Battle questions

[Lloyd Dupont]

I am thinking of a campaign I am preparing, that would put into conflict large group of people instead of just the adventurers adventuring, and 2 questions are niggling at me, one vaguely related to rules, the other not so.

Question one: exposure.
Medieval armies rarely fought in winter. A snowstorm could occasionally spell doom for an attacking army I am told. How do you model that?

Question two: loot share:
So, our fearless adventurers are part of a raiding Viking band. So if it's everyman for themselves, what is the boat owner and raid organizer to gain? And for that matter who is going to defend the boat when they land if whoever guard the boat gets no loot for himself? The idea crossed my mind, instead, to gather all the loot and do a share, I am told that pirates did that, with the captain getting 4 shares, while cook at the non-combatant support got only half a share, then I guess people lie on what they found? Anyway, all thoughts, facts, historical logistic example welcome! 🙂

[Peter Fitz]

Viking raids weren't always, or even often, every man for himself. They were generally well organised as far as loot distribution went, and in theory it all went into a common pile, though no doubt a fair bit of surreptitious "I'll just have that" of small, concealable valuables went on as well. The amount of booty you could expect from a raid's spoils was directly related to your position in the band's pecking order, though I don't know if there were any standardized proportions — I suspect not.

Viking (and Germanic) leaders were expected to be gift-givers, and being stingy with the loot was a sure way of generating grumbling amongst a bunch of large, hairy, heavily armed and violent men.

[Lloyd Dupont]

mm.. good to know.. in fact it was of my first ideas...
I am not sure about the chief taking an unknown part of the loot, might go with share... another partitioning I was thinking is half for the boss and the rest between the crew... but... mm... nope that won't do it.

Other than that the added pressure from their allies will add an interesting dynamic 🙂

[Nozbat]

I seem to remember that the 'officers' on the viking ship got a significant proportion of the loot (leader, steersman, prowman) and the rest got one share. I can't find the reference so it might have been something I made up.

But as @Peter Fitz said north European leaders had to be generous to their men. Sagas and poems from Scandinavia, Anglo-Saxon, Germanic roots all talk about people being ring-givers based on the kennings, where it is a metaphor for a wealthy and generous leader who gives his followers arm or neck rings as favours and for valour. Leaders who weren't generous lost their followers quickly.

In relation to your query about winter warfare, remember that there were few standing armies in feudal Europe. It was too expensive to keep them in the field for any length of time and winter requires more resources than warmer weather. Armies tended to be raised for a specific purpose and disbanded afterwards. Under the feudal system, people owed service to their Lord, who in turn owed service to his Lord who owed service to the King. The people also had to plant, tend crops and animals and bring in the harvest. Campaigning seasons could be very short if the Fyrd was raised and used. There are examples of the Fyrd leaving the campaign midway through because the harvest had to be brought in.

I just looked at some research which correlated military engagements from the 11th to 15th Century and the major factors that influenced warfare were farming chores and religious festivals (link is https://doi.org/10.4312/keria.23.2.49-65)

In terms of sea travel and sailing, again there are seasons were no captain would put to sea. The Hansa had a rule that all their ships had to be in port from November to mid-February as it was considered too dangerous to sail. The average viking raider would tend to winter rather than face the North Sea in winter. The chances of an army putting to sea in winter were minimal. I'm thinking of how many classical and roman armies were lost due to storms .. and that was in the Mediterranean. 

So to answer your Q1 and how to model it. Return to base, disband your army or lose it 

Q2, I'd say do what you want. 

I did quite a lot of mass combat in my Anglo-Saxon campaign (mass combat was anything from 15+ people in a shield wall). I used Mythras' Ships & Shieldwalls which I thought captured mass combat well. It could easily be adapted for BRP

[Lloyd Dupont]

I'd be mostly using Mythras, not BRP (after tossing with both quite a lot) I mostly prefer Mythras (mostly). Plus my magic supplement is all scaled to Mythras level of Mayhem (I think.. untested)

I didn't know about Ship and Shield Wall, I should take a look! Was mostly planning to wring it! 😛

Good tip for sailing in Winter.. my plan was to do just that, haha.. I should reconsider... and perhaps there won't be that much snow after all....

[Atgxtg]

20 hours ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

I am thinking of a campaign I am preparing, that would put into conflict large group of people instead of just the adventurers adventuring, and 2 questions are niggling at me, one vaguely related to rules, the other not so.

Question one: exposure.
Medieval armies rarely fought in winter. A snowstorm could occasionally spell doom for an attacking army I am told. How do you model that?

