Game design philosophy - what is Core?

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

  • New

    Peacemaker wrote:

    historically:

    core troops were simply what made up the most of your army. So they were typically the cheapest economically to muster.

    elites and specialists had better gear and/or training so came in fewer numbers because they were economically harder to muster.
    Historically, your claim is nonsense.

    The core of many medieval armies were knights and men-at-arms, not cheap peasants, because that's what those societies were designed to accomplish. (Even in the case of Great Britain, who did bring peasant longbowmen, those peasants had been training for most of their adult life to be experts at using a longbow - society had been reorganized to provide longbowmen.) Similarly, the shift to pike squares and then tercios and etc... wasn't because that was cheap, but because societies bent treasure and industry towards supplying those things for battlefield use. Warfare is a competition between different societies at the level of military doctrine, technology, and the logistical and economic factors which make fielding those armies possible. Losers get conquered. You don't bring things because they're cheap - you rearrange your society to provide the things that will stop aggressors from conquering you as a matter of survival.

    I would prefer a rebalancing where core is superior to non-core choices on average, and you bring other units to diversify your abilities, not because they're strictly better.

    Ideally, a 25% core army should beat a 0% core army all the time, by design, and possibly all the way up to 50+% core being a generally superior choice. Then you can eliminate core as a category, and people will bring the intended core units because they really are the backbone of the army. Core should be a functional description reflecting functional choices, not an arbitrary category assigned by fiat and filled with overpriced junk.
    Just because I'm on the Legal Team doesn't mean I know anything about rules or background in development, and if/when I do, I won't be posting about it. All opinions and speculation are my own - treat them as such.
  • New

    Peacemaker wrote:

    historically:

    core troops were simply what made up the most of your army. So they were typically the cheapest economically to muster.

    elites and specialists had better gear and/or training so came in fewer numbers because they were economically harder to muster.


    points in a game represent balance, they do not represent economics.
    The min core % represents the economics.

    pointing core units for balance is obviously a must. You cant point them too high or they feel like a waste of points - overcosted and they feed your opponent easy victory points.

    if you point them too low then people just take core units and no elites.


    Now core units are many. They fullfill different rolls. Certain ones can be given a slight discount in points.
    This is highly subject to the internal balance of the army AND external balance of the whole game.


    honestly, the players who complain and only want to take elites are fooling themselves. The best response to them is " go play a game with less restrictions house rule". ....both opponents will end up only taking elites. It will be fun but subsequent games will just be 12 steam tanks vs 12 steam tanks.
    my point is that you can certainly play around with the max/ min values to create different army lists and have some great fun games. But for a competitive game you need some realistic values.



    So its a finely tuned artistic endevour to make the armies unique to each other.
    not all armies should have the same types of core either.

    Squirrelloid wrote:

    Peacemaker wrote:

    historically:

    core troops were simply what made up the most of your army. So they were typically the cheapest economically to muster.

    elites and specialists had better gear and/or training so came in fewer numbers because they were economically harder to muster.
    Historically, your claim is nonsense.
    The core of many medieval armies were knights and men-at-arms, not cheap peasants, because that's what those societies were designed to accomplish. (Even in the case of Great Britain, who did bring peasant longbowmen, those peasants had been training for most of their adult life to be experts at using a longbow - society had been reorganized to provide longbowmen.) Similarly, the shift to pike squares and then tercios and etc... wasn't because that was cheap, but because societies bent treasure and industry towards supplying those things for battlefield use. Warfare is a competition between different societies at the level of military doctrine, technology, and the logistical and economic factors which make fielding those armies possible. Losers get conquered. You don't bring things because they're cheap - you rearrange your society to provide the things that will stop aggressors from conquering you as a matter of survival.

    I would prefer a rebalancing where core is superior to non-core choices on average, and you bring other units to diversify your abilities, not because they're strictly better.

    Ideally, a 25% core army should beat a 0% core army all the time, by design, and possibly all the way up to 50+% core being a generally superior choice. Then you can eliminate core as a category, and people will bring the intended core units because they really are the backbone of the army. Core should be a functional description reflecting functional choices, not an arbitrary category assigned by fiat and filled with overpriced junk.

