Trade and Prosperity

[Osprey]

In the original BR setting it's often talked about how provincial rulers encourage trade, yet there's evidence that many of these landed regents recieve little or no direct benefit from this trade. IMC I simply assume that most regents derive monetary tribute from guilders running trade routes through their lands. But it occurred to me that perhaps there could be another very logical reason why landed regents would encourage trade: there is a tangible benefit in the increased prosperity brought in by trade.

So my thinking is this: why not give trade routes some benefits in addition to profit for the guilders and any tributaries? I think trade routes could affect provinces in 2 very important ways ("anchored" means the TR starts/ends in the province):

1. Attitude: Each working (non-contested) trade route anchored in the province adds +1 to the province's seasonal attitude checks toward the landed regent and the guild regent that controls the trade route.

2. Growth: Trade is one of the best ways to encourage growth beyond local means. If a landed regent attempts to Rule a province, each working trade route in the province adds a +1 bonus to the Rule Province check.

For #2, this bonus might help offset the difficulty of a DC 20 + target level Rule Province check, especially for higher level provinces that can hold more trade routes (essentially granting a +1 to +3 bonus).

In general, I really like these ideas because they make trade a much more integrated asset in the domain level of play, rather than making it a pure money-maker for guilders. If trade has beneficial side effects to landed regents, it relieves some pressure on the guilders to pay through the nose for their trade routes because they are truly bringing prosperity to the province.

What do you think of this, folks?

Osprey

[The Jew]

:D :D :D :D

[Arius Vistoon]

it's a good idea

[irdeggman]

An interesting idea.

I tend to dislike creating too detailed mechanics and this would seem to add another layer of complexity to the situation.

I too had always handled trade routes (holders) as having to pay the province regent some sort of tribute, especially since (in 2nd ed) he could destoy the route with a mere word.

IMO it is a much better role-playing aspect to leave the specifc details up to the regents in question and this allows some individuality of how things work. IMO the single most important domain action was diplomacy - since how the various regents worked together was the thing that had the greatest impact on the land in general (land refering to not not only land proper but the King Arthurian reference).

Having said that some behind the scenes type advise/commentary would seem appropriate here.

[Justinius_ExMortis]

Here here Osprey! I like'em alot. Besides, any additional complexity can simplified by adding an extra column to the domain record sheet; "Attitude/Rule trade bonus" Also a great way to keep track of exactly how many trade routes are running through a regents territory.

I can only hope that in my own Campaign I can allow my GM to allow such bonuses....

Justinius_ExMortis


"The political animal is not tame; it merely waits and watches, going this way and that at the command of polticians and dictators alike. That is until they lose control, then the political animal consumes them whole. It is not forgiving."

[Raesene Andu]

Very nice idea, I like it a hell of a lot. It helps to portray how important trade routes are, they aren't just all about the gold.

On the issue of complexity, in a small game with only a few regents it wouldn't have a major effect, and PBeM games usually keep a record of how many trade routes go in or out of a province, so not a problem there.

[RaspK_FOG]

I will agree here: it's one of those things I would like to add to my next campaign, despite the complexity.

[Osprey]

First off: I'm glad folks like this.


I tend to dislike creating too detailed mechanics and this would seem to add another layer of complexity to the situation.

For adding only 2 situational modifiers into the domain rules, this is a pretty low degree of "complexity." I see it as a very excellent way of creating some actual mechanics for different aspects of the domain-level of play working together, much like skill synergies. Compared to any of the core 3.5 rules for combat, the domain rules are wonderfully simple - perhaps too simple where trade routes are concerned. To think that trade would have no other effect than earning income for the controlling guilder is, IMO, overly simplistic and naive. The absence or presence of trade routes was (and still is) central to the rise and fall of many places throughout the real world. The rise of mercantilism is sometimes cited as one of the primary reasons for Europe moving out of the middle ages and into the Renaissance (and beyond!). When prosperity and wealth flow in, people can afford to have more (surviving) children who can find employment as they become able. This is exactly what happened in historical Europe - with the rise of mercantilism, populations mushroomed (despite the hardships of war, disease, etc), creating a very real push for new lands to colonize and settle in: and so the stage was set for international colonies and empires.

As I see it, adding a few low-level bonuses from trade routes to attitude and rule actions is rather...conservative. For the sake of game balance though, it must be so, otherwise the guilders would gain hugely disproportionate power compared to other types of regents...which might be realistic, but not so much fun to play a non-guilder.


I was thinking about these bonuses in terms of the "naming bonuses" thread. These should be stacking bonuses, which limits their nomenclature to a few possibilities:

1. Just call the bonuses Circumstance bonuses. These stack, and the presence of active trade routes could be called circumstantial factors. Circumstance bonuses, however, are situational, and trade routes are rather more stable and long-term in most cases, so this choice is more of a default if something better can't be found.

2. This could be an example of a domain synergy, if one equates complimentary domain assets to skills. However, since we're not using the standardized +2 synergy bonus, it might be wise to steer clear of any confusion there (and bonuses from synergies in 3.5 have become somewhat slippery to handle).

3. These could be unique domain-level bonuses, and hence get an original designation: they could be very specific to this situation, in which case we call it a Trade Bonus to ruling provinces and seasonal attitude checks.
OR...
A broader category is created for the domain level: Prosperity modifiers. If a broader category, than other factors should also be included under this umbrella. A good example might be bonuses from an exceptional harvest, or Prosperity penalties from a poor harvest or natural disasters. Prosperity modifiers might apply to domain collections as well, modifying either the GB and/or RP collection for a season. For example, a "Good Harvest" event might grant a +1 or +2 Prosperity bonus to a province's collections and attitude checks in the following domain turn. When things are going well, the people have exceptional confidence and faith in their regent. This may not be rational (i.e., holding the regent responsible for a good harvest), but it certainly reflects a medievalist viewpoint concerning a divinely righteous ruler. When things go badly, you can be certain the regent will be held responsible as well!

Just some thoughts to try and tie things together with the rest of the project.

Osprey

[Raesene Andu]

The only problem with granting a +1 bonus to Rule Province PER trade route is that for large province this could mean a potential +6 bonus to that action (3 land routes, 3 sea routes).

[The Jew]

Originally posted by Raesene Andu@Dec 16 2004, 11:04 AM
The only problem with granting a +1 bonus to Rule Province PER trade route is that for large province this could mean a potential +6 bonus to that action (3 land routes, 3 sea routes).
You have a different reading of the rules than I do Ian. I always thought that for every 3 levels of of a guild 1 sea or 1 land route could be supported, not 1 sea and 1 land route.


I like these rules, I think they should be extended even farther, along with some other guild bonuses. Right now guilders have very few extras, aside from making money. They pretty much match up with temple holdings, except that instead of casting realm spells they can make even more money through trade routes and get a bonus to espionage.

What if instead the income from guild holdings was reduced to 1/3 GB per level, while other strengths were added. Unlike landed regents, the income can be messed with more easily since guilders tend to have so few expenses.

The bonus to espionage I have always found paltry, since so often the most important people for a guilder to spy on are those outside of his sphere of influence. What if in addition to current espionage bonus, an additional bonus equal to the highest level guild were added to all espionage check. This owing to the higher level of expertice which can be aquired from larger and more affluent guilds.

Increase the income from trade routes. Add on Ospreys suggestions. Any other ideas?

