Wednesday, June 1, 2016

Complete Surprise and Surprise Distance

Complete Surprise* is both a term and a concept in OD&D.

As a term, it first appears in the 1976 Supplement (III), Eldritch Wizardry.  Page 6 tells us "Complete surprise is basically a die of 2 when checking.  Surprise is basically a die 1 when checking, or a die 2 in those cases where the creature in question is difficult to surprise and has only a 1 in 6 chance of being surprised."  This note occurs at the bottom of the new and highly complex round segment table, and includes the additional information that complete surprise results in an initiative benefit in that system.

Oddly enough, the term "Complete Surprise" made its way into AD&D too, again without explanation.  It is mentioned in the description of the 4th level Illusionist spell Phantasmal Killer and again in description of the Crossbow of Speed.  The most prominent mention however is in the description of the Catoblepas in the (1977) Monster Manual.  Herein we are told only, "Complete surprise (a 2 on a six sided die) means one of the party encountering the monster has met its gaze," p13.  The gaze of a Catoblepas is a death ray.

What all these mentions lack in detail they at least make up in consistency.  When a 2 is rolled on a surprise check it indicates a condition of Complete Surprise, resulting in the greatest disadvantage including, in the case of the Catoblepas at least, being subject to an immediate attack.

Now you are probably already thinking that what we have learned about the term Complete Surprise sounds suspiciously similar to the concept discussed in my last post, wherein the distance of 10 to 20 feet was shown to be the immediate strike zone.

Now, the savy reader will be thinking:
"Hold on,  surprise distance is 1"-3" by the book, so that's 1d3 right?  That's quite seperate from rolling a 2 on a d6 for Surprise"

So lets think about that.  Nowhere in the 3lbb's are we actually told to roll a separate die for the surprise distance.  I think it is a common and reasonable assumption to do so, but it is not a specific instruction.  Consider that it doesn't particularly make sense when dealing with a group, to specify a position of exactly 10, 20, or 30 feet.  If there are 5 of you, let's say, who exactly is standing at the 20 foot mark, for example.  Is it the person in the lead; in the middle, or what?  And what if there is just one of you - like the lone Hero in the Strategic Review example, and your 1d3 die roll determines he is at exactly the 20 foot mark.  Is he in or out of the immediate 10-20 foot strike zone?

It does make perfect sense however to say the surprised person(s) is/are either between 20 to 30 feet or between 10 and 20 feet, and for that you only need two numbers, a 1 or a 2.

There is no reason whatever to be more specific than that in OD&D combat.  Following CHAINMAIL and the D&D FAQ,each man sized character controls a 10 foot area for combat purposes, so being within 20 feet of each other is the same thing as being right next to each other as far as the game mechanics are concerned.

So here is what I'm saying: a roll for surprise resulting in a 1 or 2 already tells you encounter distance and no additional distance roll is needed. A result of 1 equals a distance of between 20 to 30 feet; a result of 2 indicates Complete Surprise and is at a distance of 10 to 20 feet, where one is at the most disadvantage.

I know this all sounds rather nice and neat, but the skeptics will say I'm back engineering stuff into the 3lbb's that isn't there.  I agree, the term complete surprise is never used, nor is it specified in a rule that a 1 or 2 on a surprise die gives you different surprise distances.  However, we do see something just like this practiced in the example of surprise given on p 9 of U&WA:

"a Wyvern surprises a party of four characters when they round a corner into a large open area. It attacks as it is within striking distance as indicated by the surprise distance determination which was a 2, indicating distance between them was but 10 feet."

Note that that the "surprise distance determination" was a 2.  If surprise were determined by some kind of 1d3 roll, then a result of 2 would surely equal 20 feet, instead we are told a result of 2 "was but 10 feet".  It is perfectly possible to consider 1,2 as 10 feet, 3,4 as 20 feet and 5.6 as 30 feet, but it is equally possible to simply read the "2" as being the result of the surprise roll.  I don't claim to know exactly which reading was intended here.

*Special thanks to Stormcrow for pointing out the term and discovering the EW & AD&D references.

Monday, May 30, 2016

Surprise Surprise!

