Trade In Fantasy Ch. 4: Modes Of Transport, Pt 1
The 4th chapter of the Trade In Fantasy series looks at Modes Of Transport and trade route planning (9th post in the series).

Image by Cristian Ferronato from Pixabay
Table Of Contents: In today’s post:
Chapter 4: Modes Of Transport
4.0 A Word about Routes
4.0.1 Baseline Model
4.0.2 Relative Sizes
4.0.3 Competitors
4.0.4 Terrain I
4.0.5 Terrain II
4.0.6 Multi-paths and Choke Points
4.0.6.1 Sidebar: Projection Of Military Force
4.0.7 Mode Of Transport
4.1 Backpack / Litters / Shanks Pony
4.1.1 Capacity
4.1.2 Personalities / Roleplay4.2 Horseback
4.2.1 Capacity
4.2.2 Requirements
4.2.3 Personalities / Roleplay4.3 Mule Train
4.3.1 Capacity
4.3.2 Requirements
4.3.3 Personalities / Roleplay4.4 Wagons
4.4.1 Capacity
4.4.2 Requirements
4.4.3 Other Exceptions – Animal Size
4.4.3.1 Sidebar: Road Trains
4.4.4 Fodder / Food & Water Needs
4.4.4.1 People
4.4.4.2 Horses
4.4.4.3 Mules
4.4.4.4 Oxen / Cattle
4.4.4.5 Elephants
4.4.4.6 Other4.4.5 Personalities / Roleplay
In future installments of Chapter 4:
4.5 River Barges
4.5.1 Capacity
4.5.2 Favorable Winds
4.5.3 Favorable Currents
4.5.4 Unfavorable Winds / Currents – Oarsmen Requirements
4.5.5 Unfavorable Winds / Currents – Sail Solutions
4.5.6 Extreme Weather Events
4.5.7 The Tempest Scale
4.5.8 Vessel Rating
4.5.9 Weather Cataclysms4.6 Seagoing Vessels
4.6.1 Capacity
4.6.2 Favorable Winds
4.6.3 Favorable Currents
4.6.4 Unfavorable Winds / Currents – Oarsmen Requirements
4.6.5 Unfavorable Winds / Currents – Sail Solutions
4.6.6 Extreme Weather Events
4.6.7 Vessel Rating
4.6.8 Weather Cataclysms4.7 Exotic Modes Of Transport
4.7.1 Flight
4.7.2 Teleport
4.7.3 Magic Gates & Portals
4.7.4 Capacities4.8 Loading & Unloading
In future chapters:
- Land Transport
- Waterborne Transport
- Spoilage
- Key Personnel
- The Journey
- Arrival
- Journey’s End
- Adventures En Route
4. Modes Of Transport
Roughly half the types of business in the medieval-equivalent world involve moving something from one place to another – and that number has only increased in the centuries since. Whether it’s raw materials, components, produce or finished products for sale, until the internet came along, ingredients had to go to the point of manufacture. and product had to go to point-of-sale. The first still holds true, but the second now has exceptions.
A mode of transport, in game terms, is defined as a Carrying Capacity measured in Trade Units.. Most modes of transport also have a maximum Weight limit as well, consisting of the total weight of the vehicle and the cargo added together.
Some modes of transport define the route that has to be taken; others have that route defined for them by climatic and environmental factors that can be overcome with the application of manpower; and some just seem to grow organically.
It therefore seems prudent to have a word or two about routes and their impact before considering the modes of transport that might utilize them. Note that this chapter is largely an overview, aimed at selecting a mode of transport more than anything else; the primary modes have dedicated chapters to follow.
4.0 A Word about Routes
Business ventures fail for all sorts of reasons. The negative impact of all of these reasoms is exacerbated by any form of inefficiency. It follows that trade routes are even more important than they might initially seem.
The simplest trade route of all is a river – fixed in it’s course, it takes you from one point adjacent to the river to another one. If that second one happens to be downstream of the first, the current alone (if strong enough) can provide all the motive energy that you need – at least until it’s time to go back upriver.
That’s where complications set in. To avoid those complications, disposable floating contrivances may be employed – ‘trains’ of barrels or rafts – which do not have to be returned; they are a tradeable commodity as much as the products / produce that they carry.
To go back upriver, though, you need a boat. If the winds are favorable, a sail can provide the motive power to overcome the current; and this also provides a means of conveying goods downriver if the current is insufficient. So they are a lot more flexible. If and when the winds are uncooperative, it may be necessary to use oars instead. This is hard work, and because the vessels (even unladen) tend to weigh quite a lot, requires a LOT of manpower. So much so that this is almost universally indicative of a culture that practices slavery.
The main alternative is to use smaller boats – a lot of them – and even though this is less efficient in terms of cargo carried per Labor Unit, it can be a lot more efficient than hiring a large crew to move a bigger vessel. But there are less common answers to consider – a larger, barge-like boat that is hauled up-and-down river by teams of animals on the banks of the river, for example. Such exotic approaches are beyond the purview of this game resource, but I’ll mention them on occasion just so that you know they are there.
The other extreme also involves boats – and the open seas and oceans, where you can go anywhere you want to along any course you want to – so long as the winds cooperate. These are more reliable in certain places (due to topography and geography) at certain times of the year (due to the climatic conditions). Whole gaming supplements have been written about such sailing (I have several of them) and I don’t propose to incorporate another one into this series – but there’s still more than enough to say about ocean-going transport that it also has its own section in this chapter and a dedicated chapter later on.
In between these two are all forms of land transportation, and in many ways – because they aren’t reliant on winds, currents, tides, and such – they are a lot simpler. So those are the right places to start a closer examination of the impact of trade routes.
