Oleksandr

Well, free cities and their alliances (which sometimes also included market towns) was much more successful at protecting their rights. Additionally, in borderland/frontier regions, due to constant raiding/counter-raiding populase was much more accustomed to violence, and in this regions population tended to be largely uncontrollable, despite considerable government efforts. Cossacks was famous example, though English-Scottish border may be more relevant. It depends. At least in Northern/Eastern Europe during tribal/transitional period (in other words, for half of middle ages) elites had no power to enforce their rule without popular support. Chiefs's personal troops wasn't big enough to overpower militia. In fact, chief position often was electable, and kept in check by people assemblies. Well, besides that i quite familiar with it (being born in it 😅), it a good example of supposedly pro-people country that in reality was more oppressive than societies that stereotyped as oppressive. With state mandated romanticization campaign. I could provide a lot of examples, but most telling is this - during formation soviet government declared whole class of landholding farmers national enemies and launched elimination campaign. Then villagers were forced (including by artificial famine) into collective farms, without IDs (i.e. effectively making them serfs) until 70th.

Depending on region. Throughout middle ages there was quite a lot of popular movements against such injustice, occasionally quite successful. Often minor noblesse joined such movements. Additionally, free cities often joined alliances to protect their rights (including in England). There was also armed infighting between such cities and aristocracy, again, often successful. And in earlier (tribal) period attempts by "elites" to enforce their rule against the wishes of "commoners" often ends with death or exile of this "elites". As i said earlier, feudal societies occasionally could be more egalitarian then some later forms. More than soviet union at least (which too was heavily romanticised). At least wealth gap was relatively small early on, and ruling elite was obliged to serv in the military, as shock troops even.

🤨 as far as i remember they isn't planning any major changes in this regard in comparison to 5th edition. In which there was just option for female knights, and one female knightly order, which may or may not exist depending on playing group whims.As i pointed out in relevant thread, there was medieval precedents for both. In fact, in KAP games, as far as i can see, typically there like 1-4 female knights around, while literature give example of 12-strong group... Just like in modern society ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ in middle ages at least 3 woman was elected queen (or female king, depending on the local tradition) in elective monarchies. And at least two came to power by leading military coups, with wide support of aristocracy. Don't extrapolate victorian era prejudices on all of human history.

Well, while his rule was, obviously, troubled, i still have doubts he was as intentionally oppressive as normans. I mean, he wasn't conqueror of foreigners after all...

True. Yet, this african people mostly was men, and most of them arrived without families. Rome had break contact with Britain around 70 years before earliest starting date. That's generations of mixed marriages. So, black PK is much more likely to be foreigner than locally born. As i said before, no, they didn't. Female knights are within historical reality. I never could understand this concept. In video gaming, at least, it's pretty common to play characters of opposite gender. Same with race. As long as story is good it doesn't matter. KAP, with it's multigenerational (and relatively deadly) gameplay, lend itself to similar approach, when PKs is less player avatar, and more characters whose story players explore...

As was pointed out elsewhere, there was female knights in medieval literature (and in real middle ages too... kinda). But as for africans, there was just one or two (half-)black knights. It make sense, closest to Britain part of Africa doesn't have large black population. P.s. many researchers claim that chivalric romances this game based on was, in fact, highly feminist. By the standards of that era feminism at least.

Slightly off topic, but. So, mounted bonus apply to every attack in the case of the split. How about other such bonuses, like Tyr religious bonus (+5 to sword)?

This make me wonder, since basic game focused on chivalric adventures, would there be in the future games themed on german (nibelungs and the like), or eastern european/slavic legends...

It would also make sense if such encounters with multiple opponents would be more likely if PK army is outnumbered 😁 . As i understand, GM can "script" battle a little bit?

Hm, as i understand, Servitium debitum not always so standardised? (that would explain why some regional armies (in old editions at least) has more knights than soldiers)

4th edition had use for DEX in the form of feint... (if i remember correctly, Paladin has this option too)

This, + when flanking you face 1d6-2, so from 0 to 4. When you pursue and meet rearguard, or when you attacking enemy camp, you can meet up to 6 opponent. Question is, after you dealt with this 2-3 enemies you was engaged with, you fight the rest? Because rules for extended melee states that enemies are replaced each time... Most of such examples has "mob" ar "horde" in their description, so it make sense. Most of them are fairly inferior individually. (there was one example when it was explicitly stated that it isn't double number of enemies, but very skilled and disciplined ones)

Speaking of BoB. In rules for fighting multiple opponents you can engage 3 enemy at once. But in BoB there several instances when PK attacked by 4+ enemies (and some counts as X2 and X3). I understand correctly that PK had to fight them in waves, and this would count as single melee round?

