Book of Battle p9

An average county has 200 knights (and 1200 footmen)...

KAP5 core rules p55

These are the local men whom you know and admire. They are the key figures among the seventy or so knights of the county

KAP5 core rules p135

On average an earl controls 75 knights...
My emphasis

(plus various similar statements going back through earlier editions)


Clearly something has changed whilst the BoB was being drafted. I have two questions:

1) (for Greg) - what was the design thinking behind this shift?

2) (for everyone) - thoughts/suggestions on how to square the discrepancy for those of us who have the 'county = 70-80 knights' established as an in-game fact.

Regards
Luke

Regarding (2), the easiest way to rationalise it would be to say the county contains on average 75 landholding knights, and the rest are the assorted household knights. So, there could be, for instance, 30-40 knights with a single manor, 30 knights who each also have 1-3 household knights (averaging 2 each), and 10 bannerettes, each with 3-10 household knights (averaging 4-5 each), and the earl himself with, say, 15-25 household knights.

Note: the preceding numbers where of course plucked out of thin air - many other distributions are possible.

The earl would naturally be most concerned with the number of landed knights - those he can tax directly call on for advice, etc.

Here's my theory.

I think the answer to (2) is simply escalation.

During Arthur's reign, the size of lances (and armies) increases as Arthur and other lords start to hire more mercenaries and keep them as standing troops.

If we assume that the manors from the early years have been built up a little, then they are bringing in more income than the 6L/year they started at. Considering that sctuage is 10L, it seems likely that most manors are probably making close to 16L/year by the height of Artur's reign. And that's just the knight's "cut". Thats a 167% increase.

So assuming that is the case, then by the Romance Peroid most lords will be making about 167% more the income they were during the Uther Period, and therefore, could afford to field an equal increase in troops.

A 167% increase of 75 knights is 125 knights, and that is where the 200 knight comes from.



If I'm right, one nice benefit is that all of use running with 75 knight counties don't have a discrepancy to resolve. We just need to increase the number of knights as time goes by. Lieges reaccess those thriving manors and so on.

Book of Battle p9

An average county has 200 knights (and 1200 footmen)...

KAP5 core rules p55

These are the local men whom you know and admire. They are the key figures among the seventy or so knights of the county

KAP5 core rules p135

On average an earl controls 75 knights...
My emphasis

(plus various similar statements going back through earlier editions)

Clearly something has changed whilst the BoB was being drafted. I have two questions:

1) (for Greg) - what was the design thinking behind this shift?


Faulty editing is the immediate cause.
The discrepency is from the time that each census is done.
In 485 75 knights is average.
In 530, 250 is average.

Book of Battle was not the right place to try to explain the differences in population, so I didn't.

But then, it should not have been the place to insert this without explanation, either.

This is one of the problems I always run into with my players. They always want to know how many there are. And its been pretty frustrating getting different numbers. I've been playing it 50-100 knights per county (25% household/75% landed), an additional amount of roughly as many sargeants in some counties. And 10x that as footsoldiers.

I like the explanation that the knight population increases a lot ;).

The problem of numbers (and other things, such as equipment, people, NPC skills etc) at what time in the game is one of the things I really hope could be better in further editions (its has been getting better in 4e and 5e, although a lot got muddled from the shift in starting year between the editions). I ran into numerous issues in my campaign where I had to wing it, and it came out totally wrong due to a later available shift.

This is one of the problems I always run into with my players. They always want to know how many there are. And its been pretty frustrating getting different numbers. I've been playing it 50-100 knights per county (25% household/75% landed), an additional amount of roughly as many sargeants in some counties. And 10x that as footsoldiers.

I like the explanation that the knight population increases a lot ;).


In fact, that is so.
Uther population starts low, minimal. Those numbers are shown in, oh, KAP for Sarum.
The numbers grow, until around 531 ("later half," or Romance Period) are at the numbers that I used in KAP4.
And they keep growing, everyone getting richer (ha ha) and then crashes with the Plague.



The problem of numbers (and other things, such as equipment, people, NPC skills etc) at what time in the game is one of the things I really hope could be better in further editions (its has been getting better in 4e and 5e, although a lot got muddled from the shift in starting year between the editions). I ran into numerous issues in my campaign where I had to wing it, and it came out totally wrong due to a later available shift.


Nothing is wrong if it's done with good intent.
As you know, a GM always makes stuff up.

I do plan to do the GPC2 some day, and it will have some very fun stuff, and better explained period by period.
But for now, tiny steps first!

Also just ti interject.. I am thinking that every county is quite a bit different than the other. Some are bugger some are richer and able to support MORE knights. sOME ARE SO SMALL THEY COULD BARELY BE CALLED COUNTIES, SO i HAVE NEVER HAD A PROBLEM WITH THEIR NOT BEING A CONCRETE AVERAGE. I dont even always give my players a direct answer when they ask how many knights their county supports. Its the darkages! they cant count anyway!!!!! HAHAHAH ::)