Contesting Castles?

[Eric Dunn]

Anyone ever find it weird that they don't have special contest rules
regarding castles?

Anyone have their castles contested away? I was thinking about it, and it
went something like this .."I build this level 5 castle, and then someone
could come in and wipe it right out with a couple of cheesy contest
actions, and that just doesn't make sense! I mean, it takes lord only
knows how many turns to build, costs at least 40 GB's, and would take at
least 5 turns to wipe out with a seige, but in 1 turn, a few contest
actions could nuke it... it's just not fair. This must be an oversight on
the part of the writers..."

In the "Rulebook" it also lists castles as a new type of holding in the
province. Well, after a few minutes of pondering I realized I had answered
my question with a post to the List I had made a few days back....

In order to contest a holding, you need to be the Province ruler, or have
"similar holdings". So, you'd have to HAVE a castle, in order to CONTEST a
castle :)

So the rules do cover it. Anyone else ever wonder about that?

Of course, this brings up another question...is it possible to build a
second castle in a province? I don't see where it says you can't... and in
fact, it seems that they've made an exception to the rule where a holding
can exceed the province level--in castles. It just starts to cost double
as soon as you exceed the province level.

Personally, my ruling would be if there is already an existing castle, then
it's impossible to make an additional one. According to the "Rulebook" on
page 56, "Castles can exceed the level of the province, but the cost
'doubles' once the castle level is greater than the province level. It's
expensive to build a fortress that exceed the nearby resources."


Finally, I would no more allow the building of a castle by an outside
ruler, than I would the building of a road. Even a trade route takes a
diplomacy action.

I know, I know--I made points and then counterpoints...I just thought I'd
see if someone had something to add, or came across this problem, or found
a different interpretation :)

Or if anyone was as schizophrenic as I was *grin*

E

[Memnoch]

- -----Original Message-----
From: Eric Dunn
To: birthright@MPGN.COM
Date: Tuesday, April 28, 1998 7:35 AM
Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] - Contesting Castles?


>Anyone ever find it weird that they don't have special contest rules
>regarding castles?


Actually, there are no contesting rules for castles because castles are
considered assets, not holdings, per se.

>Anyone have their castles contested away? I was thinking about it, and it
>went something like this .."I build this level 5 castle, and then someone
>could come in and wipe it right out with a couple of cheesy contest
>actions, and that just doesn't make sense! I mean, it takes lord only
>knows how many turns to build, costs at least 40 GB's, and would take at
>least 5 turns to wipe out with a seige, but in 1 turn, a few contest
>actions could nuke it... it's just not fair. This must be an oversight on
>the part of the writers..."


The holding inside the castle can be contested, and thus lose it's political
influence in a province, however, the castle is still there and the one who
built it can still use it.

>In the "Rulebook" it also lists castles as a new type of holding in the
>province. Well, after a few minutes of pondering I realized I had answered
>my question with a post to the List I had made a few days back....


Hmmm... after looking it up, I do see where you are getting "a castle is a
holding", however, I still believe that it is considered an asset as it has
no real political value, beyond protection of holdings within from warfare.


>In order to contest a holding, you need to be the Province ruler, or have
>"similar holdings". So, you'd have to HAVE a castle, in order to CONTEST a
>castle :)


You do not need a "similar holding" to contest anothers holding... any type
of holding (law, temple, guild, source) can contest any other. They do not
have to be similar at all... Look under contesting the provinces rule...
obviously you cannot have a "similar holding" when it comes to contesting
the province.

>So the rules do cover it. Anyone else ever wonder about that?
>
>Of course, this brings up another question...is it possible to build a
>second castle in a province? I don't see where it says you can't... and in
>fact, it seems that they've made an exception to the rule where a holding
>can exceed the province level--in castles. It just starts to cost double
>as soon as you exceed the province level.


Yes, you can build multiple castles, should you want to... there is no
logical reason IMO to prevent this from occuring as long as the regent can
pay the maintenance costs in doing so....

>Personally, my ruling would be if there is already an existing castle, then
>it's impossible to make an additional one. According to the "Rulebook" on
>page 56, "Castles can exceed the level of the province, but the cost
>'doubles' once the castle level is greater than the province level. It's
>expensive to build a fortress that exceed the nearby resources."


