PDA

View Full Version : Colonial Hierarchy, How to do this?



Eldhusgaur
2009-06-15, 11:07 PM
I need some help with figuring out how a new colony in Maztika would work.
The expedition is lead by a Captain Cordell, who plans to make a port there and then work on colonizing the land (This will result in open war with the natives).

Ok, my party of five level 4 adventurers are joining a fleet of Mercs who are headed for Maztica. The fleet consists of about 18 ships, each with a captain who also leads his unit, along with settlers and specialists.
There are about Five hundred mercs in the army, however, the number of specialists and settlers is something I have trouble with and would like input on, along just how a fresh colony works.
(I have plans for a Thayan Wizard to be the main source of Adventurer goods and classic Faerun magic items, so I don't need much info on merchants.)
Eventually, Cordell will decide to dismantle ALL the ships, and no ship will sail away until the Natives have been subdued. So, the info I want is just how settlers and specialists will work inside the (Yet to be named) new port in Maztika, and how many of each I will need.

Tsotha-lanti
2009-06-15, 11:31 PM
That sounds like you're going for way more detail than is necessary. The operations of a settlement of hundreds are probably not very regimented anyway - everyone does whatever is necessary, and no one has much of an opportunity to specialize. To begin with, everyone is going to have to chip in to erecting barracks and stockades for basic protection, then to farming, then eventually to better walls and some docks, and so on.

Can you specify what kind of hierarchy you need?

A settlement will probably have a person in charge; in this case, the military commander. The commander will probably have advisors and officers who assist him in making decisions and take responsibility for overseeing certain facets of the colony.

If they're going to need to live off the land, you'll probably need a few thousand peasant-type workers producing food, with that many soldiers (although the soldiers are likely to double as workers, with only a minimum of them actually on guard duty at any time; and the settlers will double as soldiers whenever the place must be defended, picking up weapons).

Eighteen ships will probably have between 900 and 1,800 crew members (assuming fairly basic and medium-size sailing ships), and can probably transport about the same in passengers. The crew will, naturally, become foot soldiers or "peasants" once on land.

But Not Tonight
2009-06-16, 12:14 AM
Local authority will likely be military in nature in the beginning, so keep that in mind. That is pretty much the only authority they need at the time.

How many people does the new colony have to work with?

Will the mercs engage in immediate punitive expeditions against the natives, or will they hang around the new settlement?

This last is really important because if they immediately leave, then the colony does not need to support them, but at the same time, has less means for defence. On the other hand, if they stay to protect the colony, then issues of supplies will become serious. After all, the mercs will require pay/rations before the civies. Military discipline among civilians in such a case is a must. Capital punishment will be frequently resorted to, though one expects that there would be few cases in the first place.

Is the area densely populated by natives?
If so, then the civies might just up and leave. One is reminded of a situation in Western Australia when some bloke brought over the stock to make a factory and some farms to supply the workers there and enough people to man the farms and factory. The place was empty, so the workers ditched him, took as much supplies as they needed and set up their own farms. The excess stock went to waste, and the owner had no factory!

If this were to happen with the military as well, then there would be no means for the commander to enforce discipline if things got bad.

Now, back to the mercs leaving scenario. If they leave immediately, or shortly after arrival, what is their purpose (and the actual result) of their campaign? Is it to kill natives and take their kewl l00tz? or is it for slaves?

Keeping slaves increases the labour force of the colony so that simple labour (agricultural work, housework eventually) can be dispensed with by the colonists leaving them to engage in trades and war. However it also brings into question the issue of maintaining the slaves prior to the first harvest when they only have rations, and it also raises the issue of the importance of the military and possibly the creation a militia of the colonists to be used as defence against the slaves.

If the campaigns against the natives are just for l00tz, then the colony will grow slower at first until the booty can be shipped back and more people come seeking riches.

But yeah. For a long time the place would be under military authority...

Eldhusgaur
2009-06-16, 12:16 AM
That sounds like you're going for way more detail than is necessary. The operations of a settlement of hundreds are probably not very regimented anyway - everyone does whatever is necessary, and no one has much of an opportunity to specialize. To begin with, everyone is going to have to chip in to erecting barracks and stockades for basic protection, then to farming, then eventually to better walls and some docks, and so on.

Can you specify what kind of hierarchy you need?