Depends on how you are modelling the combat. For normal character's I'd probably use Stamina rolls with difficulty (normal, easy difficult) based upon gear worn, shelter, fires, temperature, severity of the storm etc.

For an army I'd expect a storm to affect both sides equally, unless one had a fortified position for shelter.  It would really increase the fog of war, and make most missile weapons ineffective.

 

20 hours ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

Question two: loot share:
So, our fearless adventurers are part of a raiding Viking band. So if it's everyman for themselves, what is the boat owner and raid organizer to gain? And for that matter who is going to defend the boat when they land if whoever guard the boat gets no loot for himself? The idea crossed my mind, instead, to gather all the loot and do a share, I am told that pirates did that, with the captain getting 4 shares,

 

RQ Vikings had something on this. There were several methods to divide the loot.

One Common Method: He who owns the boat get's half the treasure. This is because they risk losing their boat, a very valuable item.. The rest of the loot is split evenly among the crew. That includes the Captain (unless he also owns the boat, in which case he will get the owner's share too). Generosity was a virtue so a wealthy Captain- Owner was expected to reward crew out of his larger share.

 

20 hours ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

while cook at the non-combatant support got only half a share, then I guess people lie on what they found? Anyway, all thoughts, facts, historical logistic example welcome! 🙂

That sounds more like pirates in the age of sail  than vikings. I doubt there would be any "non-combatants" on a ship then went out raiding. Nor do I think there would be any cooking done on  a Viking ship. I don't see them making a fire on an open deck. Those who can't fight either would go viking in the first place. Those who get too injured to continue raiding would find other things to do back at the farmstead. So you don't need to create jobs as a sort of pension like with pirates and sailors. 

[Lloyd Dupont]

Good ideas and points in here Atgtxt, I like it! 😄

Stamina roll.. duh, so obvious! Smack head!

Edited July 10 by Lloyd Dupont

[Atgxtg]

2 hours ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

Good ideas and points in here Atgtxt, I like it! 😄

Stamina roll.. duh, so obvious! Smack head!

Not so obvious. Just a default for when I don't know what else to work with. I'd probably adapt something from another RPG with exposure rules if I thought I needed them. Say where you make rolls or take some damage. But it all spends on the situation and how I was going to play the weather. If it's just an obstacle for battle then I describe the effects, and apply modifiers to whatever battle rules I used, if any. If PCs could freeze to death, then something more detailed. If it were a storm at sea then I'll pull out RQ3 or Sailing on the Seas fo Fate (or in your case a Legend/Mythras supplement with ship stuff). 

 

But is all comes down to how involved and detailed I waant th weather to be for the given adventure. 

[Ali the Helering]

A small detail - the Vikings weren't stupid enough to raid in winter.  They spent it planning the next season, maintaining the ships (usually on land) and eating and drinking whatever there was in the town they had seized or whatever they had managed to bring back behind their palisade.  The North Sea is not a place to go in a row-boat in winter, not even a drakkar.

[Atgxtg]

36 minutes ago, Ali the Helering said:

A small detail - the Vikings weren't stupid enough to raid in winter.  They spent it planning the next season, maintaining the ships (usually on land) and eating and drinking whatever there was in the town they had seized or whatever they had managed to bring back behind their palisade.  The North Sea is not a place to go in a row-boat in winter, not even a drakkar.

No but maybe they went out in Summer and got delayed on the way back? SO they decided to raid Britain or France and winter there. So they have to beat the locals.

[Kloster]

47 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

No but maybe they went out in Summer and got delayed on the way back? SO they decided to raid Britain or France and winter there. So they have to beat the locals.

The siege of Paris by Vikings lasted from November 885 to May 887, with an interruption in November 886.

[Ali the Helering]

The siege of Paris wasn't a raid.  It was part of an invasion, which was bought off rather than defeated.  An army of 5000 is somewhat larger than a raiding party in viking style, being several times greater (estimates vary) than the Great Heathen Army that imperilled the Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms.  Raiding parties tended to be more in the region of 3-5 ships, each with perhaps 30 - 35 men.

If they are 'delayed on the way back' they will build a stockade to hide behind while undertaking boat maintenance, as I said above.  They would undertake hunting expeditions to catch wild beasts, but raiding in winter is asking for starvation if it fails.