See my above statement... as long as the regent is willing to pay for the
castle, I see no real reason to disallow it... although if the first castle
equals or exceeds the province level, I would say that the building costs
double (essentially add the levels of the two castles together to determine
whether the cost of the new castle doubles).

>Finally, I would no more allow the building of a castle by an outside
>ruler, than I would the building of a road. Even a trade route takes a
>diplomacy action.


That is where the success number and RP bidding wars come it :)

>I know, I know--I made points and then counterpoints...I just thought I'd
>see if someone had something to add, or came across this problem, or found
>a different interpretation :)
>
>Or if anyone was as schizophrenic as I was *grin*
>
>E
>
>
>************************************************** *************************
>>'unsubscribe birthright' as the body of the message.
>

[Eric Dunn]

>>In the "Rulebook" it also lists castles as a new type of holding in the
>>province. Well, after a few minutes of pondering I realized I had answered
>>my question with a post to the List I had made a few days back....
>
>
>Hmmm... after looking it up, I do see where you are getting "a castle is a
>holding", however, I still believe that it is considered an asset as it has
>no real political value, beyond protection of holdings within from warfare.
>

Heh heh. My main point of contention/confusion is that line where they
list it as a holding. (reference page 55 of the "Rulebook", last
paragraph). You are refuting my point with "I still believe it is
considered an asset"--well, I'm quoting the book :) That's where the
confusion comes in--it's a confusing statement...


Well, it is an asset, certainly. But also certainly, a castle has real
political value. It has roughly the same "politcal" value as a law
holding, insofar as it enforces the rule of law on a province.



>>In order to contest a holding, you need to be the Province ruler, or have
>>"similar holdings". So, you'd have to HAVE a castle, in order to CONTEST a
>>castle :)
>
>
>You do not need a "similar holding" to contest anothers holding... any type
>of holding (law, temple, guild, source) can contest any other. They do not
>have to be similar at all... Look under contesting the provinces rule...
>obviously you cannot have a "similar holding" when it comes to contesting
>the province.

Whoah whoah whoah. You must not have read my post a few days back quoting
roughly three different places in the "Rulebook" where it both literally
states "similar holdings" or implies through example "similar holdings"

I don't know if you have it, but look at my post with this header:Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 08:32:10 -0400
To: birthright@MPGN.COM
From: Eric Dunn
Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] - Opposing or supporting a domain action

Also, province contesting is done differently than holding contesting
anyway. I'm not talking about province contesting, but the ability to
contest a castle. A province is contested "when a ruler's law holding is
at (0) AND the province's loyalty is poor or rebellious, any regent with a
holding can use this action to contest the province." ("Rulebook" page 52)

>Yes, you can build multiple castles, should you want to... there is no
>logical reason IMO to prevent this from occuring as long as the regent can
>pay the maintenance costs in doing so....
>
>>Personally, my ruling would be if there is already an existing castle, then
>>it's impossible to make an additional one. According to the "Rulebook" on
>>page 56, "Castles can exceed the level of the province, but the cost
>>'doubles' once the castle level is greater than the province level. It's
>>expensive to build a fortress that exceed the nearby resources."
>
>
>See my above statement... as long as the regent is willing to pay for the
>castle, I see no real reason to disallow it... although if the first castle
>equals or exceeds the province level, I would say that the building costs
>double (essentially add the levels of the two castles together to determine
>whether the cost of the new castle doubles).

Yeah, I agree, this is a sticky one, and it's up to each individual DM to
determine if he'd allow mutliple castles. Again, I think making a castle
is much harder than raising troops, yet you need the permission of the
province ruler to muster armies that aren't mercenaries. Thus my following
statement

>>Finally, I would no more allow the building of a castle by an outside
>>ruler, than I would the building of a road. Even a trade route takes a
>>diplomacy action.
>
>
>That is where the success number and RP bidding wars come it :)
>

I can see that :) but in my game, I would say that if a ruler says "Nope,
you can't put a castle in my realm" then it wouldn't happen. He does
control the laws, and just like roads can't be built, and trade routes
don't come in, armies aren't mustered, a castle wouldn't be doable, unless
allowed by the ruling regent.

