Chapter 5

[ploesch]

I haven't played through a 3E Domain turn, so i'm just going on experience and what I've read.

It seems to me that average GB collection is about the same in 3E as it was in 2E, however, there are more expenses in 3E. You do get automatic money from law holdings, so that could make up for the difference, without really playing through several domain turns I can't be sure.


If a province’s ratings change in such a way as to make the current holding levels in the province illegal, then the holding levels must be immediately adjusted. The affected regent should be determined randomly in proportion to the number of holdings held.

Rather than randomly determining which regent loses their holding or a holding level, perhaps some type of check. I was thinking a leadership check, and allowing spending of RP to affect the outcome. The lowest roll loses the holding/Holding level(s).

This could be a variant, or Official rule.


Regents should take careful note – modifiers to a province's taxation have significant impact on domain attitude. If this variant is used, the taxation modifier should be used as a bonus or penalty to the seasonal loyalty check for the affected areas.

This doesn't seem like a very stiff penalty. In 2nd Ed. if taxes were severe province loyalty automatically went down one rank, and up one rank if no taxes were collected. I'm thinking that the modifier should be a factor of 5 or even 10. So -1 GB, would be +5 to the loyalty check, +1 GB would be -5 to check, and so on.


Seizures reduce the income of one or more target holdings and/or the province itself. Seizures generate a total of 1d6 GB for the law holding.
This just seems out of place to me. A random roll for GB collection, in 3E?? I'm really not sure how to handle it, maybe allowing a total of 1/3 the Law Holdings level for each of the holdings that is effected, so altogether a law holding could seize up to 5/3 it's level, 1/3 Province, 1/3 Temple, 1/3 Guild, 1/3 other law holdings, but only up to 1/3 the income of the target holdings. This could be significantly More than 1D6. This comes at a price, to go along with the negative feelings this creates it should cause a -1 on attitude check for Province ruler, and a -1 reaction adjustment against the regent, lieutenants and representatives of the law holder seizing. If the Province ruler is the law holder making seizures, they receive a -2 on the attitude check as well as the -1 reaction adjustment for themselves and representatives. Yes, this does mean that a regent with law holdings in another regents domain can use them to harrass the province ruler in many ways, including effecting province loyaty, but doesn't that make sense? Look at Robinhood. He was a law holder in the province, and used his law holding to seize assets, normally this would make the people hate him, but he gave the seized asseets he didn't need to them. However, the Caravans, tax Collectors and other nobles of the area (the ones losing the assets) hated him, and were not happy with the province ruler (the vasal sheriff) because he wasn't able to stop Robinhood. I suppose you could look at Robinhood as a Brigand event instead of a Law holding seizing assets, but I think he was more than a random event. I know it's not a perfect example, but you get the idea.

Overall, I like the new Domain rules.

[gazza666]

This doesn't seem like a very stiff penalty. In 2nd Ed. if taxes were severe province loyalty automatically went down one rank, and up one rank if no taxes were collected. I'm thinking that the modifier should be a factor of 5 or even 10. So -1 GB, would be +5 to the loyalty check, +1 GB would be -5 to check, and so on.

Yeah, I agree - the penalty for overtaxing your subjects is virtually meaningless, especially if you've got any + mods on the loyalty rolls.



I suppose you could look at Robinhood as a Brigand event instead of a Law holding seizing assets, but I think he was more than a random event.

I don't know, a random event seems to describe Robin perfectly. John kept losing regency because he failed to resolve the problem, leading him to eventually take a personal interest (with the golden arrow tournament)... it seems to work. And certainly Robin didn't seem to be anywhere near official enough to count as a law holding regent.

But I do take your point.

[Digitalxero]

Since both of my questions fall under chapter 5 I am posting here insted of creating a new thread.

Question / idea one:

The Ply Trade Character action seems a little dull. All trades have some risk in them and the greater the risk the greater the reward. I was wondering why this isnt accounted for or if it is, how, in the Action. I propose a system where the player actually makes a check, failure results in no money, but you can always 'take ten'. The base reward is still determined how it is listed but would be modified based on the DC you chose to roll against. You cannot just roll and pray for a high roll you have to decide how much risk you are willing to take before hand.
{
DC 10 - no risk reward reduced by 25%
DC 15 - slight risk, normal reward
DC 20 - low risk, Reward increased by 25%
DC 25 - moderate risk, Reward increased by 50%
DC 30 - High Risk, Reward increased by 75%
DC 35 - Are you insane, Reward doubled.
}


NEXT:

Now an observation about a specific Domain Action. Under Standard
action Espionage you can create a Spy network DC 20, but they do not
list a way to discover Spy networks within your own Domain, this seems
a little strange to me as discovering and eliminating the spy networks
operating in your own area would seem to be the responsibility of a
Spymaster. So I was thinking that to discover and destroy a spy
network it would be DC 25 (Harder to find then establish) + the
Province / Holding level that controls the network.

[irdeggman]

Since both of my questions fall under chapter 5 I am posting here insted of creating a new thread.

Question / idea one:

The Ply Trade Character action seems a little dull. All trades have some risk in them and the greater the risk the greater the reward. I was wondering why this isnt accounted for or if it is, how, in the Action. I propose a system where the player actually makes a check, failure results in no money, but you can always 'take ten'. The base reward is still determined how it is listed but would be modified based on the DC you chose to roll against. You cannot just roll and pray for a high roll you have to decide how much risk you are willing to take before hand.
{
DC 10 - no risk reward reduced by 25%
DC 15 - slight risk, normal reward
DC 20 - low risk, Reward increased by 25%
DC 25 - moderate risk, Reward increased by 50%
DC 30 - High Risk, Reward increased by 75%
DC 35 - Are you insane, Reward doubled.
}

But D&D doesn't work things the way reality does.

