So my players after spending the whole Uther period hating Saxons and fighting with Earl Roderick were disgusted with how the Countess handled the first year of the Anarchy Period. They hated paying tribute to the Saxons. So they marshal their forces and allies and at the end of 496 they forced the Countess to give up regency to one of the players.

The player who took over regency, Sir Gregor, has vowed to the Salisbury court to never pay tribute to the Saxons. Instead he will try to build a defensive coalition Silchester and the other neighboring lands in order to fight the Saxons.

My question is what should the response be from the Saxons at having their demand for tribute denied. I know the Grudge score is supposed to be the answer but I feel simple raiding isn't as detrimental to the lands of Salisbury as paying tribute is. It also seems like a double standard, in 497 when Wight denies tribute to King Cerdic he attacks and conquers them. Would he not attack Salisbury in force as well? Maybe not in 497 as his forces are committed to the Isle of Wight but perhaps in the following years?

If Cerdic does attack how large would his army be? Could Salisbury realistically fight them or would they have to hide behind their walls and hope to survive a siege? Would that even work? Is Cerdic's army strong enough to attack the castles of Salisbury and take even Sarum itself?

I know this is all really up to me to decided. I would just like to know what other people think about this and how they handled it themselves.

Thanks!

Well, Wight is much smaller than Salisbury, if I recall correctly. So conquering it as an example makes sense from Cerdic's point of view. Salisbury is a tougher nut to crack.

I do agree that as things are at the moment, the tribute payment is very detrimental compared to the raiding, as it directly modifies the income a PK gets from the manor (or the resulting standard of living). Some ways to deal with this:
1) Soften the tribute payment and make it a Fate modifier comparable to the Raid. Or at the very least, make it -£1.5 per tribute, enough to drop one from Normal to Meager rather than all the way to Bad Harvest (if using BotM).
2) Escalate. Sure, the Saxons start with a Raid, but then they will ramp up the pressure. The second non-payment, and they will march a real army in, and pillage the eastern half of Salisbury. The third non-payment, they will plunder. The geographical division should also make for interesting internal politics.

Those would be my suggestions.

As for the size of Wessex's army, in 508, they muster 2000 warriors to resist Natanleod. Salisbury probably has around 100+ knights and around 300+ soldiers. So that would be what, 2:1 odds, about, depending on how much 'weight' you give to the Saxon warriors (above odds are eyeballed with soldier = warrior and knight = 8 warriors, but given the 5d6 Saxon raider, you could even make the odds 3:1 by assuming that half of those warriors equal 2 soldiers each). So yeah, that would make hunkering in a castle a much more attractive option, or getting allies, while at the same time, be enough of a risk that Cerdic would prefer Salisbury submitting without a fight. After all, even if he wins a battle against Salisbury, his army might be weakened and reducing all those castles will take a lot of time and effort. I think that is about the right balance of forces. PKs can risk it, but are definitely facing an uphill battle to take on Cerdic on their lonesome. Depends how desperate for allies you wish to make Salisbury. I think I would go with 3:1 odds, since clearly, conquering Wessex on their own is not in the cards for Salisbury.

I would use Morien's sugesstions. Salisbury is very different from Wright. But hè would probably have a 3:1 odds and could take them.

In my game their chief concern is Cornwall at the moment. We are in 499 currently. I ruled that at least 3 counties were needed to resist Cornwall.

The biggest concern for Cerdic is how others will react.
What does Aelle do? What will Silchester do? Since they form an alliance of their own, they may offer help,. But that may result in that they pay tribute to them.
Jagent, Somerset and Dorset may offer to help. But will soon be attacked by Cornwall. This could give Cerdic the opportunity if they split their army to help them.
Clarence could also help, but this would also be at a price.

A fourth party that can make their task difficult are the other vassals. How do they stand against the coup? Maybe they manage to gain the help of other counties? That could make the PKs live interesting.

Well, Wight is much smaller than Salisbury, if I recall correctly. So conquering it as an example makes sense from Cerdic's point of view. Salisbury is a tougher nut to crack.

Cerdic also holds most of Hantonne County.

The biggest concern for Cerdic is how others will react.


Yes. Not only how they would react to Cerdic attacking Salisbury, but how they'd react to Cerdic's army winning a costly conquest of sieges and assaults against fortified positions (even assuming Cerdic's warriors would agree to do that). Port is biding his time in Chichester, possibly ready to challenge Cerdic again, if Cerdic were to look weak. Aelle would be both able and willing to force Cerdic to acknowledge him as Bretwalda, but as things are currently, Aelle has easier or more urgent matters in his mind...

In our campaign, Cerdic will be playing his half-Cymri status and 'son of the High King' card for all its worth. He wants Salisbury to submit peacefully to him, because then he loses no warriors and gains many knights to bolster his own army. Not to mention to serve to legitimize him, at least amongst a portion of the Cymri. Marriage alliance between himself and the Countess, or his son and Lady Jenna, would be proposed, too... I am looking forward to see how my players will react to those proposals. :P

Thanks for the help everyone, that gives me a clearer view of the situation. I am going to have Knights in Salisbury working against the players. The players have already scorned several of them which will make it all the easier.

It's also good the know the relative strength of Cerdic's army. Knowing that he can't simply sweep through Salisbury changes the feel of the situation. When the players deny his request for tribute Cerdic will have to use guile and diplomacy to gain an overwhelming advantage over Salisbury. Perhaps Cerdic can use Duke Ulfius against the player. The Duke clearly wont be happy about what the player have done to the Countess.