While much of what I'll be talking about applies to Surprise in the Wilderness, this post is about Surprise in deep dark dungeons where monsters lurk in shadows.

This kind of surprise is not "Fancy meeting you here! Hang on while I unsheath my sword".  Surprise in a dungeon is a boogeyman, leaping out of the shadows and ripping out your liver before you can scream.

As a game mechanism, Surprise is actually more complex and more interesting in OD&D than in later editions.   Unfortunately, the rules for it are kinda scattered across a few pages, mostly in Underworld & Wilderness Adventures, and some of the details are often missed or misunderstood as a result.

Let's look at how it works in sequence starting with this from U&WA p9:

"A Condition of surprise can only exist when one or both parties are unaware of the presence of the other." 

In other words, you, with your torches shedding a dim halo of light, didn't know that thing was there, and then....

"...roll a six-sided die for each party concerned. A roll of 1 or 2 indicates the party is surprised. Distance is then 10 - 30 feet."

Surprise in the dungeon occurs very close by and whoever is surprised, is about to have the bejesus scared out of them.  So much so that....

"There is a 25% chance that any character surprised by a monster will drop some item. If he does, roll for the possibilities remembering that only those items held could be so dropped." (U&WA, p12)

Surprise is a "jump out and say BOO!" rule.  Really it ought to be called the "Startled" rule.  Because one side is startled, it automatically becomes the surprising sides turn to move.  "Surprise gives the advantage of a free move segment, whether to flee, cast a spell or engage in combat." (U&WA 9) 

When it is monsters doing the surprising, as it usually will be, what happens next depends on the exact distance and the intelligence of the monster (or the decisions of the Player Characters in the rare instance when they are the ones doing the surprising). 

"If monsters gain surprise they will either close the distance
between themselves and the character(s) (unless they are intelligent and their prey is obviously too strong to attack) or attack."

 The first sentence undeniably says monsters will either close the distance or attack. The parenthetical phrase qualifies the action of "closing the distance" to say that intelligent monsters won't do this in cases where they fear the party is "too strong to attack". It follows deductively that non-intelligent monsters will close the distance or attack. It also follows that the whole purpose of non intelligent monsters "clos(ing) the distance" is to attack, because they are too stupid to know better, unlike the intelligent monsters. 

Read carefully, that sentences gives three alternatives: 
1) Intelligent monsters faced with difficult opponents will not attack
2) Non-intelligent or clearly stronger monsters will "close the distance...to attack. 
3) "or attack" if they are already close enough to do so.

Okay, so for option 1, the intelligent monster who senses a difficult opponent, the next step is:

"...the more intelligent monsters will act randomly according to the results of the score rolled on two (six-sided) dice:  2 - 5 negative reaction; 6 - 8 uncertain reaction; 9 - 12 positive reaction" (U&WA 12)

Based on the intelligent monster's reaction, the referee must then decide if the monster avoids the encounter altogether (stays hidden or moves away silently) or decides to make their presence known in some way other than an immediate attack.

The non intelligent or bigger and badder surprisor now has the first move, but if a monster has  to "close the distance...to attack... or attack", then clearly the whole 10 to 30 feet surprise range doesn't mean automatic first strike attack, but some subset of it does. That subset is given to us on page 12 as: 

"There is no chance for avoiding if the monster has surprised the adventurers and is with in 20 feet, unless the monster itself has been surprised." 

This tells us clearly that a monster won't need to close any distance if they surprise within 20 feet, they can simply attack. Ergo the only time a monster would need to close the distance is if the surprise occurred at 20 to 30 feet.  So then at a distance of 10-20 feet the surprising monster can simply roll an attack roll on the startled characters.  If the Player Characters are lucky enough to have been surprised at 20-30 feet the monster will have to use it's surprise round/free move to close the distance to attack.

So for surprise at the 20-30 feet distance an initiative check is made and that gives a bare chance to the poor startled characters to possibly regain initiative.  

In OD&D only a very few conditions offer a chance to the defender in a melee to gain initiative - but that will be the subject of another post.

I'll just note here that surprise in the Wilderness functions similarly in this respect, except that the automatic strike range is 10 yards (30 feet) instead of 10-20 feet (U&WA 17).