Of the applicable skills for a a "ply trade" action, only Craft has any penalty associated with it and that is 1/2 of the 1/3 material costs spent when failing by 5 or more. There are no "risks" associated with a profession or a perform check.



NEXT:

Now an observation about a specific Domain Action. Under Standard
action Espionage you can create a Spy network DC 20, but they do not
list a way to discover Spy networks within your own Domain, this seems
a little strange to me as discovering and eliminating the spy networks
operating in your own area would seem to be the responsibility of a
Spymaster. So I was thinking that to discover and destroy a spy
network it would be DC 25 (Harder to find then establish) + the
Province / Holding level that controls the network.

Try the last entry on table 5-17.


30+ Trace the responsibility for an assassination, corruption, heresy, or other covert intrigue in the province

If the character doesn't know something is going on then they shouldn't just randomly being finding things. IMO there shouldn't be a "standard" rule for random sweeps.

[gazza666]

But D&D doesn't work things the way reality does.

Of the applicable skills for a a "ply trade" action, only Craft has any penalty associated with it and that is 1/2 of the 1/3 material costs spent when failing by 5 or more. There are no "risks" associated with a profession or a perform check.

And in fact even then, that's only if you are trying to make something. If you just "work for a week", then Craft has no risks associated with it either.

[ploesch]

hmmm, on the question of uncovering a spy network, I was thinking an Espionage action would work. While I understand that a regent wouldn't normally be looking for spies at every turn, a paranoid one might. Requiring an Espionage action be taken will stop regents from just looking every turn, and for rules sake, increase the difficulty by 5 (35+) if there isn't any curent activity.

[Autarkis]

The only additional comment I have for taxes in BRCS is that it seems to penalize the higher level provinces and benefits the lower level provinces. For instance, we have two regents both with 10 levels in provinces.

Two Regents needs to raised 16 gold a season (for some odd reason, maybe an arms race).

Regent A has a Level 6 and a Level 4 Province. He would need to raise taxes by +3 gb over three seasons (+1 gb, +2 gb, and +3 gb.) He has a seasonal penalty of loyalty of +1, +2 and +3 in the last season.

Regent B has a 4 Level 1 Provinces and 3 Level 2 Provinces. He can raise taxes by +1 gb in 6 provinces in one season and only has a seasonal penalty to loyalty of +1.

This seems to go agains the linear approach for income that is prevalent in BRCS. There seems to be no real benefit (except perhaps regency and troop minimums which can gotten around by having one high level province) to raise province levels.

[Digitalxero]

But D&D doesn't work things the way reality does.

Of the applicable skills for a a "ply trade" action, only Craft has any penalty associated with it and that is 1/2 of the 1/3 material costs spent when failing by 5 or more. There are no "risks" associated with a profession or a perform check.

I guess that depends on your Profession. What made me think of the risk vs reward thing is a character I have that took Profession: Thief and Profession: Spy. Both of these have risks involved of being caught. So I can chose to something so simple there is no risk, or I can be willing to risk being caught and go for a little better pay day in the end.

Other Professions that have varying risks.
Soldier - Can guard a door, to actually fighting in a battle
Sailor - work a river boat - to sailing for the unknown
Merchant - Buy product that he knows will make some money to buying something so totally unheard of he may not be able to sell it.
...

Perform Risks:
none - Perform on the streets or in a low tavern
slight - perform in a common Inn
Low - perform in an upscale Inn or small playhouse
Moderate - Perform in a well known playhouse or for minor nobility of a near by allied Provence
High - Perform for the Regent of a near by allied Provence, perform in a non allied Provence
Nuts - Perform for the Regent of a non allied Provence


Just about every profession & craft & perform action can have risks that scale nicely. I just depends on how willing the DM or Players are to actually think about it as a job and determine where the risks are.

The scale may not always goto a DC 35 for every Job, and every job may not be able to take the easy road of the DC 10. Profession: Thief would not get the DC 10, or even 15 if I was DMing since that is a higher risk job. Profession: Baker on the other hand would not get the DC 25 - 35 since there is always someone willing to eat, even if it is the worst tasting bread in the world.

I don't think this should be the main way Ply Trade is done but more as a variant rule to make the player feel more like they did something with their trade. As players progress they will, as you explain in the section about Ply Trade, start Plying trade less and less as they will require their character actions for something else.

[irdeggman]

I guess that depends on your Profession. What made me think of the risk vs reward thing is a character I have that took Profession: Thief and Profession: Spy. Both of these have risks involved of being caught. So I can chose to something so simple there is no risk, or I can be willing to risk being caught and go for a little better pay day in the end.

Other Professions that have varying risks.
Soldier - Can guard a door, to actually fighting in a battle
Sailor - work a river boat - to sailing for the unknown
Merchant - Buy product that he knows will make some money to buying something so totally unheard of he may not be able to sell it.
...

Perform Risks:
none - Perform on the streets or in a low tavern
slight - perform in a common Inn
Low - perform in an upscale Inn or small playhouse
Moderate - Perform in a well known playhouse or for minor nobility of a near by allied Provence
High - Perform for the Regent of a near by allied Provence, perform in a non allied Provence
Nuts - Perform for the Regent of a non allied Provence


Just about every profession & craft & perform action can have risks that scale nicely. I just depends on how willing the DM or Players are to actually think about it as a job and determine where the risks are.

The scale may not always goto a DC 35 for every Job, and every job may not be able to take the easy road of the DC 10. Profession: Thief would not get the DC 10, or even 15 if I was DMing since that is a higher risk job. Profession: Baker on the other hand would not get the DC 25 - 35 since there is always someone willing to eat, even if it is the worst tasting bread in the world.

I don't think this should be the main way Ply Trade is done but more as a variant rule to make the player feel more like they did something with their trade. As players progress they will, as you explain in the section about Ply Trade, start Plying trade less and less as they will require their character actions for something else.