    Exactly. Even in earlier times where things were generally less specialized this still reigned true. The proof could go on and on but just to prove a point, what was the core of Cyrus the Great's army? It was 1,000 men of the highest class who's entire upbringing in one way or another contributed to warfare and the defense of the nation, as well as 30,000 others with large amounts of funds taken and time to bring them up to par. Even with the Armenians and Chaldean allies against the Babylonians who had cheap core? Neither side had 'cheap core' they were just expensive in different ways.

    The Romans didn't have 'cheap core', whether in their main forces or auxiliaries. The Greeks didn't have 'cheap core', even generals who led mercenaries of nearly entirely peltasts were not cheap, just less expensive. Maybe not every army's core, but many of them shouldn't be built upon the idea of being inferior units you have to drag along. Even if this is a fantasy game, look at how they killed elephants, a 'monstrous' creature. Sure there were gimmicks of lighting pigs or camels on fire, but largely it was expensive assets in one way or another to bring them down. Whether that meant hiring top mercenaries like Cretan archers, or spending your own society's resources to force farmers or others to train with bows and javelins regularly taking away form what would have been financially productive for the society. In the long term nothing of use was cheap. Peacemaker when was a core of an army ever cheap and economical?

    The most expensive part of a soldier usually wasn't their equipment it was the time and cost of resources that directly or indirectly went into their training. Historically, the core of an army is usually their most precious and expensive portion.

    The only 'cheap core' were peopled who were conscripted slaves and others without any training in a last ditch flailing effort. The only exception I can think of was levying slingers in your area who absorbed nearly all the cost of training themselves and could be payed little if they were totally inexperienced in warfare, which had it's own obvious problems.

    I'm all for there being cheap core like rat slaves or zombies, but it's not like they don't have other options available to them like vermin guard or ghouls as a middle-ground. This game would be more interesting if they reevaluated what core is and made most special units a strong yet more supportive role.
  • New

    Morgan_Treeman wrote:

    Commodus Leitdorf wrote:

    Core is what your army should be built around. Special/Whatever the heck they are calling the various other divisions in your army book are there to support core.

    I think that is something that missing when I hear people hate on core. Not everything needs to consistently break your opponents face to be good.
    right now the special units are the core of the army while the "core" is really the heavy baggage you don't want to bring along on your trip.
    It really differs per faction.
    What an army is build around is in competative selection is its character.

    As mentioned claims that say everything should be build around core or should play a lot of core never applied to WFB. Some factions retained a high option for 'Herohammer' specialist MSU or Core for 'back up'.

    Leading to a state of the game where you could change 2/3rds of the factions to suddenly revolve around Core but then you create something else.

    WoC had a Storm of Chaos list for Core unit focus. You could only include X units and gained free Command Groups with 25 Marauders or 15 Chaos Warriors and had another few bonusses. Neat but also excuded a lot that now makes up WotDG.
    Now I cannot do this and archive the same practical bonusses.

    :)
  • New

    JDAntoine wrote:

    SirMC2015 wrote:

    The problem is some core is better than others
    Yet it isn't a problem, it what makes factions different.
    One faction has better Core because it relies on Core in it's design and synergies.
    One faction has better Special because it relies on Special in it's design and synergies.
    One faction has better Rare... etc.

    You can re-design all factions to be focused on Core and all factions would then be just that. This actually drastically reduces design space if anything. Because you forcefully design with Core being the main part.
    I stated that in reference to someone others comment. I'm fine with core providing differentiation.
  • New

    Trains_Get_Robbed wrote:

    This is a false narrative I feel. Unequal core is what makes factions unbalanced.
    If you have a mandatory requirement that is worse off than someone else's mandatory requirement it in fact limits your design space because it presents a "false door" for list design and army options.

    A great example is EoS shooting. The shooting in core is an option. However it's not a real option because the options available to you in special are that much better (which doesn't always work out that way leaving you with two poor options) and the options in other books Core are as well. Thus it gives you a false choice.
    Unequal makes factions different.
    Unbalanced is not a byproduct of making things unequal.

    The prime reason as to balance the game now is to have Core as the balancer. Factions with great Special and Rare have slightly worse Core and this balances out rather well.

    False Choice doesnt excist. You have competative builds who filter to the best and casual builds who dont completely do this.
    More choices remain more choices, good or bad. It allows the game to be played in different set ups.

    KiRaHyuU wrote:

    I don't believe it's the problem of better or worse core for different armies but some armies can effectively use their minimum core whereas others cannot...
    The principle behind this is for every 1 pt spent in core that same 1 pt can be spent in special better, yes special things are usually more expensive but the comparison also favours special ie their was no minimum core, many players wouldn't take core - this isn't a what if :)

    So it's not the unit to unit comparison but the tools the core can bring to an army differs enough when theoretically bringing minimum core is the optimal....