[Urban fox]

I think the suggestions outlined are more than sufficient for guild holdings.

I mean if we start building up the holdings that aspect of the game may start to take precedence, because the other holding may need their own upgrades to balance things out.

[The Jew]

Originally posted by Urban fox@Dec 16 2004, 01:26 PM
I think the suggestions outlined are more than sufficient for guild holdings.

I mean if we start building up the holdings that aspect of the game may start to take precedence, because the other holding may need their own upgrades to balance things out.
But the balance comes from the reduction in guild holding income from 2/3 GB per level to 1/3GB per level. When you look at what guild holdings can do right now, aside from generate cash, it is petty compared to what the other holdings can do.

[Urban fox]

I dont know that espionage bonus could really come into it’s own if properly used, and the reduction in income isnt really hurtful beacause guild based realms would still make more money than any other holding type, only it'd have Bonus to the rule action which would in effect help generate/make even more money and cause greater loyalty too.

Then look at source holdingings, compared to that they have very little bonuses they'r good for the environment and can help cast magic and.....................err that’s about it really

[Osprey]

QUOTE (Raesene Andu @ Dec 16 2004, 11:04 AM)
The only problem with granting a +1 bonus to Rule Province PER trade route is that for large province this could mean a potential +6 bonus to that action (3 land routes, 3 sea routes).*


You have a different reading of the rules than I do Ian. I always thought that for every 3 levels of of a guild 1 sea or 1 land route could be supported, not 1 sea and 1 land route.

I have the same reading: the max. number of trade routes is for total number of routes. I have no recollection of anything (2e or BRCS) ever stating that the maximum # of TR's applied seperately to both land and sea routes. My rule was designed based on the assumption that there may be between 1 and 3 TR's per province (I allow 4 TR's in a 10/0 province IMC, but this only matters for Rule Province bonuses if province levels are allowed to go above level 10; also allows a +4 attitude bonus for a L10 province w/ 4 TR's, which seems OK to me).


I think the suggestions outlined are more than sufficient for guild holdings.
I'm not quite certain what you mean by this, Urban Fox. Do you mean my original suggestions are good the way they are, or do you believe they are better than they should be? Please clarify.


I mean if we start building up the holdings that aspect of the game may start to take precedence, because the other holding may need their own upgrades to balance things out.

I'm not looking so much to "upgrade" holding effects as I am in fleshing out mechanics for synergystic effects between different types of assets. Trade routes were the focus because they have the least interactive power, which seems lacking in terms of realism.

Jew:
Don't forget that most holding types (unlike trade routes) can support or oppose a wide range of domain actions within their province, and allow for the expenditure of RP by their regents. This is the standing interactive effect of all holding types, and it is a powerful one.

I wouldn't mess with the income levels too much. IMC guilders often have quite a few expenses. For one thing, landed regents usually (unless they are very weak) expect them to pay tribute based on the profits they make within their borders. Plus, I (as a DM) decided that they are often expected to finance the construction and maintenance of any trade-related assets like roads, bridges, and seaports. Sometimes this is added to the base tribute or it can be tacked on as an additional form of tribute (when the landed regent controls the asset in question). In other cases the guild regent actually controls the asset with the understanding that the landed regent will utilize the roads, bridges, etc. for military and personal use.

Beyond these (often significant) expenses, expansion into new areas, esp. frontier regions, can be quite expensive. Not only are roads etc. very expensive in under-developed and rough terrain areas, but the threat of raiding means new holdings must be fortified and guarded - and we all know how expensive troops are to maintain. Likewise, sea trade routes can also become quite expensive in areas where piracy and privateering is a threat; more capable ships and marine contingents really cut into the profitability of a naval trade route.

All in all, there are plenty of ways for a good DM to keep guild profits at relatively reasonable levels; the exception are the truly powerful guildmasters who dominate weak landed regents, such as Mheallie Bireon, or who are landed themselves, such as Guilder Khalien. But that's why they make for such excellent villains. ;)

As far as espionage goes, I currently use several mechanisms to handle this:
1. Spy Networks not only grant a +2 bonus to Espionage actions, but allow that action to be done as a COurt Action. IMC, if the Esp. action is performed by a the regent or their Lt., then RP and extra GB may be spent to ensure success.
2. Even a Level 0 guild holding is sufficient to allow RP to be spent to support (or oppose a known) espionage action.
3. I allow Hidden Holdings in my BRCS campaign. By adding +20 to the DC of the action, regents may essentially combine an Espionage and Create, Rule, or Contest Holding action to make it secret. This is very powerful (hence the whopping +20 DC), as it cannot be opposed by other regents if no one knows it's going on. I encourage the PC's to spend even more RP and GB by making the excess success number (i.e., how much the check result exceeds the action's DC) a penalty that applies to any future espionage checks made to uncover the organization.
So for example, say my PC guilder from Ilien wants to establish a secret level 0 guild in Tier (Ghoere). The base DC is 10 to Create Holding, and another +20 to make it secret (so DC 30). IMC, any law and guild holdings automatically oppose such an action, AND the presence of enemy Spy Networks will each add an additional +2 tot he DC. So let's say Tier is a 6/0 province, with 6 levels of guilds between GK and GH, and Gavin Tael has a Law(6) holding. Also, Guilder Khalien has a spy network here on his border. So that's a total of +14, making the final DC for the action 44. Whew! This won't be cheap...RP and GB will flow like water to ensure success.
But is it worth it? Absolutely, if you're a strong guild regent. Do this in a few different provinces within the same realm, slowly building up a network of secret guild holdings. Then one day, out of nowhere...perform a Contest realm action, hitting enemy guild holdings and/or trade routes in several provinces in a single month. If you're wealthy/powerful enough, you can maintain your holdings' secret identity by adding +20 to the Contest DC's in each province - the targeted regents and their allies can still spend RP to oppose the action, of course, but all they will know is that someone is Contesting them...they must perform a successful Espionage action, wagering enough RP and GB to beat the invisible DC and discover the secret holdings and their regent.
This tactic was used to devestating effect by a secret coalition of guilders in my campaign. Three allied guilders built secret guilds in every single province where Ghorien Hiriele had a guild over a year's time, several of them overlapping (w/ 2 secret guilds in the big areas like Gheiste and Tier). Then they made plans, and starting one spring they delayed their domain initiatives and WHAM! Contest, contest, contest...for 3 consecutive months they did nothing but contest GH's guilds again and again and again...by the end of spring, one of Anuire's most powerful guilders was reduced to a single level 2 guild holding - and they didn't even know who was responsible! (not at first, anyways - the following season Gavin Tael poured his RP into discovering the culprit, and a single hidden guild was uncovered).

OK, so all of that was a bit off-topic re. espionage, but hidden guilds are quite useful for secretly countering enemy guilds in provinces where you are performing espionage. If you manage to rule them up and maintain their secrecy, they can also lend bonuses.

3. I have also designed 2 Wondrous Structures, the Rogues' Guild and the Bardic College, that can provide some hefty bonuses to Espionage in different ways, especially if built up to sufficient levels. If curious, you can check out the details at my website: The Southern Alliance (http://home.earthlink.net/~birthright/) Some of these bonuses apply "anywhere the regent has a guild holding of level X or higher", allowing for yet another use of secret holdings.

So there's some ideas for you if you want to allow a few ways for guilders to get an additional advantage in espionage.