4.0.1 Baseline Model
Let’s start with a baseline model that’s almost as simple as I could make it:
This diagram shows four population centers. No two of the distances between them are exactly the same. Straight Roads – which were not a thing until the Romans came along and followed straight lines no matter how inconvenient it might be as much as humanly possible – connect A, B, C, and D. There’s also a smaller path or trail through the space in between, connecting A and C and B and D. These cross at E, which is nothing at the moment in terms of population but may become a settlement in the future if there is enough traffic to justify it.
Such a settlement would begin as either a military outpost or as an inn for travelers, and then someone would set up a house and a business to supply the outpost / inn (probably a bakery), and then another house and a business like a blacksmith to supply travelers and patrols, and on it grows from there.
If these four markets are all of the same size – I’ll define that in a moment – and there’s nothing noteworthy in the terrain (I’ll cover that a little later) – then the only factor to consider is distance.
A will ship to D rather than B or C. B will ship to C rather than A or D. And E, if and when it comes into existence (which seems unlikely from these trade routes) would be supplied by A. Because the distances are less, these are the shortest distances, and hence the greatest profits.
If the A-E distance looks a little different to the others it’s because I made a mistake and quickly created a patch to cover it with the correct information. My bad.
4.0.2 Relative Sizes
We don’t care about the size of the population in a given community, per se. We very much Do care what the potential profit is at each community.
While this can be considered in Generic Terms, it’s more accurate to assess it on a per-commodity basis – but that’s a nuance that’s too extreme for this general discussion.
The diagram above is exactly the same as the first one, except the relative profit potential has been depicted by increasing the apparent size of the population center. And, in truth, most of the time, they will be proportional.
I took B to be the standard, and increased the size of A, while shrinking C and D.
The impact is profound:
Base Efficiency = Size (Profit) / Distance
A->B = 100 / 43.4 = 9.47
A->B->C = 80 / (43.4+28.66) = 1.11
A->D->C =80 / (37.2+54.4) = 0.87
A->E->C = 80 / (18.8+29.8) = 1.65
A->D = 40 / 37.2 = 1.08
B->A = 450 / 43.4 = 10.37
B->C = 80 / 28.66 = 2.79
B->A->D = 40 / (43.4+37.2) = 0.50
B->C->D = 40 / (28.66+54.4) = 0.48
B->E->D = 40 / (36.9+37.5) = 0.54
C->B->A = 450 / (28.66+43.4) = 6.24
C->D->A = 450 / (54.4+37.2) = 4.91
C->E->A = 450 / (18.8+29.8) = 9.26
C->B = 100 / 28.66 = 3.49
C->D = 40 / 54.4 = 0.74
D->A = 450 / 37.2 = 12.1
D->A->B = 100 / (37.2+43.4) = 1.24
D->C->B = 100 / (54.4+28.66) = 1.2
D->E->B = 100 / (37.5+36.9) = 1.34
D-> C = 80 / 54.4 = 1.47
But this only tells half the story – once the transport reaches its destination, it has to come back again, and empty transports earn nothing, they simply double the distance.
A->B and B->A = 9.47 + 10.37 = 19.84
A->E->C and C->E->A = 1.65 + 9.26 = 10.91
A->D and D->A = 0.87 + 12.1 = 12.97
B->A and A->B = 19.84
B->C and C->B = 2.79 + 6.24 = 9.03
B->E->D and D->E->B = 0.54 + 1.34 = 1.88
C->E->A and A->E->C = 10.91
C->B and B->C = 9.03
C->D and D->C = 0.74 + 1.47 = 2.21
D->A and A->D = 12.97
D->E->B and B->E->D = 1.88
D->C and C->D = 2.21
Total flowing through E = 10.91 + 1.88 = 12.79
This is slightly smaller than the A-D route – but E would be even closer to A. Once a community got started there, it would grow to somewhere between D and C in size very quickly, from an economics standpoint.
4.0.3 Competitors
These thoughts aren’t exactly rocket science. Others will have the same idea. Which brings me to the following diagram, which adds two other communities of C and D size that are trading with A, and are even closer.
The effect of competition is to reduce the potential profit of those markets serviced by rivals if they can do so more efficiently than you can. If it costs them less to get their goods to that marketplace, they can achieve greater profits than you can (permitting growth and the recruitment of more Labor Units) and/or can undercut you on price. You get whatever demand is left over – assuming the goods being offered are of equal quality.
As a result, F & G are going to soak up the best available deals in A and shrink it’s market so far as B, C, and D are concerned. It’s still a bit bigger than B – but not by a whole lot. (Actually, this supposes that there are also H & I doing the same thing).
A: total market 450, -80 (G) -40 (F) -80 (H) -40 (I) = 210. That’s more than half the potential earnings taken away.
A->B and B->A = 9.47 + 10.37 × 210 / 450
= 9.47 + 4.84 = 14.31
A->E->C and C->E->A = 1.65 + 9.26 × 210 / 450
= 1.65 + 4.32 = 5.97
A->D and D->A = 0.87 + 12.1 × 210 / 450
= 0.87 + 5.65 = 6.52
B->A and A->B = 14.31
B->C and C->B = 2.79 + 6.24 = 9.03
B->E->D and D->E->B = 0.54 + 1.34 = 1.88
C->E->A and A->E->C = 5.97
C->B and B->C = 9.03
C->D and D->C = 0.74 + 1.47 = 2.21
D->A and A->D = 6.52
D->E->B and B->E->D = 1.88
D->C and C->D = 2.21
The A-B trade is still dominant, but not as massively so. It’s now more profitable for C to trade with B than it is A. And E has lost a significant part of its growth potential as a result.
Of course, there’s more to the story than these few variables. So let’s start taking them into account and see what happens:
4.0.4 Terrain
The simplest method of factoring terrain into the equation is to determine how much slower the terrain makes your goods and lengthen the distance between the two proportionately. The problem with this approach is that it will impact different modes of transport, differently. The factor that you have to apply for Horses might be quite different to the factor applied to a wagon. I’ll deal with terrain types quite extensively in Chapter 5.
