Rathgar: Basic Concept

[Tom]

The 2nd initial realm will be small, meaning 10-15 players.

My idea is that it should provide a place for fans of more primitive culture, maybe viking or similar. Not as old, refined and bureaucractic as the large realm, but fierce and proud and strong. Warriors would be the most respected class.

Don't underestimate the vikings, though. They were also explorers and farmers, and while it might have been primitive, they did have a rich culture.

[Alexskr]

Celtic and slavic could also easily be used as inspiration although I am pretty sure that the norse would still win any popularity contests around here considering what we already saw on the map.

[Valast]

Nation born of conflict is the best way for a nation to rise up with the warriors at the top.  I can see a strong sense of honor in war and personal combat becoming a norm here.  Duels to provide solutions to civil disputes...with honor bound acceptance that the dispute is over once the combat ends.  Rise and fall of power for a noble would depend on his or her ability to remain strong and to have strong friends.  Power would shift about quickly just by luck...a strong tribe leader trips on a stone or is sick before a duel and suddenly they find their village has less tribute than it did the day before.

Of course outside threats would be dealt with togaither no matter what internal issues were at hand...pride and honor would dictate it so.

[Finton]

Yeah, the Vikings always win in terms of popularity. Its why I signed up for the big realm instead of waiting to see what came out of here. Still, I'd be remiss if I didn't give some support for the Celts. Lands divvied up by "Clan". I'm obviously drawn to local examples, so internal conflict would exist in terms of holding what you can hold and taking what others can't. The internal conflicts leave the overall realm very prepared for military conflict at the drop of a hat. Military is their priority because military is the only way they can hold what they have. While fighting each other is part of the lifestyle, there is no greater crime than fighting each other for an outside force.

Just a thought.

[Tan dSerrai]

I am attracted to a culture where both personal valor and (proto) democratic elements can be found. I think the closest would be the nordic culture, maybe the islandic variant. Wether this is viking, saxon, celt or similar is not too important for me. Could be of a cossack type as well.

Basically I would like to see clans who vote on some issues internally - and externally on issues that interest several clans. Combine that with emphasis on personal combat, the option to take from you neighbour by force of arms - or even better, to force him into an oath of fealty or into paying tribute by trial by combat. Valast did describe it better....

[Bubba]

How about going back to basics, and instead of choosing a historical culture, we simply play a primitive culture without reference to any particular historical example?

Take a name like "Grimskeggr" for example.  That's clearly Norse. But after translating what the name actually meant to the Norse back then, "Wildbeard" could be a name from any primitive culture, from Norse to Celtic to Native American. That way, we don't have to alienate people.

I would suggest a history that allows diversity. Perhaps we were many distinct but equally primitive and war-like peoples who once lived in the choice lands of Realm Alpha, until their untrustworthy "diplomacy" divided us up and their cowardly "organisation" and "discipline" on the battlefield allowed them to beat us individually. Pushed from our fatherlands, we all fled in the same direction. Now we have our internal disagreements, but we vow that when fighting the Alphans, we will never allow them to trick us again.

[cenrae]

Basically I would like to see clans who vote on some issues internally - and externally on issues that interest several clans. Combine that with emphasis on personal combat, the option to take from you neighbour by force of arms - or even better, to force him into an oath of fealty or into paying tribute by trial by combat. Valast did describe it better....

I like that idea as well.

[Bubba]

Sounds good to me. I'd like to add a twist: the voting is done by all the warriors. All of them.

When there's an important issue, we all meet at a thing and vote based on how many soldiers each noble brought. Each soldier is considered to be "voting" for his lord. This ensures that keeping a strong military is important among us.

In many primitive culltures, being given a spear was a sign of manhood, and spears had to be taken to the moot and presented before voting. In parts of Britain, there are still assemblies called Wapentakes (weapon-showings) because the people used to be required to present their weapons.

[Tom]

I massively like the idea of soldiers counting as votes.

You might want to make them count different amounts depending on their type, though, or people will recruit cheapest troops just for the votes. Unless, of course, you intentionally want this "exploit" of the system a historic artifact.

[Andrew]

Hmm...

Well, anyone can pick up a stick and swing it, so improvised weaponry probably shouldn't count. It just seems kind of wrong. I mean yeah sure, anyone can go out, take over a few villages, and bring back a huge army. Which would instantly destabilize whatever stability there is.

I'd have to say I'm in favor of better troops being equal to more votes.

[Tom]

One solution would be to count legs - making cavalry count 6 instead of 2.

Or you could count arms, meaning improvised weapons don't count.

Or, maybe the easiest solution, you only count "real warriors", meaning medium and heavy infantry and cavalry and nobles, but not archers or light infantry.

[Tan dSerrai]

I really like the idea of having your warriors have votes.

And within the proposed culture I would assume that only armoured warriors are seen as such....so we'd only count the votes of scale, chain or plate armored warriors.

Alternately there was the system of 'lances' - one lance having been one heavy cavalry plus several armored retainers plus some lightly armed servants responsible for retrieving their lord from the battlefield. A lance did consist of (very roughly) 8 warriors. This could be adapted as well...still, I like the above better for ease of play.

[Bubba]

Yeah. Armoured warriors would be the safest and easiest bet. I like the lance idea, but it may be too restrictive for some players that want force compositions different from the standard lance. If we can all agree on equivalent lance alternatives, I'd say that's a winner.

[Finton]

Just throwing out another thought. You could always do promotion in the clans/tribes/etc. the fun way. If your superior wants to replace you, he informs your underlings/vassals that the first one of them to kill you gets your place. All sorts of things could happen then. You'd want to make regular efforts to prove your loyalty to your superior, but you'd always be waiting for the order to come down from his/her superior to take their place. Only the very lowest and very highest would not be effected by it.

[cenrae]

What exactly is classified as Medium infantry. Ive been building up my current small towns buildings for some time now and Im still only producing light...