Now there are some real examples of added complexity...which is why I never pushed much for them to be included in the core BRCS revision. There are levels, and there are levels... ;)

Osprey

[Osprey]

Then look at source holdingings, compared to that they have very little bonuses they'r good for the environment and can help cast magic and.....................err that’s about it really

Unless they're high level sources (4+), in which case they also have a virtual guild (VG) rating according to the BRCS. Which was a tremendously cool addition IMO. This doesn't apply to too many source holdings as laid out in Ruins of Empire, but it does encourage source regents to fight hard to consolidate source monopolies in high-potential provinces, such as in the Erebannien or Five Peaks. The PC regent wizard IMC, who is Aelies' son and successor, has gained complete control of the Erebannien's sources - which gives hime level 2 VG's in each of his source(6) provinces...with 5 such provinces, that's 10 levels of guilds generating a base 6-2/3 GB per season. Not too shabby for a wizard, who truly does have little to no seasonal GB maintenance.

And those virtual guilds can do everything normal guilds can do, even act as one end of a trade route! IMC, they supply rare and exotic natural materials, such as gems, rare woods and earths, and unusual spell components. They also act as a constant source of information, so that source regents with at least level 4 sources are much more aware of what goes on in those provinces in general. This has the advantage of allowing strong source regents to be much more connected to the outside world, at least where their control of the mebhaighal is strong.


I dont know that espionage bonus could really come into it’s own if properly used
Agreed, which is why I require hyper-expensive investments like wondrous structures (costing 25GB per level to build, and 2GB per level in seasonal maintenance!) to allow such bonuses. WAY more expensive than a simple guild holding of comparable level.

Osprey

[Urban fox]

I'm not quite certain what you mean by this, Urban Fox. Do you mean my original suggestions are good the way they are, or do you believe they are better than they should be? Please clarify.

Oooops, sorry to clarify my statements I think they are better than they should be, but if you use the restrictions you outlined in your last post then it may balance out more.

However some of those restrictions would also affect other holding such the difficulty of setting up on the frontier and bandits etc. The only holding type that I think would have some immunity to that is source, It relays on wild untamed land and bandits are unlikely to raid source holdings unless they’ve taken to stealing trees or get paid to do it. :lol:


And you did say landed Regents with guilds would be much more powerful, I shudder to think about the prospect my 8 provinces realm being brought down by a 1 provinces realm with a few guilds, *mutters* Damn Ender guilds i'd send my armys to deal with them, if it wasnt for those damn Alams/Avans/Borunes/Bandedts/Elfs ARG. :wacko:

[Osprey]

And you did say landed Regents with guilds would be much more powerful, I shudder to think about the prospect my 8 provinces realm being brought down by a 1 provinces realm with a few guilds, *mutters* Damn Ender guilds i'd send my armys to deal with them, if it wasnt for those damn Alams/Avans/Borunes/Bandedts/Elfs ARG.*

Yes...things do get interesting in areas where the guilds are hostile tot he landed regent, don't they? If trade routes add to a landed regent's Rule Province and attitude checks, it puts the hostile guilder in a sticky spot: if he creates trade routes, he makes far more money than from local commerce alone, but he also strengthens the landed regent, whom he doesn't really like or support. Heh, puts Kalien in a dilemma in many places, doesn't it? Also puts him in a "I could help" position, which strengthens his "power through diplomacy" strategy outlined in RoE.

This is exactly the sort of interdependent dynmaic I wanted to create with this rule: trade is good for most everyone involved, even if untaxed (a policy certain landed regents like Gavin Tael maintain with no discernible, direct benefit according to the original domain rules).

[Urban fox]

Originally posted by Osprey@Dec 16 2004, 08:15 PM

And you did say landed Regents with guilds would be much more powerful, I shudder to think about the prospect my 8 provinces realm being brought down by a 1 provinces realm with a few guilds, *mutters* Damn Ender guilds i'd send my armys to deal with them, if it wasnt for those damn Alams/Avans/Borunes/Bandedts/Elfs ARG.*

Yes...things do get interesting in areas where the guilds are hostile tot he landed regent, don't they? If trade routes add to a landed regent's Rule Province and attitude checks, it puts the hostile guilder in a sticky spot: if he creates trade routes, he makes far more money than from local commerce alone, but he also strengthens the landed regent, whom he doesn't really like or support. Heh, puts Kalien in a dilemma in many places, doesn't it? Also puts him in a "I could help" position, which strengthens his "power through diplomacy" strategy outlined in RoE.

This is exactly the sort of interdependent dynmaic I wanted to create with this rule: trade is good for most everyone involved, even if untaxed (a policy certain landed regents like Gavin Tael maintain with no discernible, direct benefit according to the original domain rules).
Yes Disagreement involeing Guild holdings can be very intresting but sometimes they can be just downright Strange I remember speculating on a game in progress. A non-landed but very rich/powerful guild regent had a disagreement with a landed regent of fairly sizeable realm and started disrupting the guilds holdings and trade routes the guild leaders response was basically to declare war. Unlikely yes? And landed regent dismissed the threat, but the guild was VERY rich, so it soon had a huge army of mercs under its banner invaded and seized 3 provinces. So unlanded guild regent became a landed guild regent.


That aside if the benefits of these new guild changes can work both ways, then I have no objection to then I assumed all the benefits of trade would go mostly to the guild owner.


So you've pretty much won me over to the idea *mutters* but I still think source is hard done by.

[The Jew]

Interesting peculiary of this rule is that for source regents who get virtual guilds and then create trade routes, it would become easier for the landed regent to then rule up the province, thereby threatening the source.

[irdeggman]

Actualy Ian is right and wrong on the number of trade routes a guild can have.

In 2nd ed:
Cities in the Sun pgs 70+ Sea trade Routes. “A port can support as many sea trade routes as land trade routes; so a coastal province (7) can support three land trade routes and three sea trade routes.”

While the BRCS:
BRCS-playtest pg 92 under trade routes “There are two types of trade routes: overland trade routes and sea trade routes. Both type of trade routes are considered equivalent for the purposes of determining the maximum of trade routes per holding. For example consider a sea trade route forged between a guild (6) in Illien (forest) and a guild (3) in AERELE (plains). The guild (3) is involved in one trade route (its maximum) and cannot be involved in any new trade routes. The guild (6) has one free trade route remaining (it has a maximum of two); this additional trade route can be either an overland trade route or a sea trade route.”


As I recall this disparity came up when we were putting this together and the reduced number of trade routes was resolved based on the fact in 2nd ed a guilder could swiftly generate a tremendous amount of GB due to trade routes. The logic of a maximum based upon goods was used to rationalize this new limit. Combine this with the reduction in maintenance costs (for holdings) in the BRCS and the GB generated was closer to the original amount. Plus the booking was made simpiler.

If we are seriously looking at increasing the benefits of trade routes (and complexity) here is something to consider - troop maintenance. If there is a trade route connecting the home province and the troop ase then the maintenance of troops could very easily be reduced since supplies can be used or accompany the trade goods.

[Raesene Andu]

I have the same reading: the max. number of trade routes is for total number of routes. I have no recollection of anything (2e or BRCS) ever stating that the maximum # of TR's applied seperately to both land and sea routes. My rule was designed based on the assumption that there may be between 1 and 3 TR's per province (I allow 4 TR's in a 10/0 province IMC, but this only matters for Rule Province bonuses if province levels are allowed to go above level 10; also allows a +4 attitude bonus for a L10 province w/ 4 TR's, which seems OK to me).