E

[lialos@crosslink.ne]

Eric Dunn wrote:
>
> Anyone ever find it weird that they don't have special contest rules
> regarding castles?
>
> Anyone have their castles contested away? I was thinking about it, and it
> went something like this .."I build this level 5 castle, and then someone
> could come in and wipe it right out with a couple of cheesy contest
> actions, and that just doesn't make sense! I mean, it takes lord only
> knows how many turns to build, costs at least 40 GB's, and would take at
> least 5 turns to wipe out with a seige, but in 1 turn, a few contest
> actions could nuke it... it's just not fair. This must be an oversight on
> the part of the writers..."
>
> In the "Rulebook" it also lists castles as a new type of holding in the
> province. Well, after a few minutes of pondering I realized I had answered
> my question with a post to the List I had made a few days back....
>
> In order to contest a holding, you need to be the Province ruler, or have
> "similar holdings". So, you'd have to HAVE a castle, in order to CONTEST a
> castle :)
>
> So the rules do cover it. Anyone else ever wonder about that?
>
> Of course, this brings up another question...is it possible to build a
> second castle in a province? I don't see where it says you can't... and in
> fact, it seems that they've made an exception to the rule where a holding
> can exceed the province level--in castles. It just starts to cost double
> as soon as you exceed the province level.
>
> Personally, my ruling would be if there is already an existing castle, then
> it's impossible to make an additional one. According to the "Rulebook" on
> page 56, "Castles can exceed the level of the province, but the cost
> 'doubles' once the castle level is greater than the province level. It's
> expensive to build a fortress that exceed the nearby resources."
>
> Finally, I would no more allow the building of a castle by an outside
> ruler, than I would the building of a road. Even a trade route takes a
> diplomacy action.
>
> I know, I know--I made points and then counterpoints...I just thought I'd
> see if someone had something to add, or came across this problem, or found
> a different interpretation :)
>
> Or if anyone was as schizophrenic as I was *grin*
>
> E

What sort of a strange mood were you in when you came up with all of
this?

Tripp

[Memnoch]

- -----Original Message-----
From: Eric Dunn
To: birthright@MPGN.COM
Date: Tuesday, April 28, 1998 10:27 AM
Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] - Contesting Castles?


>>>In the "Rulebook" it also lists castles as a new type of holding in the
>>>province. Well, after a few minutes of pondering I realized I had
answered
>>>my question with a post to the List I had made a few days back....
>>
>>
>>Hmmm... after looking it up, I do see where you are getting "a castle is a
>>holding", however, I still believe that it is considered an asset as it
has
>>no real political value, beyond protection of holdings within from
warfare.
>>
>
>Heh heh. My main point of contention/confusion is that line where they
>list it as a holding. (reference page 55 of the "Rulebook", last
>paragraph). You are refuting my point with "I still believe it is
>considered an asset"--well, I'm quoting the book :) That's where the
>confusion comes in--it's a confusing statement...


Yes, I realize that you are quoting the book, however, I can quote in
several places where it lists the Castle as an asset, so the question is not
whether it is an asset or holding, but rather if it can be contested, which
IMO it cannot, as it is a physical structure separate from the holdings
within... only warfare or lack of maintenance can destroy the castle....

>Well, it is an asset, certainly. But also certainly, a castle has real
>political value. It has roughly the same "politcal" value as a law
>holding, insofar as it enforces the rule of law on a province.

The law holding (i.e. people) are the political value... they go out and
perform the actions as decreed by the Ruler of the holding... an object has
no political value... it just sits there and looks impressive....
>
>>>In order to contest a holding, you need to be the Province ruler, or have
>>>"similar holdings". So, you'd have to HAVE a castle, in order to CONTEST
a
>>>castle :)
>>
>>
>>You do not need a "similar holding" to contest anothers holding... any
type
>>of holding (law, temple, guild, source) can contest any other. They do
not
>>have to be similar at all... Look under contesting the provinces rule...
>>obviously you cannot have a "similar holding" when it comes to contesting
>>the province.
>
>Whoah whoah whoah. You must not have read my post a few days back quoting
>roughly three different places in the "Rulebook" where it both literally
>states "similar holdings" or implies through example "similar holdings"
>
>I don't know if you have it, but look at my post with this header:
>
>Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 08:32:10 -0400
>To: birthright@MPGN.COM
>From: Eric Dunn
>Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] - Opposing or supporting a domain action