But, for the moment, and in the interests of simplicity, let’s assume a uniform impact and see what happens when we plonk some terrain down: Swamp on route A-D and half of route C-D, with an impact of x2.5 distance.
A->D: 37.2 × 2.5 = 93 km
C->D: (54.4 / 2) + (54.4 / 2) x 2.5 = 27.2 + 68 = 95.2 km
Base Efficiencies (with comments):
A->B->C = 80 / (43.4+28.66) = 1.11
A->D->C =80 / (93+95.2) = 0.425 (was 0.87)
A->E->C = 80 / (18.8+29.8) = 1.65
So the least efficient route to C became even less so.
A->D = 40 / 93 = 0.43 (was 1.08)
More than 60% of the profitability of this route has been lost.
(other A-> routes unchanged)
B->A->D = 40 / (43.4+93) = 0.29 (was 0.50)
B->C->D = 40 / (28.66+95.2) = 0.32 (was 0.48)
B->E->D = 40 / (36.9+37.5) = 0.54
The most efficient route between B and D remains through E; the other options, which were competitive at 0.5 and 0.48, are now definitely second-string.
(Other B-> routes unchanged)
C->B->A = 210 / (28.66+43.4) = 2.91
C->D->A = 210 / (95.2+93) = 1.15 (was 2.29)
C->E->A = 210 / (18.8+29.8) = 4.32
(Note that these have been adjusted for the F-G-H-I competition effect).
The two secondary routes from C to A were reasonably close in efficiency – they aren’t, any more. The route through D is clearly a third-best choice, now.
C->D = 40 / 95.2 = 0.42 (was 0.74)
43% loss in efficiency.
(Other C-> routes unchanged)
D->A = 210 / 93 = 2.26 (was 5.65)
That’s a big drop. 60%, in fact. The size of the market in A still makes it the preferred trade destination from D, but the other destinations have increased markedly in comparative value.
D->A->B = 100 / (93+43.4) = 0.733 (was 1.24)
D->C->B = 100 / (95.2+28.66) = 0.81 (was 1.2)
D->E->B = 100 / (37.5+36.9) = 1.34
These three routes were all reasonably competitive, close enough that other factors would have been decisive. The D-E-B route was already the most profitable, but the margin is now significantly higher.
D-> C = 80 / 95.2 = 0.84 (was 1.47)
As you would expect, the 60% drop goes both ways.
Putting these together:
A->B and B->A = 9.47 + 4.84 = 14.31 (unchanged)
A->E->C and C->E->A = 1.65 + 4.32 = 5.97 (unchanged)
A->D and D->A = 0.43 + 2.26 = 2.69 (was 6.52)
B->A and A->B = 14.31 (unchanged)
B->C and C->B = 2.79 + 6.24 = 9.03 (unchanged)
B->E->D and D->E->B = 0.54 + 1.34 = 1.88 (unchanged)
C->E->A and A->E->C = 5.97 (unchanged)
C->B and B->C = 9.03 (unchanged)
C->D and D->C = 0.42 + 0.84 = 1.26 (was 2.21)
D->A and A->D = 2.69 (was 6.52)
D->E->B and B->E->D = 1.88 (unchanged)
D->C and C->D = 1.26 (was 2.21)
Comparing these with the figures from 4.0.3, the net effect has been to isolate D even more than it was already – to such an extent that you have to wonder why D even exists.
There are any number of possible answers to that question – natural resources, or another community farther away from A that is only reachable through D, for example.
4.0.5 Terrain II
It could be argued that isolating the smallest of the four communities this way masks the effect of the terrain, so now let’s add some more – hills and mountains on the A-B, B-E, and B-C routes – and also, the unshown H-A and I-A routes. So A would grow somewhat as a trade destination.
Mountains can be trickier. Some of what you lose on the uphill can be recovered on the downhill side, but paths tend to be more twisting and complicated, and you run the risk of bottlenecks. I’ll deal with those in a moment.
Mountains and hills are therefore specified as two factors – one going in each direction – and that those factors are actually determined as two sub-factors, an uphill and downhill.
First, let’s take a look at our new map:
Notice that there are only a few foothills on the B-C route, while A-B is far more difficult. You would have to carefully assess whether or not B-C-E-A is more efficient than A-B direct.
It can be assumed from the topography that D is significantly lower in elevation than B, and slightly lower than A or C.
First, let’s do what we have to do in order to reassess A as a trade destination:
Mountains H->A: x3.5 up, /1.25 down, 3:1 ratio:
3.5 × 3 / (1.25 × 1) = x8.4;
the trade was worth 80, now only 80 / 8.4 = 9.52.
Mountains I->A: x3 up, / 1.25 down, 3:1.2 ratio:
3 × 3 / (1.25 × 1.2) = 9 / 1.5 = x6
the trade was worth 40, now only 40 / 6 = 6.67.
A: base 450 – 80 (G) – 40 (F) – 9.52 (H) – 6.67 (I) = 313.81
Note that I have not bothered to calculate the reciprocal, i.e. A->H and A->I. I can’t get away with that for the A, B, C, D, and (potential) E routes!
Mountains: A->B: x3.5 up / 1.75 down, ratio 2.5:7.5:
3.5 × 2.5 / (1.75 × 7.5) = 8.75 / 13.125 = x 2/3
Mountains: B->A: x3.5 up / 1.75 down, ratio 7.5:2.5
3.5 × 7.5 / (1.75 × 2.5) = 26.25 / 4.375 = x 6
The ratio describes how much uphill there is relative to downhill. The factors describe how steep the climbs are and how gentle the descents. 3.5 up is fairly steep, 3.0 up is a little less so; 1.25 down is also fairly steep, 1.75 down is quite a bit more gentle.