From the original rules... both the Book of Regency and the Khinsasi expansions, and I assume the naval rules as well, mention the 3 land route, 3 sea route thing. The exact passage reads...

A port can support as many sea trade routes as land trade routes, so a coastal province (7) can support three land and three sea trade routes.

It seems this was missed when creating the BRCS, as what was included on maximum number of trade route if effectively cut and pasted from original Birthright Rulebook, it ignored the other texts.

[Angelbialaska]

So a sea province can hold twice as many trade routes as an inland province? That instantly makes the guilders that has a focus in sea provinces potentially much richer. The major example here is El-Haddy. 7 levels of guilds in Ilien. 2 2/3 GB. 3 land trade routes is 10 1/2 GB and 3 sea routes is 10 1/2 GB. So Ilien is worth almost twice as much as before. I don't want to think about how rich Mieres or Brosengae could become too, by being coastal provinces, compared to the inland province of Endier.

[The Jew]

Originally posted by Osprey
Don't forget that most holding types (unlike trade routes) can support or oppose a wide range of domain actions within their province, and allow for the expenditure of RP by their regents. This is the standing interactive effect of all holding types, and it is a powerful one.

I wouldn't mess with the income levels too much. IMC guilders often have quite a few expenses. For one thing, landed regents usually (unless they are very weak) expect them to pay tribute based on the profits they make within their borders. Plus, I (as a DM) decided that they are often expected to finance the construction and maintenance of any trade-related assets like roads, bridges, and seaports. Sometimes this is added to the base tribute or it can be tacked on as an additional form of tribute (when the landed regent controls the asset in question). In other cases the guild regent actually controls the asset with the understanding that the landed regent will utilize the roads, bridges, etc. for military and personal use.

Beyond these (often significant) expenses, expansion into new areas, esp. frontier regions, can be quite expensive. Not only are roads etc. very expensive in under-developed and rough terrain areas, but the threat of raiding means new holdings must be fortified and guarded - and we all know how expensive troops are to maintain. Likewise, sea trade routes can also become quite expensive in areas where piracy and privateering is a threat; more capable ships and marine contingents really cut into the profitability of a naval trade route.

All in all, there are plenty of ways for a good DM to keep guild profits at relatively reasonable levels; the exception are the truly powerful guildmasters who dominate weak landed regents, such as Mheallie Bireon, or who are landed themselves, such as Guilder Khalien. But that's why they make for such excellent villains. wink.gif

This is my point though. Their are plenty of ways to keep guild incomes at a reasonable level. But then what do guilders have? They get almost no other special benefits. All holdings (except sources) get certain base benefits. Lets exclude those for this discussion since everyone is equal. Guilders get money, and the means (trade routes) to make more money. That is their power. Yet every decent landholder will work to strip that one resource away from the guilders. That is often what causes the d4-1 curse in PBEM's as several regents look to tax their guilders at the outset, while guilders seeking to protect their money bring in other realms to support them, leading to all out war in the outset.

What I am suggesting is that guilders recieve less money, but more interesting benefits, like other regents get. Source and temples get realm spells, while law gets to have influence on everyone else and is the best at raising soldiers. Strengthening trade routes and the ability of guilds to use espionage would be the two that immediately come to mind. More trade routes, and better ones, means that diplomacy becomes more tricky since often this requires multiple realms to participate and war becomes so costly due to disruption of said trade routes. Osprey has put forth some wonderful ideas which I think most people agree with, but I would like to go further in that direction.

[geeman]

At 01:12 PM 12/17/2004 +0100, Angelbialaska wrote:



>So a sea province can hold twice as many trade routes as an inland

>province? That instantly makes the guilders that has a focus in sea

>provinces potentially much richer. The major example here is El-Haddy. 7

>levels of guilds in Ilien. 2 2/3 GB. 3 land trade routes is 10 1/2 GB and

>3 sea routes is 10 1/2 GB. So Ilien is worth almost twice as much as

>before. I don`t want to think about how rich Mieres or Brosengae could

>become too, by being coastal provinces, compared to the inland province of

>Endier.



A lot of people house ruled that inland provinces got "sea trade routes" if

they are on a river as is Endier or that people could at least use rivers

in lieu of roads to establish trade routes. Historically and thematically

this makes sense because it corresponds to the fact that most larger trade

centers are coastal or located upon natural waterways, and it increases the

value of those provinces appropriately.



Gary

[Angelbialaska]

What I am suggesting is that guilders recieve less money, but more interesting benefits, like other regents get. Source and temples get realm spells, while law gets to have influence on everyone else and is the best at raising soldiers. Strengthening trade routes and the ability of guilds to use espionage would be the two that immediately come to mind. More trade routes, and better ones, means that diplomacy becomes more tricky since often this requires multiple realms to participate and war becomes so costly due to disruption of said trade routes. Osprey has put forth some wonderful ideas which I think most people agree with, but I would like to go further in that direction.

Guilders should not receive less money. It's not all guilders that can afford trade routes, when the one in control of the realms that they conduct trade in, wants half of their earnings. In the games I've seen around, most start with 0-2 trade routes. That's not exactly enough to compensate for the loss of 1/3 GB per guild level. In addition to that, it's the guilders that are most often going to pay for the roads (since the province rulers have less use for them than the guilders). And they need to either build ships or lease ships for sea trade routes. The money are the guilders only real advantage over others.

Landed regents/Law holders can destroy holdings as easily as anything and in addition to this, they claim taxes. Temple holders can cast clerical realm spells and get some donations. Guilders get money and can create trade routes. The trade routes is the advantage of the guilders, but I can't see the reason why to punish them because of this.

As for Sources, then they have some advantages too. You don't need to civilize an area to build them (in fact the opposite is true), your sources can't be destroyed by ordinary means, only by another wizard or a successful rule province. And they have realm spells too.

I like the idea of allowing trade routes to give advantages to realm rulers, other than they can tax them. A +1 to loyalty for each trade route would be nice. However to regulate it so that the provinces with both types of routes aren't too advantaged, there could simply be a maximum gained, depending of the size of the province.

[Birthright-L]

> This is my point though. Their are plenty of ways

> to keep guild incomes at a reasonable level. But

> then what do guilders have? They get almost no

> other special benefits. All holdings (except

> sources) get certain base benefits. Lets exclude

> those for this discussion since everyone is equal.

> Guilders get money, and the means (trade routes) to

> make more money. That is their power.



Maybe, what we need then, is more possible ways to

invest money so that guilders have something cool to

do with their wealth. Other than hiring a HUGE army

of mercenaries, there isn`t much for a guilder to do

with his wealth other than distributing it to other

regents and being a pawn in their greater schemes

(albeit, a highly mischievious and ambitious pawn...)



Perhaps we need to think of other types of assetts for

nonlanded guilders to buy. Similiar to how priests

and wizards might want to collect realm spells and a

law/land regent might collect troops, maybe the

guilder needs some option of something to collect...

something fun for the player to choose and strategize

with, not just a numeric value that goes up and down.



Trade routes, maybe? Could we make different types of

trade routes have different types of effects, and a

description to written up for each type of trade

route? Any other ideas?