Yes, I did read your post... however, the misnomer here is that the "similar
holding" clause is for interference in actions performed by other
holdings... it does not disallow one holding to contest another just because
the holding is not "similar"...that is the only place IMO that the "similar
holding" clause even comes into affect... read the text of the contest
action and if you will notice, that it does not state "similar" anywhere in
the text. The example was merely there to typify how the action is to be
performed....

>Also, province contesting is done differently than holding contesting
>anyway. I'm not talking about province contesting, but the ability to
>contest a castle. A province is contested "when a ruler's law holding is
>at (0) AND the province's loyalty is poor or rebellious, any regent with a
>holding can use this action to contest the province." ("Rulebook" page 52)
>
>>Yes, you can build multiple castles, should you want to... there is no
>>logical reason IMO to prevent this from occuring as long as the regent can
>>pay the maintenance costs in doing so....
>>
>>>Personally, my ruling would be if there is already an existing castle,
then
>>>it's impossible to make an additional one. According to the "Rulebook"
on
>>>page 56, "Castles can exceed the level of the province, but the cost
>>>'doubles' once the castle level is greater than the province level. It's
>>>expensive to build a fortress that exceed the nearby resources."
>>
>>
>>See my above statement... as long as the regent is willing to pay for the
>>castle, I see no real reason to disallow it... although if the first
castle
>>equals or exceeds the province level, I would say that the building costs
>>double (essentially add the levels of the two castles together to
determine
>>whether the cost of the new castle doubles).
>
>Yeah, I agree, this is a sticky one, and it's up to each individual DM to
>determine if he'd allow mutliple castles. Again, I think making a castle
>is much harder than raising troops, yet you need the permission of the
>province ruler to muster armies that aren't mercenaries. Thus my following
>statement


Ah, but there is no such clause when it comes to castles or
fortifications....
How can you justify "impossible"?... it is not physically impossible to have
more than one castle in a province... it is after all, approx 30 square
miles of terrain... "impossibilities" that are not justified by the rules
and are merely DM whim is very capricious and unfair to the players
involved... After all, there are 4 different types of holdings, each
possibly belonging to a different regent... each can build a castle to
protect that holding... a fortification is not necessarily the only way to
protect a holding.... a Castle is a fortification that covers all holdings
that are owned by the regent building the castle, whereas fortifications
only affect one holding type per fort....

>>>Finally, I would no more allow the building of a castle by an outside
>>>ruler, than I would the building of a road. Even a trade route takes a
>>>diplomacy action.
>>
>>
>>That is where the success number and RP bidding wars come it :)
>>
>
>I can see that :) but in my game, I would say that if a ruler says "Nope,
>you can't put a castle in my realm" then it wouldn't happen. He does
>control the laws, and just like roads can't be built, and trade routes
>don't come in, armies aren't mustered, a castle wouldn't be doable, unless
>allowed by the ruling regent.


Ah, but who says that just because the province ruler says something, that
it must be so... a province ruler could say to a thief regent "give me your
holdings in my land"... doesn't make the thief regent jump and give over his
holding... Just because you are the province ruler does not make your law
absolute and your word the law... Granted, that the Province ruler does have
a lot of influence when it comes to his own province, but if you make him
the absolute authority when it comes to other regents performing actions, it
completely denigrates the political influence of the other regents that
happen to have holdings in a province... That is like saying... Priest, you
cannot agitate without my permission, or thief, you cannot perform espionage
without my permission... a Fortify action is just the same as any
other....It would come down to a political battle of RP and holding levels
or, of course, the province regent could declare war and destroy the castle
and the holding, but that has its own consequences... see the story about
the new DM and the Medoere regent...