[Atgxtg]

51 minutes ago, Ali the Helering said:

The siege of Paris wasn't a raid.  It was part of an invasion, which was bought off rather than defeated.  An army of 5000 is somewhat larger than a raiding party in viking style, being several times greater (estimates vary) than the Great Heathen Army that imperilled the Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms.  Raiding parties tended to be more in the region of 3-5 ships, each with perhaps 30 - 35 men.

Yeah, whatever the boats could carry.

51 minutes ago, Ali the Helering said:

If they are 'delayed on the way back' they will build a stockade to hide behind while undertaking boat maintenance, as I said above.  They would undertake hunting expeditions to catch wild beasts, but raiding in winter is asking for starvation if it fails.

Pretty much. But then so if fighting in winter. Nobody did that sort of thing back in those days, and few would want to do it even today. I assume that some sort of chain of unforseen events cuase this sort of situation. Maybe a magically induced storm? Maybe an unseasonably warn winter that suddenly stops being so at just the wrong time. Maybe someone sets the Vikings' stockade on fire so they have to find someplace else to winter, before they freeze.

 

I mean, like with most bad situations, nobody tried to get into them. It's just that they end up there though a combination of bad luck, unforeseen events, and poor choices. The Germans didn't really want to winter in Stalingrad with their summer gear. But then ended up doing so. 

Most raiding parties won't fight if they run into any real resistance. It defeats the purpose of the raid, namely to grab "free" stuff for little to no risk. Once the raiders have to fight for it, against other armed warriors, the risk to reward ratio becomes too high to warrant it. 

 

But I assume the OP had stuff in mind for setting up the battle that they didn't mention because it wasn't germane to their question.

 

But you're not wrong on Viking behavior.

Edited July 11 by Atgxtg

[g33k]

RE shares of loot:

I'd calculate it as follows:
everyone gets 1 share
everyone who brings "something extra" gets an extra share (that "extra" could be a special skill (steersman, armorer, etc), a chief who brought a dozen warriors in his wain, the ship a captain brought, etc) -- 2 shares total
the captains/owners of ships get 2 more "extra" shares -- 4 shares total (n.b. a ships' captain who arrived with BOTH the ship and a dozen warriors gets 5 shares)
Overall leader gets 2 more "extra" shares (n.b. this will often be the captain of a ship, with a large number of warriors -- he may be up at 10ish shares!)

acclaim:
The leader gives an extra share to anyone he deems worthy (theoretically that's for exceptional  bravery, skill, etc but is often just favoritism)
anyone (typically 3-5 persons) who did something "exceptional" -- as voted by the entire group -- gets an extra share

Add up all the shares, divide.

[Atgxtg]

2 hours ago, g33k said:

the captains/owners of ships get 2 more "extra" shares

I'm sorry but this part wouldn't work. The rest is fine, but if the owner got only 2 shares, why ould the owner risk their boat on a raid? It's not worth it to them.

When you look at what it costs to buy (or make) a boat and how long it would last, then the owner has to make at least enough to pay for the boat, and preferably more to turn some sort of profit. THey won't be able to do that on 2 shares.  Thats without factoring the increased risk of losing the boat on a raid, as opposed to hiring a crew to go trading. .

For instance if a longship cost 3000, and lasts for 10 years or so, then the owner needs to make at least 300/year to break even. If the longship goes raiding with a crew of 25, and the owner gets 2 shares out of, say 30, then the raiders are going to have to net 4500 just for the owner to make enough (300) to break even. That's half again the value of the ship.

• Now if 3000 is a couple of years income for a typical Viking,  then the 150 share each raider gets would be a disappointment, as they could make ten times that staying at home.. 
• If 3000 is less than years income for a typical Viking then the 150 shares are even less appealing.
• If 3000 is say, twenty years income for a typical Viking, the those receiving one share will basically get a years income out of the trip, while the owner breaks even.

 

The owners always got a bigger share because they were spending the most and risking the most, and needed to make the most just to make it worth the expense. Plus no one else could go out raiding without a ship.

 

 

 

 

[Peter Fitz]

Share sizes varied somewhat over the period, but in the Royal Navy in the Age of Sail (roughly 18th to early 19th centuries), the captain got one quarter of the value of any prize (or three eighths if not sailing under an admiral's orders), all of the officers (including warrant officers) shared another quarter, and the remaining was shared between all the non-officers. If sailing under the command of an admiral, the captain had to give one of his own eighths to him; the shares of the other crew were not affected.