While you certainly can go about profession skills that way - what I am referring to is the D&D mechanic involving how profession skills work.

There is a single check made once a week to determine how much you make. There is no consequences for failure - other than you don't make anything.

Also D&D "defines" professions as something that is a "service" anything that makes something is a craft instead.

Perform works in the same manner in the core rules - except the check is per performance.

Star Wars d20 has rules for gambling which cover "risks" as in how much of a stake you put up. But those rules apply to the gamble skill while the profession - gambler follows the normal rules for professions and does not apply to a single game but rather to an entire week's worth of work (the ups and downs are reflected by the check results - but even then you can't "lose").

[The Jew]

[QUOTE=Digitalxero]Since both of my questions fall under chapter 5 I am posting here insted of creating a new thread.

Question / idea one:

The Ply Trade Character action seems a little dull. All trades have some risk in them and the greater the risk the greater the reward. I was wondering why this isnt accounted for or if it is, how, in the Action. I propose a system where the player actually makes a check, failure results in no money, but you can always 'take ten'. The base reward is still determined how it is listed but would be modified based on the DC you chose to roll against. You cannot just roll and pray for a high roll you have to decide how much risk you are willing to take before hand.
{
DC 10 - no risk reward reduced by 25%
DC 15 - slight risk, normal reward
DC 20 - low risk, Reward increased by 25%
DC 25 - moderate risk, Reward increased by 50%
DC 30 - High Risk, Reward increased by 75%
DC 35 - Are you insane, Reward doubled.
}

Looking at his proposal, he is not stating that their is a risk of losing gold if the check fails. The risk involves the amount of chances the regent is taking to get a bigger paycheck. Such as if he juggles for a group of workers (DC 15) he only has to do a decent job to get some rewards, though the rewards won't be great. On the other hand, if he juggles for the emperor (DC 35) he has to do a great job to get anything, but if the emperor is impressed he will be well compensated.

This would be similar to craft, as the higher the DC of the item produced leads to greater income. But their would be no penalty for failure.

[gazza666]

It looks pretty clear to me that Ply Trade used with a Craft skill is using the "work for a week" method of payment as opposed to the "make an item and sell it" method. As such, the DC is irrelevant. Yes, this means that in D&D the crafts of basketweaving and gemcutting are equally profitable. Yes, this is silly. But that's the core rules, and as it's not really germane to Birthright, it seems out of place to change them here.

I don't see any particular reason why you couldn't use Ply Trade to make items, though, where the DC does become (slightly) relevant. I say slightly, because Craft checks never get that hard - it's only DC20 for a masterwork item, after all, which should be comfortably in the range of any 5th level PC that cares (8 ranks and masterwork tools).

[ploesch]

Domain Maintenance: I think that there should be some type of maintenace based on the number of holdings, OR just for each level 0 holding. The reason is that while according to the rules of GB generating holding, they take into account their cost of running in the GB's they generate. However, level 0 holdings take money to run, do not generate GB's, and offer the benefit of being able to automatically know what happens with holdings of a type in a province as well as allowing you to spend Regency and GB's to assist/challenge the actions of other regents in a provice.

So a Source regent could create Temple, Law and Guild holdings in all provinces where he has sources. in this way he could challenge any actions by any regent in those provinces, and never worry about the cost of such. What's worse, is an enemy regent could create all types of holdings in another regents province and contest all activity there. This would be especially devastating to a new regent, as the PC's would be.

IMO, there needs to be some type of cost to having level 0 holdings, some type of limiting factor.

I propose a 1/10 GB per holding, OR a 1/6 GB per 0-level holding. This would keep it inline with the 2Ed. rules, while at the same time taking into account that there are more domain expenses now.

[ploesch]

In my limited experience with 3ed BRCS I have found that Landed regents have far more costs than other regents, and typically about the same incomes.

Unlike other regents, Landed regents have to pay for Highway Maintenance, Bridges, ferrys, shipyards, seaports, and MOST importantly Military units. Sure, the regent can make deals with non-landed regents for funds for these, but most have no reason to pay, or could say they pay their taxes (represented by province incomes), IE the regent is responsible for these.

I have to admit, I may be completely off target here. My experience is with Elinie, and the landed regent there holds minimal law, is a Paladin without temple or any other holdings, and the lands aren't exactly teeming with people.

I was thinking that taxation for Provinces could be increased in one of two ways.
1. Province income instead of being level could be level x2 or x1 1/3. It would need to be tested.
2. In addition to normal taxes, Province rulers would gain 1 GB for every 5 total levels of Guild and temple holdings. This would better represent additional taxes on money making activities.

I may be totally off base though, my experience in 3ed is limited.

A better option might be to have all things that have a maintenance cost have a benefit for the controlling regent. Most do, Wondrous structures give RP, Military units and fortifications have obvious benefits, a Highways, Bridges, Seaports, and ships all have benefits to trade. There are really only 2 types of maintained items that don't benefit regents directly, both of them would be the livlihood of a PC or NPC decided to start them themselves.

Ferrys - While they do work as a bridge for Military movement, they don't for caravans. I think just allowing a ferry to work as a bridge for a caravan would be enough to encourage guild rulers to create them.

Alternate: A ferry could give a seasonal profit of 1/100 the total of the province levels inolved. So a ferry connecting a level 3 and a level 5 province would generate 8/100 gold bars per domain turn for the season. This represents caravans and individuals using the ferry.

Shipyard - Owning a shipyard should decrease the cost of Mustering and maintaining Ships. Afterall, you pay for the labor and materials, and not a profit. So, a shipyard can support any number of ships which could be mustered there. The benefit is that the muster cost and maintenance cost of any active ships is only 3/4 normal. Time to muster is unaffected, and since garrisoned ships wouldn't require much from a shipyard their maintenance cost is unaffected. This is an obvious benefit to anyone that needs to Maintain a navy.

