Holding/Province Income Formula

[Arentak]

So, do we like .66 X Holding Level/1 X Province Level still?

I don't personally.

I prefer Holding Level X Province Level /6 and Province Level X Province Level /5


Some effects of doing it this way (and I think RoE does something similiar, although I haven't looked at the formulas) include smaller holdings (which are already more vulnerable) being less valuable, larger holdings being much more valuable, "backwater" countries like Aerenewe and Dhoesone being weaker compared to more established countries like Diemed, Elinie.

Anyone care to discuss the merits of either position?

[Rowan]

Too much math slows down a game. As a DM I personally wouldn't want it. I don't have a problem doing the math, it's just that I find it a distraction from the game play and I have limited time for gaming as it is. I suspect others are in the same position of wanting to maximize game play and go with the simplest sufficient system. As a player, I'd want the DM to give me a spreadsheet that does the work for me. I don't think a game should need a spreadsheet to function, though.

I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish...you're trying to make "backwater" countries weaker than more developed ones? That throws off the play balance quite a bit. You're diminishing income from provinces lower than levels 5 or 6, while increasing income from those of higher level than that. I don't see a need to bend the curve that much. Trade routes already effectively increase income like that, and the levy system and more advanced units available also compound the advantage of high level provinces.

[kgauck]

So, do we like .66 X Holding Level/1 X Province Level still?

I've never seen province level multiplied in there. What's wrong with the (presumably standard) .67x holding level? Multiplying again by province level would add a lot of cash to the game. I think domains are already cash rich. You must be changing expense costs as well.

[irdeggman]

Make it a number that reflects the "seasons" since that is how income is generated. So something either using 1/4 (reflecting of 4 seasons in a year) or 1/12 (number of months in a year).

There should be some kind of overall logic to the system and something that allows "simple" math.

I know that the BRCS removed the randomness that was part of the 2nd ed system because it was pretty much eliminated as a prt of the 3.0 system - except for attack and damage rolls. If you took a feat you got a set benefit, in 3.5 almost all spells had the randomness eliminated from them - almost is not all.

I'm not certain if 4th ed has continued down the path of removing randomnes or not. Whatever way it has gone is the way to go, IMO.

[Rowan]

I do like seasonal variation. Summer and particularly fall should be more productive, winter and spring comparatively lean. But that adds a management element to the game that may not work for all people. And it probably works best as a gross income modifier--+ 25% in summer, +50% in fall, -50% in winter, -25% in spring.

As for the multiplier, I think it actually decreases the gold in the game, because after the province multiplier, the proposal was to divide by 5 or 6. Whatever number is set is effectively a baseline for standard income.

Holding 2 in Province 6 generates 2x6/6 = 2GB
Holding 2 in Province 2 generates 2x2/6 = a mere 2/3GB
Worse yet, a holding 1 in Province 1 generates only 1/6GB
The few provinces over level 6 get a boost: A holding 7 in Ilien (7) would generate 7x7/6 = 8 and 1/6GB.

Is this attached to a proposal to increase the cost of ruling holdings? Ruling a level 6 holding to level 7 in the Province 7 would normally cost 1GB, but yield an immediate return of 1 and 1/6GB. Ruling a level 1 holding to level 2 in a Province 2 would cost 1GB and yield only 1/3GB in return.

[kgauck]

most of the good D20 medieval economic models I have seen have a set income during the winter, spring, and summer seasons, with a set income plus random bonus during fall for the harvest. This would only effect land. Other holdings would be stable unless there was some important seasonal component.

So I would keep GB collection as it is, and add a random element with an average result of zero during the fall season turn for landed income.

[Rowan]

I like that better, Kgauck. The "bumper crop" possibility. What about famines?

[kgauck]

If the average of the random result is zero, then you have an even chance of getting the bumber crop and the famine.

Using the d20 roll from Magical Medieval Society, you might go
1) lose one holding level
2) floods, reduce income by 40%
3) drought, reduce income by 30%
4) too much rain, -20%
5) too dry, -10%
6-15) normal
16) loyalty in one province increases
17) bountiful, +5%
18) good year, +10%
19) great year, +20%
20) increase one holding level

[Arentak]

Is this attached to a proposal to increase the cost of ruling holdings? Ruling a level 6 holding to level 7 in the Province 7 would normally cost 1GB, but yield an immediate return of 1 and 1/6GB. Ruling a level 1 holding to level 2 in a Province 2 would cost 1GB and yield only 1/3GB in return.


I've just always assumed the cost was 1GB per target holding level. The PBEM's i've seen have done it that way. So, yes, higher level holdings are more expensive (and more difficult) to raise. I think the inherent competition of higher level provinces removes the need to scale costs up for higher level provinces. I challenge you to have an open slot in Illien for long, but some backwater province 1? Who cares.

By doing it with the Plevel * Hlevel /6, you do change the world a bit.

It does sound like the general thought of the replies is that it is NOT a good idea to use that type of formula for income.

Do people still like Hlevel * .66GB and Plevel *1 for holding/province income?

[Arentak]

having heard the discussion here, and in other places, I think the KISS principle is one that should always be used, thus I think I would support keeping the income formula non-exponential.