So there you have it.  Surprise in the dungeon always causes a check to see if those being surprised were so startled that they accidentally dropped something in hand, and it always grants the surprisor the first chance to act, but if the one being surprised is just a little out of reach, at 20-30 feet distant, then an initiative check is called for when there is an attack, and maybe, just maybe the surprised party has a chance to swing first at their attacker or do something to halt the attack, like throw a bag of gold at them.  They could attempt to run too, but because they are within 30 feet, any runners should be met with a rear attack, following the Melee Range rule found for example in U&WA p28, and In CHAINMAIL p 17, and p25.

Gygax gives an example of Surprise at the longer distance in THE STRATEGIC REVIEW Vol. 1, No. 2 (Summer 1975):

"10 ORCS surprise a lone Hero wandering lost in the dungeons, but the die check reveals they are 30’ distant at the time of surprise, so they use their initiative to close to melee distance."

Here Gygax refers to the free move segment as "their initiative" a new term unknown to the 3lbb's.  Because the Hero is more than 20 feet away, the orcs must use their free move to close to "melee distance" which here means the strike zone/area of control of 10 feet.

Next round initiative comes into play:

"lnitiative is now checked. The Hero scores a 3, plus 1 for his high dexterity, so it is counted 4. The Orcs score 6, and even a minus 1 for their lack of dexterity (optional) still allows them first attack."

Closing the distance, requires the use of the surprise initiative to use Gygax term, and allows the possibility that the one surprised could "avoid" the encounter - clearly they get a chance to take an action, although the Hero in this example didn't get that chance because he lost the initiative.





Wednesday, May 4, 2016

New Humanspace Empires - Free Pulp Sci-Fi

May the 4th be with you.

So this is a post about a "new" expansion of the Humanspace Empires game - actually released last fall, but I hadn't mentioned it here before.

I've long appreciated M. A. R. Barkers Tekumel setting, and as far as the history of our hobby goes, Empire of the Petal Throne is a foundation work.  Likely everyone reading this knows about Tekumel, so I'll only briefly explain that Tekumel is a world in the far distant future that has been thrown into an isolated pocket universe, causing the human and alien inhabitants to first revert back to barbarism and then slowly rebuild a civilization roughly based on South Asian culture.  Now, as interesting as Tekumel is, and as fun as it may be to play an EPT game or two, Tekumel doesn't really draw me in as a campaign setting.  I guess I just like the standard sword and sorcery stuff better, and I guess a lot of other folks feel the same way.  Still, the world of Tekumel is so well done and so interesting it cries out for something....

That's why, when the Drune created Humanspace Empires I was instantly hooked.  First and foremost it is a pure pulp Sci-Fi game, and that in and of itself is appealing, but Drune flavored the game throught with the sci-fi elements of Tekumel,  He set the game in the centuries before the world of Tekumel became isolated.  So it is a game of space exploration and looting in a universe of superscientific/psionic powers and bizare aliens - exactly the sort of universe exemplified in movies like Starcrash and Forbidden Planet.  

Drune built the his game on the excellent Labrynth Lord platform, reconfigured to a 1975 feel, and made it available for playtesting.  Unfortunately, that's pretty much as far as it got.  There were a number of loose ends in the playtest rules, some things that didn't quite work, and a few rough spots here and there.  Even so, I loved it.  Here was a game that made the most of Barkers' imaginative universe, and brought in all the awesome goodness that is pulp scifi.

So, over the years, I kept tinkering with the rules.  I added spaceship design and combat rules based on John Sniders (another Twin Cities gamer friend of Arneson's)  Star Probe.  I added weapons and other details from the Sci-fi elements of Arneson's Temple of the Frog.  I added more of Barkers alien races, some stuff from Jules Verne, other early science fiction works, and movies and so on.

I also took a close look at the rules and "Barkerized" them, taking cues for spells and score modifiers, combat and so forth from the Green Cover version of EPT and general color info from wherever I could find it.  I also reworked the skills system entirely, because it pretty much had to be. 

