Title: Hand out Food
Summary: TLs can distribute their unit's rations to starving peasants as a takeover/diplomacy tactic.
Details: If a region is in a state of starvation, a troop leader can order his unit to hand out food. In the case of a unit in foreign lands this creates a boost in sympathy for the unit's realm if a unit is in its own lands this increases loyalty and realm control. If enough units give out enough food it can even stave off starvation for a short time.
Benefits: Diversifies tactics for propaganda, diplomacy and conquest.
Possible exploits: The system would need to be balanced so players can't simply loot food till a region is starving then hand out food to make the peasants like their realm again. This could be accomplished by simply making the sympathy loss for looting food higher then the gain for handing it out. Alternatively the system could be made to not work if anyone from the same realm has been stealing food. If you attempt it you get the message "you hand out food, but the peasants are not pleased because they know your realm mates have been stealing food". And if a player does that they should still lose their food.
I don't think the amount of food that a unit carries is anywhere near enough be significant in terms of feeding an entire region. Even the largest units only need a bushel a day.
Right, which would make it more of a propaganda tactic then a practical way to feed a region. I was thinking at best it could push the region from "Starving" to "Going Hungry" for a day or two.
Actually giving a few hundreds bushels of food doesn't do anything to raise morale and sympathy. Why would giving them two bushels?
This could be an interesting option for a Banker in a takeover, or maybe even lords.
Quote from: Indirik on October 09, 2013, 12:59:08 PM
Actually giving a few hundreds bushels of food doesn't do anything to raise morale and sympathy. Why would giving them two bushels?
It doesn't directly do so but it does end starvation which will then allow those stats to recover.
A conquering force moving into starving lands and handing out food is a very powerful psychological tactic which armies have used in real life.
It's not the basic idea that I have a problem with. It's the magnitude. Telling 5,000 people to split 5 tons of food is a great thing. Telling those same 5,000 people to split a Twinkie isn't going to get you very far.
While the concept of handing food out to starving regions could be a good one, with enough controls to make it non-exploitable, which will be very difficult to do, the idea of doing it from your unit's personal stores is a non-starter. You will need to come up with some other source of food before this can be considered.
Quote from: Indirik on October 10, 2013, 01:18:59 PM
While the concept of handing food out to starving regions could be a good one, with enough controls to make it non-exploitable, which will be very difficult to do, the idea of doing it from your unit's personal stores is a non-starter. You will need to come up with some other source of food before this can be considered.
Can Traders still manually transport food or are they only good for hookups these days? I was thinking this might be a good way to get them more involved with the army rather than continuing to do their own thing.
I made the mistake of swapping to subclass Trader recently... can't use black markets, can't use most of their abilities, and their only perk is they can access marketplaces to buy/sell food without needing to be a region lord... Which is about useless these days, where almost everyone is a region lord. No ability to transport food manually.
Quote from: Wolfsong on October 11, 2013, 04:25:16 AM
I made the mistake of swapping to subclass Trader recently... can't use black markets, can't use most of their abilities, and their only perk is they can access marketplaces to buy/sell food without needing to be a region lord... Which is about useless these days, where almost everyone is a region lord. No ability to transport food manually.
Traders get double, if not more, the trading distance. Instead of 200/400 miles, my trader can trade over 650 miles.
The trader bonus is not double range. Traders get a 100 mile bonus, plus a skill-based bonus. That can only add up to double range in very specific circumstances.
http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/Help:Trade
Quote from: Indirik on October 10, 2013, 01:18:59 PM
It's not the basic idea that I have a problem with. It's the magnitude. Telling 5,000 people to split 5 tons of food is a great thing. Telling those same 5,000 people to split a Twinkie isn't going to get you very far.
Again the point isn't to make a real impact on the starvation but to convince the starving peasants your realm will feed them. You don't divide up the twinkie, you give it to one peasant and say "tell your friends there's more where that came from if you submit to our rule". In fact that's probably the best way to do it. If you actually deliver the region from starvation there's a chance their current rulers will now have enough time to get them a sustainable food supply. If you leave them starving but believing you're their best chance for a meal they'll probably join you.
Quote from: Indirik on October 10, 2013, 01:18:59 PMWhile the concept of handing food out to starving regions could be a good one, with enough controls to make it non-exploitable, which will be very difficult to do, the idea of doing it from your unit's personal stores is a non-starter. You will need to come up with some other source of food before this can be considered.
Maybe there can be paraphernalia that expands how many rations your unit carries. That quality could just be added to carts. They can now carry wounded or food. Then if you have them you can carry enough to give people food.