Two more questions: 1) is 10% income bonus from nearby City/market town/port/(woods, from BoE) applicable for small manors - 10 and less L? 2) BoE states that landholder can maintain ut to 20% more knight than normal. Are there still obligation to provide 3 soldiers per this extra knights?

Speaking of generic, i noticed that in Book of Armies there not so many female opponents. And all by one example aren't in random tables, and can only be added by GM whims (and one that in the tables are from one specific battle - last day of Badon)... Notably, neither Irish nor tribal British have any.

If female knights common - they are generic*; If they rare - each are unique. And, in this very thread was quite a few examples of named Arthurian examples. *As example, in Warcraft movie almost half of human army was female. But everybody was wearing heavy armor, so most viewers didn't notice this. Besides, they was just as useless as male ones... This exactly what happened in aforementioned Fate universe - Artoria fathered Mordred.

It was attempted numerous times in other genres (including in Arthurian stories*). It's rarely successful, and generally audience prefer invention of new characters. *as major example, in japanese "Fate" franchise, Arthur/Artoria, Mordred and Gareth are women. (at least in most worlds of multiverse)

http://web.archive.org/web/20170226164946/http://gspendragon.com/swans_hundred.pdf http://web.archive.org/web/20170226165038/http://gspendragon.com/ambrius_hundred.pdf So, was there plans for more of such detailed descriptions of hundreds? I mean, it both interesting AND useful.

No offence, but... When it was originally written it was new, fresh take on the story. But nowaday it already a cliche. 😉 Besides, in most stories (including KAP) Arthur's court portrayed as not just tolerant, but outright supportive of pagans (Merlin, Ladies of the lake, multiple non christian KotRT). This would make Morgan look like delusional fundamentalist...

So, could you publish it here?😊 (at least more unusual/interesting ones)

So, as i understand, you have full description of all this castles?

Other point about this tables, is quite small percentage of knights per army. Even if knight-equivalents from other cultures was excluded (and it's unlikely that most battles expected to be against not-feudal foes). Averages on both tables are between 1/5 and 1/10. (i must repeat that i think that defeating powerful knight (especially one PK had history with) are more interesting then defeating dozen of random generic footmen. Additionally, fighting personally seams more heroic then sending commoners to fight instead) While in BoB later royal units said to have 1/7 knight ratio, counting squires (which i wouldn't), as i understand standard feudal obligation still would be 2 soldiers per knight? Even then, in older books, in descriptions of regions and their armies, many examples has much different ratios, some had more knights then soldiers. And this wouldn't be ahistorical. At Agincourt nearly half of french army was (mostly dismounted) knights. I hope that wasn't the reason they acted so stupid... There was cases of all-knight units up to several hundreds operating alone. Another interesting example - Battle of Kircholm (1605), when PLC army had 1000 infantry and 2600 cavalry, of this 2100 winged hussars (de facto knights), with result completely opposed to Agincourt. Especially noticeable given in what era this happened. Personally, i think that such RL examples provide good basis for even more knight-centric game. 😁

I'm not sure about this. He faced combined armies of all saxon kingdoms for several years, in the end largest so far saxon army marched through half of Logres (and some of the most populous parts), most likely plundering all the while. Before this, rebel force, combined might of 12 kings (+many other lords), also wrecked havoc. And saxons and other enemies probably used oportunity to raid while king was busy. Question there not only in people killed directly, long lasting economic effects (Including on child mortality) and general disruption of life wouldn't help demographics. I mean, it's hard to reproduce while hiding in the forest...

Yet, Arthur promised to knight Percival, even while assuming him to be just naive peasant kid... Beside, early feudalism was comparatively more egalitarian than many later form of society. Household knights and vassals knights with single manor (i.e. majority of nobility*) had income just slightly larger than rich peasants, of which there was much more then most people think. And, logically, there would be more in KAP, given smaller population density. So wealth gap would be even smaller, and "middle class" more numerous. * since Arthur wisely avoided empowering high nobility too much, there would be even larger proportion of minor noblesse. Which is useful, as they more likely to go adventuring instead of scheming.😆

Than again, as i said in another thread, realistically, population should have declined, at least until early Conquest period. And even prosperity that Arthur rule brought couldn't boost population grows that much. And then there was Wasteland and yellow plague... That around 3% of whole population, still somewhat to big for single battle. 🤔