I took a close look at the great material created by Drune on his blog and by others for HE on the ODD74 forum - especially Vagr1105 - and wove that into the game too, nor was I shy about including OGL material from other games, like Dan Proctors' terrific robot construction rules.

In short, I filled in all the gaps, and made the whole thing as true to the visionary world of the Tekumel universe as I could, and after discussing things with Drune, decided to make it public.

And here it is. HUMANSPACE EMPIRES II.pdf


Have fun!



Monday, May 2, 2016

Blackmoor Taxes, Living Expenses and the Support and Upkeep of Hirelings in OD&D

A good while back, I had a productive and interesting series of discussions with Alex of Autarch regarding economics and game design. You can see these here

ground-up literally

starting-ground-part-ii

and

The Blackmoor base

In the latter, Alex wrote this about income in Blackmoor according to the 2nd Coot invasion data in the FFC:

"the City of Maus, it has a budget of 80,000gp, which comes from one city of 30,000 men (generating 30,000gp from 30,000 men), 20 villages (generating 2,000gp each from 3,000 men each), and various trading vessels, generating 10,000gp. That's the entire 80,000gp income, accounted for – there’s no need to assume Imperial funding, etc.
We know from the listing for Duchy of Ten (p8) and Egg of Coot (p9) that the income stated is income every 4 months. Therefore we are talking about a revenue stream of 80,000gp per 4 months. To compare this to ACKS values, we need to divide them by 4, to make them monthly. Therefore, Maus earns 20,000gp per month, and each FFC village of 3,000 yields (2,000/4) 500gp per month.
It wasn’t initially clear to me whether "men" in FFC means "adult men" or "people". However, the rules state that a a Fyrd of 450 men is available per 3,000 (p7, p8, p9). If "men" means "adult men" then the Fyrd is 15% of the adult men. If "men" means "people", and we assume 1 able-bodied man per 5 people (the historical norm), then 3,000 people would yield 600 men and the Fyrd of 450 would represent 75% of the adult men. Neither Greece nor Rome ever managed to have more than 33% of their adult men under arms, even during the Punic Wars, so we have to conclude that a 75% military participation ratio is unlikely to be what FFC intends. Therefore I have to conclude that "men" means "adult men". Therefore, 3,000 men in FFC is comparable to 3,000 families in ACKS, which have 1 adult man per family.
FFC therefore provides that 3,000 families yields 500gp per month, or 1/6gp per family" 

That 1/6 GP figure per family represents what the Lord collects in taxes,  Fascinating, I thought, and this has stuck in the back of my mind for a long time.   Turns out Alex wasn't quite right in his calculation because of what looks to be a typo in the Maus data. That 2000 GP from 3000 men (fyrd 450), should have read 3000 GP.  Notice the previous line says 30000 men generates 30000 GP (Fyrd 4500).  

That 's 1 GP per able bodied man (family) every 4 months and it is a pattern repeated in the other holdings:

Earl of Vestfold - 2000 GP per village, (15 villages = 30,000 "people" = 2000 per village)
"Also, two small forts with one village (10,000 men) and 10,000 GP income, fyrd of 150 each."


Minor Holding Duchy of Ten: 3000 GP per village every 4 months,.. (population) 3000 each village

Egg of Coot: "3000 GP per village/4 months....population of 3000 per village (450 turn out for fyrd)."

And in the Investment section on Farming:  20 GP invested yields 10-20% return (taxes) from 1 family of 5 persons, one of which is armed with a club and can fight.  In other words, 1 able bodied male farmer equals 2-4 GP a year in taxes, average of 3GP, i.e.1 GP per 4 months.

So I think it's clear that Arneson was collecting 1 gp per "person" (family - 1 able bodied adult male average) per 4 months or 1/4 GP per family each month.

Now, that amount of income from taxation fits quiet well with his troop costs.  

But here is the problem, and it is one that Alex had pointed out in the posts cited above, the pay that troops earn, which must be some subset of their cost, doesn't begin to meet their needs according to the price lists for goods and services.