Quote from: pcw27 on October 30, 2013, 04:33:26 PM
Again the point isn't to make a real impact on the starvation but to convince the starving peasants your realm will feed them. You don't divide up the twinkie, you give it to one peasant and say "tell your friends there's more where that came from if you submit to our rule".
So you've made one person happy. Up until the point where the starving guy next to him knifes him to steal the Twinkie.
Personally, I don't think this is a viable mechanic. And I really don't think there's any way you can convince me otherwise.
QuoteMaybe there can be paraphernalia that expands how many rations your unit carries. That quality could just be added to carts. They can now carry wounded or food. Then if you have them you can carry enough to give people food.
And with this you've made the proposal way too complicated to implement for the minimal possible benefit this could be to the game.
Its viable up until the moment the thought of food drives the starving peasants into a frenzy. Twinkie man gets stabbed, Knife man eats and the rest wonder how much food you and your men have with you. They then descend upon your group, overwhelm it and the lucky ones get their heads bashed in and die quickly. The rest find themselves literally hacked and pulled into pieces before their bags are looted for food and then are eaten themselves.
I have always enjoyed the irony of holding a freedom celebration and giving out free beer to starving peasants. Where did all that beer come from?
Which, I suppose you have to assume the size of it is related to your unit size (more troops=more peasants=more impact), so I suppose it isn't a granary's worth of beer. The same idea would apply to this idea. How ever many peasants your unit can safely deal with is how many get goodies.
Quote from: Indirik on October 10, 2013, 01:18:59 PM
It's not the basic idea that I have a problem with. It's the magnitude. Telling 5,000 people to split 5 tons of food is a great thing. Telling those same 5,000 people to split a Twinkie isn't going to get you very far.
A bushel of food seems to feed 500 people for a day (at least from what I see on one of my Colonies character, the other two I can't check). That seems like a feasible sized handout. If that were used at half-rations, that's a thousand peasants. If 5 or 6 units dump food on a small depopulated region, it could feasibly be brought out of starvation temporarily.
The more I think about it, the more I like it. Giving more tools to stave off regions being nuked by starvation helps the players. It isn't a handout to players, but a way to use in-game mechanics on other in-game mechanics that makes sense.
Quote from: Indirik on October 30, 2013, 05:03:25 PM
So you've made one person happy. Up until the point where the starving guy next to him knifes him to steal the Twinkie.
Personally, I don't think this is a viable mechanic. And I really don't think there's any way you can convince me otherwise.
And with this you've made the proposal way too complicated to implement for the minimal possible benefit this could be to the game.
Well history is on my side because this !@#$ happens a lot. There is a broad spectrum of starvation its not just "Perfectly Ok" or "SO HUNGRY I WILL STAB MY OWN MOTHER FOR A SINGLE SKITTLE!" logically in a starving region you have people running the gambit form dieing in the street to perfectly fine (after all nobles never starve).
Certainly you could get yourself a riot if you give food to the wrong person at the wrong time. Hell that could be a risk of the feature. However there is a very long history of conquering forces offering food, medicine, money and other life essentials to get the locals on their side.
Quote from: Stabbity on October 30, 2013, 09:00:03 PM
Its viable up until the moment the thought of food drives the starving peasants into a frenzy. Twinkie man gets stabbed, Knife man eats and the rest wonder how much food you and your men have with you. They then descend upon your group, overwhelm it and the lucky ones get their heads bashed in and die quickly. The rest find themselves literally hacked and pulled into pieces before their bags are looted for food and then are eaten themselves.
Read "Night". That's not what happens. There's a gruesomely detailed account of how this exact scenario played out in the concentration camps. The Nazi guards would throw food to the prisoners for entertainment. The prisoners indeed started fighting to the death for the food. None of them even considered charging the heavily armed guards. They were unarmed, untrained and weak from hunger and forced labor, the guards were heavily armed, highly trained, healthy and fit.
The same happens in Africa. Somali rebels will steal food from Red Cross distribution points right in front of starving throngs and they got away with it. Immediate survival is a stronger instinct then long term survival.
Quote from: pcw27 on October 31, 2013, 04:00:36 AM
Well history is on my side because this !@#$ happened.
The attempts happened. I'm not so sure "Heart and Mind" campaigns were predominately successful, and they generally consist of far more then one activity. Having been in the military we did/continue to use "small scale" food distribution along with other techniques. However in my experience the aims were for things that don't translate into BM. Often the small scale worked because we weren't trying to have some sort of flow on effect of good will, we were targeting individuals that mattered, either because of the power/influence they had (in which case the food was usually incidental to the real offers) or more often because we had some reason to believe that a working relationship with them would provide needed intelligence.