Edited July 12 by Peter Fitz

[g33k]

27 minutes ago, Peter Fitz said:

Share sizes varied somewhat over the period, but in the Royal Navy in the Age of Sail (roughly 18th to early 19th centuries), the captain got one quarter of the value of any prize (or three eighths if not sailing under an admiral's orders), all of the officers (including warrant officers) shared another quarter, and the remaining was shared between all the non-officers. If sailing under the command of an admiral, the captain had to give one of his own eighths to him; the shares of the other crew were not affected.

Good info.  Also, I think the shares were more formalized later on, with actual contracts.

I think the Vikings had (historical/realworld) a set of traditional expectations for divvying-up gear... but I don't know what those were.
Being a (likely oral) tradition, this may not be well-documented...

Edited July 12 by g33k

[Atgxtg]

11 hours ago, Peter Fitz said:

Share sizes varied somewhat over the period, but in the Royal Navy in the Age of Sail (roughly 18th to early 19th centuries), the captain got one quarter of the value of any prize (or three eighths if not sailing under an admiral's orders), all of the officers (including warrant officers) shared another quarter, and the remaining was shared between all the non-officers. If sailing under the command of an admiral, the captain had to give one of his own eighths to him; the shares of the other crew were not affected.

Yes but there is a difference between the Royal Navy, where everyone is sailing in a government owned vessel, and everything is paid for by the government, and a prize ship is a bonus, a "free" ship that you (or your government) don't have to pay to have built. The government pays out prize money (hopefully), because it save them the time and expense of building the ship, and is available now as opposed to having to wait months for it to be constructed.

But with a group of  Vikings someone has to pay for the ship and supplies.

The closest Age of Sail equivalent would be a Privateer ship. That is a privately owned vessel with a commission to go raiding the enemy. In such cases the owners got about half (49%), the crew got the same (49%) and 2% was set aside for widows, disabled crew, and orphans. 

When somebody has to put up the ship, they are risking a small fortune (or a large one), so they require a larger share to offset the risk. In the Age of Sail, if I'm in Great Britain and  spend  £10000 building and outfitting a sloop to go raid the French I'm going to want a reward worth the considerable risk. I'm not going to risk £10000 just to get back £200 in prize money. Not when there is probably a 20% chance of the ship not coming back.

Pirates could go all equal shares because they stole their ships, armaments, and supplies. So they didn't have to pay back the ship owners. 

 

It's just basic economics. Nobody invests a lot of money into a business venture without expecting to make a lot of money in return. The higher the risks the higher the expected return. 

 

If a GM wants to get around this, then I suggest they have their Viking steals the ship from another clan. Then the ship is a prize to be divided up among the raiders along with everything else -although the head of the clan/Jarl  should/will probably get a bigger cut, even if not there, since he will have to deal with the repercussions. 

 

 

[Joerg]

On 7/11/2024 at 2:22 PM, Ali the Helering said:

A small detail - the Vikings weren't stupid enough to raid in winter.  They spent it planning the next season, maintaining the ships (usually on land) and eating and drinking whatever there was in the town they had seized or whatever they had managed to bring back behind their palisade.  The North Sea is not a place to go in a row-boat in winter, not even a drakkar.

Maybe they did not go raiding, but they went fishing in the middle of winter, when the arctic cod comes down to the Lofoten and a little later the Vesteralen. The extremely bountiful harvest compensated somewhat for the big risk they were taking.

[g33k]

I'm pretty sure the economics are dissimilar, however.

Clinker hulls are simpler, and cheaper; ships were smaller.  There were no major armaments installed on those boats... the warriors mostly arrived with their  own arms & armor, and then it became a warship/raider.  Same ship would be a minimally-armed trader, if the crew were less-heavy to warriors & reserved more space for cargo.

The Royal Navy -- and privateer -- ships were much larger & more-expensive to build (carvel vs. clinker).  Similarly, the cannon &c on board came from specialty munitions factories, and were additional expenses; and the Royal Navy issued most of the personal armaments to the crew (sailors & marines).

Edited July 12 by g33k

[Ali the Helering]

38 minutes ago, Joerg said:

Maybe they did not go raiding, but they went fishing in the middle of winter, when the arctic cod comes down to the Lofoten and a little later the Vesteralen. The extremely bountiful harvest compensated somewhat for the big risk they were taking.

Yup, as has been previously suggested (1990s?) their raids might have been triggered by the need to raise trade goods to buy food due to the failure of the herring catches in one of their periodic moves from the European coastline.  Every gram of food was worth the risk, provided they knew the risks.  With raids, the risks are not quantifiable.

[Lloyd Dupont]

Thanks all for this unexpected yet enlightening discussions!