Alternate: Instead of the above rules, a shipyard can count as a Guild holding 1/3 the shipyards level, and it doesn't count against the provinces other guild holdings in any way. So a Province level 4 could support 2 Guild regents with combined guild level of 4, AND a shipyard of up to level 4 which would count as a guild holding 1 1/3 for collecting GB, regency and trade routes. This will help offset the costs of Maintenance and mustering navy's, and even offer a benefit to regents that don't have a navy. To limit abuse, no province can have more than one shipyard, and a shipyard can only exist in a province with a seaport, also if a regent has more than 1 shipyard withing 15 nautical units of each other, they can only gain benefits from one of them. Obviously, the shipyard needs to adjoin waters that are deep and wide enough to handle ships of a size the shipyard can create.


One last thing on shipyards...
According to the BRCS rules, a shipyard cannot exceed the level of the povince it is in. Also, a Shipyard cannot create a ship with a muster cost higher than double the shipyard level. So, without using any variant rules, and according to the 2Ed. maps, the only place in anuire that can support building Galleons is "The City of Anuire", and there is not a port in Khinasi that can support beuilding Zebecs. Obviously, that isn't really going to work.

I agree with shipyards not being able to exceed the province level, but the rules should allow for ships of the right level to be made. So, one of 2 things should happen. Either shipyards can support ships of up to 3 times their level, OR, and I like this idea better, they can support any ship of 2 times their level,a nd cultural ships of 3 times thier level. This would allow any shipyard of 5+ to support making galleons, but in any other culture it would require 8+, for zebecs, a khinasi shipyard of 6+ would do, while anywhere else they would need a shipyard of 9+. This would represent how a craftsman is better making structures they are familiar with, than ones that are relatively new to them.

[Cuchulainshound]

In my limited experience with 3ed BRCS I have found that Landed regents have far more costs than other regents, and typically about the same incomes.

Unlike other regents, Landed regents have to pay for Highway Maintenance, Bridges, ferrys, shipyards, seaports, and MOST importantly Military units. Sure, the regent can make deals with non-landed regents for funds for these, but most have no reason to pay, or could say they pay their taxes (represented by province incomes), IE the regent is responsible for these...
NOTE- This is not an arguement of Economics, nor of Reality, but of Game Balance. Ymmv.

IMO, this "lack of reason to pay" is a big flaw in the BRCS version; that the Province Incomes are independant of the Guilds* and their status. It would be great if those taxes DID interact, somehow, with the Guilders, but they don't. 100 Levels of Guilds, or 0 Levels, no difference to the Province Regent's income. 0% tax, 100% tax, Guilders don't blink.
(* The same line of logic can be made for Temples, to a lesser extent.)

"So what?", you ask.

Consider this:

It's not unreasonable for a Province Regent to ask a Guild* to cough up a small percentage of its income, since the PR is providing roads, protection, and besides, it's his backyard. But there is NO economic incentive for the Guilder to accept. And if the Guilder refuses, there is no incentive for the PR not to grind him to grist, sweep away the dust, and decree that only "cooperative" Guilders need apply. (There are political and social repercussions, but we're talking pure economics, and economic incentive here.)

Worse still, while the PR can increase or decrease Taxes in a Province, the Guilders don't blink.

As stands, a Province Regent makes up their lack of funds by making "deals" with Guilders and others, and that's good- without an incentive, the Regent would brush all spying Guilders from his lands! But it's a seller's market, and short of seizures, the Province Regent has little pressure to bring to bear besides making the game unplayable for the other Regent/Player. It ~should~ be a win/win situation, an innately mutual benefit (if only to a small degree!) for a healthy market, but, as stands, without hammering out a treaty agreement, the parasitic Guilder gets the gold, and the Regent gets the shaft.

A creative Regent can make a decree to create/raise taxes on roads and ports and such, or even demand a "Bussiness Liscence" be bought, but the pressure is an "all or nothing" gambit - obey, or it's war, nothing more subtle than that. The Guilders can smile, disregard it, and claim to be the victim of unjustified violence when the PR tries to enforce their edict with seizures.

If a PR's demands are such that doing bussiness is impractical, there are no penalties to them if all their Guilders were to leave the provinces, and mercantile activity drop to 0.

There should be some more subtle and innate economic pressure that the two exert on each other- A reason why the PR wants a more flourishing Trade, and a reason why the Guilder wants the Province to be economically healthy as well. This would also give Province Regents a more tangible reason to avoid- or wage- wars that disrupt Trade.
---
The solution? The economy of the Province benefits from more Guild Activity, regardless of Decrees, Taxes, Treaties, Agreements, or whatever. Perhaps a sum equal to 1/10, or 1/20, of all Guild income - including half of the Trade Routes- is added to Taxes. It's not "deducted" from the Guild- it represents a healthier economy. And Perhaps inversely affected (somehow?) by raising taxes- maybe the Guild Income is hurt by higher taxes? This creates a symbiotic relationship regardless of political alignment, and outside the control of Guilders- more Trade = more taxes, thank you.

Province Regents could still Decreee Taxes and make Treaties, but they don't "have" to in order to have a relationship with their local bussinessmen.

---------

Others certainly may have other experiences- maybe I've just been in aberrant games- but in looking at the rules (and human nature/player tendancies), there is something broken in here somewhere- not obvious or glaring, but fatal just the same.

[kgauck]

0 level holdings are like baby seals. They are wonderful and totally vulnerable. Unfriendlies are always looking to club your 0 holdings, and unlike all other holdings, these don't have a contested phase, they are just destroyed. So in practice, you can only have as many 0 holdings as you have RP in the bank to protect.

The landed ruler and his money woes. Here is my solution:
1) Law holdings should collect income just like regular holdings.
2) Any landed ruler seeking glory and renown needs to have one of the other kinds of holdings tied to his realm.