Mountains B->C: x 1.75 up / 1.25 down ratio 2:2.5:
1.75 × 2 / (1.25 × 2.5) = 3.5 / 3.125 = x 1.12
Mountains C->B: x 1.75 up / 1.25 down ratio 2.5:2:
1.75 × 2.5 / (1.25 × 2) = 4.375 / 2.5 = x 1.75
Mountains B->E only affect 2/3 of the route, 1/3 is unchanged; x 2.75 up, / 1.15 down, ratio 2:3.5
2.75 × 2 / (1.15 × 3.5) = 5.5 / 4.025 = x 1.366
Mountains E->B only affect 2/3 of the route, 1/3 is unchanged; x 3 up, / 1.15 down, ratio 3.5:2
3 × 3.5 / (1.15 × 2) = 10.5 / 2.3 = 4.565
Base Efficiencies:
A->B = 100 / (43.4 × 2/3)
= 100 / 28.933 = 3.456 (was 9.47)
A->B->C = 80 / ([43.4 × 2/3] + [28.66 × 1.12])
= 80 / (28.9333 + 32.3232)
= 80 / 61.2565 = 1.31 (was 1.11)
A->D->C =80 / (93 + 95.2) = 0.60 (was 0.425)
A->E->C = 80 / (18.8 + 29.8) = 1.65 (unchanged)
A->D = 40 / 93 = 0.43 (unchanged)
B->A = 313.81 / (43.4 × 6)
= 313.81 / 260.4 = 1.21 (was 10.37)
B->C = 80 / (28.66 × 1.12)
= 80 / 32.0992 = 2.49 (was 2.79)
B->A->D = 40 / ([43.4 × 6]+93)
= 40 / (260.4 + 93)
= 40 / 353.4 = 0.11 (was 0.29)
B->C->D = 40 / ([28.66 × 1.12] + 95.2)
= 40 / (32.0992 + 95.2)
= 40 / 127.2992 = 0.31 (was 0.32)
B->E->D = 40 / ([1/3 × 36.9] + [2/3 × 36.9 × 1.366] + 37.5)
= 40 / (12.3 + 33.6036 + 37.5)
= 40 / 83.4036 = 0.48 (was 0.54)
C->B->A = 313.81 / ([28.66 × 1.75] + [43.4 × 6])
= 313.81 / (50.155 + 260.4)
= 313.81 / 310.555 = 1.01 (was 2.91)
C->D->A = 313.81 / (95.2+93)
= 313.81 / 188.2 = 1.67 (was 1.15)
C->E->A = 313.81 / (18.8 + 29.8)
= 313.81 / 48.6 = 6.46 (was 4.32)
C->B = 100 / (28.66 × 1.75)
= 100 / 50.155 = 1.99 (was 3.49)
C->D = 40 / 95.2 = 0.42 (unchanged)
D->A = 313.81 / 93 = 3.37 (was 2.26)
D->A->B = 100 / (93 + [43.4 × 2/3)
= 100 / 121.9333 = 0.82 (was 0.733)
D->C->B = 100 / (95.2 + [28.66 × 1.75])
= 100 / (95.2 + 50.155)
= 100 / 145.355 = 0.69 (was 0.81)
D->E->B = 100 / (37.5 + {1/3 × 36.9] + [2/3 × 36.9 × 4.565])
= 100 / (37.5 + 12.3 + 112.299)
= 100 / 162.099 = 0.62 (was 1.34)
D-> C = 80 / 95.2 = 0.84 (unchanged)
Combined Runs:
A->B and B->A = 3.456 + 1.21 = 4.666 (was 14.31)
A->E->C and C->E->A = 1.65 + 6.46 = 8.11 (was 5.97)
A->D and D->A = 0.43 + 3.37 = 3.8 (was 6.52)
Trade between A to D is now almost as profitable as trade between A to B, and both are a lot less profitable as A to C via E. The terrain has massively impacted the A->B->A route, which used to be the most profitable by far, and the changes have improved the efficiency of the A->E->C->E->A route.
B->A and A->B = 1.21 + 3.456 = 4.666 (was 14.31)
B->C and C->B = 2.49 + 1.01 = 3.5 (was 9.03)
B->A->D and D->A->B = 0.11 + 0.82 = 0.93
B->C->D and D->C->B = 0.31 + 0.69 = 1.0
B->E->D and D->E->B = 0.48 + 0.62 = 1.1 (was 1.88)
B->E->D and D->A->B = 0.48 + 0.82 = 1.3
The B->C run has been affected just about as badly as the A->B route. They are still the most profitable from B, but are nowhere near as dominant as they were. The other effect that the terrain has had is to make the routes between B and D far more even in efficiency (0.93 vs 1.0 vs 1.1). But a joker has been added to the deck – the first triangle route: B->E->D->A->B takes advantage of the market power of A and the downhill slope from A to B to edge out all of the more straightforward back-and-forth routes. And yes, I was watching for this to happen!
C->B->A and A->B->C = 1.01 + 1.31 = 2.32
C->D->A and A->D->C = 1.67 + 0.60 = 2.27
C->E->A and A->E->C = 6.46 + 1.65 = 8.11 (was 5.97)
C->B and B->C = 1.99 + 2.49 = 4.48 (was 9.03)
C->D and D->C = 0.42 + 0.84 = 1.26 (unchanged)
Here, the direct route through E is so much more efficient than any of the alternatives that it is the obviously preferred choice. Trade between B and C has roughly halved, and most of that now travels the inner trail.
D->A and A->D = 3.37 + 0.43 = 3.8 (was 2.69)
D->A->B and B->A->D = 0.82 + 0.11 = 0.93
D->C->B and B->C->D = 0.69 + 0.31 = 1.0
D->E->B and B->E->D = 0.62 + 0.48 =1.1
D->A->B and B->E->D = 0.82 + 0.48 = 1.3
D->C and C->D = 0.84 + 0.42 = 1.26
A is the only place on the map that it is worthwhile for D to trade with. That route got a much-needed boost from the increased trading capacity of A.