Quote from: De-Legro on October 31, 2013, 04:09:22 AM
The attempts happened. I'm not so sure "Heart and Mind" campaigns were predominately successful.
I'm not saying this feature should be predominantly successful either. It makes the game more vibrant for there to be things that might or might not work.
Quote from: De-Legro on October 31, 2013, 04:09:22 AM
Having been in the military we did/continue to use "small scale" food distribution along with other techniques. However in my experience the aims were for things that don't translate into BM. Often the small scale worked because we weren't trying to have some sort of flow on effect of good will, we were targeting individuals that mattered, either because of the power/influence they had (in which case the food was usually incidental to the real offers) or more often because we had some reason to believe that a working relationship with them would provide needed intelligence.
This isn't the only use of the tactic in modern warfare. I know food was dropped all over Afghanistan prior to the initial invasion. Although what you're describing could be another interesting feature "bribe locals", but that would be done with gold.
Quote from: pcw27 on October 31, 2013, 04:22:17 AM
I'm not saying this feature should be predominantly successful either. It makes the game more vibrant for there to be things that might or might not work.
This isn't the only use of the tactic in modern warfare. I know food was dropped all over Afghanistan prior to the initial invasion. Although what you're describing could be another interesting feature "bribe locals", but that would be done with gold.
Yes food was dropped. I was substantial amounts though. I think that is where the issue Indirik has comes from. There are two separate cases we are talking about. Food distributions on a significant or at least noticeable scales, and a military unit providing food from their own in field stores. In one case we are talking enough food to last the target group days if not weeks. On the other we are talking a single meal or so for a select group of people.
Quote from: Dishman on October 30, 2013, 10:38:52 PM
A bushel of food seems to feed 500 people for a day (at least from what I see on one of my Colonies character, the other two I can't check). That seems like a feasible sized handout. If that were used at half-rations, that's a thousand peasants. If 5 or 6 units dump food on a small depopulated region, it could feasibly be brought out of starvation temporarily.
BattleMaster has no concept of "half rations". You either have food, or you don't.
The 500/bushel factor is correct. Soldiers eat, IIRC, 3 times that much. So ~ 170 soldiers/bushel/day.
An 85 soldier unit would eat 1/2 bushel per day. 5 days of rations would be 2.5 bushels. Ten units of 85 soldiers giving up a day's worth of rations would be 5 bushels of food, enough to feed 2500 peasants for one day. That's not even enough to get them out of starvation. Hardly enough to have any effect on region morale.
A better mechanic than this, one that might be easier and have an effect that makes more sense, would be to allow the banker to use an existing Sell order in the realm to send food to a region that is currently under TO by the realm. That should be much easier than trying to work out carts and ration conversions, and also allow for meaningful deliveries of food to actually feed the region during the TO, and even for a while longer to get a lord in there to supply the region himself. This could help boost a sympathy TO, but introduces some possible exploits.
Quote from: Indirik on October 31, 2013, 12:08:13 PM
A better mechanic than this, one that might be easier and have an effect that makes more sense, would be to allow the banker to use an existing Sell order in the realm to send food to a region that is currently under TO by the realm. That should be much easier than trying to work out carts and ration conversions, and also allow for meaningful deliveries of food to actually feed the region during the TO, and even for a while longer to get a lord in there to supply the region himself. This could help boost a sympathy TO, but introduces some possible exploits.
That makes sense. Seems more efficient and easier to incorporate into the game.
I don't quite get why the mechanic has to actually feed the region. I never thought of any of the TO actions as happening to the majority or even many people. If a region has 1000 people, and you help 20 of them in a day with a freedom celebration or w/e, you content the region by 2%. Why couldn't you just have 'Share your bread' or whatever, have it as an effect like the other TO commands and not bother with the literal task of making the region less hungry in the general? To me, this is just as flavorful as the original post and it doesn't break the milieu of other TO actions.
Quote from: anoobowner on October 31, 2013, 11:22:10 PM
I don't quite get why the mechanic has to actually feed the region. I never thought of any of the TO actions as happening to the majority or even many people. If a region has 1000 people, and you help 20 of them in a day with a freedom celebration or w/e, you content the region by 2%. Why couldn't you just have 'Share your bread' or whatever, have it as an effect like the other TO commands and not bother with the literal task of making the region less hungry in the general? To me, this is just as flavorful as the original post and it doesn't break the milieu of other TO actions.