=====

While I wrought out these fitful Danaan rhymes,

My heart would brim with dreams about the times

When we bent down above the fading coals

And talked of the dark folk who live in souls

Of passionate men, like bats in the dead trees;

And of the wayward twilight companies

Who sigh with mingled sorrow and content,

Because their blossoming dreams have never bent

Under the fruit of evil and of good:

And of the embattled flaming multitude

Who rise, wing above wing, flame above flame,

And, like a storm, cry the Ineffable Name,

And with the clashing of their sword-blades make

A rapturous music, till the morning break

And the white hush end all but the loud beat

Of their long wings, the flash of their white feet.







__________________________________

Do you Yahoo!?

The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do?

http://my.yahoo.com

[Angelbialaska]

Other than hiring a HUGE army of mercenaries, there isn`t much for a guilder to do with his wealth other than distributing it to other regents and being a pawn in their greater schemes (albeit, a highly mischievious and ambitious pawn...)

Isn't that enough? I'm finding guilders to be one of the best groups to be friends with. The money they can either fund you or others, or the mercenary army they can raise should it be needed, is more than enough. The guilder gives 50GB to the landed regent they support and then the landed regent owes them big time. In addition to this, guilders are also the perfect explorers and/or settlers. They have the financial backing for such projects and the possibility of finding new resources or markets is worth a lot.

[irdeggman]

Many people have pointed out that Ilien was cash poor and couldn't afford the maintenance on what it had - both in the orginal material and the BRCS. Allowing more trade routes (i.e., as many sea as land) alleviated that problem by allowing a greater influx of cash to the otherwise cash stripped realm.

Guilders, being the bankers they were had more power than can really be imagined (well maybe not to those of us with grandeous imaginations). They (in 2nd ed) typically controlled the finances that the realm regent needed to support his army while having realitvely low maintenance possesion - typically no armies and only trade routes, roads, ships (often 'rented' to the realm regent for troop movement) and guilds.

IMO in 2nd ed the most powerful regents were guilders and priests (in that order). Both received a bonus domain action, both had minimal maintenance costs and both could have tremendous influence over the realm regent. The guilder controlled the money while the priest controlled the attitude of the people.

The point in 3.5 is to somehow ensure that all regents are on as level a playing field as possible - that is to not give any one an inherent bonus. So if a regent is oriented towards generating cash (i.e., guilder) then there should be something that he isn't as good at and is used as a drain on is assets.

When I pointed out that the BRCS didn't have the "as many sea trade routes as land trade routes" like the 2nd ed rules did I didn't mean I "agreed" with the decision, only what I recalled going into it. Personally I think we should attempt to capture as much of the 2nd ed rules as possible and this is most likely a case we can, if we keep an eye on ensuring that all regents are mostly balanced in power.

[Birthright-L]

> Isn`t that enough? I`m finding guilders to be one of

> the best groups to be friends with. The money they

> can either fund you or others, or the mercenary army

> they can raise should it be needed, is more than

> enough. The guilder gives 50GB to the landed regent

> they support and then the landed regent owes them

> big time. In addition to this, guilders are also the

> perfect explorers and/or settlers. They have the

> financial backing for such projects and the

> possibility of finding new resources or markets is

> worth a lot.



The possibility of "finding new resources or markets"?

What`s that mean in game terms? A rule action? You

don`t DO anything.



And giving them more actions doesn`t mean they lose

their role as bankers and supporters and such. I`m

simply suggesting, they should have some alternative

to "I give this guy money. I give that guy money. I

save the rest."



It`s a perfectly valid playing style, and very fun.

But a lot of people seem to be dissatisfied that the

rules put the player into this cookie-cutter role

simply because their isn`t really anything else to do.

There`s an asset associated with every other type of

regent, but not for the guilder. I`m simply

suggesting some players might have some more fun with

the guilder player if there was something to collect

and build, like for all the other regents, instead of

just a numeric value that goes up and down (which all

the other players have, too). The primary strength in

the guilder right now is in their supporting role.



Ships do kind of help this a little if you`re using

sea trade routes, but I`ve never really used ships too

much in my games.





=====

While I wrought out these fitful Danaan rhymes,

My heart would brim with dreams about the times

When we bent down above the fading coals

And talked of the dark folk who live in souls

Of passionate men, like bats in the dead trees;

And of the wayward twilight companies

Who sigh with mingled sorrow and content,

Because their blossoming dreams have never bent

Under the fruit of evil and of good:

And of the embattled flaming multitude

Who rise, wing above wing, flame above flame,

And, like a storm, cry the Ineffable Name,

And with the clashing of their sword-blades make

A rapturous music, till the morning break

And the white hush end all but the loud beat

Of their long wings, the flash of their white feet.







__________________________________

Do you Yahoo!?

Send holiday email and support a worthy cause. Do good.

http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com

[geeman]

There are things that guilders who have a large stockpile of wealth can

spend that money on if one takes a look at the bigger picture.



Traditionally the thing those with control over large economic resources do

is buy their way into the aristocracy, buying or otherwise controlling

estates, purchasing titles, establishing alliances by marriage to older

houses of the nobility, etc. They finance the military by loaning monarchs

large sums of money at relatively high interest rates which must be then

either paid for later with taxation upon the citizenry or "forgiven" in

exchange for the trappings of nobility.



In BR, this is a little hard to adjudicate since the only really obvious

method of getting hold of provinces is through war. In the long run, one

has to keep this kind of transition in mind as GM in order to portray it in

the game, and one has to recognize both the means and the ends as being

possible. That is, the DM has to acknowledge the overall goal of a guilder

if he means to become a "true" noble in this way.



That said, there are the more standard uses of wealth: luxury, opulence and

possession of material goods that are rare or otherwise

collectable. Guilders might build palaces to show off their wealth. In

fact, such a thing might be used game mechanically by connecting it up with

their ability to make trade agreements with other realms or to do things

like bypass the rules established by their local sovereigns.



Gary

[Osprey]

First off: I think the BRCS made the right decision in creating a flat limit to trade routes, though I think (following the 1 per 1-3 province levels progression) that 4 trade routes should be allowed in a Level 10 province - the same as the maximum number of regents per holding type (L1-3: 1; L4-6: 2; L7-9: 3; L10: 4).

The main effect, of course, is that in 551 the Imperial City could have 4 trade routes. Which I think it should.

However, being able to "double up" with trade routes can make trade income even more ludicrous...not only is it not necessary, it's really overkill.

As for things for guilders to do...build Wonders! Talk your DM's into it! They're expensive, they're cool...everybody happy, ja? :D

In my experience, the power of having the most wealth is neither slight nor uninteresting. Quite the opposite: those with the wealth are very often the power behind the throne. "He who controls the king's purse strings...controls the king." Medieval kings had constant issues with their money running out (war being the incredible expense that it is); and who did they turn to? The guilds, of course. When the king needs money, and he's willing to actually ask for a loan, this speaks volumes about the real power of the guilds; and once the king is indebted to them, there's all sorts of pressure the guilder can place upon the king: Favors like "My neice has just come of age. Perhaps she might find patronage as a lady at court?" [insert spy into royal court].

All in all, the power of wealth is significant, because it can be used to create influence, which can extend a guilder's power to almost anywhere. Which then requires a creative player and/or DM to exploit. The only thing I think is lacking is things to spend money on, which was why I created all those wonders in the first place.