To answer various comments, for loot share I was mostly looking for idea as quick googling didn't reveal how Viking did it, leaving the traditions shrouded in mystery. After reading that I think a quarter of the loot share seems fine. If there is in group tension, all the better! 🙂

As for exposure, I am mostly think of past mistakes. Although I have some vague idea it might be used in the campaign, but I am not there yet since I am still at the "design stage", ie. mostly gathering ideas, reworking the power system I made and focusing more of the Master of Orion (scifi) adventure that will be first ^_^

Edited July 12 by Lloyd Dupont

[Atgxtg]

8 hours ago, g33k said:

I'm pretty sure the economics are dissimilar, however.

Clinker hulls are simpler, and cheaper; ships were smaller.  There were no major armaments installed on those boats... the warriors mostly arrived with their  own arms & armor, and then it became a warship/raider.  Same ship would be a minimally-armed trader, if the crew were less-heavy to warriors & reserved more space for cargo.

The Royal Navy -- and privateer -- ships were much larger & more-expensive to build (carvel vs. clinker).  Similarly, the cannon &c on board came from specialty munitions factories, and were additional expenses; and the Royal Navy issued most of the personal armaments to the crew (sailors & marines).

Agreed. It's hard to judge the values of things in different  centuries but the naval vessels from the age of sail were probably a an order of magnitude or two higher in cost, and were usually paid for by a government. .

But the underlying economics remain the same. Ships aren't cheap and if someone were to put his at risk, and lose use of it so it can be used on a raid, they would need to be compensated for it. The D&D idea of equal shares for everybody just wouldn't fly. 

 

Doing a quick internet search I found this:

The construction of a clinker-built longship took up to 40,000 hours of work and cost as much as 4,000 cows.

Now if we assume an 50 hour work week (six eight hour days plus a little extra),  40,000 hours  would take 16 men about a year to produce. So it got to cost at least 16 years pay for a worker. Yes more men could do it faster, but they'd still expect to be paid. Maybe 800 men can make the thing in a week, but a weeks pay for 800 men is a lot of money.

And 4000 cows  doesn't sound cheap. Now that's is the upper limit so maybe a typical longship cost half as much, but that still a big investment. You figure the guy has to make  200-400 cows worth of good each year just to break even.  

Looking at a medieval price list, they have a cow being worth 72d. So 4000 cows would be 288000d or £1200. That's over half a ton of silver!

 

So either the reward for raiding is astronomical, which I doubt, or the owner got a bigger share. What's worth 4000 cows that you can fit onto a  longship? A half ton  of silver or some gold or gems, and how likely are you to find that much of it on a raid? And even if you did, one share of that is only worth 130-160 cows, less than 4% of the cost of the longship . It just doesn't seem viable to send you ship raiding unless you stand a decent chance of making a substantial profit off it it.

 

[Simulacrum]

I'm running a game set in Greek legend/Age of Heroes, specifically Homeric and many of the same questions apply. I am less concerned about the cost of a ship. For one thing the ship has multiple uses over time and it's not all about Return on Investment. If you are a Hero with followers and skills and access to resources and time you just build it, there is no cash cost/value as such (and no cash in the economy). Like raising a barn. But the value of treasure you need to grab when you have a big crew on your raiding ship, be that a longship or a pentekonter, and pay everyone a reward, is an awful lot (compared to typical game treasure values) and as a GM you need to think a bit differently. As for division I don't know if a Viking gang would operate on a similar basis, but remember most of the shares are not divisible - they are goods, people, livestock, you can't easily cut them up for equal distribution, at least not without destroying the value. There is an honour ranking system that entitles those of higher rank to take their pick before the rest is shared out.

There should be pressure on the leading characters to make sure the venture is successful enough and those shares are good enough to keep people happy and that's where I found the starting point to be. Do they expect to get home in one piece and with enough reward from a 3 month trip to see them through a year? Or from a one year round trip, overwintering on the way and bringing home 5 years worth of income? The figures get very big very quickly.

 

[Atgxtg]

5 hours ago, Simulacrum said:

 But the value of treasure you need to grab when you have a big crew on your raiding ship, be that a longship or a pentekonter, and pay everyone a reward, is an awful lot (compared to typical game treasure values)

I suppose that depends on what a  "typical game" is to you and your group.. A lot of old RuneQuest stuff dealt with this sort of thing, including Borderlands and RQ Vikings. Pendsragon as well. THere were guidelines and methods for dividing treasure, and money was worth quite a bit. SO if you are familar with those sorts of games then that is typical treasure. If your come from another style of play, then maybe not.

