Morien

I think that is what it is trying to say. If we look at the normal Knight, Move 15 or so, it takes about 6 rounds to cover 90 yards, roughly right for getting from 200 yards to 100 yards. Obviously, once you are galloping, I'd say that you cover the Medium and Short in a single round. Those numbers are obviously for quick convenience. Your horse, merrily galloping 100 yards per round (I assume, from the Long), doesn't suddenly stop at the 30 yard line because the range band changes!

My reading is closer to Uqbarian's. Greg was notoriously lax with his language, but the burghers/city dwellers/burgesses/townsmen clearly include all who are citizens of the city/market town, including the manufacturers/craftsmen living in the town rather than in villages. Not just the upper crust administrators. That being said, there is a clear internal inconsistency between ~5% burghers being ~90k, and ~5% of the population being non-commoners with 25k. Given that I don't like the 25k number to begin with, it is clear which way I am leaning. 😛 No doubt there are some escaped serfs / slaves in the cities as well, but most of the population would be a bit too many, IMHO. In the end, I seriously doubt Greg spent too much time worrying about this.

As a quick aside, UNC should be 6 regardless. Book II, p. 9: "Rounding Numbers Values and die outcomes are always rounded to the nearest whole number."

No problem. I think we are reaching a consensus here. 🙂 The estimates for the cavalry of William range from 1000 to 3000, and we don't know if every cavalryman was a knight, is what I was trying to say. Also, William hired a lot of mercenaries from all over France: his forces were assigned into three battles based on their origins, and only the center one was Normans. So no, I don't think Duchy of Normandy had 3000 knights, nor even 2610. But yeah, it is getting off-topic a bit. My point is simply this: Vassal knight: £5.5 for the army, £4.5 for his family and court and discretionary spending = 1 knight per £10. Household knight: £5.5 for the army, £4.5 for the liege's family and court and discretionary spending = 1 knight per £10. You need to compare like with like here. The barons are not supporting two household knights and 4 infantry out of every £10 demesne manor, just 1 HHK and 3 infantry, same army as for a vassal knight manor. OK, now I understand somewhat better how you did your accounting. I don't think it is the case, but fair enough. I can see how you would come to that conclusion, and it would be somewhat pleasing if that were the case. But as I said, I don't think it is. For one, the Clergy is clearly providing knights, too. I don't think the table is infallible, either. For example, we know that Ulfius has lightened SD requirement, but we don't see it reflected in the Great Nobles row. Could be that Uther hit Gorlois with some extra servitium debitum, just to mess with him, but even more likely is that Greg didn't update the table. It also isn't an exact match with BotW, p. 38, Table 3.1. Anyway, I wouldn't sweat too much about it. Do what works in your campaign. Yeah, agreed. Yeah, which is why I said you could get easily anything from 600 000 to 1.3 million with just varying the assumptions a bit. As you said earlier, it is probably just easier to decide what kind of a historical analog you are going for and what would be a reasonable population for it, and then go for it. Good point about the Spares marrying, need to make sure that there is a cadet branch ready to go if the main one snuffs it. This would alleviate the issues for the non-spare Household knights marrying, by the way. Granted, you still need to find a way to pay for it, but there are usually some ways to do it, at least for some of them. But yeah, there would be some incentive for a liege to cultivate the spares, too, just in case they happen to inherit, it is better to have a loyal, devoted vassal than one with an axe to grind.