A settlement will probably have a person in charge; in this case, the military commander. The commander will probably have advisors and officers who assist him in making decisions and take responsibility for overseeing certain facets of the colony.

If they're going to need to live off the land, you'll probably need a few thousand peasant-type workers producing food, with that many soldiers (although the soldiers are likely to double as workers, with only a minimum of them actually on guard duty at any time; and the settlers will double as soldiers whenever the place must be defended, picking up weapons).

Eighteen ships will probably have between 900 and 1,800 crew members (assuming fairly basic and medium-size sailing ships), and can probably transport about the same in passengers. The crew will, naturally, become foot soldiers or "peasants" once on land.

Guess I should cut it down to ten ships then, most of them are supply ships, with only 2 or 3 being Military oriented, But you pretty much gave me all I needed! Thanks a bunch!

Coidzor
2009-06-16, 01:47 AM
Hmm, what sort of climate is this and what species are the natives and the majority of the expeditionary force?

How different are they and will the conflict be one of extermination or one of pacification (toppling the indigenous civ versus beating it badly enough that it realizes you're the big dogs and to deal with y'all being there, probably with someone from their camp with your support installed as titular speaker/leader for them for ease of relations)

What kind of society are the settlers coming from, anyway?

Depending upon how rich the waters are with fish in the area, they'll probably maintain some of the smaller non-ocean-going vessels for fishing to supplement what they're able to forage/trade/steal.

How organized are they going to be? Is the leader going to be ignoring the colonists after setting up the initial defenses and barracks and making sure they don't run off on him by using the wood from the ships(and the ships' stores as ay sea-going vessel has to have wood on hand to make repairs with.)? Is he going to personally oversee the colony, running what he must through subordinates but taking an active hand in it while maintaining the colony's defenses? Is he going to leave a token defensive force to man the stockades and clear the first fields(also making it harder to mount a sneaking attack by eliminating cover near the stockades for a fair way) and take the rest of the able-bodied and go on conquest?

If they have supply ships(could say there were X ships that were carrying mercs and colonists and Y ships carrying livestock and other supplies), then they'll have had room for horses to make the voyage with them as well as various types of livestock and probably enough vegetation that they'll be able to ward off scurvy until they get an acceptable local dietary supplement.

Though since you don't really need to get into the specifics of how much they have with them since most of it will be occurring behind the scenes or at least be fluff rather than having anything/much of it being crunchy. Since the ships are being taken apart, it doesn't matter how many you had, since any siege weapons they had are going to be in the colony's defensive arrangement/with the expeditionary force and so how many ships you could bring about to fire broadsides on a native village.... Meh.

Eldhusgaur
2009-06-16, 10:41 AM
Local authority will likely be military in nature in the beginning, so keep that in mind. That is pretty much the only authority they need at the time.

How many people does the new colony have to work with?

Will the mercs engage in immediate punitive expeditions against the natives, or will they hang around the new settlement?

This last is really important because if they immediately leave, then the colony does not need to support them, but at the same time, has less means for defence. On the other hand, if they stay to protect the colony, then issues of supplies will become serious. After all, the mercs will require pay/rations before the civies. Military discipline among civilians in such a case is a must. Capital punishment will be frequently resorted to, though one expects that there would be few cases in the first place.

Is the area densely populated by natives?
If so, then the civies might just up and leave. One is reminded of a situation in Western Australia when some bloke brought over the stock to make a factory and some farms to supply the workers there and enough people to man the farms and factory. The place was empty, so the workers ditched him, took as much supplies as they needed and set up their own farms. The excess stock went to waste, and the owner had no factory!

If this were to happen with the military as well, then there would be no means for the commander to enforce discipline if things got bad.

Now, back to the mercs leaving scenario. If they leave immediately, or shortly after arrival, what is their purpose (and the actual result) of their campaign? Is it to kill natives and take their kewl l00tz? or is it for slaves?

Keeping slaves increases the labour force of the colony so that simple labour (agricultural work, housework eventually) can be dispensed with by the colonists leaving them to engage in trades and war. However it also brings into question the issue of maintaining the slaves prior to the first harvest when they only have rations, and it also raises the issue of the importance of the military and possibly the creation a militia of the colonists to be used as defence against the slaves.

If the campaigns against the natives are just for l00tz, then the colony will grow slower at first until the booty can be shipped back and more people come seeking riches.

But yeah. For a long time the place would be under military authority...