Law holdings should collect money like any other holding because law is a huge source of income. Courts impose fines, fees, often require bribes, and often are willing to accept cash in lieu of other punishments. Medieval monarchs often made an extra 20-30% more money when they controlled the legal system. England's crown was richer than France's because of the common law and the king's control of the courts. Second, the law can be writ in your favor or against you. The law can allow me to graze my sheep on your fallow land or it can forbid it. It can prohibit commerce on the holy days or it can allow it. It can require ships comming into harbor to hire local pilots or it can let ships plot their own way.

Suppose a province has three things that bring money into the native economy, and you as ruler of the laws want to get some of that money in your hands. The three things are pilgrims who visit the holy sites, the wool trade (you have a lot of sheep), and silver goods (you also have a silver mine in your province owned by someone other than you). You can tax the pilgrims, or not. Tax the wool trade or not. Tax the silver goods, or not. Who decides what gets taxed (and what gets made more expensive in a competative market)? The law holdings do. If you control the law holdings you can tax other people and not tax yourself.

So controlling law holdings means you not only determine what gets taxed, fined, licenced (fees), regulated, and otherwise encumbered, you can determine how much. Law holdings are money.

Second, a ruler who wants to be great, needs two kinds of holdings. Or he needs allies who need him more than he needs them. People who will hand over a few hold bars a season and be happy to do it. (Note this means you are spending RP for the guy, or otherwise protecting him. People don't stay happy giving stuff away unless there is a reason. They are buying something from you, make it worth what they are paying.) If the other rules in the area are buddied up already, you not only need to control another kind of holding, but you need more of them.

As it is, most landed rulers also have control of another kind of holding, frequently law. The ones that don't are basically figureheads.

[gazza666]

It's not unreasonable for a Province Regent to ask a Guild* to cough up a small percentage of its income, since the PR is providing roads, protection, and besides, it's his backyard. But there is NO economic incentive for the Guilder to accept.

Err, yes there is. A big one. In fact, it's so big that I'm surprised any province ruler would even consider building highways rather than let the guilder be responsible for it.

Trade Routes.

The income you can earn from guilds alone does not exceed what temples can provide; with trade routes, especially for big guilds, you can get much more. Trade routes require highways, and provide much more income for the guilder than they cost to maintain. Sure, a province ruler can move his armies around more easily, but that's a "nice to have"; a guilder needs trade routes to really kick his income into high gear.

[kgauck]

Generally, the only societies that historically built roads were unitary societies where soveriegnty was settled on one distinct power center (which controlled territory, armies, temples, trade, law, &c). Societies with distinct over-lapping power centers, such as found during the middle ages and in the design shown in BR don't build roads because one party pays for it and other parties benefit from it. Even guilders would be reluctant to spend money to create an infrastructure that could be used to bring hostile armies to all their best provinces unless they could defend those roads.

[gazza666]

Hostile units do not receive any benefits from highways (according to Strategic Movement in chapter 6), so that's no disincentive (ie these hypothetical hostile armies can come in and do nasty things to the guilders holdings with exactly the same efficiency as they would be able to do so without highways; at least the trade routes that the highways allow give the guilder more money to spend on troops).

[kgauck]

The Romans, the Chinese, and the Persians wished it worked that way. Unfortunatly, infrastructure doesn't take sides.

[gazza666]

The Romans, the Chinese, and the Persians wished it worked that way. Unfortunatly, infrastructure doesn't take sides.
It apparently does in Birthright, though.

[ploesch]

I tink the reason it doesn't work that way o BRCS is because a highway represents more than the physical roadways....


Highway: This construction includes both a network of paved or packed dirt highways and a system of inns, caravansaries, and other structures that support overland trade and travel.

So while an invading army would get the benefits of walking on a paved road, they would not gain the benefits of the government sponsored structures. Actually, those structures could impede their march, as they would need to carefully attack each one assuring noone escapes to make sure the Local regent isn't informed of their progress, and possible interference by the keepers and patrons of such structures. Caravan guards sent to harry their lines, and inn keepers and staff that set traps for them in the inns, or on the road approaching them. Notice I said Could, I'm not saying they would, it's likely the most they'd do is raze the structures so the aproaching army couldn't use them as shelter.

No matter what, the army would still need to call a halt after 8 or so hours to raise camp, and build what minor defenses they can.

[kgauck]

Armies don't stay at the local inn.

For roads to work this way, they are not roads at all, but routes. If these lines of travel are not roads, but rather established watering points, rest stops (what used to be called posts), and other services for travelers (fresh horses, collected animal forage, beast-healers, &c) then this interpretation makes sense. Aside from the watering points, these things will help trade caravans, assist friendly troops (although not sufficiently to explain the advantages gained), but be of little use to invading armies, because they don't represent infrastructure so much as they represent services.

All armies need are improved surfaces. If road surfaces are improved than the invading army gets a bonus, and that bonus is going to be more or less the same as the bonus for the defending army. Service posts for caravans won't produce the assistance neccesary for armies (with great effort, ie extra GB, maybe a single company) so all that really should be considered for armies are infrastructure, like improved roads and bridges.

However, until the railroads, routes were not pre-planted this way, with the trade route following the establishment of the route (actually the railroad built the route and the rails simultaneously, so this represents planning and preperation - administration, still not demonstrated until air travel). Trade routes were undertaken without regard to the existence of posts, and the posts grew up along the routes to profit from the needs of the travelers.

While I am scratching my head over the way trade routes work, I will point out that trade routes are generally once-annual affairs, and don't reflect a constant flow of goods. Part of this has to do with weather. Some seasons just don't work well for travel. Too hot, too cold, too wet, all make travel a bad idea. Another example of this phenomena are the existence of fairs. Fairs were short duration, annual trade events. They suggest that the benefit of the trade route should occur once in summer. Whether its the annual arrival of the treasure ships from the Spanish Main, the annual arrival of the silk and spices on the Silk Road, or the annual arrival of the Polish wheat in France every autumn, trade over distance is annual, not seasonal.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

[Cuchulainshound]

First off, if we're going to aspire to fill the shoes of Game Designers, we should start making the distinctons they make, and that this game makes. We are talking about "highways", not "roads". As written, every province of Lvl 3+ has "roads" (as opposed to being "trackless"); "highways" are the assett/improvement in question here.