My solution for this is to soften the statement on the marriage of the household knights. It is not that they don't EVER marry. It is that they don't USUALLY marry young, or if they do, it is not within their class, but some commoner with very little to offer in the way of dowries. So, my solution to this is roughly as follows: Vassal knights provide, on average, 2 knights for the next generation, the heir and the spare. So that is 2*20% = 40% of the next generation. Household Knight officers DO marry, and provide at least one knight for the next generation. While there are not that many officer spots in general, they tend to be awarded to older guys, so they don't stick around that long (and thus more HHKs get the turn on the chair). Or if they do, they have the wherewithal to get a spare, too. Call that 20% of the next generation. Roughly a fourth of the household knights (so 20% of the total) do marry commoners (supporting that family from loot/largesse from family/friends/liege or her own work, even) or noblewomen (working as ladies-in-waiting, etc), and generally manage to get a son, who inherits the father's equipment. So this is another 20%. So you roughly end up with a bit less than half of the HHKs who marry and the rest who do not (dying young, not distinguishing themselves enough for the Liege to help in the support of a family). This proportion might still be a bit high, given that BotW says (p. 7) that they don't usually marry (but note that it doesn't say that they NEVER marry). However, it is about half of the HHKs during their whole lifetime. If we assume that it is mainly the older ones who marry, in any snapshot of the HHK pool, the unmarried, younger cohorts would be the majority. Good enough for me. Finally, the esquire officers generally do marry and get families, especially the more distinguished ones, so now and again, there are promising youths who manage to get sponsored by the liege (perhaps when knighting his own son, knighting some of the son's childhood friends as well) or by not-too-corrupt graft over the years by the officer (you know, gifts for your consideration kinda thing...). This would be the last 20% or so. Of course, given that there are at the very least as many esquires as there are knights (or close enough), as well as the younger brothers of the ones who got knighted, they help to fill in the squire pool and the esquire ranks later in life. And there is some bleed in from richer merchants, common soldiers of obvious prowess (especially in Uther Period) as well.

Harold explicitly had the fyrd, which is the free man militia equivalent. His army was mostly huscarls and fyrd, and famously lacking in cavalry. The local fyrd can easily supply Harold with enough men. As for William's forces, I have seen estimates as high as 3000 for cavalry, but was all cavalry knights? I doubt it. Even if we go by Pendragon's 1 knight + 1 squire and ignore any non-knight cavalry, 1500 knights + 1500 squires = 3000 cavalry in total. OK, that is your prerogative, certainly. My argument was for the Anglo-Norman ~early 12th century, and it seems that we agree that the higher population is appropriate for the later historical period. I'll just address a couple of points below for completeness. The upkeep for the (ordinary standard of living) knights is the same, regardless of their status. True, the vassal knights are often married as soon as they can and thus would soon be providing for the family as well, but the knight+squire+horses is the same £4 per year. I agree that assuming that each manor of £50 has ~ 100 households, and that every household has ~5 members is a HUGE assumption. But one has to start from somewhere. But the Agricultural lands table in BoU p.9 actually leads to a higher number of people, not smaller. It is Assized Rents, so without any bonuses from anything else. If we assume that the typical PK manor is typical, so with £10 Assized Rents and 100 households, we can divide the ~£32000 AR by £10 and get about 3200 'manor-equivalents'. And then multiplying by ~300 people per manor, we get a total commoner population of about 960 000. Add the nobility and clergy (in proportion) and you get very close to 1 million, even with a 3-person average household. The above is just to show that you can easily argue for larger population sizes if you want to, but it all rests on your starting assumptions. (I have a few more things to say, but it needs to wait until I am back.) (OK, continuing...) As an aside, BoU, p. 9, Table 1.2 also shows that while the barons of the robe get about £5000 in AR, their SD requirement is more like 60% of what the barons of the sword are required to bring. No doubt the excess goes to specifically to the upkeep of clergy and maintenance of churches and such, which is also where I would expect the tithes to go. I admit that I couldn't quite follow your version of the budget... I am sure I could, once I reread it a few times more, but it is not really that important as it all hinges on the assumptions that we both admit are contradictory (your pref for a Dark Ages population and mine for 12th century) or very uncertain (the average AR attributed per person). Instead, I'd rather talk about something else, an alternative way to extrapolate the total population. With its own caveats and assumptions. Let me quickly do some more clean-up: I agree that trusting on gamefied survival tables for noble npcs and extrapolating that to a commoner demographics is a somewhat suspect. Certainly not something I would ever suggest doing for an actual paper studying historical medieval population. That being said, it did give us some numbers that are at least broadly consistent with the numbers that researchers have used for real data, like 35-40% of the population being under 15. Speaking of internal consistency, that is the other way of doing it, building it from knights out, assuming that the number of knights mentioned in BoU and the percentages per social class are correct. If we take 2610 knights as gospel, and assume, as I do, that each knight trains about 3 (mostly) noble squires during his active career, we should see two adult male esquires per knight, or a total number of noble men being 3xknights = ~8000 (rounded for convenience). Add an equal number of noble females, and we get 16000 adult nobles. Using your 0.67 kids per adult, we'd get ~27000 nobles. Then applying the BoU class percentages, we can add about 18 000 clergy to this, for a total of 45 000 nobles+clergy. Since they are together 5% of the total population, we can just multiply by 20 and get 900 000 total population for Logres. Again very close to about 1 million. If you vary those assumptions, say if the knights live longer and train 4 squires instead of 3, and the noble families have more kids, like 1 per adult, the number would become ~20 000 adult nobles, 40 000 nobles, and multiplying by 33.3 (since nobles are 3% of the total) = ~ 1.3 million. Conversely, if you assume that the number of knights vs. esquires is closer to 1:1 (whether dwarf or lifer squires are common, or that the knights are dying left and right, meaning more dead men's shoes to fill), then you can bring the numbers down by a third, to about 600 000 which is pretty close to BoU number and your preference (with 0.67 kids per adult, too). Assuming 1 noble kid per 1 noble adult would make it about 700 000. Again, depending what assumptions you use and plug in, you can easily get values from 600 000 to 1.3 million.