As for the whole tribute vs raiding issue goes, I am probably going to raise the damage caused by raiding and the likes rather then lowering tribute. My players have been using the Manor system heavily to build their own wealth despite my efforts to keep them from becoming accounting Knights.

As for the whole tribute vs raiding issue goes, I am probably going to raise the damage caused by raiding and the likes rather then lowering tribute. My players have been using the Manor system heavily to build their own wealth despite my efforts to keep them from becoming accounting Knights.
My PK's hated Anarchy because they worked to build up their manors, and then all those improvements, along with essentials like blacksmiths and mills and such, were destroyed in raids.

My players have been using the Manor system heavily to build their own wealth despite my efforts to keep them from becoming accounting Knights.


With BoM, alas, you will loose that fight. The whole book, in my opinion, is flawed. Just remove it if you don't like it.

On the other hand, using the BoM in the Anarchy era will give the PKs a though time. But come Tournament era, they will all be awash in Libra.

(Sorry for the rant, but I just rolled a crit on my Hate (BoM)-passion).

On the other hand, using the BoM in the Anarchy era will give the PKs a though time. But come Tournament era, they will all be awash in Libra. (snip)
One of my PK had built up his manor, and then got captured. He was amazed to find that his ransom was higher than that of a normal knight, and I pointed out that his lands were worth so much more than a normal knight.

When he asked how that worked, I mentioned that getting glory for levels of maintenance meant that people *knew* he had more money than most, and since people knew he was rich they figured he could afford a higher ransom. He was not happy.

On the other hand, using the BoM in the Anarchy era will give the PKs a though time. But come Tournament era, they will all be awash in Libra.


I am not too bothered by that. You'll just need to keep a couple of things in mind:
1) You can increase the service requirements of the manor once there is a new generation. "Sir X, your father increased the wealth of his manor to an average of £12 annual income (if using BotM, £20 if BotE). Hence, you are required to bring two knights to my army instead of just one. You don't accept this? Alright then. Sir Y, would you care to have this fine manor?"
2) In Tournament Period, you'll also have new horses that cost an arm and a leg. And new armors that cost just a leg. These act as money sinks. Furthermore, assuming PKs have more than one son and one daughter each, they will need money for the knighting of younger sons (even if they intend to give their own armor to their younger son when they die) and for the dowries of the younger girls. Another money sink.
3) Entourage members are useless unless you have a bit of extra income to retain them.
4) Having more Income means being afford a higher SoL. Which means (in regular KAP) more children. See 2.
5) Money sitting in a vault is money doing nothing in KAP.

I do agree with your main point: if you don't want the PKs to develop and fiddle with their lands, don't give them the opportunity to do so, but use a strictly narrative system. And I would even admit that you have a point about the cost of the Investments vs. the income they generate as overly generous. I think they currently pay themselves back in 5 years or so. If they get destroyed before then in a raid or such, you lost money. If it is after, you gained money. Pushing that to something like 10 years would make investments a fool's choice during the Anarchy, and also slow down the doubling cycle a lot during Pax Arthuriana. You know what, I don't think my players have built too many of those yet in our early game. Time to put on some breaks and move to the 10 year model. :P

I am not too bothered by that. You'll just need to keep a couple of things in mind:
1) You can increase the service requirements of the manor once there is a new generation. "Sir X, your father increased the wealth of his manor to an average of £12 annual income (if using BotM, £20 if BotE). Hence, you are required to bring two knights to my army instead of just one. You don't accept this? Alright then. Sir Y, would you care to have this fine manor?"
2) In Tournament Period, you'll also have new horses that cost an arm and a leg. And new armors that cost just a leg. These act as money sinks. Furthermore, assuming PKs have more than one son and one daughter each, they will need money for the knighting of younger sons (even if they intend to give their own armor to their younger son when they die) and for the dowries of the younger girls. Another money sink.
3) Entourage members are useless unless you have a bit of extra income to retain them.
4) Having more Income means being afford a higher SoL. Which means (in regular KAP) more children. See 2.
5) Money sitting in a vault is money doing nothing in KAP.

Well, I'm a bit skeptical if a Lord can go back on the charter of a manor in the way you suggest in 1), but otherwise I agree. It is not so much the money that bothers me, but the "accounting knight" phenomenon. The PK is generous, valorous and kind, but in the Winter Phase he becomes a modern thinking capitalist, trying to maximize his agricultural investments. It is, granted, not a big problem, but it bother me. And the other problem is that you may - as I did - end up in a situation in a campaign where some players love BoM and others hate it. For the same reason, so to speak, the fiddling money-maximizing that it allows.

Well, I'm a bit skeptical if a Lord can go back on the charter of a manor in the way you suggest in 1), but otherwise I agree.


According to Greg, it would be part of the reassessing the estate after the death of the Lord. Let me see if I can find the thread where I asked it... This is the closest I could find quickly:
http://nocturnal-media.com/forum/index.php?topic=1915.msg15082#msg15082

According to Greg, it would be part of the reassessing the estate after the death of the Lord. Let me see if I can find the thread where I asked it... This is the closest I could find quickly:
http://nocturnal-media.com/forum/index.php?topic=1915.msg15082#msg15082


Well then, that is interesting. A really good option to keep those agri-accountant types in check :D

To the issue of the min maximizing when it comes to the book of the manor limiting what can be built during which times due to the historical era the period you play in is a great limiting factor for that super "Accounting Knight". That being said the lord of a manor is gonna due everything in his power to get the most out of what he has, so I cannot begrudge the knight who thinks ahead of his time to enrich himself. Also part of being a vassal it that as your status increases so should your gifts/court fees and what you bring to the fight for your lord increases by an equivalent percentage to the increase in status.