Total flowing through E = 8.11 +0.48 + 8.11 = 16.7
That’s such a solid number that a community at E seems inevitable, and sooner rather than later. When there is one established, it will be very interesting to compare A->D and D->E routes – they are almost the same distance, but one runs straight through a marshy swampland while the other does not. Balancing that, the destination for the swamp road is a much bigger community (measured in potential profit, remember), which may compensate – to say that the balance could tilt either way is an understatement at this point!
4.0.6 Multi-paths and Choke Points
This is what is called a ‘heat map’ showing the difference that having multiple routes between two points makes, and the impact of having to move through a choke point.
I’ve actually done this more infographic style because the image on it’s own was rather boring.
When there are multiple paths, the sections near town where those paths converge is always going to be the most heavily trafficked, all things being equal – but as the previous sections of this chapter have shown, things are never equal. So:
1. Shorter = more efficient (assuming that you have corrected distance for terrain factors, etc).
2. More efficient = more traffic because it’s more profitable.
3. More traffic = more danger. I’m not just talking bandits, but anything looking for a free lunch. The nature of the encounters should change on the hot-spots – more aggressive creatures should dominate. Arguably, you could even need completely different encounter tables.
4. It costs money to hire guards, and it costs more money to keep them healthy if they are engaging in combat on your behalf. The greater the danger of an encounter, the more this will eat into your profits.
5. And, less profitable is less efficient – so following the most heavily-trafficked route is not necessarily a good thing.
In fact, given the principles and logic just outlined, it can be assumed (all else being equal again) that all paths are equally efficient – some balance speedier travel against greater risks and expense, others are slower but allow you to slip under the radar.
I also make the point that the regions of greatest danger, the locations that enemies know are going to offer regular pickings, are the areas just outside of town – where protection will be at its strongest.
4.0.6.1 Sidebar: Projection Of Military Force Feel free to ignore this sidebar at will.
A very rough estimate of the military protection offered by a standing force is easy to determine.
F = number of men
A = % Archers
N = % Combatant Non-Archers
T = Training (score of 1-5, low to high)
P – Armor (rating of 1-5, low to high, of the average soldier)
R = number of hexes force can be projected (1 hex = 5 miles)
H = number of hexes away from Force
EF = Effective ForceR = log(F x ([1.5 x A] + N) x T x P / 80)
use F x 1.25 if A is between 25% and 50%
use F x 1.125 if A is between 10% and 25%
use F x 1.125 if A is between 50% and 65%R x 2 if the army are mounted on something reasonably fast like horses. R x more if they are mounted on something even faster – magic carpets, eagles, dragons, whatever.
EF = F x (R – H) / R
Example:
500 men are garrisoned in a fort. They have typical training and equipment levels (both rated 3 out of 5). 40% of them are archers, 50% are non-archer combatants, and 10% are bureaucrats. None of them are mounted..
R = log ([500 × 1.25] x ([1.5 × 40] +50) x 3 × 3 / 80)
= log (625 x (60 +50) x 9 / 80)
= log (625 × 110 × 9 / 80)
= log (7734.375)
= 3.888440% archers + 50% non-archers = 90% combatants
0 hex away: EF = 90% x 625 = 562 men
1 hex away: EF = 90% x 625 x (3.8884 – 1) / 3.8884
= 562 × 2.8884 / 3.8884 = 417 men2 hexes away: EF = 90% x 625 x (3.8884 – 2) / 3.8884
= 562 × 1.8884 / 3.8884 = 273 men3 hexes away: EF = 90% x 625 x (3.8884 – 3) / 3.8884
= 562 × 0.8884 / 3.8884 = 128 men4 hexes away: EF = 0
To project power 4 hexes, R needs to be > 4
10^4 +1 = 10001
10001 / 7734.375 × 500 = 647 (rounding up)So an additional 147 men are needed, assuming the same breakdown. Or the army needs to be transformed into a cavalry.
This calculation sidesteps all sorts of real world complications to arrive at a rough-and-ready figure. Applying the results should be a matter of standardized tactical assessment.
EG: an ambush multiplies the ambushing group’s numbers by 5. You need 2:1 for a probable victory, but you will lose half your force in the process. At 3:1, you will lose 1/3. At 4:1, you will lose 1/4 (notice the pattern?)
So 128 men are enough to defeat 64 bandits (unlikely to see that many under the one banner) or an Orc raiding party of 64 (that’s more likely).
You can even use Labor Unit values to estimate the comparative strength of non-human opponents where these differ significantly. It’s not the best or most reliable, but it’s quick and fairly easy.
4.0.7 Mode Of Transport
The final factor to be considered are alternative modes of transport. Sometimes, carting goods overland is better than floating them downriver, especially if the vessel doing the transportation then has to fight its way back up-river.
Even within the confines of overland travel, there are multiple options. The size of a load, the available manpower for transporting it, the maintenance requirements of the different modes – there are often multiple ‘fairly right’ answers, and unless you get lucky, no perfect ones – and always remember that others will be looking for the best answer, too.
It’s not going too far to assign every business operation in a game world something that its owner perceives as a “competitive advantage” or “edge”. They might have sewn up the market in Hill Giants for loading and unloading, or know a better route, or pay a premium to attract the best personnel, or any of a thousand other things. Any given competitive edge might not even exist outside of the mind of the owner! But that’s what they perceive as their advantage; it’s then up to them to leverage that advantage into profits.
It’s also worth noting that unless it detracts from a business’ profits, they won’t give two hoots about competition. If anything, by allying together, they may be able to more effectively lobby for laws and civic improvements that benefit both.
Not all ‘rivals’ will be enemies.
4.1 Backpack / Litters / Shanks Pony
The simplest mode of transport is the most personal – people walk from place A to place B while carrying something. As indicated by the title of this sub-section, there are many variations, and this doesn’t list all of them.
We’ve all seen, for example, pictures of African women with huge pots on their heads – that qualifies. There are small wagons designed to be pulled by a single horse – but which can be pulled by a strong man – those are covered under wagons. But the Asian strong-stick across the shoulders with a load suspended from each end? That’s absolutely covered within this category.