Speaking of demographics and historical parallels... There is also the population growth that should be happening in Arthur's times, assuming that it parallels the historical. Then again, the timeline is so telescoped that who knows what is going on, it would lead to a very ahistorical yearly population growth, and again, need more kids. But if BoB2 is right and Logres ought to have 9000 knights by X Period, then you need to get a lot more people and cultivate a whole lot more lands. Anyway, this kind of population explosion could easily turn the original £10 manors into something like £30 mini-estates, which would not only allow more knights to be supported, but easier to fund knighting them, too. I don't know where Greg got that 20/80 split, so I can't comment on that. I do agree with the main thrust of your argument, although my assumption is that the nobles with more scattered landholdings would be doing a 'progress' through their lands during the peaceful years at least. Similar to the itinerant Royal Court, but in smaller scale. Thus, the people would go where the food is, rather than vice versa, which would help to alleviate some of these issues. As well as having some local household knights assigned to outliers, as you pointed out as well. That being said, it could be nice to have a military incentive to have vassal knights. It would actually be pretty easy to accomplish, too, as a quick house-rule. For example, let's give the vassal knights an extra £1 'own manor efficiency' bonus. Now, the Liege Lord could, if he wishes, to demand some extra footsoldiers from the vassal knight, say two, which would cost that £1. This means that he himself could lower his own SD by 2 footsoldiers, meaning that for every vassal manor he hands off, he gains an extra £1 to spend as he wishes. Or he could keep his army the same, meaning that each vassal manor would bring him extra 2 footsoldiers for the army. Or if you want to go OP with it and really encourage subinfeudation, just double the landholding when it is enfeoffed to a vassal knight. Thus, a £300 baron who subinfeudates half of his lands, could bring a force of 45 knights to the field, rather than 30. However, in this case, his vassals would outnumber him 2:1, leaving him in a pickle if they dislike his rule. Obviously, both of those houserules would necessitate extra bookkeeping and ruling where the line really is. Like maybe caput major estate would benefit from the 'own manor' bonus, but nothing bigger would. And if someone has manors all over Logres or even the same county, only their 'home manor' would get this bonus. Which would encourage the lieges to actually get a bunch of single manor knights. Anyway, just off the cuff brainstorming there.

I suspect that my 3 kids per 2 adults was coming from three different places. One, to keep things simple and assume 5 people per household = mom, dad and 3 kids. Second, a simplification of assuming that the generation of adults is the same as the generation of kids, i.e. the adults would mostly have died off by their mid-40s. And thirdly, I think I got confused between replacement rate and the number of currently living kids. Given about one third mortality rate for kids, you'd need at least 3 kids per couple to be born, so that the next adult generation would be 2 adults again. Obviously (in hindsight) this is not the same as having 1.5 currently living kids for every adult. Although I admit I am surprised by the 0.67 number, which seems very low to me. I am probably discounting the older adults? Alright, I just ran my code for the BotE family survival rates (life expectancy at birth ~ 34 years, the revised table in BotE v.1.3.2), and I get about 48% of the population being younger than 21. So this would imply roughly 1 kid per adult. When I run it for kids younger than 14, I get 33.6%, so close to 1/3rd as to not matter. Which is actually pretty close to the lower estimates for the younger kids in my reference, which is pleasing. So, roughly, from the BotE family survival rates: 2/6 kids and younger teens (0-13) 1/6 older teens (14-20) 2/6 adults (21-45) 1/6 elders (46+) (Which, by the way, if you ignore the elders and count the older teens as kids, gets back to my original assumption of 2 adults and 3 kids. But yeah, I think my original thinking there was overly simplistic anyway.) Obviously the death rates and such in BotE are for game purposes rather than coming from actual real world data, even though it tries to get it at least roughly right. EDIT: I was a bit confused between the versions of BotE, but the above is right for v.1.3.2. The earlier version (1.1, I think) had a hellaciously high child mortality, leading to a very wide pyramid as the kids kept dying off. The actual (rounded) percentages: Kids and younger teens (0-13): 34% Older teens (14-20): 13% Adults (21-45): 38% Elders (46+): 16%

