due its weight but it restrains movements because of its joints.

Anyways, it depends if you want a novel-based or reality-based RCM system. Look at this example: there was a death-duel (God's trial in English?) in the novels between Bronn (a mercenary)
and a knight. G. R. Martin describes how the knight appears in full plate armor, closed helm, large wooden metal covered shield and heavy sword, while Bronn just wears his old rusty chainmail, negates to use the shield and drops his half-helmet. The duel begins and Bronn just parries and dodges every attack while move in circles until his enemy is winded out. Then he wounds it opponent in a weak point on the arm protection so he cannot raise the shield. Finally drops him aground and has to repeatedly hit the shoulder protection to remove it before giving the fatal hit with both hands and the point of the sword to tresspass the mail that was below the shoulder plate. I've writen this by hearth so maybe it's not exact.

I'm not sure pretty sure about what I'm going to say now but, wasn't plate armor developed as a response to piercing weapons (military picks and pointed maces) that easily trespassed chainmail (mainly protects from cutting weapons)? So on, it has to be very expensive and tiring to chain all those rings together in comparison to hitting a piece of metal.

Agent Griff

  • Guest
Re: The lords and knights of Westeros
« Reply #29 on: April 01, 2008, 01:48:25 pm »
It's pretty much to the point. Martin also points out before the actual duel (which is called a trial-by-combat in English) that Bronn was some 10 years younger than Ser Vardis Eggen (his opponent) and much taller as well. Ser Vardis was also fighting with a sword he wasn't accustomed to, if that may also matter. You described the fight pretty well. Ser Vardis generally takes hits from Bronn while tiring himself in the process by trying to hit him back. 

I honestly liked the fight when it came to realism, but I guess Ron will come over and say why it's not realistic and how it should have actually happened. He usually refuses most theories and tries to give an actual unbiased representation of what should have happened. At least that's what I've generally seen of him.