The biggest benefit to this mode is that people are adept at breaking trails. If there is a possible way from A to B, a human will find it. Depending on how you characterize them, that quality may be shared with other races.
I can picture the scene: a party of three – an Elf, a Dwarf, and a Human – have arrived at the foot of a mountain with impassably steep cliffs, and are surveying the path ahead.
“There’s no hope for it,” says the Elf. We will have to head West and look for a passage from valley to valley until we find one headed in the right direction.”
“Don’t be daft,” replies the Dwarf. “Let me get the word out to my kin, we’ll cut a passage straight through like a hot knife through butter. Let me see – six Dwarves times three shifts, plus another six cutting and installing timbers to shore up the ceiling, 50 meters a day, about 70 days.”
“Bah,” answers the human. “That’s no obstacle. A bit of free climbing here over to there, some hammer and pitons, a rope staircase, we’ll be at the summit this time tomorrow.”
The big drawback is that individually, most humans and humanoids can’t carry much. Those that can do so tend to be slow and clumsy, or not interested in manual labor like porting things around.
The secondary drawback is that breaking trails frequently requires the use of both hands, further compromising what can be carried; the only way out of this problem is to leave stuff behind while the trail is forged, then going back for it – progress in stages. Some of that may be obviated by carrying a rope attached to the cargo, perhaps even mounting it on a sled of some kind, then pulling it to you – but that’s at best a compromise.
A tertiary drawback is that there are places a small group of one or two experts can go, but a larger group can’t. That’s why trailblazers and explorers don’t usually carry cargo – any such capacity is consumed with resources to be used to overcome obstacles and sustain the expedition for a little bit longer. Once a trail has been found and marked, and perhaps a few rough patches dealt with by a work-gang, others can follow it while transporting cargo.
So this answer may provide a baseline for gauging efficiency, but it’s really too compromised to be much more than that – most of the time.
Terrain is a huge factor to consider. If the land is mostly flat and passable, or there are already fair trails blazed, it can be a different story. As soon as the path begins climbing toward the sky, litters and such stop being all that practical.
4.1.1 Capacity
Precise measurements are determined in earlier sections – it very much depends on the racial profile of the Labor Unit(s) transporting the goods. But, by the time supplies and tools are taken into account, a good rule of thumb is 0.25 Trade Units / person. Some will have a higher capacity, but that’s a fair standard to aim at.
4.1.2 Personalities / Roleplay
I have always considered slavery (including wage slavery) to be a form of oppression, and therefore characterized the people occupying that social class as oppressed. From that fundamental, all other natural variations on personality will play out. It must also be acknowledged that there are far harder labors extracted from slaves than simply carrying things from A to B.
4.2 Horseback
I discussed horses extensively in 3.1.2.
As beasts of burden, they are compromised in just about every way imaginable. Light loads, high sustenance requirements, very fast but can’t sustain it – until wagons and such enter the picture, horses are limited to small, light, loads that are carried short distances at speed. Or small, light, loads that are carried long distances slowly – if there’s no better choice of pack animal available.
The only benefits that a horse brings to the table are relative ones – they are less fractious and easier to work with than mules, for example, and faster than oxen on their slowest day. The fact that they will defer to the judgment of their rider and hence cooperate even when being driven to death by a whip is one of the species’ greatest assets (it’s a bit rough on the individual, though).
All that changes when they get hitched up to a wagon or sled of some sort. The deferment of judgment means that they work together fairly naturally, and the horse has been evolved to work in this way by man’s selective breeding.
4.2.1 Capacity
One rider can generally only control two horses outside of a team / wagon arrangement. More can be led, hitched together into a train, but the rider only really controls the mount under him and the first in the train; the trick is training each horse to subsume it’s own instincts in favor of those of the horse in front of it.
The sequence in which they are hitched is therefore very important. They get used to a particular arrangement and become docile within it after a period of adjustment, but change the order and you have to begin that period of adjustment all over again.
As a rough rule of thumb, a horse can carry 0.5 Trade Units – but there are multiple compromise points in terms of pace and capacity above this baseline.
4.2.2 Requirements
Again, as a very rough indicator,
+1 Horse per 5 carrying fodder
+1 Horse per 3 carrying water
If you don’t have enough horses to achieve this requirement, divide these requirements by the number of horses that you do have and reduce their carrying capacity accordingly.
The methodology described in 3.1.2 is far more precise, but this is a good rule of thumb to employ.
Four horses, for example: 1 horse is carrying nothing but water. 1/3 of another needs to be dedicated to the purpose, so it’s capacity is only 2/3 of 0.5 = 0.333 Trade Units. Fodder accounts for 0.2 Trade Units on one of the animals, possibly the same one. So the four-horse group has a capacity of 0.5 × 2 + 0.3333 – 0.2 = 1.13333 trade units.
But that’s if they are led. If one is being ridden, it permits greater speed than walking – but the rider’s weight also needs to come out of that capacity. Effectively, four horses can carry a rider and 1 Trade Unit – as a rough rule of thumb.
There are all sorts of tricks that riders can use to extend the range of a horse. Eddings, in one of his novels (and I don’t recall which) goes into some detail about some of them.
4.2.3 Personalities / Roleplay
So, one or more PCs find themselves in charge of a train of horses. Excellent – for the GM, and for a roleplayer.
First, there can be only one leader. One of those PCs is that leader, and the other is an adjunct or assistant, who won’t be obeyed by anyone except any horse that he happens to be riding (and sometimes not even that one).
Second, there can be only one lead horse. This horse needs to have a personality that will dominate the others. Put the wrong horse at the head of the train and you will have nothing but chaos. The second horse in line might defer to the first, while the third becomes willful and disobedient, and is followed by the fourth, fifth, and so on.
This is very much a reflection of the mental states of horses in a herd setting; they are simply arranged differently.