Nice analysis. My original idea was to simply reduce the households to 40-50 or so instead of 100 peasant households per manor. However, I think this caused some other issues, not the least leading to a very top-heavy societal pyramid. Yours is making the peasant household smaller, almost halving them, if I followed your arguments. Some quick comments below. Keeping in mind that I don't claim to have even a Masters in demographics or even history. Just a hobbyist's interest, and liking to tinker with the numbers for them to make sense to me. You cannot use the GPC's representation and overwrite BoU assumptions where that population number is given. The society in BoU is clearly early-to-mid-1100s, not Migration Era - Dark Ages. If you take the population estimates derived from the Domesday Book (so for 1086), you can get values up to 1.9 million for England (which, admittedly, is bigger than Logres, so you'd need to scale things down a bit) (Source: https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/seminars/seminars/conferences/venice3/programme/english_medieval_population.pdf p 16, Table 1, quoting Harvey 1988, pp. 48-49.). Taking the annual increase of 0.58% between 1086 and 1190 (the above reference, p. 18, Table 4), and putting us, say, 40 years forward to 1126, we'd expect another increase of ~26%. So you can pretty much half the population and still get ~1.2 million. So I don't think 1.25 million or so is beyond the pale for ~1100s equivalent Logres. This I would agree with, although it does ignore a few things. One is the peasant levy, which admittedly has been steadily de-emphasized, but there is also a mention of a county militia in BoU (e.g., p. 11), into which all free men belong. So in addition to the knights and footsoldiers, there is an additional pool of armed men in the case of emergencies, especially defensive ones. Now, how many men would belong into this militia? If we start from 100 households, and assume even 10% of free men households, this is an extra 1% to add to the 0.8% you calculated above for a total of 1.8%, not that far from 2% you got. Granted, it is a militia, not a standing army, but I would imagine it getting called up pretty often, especially if there are local raids. The other thing ignored is that the 1 knight and 3 footsoldiers is the norm, not necessarily the absolute dictum. It is possible that some barons would be bringing a different ratio, or the King himself might keep a larger core of infantry. Each knight removed adds 8 footsoldiers, almost tripling the numbers per manor. Although not quite, since you have ignored the squire, who would count as a combatant as per BoB2 rules, and hence you'd have to multiply by 5 (or 11 for a full infantry manor), not 4. So even the starting number should be 1%. Finally, there are also mercenaries, who could be hired to bolster the armies when needed, bringing the numbers up, although not by a full 100%, I wouldn't think. Point is, there are other inputs and variables that can be tweaked to get closer to the 2%, if that is the value you seek, not just the population. This seems like a very low number compared to the rule-of-thumb 5 people per household that I have seen in general use (such as in the Table 1 of the reference I gave above). Obviously, whether you use ~3 or ~5 has a big impact on the final population numbers, assuming that the number of households stays the same. Ah, here you misunderstand the BotE/W economics. The household knights do not spring up from smaller manors, but the same size as the vassal knights. The only difference is what happens with the excess income: does it go to supporting the vassal knight's family and 'court', or to the higher noble's family and court? Thus, you cannot scale the manor size (assuming that population is directly proportional to the income anyway, which is an assumption we both implicitly or explicitly make) down to 55% for the household knights. Same problem in your footnote [6], you cannot take 231 as the population size for household knight manors when using 420 for the vassal knights. In short, taking your numbers as gospel, 285 commoners per manor (assuming one manor per knight), it would still result in ~750 000 commoners and a total population of about 765 000, using BoU numbers for nobility and clergy. Or we could scale those up to keep the percentages the same, in which case we'd add about 15 000 clergy and 22 500 nobles (giving a bit more space for kids and esquires), for a total population of almost 800 000, or +60% compared to BoU. Granted, it is still much less than my suggested +100% or +150% (for 1 million and 1.25 million respectively). The population increase between 1086 - 1190 was about 0.58% (the above reference, p. 18, Table 4), and as I have said, this is a much better model for BoU and later Arthurian Periods rather than the Dark Ages model. Thus, you should have more kids than the steady state model you propose, and this would imply more (currently living which is an important distinction) minors than the 40% you propose. In the above reference (p. 16, Table 2), the estimate for kids below 15 is ~40%. I don't think the years 15-21 would push it to 60%, but you'd probably get closer to 50%. Given that some people marry in their teens already, this is probably OK as far as population growth is concerned. So the 'average' peasant household would probably be something like: husband, wife, 1 older teen or elder, and 2 kids (0-14). Depending a bit how you wish to juggle the number, you could claim that as a 50% split or even 60/40 if you put kids to pre-15 bin (or even pre-14, to keep it to the start of the 'apprenticeship' age at 14). 60% of adult noble males being knights is quite high, though. A quick back of the envelope calculation says that if a 21 year old knight lives to 42, he should have had 3 squires during that time. If he dies, he is replaced by a (younger) squire, so you would expect something like 1 knight and 2 esquires in the adult noble males, or about 33% knights. Obviously, that is a very rough estimate, but I think it is a better one than 60%.