Memnoch



>************************************************** *************************
>>'unsubscribe birthright' as the body of the message.
>

[Ryan B. Caveney]

> >>In the "Rulebook" it also lists castles as a new type of holding in the
> >
> >holding", however, I still believe that it is considered an asset as it has
> >
> Heh heh. My main point of contention/confusion is that line where they
> list it as a holding. (reference page 55 of the "Rulebook", last

And in the last few pages of the rulebook, as part of the rules
and example for creating a PC domain from scratch, it lists castles as
assets along with lieutenants and roads.

> Well, it is an asset, certainly. But also certainly, a castle has real
> political value. It has roughly the same "politcal" value as a law
> holding, insofar as it enforces the rule of law on a province.

Mmmm, possibly. Certainly a castle enhances the prestige of a law
holding, provides a central location where the tax collector is unlikely
to be robbed, and generally houses troops which could be used as extra
law-enforcement muscle; however, a castle's reason for existence is
military. It houses troops, which enables it to control -- or at least
menace -- the surrounding territory. It slows an enemy advance by being
too sturdy to attack directly, but too dangerous to be bypassed; this is
why castles need to be "neutralized" by being beseiged before further
troops can advance past them.
The political purpose of a castle is generally quite distinct from
that of a law holding. Certainly Edward I's building program in Wales was
designed to control the populace, but that was in the transition stage
from occupation to creating and ruling up a law holding; he needed
military means to deter rebellion before civil authority could be
established, and wanted his law holdings to be fortified upon creation.
Other reasons for castles include deterring foreign invasion (the Mhoried/
Markazor border should look like the Great Wall of China) and exerting
local independence from the sovereign!
Expanding on that last idea, If you want a really feudal campaign,
consider requiring that no law holding exceed 1 or very rarely 2, and each
be held by a separate nobleman with his own castle (1) and his own unit of
knights, with each province ruled by yet another lord who is a couple-RP-
per-domain-turn vassal of the realm's ruler. Now consider trying to raise
money this way, when none of the barons want to lose any of their
authority to the king, and you will see why medieval rulers were always
desperately short of money, and why the Hundred Years' War was so long.
Of course, this is almost unplayable, but that is precisely why it is a
useful lesson in 13th century European history. =)

> >Yes, you can build multiple castles, should you want to... there is no
> >logical reason IMO to prevent this from occuring as long as the regent can
> >
> >>Personally, my ruling would be if there is already an existing castle, then
> >>it's impossible to make an additional one. According to the "Rulebook" on

The reason to disallow multiple castles owned by a single regent
is that all combat in a single province takes place in a single location,
so one castle (7) and seven castle (1)'s in the same province have exactly
the same game effect. Indeed, I would argue that high castle levels
represent exactly such collections of smaller structures: the castle
level number describes the overall degree of fortification of a province,
not the capacity of a single, massive fortress. I say this because many
small castles can control large amounts of territory better than can a few
large ones, and it was very much the medieval practice to have many local
lords build their own castles. Furthermore, this idea nicely meshes with
the game mechanics of continuing siege gradually reducing the
fortification level, and fits the time scale of BR construction.

> I can see that :) but in my game, I would say that if a ruler says "Nope,
> you can't put a castle in my realm" then it wouldn't happen. He does

I concur. Building a castle takes thousands of people several
years or decades, and they are vulnerable to attack while doing so. On
the other hand, a wizard with a ley line and a Stronghold spell is quite
capable of dropping a huge castle down in the middle of enemy territory --
all (s)he needs to do then is defend it.

As far as contesting goes, rather than argue about the meanings of
"holding" and "asset", I would suggest considering the (mostly) real-world
processes modeled by the game actions. A lieutenant is an asset, but also
a free-willed mortal person, who can be killed or suborned by an opposing
regent via Espionage or Diplomacy actions; (s)he may also simply decide to
leave the regent's service, or die through accident or old age. A road is
also an asset, but it is an immobile inanimate object and thus can only be
lost to magical concealment or physical destruction. What is a law
holding? It is an abstraction representing a regent's degree of political
influence over his people. As a result, it can be abstractly politically
contested by another regent. What is a castle? It is an actual building
(or collection thereof) with a military purpose and permanent garrison.
Therefore, it can only be negated or destroyed physically by military
means. One amusing option to explore is the idea of Espionage or
Character actions to snatch a fully functional castle away from its owner
and fill it with loyal troops; magic makes such commando raids very
possible, and the situation provides a great adventure with political
motivations and consequences.