    Personally I don't take minimum core but there's an overwhelming reason to do so when possible. Might not be a general consensus but i do strongly feel some armies have it easier to optimise their core and not "bring" better units per say.
    I dont see it as a unit to unit comparison but once again faction to faction.

    Simple fact remains that some factions are designed to be elite and not swarm and thus often have expensive Core that by comparison gets outnumbered IF theyd only spend points in Core.

    Upgrades, Model Synergies and Boost spells make up army designs. Most of them dont focus on Core. This doesnt really hinder the game.
  • New

    Squirrelloid wrote:

    Peacemaker wrote:

    historically:

    core troops were simply what made up the most of your army. So they were typically the cheapest economically to muster.

    elites and specialists had better gear and/or training so came in fewer numbers because they were economically harder to muster.
    Historically, your claim is nonsense.
    Historically, I think you're both right, in your own ways. Core troops are the troops that comprise the bulk of the total military strength of a faction. Thus, they tend to be whatever kind of troops that give the most bang for the buck for the faction outfitting them. What exactly that troop type is depends on the resources available to that faction, the sociopolitical considerations and constraints it operates under, and the expected uses and military needs of the faction (the "metagame", if you will). It might be cheap mass rabble, it might be moderately trained and equipped troops, it may be a highly professional military.

    When I'm calling for core to become more relevant and to be made into something people want to bring, I don't necessarily mean cheap mass infantry in deep formations, though for certain armies it means just that. I think it would well differentiate armies if each had a clear (or, a few meaningfull different options for) core, but what that core might be would vary between armies.

    Peacemaker, you say that points cost is meant to represent balance, not economy. On the face of it, that's true. It does, however, represent something else too. Objectives. A metric of what you have achieved during the battle. The points value of an enemy unit also happens to be the victory point value you get for destroying it. If VPs are meant to represent actual achievement, VPs should be awarded according to how much actual harm you did to your enemy by wiping out that unit, which depends on economy rather than balance.

    Should, then, non-core units award more VPs for killing them than their face points cost, or (other side of the same coin) core units award less due to them being more expendable? I'd rather kill two birds in one stone and make core units cheaper points-wise, to the level where they are even slightly OP compared to their points cost. It'd create an automatic incentive for people to take more core, and make that core more expendable in batle. Cheeky buggers who then want to make armies with only special units could do so, and allowed to without paying core tax, since such armies wouldn't be OP.
  • New

    T9A are one off games where economics doesnt matter.

    Even victory points is not a representation of economics. It is just a mechanism to decide who wins.

    If you want victory points to be a reflection of economics, then units that fled off the table, unit that were wipped out in combat have survivors - these would all be saved and regroup later for a second battle.


    Now changing the victory point system to make certain entries a different score rather than their points values is something T9A could do. Sounds interesting.


    And I cant believe someone quoted my post and called it nonsense.
    You Sir!!!! Are a do-do head!
    I shall not grace you with my intellect anymore. Good day!
    @Squirrelloid
  • New

    Anselmus wrote:

    Only some core units are felt to be a burden. Most armies have some units/options in core everyone agrees are usable.
    Until the tax (additional points cost) is removed and that leads to a statiscal of 50% of army lists with with core composition over 25% there is and will be core tax concept.

    The one great argument I recall that this was a balance upheaval this would make. I think that it should be tried out.

    The other option for this is additional rules which compensate cost benefit ratio of core units. With scoring changed it should probably look to other venues to make this work
  • New

    its not a balance upheaval.

    all it leads to is everyone taking elites.
    and then they will complain that their elites are crap because they cant beat X army's elites.
    then the solution will be to lift restrictions on everything.

    and then people show up with 12 steam tanks on each side.

    Many games have tried the 'unbound'. It's fine for narrative games like if you are doing war of the beard where elf and dwarf are all elites, but unbound does not hold up for competitive play.
  • New

    Strength and Armour piercing NEED to be decoupled if you want to make Core more useful. Elites are seen as superior to core because Elites have access to Higher Strength and Better equipment (usually a great weapon).

    Because of this they are just better at killing stuff and winning combats. If strength and Armour piercing are given out depending on the weapon used and not the strength, it then solves several problems.