The thing with the ships is that they themselves are worth a lot, probably more than your typical raiding party will be able to grab. THat's why if you hand wave the cost of the ship, then you have to had wave the treasure the characters will get. Anyone rich enough not to care how much the ship costs is rich enough not to worry about thier share of the plunder.

5 hours ago, Simulacrum said:

and as a GM you need to think a bit differently.

Yup.

5 hours ago, Simulacrum said:

As for division I don't know if a Viking gang would operate on a similar basis, but remember most of the shares are not divisible - they are goods, people, livestock, you can't easily cut them up for equal distribution, at least not without destroying the value.

THe simple solution for that is to sell them and divide up the money. If somebody really wants something they can buy it from the group. Another one is for the leader to divvy the spoils based upon who did the most. Oh, and you can do stuff like divide the loot up into lots, and then have people pick which lot they want. That helps to ensure a fair split. 

BTW, this was why the Quartermaster was so important among pirate crews. He had to divvy up the shares. 

5 hours ago, Simulacrum said:

 

There is an honour ranking system that entitles those of higher rank to take their pick before the rest is shared out.

Yup. And also a obligation of the weather to be generous. So they won't keep all that they get. 

. The thing with the treasure is that if you use some sort of semi-realistic economic system as RQ and Pendragon do, then a lot of things are more valuable than in your "typical" RPG, including money. A lot of typical RPGs have common items like tools, food and animals sell for dirt cheap which in most economies they shouldn't be. For instace in D&D checkens are cheap (2cp) so any adventurer could afford to buy 2500 chickens for the price of one healing potion (50gp).  Historcially only rich people could afford to eat chicken. Most people needed them for the eggs. But D&D uses a gold based economy where a copper coin is looked at the way a penny is today. But historically a (silver) penny was a significant amount of money. 

SO it all comes down to what sort of ecomony you are running inyour game. THe UGE doesn't really have one. Which makes diving up spoilts that much harder. 

 

For example, in Pendragon a family of farmers live on an income of about £1 per year. A knight manor provides enough wreath to feed all those farmers, plus the knight, his wife, his squire, his horses, his guard, his household staff, etc. SO in Pendragon you can go rading, grab £5 or £10 fro a manor, and it will be enough to maintain someone's family  for several months. Hit a few such places and you can steal a year's income (or more) to bring back home. Also a lot of the plunder would be in food and livestock since fedding people is a problem back them. One out of three years had famine, so if you're hungry you go raid your neighbors for food, and let them starve.

Yes, somewhat. But remember than in most cultures people have to follow their leader and can't just quit if they don't like how things are going. Many Greek heroes could, but they were all wealthy landholders in their own right. 

5 hours ago, Simulacrum said:

Do they expect to get home in one piece and with enough reward from a 3 month trip to see them through a year?

From raiding probably. Most raiding trips are short and sweet. Go somewhere grab what you can before an army shows up, and run (or sail) away. 

5 hours ago, Simulacrum said:

 

Or from a one year round trip, overwintering on the way and bringing home 5 years worth of income? The figures get very big very quickly.

THat's much harder to do. For one thing you'd need to get enough food to feed everybody for that year. Maybe you can grab it by raiding, maybe you can buy it, but the longer you're out the more expensive the trip gets and the more loot you need to get to justify it. You probably need to know where the money is beforehand and make a plan. 

 

Going off for a season and coming back with . £½ per man (half a years income) is a win. Going off for a year and returning with five years income (5) might be, but not if your family starves while you're away because you missed the fall harvest, and there was no one to work your farm.

Now with Greek Heroes you can assume that they are rich, and have lots of servants and slaves to do the menial work for them so they can afford to go off for a year or two if it suits them. But people that wealthy usually take their own ship and grab the lion's share of any plunder their men get. And probably fight and argue with other heroes over the spoils. The richer the characters are the more plunder they will need to justify the trip. 

It's like when they talk about some multimillionaire of TV who would actually lose money if they took a half hour trip to the bank to cash a $10,000 check, because their time is worth more that $10K per half hour.

That's why if the Greek Myths such trips are done for reasons beyond finical gain. Get yoiour wife back, avenge your father, retrieve a wondrous item to help solve a crisis. The story isn't about the money- that's secondary. If Jason makes it back with the Golden Fleece, he's happy. Yeah, he will probably get a ton of treasure in the process, but the GM is ending that capaaign after Jason returns with the Fleece so it's not a problem.