Geeman made some great points about uses for wealth. And I think the last one concerning palaces and the guilder's role as expert diplomat shouldn't be underestimated either. If the guilder becomes chief diplomat, this is yet another power placed in his hands, because it requires he be entrusted to speak in another regent's name.

So that's three potentially very powerful roles for a guilder to play: financier, spymaster, and diplomat. If he tries to play all three, do you think he'll really have enough time left over to do anything else?

[Angelbialaska]

I'm playing Brosengae in a PBEM game. And there it's obvious that my main advantage is the abilities of a guilder. I get enough gold from the taxes to sustain the court and only little of the army. The guild holdings however add a lot of gold to the treasury. My guess is that the income=upkeep is very true for most landed realms. Not much gold to fool around with. But the guilder has the cash and if they lend or donate some, they expect something in return. This makes the guilder incredibly powerful and possibly also the most social character. You want to stop a realm? Talk to the guilders and get them to stop their donation. It's rather easy to make it look like it has been a bad year with no income, so no taxes can be paid.

If you want to give the guilders more power, then create some strike action. The guilders, artisans and all the workers go on a strike for some reason. There's no money to be law claimed from the guilds, only the temples and since there's no earning, there can't be taxed. The guilds of course wouldn't give any income either. Gives the guilder a bit more power, similar to the realm spells that a temple can use, such as Interdiction and Blight Province.

[Justinius_ExMortis]

Hi everyone, I'm a Guilder. My before expenses income after ten years in game play, forging an Alliance of nations to defeat the Gorgon and reclaim the empire, and surviving not one, not two, not even three but five seperate disembowlements is upwards of 400 GB. My after expenses and tithes income is more like 180 GB. Though these numbers may sound big to some of you keep in mind something very important. over 50% of my income is spent on expenses and tithes to Landed Regents. Also understand that my character is a dedicated regent. Until very recently his skills and feats centered around building his mercantile empire and producing as many money making ventures as possible. I can honestly say that over six years of in game time and almost fifteen levels of character were used in the forging my trade and holdings empire. I maintain over a 100GB's worth of Wonders, A standing army of over a dozen 7GB minimum units with a few in the 10+ range. I also maintain a network of highways through southern Anuire, a large fleet of several galleons and almost a dozen caravels and cogs. An opulent palace, expansive court, and hefty province wide fortifications in my one province that I have attained in my time. My character splits his time between diplomatic missions, manipulating public opinion, espionage on several fronts, expanding his mercantile holdings, maintaing the cohesion of the alliance through support and intermediary roles, as well as find time for his wife and three young heirs.

Anyone else feel that Guilders don't have enough to do? To be quite honest if you're a guilder or a GM with a guilder and there's complaints about nothing to do then someone is selling themselves short or seriously lacking in the imagination department. In many ways Guilders have far more on their plates given any level of ambitious play then any of the other Regents. Landed regents merely conquer each other and rule provinces attempting to maintain their bloodline, Temple holders minister to the masses and occasionally cast a realm spell or go to war. Source regents sit at home and play with pretty lights and sounds. In the end, due to class skills, time, money, and impetus, a guild regent can and should be the most politically and financially active of all the regents and can interact with and play on the same field as any other regent in Anuire.

Behind my guilders gilded smile is more political muscle and ability to change sovereignty than perhaps any other Regent in Anuire.

Guilders Unite!
Justinius ExMortis

"He who controls the spice, controls the Universe!" -Assorted, Dune

[Angelbialaska]

Behind my guilders gilded smile is more political muscle and ability to change sovereignty than perhaps any other Regent in Anuire.

400 GB? 180 GB? No doubt that you have sovereinity over any other Regent in Anuire. 180GB is about twice as much than Avan, Boeruine and Ghoere generate per round, even with massive tributes from vassals and others. A quick estimate gets me to the Gorgon having an income of around 100 GB, also with money from all of his vassals. So yes, with 400GB one can definitely destroy any realm with a single word.

[Osprey]

He forgot to mention that this is in 562 MR, and he is an epic-level character with several epic-level allied regents running epic realms... <_<

The Gorgon makes alot more than that IMC...

Things have progressed in the 12 years or so of campaign time, including the PCs&#39; surviving rivals and enemies. Competition has a way of doing that. ;)

[hazard]

Even in our time every company (guild) gives about ½ of its profit to the state. Every transaction that is made you must pay same tax. So for me it is not strange that land regent asks at least 1/3 of profit .Why should he let guilder to get rich on his land if he doesn’t have something in return? He can always take same troops and destroy or confiscate guild. After all nothing is stopping him from running his one guild or letting same new guilder to step in.
Also being a non-land regent is benefit for guilder because if you have some land every regent in Cerilia will look at you not as an honest merchant how wont to make some profit but as an threat to his domain. One more thing I think that guilds often contest each other.
All in all guild is very important financial backup for any domain. Regent and at least one more guilder is on your tail. It is important that PC get that impression.
Guilders have lot of thing to spend his money on:
-Law claim
-Vassalage to lend regent
-Influencing court (Guilder must have few nobles on court to defend him before the King)
-Espionage and defending from espionage
-Intrigue
Guilder in not someone who sits in his palace and wait for the gold. He must always have a secret war with his enemies and that cost a lot&#33;

[Demonizer]

The illusion that trade always benefits both sides does nothing more than simplify the campaign world. It brings in few opportunities to tinker with the game mechanics or engage in solid RP, while diminishing the simulation aspect of the game. Let&#39;s face it: when unregulated with the proper laws and ethics, trade more often leads into disaster than prosperity. You need only look at the short-term, successful policies employed in modern times to realize this. Factory farming, for instance, can bring in enormous profits at the expense of food quality, which slowly results in the workforce losing its strength, unemployment soaring and disease increasing; armies find it difficult to recruit sturdy soldiers, which makes the monsters more daring in their raids, and so on. The vicious consequences of eating nutrient-free food have been observed in animals (Pottenger&#39;s cats come to mind) as well as humans (quite a number of diseases are, in fact, deficiencies), and can have far-reaching consequences the likes of increasing sterility. Generally, they destroy the economy in the long term, but start out by improving trade. This is one example of the slow, nearly imperceptible and poorly-documented consequences of bad business practices. I don&#39;t see them being represented in Birthright&#39;s handbook; but then, other long-term effects (such as the spread of ideologies and scientific research) have no relevance if one clings strictly to the standard rules.

Then there are more obvious, more rapid consequences of trade that should be considered. Suppose a foreign company captures all mines within the realm, supplies the miners with tools purchased from abroad and imports the ore gathered here to manufacture weapons. Some people would call this "trade", especially if miners and the like were paid for it. The king might even receive a few taxes out of it. Let&#39;s suppose that, at some point, the kingdom also needed weapons. Tough... With all its resources around, it still has to buy them from foreigners, who might decide to withhold them and arm themselves instead. Later on, the foreign company that controls ore production might raise its own army at a low cost, since outfitting it wouldn&#39;t be a problem, and take over the ore-rich country for some reason or another. Here, "trade" means the loss of indepence, as well as (initially) an isolation from one&#39;s own natural resources.

