Trade Routes (Well I'll be....)

[morgramen]

I was flipping through the rule book earlier today, and noticed a small little snippet I've always glanced over I suppose.

On page 35, last paragraph under Trade Routes it says:

"Like fortifications, trade routes are rated by level to reflect their importance."

Now if you are also on the Br mail list, you might recall that someone (I don;t remeber who) had the notion of altering the trade route action so that they would function like a holding. They would require a Create action, resulting in a level 0 TR, then you would use the Rule action to have them go up in level.

It seems to me now, that this might have been the original intention all along, but somehow, the action got axed to it's tradition self.

What say you all about this?

[Temujin]

This would surely solve the problem that is traditional with the "I-get-a-couple-of-hundreds-of-GB's-per-turn-cause-I'm-a-guilder". In a way, it makes sense I guess. Wonder if that was the original intent? We probably wouldn't get an answer on this one though, and even if we got one, it might not be the right answer! =) But anyways, its surely something worth pondering about.

[Mike Cod]

As a guilder I protest this discussion of limiting the abilities of trade routes ;)
Seriously, that's an interesting point. A question I would raise is if that were the case, trade routes would not be profitable. To create, then invest further GB and RP to build up a route that could easily be destroyed would not make it worth the expense. Building guild holdings produces both GB and RP, trade routes only produce GB's.
IMOH- trade routes are more fluid than regular holdings. If one sees that a trade route to a different province would be more profitable, disolve the first route and divert it to the second province.
The dinosaur PC game "Gorgon's Alliance" by Sierra(released in 97 or 98) allows one to create trade routes the usual way and the guild need not have holdings in the end province; Furthermore, the end province can have an unlimited number of trade routes ending in it. (eg. All the Provinces in Sielwode could create trade routes to a single dwarven province and that dwarven province would still have its own land trade routes).

Something I just thought of, what if the guilder had to purchase caravans for their land routes like they purchase ships for their sea routes?
You would have sml,med or lge caravans which are lightly, moderately or heavily guarded, all with varying costs and cargo capacity. The more I talk about it the more it makes sense. ;)
Anyways we'll see what the moot says to this one.

[Lord Eldred]

Orginally posted by morgramen

On page 35, last paragraph under Trade Routes it says:

"Like fortifications, trade routes are rated by level to reflect their importance."

It seems to me now, that this might have been the original intention all along, but somehow, the action got axed to it's tradition self.

What say you all about this?

I say trade routes do have different ratings under the current rules. The higher the provinces that the trade route connects the higher the rating of the trade routes reflecting its importance. I think if you ask for original intent that will be the answer.

Do I like the idea of changing it yes. I would argue that Mike shows how the trade route would increase in rating. By ruling the route up you are really saying I am increasing the number of guards and size of the caravan.

[Lawgiver]

The easiest way I've found to limit the Trade Route income is to use the levels of the guild in the province rather than the province level. That way the guilder doesn't get a free boost in income for doing nothing when the regent raises the province level. Its sort of like a market share type thing. If the guilder has 2 of the 5 slots available in the province they have a 40% market share. Having all 5 is a monopoly, which is generally frowned upon by the people who prefer competition. Monopolies don't effect the technical game rules, but allows for additional roleplaying flavor.

If the province grows in population its assumed that the market share has increased and that there is room for competition. Thus the guilder has to work to gobble up the new market if they want to prevent opposing guilds from popping up.

Economics 101 worked for me!!!

[Lord Eldred]

Lawgiver. Maybe you should be called EconomicsLessonGiver ;) I really like the idea that it should be based on guild level and not province level. It does help make things more realistic.

[Temujin]

I like the idea of TR income to be based on guild level, with one nuance: I would take into question the size of the guild at the start of the route, and the province level at the end. Why? Because the start reflects the holding's capacity to produce valuable trading goods, while the province level at the end reflects the ability of the receiving province to buy them. You don't need a monopoly in the Imperial City to be able to turn an awesome profit sending trade there after all, that's a reasonable point in my opinion. Furthermore, guilders often send routes into lands they don't owe guilds, and if you had the guild level in receiving province taken into account, they would either need to get the support of the local guilder to turn a decent profit(and even then, not likely as the local guilder is likely to ask for a share), or they wouldn't make a penny out of it.