That dominating personality can be the obsessive/compulsive neatness-and-organization type; it can be the heroic leader type, or the charismatic leader type, or the eldest (and presumably wisest), it can be the nagging wife or the Jewish mother, or any other variant that you can conceive of.
When separated, individual personalities will tend to emerge. When linked together, the leader’s personality dominates, and getting the ‘herd’ to obey means working with that domineering personality.
In another of Edding’s novels, part of the Belgariad, much is made of their personalities of horses, especially in a herd setting, at one or two points. That interpretation is not 100% consistent with the above analysis but is close enough for it to be used for further guidance.
In particular, this can be useful in crafting encounters with horse trains led by NPCs. The implication is that if you have put some effort into understanding the unique aspects of how a horse thinks, you will have done so for all the other creatures encountered, adding a lot of depth to the game. Of course, you will then have to live up to that standard!
4.3 Mule Train
3.1.3 dealt with burros, donkeys, and mules as beasts of burden. They are very different from Horses in many respects; not least of which is greater endurance. They are often not as smart as horses, and their internal social rankings are subject to frequent challenge. They make up for this by being stubborn, i.e. far less inclined to cede judgment to a human authority. In fact, it’s more accurate to say that they expect humans to defer to their judgments.
They don’t have a human leader the way that horses do, in other words; they will permit a human to function as navigator and the broader scale, but once the general direction of travel has been set, they will decide for themselves how to go about heading in that direction.
Some of them tend to have pretty good instincts for this, and over time this leads to entrenchment as pack leader – but this is regularly challenged, because the position has all sorts of privileges attached.
These are all smaller than horses, and have slightly smaller carrying capacities, but they make up for that by needing a lot less sustenance. And it’s almost as easy to control 20 mules as it is to control two.
4.3.1 Capacity
Individually, these beasts have lower capacities than horses, but they cope better with being overloaded, and their requirements are lower, so with weight of numbers they become more efficient.
As a general rule, use 1 Trade Unit / 3 mules / donkeys / burros. But mules can cope with being overburdened – it simply slows their pace a little and increases their rest requirements. In fact, loads of up to 5 Trade Units can be carried by 3 mules / donkeys / burros, though this is pushing the limits fairly hard. A good compromise is 2 Trade Units / 3 mounts..
4.3.2 Requirements
Again as a general rule of thumb:
+1 Mule per 4 carrying fodder
+1 Mule per 8 or part thereof carrying water
So those 3 cargo-carrying animals need to be supplemented with 2 more, and one of them needs to carry a little extra in fodder, which it will be relieved of as quickly as possible.
But, a team of 6 carrying 4 trade units need only be supplemented by 3 more, not 4. It’s at this point that their fabled endurance begins to really impact their relative efficiency.
But 6+3=9; so three of the six need to carry a little extra – two fodder and one water. Or you can add a fourth animal anyway, for a total team of 10 – and a little capacity up your sleeve.
Again, 3.1.3 gives a more robust and detailed reading on these.
4.3.3 Personalities / Roleplay
The cliches would suggest that aside from being stubborn willful, and completely convinced that they are always right (and so if you disagree with them you must be wrong), these beasts of burden have no personalities.
I beg to differ – other aspects of their personalities may be i fourth place behind those common factors, but they do exist and can sometimes manifest in unexpected ways. The mule who likes natural beauty and can never resist a field of flowers in bloom, or with a taste for spicier plants than most, or who likes to “sing”. The one with a sense of humor, always playing ‘practical jokes’. Or perhaps a cruel and/or heartless streak.
Of course, a PC encountering a mule train led by an NPC has (at best) a 50-50 chance of noticing any of these – and it defeats the purpose for the NPC to mention it out of hand. But a PC actually running a mule train will get to notice these traits in a hurry!
4.4 Wagons
I’ve dealt with carts in even greater detail and specificity than horses and burros – all in section 3.1.4.
Ultimately, any sort of platform on wheels or rails that is pulled or pushed by a living thing qualifies – including rickshaws. But the more traditional view is a flat platform with some sort of guardrails on one or more axles which have wheels attached.
Because they are a made contrivance, they can be made bigger or smaller as needed. The size dictates how large a load they can carry, and the combined weight of wagon and cargo, the size of the animal train needed to drive them.
This system recommends putting the cart before the horse – instead of size specifying load, choose a load capacity and use that to determine the size.
4.4.1 Capacity
Wagons and carts come in 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 Trade Unit capacities. 3 and 5 are also possible but relatively uncommon. 5 or more trade units definitely requires 2 axles and 4 wheels. Some 4-unit sizes also have this configuration.
The reason is that it’s generally a lot better to distribute the weight over four points of contact than it is, two. Beyond a certain point, though, it becomes not just “better” but Necessary.
4.4.2 Requirements
Drawn by a minimum of one horse per 2 Trade Units
2 per 2 Trade Units if mules / donkeys
1 per 4 Trade Units if oxen
1 per 8 Trade Units if elephants
4.4.3 Other Exceptions – Animal Size
Elephants are big, but in most fantasy worlds, there are bigger creatures. Convince one of them to pull your wagon and you won’t need as many as you do elephants, and may even be able to get a special wagon commissioned – or, more likely, daisy chain several of them together to form what in Australia is known as a “road train” – except that ours are semi-trailers being hauled by prime movers.
Sidebar: Road Trains
Only in Australia do the conditions exist to make road trains of significant size a practical consideration. Most countries will go so far as to stack two semi-trailers behind a prime mover but here, it is routine to have three or four.Some photos of road trains to illustrate the point:
Image by Monika Neumann from Pixabay
Image by Siggy Nowak from Pixabay. With a small family car and a small fold-up caravan for size comparison.
Image by Meridy Scott from Pixabay. This is actually two road trains, one right behind another, both 3-trailer configurations.
Image by SquiddyFish from Wikipedia Commons, released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.
The longest practical road trains are special mining tipper-trucks. These travel only on purpose-built roads carting iron ore from mines to dropping-off points, which allows them to bypass government restrictions on vehicle size.