(As used, the term "roads" also at times refers to anything better than "trackless".)

For reference, here's the majority of the BRCS blather on roads and highways, and how they work, mostly from Chapter 5.

Highways are well-maintained (and usually paved) roads with frequent inns, stables, supply depots, and other facilities that expedite the movement of massive forces such as military personal and trade caravans.... Most provinces of level 3+ have simple roads, but a system of well-maintained highways is an optional expense. Highways are necessary for overland trade routes and increase the speed of travel within the province...

Even in fairly prosperous provinces, most roads are simple single-lane dirt trails. While these roads are sufficient to allow the transport of farmer's goods to the local market, more carefully constructed paved highways, realm-sponsored inns, and permanent military encampments are required to support major overland trade routes or to facilitate the expeditious movement of military units. Likewise bridges must be built over major rivers in order to allow trade routes or quick military travel between provinces. Military/trade highways and bridges are domain assets that are constructed using the Build
domain action.

Most provinces do not have highways, but almost all civilized provinces have systems of minor roadways, most of which are simple single-land dirt tracks wide enough for a wagon or carriage. All provinces of level 3 or higher are assumed to have normal roads. Provinces of level 2 are considered trackless for purposes of military movement; the few paths that may exist in the province provide no major benefit to an advancing army.

Travel is quickest on major highways in friendly provinces. Paved military/trade highways are engineered to allow for the quick passage of military forces and laden wagons. Highways are domain assets constructed using the build domain action. Such highways have fortified inns or semi-permanent camps, regular supply depots, and other amenities that allow friendly units to travel at an increased rate. Hostile units do not receive any advantage in a province that has highways as taking the minor fortifications that protect the resources of the highway by force is more time consuming than traveling on less welldefended roads.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, that last may be an ahistorical rationalization for game balance, but it does balance well, and reduces the temptations (already strong) to invade neighbors.

Roads/routes/highways are not "planned" in BR- they are simply an abstraction of connecting two provinces, assumably following the terrain of least resistance.

kgauk-
For an army to follow a "route", it would imply (to me) longer distances than what we are talking here, which is a province that might only take 2-3 days to cross on foot. And "a road" or "a highway" doesn't necessarily mean a single strip of prepared surface, such as the M1 or Route 66 - whether singly or a network, it is an in-game abstraction, (as are Trade Routes.)

Games don't need to be "models" of reality (tho' they can be); they are representations of reality- there's a significant difference in the end result.

----------


While I am scratching my head over the way trade routes work...
(They work just fine, thanks for the concern.) :cool:


... I will point out that trade routes are generally once-annual affairs... trade over distance is annual, not seasonal.
Interesting point, but not completely relevant for our purposes. Also, how do you determine which Trade Routes are "over distance", and which aren't? Trade routes "to parts unknown" would certainly fall into this category, but not ones between two adjacent provinces. And (semi)local trade IS a constant flow- providing the route doesn't close due to a bad-weather season, flow is profit, and the goods keep moving year round. Lastly, a single Trade route is (again) an abstraction- it doesn't have to be one commodity, nor a steady month-to-month flow. (Tracking variations season by season could be prohibitively detailed.)

(The fact that equivalent Trade Routes between two adjacent home provinces, and between two Nations across the Seven Seas, both create the same revenue bothers me, but that's a different discussion.)

Further, to impliment such a consideration ("once annual" trade routes) would change the way the rules work, especially the way Trade Routes can be broken, or plundered by unfriendly navies, considerably. You seem to want to re-write the entirety of the highway rules (or are not completely familiar with them)- they work well as implimented, just could use some tightening up and re-wording around the edges, imo.

-----------------


Err, yes there is. A big one. In fact, it's so big that I'm surprised any province ruler would even consider building highways rather than let the guilder be responsible for it.
You misread, or I did not make my position clearly enough. Once those roads are in place, (assuming the Regent isn't willing to burn them down again), there is little incentive. The Guilder can be happy being a parasite on the existing roads.

Or, if one Guilder is paying for the roads (perhaps one out of Province even, with a long-range Trade Route), and a second shows up- what does he care? No Economic incentive to donate to the local Regent of the Province.

------------------


Kgauk typed:
...Law holdings should collect money like any other holding because law is a huge source of income. Courts impose fines, fees, often require bribes, and often are willing to accept cash in lieu of other punishments. Medieval monarchs often made an extra 20-30% more money when they controlled the legal system...
Law holdings DO collect money. A Regent who does NOT control the Law holdings as well, and tries to run a Province only on the Province income, is in a world of hurt!

But it's a tough stretch to argue that Law holdings should be as lucrative as Bussiness ventures, or even as profitable as a Church. Even IF there is historical evidence for this (which does not carry much weight in this discussion- some, but not overly), it doesn't "feel" like it should, and we're going for "feel" and flavour as much as balance.

To make the game "work", there needs to be incentives for alliances and interaction. If a Province Regent had all the money they needed (not all they "wanted"), then Guilders would be just so much sh-t on the noble's shoe. But Guilds are the cash cow, and Temples aren't bad either, and have a monopoly on popular sentiment- it's all set up to be symbiotic, IF the regents can work together. The challenges and handicaps of the various Holding types are the glue that binds the game together.*

(* I just think that the glue that binds the Province Regent to the Guilder, and vice versa, is a bit off in many situations.)