[Magian]

In regards to trade routes I have been playing around with many ideas also. For the most part I am keeping with the tradition of the original trade route on province level since trade happens between two different economies not two guilders specifically, thus the end province does not connect or require a guild, though the courier of the merchandise and profits does gain the benefits.

Now I have been playing around with the resources rules on this also. To make it simple I will just explain my latest and simplest version of this. The resource rules are the same except there are more specific types of food goods or precious metals to make more variety of commodities. I have changed that the limit of how many resources a province can have is the number of trade routes it can have. There can only be one type of resource in a province at any one given time and the terrain in the province dictates which resource types are allowed in the province. This does greatly expand the resources from rare to ultra-common, which the originator of the rules meant these resources to be rare, so I am thinking of toning down the benefits of them a little.

Before a trade route can be made a resource must be developed and the trade route is linked to the resource. Only one trade route per resource and trade routes cannot go into a province with a resource already there. To make this book work more impossible if a province is end province of a gold trade route then another gold trade route cannot be linked to this province cause essentially the trade route gives the province these resources, not the benefits listed in the rules however.

To make this even more impossible I was also playing around with building types needed to be made before the resources could be developed; a mill for grains, mine for metals, artisan specialty shop for trade goods and so one. This idea is good yet is it very micro managing and more like a city sim game not birthright. That is what guilds are for. Not to mention luxury goods and trade goods needed raw materials and cities in order to be made. Thus if you wanted to make golden jewelry you would have to develop gold resource then build a mine, then make a trade route to a province with a city then make a artisan shop for this, however then you could make a golden jewelry trade route.

Anyway, with the exception of the buildings I am considering this idea for my campaign, however I do think the benefits of the resources need to be a little more tame, any ideas on this since a province can have up to 4 resources all at once.

Maybe these ideas will assist you all with your trade route levels concept. I however think the commodities and terrain/culture are what affect a trade routes effectiveness. Think Marco Polo.

[Oeric Galdaneth]

Has anybody heard about a rule about Source Holdings acting like Guild ones in terms of Trade Routes? A guy I know mentioned me that a long time ago, but I've tried to find it in the Core Rules and never found that. I know that doesn't make sense, though!

[Lord Eldred]

Oeric they were probably talking about ley lines between provinces and the power of the source can travel along the ley line. Not really acting as a trade route but the power travels along the ley line like goods travel along a trade route.

[Temujin]

The person was refering to the obscure rule which allows source regent to affect the province in which they are by making action like agitate, etc... At very high source level(7+), it even allows the source holder to use his source holding as a guild for the purpose of establishing a trade route and claiming some income. Yep, this rule does exist, though I'm unsure of the location in the rulebook.

[Lawgiver]

Magian: I have entertained similar ideas and would like to incorporate it. unfortunately I don't hev ethe time or energy to manage all of the extra details. I do however list the cheif imports/exports on realm templates just for teh flavor.

I forgot one key element of basing the trade route on the guild level... IF a there are two guilds a 2 and a 6 its not fair that they spilt the profits 50/50 instead you use a percentage of the total. in this example one gets 25% the other gets 75%.


With regards to the issue on not connecting to a specific guild figure it as half the connecting province level - 1 (to reflect the lack of organization). Trade is a little more organized then loading wagons with goods, shipping them off and waiting for your gold to come back...

[Quintain]

Yes, there is a rule that says that level 7 or above sources act as 0 level guild holdings as far as establishing trade routes are concerned. The Book of Magecraft has details on this particular rule. Note that the 0 level guild doesn't actually exist, just that a level 7 source can be the origination of the trade route(s) in question.

[Magian]

I am just going to scrap the whole idea because that is capitalism and not merchant guild economy which the game is made for. I think I will keep my game in the darker ages.

[Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel]

The early medieval trade economy was based mostly upon commodities. Coins were secondary to the acquisition of materials that were useful in some way. My class on the "Dark" ages emphasised the fact that the main purpose of post-roman trade was to acquire goods that could be given as gifts. Much of the ancient and middle worlds were based on the concept that your power was directly linked to your ability to give gifts. The epic, Beowulf, is seething with evidence to this respect. As the middle ages progressed, the concept of coinage integrated itself further into the european economy. The basis for trade was still based on the ability to provide commodities. As trade became more widespread, guilds appeared to protect the interests of artisans and other providers. The emerging middle class needed some sort of control over trade in order to consistently be able to provide a living for its families.

I doubt this helps any, I've cut out some parts, but its a basic idea. Anyways, I am in support of a more commodity based trade system for birthright. The problem is, the simpler an economy appears on the outside, such as the barter system, the more complex it actually is.

Capitalism, simple.
Carolingian (Charlemagne) economy, complex.

[Magian]

I do agree that the commodities would be a good addition to the game and I have some ideas that I have presented in this thread on that. It makes for more strategy for the guilder in which I personally thought the book of guildcraft would bring about.

The current game system is simple and does give the opportunity to allow for commodities simply by tagging a product to a specific trade route without making this game and paperwork more difficult to track. The paperwork, on the other hand, can be the fun part if you are into that sort of thing and I don't think it would take much to come up with a commodity based system to suit a campaign.

For the most part I think it would be a lot of work for a disinterested DM to work through a complex trade system, some DMs have enough trouble keeping track of trade routes in their current form. I do however think it would be fun as a guildmaster to orchestrate such a system in a campaign.

[brownie]

ME as a guilder i enjoy the pleasures of trade routes. They way we do it is that we split the money between the 2 guilds. But also there is a 1 GB cost to ensure the roads are still passable. Call it a construction cost. Now the way i get around this is when i want to trade with another country or province i request with a helthy donation to the king or regent that i am allowed a 1 st level guild so i dont split my trade money with some other guiler. Yes there is some problems with other guilds but the king squashes that with gifts and tribute that i give him.

[Lord Eldred]

Well done Brownie but I am surprised that this hasn't caused any problems with other Guilders. Not to mention the problems it should cause for the people you are bribing with the Guilders you are undercutting. I wonder if you are DM just hasn't thought of this yet.

[Lawgiver]

It seems to me that brownie is a serious power gamer with a push over DM. Nothing he's suggested so far suggests a hit of difficulty for his mysterious Black Hand guilds.

[Lord Shaene]

I remember reading that too, I would think it would be in the original Rule book

[brownie]

I have used many domain turns to agitate and to ruin there other guilds. You have to use all domain turns smartly. Suck as rule and level up your guild and then create a law holding in that smae povince. You start to get your cleric or mage to back you up if they can use the source or stick a temple there. It is not just single it is a joint friendship with party members. Then when you start to have problems then you use your frindly regents and do a masive war. use all ally's and mercinarys to your advantage.

[Lord Eldred]

I would have to agree with Lawgiver on his comments about Brownie. In my campaign he would be constantly at war for the kind of crap he is pulling. However with his pushover DM he probably wins all the wars. MESSAGE TO BROWNIE'S DM WHERE ARE THE ASSASSINS?

[brownie]

You must relize that i am very safe in what i do. I do have a few Lt's and that is the name that goes on the trade not mine. Call me evil if you want but that is what i am. Some know me and alot fear me. I have been in wars like i said but there are ways around them. IF you can get the same size guild in aonther city then fight the other guilds. Like i said away to start revolutions from the inside. I have been attempted murdered by assassins aswell. Dont get me wrong it is hard for me to go into an area without a disguise on but that makes so much fun. Yes we have been run out of town to save our buts because of ambushes but it adds more to the adventure and alittle more XP. Everyone can not be good like you guys want to be. THere has to be a balance and when i die because everyone does sometime I want to be the most feared and most known for my BLACK HAND. Oh and for the assassins that is elite guilds and troops that i have made. Another group of elite soldiers i made was the Ninjas of the Black Hand. Taken from sword and fist and modified just alittle but it all works the same.