Lets take a basic example.  Heavy Foot, which is basically your run of the mill, leather or chainmail wearing infantryman, cost 25 GP a year according to the Coot Invasion tables.  That works out to 2.08 GP a month - a figure not coincidentally like the 2 points for Heavy Foot in CHAINMAIL, the troop costs of which themselves are much the same as troop costs in other wargames of the era, such as were used in Arneson's Napoleaonics campaign..  

Even if the Armored Footman were paid the whole 2 GP, he would have to save his entire pay for two months to buy a wooden club (3gp) or three months for a weeks worth of food (5 gp) or a dagger (5gp), according to the price lists found in the FFC.

 Wages were equally low for laborers.   In an otherwise unexplained footnote among some very old FFC material more or less contemporary with the Coot Invasion phase of the game, we find "1/10 GP per day (8 hours) to hire workers." (77:36)   That works out to less than 3gp a month, and is right in line with the miserable pay the Armored Footman receives.

Now, I grant you, troop pay will be supplemented with food and housing, but these guys couldn't afford to buy a single round of drinks at a tavern.

What to make of it?  It is very clear that Arneson is modeling his taxation and income economy on the common conventions in the wargames he played at the time.  If we look at some of the wargaming club notes of his and those of his fellow gamers, we see exactly tho sort of troop costs and population figures given for the Blackmoor Coot Invasion.  We can see Canada, for example, with an income of 80,000 points and a manpower of 21,644, and elsewhere we see troops, such as line infantry at a cost of 1 point and heavy cavalry at a cost of 2 points.

That all works fine for costs of manpower and taxation in wargames, however roleplaying introduced the need to come up with prices for all sorts of things not normally dealt with in wargames, such as the cost of torches, backpacks, and ten foot poles.  These sort of costs also bear directly on the value of a treasure.  Just what will a bag of 100 GP get you at the marketplace?

That's where there seems to be a real disconnect in the Blackmoor system.  No doubt, Arneson had some real world model in mind, possibly Napoleonic, when he assigned prices to goods and services, but regardless of how Arneson came up with the cost of a barrel or a cudgel, its obviously unrelated to the income of common individuals, be they a soldier or a worker.  (Note that I'm stressing soldiers and laborers here - Arnesons FFC costs for the wages of specialist actually do fit the cost of goods)

The problem isn't entirely an obscure one for OD&D players.  The prices of goods and services are only slightly adjusted from the original Blackmoor lists.  If we take bows for example, in OD&D we have these prices: Short Bow 25, Long Bow 40, Composite Bow 50. and in Blackmoor we have: Standard Bow 25, Longbow 40, Composite 40.  At the same time we see troop and labor costs in OD&D increased only slightly in most cases.  On the troop cost table on page 23 of Underworld and Wilderness Adventure,  Light foot costs but 1 GP a month and Heavy Foot costs but 3 gp - an increase of only one GP over the price found in Blackmoor and CHAINMAIL.  That means a heavy footman would spend a month's wages to buy a  set of 3 stakes and a mallet, and nearly two months' pay would be required for a weeks worth of rations.  How is it, in any economy where a laborer ("non-fighter" U&WA p23) earns only a single GP a month, that every starting character is carrying around 3d6 x10 GP?  That's the equvalent of 3 to 15 YEARS worth of earnings for a peasant laborer!

Arneson himself seems to have at least partially grasped the discrepancy.  As mentioned above the costs for the services of specialists, even low status specialists like hunters, fit within a reasonable range.  Hunters, for example would earn an average of about 11 GP a month.  We can see it even more clearly in the aforementioned Investmenst section of the FFC.  This section was prepared sometime after D&D had already been published - possibly as part of the material prepared for Supplement II that got cut. We can tell this because of the use of the terms Cleric, and Paladin as proper D&D class names, post dating the publication of Supplement I Greyhawk in 1975.  In the Investments section we are told road workers will be paid 1-10 sp a day.    Assuming an average of 5.5 sp being paid 6 days a week for a month, the typical road laborer will be earning 13.2 GP a month, and that fits pretty well with a low wage peasant job in an economy were it would cost you 5 GP a week to buy all your food from a vendor, or a month's pay to buy a decent sword.  Similarly, 12 GP a month is the figure Alex settled on for the monthly cost of a Heavy Footman in ACKS, for example. 