Modifies the Army commander's Battle skill, so it does nothing for the PKs, generally. Except maybe decide which way the whole battle turns. GPC battles are scripted, so you don't need to worry about that. In 5e? Yes, you generally don't care how much damage you do, since it is all about Win/Lose. In 6e, my understanding is that you run it as a skirmish combat for those turns. Try to down as many enemies as possible and make sure that they stay down. EDIT: Yes, the Appendix B of the Starter Set (under Combat!) makes it clear that you do the combat as normal, roll damage, etc. Sounds about right to me. Personally, I prefer making it an opposed contest, typical enemy unit commander battle (15+) vs. the PK unit commander, rather than an intensity roll, with modifiers based on the situation: if your guys are winning and pushng the enemy before them, you are more likely to have a moment to make your assessment and pick an enemy, whereas if they are pushing forward, you pretty much have to fight the one before you. I don't think Great Spears exist in 6e? At least not in the Starter Set. Sounds fair. I am generally in favor of ransoms, since it helps to keep the PKs and NPCs alive. On the other hand, it is a quite useful way to 'other' the Saxons, when they don't even extend the courtesy of a ransom, being barbarians and such. My Wessex would definitely use Ransoms (due to the Cymric/Gewisse influence and Cerdic trying to be a more acceptable, civilized leader), but Aelle is a bit of a [redacted], who sacrifices a whole town to Wotan, so he might not be about that game. Only weaklings surrender anyway, not worth ransoming them back.

Book II, p. 55 (emphasis mine): "Move: The walking Movement Rate of the horse" Horses walk about the same speed as a human (at a brisk walk). So I would assume that the running / gallop multipliers would give a difference for the top speed. Book II, p. 39, mentions in Mounted Charge that you need 30 yards of distance to go from stop to a full gallop for the lance charge to be effective. So in a mutual charge, you need 60 yards, I think (meeting at mid point, 30 yards from each). Since this apparently happens in a single round, it is clear that the gallop speed is significantly larger than the walking speed. Book II, p. 44, Closing Distance table: It implies that human running speed is somewhere between trot and canter, and gallop is maybe twice as fast. There is obviously rounding going on here, so difficult to say for sure, but it is clear that max speed of a horse is higher than a human's. At a quick glance, I did not see the exact multipliers anywhere, either. I probably would assume that it takes the same 30 yards to slow down and turn again.

IIRC, Greg said he had done more research and found out that being a landed knight was the exception, not the rule. Since he was using real English medieval society as his touchstone for Book of -series, he changed the amount of vassal knights.