Its intended as a tactic to be used when TOing, not as a TO action. That and I believe TO actions are supposed to actually eventually affect region stats.
Remind me of when I became a Banker, I asked the Region Lords to empty the region granary food store so that invading force will starve during their TOs. Some kind of delay TO and starving army strategy where "we do not feed the enemy army". If you wish to prevent this army strategy by changing it into "invading force give out food so that the region peasants like them". Then I see no overlap between this both strategies.
Quote
Read "Night". That's not what happens. There's a gruesomely detailed account of how this exact scenario played out in the concentration camps. The Nazi guards would throw food to the prisoners for entertainment. The prisoners indeed started fighting to the death for the food. None of them even considered charging the heavily armed guards. They were unarmed, untrained and weak from hunger and forced labor, the guards were heavily armed, highly trained, healthy and fit.
The same happens in Africa. Somali rebels will steal food from Red Cross distribution points right in front of starving throngs and they got away with it. Immediate survival is a stronger instinct then long term survival.
Two words: Automatic weapons. A sub machinegun is far more effective at crowd control than some spears and chainmail. Argument is not valid.
Quote from: Indirik on October 31, 2013, 12:08:13 PM
A better mechanic than this, one that might be easier and have an effect that makes more sense, would be to allow the banker to use an existing Sell order in the realm to send food to a region that is currently under TO by the realm. That should be much easier than trying to work out carts and ration conversions, and also allow for meaningful deliveries of food to actually feed the region during the TO, and even for a while longer to get a lord in there to supply the region himself. This could help boost a sympathy TO, but introduces some possible exploits.
I like that idea. Haven't there also been complaints about the Banker position being underpowered? This would help that problem as well as diversify takeover tactics.
Quote from: Stabbity on November 01, 2013, 08:20:23 AM
Two words: Automatic weapons. A sub machinegun is far more effective at crowd control than some spears and chainmail. Argument is not valid.
You missed the point. The technology is not the issue. The point is disorganized starving masses typically shy away from certain death even if there's a chance it will get them food. To a medieval peasant ten men with spears and chain-mail spell certain death just as much as one soldier with a machine-gun would to an Auschwitz prisoner. Machine guns merely change the ratio of soldiers to starving people you need.
There are many many accounts of armed trained soldiers killing ten times their number or more of unarmed and untrained peasants and those are usually healthy peasants not starving and diseased ones. Now if these peasants were an armed and organized resistance that would be another matter, but there's already a mechanic for that.
Mind you I'm not saying a mob will never overpower such a force. I'm saying they'd need to vastly VASTLY outnumber it before they'd even try. So yeah I would concede that the scenario you described could play out if say a single twenty man unit started handing out food in the middle of the city square in a mob of two hundred starving beggars. Even then if they were a hoplite style force they would stand a good chance of taking up a tortuga formation and slaughtering wave after wave of beggars until the rest give up and flee.
Quote
Mind you I'm not saying a mob will never overpower such a force. I'm saying they'd need to vastly VASTLY outnumber it before they'd even try. So yeah I would concede that the scenario you described could play out if say a single twenty man unit started handing out food in the middle of the city square in a mob of two hundred starving beggars. Even then if they were a hoplite style force they would stand a good chance of taking up a tortuga formation and slaughtering wave after wave of beggars until the rest give up and flee.
My point is when you're out performing a takeover action you aren't doing it within the confines of the army's camp. Your men are spread out, not in formatiom, peforming an activity. You are far more likely to get overrun and its not hard to do it. If a 25 man peasant mob can stop you from looting, whats to stop the peasants in a population center from mobbing and killing your men when their children are starving to death and you have food? Never under estimate the power of the mob.
The main reason this wouldn't work is you're not in formation and have no support in the midst of a peasant population that usually vastly outnumbers you. If you were on battle footing, formed up in an open field, yea, that would make a difference... But you can't takeover a region like that.
Quote from: Stabbity on November 03, 2013, 12:22:50 AM
If a 25 man peasant mob can stop you from looting...
Forget that, a 25 man peasant mob can stop two armies of hundreds of men from fighting eachother!
Quote from: Stabbity on November 03, 2013, 12:22:50 AM
My point is when you're out performing a takeover action you aren't doing it within the confines of the army's camp. Your men are spread out, not in formatiom, peforming an activity.
Actually they'd probably be traveling in a patrol formation in large groups and they'd have some units standing by to move in force in case of a riot. That is assuming they're not complete morons of course.
Quote from: Stabbity on November 03, 2013, 12:22:50 AM
You are far more likely to get overrun and its not hard to do it.
