I think it's probably more useful to look at the determinants, rather than the numbers assigned to them on the pages - the population for Mediocre scope could easily range from 100,000 to 500,000 - or even 750,000 to 1,000,000, possibly. It's true that most societies don't ordinarily concentrate all their military in one area, but it can (essentially) happen, leaving other garrisons abandoned or manned by older troops, cripples, or underage green soldiers. It's certainly happened in our world more than once. I agree that it might be useful to revisit the population numbers associated with the determinants, but I don't think it's a big deal. The Shanari, for instance, are fanatics - the Great Desert is probably almost empty of the followers of the Seeresses. Plus, they've added huge numbers of refugees to their armies - but remember that the determinants for size of armies doesn't scale up that quickly. As for the Cedonians... well, their militant outlook may support more troops than the average society. Also remember that Old Cedonia includes some areas now part of other kingdoms, and most of the "Cedonian" troops in the Old Empire were probably foreign-born working for citizenship (to continue a Roman theme). Population Scope should include every part of the population, but remember that both the Razanians and Arisyans are are on the smaller side of Mediocre population. I would personally opine that the Arisyan number of 120,000 includes Razanian serfs, and the Razanian number of 100,000 are those on the outside, who are free. Could that population support the long war? Probably, on a smaller scale - lots of small-scale generational conflicts have existed. However, I suggest an alternate perspective. How about we assume that the Razanians were (say) about 500,000 to 600,000 in number when the 20,000-50,000 or so Arisyans arrived. The country was split in half, and has slowly been grinding down since then to its current population levels. This would result in a lot of abandoned structures, sacked towns and castles, abandoned farmland, and generational bitterness. Everyone will have lost members of their families. And although mostly men fight in wars, starvation and disease often claim much higher numbers. Have there been great seiges causing widespread starvation? Plagues caused by refugees with poor sanitation? And there's still a stubborn resistance to the idea of letting the war end, fueled by the memory of so many slain relatives on both sides. > For societies to maintain huge wars like one vs the Shanari and the Razanian > Coast war, they should have the population levels to maintain it. I don't agree that greater population levels allow longer wars, they just allow greater slaughter. > Oh and the tech levels of societies are unrealistic/unaccurate aswell. the > Shanari more advance than the Razanians? the Shanari are nomads and don't > have good access to resources like the Razanians does. their population are > sparce aswell..making it hard for them to have such a tech level indicated > in their determinants. I agree that many of the determinants may not make sense on first glance. That's one of the things I find challenging and enjoyable about the game; to come up with a story to explain why this is so. > Determinants should be re-examined. many societies actions bit overboard for > determinants to properly accept. I say populations scopes should be increase > at various societies or lower the exaggerative actions. I don't think any of the actions are patently unreasonable, but there should be consequences to the actions of the game. The determinants for the societies sacked by the Shanari should change drastically. Depending on the outcome of the war, the Shanari's determinants should also change. The main issue I have is that the NPS's tend to be rather brittle and easily defeated - I'd like the idea of giving them some sort of "active defense" to devote actions against PS's that are competing with them. That could be yet more work for the GM's, or a PS acting against an NPS could write "opposing" actions for the other side. That might add more flavor to conflicts... > hey, the population levels during the Dark and Middle ages in europe is > larger than many same size areas on Qaiyore...and we have Magic, which > helps. Fantasy land, but yet we want this game to have some commun sence, > no? Definitely; I think this is something that can be explained. There are probably different explanations for each society as to why they aren't as large as they could be. There could just be a more "sustainable growth" series of religions in this land, rather than the "be fruitful and multiply" religion of mideval Europe. >Oh, another thing, how long does the average Human in this world live? > is all human populations really Humans? or simply Humanoids of various > kinds? These are all good questions. I think that everyone's human except the elves and the Ban Horroth and the Eerith and maybe one other race. The sorcerers would live longer, but there wouldn't be enough of them to really affect the societal average. Something to think about. --Sam Gorton ---------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, send mail to celandra-off@phoenyx.net.
