Re: Paying the Lunar Army

From: David Weihe <blerg2_at_...>
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 11:58:57 -0700 (PDT)

Peter Metcalfe <metcalph_at_...> wrote
> >That means the Empire must send on average around 70,000 lunars in
> >support of the occupation.
>
> No, it means that the occupation costs the authorities an average
> of 70,000 lunars. A number of factors argue against the full value
> being sent in coins every year.
> 2) Soldiers are not paid their full income but have had
> numerous expenses deducted from it by the officers.
> To get more money, they either learn a trade or plunder.
>
> 3) Many literate officers find it much easier to pay the
> soldiers a token amount while keeping the remainder
> in a chest to be paid when the soldier retires. More
> enterprising officers find ways to spend that chest so
> to have money left over.

Doesn't this mean that the pay still has to be sent, but ends up in the officers' or regimental coffers, instead of getting to the individual soldiers? Thus, no less of an expense.

Also, while this much coin may not be sent, surely this much in military equipment, provisions, etc., needs to be sent. Thus, it looks like (a) Sartar/Pavis/Prax had very poor ROI, although taking Esrolia (with the Red Queens Alliance's sedition) might have made it all worthwhile, and (b) there will still be lots of valuable caravans from Tarsh through Boldhome to individual garrisons for PCs to raid.

Someone earlier translated it into cattle, which points up that it might be worth sending cattle (in excess of the needs of ox teams and provisioning), just to have something to distract any raiders from the real booty. Or, send a few cattle caravans first, as honey pots, with counter-raider units shadowing them.                 

---

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail