>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 know and in Razanians case, we have the Secondary Militia Armies they can call up to do defence. Just annoying a bit. >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. > I don't think its a big deal either, but the populations of some areas bit relidiculus and way the society is. I think 100k is bit small for Razanians, even with some food shortages and even if they had a huge plague before. >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. > maybe, but we don't update the determinants quickly enough either. >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). > true. >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. > but the population scope of the free Razanians bit too small, especially to be able to support kingdoms. I know the more Northern and southern kingdoms would have higher population levels, since their infrastructure and agriculture is still mostly intact and not effected much by warfare. for the three most western Kingdoms are some of the largest aswell, so population scope in those kingdoms higher aswell, but the two small southern kingdoms would have small populations and Tesh and Canor aswell, after been hit so bad by constant raiding by other kingdoms before the war Century Council and the Aryisa and Aryisans conquering them...those two places been effected by the the huge war between the Razanians and Aryisans.....anyway, many determinants is effected by population and hard to see those determinants to be maintain by such a small population. >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. > Why would the Razanians populations grind down? maybe down to atlest 300k to 400k, but not by that much, after hundred years especially. as if the Razanians been into many large scale slaughter battles and raids. I do beleive some of the kingdoms bordered to Aryisa populations would lower and the amount of razanians within Aryisa...since the asagmari discourage their growth a bit. 100k would be down to like 80k or less by now then too. yes, the initials many battles between the asagmari and razanians when the asagmari took over part of teh coast certainly lowered the populations a bit and taken most of the good farm lands, but as if it had a huge population impact...and about 80-100 years after, population growth as multiplied, minus the dead from diseaces, which ain;t a huge problem, deaths in raids between kingdoms and Aryisa and so on... so i think the population scope of the Razanians should be atleast 300k to 400k. makes more sence that way. for the Aryisan population, makes sence with its current populations after 20k - 50k arriving to the coast 100 years before. >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. > Despite fucking their population levels. >I don't agree that greater population levels allow longer wars, they just >allow greater slaughter. > true, but still. the razanians is fighting along a three long fronts. >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. > Rather change the determinants to fit teh current history realisticly. and i am a impatient fellow, so hate waiting for the razanians afte rthe war ends to boost in population after a bit. that would take about 20 turns...and turns don't pass by fast... in one year, we went through only 5-7 turns. bit slow, no? >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. > and the Razanians and few other societies. >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... > Well, Aryisa has a Player, but Aaron don't play often...even if it is NPS, Aryisa would be stuck in the defensive with the razanians hitting in three sides and the razanian front within. > > 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. > I don't see the Razanians as very religious. And population scope should be larger, especially for being around for 1000s of years. >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. > So, we just need to make sure we kill the leaders of old age, if they last that long to have that fate. I see the elves and Ban Horroth to be able to live longer and the Eerith, don't think they even age. The Saraa, i dunno. -LordLMP ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ---------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, send mail to celandra-off@phoenyx.net.