My two denarii... The 6e Intensity is, by RAW, how likely are the players to get a choice what enemies their PKs are fighting against. Whether they manage to do something with it is a matter of luck. It has much less to do with the general railroad of the scripted battles, since those battles seldom say anything what is happening to the PKs. The one where I think Intensity should be pretty high is the Battle of Eburacum, since it is an ambush where the PKs have to fight their out of. Less of a chance to fancy maneuvering, just hack and path and hope for the best. Mind you, I am also of the opinion that the Battle system would be more fun, if it were Intensity vs. Unit Leader's Battle, rather than just Intensity unopposed. Which would require higher Intensities for the same effect: Since unit leaders should have Battle 15+, Intensity 15 is about 50/50, where as unopposed Intensity 10 is 50/50.

Here is what I do: Lance: sharp tip, stout shaft (breaks on an odd successful skill roll) Early Jousting Lance (BK, Conquest): blunt tip (rebated damage), stout shaft (as above) Late Jousting Lance (Romance onwards): blunt tip (rebated damage), weakened shaft (breaks on any hit)

As it says: "from the core rules". So I guess those are parts of the game system that were not published in the Starter Set and have to wait until the core books are out.

Happy that you found them helpful! 🙂

It really depends how deep do you want to go into the individual PK's personal journey. It is all about sharing the spotlight. The fewer PKs there are clamoring for their share, the more you can focus on the PKs you have. I think most of KAP adventures seem to be balanced for 3-5 PKs in mind, although Greg did a nice thing in GPC by making most encounters scale with the number of PKs (like 2 bandits for each PK, and so forth). However, some of the individual big monsters you might need some help, so the GM can send a couple of NPKs to help (and act as meatshields, too, since if you only have a couple of players, you don't want their story to be cut short every other adventure...). Personally, for my style, 4 players is about the sweet spot. They split easily into 2 pairs of buddies if the group needs to split for some reason. There is enough NPC family members floating around that something interesting is probably happening in the background most of the years. But it is not so many that 1-2 Players sit mum, only rolling the dice occasionally. However, I definitely recommend doing most of the Winter Phase rolling off-session, between sessions. And do it at the start of the year. Not only does that give the GM a chance to prep something that will come up during the year rather than just surprising the PKs at the end of the year, making it more natural, but it saves time during the sessions themselves, as the players don't have to wait for the GM to look something up and then feverishly try to weave it into the story on the spot. This is especially the case if the GM is using more expanded manorial luck tables (Manorial Luck was introduced in Book of the Manor, but dropped from Book of the Estate, yet people still use it to get random events impacting on the manor) and expanded family event tables (or even the Personal Events and the Family Events from Paladin, which I would recommend over the KAP 5.2's Family Event one).

There is no Mounted vs Foot table. There is just Afoot vs. Mounted, which is for PKs who have been unhorsed and now find themselves on foot, facing against a mounted foe. The reason why there is no special in this case is because the (usually lone) knight on foot is very limited in what he can do, since he lacks mobility. Yes, I understand why it is confusing that there isn't a Mounted vs. Afoot table, too. This is because in 4th edition (and 3rd) from which this Battle system is mostly copied from, there were just two tables: If you are mounted, you use Mounted (vs. Mounted) table all the time, regardless of the enemy. If you are on Foot, you use Afoot (vs. Mounted) Table. There were just two tables, without all this confusion about what the enemy is. The trick there is that the chaos of the battle might force you to stand and fight the footmen, since you are not maneuvering on an empty, flat, limitless plane against that one unit, but are part of a bigger battle. I recommend you use this system instead, rather than get hung up on what exact enemy unit you are supposed to roll against. As SaxBasilisk said, that table doesn't work AT ALL for Battles. It would just about work for a Skirmish. It would be much better to take the Family Survival system from Book of the Estate, but the other easy way would be to build it directly from your Unit Commander Battle Rolls in each Battle Round. Something like: Crit = no losses Success = 2% losses Failure = 4% losses Fumble = 8% losses And then modify by the final result: Decisive Defeat: x2, the extra casualties result during the rout, and the wounded are captured as well. Indecisive: No modifiers. Decisive Victory: x0.75, recovering some of the captured losses. Distribution: One fourth are dead, one half are wounded, one fourth are captured. So let's say the Battle lasts 5 rounds. The Unit commander rolls Success (as this is First Charge, it is the Army commander's roll that matters), Failure, Failure, Success, Fumble. The loss percentage is 2+4+4+2+8 = 20%. The Battle ends with a Decisive Defeat, so we double the casualties, so 40%. Of these, 10% died outright in the field, 20% were wounded and captured (since it was a Decisive Defeat), and other 10% surrendered without major injuries. Assuming an eschille of 10 knights, this would be 1 knight dead, 2 wounded and captured, and 1 captured. While I would not cause a PK to get captured due to the above roll, I would still use the actual size of the eschille to calculate the losses, including the PKs. And if some of the PKs were left behind and captured, I would count them as losses. So in the above example, if one PK was knocked unconscious and left behind, then it would be just 3 NPKs rather than 4 that would be lost, too.