    1. While a higher strength means you are better at wounding, it doesn't make core troops armour pointless. Light armour and shields will now be useful for Core troops to have as their save will not be completely negated.

    2. By applying armour piercing to different weapons it can make core troops more appealing as they may be the only ones who have access to the tools to kill certain elite troops. If Halberds give -2 AP and EoS Core are the only ones who have access to it it makes them more likely to be used against elites and knights.,

    Strength should only start piercing armour at strength 7+, the rest should depend on the type of weapon used.
    Commodus Leitdorfs Modelling and Painting Blog
    "We have clearly reached the point where only rampant and unchecked stabbing can save us." -Black Mage
  • New

    i feel i actually have to respond because you are on the legal team and a few people agreed with your post.

    You disregarded the first part of my post.
    you have misconstrued "cheapest" with "least effective/least amount of training".
    ....and I also said "typically".
    "cheapest economically" can also mean "easiest to procure". As it was probably difficult to get farming peasants to go and fight. the local baron would have a standing troop of man at arms ready to be called up - these are the cheap option because they are already paid for and required by law to fight at least X amount of days for the king each year if called upon.

    the core part of any army is what they have the most off.
    if you are a rich danish king about to invade Gotland, then you have a bunch of vets in half plate as your core.
    if you are the defenders of Visby then you have peasants.

    if you are France in 1415 then you have all knights in your core. Your specialists are core. Your rare chouce is the order of the garter.(i think that was the name). You can take some crossbowmen or men at arms in core but chose not too.
    If you are England you have Longbowmen as Core. You have knights in special.


    imHiSquirrelloid wrote:

    Peacemaker wrote:

    historically:

    core troops were simply what made up the most of your army. So they were typically the cheapest economically to muster.

    elites and specialists had better gear and/or training so came in fewer numbers because they were economically harder to muster.
    Historically, your claim is nonsense.

    The core of many medieval armies were knights and men-at-arms, not cheap peasants, because that's what those societies were designed to accomplish. (Even in the case of Great Britain, who did bring peasant longbowmen, those peasants had been training for most of their adult life to be experts at using a longbow - society had been reorganized to provide longbowmen.) Similarly, the shift to pike squares and then tercios and etc... wasn't because that was cheap, but because societies bent treasure and industry towards supplying those things for battlefield use. Warfare is a competition between different societies at the level of military doctrine, technology, and the logistical and economic factors which make fielding those armies possible. Losers get conquered. You don't bring things because they're cheap - you rearrange your society to provide the things that will stop aggressors from conquering you as a matter of survival.

    I would prefer a rebalancing where core is superior to non-core choices on average, and you bring other units to diversify your abilities, not because they're strictly better.

    Ideally, a 25% core army should beat a 0% core army all the time, by design, and possibly all the way up to 50+% core being a generally superior choice. Then you can eliminate core as a category, and people will bring the intended core units because they really are the backbone of the army. Core should be a functional description reflecting functional choices, not an arbitrary category assigned by fiat and filled with overpriced junk.
    [/quote]
  • New

    Peacemaker wrote:

    i feel i actually have to respond because you are on the legal team and a few people agreed with your post.

    You disregarded the first part of my post.
    you have misconstrued "cheapest" with "least effective/least amount of training".
    ....and I also said "typically".
    "cheapest economically" can also mean "easiest to procure". As it was probably difficult to get farming peasants to go and fight. the local baron would have a standing troop of man at arms ready to be called up - these are the cheap option because they are already paid for and required by law to fight at least X amount of days for the king each year if called upon.

    the core part of any army is what they have the most off.
    if you are a rich danish king about to invade Gotland, then you have a bunch of vets in half plate as your core.
    if you are the defenders of Visby then you have peasants.

    if you are France in 1415 then you have all knights in your core. Your specialists are core. Your rare chouce is the order of the garter.(i think that was the name). You can take some crossbowmen or men at arms in core but chose not too.
    If you are England you have Longbowmen as Core. You have knights in special.

    You're either shifting goalposts or you're fundamentally misunderstanding the historical economics involved.

    Knights weren't cheap for medieval France. They were hugely expensive, and the entire society was organized around providing those highly trained knights. Being able to muster large numbers of knights consumed a ridiculous portion of the GDP of medieval France (where the feudal system granted land for service, in an era where land was the primary base of economic productivity). It was extraordinarily expensive.