[Chaos Lord Arioch]

I think that guilds should have to create caravans like units of soldiers to maintain their trade route. Sea routes require ships so land routes should require caravans. If a guild created a land route from say, the Province of Gredaur to the Province of Westriet (both in Grevesmuhl) wouldn't the gnolls have a chance of preying on the caravans? The guild would have to create a caravan with units to provide protection.
Also there should be a random element added to the land routes as there is with the sea routes (eg. foul weather, missing caravan?)
It may sound like it complicates things but I think its better than saying, "OK, you have a land route, every quarter you receive an extra 5 GB".
A caravan would be treated like a ship or a unit of soldiers, with a maintenance cost and everything. It's very simple.

[warlord_nabron]

If I wanted the Gnolls of the Fells to purloin some of a Grevesmuhlig Trade Route's profits, I would either have their regent use a Decree action or drop a monster/brigandage random on the guild-regent, but that's just me.

[Lawgiver]

Orginally posted by Chaos Lord Arioch
Also there should be a random element added to the land routes as there is with the sea routes (eg. foul weather, missing caravan?)
It may sound like it complicates things but I think its better than saying, "OK, you have a land route, every quarter you receive an extra 5 GB".
A caravan would be treated like a ship or a unit of soldiers, with a maintenance cost and everything. It's very simple.


For the 3e rules underdevelopment we have added maintenance costs to trade routes and discussed several methods for adding randomness to GBs generated. However, we wish to keep things simple and reduce the number of rolls.

As far as caravan's comin gup missing I would leave that to the DM's discretion and random events as warlord_nabron suggested.

[Chaos Lord Arioch]

I was thinking more along the lines of a PC running the gnolls and wanting his units to prey on caravans. I'll have to check those 3e rules on maintenance costs. I'm not a 3e fan.
Oh well, that may be the sacrifice I have to make to play Birthright ;)

[Lord Eldred]

Orginally posted by brownie

You must relize that i am very safe in what i do. I do have a few Lt's and that is the name that goes on the trade not mine. Call me evil if you want but that is what i am. Some know me and alot fear me. I have been in wars like i said but there are ways around them. IF you can get the same size guild in aonther city then fight the other guilds. Like i said away to start revolutions from the inside. I have been attempted murdered by assassins aswell. Dont get me wrong it is hard for me to go into an area without a disguise on but that makes so much fun. Yes we have been run out of town to save our buts because of ambushes but it adds more to the adventure and alittle more XP. Everyone can not be good like you guys want to be. THere has to be a balance and when i die because everyone does sometime I want to be the most feared and most known for my BLACK HAND. Oh and for the assassins that is elite guilds and troops that i have made. Another group of elite soldiers i made was the Ninjas of the Black Hand. Taken from sword and fist and modified just alittle but it all works the same.

You are awfully full of yourself aren't you! Can I ask you a question, how old are you?

[Green Knight]

Trade routes...my very first BR rules tweak...it took about one glance at the rules to realize something was wrong...why aren't guilders guling the world...why haven't anyone established 150000000 trade routes in Anuire alone...sooo many questions...soooooooo few answers :P

I've played with many variants of Trade Routes, some more satisfying than others. Nowadays I'm using the Trade Holding, which is separate from Guilds. I'm not totally pleased with this solution, but at least it's easy to use (and guilders stay rich but not overly so).

Guild
In Cerilia, hundreds of artisan guilds control the manufacture of goods and local trade (commodities mostly). Guild holdings represent control over parts of this production and distribution cycle.

Trade
Trade holdings are related to guild holdings, but are not the same. Whereas guilds represent manufacturing and local trade within a province, trade holdings represent trade with other province or cultures (often luxury goods or special goods).