It's pretty hard actually. Especially when you're opponents are severely emaciated and your "allies" are just as likely to kill you as they are your "enemies".
Quote from: Stabbity on November 03, 2013, 12:22:50 AMIf a 25 man peasant mob can stop you from looting,
Which is a stupid feature people are actively looking to change.
Quote from: Stabbity on November 03, 2013, 12:22:50 AMwhats to stop the peasants in a population center from mobbing and killing your men when their children are starving to death and you have food? Never under estimate the power of the mob.
A sword through their stomachs. You also shouldn't over estimate the power of the mob either. Disorganized mobs have indeed on occasion overthrown occupying forces. The vast majority of the time however they get slaughtered to the last man.
In the case of a food riot the peasants can't even really take advantage of their numbers because they aren't united. In fact they're much more likely to kill each other for the food then to attack the soldiers. Again I refer to the incidents in
Night, the camp prisoners for the most part had no loyalty to each other. Unlike a well trained military force they didn't think of themselves as a unit. There was no "If we all band together we can all get their food" the thinking was more along the lines of "If I kill the guy next to me I can get his food". That's what it boils down to. Each peasant, as an individual will ask themselves, at least subconsciously, "Do I try to take food from the weak civilian or the armed and armored soldier?". Most are going to pick the civilian. A few will be fool hardy enough to pick the soldier and get slaughtered. Then the ones that were about to pick soldier are going to think twice. People further off will see this and their first thought will be to stay out of it. In fact that's what saved Elie Wiesel when the guards were throwing food to the prisoners. There's a reason military forces spend so much time training their soldiers to view themselves as a unit, it's all to overcome these sort of individual self preservation instincts.
Quote from: Stabbity on November 03, 2013, 12:22:50 AMThe main reason this wouldn't work is you're not in formation and have no support in the midst of a peasant population that usually vastly outnumbers you. If you were on battle footing, formed up in an open field, yea, that would make a difference... But you can't takeover a region like that.
First of all, a well trained force should be able to form ranks quickly.
Second, at any given moment your force is not necessarily vastly outnumbered. A city is not a mass blob of people. The distribution of population density is complex. A unit could conceivably find a neighborhood or gathering place in a city that they can feed completely, at least for one meal, without leaving anyone out and without making a big scene. In a rural region soldiers can target individual villages.
The main flaw in your argument is at every turn it relies on the soldiers going about the general act of distributing food like absolute idiots who don't use the slightest bit of common sense.
Until later in the period it is mostly incorrect to refer to medeval soldiers as disciplined let alone highly disciplined, especially off the battle field. The other consideration is Howong have they been starving. There is a massive difference between going without foods for a few days and being on I sufficent rations for weeks or months.
Here is some quick reading for you about large peasant revolts in the later medieval period
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_revolt_in_late_medieval_Europe
I am particularly fond of the Ivaylo rebellion where a swine herder ended up as the Tsar of Bulgaria.
Quote
Actually they'd probably be traveling in a patrol formation in large groups and they'd have some units standing by to move in force in case of a riot. That is assuming they're not complete morons of course.
If they were a more modern army, yes. The undisciplined yucks that BM soldiers are? No. Remember that the difference between the people mobbing and the soldiers is that the soldiers have been handed a weapon and some armor and told to go fight. Furthermore, think of the actual size of a region. A few units standing by in case of a riot means a.) they're not participating in takeover actions b.) they will receive word from the village your men are visiting on the other side of the region in time to come in and crush a riot before your men are overwhelmed.
Quote
It's pretty hard actually. Especially when you're opponents are severely emaciated and your "allies" are just as likely to kill you as they are your "enemies".
If they've been starving that badly for that long the region has long since been depopulated, and then by feeding them you endanger them. They will eat what they're used to, unaware that their stomachs have shrank and their bodies have adapted to less food. Thus overeating, becoming ill and likely dieing. Reference the scene in band of brothers where they discover the concentration camp.
Quote
Which is a stupid feature people are actively looking to change.
The peasant mobs stopping battles yes. Peasant mobs stopping looting, no. Talk to Tim about that one.
QuoteA sword through their stomachs. You also shouldn't over estimate the power of the mob either. Disorganized mobs have indeed on occasion overthrown occupying forces. The vast majority of the time however they get slaughtered to the last man.