A few more examples of trade being harmful:
I trade my country&#39;s narcotics (wine) for your country&#39;s raw materials (timber). My puritanical population won&#39;t mind. Your rowdy population, however, will get washed down in liquor to feed my country&#39;s construction projects. Hurray&#33; You might argue that this makes your people more happy; in truth, they make your people dependent to mine, and worse off when it comes to fighting (as it happened to the gauls, historically. You might also enjoy learning that the first dacian king, Burebista, made the brave and wise decision of destroying his country&#39;s vineyards, thereby making his own people more prepared for warfare).

Same thing goes for trading anything that hampers the economy in subtle or obvious ways.

With a huge inheritance consisting mainly of gold bars, a manufacturer moves into a new country and sets up workshops all over the place. He sets his prices very low, driving out the rest of the producers and creating unemployment. This is a fairly common strategy in the real world, by the way. Taking advantage of the collapsed market, he lowers salaries to his own workers, and is able to make up for his losses. He also boosts the price as much as he can get away with. Then, seeing as how few folks in this new country can afford his products (partly because of the unemployment and all), he exports most of the stuff back to his homeland and sells it an obscene price. There&#39;s definitely some prosperity to be had, but certainly not on the part of the new country.

Some entrepreneuring bastards get their hands on my village&#39;s farmlands, in which they clear away all the low-profit wheat and plant glittering-silk-flowers for noblemen to buy. They do this with all the country&#39;s villages, until there&#39;s little real agriculture left to speak of; everyone working on the silk-trees gets 500 a year in salary, 2/3rds more than they used to get when selling their own crops; they thus become the richest in the village, epitomes of the prosperity that comes with trade. The bastards, of course, make piles of money. Several years later, a famine comes upon the land, requiring people to import wheat from the very same bastards who bought all the fields. Suppose they&#39;d like to weaken the local economy, take out the cobblers and such. They agree to inflate food prices, so that it takes each person 1,000 coins to survive over the year, and many of the poorer die because of this. What&#39;s left is a bundle of silk-flower-pickers, now entirely dependent on their employers, who will soon find their payment of coins turned into boots and bread. So much for prosperity.

Then there&#39;s the classical example: A village of jewellers sits in the desert, next to a village of gem-diggers. A merchant comes along, buys up the gemstones from the gem-diggers at the same price the jewellers would have bought them, then declares that the jewellers can either work for him or starve. The villagers comply, and end up making less than they used to, while the merchant (who does nothing for the economy) gets rich at their expense. This is supposedly an anectode from real life, between a village of Iranians and a jew. While I can&#39;t vouch for the accuracy of these facts, the story itself does seem probable, and must have happened many times since the invention of true currency.

Now that it&#39;s been said, let me show you an interesting model for managing trade in birthright. It introduces one new concept: resources, which can be moved around like armies. Every province contains four specific "resource slots", which can very well be occupied by the same resource. The order of these resource slots is crucial, as it determines how quickly the province stands to lose them: the first resource disappears when the province is ruled up to level 10; the second resource, when it&#39;s ruled up to level 7; the 3rd resource, by level 4; the final resource always stays available for trade. Development is discouraged in some provinces because of this, while other provinces (which contain more than one trade route) would help spread resources around. Once collected, a resource may only be placed in a province that&#39;s connected via trade routes to the province of extraction (the resource&#39;s "native province", so to speak). There&#39;s more than one way to apply this rule. Three variations follow:
-a resource may be deployed in any province that contains trade routes leading directly or indirectly to the resource itself. Provinces in which more than one trade route is passing are considered to contain all these trade routes, so if (for instance) there&#39;s no guild in endier, but three trade routes are passing through it, then these trade routes are considered "connected" via endier and resources may pass from one trade route to the others.
-Only provinces which contain the endpoint of one trade route and any portion of another ar considered "junctions" for the purpose of determining where a resource can be deployed. In this case, the three trade routes passing through Endier are not considered connected; if Endier starts a trade route into Spiderfell, however, any resource from either of the three trade routes may also go into Spiderfell, and any resource native to spiderfell may go into the domains of the three trade routes. Even so, the three trade routes are still not considered connected.
-Only provinces that contain the endpoints of two or more trade routes are considered "junctions". Resources may still be deployed anywhere along these trade routes.

Resource slots don&#39;t indicate the mere presence of materials, but rather, the outstanding quality of these materials - while many provinces might grow wheat around Anuire, the presence of "grain" in a resource slot indicates farmland specifically suited for grain plants. To simplify things, mountain regions could all contain the same four resources, forests would all be stuffed with the same type of wood, etc... But this would dumb the game down, so I won&#39;t even consider it. Instead, the "generic goods" shipped via trade routes aren&#39;t considered to be rare or prominent resources, but artefacts, processed materials and even services. After all, trade routes depend on the level of guilds, which indicate the development of crafts and such, not necessarily resource extraction.

Claiming resources: this is the tricky part. If more developed provinces lose out on their resources whenever the regent "rules" them to a certain level, they should normally be getting more than enough perks to compensate. The extra gold they can derive from law and guild holdings, as well as benefits such as a higher mustering capacity, ought to make it an advantage to possess high-level provinces, but also give players incentives to keep their neighbours undeveloped. Planting guilds into a vassal&#39;s lower-level provinces and sucking out the resources within can give a regent&#39;s prosperous domain a major boost, while at the same time hindering the poor vassal himself.

One problem complicates things, though. You can&#39;t base who controls a resource on guild levels, period. Higher guild levels can only be obtained in higher-level provinces, which (as per the basic rules I&#39;m making up), cannot support more than a small handful of resources. Instead, you might treat "caputred" resources as separate level-zero holdings, which regents can contest and build as normal. Destroying a "resource holding" simply frees it up for other leaders to take over. You might introduce the rule that every "captured" resource in a province adds 1 to its level of civilization for the purpose of determining the province&#39;s maximum source level. This might be a bit overkill, though it would certainly reflect the difference between heavy logging operations and peaceful, unhindered forests.

Resources are first exploited for their native provinces; they provide bonuses to these when they&#39;re not being exported, or when the trade routes shipping them away are blocked somehow. However, when their native province contains guilds of the same faction that controls them, these resources may be moved into other provinces, where they will manifest their bonus until further notice. Destroying or contesting guilds halts trade, which also causes resource bonuses to be brought down. The regent, a skilled underling and the court itself may perform a resource distribution domain action, which enables him to transfer a number of resources equal to his administration skill, at a cost of one gold bar each. The court can also transfer a number of resources equal to its level. If the guild holding or "resource holding" of a particular resource is destroyed, the regent will have to perform resource distribution once against after the holding has been rebuilt, in order to send the resource to its proper destination. Note that if the crucial trade routes leading to the resource&#39;s host province are only temporarily blocked, no resource distribution action will be needed for things to return to normal once the "blockage" clears up.

Resources could do a host of things, from bringing down consruction costs to giving boosts to the owner&#39;s agitate actions in a province. Some might grant a nice decrease to the costs of running a navy, removing all upkeep costs for three ships anchored in port (in other words, sparing the king 1/4 GB in expenses), and others might grant a boost to a regent&#39;s rule actions. In a true colonialistic spirit, all resources may be gathered into a single host province, as there are no limits to how many a single province can possess - this forces the game designer to be careful about bonuses, as too many in too great a concentration might truly imbalance the game. All bonuses ought to be small, bearing in mind that they add up (and at four bonuses per province, they add up really, really quickly). "+1 morale to all new units built here" would be far too powerful, yet a small 1d20 chance for the same +1 bonus might work.