Special Rules for Trade holdings:
- may not be fortified (they are ships or caravans).
- province must have access to a major road (either province 7+ or a built road) or port (province 4+).
- nobody collects regency for trade holdings (they represent to few people for that - not sure about tihis one, mainly a balnce issue)

[Lord Shaene]

As the primary guild holder in our campaign, I have to applaud our Dm on this issue. We go by the current system presented in the rules book and yes i do make alot of money as a guilder. but i actually need that money to maintain what i have. its not easy maintaining an underground network while also maintaining a good front. there are so many things you have to pay for. my Dm makes sure that my gold bars arent to numerous. my last underground encounter nearly broke me. fortunatley by luck of the roll i prevailed but at great cost. i am once again trying to rebuild my treasury.
so yes we do get an abundance of money, but its like they say the more you get the more you spend and believe me my character has an expensive taste, nothing but the finest for me. Is my character powerful yes, is he so powerful that i could rule the country no

[Lord Eldred]

Orginally posted by Lawgiver


Orginally posted by Chaos Lord Arioch
Also there should be a random element added to the land routes as there is with the sea routes (eg. foul weather, missing caravan?)
It may sound like it complicates things but I think its better than saying, "OK, you have a land route, every quarter you receive an extra 5 GB".
A caravan would be treated like a ship or a unit of soldiers, with a maintenance cost and everything. It's very simple.


For the 3e rules underdevelopment we have added maintenance costs to trade routes and discussed several methods for adding randomness to GBs generated. However, we wish to keep things simple and reduce the number of rolls.

As far as caravan's comin gup missing I would leave that to the DM's discretion and random events as warlord_nabron suggested.

Why are you complicating things by adding a maintenance cost to a trade route? The Gold Bars produced would account for the maintenance cost or are you trying to make it possible that a trade route loses money. That would just take a minor adjustment in the GB production charts and then every holding should have a chance to lose money for its owner.

[Lord Eldred]

Orginally posted by Lord Shaene

As the primary guild holder in our campaign, I have to applaud our Dm on this issue. We go by the current system presented in the rules book and yes i do make alot of money as a guilder. but i actually need that money to maintain what i have. its not easy maintaining an underground network while also maintaining a good front. there are so many things you have to pay for. my Dm makes sure that my gold bars arent to numerous. my last underground encounter nearly broke me. fortunatley by luck of the roll i prevailed but at great cost. i am once again trying to rebuild my treasury.
so yes we do get an abundance of money, but its like they say the more you get the more you spend and believe me my character has an expensive taste, nothing but the finest for me. Is my character powerful yes, is he so powerful that i could rule the country no

Stop kissing up to your DM! ;)

I think the main point is that maintenance cost for everything is accounted for in what I throw at the players and thus they have to use their GBs to maintain what they have! If you don't cause them to have stuff that costs them money what is the point in collecting the money in the first place?

[Lawgiver]

Orginally posted by Lord Eldred
Why are you complicating things by adding a maintenance cost to a trade route? The Gold Bars produced would account for the maintenance cost or are you trying to make it possible that a trade route loses money. That would just take a minor adjustment in the GB production charts and then every holding should have a chance to lose money for its owner.

Sorry, I should have clarified. You are correct GB maintenance would make no sense. The maintenance isn't GBs its RPs. Sort of like the 1 RP per Ley Line thing.

[Lawgiver]

Orginally posted by Lord Eldred
If you don't cause them to have stuff that costs them money what is the point in collecting the money in the first place?

Haven't you ever heard of Scrooge McDuck? :P I'd love to try that swimming through the gold coins in the vault thing he does!

[jlrogers]

Gang,

For those who are interested in commodity-based trading (via routes or holdings), you might want to look at the system used in Avalon Hill's bg Age of Renaissance. Not perfect, but simple enough to adopt to your own pleasure.

BTW, my first post :)

[Lord Eldred]

Orginally posted by Lawgiver


Orginally posted by Lord Eldred
Why are you complicating things by adding a maintenance cost to a trade route? The Gold Bars produced would account for the maintenance cost or are you trying to make it possible that a trade route loses money. That would just take a minor adjustment in the GB production charts and then every holding should have a chance to lose money for its owner.

Sorry, I should have clarified. You are correct GB maintenance would make no sense. The maintenance isn't GBs its RPs. Sort of like the 1 RP per Ley Line thing.

Now that is something I could support.