Most of the Mercs will be working on the settlement until the initial raid from the natives, during that raid, a daughter of a high priest will be kidnapped. After that incident, the High Cleric will lead the mercs in battle, while Cordell and his lieutenants will run the colony. Once the MASSIVE pile of "Aztec" sacrificial gold is discovered, morale will skyrocket, Once they hear about the pile of Aztec gold (Witch makes the previous pile look like pocket money) in the Aztec Capital, The decision to sack the ships until all gold has been retrieved is made.

fusilier
2009-06-16, 05:11 PM
This sounds like a cool idea, but I would like some clarification:

Is the initial purpose of the expedition conquest or to form a settlement?

If conquest, then it would be reasonable to assume that the conquerors would simply take what they need from the native populace, once their own supplies run out. A very small number of colonists (who themselves could be soldiers), could maintain a port town in such a situation. Although you have to consider logistics for such an army, which would could require rather large number of porters.

If the original purpose of the expedition is to form a colony, then the situation is different. You don't need many people to start a successful settlement. Sending thousands to unexplored lands could potentially be disastrous if they don't immediately arrive at good farm-land. In this situation the number of professional soldiers is usually very low (2-dozen or so), instead the "civilians" are expected to be trained and equipped to defend themselves as militia. So instead of having 500 mercenaries, you could simply have 500 settlers who decide to become mercenaries as events unfold. With the professional soldiers providing either an elite cadre or functioning as officers.

Civilian and military administration was usually merged anyway, so that's not a big consideration. Most early settlements had pretty strong central authority to order the settlers to do what was necessary.

Another way of asking the question would be: Is the leader of the expedition called a governor or a general?

Irate Ranger
2009-06-16, 05:24 PM
Colonies are usually run by representatives from the mother-country, but the military also has a powerful say in things.

Usually the settlers are sent in first, and follow the command of the military leaders, once they expand enough the motherland should send a small council to take the reins from there. Soon enough native-born colonials will rise to the positions of the previous councilmen, and the colony becomes more autonomous.

That's more-or-less how things worked in the British Empire, at least. One other thing you might want to consider, though, is that settlers often moved around and formed multiple colonies with their own councils and different names/coats of arms/culture, if you want to move that far into the future, and separate colonies didn't always get along, even if they both decended from the same country.

fusilier
2009-06-16, 11:41 PM
Colonies are usually run by representatives from the mother-country, but the military also has a powerful say in things.

Usually the settlers are sent in first, and follow the command of the military leaders, once they expand enough the motherland should send a small council to take the reins from there. Soon enough native-born colonials will rise to the positions of the previous councilmen, and the colony becomes more autonomous.

That's more-or-less how things worked in the British Empire, at least. One other thing you might want to consider, though, is that settlers often moved around and formed multiple colonies with their own councils and different names/coats of arms/culture, if you want to move that far into the future, and separate colonies didn't always get along, even if they both decended from the same country.

Admittedly you may know more about this than I do, but I was thinking along the lines of early "New World" settlements, like the Jamestown colony which was a private venture with government permission.

Anyway, I don't really see it as a military/civilian thing in terms of leadership, as the "Captain" and the "Governor" were usually the same person. I do see it as either being more military oriented, like Cortez in Mexico, or more settlement oriented like Jamestown. Of course in those times standing armies were almost non-existent, and, while the use of mercenaries was on the rise, the old feudal ideas of a lord as both a civil administrator and war leader were still prevalent.

Also if settlers brought a large number of soldiers with them for protection, sometimes the soldiers would get restless and cause trouble attempting to extract loot from the natives.

Coidzor
2009-06-17, 01:56 AM
Indeed, I was wondering if it was more Jamestown or Cortez myself. It seems like it's a mixture of both, since they're expecting trouble (wise in a world with Sahuagin, Hobos/Hobbos/Hobo Hobbos, Orcs, and sundry)... But since I was reminded of Jamestown, I was wondering how directed and disciplined the founding of the settlement would be. Considering that the earliest days of Jamestown were kinda... stupid....

Hmm... Since it looks like they're setting up the settlement and there's a buffer of time before there's conflict with the natives... You could just have most of the ships leave as they were chartered to take the men and supplies there. Depending on how long the voyage was, they could additionally be chartered to resupply the settlement in 6 months time, the next year, or whathaveyou.