I'm not the list police here in any sense whatsoever, but would it be totally inappropriate for me to ask that people simply refute arguments and not insult people? None of this is *really* that big a deal. YGMV, IMO, etc.
Please flame me privately on THAT part, if you so feet inclined.
In regards to the Rathori raiding Char Un.
The Char Un are nomads, we all seem to agree with that. One might be inclined to suggest that nomads are inherently - tactically and strategically - more mobile than a footbound people. But this is moot; the point seems to revolve around whether
I'm trying to state it as objectively as possible here.
IMG, a) is conceivably possible, although unlikely. The Char Un raid each
other too, and a Char Un village would be at least partly on alert most of
the time, if only because it's logical that they are vulnerable precisely
there.
b) the ones inhabiting a CU camp would likely NOT be the warriors - they
would be the women and children and elders. They would be very skilled with
horses, but unlikely to have much for fighting skills. Therefore their main
defense would be flight.
I don't think the CU are that wealthy. I personally think the poorer CU -
the ones that it was accurately pointed out would be the ones stuck with
inhabiting lands where such raids are even conceivable - wouldn't have that
much wealth to start with, and most would be portable. Their homes would
not typically be broken down in the face of an attack.
However, they would reasonably usually take everything they could grab. But
not everything, human nature means some stuff would be left behind probably.
IMG, it's unlikely that this 'left behind' detritus is worth the serious risk of death for the Rathori. That's all. In your game the Char Un have much more minor portable wealth that they would leave behind could be interesting for raiders.
IMG V (value) < R (risk)
IYG R<V.
We're getting down to irresolvable esthetics, but don't let that stop a heated debate!
Powered by hypermail