    In England's case, mandatory archery came with a high time commitment that meant each peasant could engage in fewer productive activities (example: farming), and royal treasure was used to provide materials and prizes for contests. The entire society was restructured to supply longbowmen.

    So in the sense of 'core is what you have a lot of' - sort of. Societies organized themselves around providing particular military forces. So they had them, because the society was consciously shaped in a way to provide those forces. France didn't have knights by accident - they had them by design.

    And successful societies switched which military technologies they were built to support when old ways of combat became inefficient. If knights aren't winning battles, you stop bringing knights to the battlefield, and reorganize your society to provide what does work. (Crecy and Agincourt were fought with France by feudal knights and their men-at-arms retinues. Castillon (1453), the last battle of the Hundred Years War, was fought by France with early professional infantry and cannon.)

    So you don't just have certain forces for ineffable reasons - you have a particular core army because it is (or is believed to be) effective, and you arranged for those forces to be available in the way you structured your society. Because having a body of trained soldiers with proper gear and effective formations is not an accident that just happens - the soldiers have to be trained, the gear has to be manufactured, and the formations have to be developed.

    Your (new) claim gets the process entirely backwards. The most readily available forces are intentionally so, not some accident of fate.
    Just because I'm on the Legal Team doesn't mean I know anything about rules or background in development, and if/when I do, I won't be posting about it. All opinions and speculation are my own - treat them as such.
  • New

    Squirrelloid wrote:

    So you don't just have certain forces for ineffable reasons - you have a particular core army because it is (or is believed to be) effective, and you arranged for those forces to be available in the way you structured your society. Because having a body of trained soldiers with proper gear and effective formations is not an accident that just happens - the soldiers have to be trained, the gear has to be manufactured, and the formations have to be developed.
    Your (new) claim gets the process entirely backwards. The most readily available forces are intentionally so, not some accident of fate.
    Really, historically, it could go both ways. Societies could either reorganize themselves to be able to provide a certain kind of military forces, or military forces could be whatever the already existing society is best capable of providing, subject to existing sociopolitical constraints. Societies aren't, for the most part, designed, but the result of a myriad oft-competing forces and pressures, something that many a revolutionary who has tried to create a better world has found out the hard way.

    As a counterexample, one could mention the Roman Republic. During the Early and Middle Republic, its core troops, its famous legions, were made up of members of the landed middle class who fulfilled the wealth and income requirements to be obliged to outfit themselves at their own expense. During the Late Republic, that was no longer feasible, since that middle class had greatly shrunk, its lands having been acquired by super-rich patricians with huge estates. The Roman Republic didn't respond by re-structuring society by recreating the lost landed middle class, it instead enacted the Marian Reforms and switched to a paid, professional military.

    If medieval French society was geared towards producing lots of knights, it may just as much have been a consequence of feudalism as the underlying motivation for having a feudal society. Medieval France was decentralized even by medieval feudal standards. Simply put, the nobility liked it that way, because it meant they weren't just in control of the military might of the country, they WERE the military might of the country, and having there be a centralized royal army would have given the king the power to bring them to heel. As a counterpoint, one might mention the most prominent Italian mercantile city-states. They didn't introduce feudalism in order to get knights. Instead, they had small cores of citizen militias and professional troops directly paid by and under the control of the state. Also, they bought lots and lots of mercenaries to do their fighting for them, a direct consequence of economics and sociopolitics - the city-states were rich enough to do it, and the alternative would have been to risk your own citizens' lives, citizens who might not re-elect you as Doge if you do.
  • New

    Commodus Leitdorf wrote:

    Strength and Armour piercing NEED to be decoupled if you want to make Core more useful. Elites are seen as superior to core because Elites have access to Higher Strength and Better equipment (usually a great weapon).

    Because of this they are just better at killing stuff and winning combats. If strength and Armour piercing are given out depending on the weapon used and not the strength, it then solves several problems.

    1. While a higher strength means you are better at wounding, it doesn't make core troops armour pointless. Light armour and shields will now be useful for Core troops to have as their save will not be completely negated.