Okay, if we think about how to fix the situation to where wages match reasonable well with expenses and the values of treasures in D&D, it should be obvious that reworking wages is a much easier and less impactful change than adjusting prices and treasure values.  That's pretty much what Alex did for ACKS, but I of course wanted to stay true to the OD&D and FFC numbers to the extent I could.

The easiest solution by far, I believe, is to change the frequency of "support and upkeep" pay.  If instead of being paid monthly, our Heavy Footman were paid weekly, his pay per month would increase by a factor of 4 from 3GP to 12 GP.    

I think that works pretty well; problem solved.   It's actually not even a new idea.  In the BTPbD/Dalluhn manuscript it says "Players must pay living expenses and wages for themselves and hirelings. Costs in the Underworld are assesed on a weekly basis, but in the Upper Land the same cost applies on a monthly basis.." (Book II:7)  What I'm suggesting is that we drop the "upper land" half of that rule and go with a weekly assessment all the time.

We can even backport this idea into the tax and income model provided by the Blackmoor Coot Invasion.  Instead of collecting 1GP per family every 4 months, to derive the income of any given polity, 1 GP can be collected each month.   





Thursday, April 21, 2016

Troops Arms & Armor tables.

In the last post I considered the organization of the garrison of the temple of the frog as a model for small garrisons and troops in OD&D, and I listed the arms and equipment given in the text.  It's fine to simply use that, but if you (like me) would prefer a little variety in arms and equipment, there is a really terrific series of tables in Arneson's rulebook 1 of Adventures in Fantasy, page 31, that will give you just that.

I've broken apart the tables on that page for ease of organization, switched the figures from % to d20, and edited some of the instructions so as to make the whole thing more user friendly.  Here it is:


ARMS AND EQUIPMENT OF SOLDIERS
Adventures in Fantasy (p31) - Arneson & Snider 1978

There are two main categories to consider: Mounted or Dismounted.

Within each category, two rolls will be made to determine weapons and armor, and an additional roll determines if the soldiers have a shield.

EXAMPLE—MOUNTED
            First roll—A 10 means the Mounted troops are armed with a sword.
            Second Roll—A 15 means that they are protected by CHAINMAIL.
            Third Roll—A 7 means that each of these Chainmail troopers has a shield.

MOUNTED:


Mounted Troops Weapon Type
D20 roll
Weapons
Restrictions
1-4
Bow
Leather armor only
5-15
Sword

16-20
Lance




Sword Armed Mounted Troops  Armor Type:
D20 roll
Armor
Restrictions
1-12
Leather

13-16
Chainmail

17-20
Plate




Lance Armed Mounted Troops Armor Type:
D20 roll
Armor
Restrictions
1
Leather

2-6
Chainmail

7-20
Plate
Not if Desert or Swamp troops






DISMOUNTED:

Dismounted Troops Weapons:
D20 roll
Weapons
Restrictions
1-2
Bow
Leather only, no shields
3
Longbow
Leather only, no shields
4-7
Crossbow
Leather only, no shields
8-15
Sword

16-18
Spear

19-20
Pike
Field Troops only.  Change to spears if garrisoned.  No Desert, Swamp or Water troops.



Sword Armed Dismounted Troops Armor Type:
D20
Armor
Restrictions
1-9
Leather

10-16
Chainmail

17-20
Plate




Spear Armed Dismounted Troops Armor Type
D20
Armor
Restrictions
1-8
Leather

9-18
Chainmail

19-20
Plate




Pike Armed Dismounted Troops Armor Type
D20
Armor
Restrictions
1-5
Leather
No shields
6-17
Chainmail
No shields
18-20
Plate
No shields




CHANCE OF SOLDIER HAVING A SHIELD:


Mounted Troops
D20
Armor
1-4
Leather
5-12
Chainmail
13 -20
Plate


Dismounted Troops
D20
Armor
1-6
Leather
7-18
Chainmail
19-20
Plate


Note—Shields are always of the "Small" or "Normal" variety.  Also note that in the Restrictions column it is impossible to have certain types of troops in certain areas. Thus for DISMOUNTED TROOPS armed with MISSILES, there could never (Absolutely not) be found LONGBOWMEN in DESERT, SWAMP of WATER REGIONS










Tuesday, April 19, 2016

Sergeants, Officers, and The Temple of the Frog

This is a post about garrisons and troop organization in OD&D and for this discussion I'm going to look once again at Supplement II Temple of the Frog, and the exact nature and composition of the forces defending the temple.