Swords tend to be poor choices of weapons in a mob situation. Several peasants jump on one man, and he stabs the first (assuming he actually has a sword, which most soldiers of the time period would not have. Swords are a weapon for nobility or highly trained troops, usually mercenaries.) man. Uh-oh. The thing about stabbing and slashing is blades get stuck. Trying to pry your sword out of a man while several more are attacking you is difficult if not impossible to do before you are on the ground. We're not talking about a region wide revolt against an entire army, which you keep trying to insist. The entire army is not going to be effective in taking over the region if they stay together. When you go out to perform a TO action, you might run into other independent units, but for the most part you're undertaking an action alone. A mob of sufficient size will almost always overrun an individual unit in the midst of handing out food to the local population.
QuoteIn the case of a food riot the peasants can't even really take advantage of their numbers because they aren't united. In fact they're much more likely to kill each other for the food then to attack the soldiers. Again I refer to the incidents in Night, the camp prisoners for the most part had no loyalty to each other. Unlike a well trained military force they didn't think of themselves as a unit. There was no "If we all band together we can all get their food" the thinking was more along the lines of "If I kill the guy next to me I can get his food". That's what it boils down to. Each peasant, as an individual will ask themselves, at least subconsciously, "Do I try to take food from the weak civilian or the armed and armored soldier?". Most are going to pick the civilian. A few will be fool hardy enough to pick the soldier and get slaughtered. Then the ones that were about to pick soldier are going to think twice. People further off will see this and their first thought will be to stay out of it. In fact that's what saved Elie Wiesel when the guards were throwing food to the prisoners. There's a reason military forces spend so much time training their soldiers to view themselves as a unit, it's all to overcome these sort of individual self preservation instincts.
World War II is irrelevant. This is the middle ages we're talking about. Professional armies by and large do not exist (and if they do, they're mercenary bands who are notoriously fickle). Think about this for a second: everyone from your town is starving to death. Everyone you've grown up with, love and known your whole life is starving to death. All of a sudden, these foreigners come in with food. They hand out a piece of stale bread and some jerky, and return to camp and eat their fill. You're dying. Your wife is dying. Your son is dying. Your neighbors whom you've known your whole life are dying. You married their daughter, because you're a peasant and don't travel. Who are you going to kill for food? Those twenty men that just walked through your town? Or your neighbors? This is why insurgencies work so well. Its really, really hard to get people to turn on their own, especially when there is a foreign entity within in striking distance. What do I know though, I've only worked counter insurgency/counter terrorism for the better half of a decade.
QuoteFirst of all, a well trained force should be able to form ranks quickly.
Which doesn't exist in the time period. I even invite you to look into the multitude of occasions in the Napoleonic wars and the British wars in India where well trained units failed to form ranks quickly. You're lucky if your men form up at all on a normal day, because being a soldier in the middle ages sucks, and they're likely drunk.
QuoteSecond, at any given moment your force is not necessarily vastly outnumbered. A city is not a mass blob of people. The distribution of population density is complex. A unit could conceivably find a neighborhood or gathering place in a city that they can feed completely, at least for one meal, without leaving anyone out and without making a big scene. In a rural region soldiers can target individual villages.
Most population centers are going to hold more people in them than a unit commanded by a noble. By population center, I do not mean the whole region. People in the middle ages do not live spread out willy nilly. They cluster for protection from brigands. Peasant farmers have all kinds of impromptu weapons as well (because plenty of weapons from the time period started out as farming equipment) flails, bows, and scythes.
QuoteThe main flaw in your argument is at every turn it relies on the soldiers going about the general act of distributing food like absolute idiots who don't use the slightest bit of common sense.
Having gone into rural regions where people are starving, sick, don't have clean drinking water I can tell you its a bad goddamn idea. A rioting populace is scary, also vastly different than a bunch of starving prisoners contained in a prison camp where the guards have fences between them and the prisoners. Body armor and automatic weapons help, but when a population grows desperate enough, they will turn on you. If you do whatever you're going to do and leave, you'll be fine. But if they think you have food on you... Its an entirely different ball game. Even well disciplined, modernly equipped soldiers will fall to a mob with enough truly desperate people in it. Do you remember when that jackass in Florida burned a Koran in 2010-11 (I don't recall the month, that year blurred together for me)? In Afghanistan the people went into a frenzy, protesting and rioting. They overran a UN compound in Kabul that was well guarded with armored vehicles, trained soldiers, automatic weapons, etc, etc and slaughtered everyone inside save for one person who spoke Pashtu and convinced the people that she was a muslim so they spared her. They beheaded each and every single person there. A local population will always behave differently than concentration camp prisoners, do to simple psychology. I could go in depth, but it should be glaringly obvious.