I found this image on Pinterest (author unknown) – it has seven trailers, but there are larger ones.
Image via Pinterest, photographer unknown.
To give some context to my comments about ‘only in Australia’, it’s not just jingoism. The largest road train outside of this country was a publicity stunt in Gothenburg, Sweden, when a single prime mover hauled 20 trailers with double-stacked (loaded) containers – a total length of 300 meters (984 feet) and total weight of 750 tonnes.
Compare that to the Australian record (also just a publicity stunt), 113 loaded trailers, 1474.3 meters (4836′ 11″) in length, a total weight 1300 tonnes (1279 long tons, 1433 short tons). Distance traveled: 100m (328 feet).
Now a fully loaded cargo container has a maximum weight of 36,000 kg, and the weight of a semi-trailer large enough to carry one is about 15,000 kg. A typical wagon in a fantasy game would weigh no more than 5,000 kg and probably less, fully laden – so that’s a ratio of 51:5, or about 10:1.
A train of three wagons in a fantasy environment would be about 15,000 kg capacity, including the weight of the wagons – or about 1% of what one of those three-semi road trains could carry.
How many trade units are in that 15,000 depends on how you have defined a standard Trade Unit. It wouldn’t surprise me for this to be a 30- or 60- trade unit approach.
To haul that much weight, the roads had better be pretty good, though….
3.4.4 Fodder / Food & Water Needs
Everything that lives needs food of some kind (it was a thought along those lines that led me to think up the Golden Empire, in which everyone not at the bottom rung of society was Undead).
Refer 3.1.1.13 & 3.1.1.14 in Ch 3 pt 2, plus racial variations in 3.1.1.10 from Ch 3 pt 1 & 3.1.1.17 from Ch 3 pt 2 (again).
Refer 3.1.2 from Ch 3 pt 2, plus the notes above.
Refer 3.1.3 from Ch 3 pt 2, plus the notes above.
Typical weight for an ox is 280kg, but they range from 200 to 400kg.
Typical weight for a bull (depending on the breed) is 450-1800 kg.
Typical weight of a cow also depends on the breed, ranging from 360-1100 kg.
An ox, or a bull, needs about 2% of its body-weight per day.
A cow needs 4% of body-weight if a high-producing breed, 3% of body-weight if a more efficient breed, 2% if not lactating.
Low quality forage – no more than 1.8% of body-weight.
Average quality forage – no more than 2.1% of body-weight.
Good quality forage – no more than 3% of body-weight.
This must be supplemented by Hay – a maximum of 5kg per day – or Silage (half as nutritious as hay, so twice as much).
If the combined feed is not enough, the bovine will lose 0.5%-1% of its body-weight per day, to a maximum loss of about 12%, at which point it will refuse to work and begin to die.
An Ox needs 30-80 liters of water per day, generally around 8% of body-weight.
A bull needs 20-30 liters of water per day, generally around 8% of body-weight.
A cow needs 30-80 liters of water per day, less if not lactating. Again, this is about 8% of body-weight.
These numbers increase 10-20% on very hot days, and another 5-10% if it is also very humid.
Elephants eat 149-300 kg of food a day, mostly grasses supplemented with the occasional piece of fruit. They have to spend up to 18 hours a day feeding.
This ceases to be an issue if the animal handler can contrive a way of feeding the elephant while it is on the move.
Elephants generally consume 100-200 liters of water per day. Apply the same increases as for bovines regarding temperature and humidity. 100 liters of water weighs roughly 100 kg.
African elephants generally weigh 2700-3600 kg (F) and up to 6800 kg (M). So 100 liters is roughly 3% of the female body-weight and 200 liters is roughly the same % of the male body-weight.
Asian elephants generally weight 1800-4500 kg and the females 1600-4000 kg. Their water needs are similar in quantity to that of their African cousins, yielding a higher % of body-weight: 3.5% (F) and 4.45% (M).
No one game supplement can possibly cover all the fantastic creatures that could be turned into beasts of burden. Everything from Dinosaurs to Dragons can be pressed into the role – some creatures more successfully than others. That’s why I’m careful to show my working – so that, when presented with an unusual option, you have the tools to make your own decisions as to the implications and repercussions.
4.4.5 Personalities / Roleplay
The cliche is that elephants embody wisdom. Throw away that notion right away – they are far more complicated than that. Every elephant has the following traits in some measure:
1. Attentiveness
2. Sociability
3. Aggressiveness
4. Intelligence
5. Empathy
6. Self-awareness
7. Cowardice
8. Bravery
Notice that Wisdom is not on that list.
For 1-6, roll d10 and record the score. For 7, roll d6; and for 8, roll a d4, +4 for a male. Then list the attributes in sequence of high scores to low. That puts the traits in sequence of dominance in the case of this particular elephant.
One cliche that is absolutely proven fact – elephants are scared of mice. No-one knows exactly why. It’s not just an animated cartoon cliche.
Made It! There were times when I was uncertain, and thought that the entire post might be the section on Trade Routes, but despite melting in the heat today, this post contains everything that I wanted it to include.
Next week, though, I’ll be interrupting the series to review a new RPG product that readers may find interesting – and, since it’s not a fundraised product, it’s available right now!.
- Trade In Fantasy: Preliminaries & Introduction
- Trade In Fantasy Ch. 1: Ownership
- Trade In Fantasy Ch. 2: Trade Units Pt 1
- Trade In Fantasy Ch. 2: Trade Units Pt 2
- Trade In Fantasy Ch. 3: Routine Personnel Pt 1
- Trade In Fantasy Ch. 3: Routine Personnel Pt 2
- Trade In Fantasy Ch. 3: Routine Personnel, Pt 3
- Trade In Fantasy Ch. 3: Routine Personnel, Pt 4
- Trade In Fantasy Ch. 4: Modes Of Transport, Pt 1
Discover more from Campaign Mastery
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Leave a Reply