    2. By applying armour piercing to different weapons it can make core troops more appealing as they may be the only ones who have access to the tools to kill certain elite troops. If Halberds give -2 AP and EoS Core are the only ones who have access to it it makes them more likely to be used against elites and knights.,

    Strength should only start piercing armour at strength 7+, the rest should depend on the type of weapon used.
    I can see the point of high Strength being problematic, since it gives a double benefit in both increasing the chance to wound, and reducing the armour save on the receiving end. I'm not sure decoupling the two is that necessary. I can't think of that many weapons that would either be awesome at cutting exposed flesh and useless against armour, or having mediocre damage-dealing power that's however largely unaffected by armour. I can think of no cases of the former, and for the latter, only highly specialized anti-knight weapons such as warhammers (the real thing with a small head, not Ghal Maraz), and maybe projectiles with small impact surfaces like crossbow bolts and firearm bullets.

    I'm thinking that maybe the game should treat toughness and armour as additive, rather than as two separate rolls. That'd save time, and would solve the double benefit of strength that currently makes low levels of armour to be of very limited use. Under the current rules, a S5 hit against a T3 guy with a 5+ save from light armour and a shield is effectively identical with a S5 hit against a naked T3 guy. If however, for instance, that light armour and shield instead counted as a +1T bonus, it'd matter.
  • New

    What about if all units were costed purely based on their stats and equipment etc, temoving core tax, and each faction had multiple organisational structures to choose from, not only adjusting the point allowances for different categories but also which units are in each category?

    Some armies already have options to use alternative percentages, like SE Oaken crown lists gave more Forest Giants allowance, ie treefathers, and less archery and mobile units. This would just take the idea a step further.

    I also like the idea of elite units being worth more VP
  • New

    Konrad von Richtmark wrote:

    Squirrelloid wrote:

    So you don't just have certain forces for ineffable reasons - you have a particular core army because it is (or is believed to be) effective, and you arranged for those forces to be available in the way you structured your society. Because having a body of trained soldiers with proper gear and effective formations is not an accident that just happens - the soldiers have to be trained, the gear has to be manufactured, and the formations have to be developed.
    Your (new) claim gets the process entirely backwards. The most readily available forces are intentionally so, not some accident of fate.
    Really, historically, it could go both ways. Societies could either reorganize themselves to be able to provide a certain kind of military forces, or military forces could be whatever the already existing society is best capable of providing, subject to existing sociopolitical constraints. Societies aren't, for the most part, designed, but the result of a myriad oft-competing forces and pressures, something that many a revolutionary who has tried to create a better world has found out the hard way.
    As a counterexample, one could mention the Roman Republic. During the Early and Middle Republic, its core troops, its famous legions, were made up of members of the landed middle class who fulfilled the wealth and income requirements to be obliged to outfit themselves at their own expense. During the Late Republic, that was no longer feasible, since that middle class had greatly shrunk, its lands having been acquired by super-rich patricians with huge estates. The Roman Republic didn't respond by re-structuring society by recreating the lost landed middle class, it instead enacted the Marian Reforms and switched to a paid, professional military.

    If medieval French society was geared towards producing lots of knights, it may just as much have been a consequence of feudalism as the underlying motivation for having a feudal society. Medieval France was decentralized even by medieval feudal standards. Simply put, the nobility liked it that way, because it meant they weren't just in control of the military might of the country, they WERE the military might of the country, and having there be a centralized royal army would have given the king the power to bring them to heel. As a counterpoint, one might mention the most prominent Italian mercantile city-states. They didn't introduce feudalism in order to get knights. Instead, they had small cores of citizen militias and professional troops directly paid by and under the control of the state. Also, they bought lots and lots of mercenaries to do their fighting for them, a direct consequence of economics and sociopolitics - the city-states were rich enough to do it, and the alternative would have been to risk your own citizens' lives, citizens who might not re-elect you as Doge if you do.
    I'm not going to disagree societies imposed constraints too.

    But the Marian reforms weren't the only possible option. They chose to produce a professional military over other possibilities. Yes, the ability to shape society isn't absolute, but governments do have ways to shape society within those constraints.

    (And by the time of the hundred years war, feudalism was long established. But it was originally instituted to provide those professional soldiers. And yes, the nobles fought tooth-and-nail to maintain their privileges - and France crushed noble opposition and transformed the bureaucracy to move away from feudal institutions as they became outdated. Nations need to work within or fight against limitations, but societies have shifted the ways they provide military and the natures of those militaries, and those changes were generally intentional!)
    Just because I'm on the Legal Team doesn't mean I know anything about rules or background in development, and if/when I do, I won't be posting about it. All opinions and speculation are my own - treat them as such.