Quote from: Stabbity on November 04, 2013, 11:08:52 PM
If they were a more modern army, yes. The undisciplined yucks that BM soldiers are? No. Remember that the difference between the people mobbing and the soldiers is that the soldiers have been handed a weapon and some armor and told to go fight.
World War II is irrelevant. This is the middle ages we're talking about. Professional armies by and large do not exist (and if they do, they're mercenary bands who are notoriously fickle).
BM soldiers tend to vary greatly and can represent just about any style of soldier seen from antiquity to the early renaissance. The peasant with a weapon and armor you describe would be a BM unit with a training of 10, which is really really crappy. As far as I'm concerned if a unit in BM is rated as having 80% training they're as skilled as a typical greek Hoplite or a Roman legionnaire. The BM world has always been more representative of advanced cultures and empires which would have had a well trained standing army.
Quote from: Stabbity on November 04, 2013, 11:08:52 PMFurthermore, think of the actual size of a region. A few units standing by in case of a riot means a.) they're not participating in takeover actions b.) they will receive word from the village your men are visiting on the other side of the region in time to come in and crush a riot before your men are overwhelmed.
In game terms the units standing by would be those who have already used up their time pool on a takeover action. Remember the time pool is never the same number of hours as there are in an actual day.
Takeover forces in cities and towns would likely set up the local inn as their base of operations so in addition they'd have a place to retreat to and hold up in. A mob getting pincushion by arrows fired from the rooftops is going to thin out pretty quickly.
Quote from: Stabbity on November 04, 2013, 11:08:52 PM
If they've been starving that badly for that long the region has long since been depopulated, and then by feeding them you endanger them. They will eat what they're used to, unaware that their stomachs have shrank and their bodies have adapted to less food. Thus overeating, becoming ill and likely dieing. Reference the scene in band of brothers where they discover the concentration camp.
If you do over feed them the ones that survive know they only did so because you fed them while their previous realm left them all to die. However people in the BM world should all have at least second hand knowledge of starvation and know not to give them too much too fast.
Quote from: Stabbity on November 04, 2013, 11:08:52 PM
The peasant mobs stopping battles yes. Peasant mobs stopping looting, no. Talk to Tim about that one.
The move is for peasant mobs to be more substantial so it's less absurd that they would stop looting. It's already happening in Dwilight. We now tend to see mobs with 800 peasants or so rather then 25.
Quote from: Stabbity on November 04, 2013, 11:08:52 PM
Swords tend to be poor choices of weapons in a mob situation. Several peasants jump on one man, and he stabs the first (assuming he actually has a sword, which most soldiers of the time period would not have. Swords are a weapon for nobility or highly trained troops, usually mercenaries.) man. Uh-oh. The thing about stabbing and slashing is blades get stuck. Trying to pry your sword out of a man while several more are attacking you is difficult if not impossible to do before you are on the ground.
That's why you'd want a shield, a short sword and a dagger as a back up. Which in BM you can have. Even if you're stuck with long swords form a circle with the rest of the unit and you can withstand quite a few peasants. I wouldn't expect an average unit to fall to any less then twice their number of peasants.
Quote from: Stabbity on November 04, 2013, 11:08:52 PM
We're not talking about a region wide revolt against an entire army, which you keep trying to insist. The entire army is not going to be effective in taking over the region if they stay together. When you go out to perform a TO action, you might run into other independent units, but for the most part you're undertaking an action alone. A mob of sufficient size will almost always overrun an individual unit in the midst of handing out food to the local population.
Did you say "sufficient size" because that's what I've been saying this whole time. It needs to be a big enough mob. There wont always be a big enough mob. Its not as if every village in BM or even every City is going to have the population density of time square.
Quote from: Stabbity on November 04, 2013, 11:08:52 PMThink about this for a second: everyone from your town is starving to death. Everyone you've grown up with, love and known your whole life is starving to death. All of a sudden, these foreigners come in with food. They hand out a piece of stale bread and some jerky, and return to camp and eat their fill. You're dying. Your wife is dying. Your son is dying. Your neighbors whom you've known your whole life are dying. You married their daughter, because you're a peasant and don't travel. Who are you going to kill for food? Those twenty men that just walked through your town? Or your neighbors? This is why insurgencies work so well. Its really, really hard to get people to turn on their own, especially when there is a foreign entity within in striking distance. What do I know though, I've only worked counter insurgency/counter terrorism for the better half of a decade.
First off in that scenario I'd probably suggest we all surrender in hopes of getting more food. Only if the soldiers didn't deliver would I consider attacking and trying to steal their remaining rations.