[kgauck]

Rules have to withstand the scrutiny of players. If one plays both at the realm level and the adventure level, then what is easy to achive at one level should easy to achive at the other level unless some compelling explanation can satisfy the players. If the rules work differently at different levels, players will simply handle a situation using the most favorable set of rules. If role playing winter travel requires outdoor skills, weather checks, ill consequences for bad results, the use of spells, extraordinary or supernatural powers, or magic items to make such travel safe, then at the realm level, armies, caravans, or others seem to travel without encumberance in winter (keeping in mind that Rjurik and Vos realms are all described as having difficult winters) some kind of explanations is called for.

My general view is that the tactical level of the game, described in the core rules, for example, in the movement section of the PHB, takes precidence over the very brief, terribly abstract rules provided in the BR materials to cover trade, war, or other realm level conditions that are described in more detail, albeit adventure oriented, in the core rules. These rules don't describe roads or highways as being friendly or unfriendly. They state that a cart can move 16 miles per day on roads and highways in most types of terrain.

If we assume the players are elsewhere, they might well accept the argument that contact with the enemy, obstructions left by retreating forces, or whatever, slow their advancing forces. But, when the players are present, every obstacle you put forth is a challenege to overcome. Players with skill, ingenuity, creativity, and drive will not be stopped by challenges, but might profit from them by resolving them in ways that improve their position. You might place ambushers to slow down their advance only to have the players take prisoners and gather intelligence. Now its doubly hard to explain why they can't move as fast on the roads as they think they ought (generally 16 miles per day). Players tend to do things like march 8 hours and then force march an hour or two extra. Now we're talking 18-20 miles.

I won't assume that players are ignorant of the experience of the Romans, Persians, or Chinese, so if their game experience is to differ from these experiences, I need a reason.

Also consider that the core rules gives us nice overland movement rules as well as nice weather rules. But the core rules don't explicitly combine them. For tables that give me overland movement during heat, cold, rain, &c, I am forced to either find a d20 guide that does (such as Legends & Lairs Wildscape) or just make sensible adjustments based on the tactical guidelines in the weather rules. Rain is mostly described as a visibility impediment, but anyone who has traveled with weight across a dirt surface after some rain can imagine the problems an army will have moving across an unimproved surface in rainy conditions. To then take no account of these conditions at the realm level, either because its too complicated, or because we imagine that a normal amount of bad weather is averaged in is only satisfying to players if they are not involved in the action because they are elsewhere.

Therefore if Highways exist, they are available to attackers as well as defenders. The existance of fortified places, suppy depots, and other things (camps are only meaningful if their are troops in them, and then its the troops, not that camp that matter) can just as easily be used by attackers as defenders. Instead of just abstracting than on balance these things will tend to slow down invaders, it makes much more sense to allows invaders to use the highways normally and see how encounters with enemy forces or forts are resolved. The players are heroic types, so the occasional extraordinary performance, the consistantly above average outcome is to be expected. To say no, the rules don't allow it is to fall back into a 2nd edition (or worse) mode of judgement. The current era calls for allowing players to undertake actions and check them against their skills and the prevailing conditions. Too often I have seen night marches, surprise envelopments, and other devious tactics turn enemy forts into friendly bases which now hinder enemy action and guarantee friendly lines.

Lets go further into what history can tell us about such forts, for in fact there is a whole type of warfare called the war of posts. However a whole series of small forts will capitulate in the face of a major army. No normal couple dozen men will attempt to hold out in the face of a thousand who surround them. When the main army doesn't encounter the fort directly (which is not how highways are described, but for the sake of completeness...) they can mask the force by putting sufficient force outside the force to besiege the fort. What generally happens in these cases, is that after a while the defenders surrender at one or two places, either being convinced, frightened, or bribed into giving up their fort. Depending on how this achieved, the men who surrounded this post move on to another and as the posts fall, the number of men harrassing the posts grows. As this happens the will of the defenders shrinks, and sometimes the attackers even decide to storm. This doesn't even include the potential for one powerful character to entirely tip the balance. All the while the main force seeks a battle or conducts a siege. The war of posts is normally irrelvant, which is why so many campiag histories ignore it, and the issue is settled by the main army. Occasionally, the war of posts speeds the attacker along or slows him down. Overall, these posts have no significant effect on a campaign. Experienced soldiers know how to deal with such forts.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

[Cuchulainshound]

Well argued and insightful*, but I don't agree with part of your premise. I DO agree that the rules should not conflict with the Core rules, or at least as little as possible, and that they could possibly be tightened up in spots. But remember, this is not just simple expansion material for adventuring, but another game layed on top of the personal-focused individual Character game that we are used to, and that requires balance and playability considerations on that level as well.

(* and thanks for both- too often folk rant and blather on, with much waving of arms and too little content. :cool: )

The part I don't buy into, and I think you'll agree with, is the fallacy raised in the "Pikemen with Shields" thread- that a game mechanic that works for an individual should work the same for a unit. How often in history and stories does a commander or such ride ahead of their troops' ability to keep up, not because they want to or have a faster horse, but because smaller groups travel faster? It's not just a rule, it's an accepted truth.

And I would propose a similar distinction can be made with defended highways, and with ~any~ military or trade-route aspect. But regardless of the "reality" of that (too much depends on the specific details, at a level we are NOT going to achieve!), it's an in-game assumption that does not break the credibility bank (imo), and works for balance. As a GM and a Player, you gloss over it unless the adventure centers on it, and then the GM goes with the level of detail they need at the time.

As to whether the current BRCS movement rules are ~too~ abstract? Possibly. Certainly a bit slapped together. Dovetailing those in better with the movement/terrain/weather rules in the PHB wouldn't hurt anything, tho' remember- combat is measured in "provinces/week", and that's a ~lot~ grainier than miles/day. To change that would be to insert unnecessary detail for no appreciable advantage in play, and much added book-keeping. (The Military rules, and the Trade rules, are simple and abstracted for a reason- that's not the focus of the game. If you want reality in combat, buy Avalon Hill.)