I am not a Chaosium employee nor in any shape or form authorized or qualified to give any policy answer, but... IMHO, based on my experience, I would assume that quoting copyrighted text is right out. Referencing ought to be fine, although personally, I would keep the exact adventure/campaign events a bit vague, and definitely not repeat exact roll mechanisms / monster stats, i.e. 'On Round 3 of the battle, Sir X gets -5 to Battle because...'.

Critical = equal to, so no. In 5.2, a roll of 20 always increased the value even if it was 20 or more. That omission here might have been space issue or an actual change. However, it is unlikely to matter during the Starter Set as you'd really have to work for it to get a value up to 20 in the three game-years. Again, I would assume it is a space issue. I wouldn't allow imcreases past 18+cultural bonuses (assuming those are still a thing). You can't go from 20 to 20 (+1) or from 20 (+1) to 20 (+2). I assume the wording is clunky because of the new notation. In 5.2, those values would have been 21 and 22, so no extra specifications were needed.

Nineve, by KAP canon.

KAP 5.2, p. 77: "A village of about a hundred households is part of your manor." Household ~ 5 people, so about 500 people. BoUther, p. 7: "Logres has about 500,000 total people". Hence my correction that this should be 'adult people', and the need to add ~ 750 000 kids for a total population of over 1 million. But 500 000 adults is roughly 250 000 household, so when divided by 2600 or so knights, you get about that 100 households from KAP 5.2. There is a third way of calculating the population of an estate, which is taking the example estates in Book of the Estate and matching the mentioned settlements with the settlement sizes in p. 11. Like Boarshead Estate has 8 villages and 3 clusters. Taking about average numbers, this would be about 450 households, which is close enough to the other estimates (500 households, average) that I am happy with it. Granted, there is a lot of guesswork with the sizes, as there is a factor of 3 between the smallest village and the largest village, but at least that example with averages seems to work well enough. Honestly, I think Lordly Domains makes it way too important to have towns. Towns are good for trading and specialized craftsmen, necessary even, but Lordly Domains takes that to an insane level. Like why do those extra 360 peasants suddenly be 10 times as productive than before? They are presumably doing the same type of farming as their villager cousins. I can understand that a bigger town would be maybe having higher taxes from tolls and such, and higher-value-added goods, so a bonus to those maybe, but x10 to food, too??? The table on page 18 is WAY out of whack. BotE is much better, IMHO, giving a trade bonus to the income when you are near a market town, a port or a city.

We can guess from two different directions (always keeping in mind that it can vary wildly depending on the local conditions and economics). One data point is the statement that a typical PK manor of £10 has about 500 people associated with it. Assuming that the same population density would apply and total area would scale with the landholding income, it would imply that a £50 estate would have about 2500 people, altogether, in its geographical area. The other point is looking at the total population of Logres (which should be closer to 1+ million, given the number of knights and demographics, the half a million would work for adults, but you need the kids, too), we can get a rough estimate of about the same ~400-500 people per knight. And since the estate supports 1 knight per £10, we can get 2000-2500 per £50 estate. Add a fudge factor of 50% either way and you can probably argue anything from 1500 to 4000 for a particular estate.

Yeah, it is OK to post session reports. I'd suggest starting a thread with your Campaign Name on it, and then just keep replying to it, rather than post a new thread each time. Since your campaign is in a homebrew-historical setting, you don't even have to worry about the spoilers of the published material. 🙂

Chargen is missing from the Starter, which is probably why you haven't seen it... I think the pregens would all fit that rule, though. Although I was looking at Clarion, and he has Bow, Crossbow and Thrown Weapon at 0, and Two-Handed Hafted at 5. We know that the character sheets had some editing mistakes, and I have not looked if there is an errataed pdf available for download yet.