If someone were playing a game set in Blackmoor and wanted to launch an army against the Temple itself, it would be very useful to know exactly how many defenders there are and where they are stationed, but that's not my concern here.  My interest is more fundamental: to explore the set up of the temple forces and apply that knowledge as an OD&D template for the organization of guards and garrisons.   

OD&D has rules for stocking lordly castles full of exotic retainers, rules for making bandit  and pirate bands and so forth, but nothing for setting up a small fort garrison or body of troops, so sussing out Arneson's method in TotF has the potential to provide similar guidelines.

This takes a bit of digging to do.  

Lets begin with the overall structure we find:

A lord commander
Officers- 8th Level Fighters
Sergeants - 5th Level Fighters
Guards/soldiers - 1st and 2nd Level Fighters

That was the easy part.  When it comes to numbers, things get trickier.  There is no overall total given in the text, so let's start with leadership.  Often in the room descriptions with officers or sergeants, instead of exact numbers we find number ranges, things like "1-4 sergeants" etc., and there is no reliable way to get numbers from ranges.  Luckily we have a chart that solves the problem.  The chart shows the relationship of various rings worn by the Temple cultist.  These rings have to be worn at all times to move about the temple, and the chart tells us exactly how many rings there are of each type, including officer rings and sergeants rings.  Thus we know without doubt that there are exactly 12 officers and 48 sergeants in the service of the frog.

But how many guards?  For the the upper defense we are given exact figures in the text (pp 30-33) of how many guards are in a particular tower or guarding a particular wall.  These all add up to a total of exactly 400.  

However, within the first level of the dungeon, once again we aren't given exact figures.  Rather each barracks room accommodates a certain number of soldiers (80 for example), as shown for each room marked Barracks on the level map. Further, we are told in the text that 30-80% of the room total could be present at any given time.  If you just add up the total possible shown on the dungeon level 1 map you'd get 1140.  Combining that with the 400 present on the upper works and you get a grand total of 1540 soldiers.

But, are all the barracks rooms on dungeon level 1 really filled to capacity?  There's a note at the bottom of page 33 that says "Within the first level of the dungeon under the temple are some 1000 guards...." 

"Some 1000" seems deliberately imprecise, but if this latter figure were accurate that would mean a smaller grand total of 1400.  So lets look at the math for each:


Soldiers Total
Soldier per Sergeant
Soldiers per Officer
1540
32.0833
128.3333
1400
29.1666
116.6666

Neither figure yields a particularly satisfying answer.  I began to wonder if there was some mistake somewhere along the line.  In particular, the "40" of the 1540 total bugged me.  Why 40?  What if, I thought, the 40 was correct but the rest of the figure was off by 100 due to some error?  In other words, instead of 1540 or 1400, what if the intended figure was 1440?  Here's the math:


Soldiers Total
Soldiers per Sergeant
Soldiers per Officer
1440
30
120

BINGO!!

What this means in rulespeak is that for every 30 men in a troop or garrison there will be 1 hero level sergeant; for every 120 men there will be 1 superhero level officer.  Groups with multiple superheroes will be led by a Lord.


Finally, for the sake of completeness I may as well list the Arms and Equipment the  garrison is described as having, though I think this is less useful that the basic rule given above.

Officers:  armed as bandits - leather armor, sword, dagger, 20% chance of a magic item (Dungeon level 1, rooms 8 and barracks)

Sergeants  armed as bandits -leather armor, sword, dagger, 20% chance of a magic item (Dungeon level 1, rooms 8 and barracks)

Guards , heavy infantry - leather armor, shield, 50% sword, 50% spear, 10% bow, 10% chance of a magic item (Dungeon level 1, rooms 4 and barracks)