- --Ryan

[Drake90094]

>>help me, i cant figure out thgis thing!!

[Eric Dunn]

>Yes, I realize that you are quoting the book, however, I can quote in
>several places where it lists the Castle as an asset, so the question is not
>whether it is an asset or holding, but rather if it can be contested, which
>IMO it cannot, as it is a physical structure separate from the holdings
>within... only warfare or lack of maintenance can destroy the castle....

We agree on that :) Castles cannot be contested out of existence, though we
agree for different reasons! haha


>>Well, it is an asset, certainly. But also certainly, a castle has real
>>political value. It has roughly the same "politcal" value as a law
>>holding, insofar as it enforces the rule of law on a province.
>
>The law holding (i.e. people) are the political value... they go out and
>perform the actions as decreed by the Ruler of the holding... an object has
>no political value... it just sits there and looks impressive....

I think this is symantics really. I went WAAAY back in the book to find
your reference about castles being assets and all that jazz. I did--it's
on page 35 of the "Rulebook". Of course, it lists LT's, armies, courts,
ley lines, roads, trade routes and treasuries as assets too--you can't
argue that NONE of them have any political value whatsoever? But as I
said, it's symantics---original question was the ability to contest
them...and you can no more contest a castle as you could an army or a
treasury. :)


>the text. The example was merely there to typify how the action is to be
>performed....
>

Well, I've already said all the references etc in the other post, so I
won't repeat it here.

clean this thing up some...
>
>
>Ah, but there is no such clause when it comes to castles or
>fortifications....
>How can you justify "impossible"?... it is not physically impossible to have
>more than one castle in a province... it is after all, approx 30 square
>miles of terrain... "impossibilities" that are not justified by the rules
>and are merely DM whim is very capricious and unfair to the players
>involved... After all, there are 4 different types of holdings, each
>possibly belonging to a different regent... each can build a castle to
>protect that holding... a fortification is not necessarily the only way to
>protect a holding.... a Castle is a fortification that covers all holdings
>that are owned by the regent building the castle, whereas fortifications
>only affect one holding type per fort....
>

Ahh, but I refer to impossibilities within the context of the game we are
playing-- Not in the impossiblities of reality. Of course you could, in
RL, have 6 castles in a 30 square mile radius. I don't know any region in
OUR world where that actually happened, but I suppose it's theoretically
possible. I think that's where they brought the rules in to play--oddly
enough, this one isn't covered --"Thou shalt not have more than one castle
in a province." I think that one is not included because it's so obvious
as to seem to the designers as unnecessary. I mean, they don't include the
rule, "Thou shalt have as many castles as you want in any province." Either...

Oh, and for a reference, it's really up to interpretation. The rules do
state (on page 35), "A castle protects an entire province, while a
fortified holding makes one holding resistant to destruction." and
"Fortifications are rated by level, just like provinces and holdings. The
level of a fortified holding cannot exceed the level of the province it
protects. A castle, however can be built up to level 10 regardless of the
province in which it is built."




To me this implies that a castle is like a holding--one per province. It's
possible to argue that you might have 2 level (5) castles, and limit the
amount of castles in any province to 10 total levels, (which the book
explicitly disallows anything beyond), but again, that's symantics.


>>I can see that :) but in my game, I would say that if a ruler says "Nope,
>>you can't put a castle in my realm" then it wouldn't happen. He does
>>control the laws, and just like roads can't be built, and trade routes
>>don't come in, armies aren't mustered, a castle wouldn't be doable, unless
>>allowed by the ruling regent.
>
>
>Ah, but who says that just because the province ruler says something, that
>it must be so... a province ruler could say to a thief regent "give me your
>holdings in my land"... doesn't make the thief regent jump and give over his
>holding... Just because you are the province ruler does not make your law
>absolute and your word the law... Granted, that the Province ruler does have
>a lot of influence when it comes to his own province, but if you make him
>the absolute authority when it comes to other regents performing actions, it
>completely denigrates the political influence of the other regents that
>happen to have holdings in a province... That is like saying... Priest, you
>cannot agitate without my permission, or thief, you cannot perform espionage
>without my permission... a Fortify action is just the same as any
>other....It would come down to a political battle of RP and holding levels
>or, of course, the province regent could declare war and destroy the castle
>and the holding, but that has its own consequences... see the story about
>the new DM and the Medoere regent...
>