Second you've completely changed the scenario. We weren't talking about an insurgency we were talking about a freak food riot. I already said an organized insurgency was another matter which the game represents differently. In a freak food riot in a city or large town the guy next to you isn't what you'd call a neighbor, they're some stranger. It's either a stranger with a weapon or a stranger without one. This is assuming a freak food riot does break out and reach an extreme level of violence which is not a guarantee especially if you're careful how you give out the food.
Third Even if this were a matter of counter insurgency I don't think modern day experience is really applicable. For much of history counter insurgency meant slaughtering an entire village and piling up their skulls so the other villages surrendered outright. The Mongols were particularly good at this. That actually is an important element to this whole discussion. When a BM army marches into a town the villagers should be wondering if they're about to be slaughtered left and right. If the soldiers then give them food their first thought isn't likely to be "lets kill them for more food" it should be "thank the gods they're not raping and murdering us".
Now I'm sure you'll respond with another "but if they all band together" scenario, but I refer you again to the Mongols. Lots of people "all banded together" against the Mongols and they were slaughtered to the last man, then the last woman and child, then all their animals for good measure, then the buildings burnt to the ground and the fields sown with salt. The story of the peasant band driving off the wicked invaders is a celebrated one but it's the exception not the rule.
Quote from: Stabbity on November 04, 2013, 11:08:52 PMMost population centers are going to hold more people in them than a unit commanded by a noble. By population center, I do not mean the whole region. People in the middle ages do not live spread out willy nilly. They cluster for protection from brigands. Peasant farmers have all kinds of impromptu weapons as well (because plenty of weapons from the time period started out as farming equipment) flails, bows, and scythes.
The isolated population centers supports my point. Your army can go one village at a time, move in, pacify the populace and set up the new administration. Thus they avoid being outnumbered and if they're bribing people with food they avoid having too little to go around.
Quote from: Stabbity on November 04, 2013, 11:08:52 PM
Having gone into rural regions where people are starving, sick, don't have clean drinking water I can tell you its a bad goddamn idea.
I'm pretty sure if the outcome you described at the start of this discussion was the norm there'd be much greater turnover for Red Cross workers and members of the Peace Corps.
Quote from: Stabbity on November 04, 2013, 11:08:52 PM
A rioting populace is scary, also vastly different than a bunch of starving prisoners contained in a prison camp where the guards have fences between them and the prisoners. Body armor and automatic weapons help, but when a population grows desperate enough, they will turn on you. If you do whatever you're going to do and leave, you'll be fine. But if they think you have food on you... Its an entirely different ball game. Even well disciplined, modernly equipped soldiers will fall to a mob with enough truly desperate people in it.
Once again the scenario relies on a mob with a Goldilocks level of desperation, irrationality, and population size.
Quote from: Stabbity on November 04, 2013, 11:08:52 PMDo you remember when that jackass in Florida burned a Koran in 2010-11 (I don't recall the month, that year blurred together for me)? In Afghanistan the people went into a frenzy, protesting and rioting. They overran a UN compound in Kabul that was well guarded with armored vehicles, trained soldiers, automatic weapons, etc, etc and slaughtered everyone inside save for one person who spoke Pashtu and convinced the people that she was a muslim so they spared her. They beheaded each and every single person there. A local population will always behave differently than concentration camp prisoners, do to simple psychology. I could go in depth, but it should be glaringly obvious.
This anecdote is completely removed from the point on several levels.
Are you talking about this incident http://www.nbcnews.com/id/42376051/#.UnnPCCQTGfY
Unless I'm reading this wrong it was a total of seven people killed, only four of whom were armed, by a crowd of hundreds which were likely organized and incited to riot by insurgents.
If a unit has used its hours to perform a takeover action it cannot act as a QRF because its occupied doing performing TO actions. Sufficient size is is not Times square. Medival peasants don't live in tiny villages. They lived in larger settlements for protection from brigands and the like. Which I have stated before and you continue to ignore. The types of units you're listing are not relevant to the time period. Standing armies were not a thing in BM's time period. 1100-1300 is BM's time frame and soldiers of that time were primarily levies and mercanaries. Three a unit's numbers is easily enough to wipe them. The average noble commands about 40 men. 120 peasants is not hard to come by. Men handing out food are not going to be in tight formation. Have you tried.moving through a settlement in armor in tight formation and handing out food? It doesn't work.
Also a circle is weak. Form square, two ranks. Polearms in the second rank, kneel and lock shields in the.cirst. Assuming you are able to form ranks in time. Mobs aren't a clear danger until its too late. Otherwise you end.up threatening or killing the people you're trying to win over.