A regent could halt their transition into an occupied province, though he may not take hold of them and benefit from their effects without actually possessing their respective "resource holdings" (and the guilds needed to transfer them). Through diplomacy, the benefits (though not the ownership) of resources may be transferred for a number of rounds, and agreements could be made to allow two different regents to use each other&#39;s trade routes for the purposes of moving resources around.

Does this system intrigue anyone? I&#39;d love to provide a few resources for others to toy around with, if enough interest shows.

[ConjurerDragon]

hazard schrieb:



>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=36&t=2858

>

> hazard wrote:

> Even in our time every company (guild) gives about ½ of its profit to the state. Every transaction that is made you must pay same tax. So for me it is not strange that land regent asks at least 1/3 of profit .Why should he let guilder to get rich on his land if he doesn’t have something in return? He can always take same troops and destroy or confiscate guild. After all nothing is stopping him from running his one guild or letting same new guilder to step in.

>

There is - the need to compete against other realms who might run different.

If one landed regent tries to have such a close control on his provinces

and all holdings there, e.g. taking over the guilds or temples himself

as you mentioned trying to become the "overlord", then he faces several

problems:

- it is likely that he does not gain RP for the guilds as he (2E) has no

classlevels of Thief yet or (3E) developed the wrong skills as up to

this point he was a landed ruler and concentrated on law holdings and

provinces.

- even if he would multiclass or spend precious skill points to be able

to earn RP from the new holding type this will take time and he will

much sooner run into the bloodline limit.

- other regents might offer their guilders/priests better conditions on

an more equal footing and these realms working together instead of one

overlord and his oppressed smaller lackeys, will eventually defeat the

overlord - especially as it would be in the best interest of every other

oppressed regent in his domain to get rid of him and even aid the

outside invader.



>Also being a non-land regent is benefit for guilder because if you have some land every regent in Cerilia will look at you not as an honest merchant how wont to make some profit but as an threat to his domain.

>

Anuire, not Cerilia. Other areas, e.g. Brechtür could see that

completely different.



> One more thing I think that guilds often contest each other.

>All in all guild is very important financial backup for any domain.

>

That is a view centered on the landed regent - the guild holdings or

other holdings are technically a "realm" of their own and not part the

realm of the landed regent. It had a reason that in the 2E rulebook it

stated that decrees can´t affect another regent´s domain in any way - as

they are not part of your realm.



> Regent and at least one more guilder is on your tail. It is important that PC get that impression.

>Guilders have lot of thing to spend his money on:

> -Law claim

> -Vassalage to lend regent

> -Influencing court (Guilder must have few nobles on court to defend him before the King)

> -Espionage and defending from espionage

>

Establishing Spy Networks.



> -Intrigue

>

Assasinating the overlord who demands too much gold ;-)

bye

Michael

[The Jew]

Demonizer, i&#39;ve actually studied a lot of this too. There is some truth to what you are saying, but you are using as examples two trading regions which are developmentally unequal. This is not the case within Anuire, and so actually trading between two developmentally equal areas is ussually beneficial to both sides, and so I think Ospreys trade rules work quite well.

[Demonizer]

There are more issues to consider than developmental equality. Indeed, while two provinces may be at equal levels, this simply points out that they have the infrastructure to sustain equivalent populations. The resources they produce, the resources they don&#39;t produce, the architecture of their cities and their cultural preferences (such as how much expensive trifles are valued in their society) all contribute to a complex set of weaknesses and strengths. Some of these weaknesses can lead to trade actually harming the economy - again, trading resources for luxuries is not a very bright thing to do, yet human nature dictates it in many people. Of course, if a city&#39;s population simply sells off all its suprlus and buys what it truly needs, at acceptable prices, that city&#39;s going to prosper.

It&#39;s also going to put more power in the hands of guilds (or whoever&#39;s running trade) and therefore make it a bit more cumbersome for the regent to rule it. Then again, it could be argued that, since the guilds are already providing for the province economically, the regent doesn&#39;t have to rally up an infrastructure and so has an easier time increasing the place&#39;s level.

One thing worth considering is that the more trade routes a province has, the less dependent it is on any single supplier. Therefore, a synnergy bonus to trade income could be applied when a province imports from two or more regions of the same type (such as plains or Khinasi lands). This is assuming both trade routes are owned by the same character, who also owns the guild in the importing province. Of course, this also says something about the other end of the trade routes: they&#39;re going to have to compete with each other unknowingly. Unless they set up other trade routes to give them a wider market, they&#39;ll end up with an income penality, regardless of the level of their provinces. However, things get interesting when two different guilds are running the two trade routes, competing with each other for the grace of the same province. They&#39;re going to have some price battles on their hands, which would, at least for the short term, boost the province&#39;s prosperity.

I do believe a guilder would be deeply interested in building up some provinces, but he would just as easily demand that others remain stagnant, merely to provide cheap imports that would help them compete in the major trade hubs. I&#39;ve yet to see any kind of economic warfare, other than people contesting each other&#39;s guilds (a targeted action, which doesn&#39;t have much to do with conquering the market as a whole), but I believe they&#39;d have an interesting part to play otherwise.

The main reason I endorse a resource-based economy: guilders don&#39;t just provide gold, historically or otherwise. Their imports can supply a regent with fortifications, weapons, fine shipbuilding timber and a host of other valuable supplies, which could paralyze his domain when withheld and traded elsewhere. Gold bars might be one thing the regent desires, but just above everyone has them. There&#39;s no need to go to war or build relations with a specific domain - diplomatic ties and relative weakness often precede economic potential when choosing a target, simply because there&#39;s no resource model to help things. Sure, a regent might pursue diplomacy based on the unoccupied guild levels in a domain, or on the number of his economic ties to it, but anything more complex has a hard time squeezing itself through the blunt game mechanics.

[The incredible, edible Phil]

One way to encourage trade routes and their effects on the prosperity of a realm might be to either grant a synergy bonus to raising province levels for each trade route currently in the province or provide a requirement that to maintain a province of X level, you must have Y number of trade routes and the province level might drop if you go to long without Y number of trade routes in said province.

For example Ilien (7/0) is determined to need at least say 2 trade routes to maintain its current population and prosperity. Currently it has 3 trade routes. Pirates begin to be aggressive in the straits of Aerele and force el-hadid to suspend his trade routes (or worse, he doesn&#39;t have the ships to maintain them). If the situation does not return to normal within a time frame of say 1 year, the province level will drop to 6/0 due to the province&#39;s economy being unable to support the populace and they either starve or simply pack up and leave for more prosperous lands.

[The Jew]

Originally posted by Osprey@Oct 18 2004, 01:40 PM

1. Attitude: Each working (non-contested) trade route anchored in the province adds +1 to the province&#39;s seasonal attitude checks toward the landed regent and the guild regent that controls the trade route.

2. Growth: Trade is one of the best ways to encourage growth beyond local means. If a landed regent attempts to Rule a province, each working trade route in the province adds a +1 bonus to the Rule Province check.

For #2, this bonus might help offset the difficulty of a DC 20 + target level Rule Province check, especially for higher level provinces that can hold more trade routes (essentially granting a +1 to +3 bonus).

Osprey
I fully agree, with you Phil, but funny that you should post that, since that is approximately what Osprey posted to start off this thread.

[The incredible, edible Phil]

Oops, should have gone back to read the beginning. Full credit to Osprey for coming up with it first.