As to the difference between 500 men (~5 units?) marching down a defended road, and those same 500 men led by a 12th level Noble/Assassin, 9th level blasto-wizard and 12th Level Cleric of Surliness? Well, that's a good point, inarguably. Currently, that's entirely up to the GM, and generally addressed (or should be) in the "Outside the Box" section of the rules. There are ~many~ situations where the particular special abilities of a PC could radically alter the outcome of an action, of a Domain Level Action. Do we want to RP out every Contest Holding, every Espionage, every Troop Mustering? Maybe yes! But we do NOT want to write into the rules that a) it ~should~ be done, or b) imply that PC presence will usually grant a huge bonus, or c) when and how to do it. Way too variable- leave it up to the discretion, timing, and imagination of the GM.

(Wouldn't hurt to address it in a footnote or appendix, but it's definitely "outside the box".)

[kgauck]

The phrase "to make the game work" implies some kind of right outcome, an outcome which is revealed later in the text as "alliances and interaction." I don't think rulers in the same province should neccesarily get along. I have no problem with a realm where everyone is at war with everyone else. Should each type of ruler be equal? Clearly there are certain game play advantages to having one holding type be roughly equal to another holding type in terms of its potency. Are law holdings the equal of other types? Or are law holdings to be merely a prize captured by the most able and vigorous of the other rulers?

[kgauck]

Cuchulainshound, I agree with your latest post about things working reasonably well at the level of weeks and at a distance removed from adventuring. However, what I want from the rules is the ability to step towards adventuring by degrees so that as the players take a greater and greater interest, that is as they begin to make decisons, I can get as detailed as I need to in order to satisfy a micro-managing ruler with a reasonable outcome.

I certainly am happy to use the abstract rules when no one is looking. Fortunatly, no one has asked for a detailed analysis of neighboring realm A's invasion of neighboring realm B's country. The problem I have is that the choice of the realm rules or the adventure rules are in some whays binary opposites. Super detailed or very abstract. Since they don't scale into one another very nicely, its hard to use the right amount of complexity in order to be only as complex as I need to in order to satisfy players.

So my own sense is that I would like some more thinking to go into the "When and How" to work up and down that scale of complexity. I also think that it doesn't take a whole lot to turn the BR war game into a very workable and satisfying wargame in the complete sense, warcards and all.

Its great that BR can be played so many different ways. As political intrigue, as epic struggle against a terrible foe, as wargame, as a setting for traditional adventuring, &c, &c, but what it needs now, I think, is some attention to each of these areas in turn, rather than the original model of "something for everyone." This would seem to be the ideal purpose of a supliment, which is extra depth, but not required by those who do not seek it.

[Cuchulainshound]

I don't think rulers in the same province should neccesarily get along. I have no problem with a realm where everyone is at war with everyone else. Should each type of ruler be equal?
But I think there should be an "incentive" to achieve that, if a small one. There is already enough incentive for conflict.

The map of regents and holdings is actually 4 maps overlaid on each other (5 if you distinguish Law from Province). The alliances a Guilder makes may conflict with the relationships of a Temple Regent he shares a province with. And that Guilder may be in a Trade War with another Guilder who has made an alliance with the Baron holding most of the Provinces that first Guilder shares. And that's only the tip of the political iceberg.

The "optimal" situation is for a "team" of Province/Law, Guilder, Temple, and Source regents to all share common goals, and sweep all before them- that will ~rarely~ be achieved, not so much that the alliance can't be formed, but those "common goals" are nearly impossible to coordinate.

There's more than enough cause for strife (hell, toss 4 Player Characters in a room and it's likely someone will try to backstab another!) But, for those who do want "peace", there should be an objective reason behind it other than "because that's my alignment."

------------------------------------

A gradiation of scale for RP, huh? Hmmm... that's asking a lot. Not insurmountable, but quite a task. Likewise, have to think about that.

[kgauck]

I think the incentive to cooperate is obvious. Cooperative efforts are much more powerful, especially where actions are strictly limited, and there is a cap on RP collection. It seems to me that this would be the normal state of affairs if men were angels. The total cooperation of not just the several domains in a single realm, but potentially all domains in all of Cerilia is what the dream of Roele's empire, and the continuing dream of empire represents. All men working together in common goals and with common interests.

Utopian, for sure.

Since men are jealous, greedy, untrustworthy, vain, angry, &c, &c, men fight one another rather than cooperate.

Still, some events, such as the rampages of the Gorgon, seem to bring differnt domains together in a common purpose, and so the hope lives on.

Christian Europe had the universalizing vision of the Church to create a veneer and a hope for common cause, Cerilia, and especially Anuire, has the Imperial project.

When players get together in my experience, they are much more likely to cooperate and adopt the Musketeers' motto. If a realm like Medoere, Roesone, Aerenwe, Elinie, or Coeranys was governed by a party of players who worked for a common interest, you suddenly have a powerful realm capable of standing up to the powers. If Avanil, Ghoere, Tuornen, or Alamie was put into the hands of four or five players who acted in common, I think it would herald a real imperial contender.

That's why I like the fact that jurisdictions overlap, and domains are not naturally allied and coordinated. Not only are there more opportunities for conflict and action if realms are divided against themselves as well as against one another, but it provides the opportunity for a ruler to first unify his realm, then face his external rivals.

Perhaps it bears making the thing explicit, but my template for BR, the genre which I have always in the back of my mind is Arthur. Not only does Arthur first have to unify his realm, and then go on to fight Rome and Gaul, but many a historical great ruler inherits a realm which is divided. Starting off with the realm united in common cause seems like giving the players half of the campaign as a present. If their starting realm is small and beset on all sides, it can be different, because there are challenges enough. Otherwise I prefer for there to be a 1st act where the realm must be united.