Ahh, but I don't say that "just because a province ruler says something"
etc etc.
I listed specific examples of where the book outlines rules for making sure
something happens. Like it or not, a province ruler DOES have a lot of
sway in his land, defined by his law holding. He IS the law. He doesn't
have to use RP's in some kind of contesting to keep someone from building a
road in his land. I mean, as you said, it's building an asset--that acts
and is limited like a holding--thus "a special kind of holding." You are
comparing holdings, and the ability of a province ruler to object to their
construction. I made no such distinction. I said that a province ruler
could shut down a trade route, a road building, or someone building a
castle--all assets.

Ahhh, crap, gotta go home, and leave work :) guess that's the end of the
tirade ..heh heh.

E

[bloebick@juno.com (Benja]

It is my opinion that castles cannot be contested, only destroyed by
siege.

Benjamin

__________________________________________________ ___________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

[bloebick@juno.com (Benja]

On Tue, 28 Apr 1998 16:02:20 EDT Drake90094 writes:
>>>help me, i cant figure out thgis thing!!
>************************************************** *************************


Sepsis,
Would you PLEASE ban this guy from the mailing list? He hasn't
contributed a single positive thing, and just spams us weekly. It is
getting slightly annoying.

Benjamin

__________________________________________________ ___________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

[Memnoch]

No, Tripp, I am not intending to do that. I was merely pointing out to
Eric, from what I believed was a legitimate question with someone confused
by the rules as stated... I have since come to the conclusion that Eric is
arguing for the sake of arguing and I am stopping at this point.

Memnoch
- -----Original Message-----
From: lialos@crosslink.net
To: birthright@MPGN.COM
Date: Tuesday, April 28, 1998 4:28 PM
Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] - Contesting Castles?


>Benjamin W Loebick wrote:
>>
>> It is my opinion that castles cannot be contested, only destroyed by
>> siege.
>>
>> Benjamin
>
>It is my opinion that Eric and Memnoch are just trying to fill up all of
>our mailboxes.
>
>Tripp
>************************************************** *************************
>>'unsubscribe birthright' as the body of the message.
>

[Eric Dunn]

At 04:48 PM 4/28/98 -0500, you wrote:
>No, Tripp, I am not intending to do that. I was merely pointing out to
>Eric, from what I believed was a legitimate question with someone confused
>by the rules as stated... I have since come to the conclusion that Eric is
>arguing for the sake of arguing and I am stopping at this point.
>
>Memnoch

Actually, I never argue for the sake of arguing. I don't have near enough
time for it. I do like hearing differing opinions though. Of course, it's
always nice to have em backed up by fact, and/or actual quotes from the
rules, but such is life. :)

Besides, I did get some points that I think are valid-- IE by Ryan:


"> I can see that :) but in my game, I would say that if a ruler says "Nope,
> you can't put a castle in my realm" then it wouldn't happen. He does

I concur. Building a castle takes thousands of people several
years or decades, and they are vulnerable to attack while doing so. On
the other hand, a wizard with a ley line and a Stronghold spell is quite
capable of dropping a huge castle down in the middle of enemy territory --
all (s)he needs to do then is defend it."


Additionally, he writes:

"One amusing option to explore is the idea of Espionage or
Character actions to snatch a fully functional castle away from its owner
and fill it with loyal troops; magic makes such commando raids very
possible, and the situation provides a great adventure with political
motivations and consequences."


I like this idea. That is a cool way to take it over--assuming it's not
chock full of troops at the time, but either way it's an interesting point
and a GREAT role playing idea, that I'll just have to use :)

E

[lialos@crosslink.ne]

Benjamin W Loebick wrote:
>
> It is my opinion that castles cannot be contested, only destroyed by
> siege.
>
> Benjamin

It is my opinion that Eric and Memnoch are just trying to fill up all of
our mailboxes.

Tripp