Elven Forests & Source Potential

[Raesene Andu]

This is something that has recently come up as part of the Atlas project, so I thought I would put it to everyone to see what you all think.

Quite simply the question is should all elven forest province be changed to */9 provinces. (* being the population level). In the ruins of empire book, looking at all of the elven lands there seems to be no standard to how they are treated. It is stated that elves do not reduce the source potential of their lands because they live in harmony with it.

Rhuobhe for example was 2/9 despite being a mountain province (look at the map) instead of a forest. Surely that province should be 2/7 (low mountains) instead?

The Sielwode is all over the place. It is comprised entirely of ancient elven forests (source potential 9), but seems to mainly be */6 provinces (yet the source potential of even a normal forest is 7 not 6). Tuarhievel has similar irregularities, with no obvious pattern to how the population/source level were decided on, most of the source levels are around 5 or 6, despite the fact that elven populations are not supposed to reduce the source potential of a province.

Then we move onto Rjurik. There things get even stranger. In Lluabaight the wizards add up to generally around 9 levels of source holdings, but the provinces only have 7-8 levels of source potential. So either elven population levels can count as source levels, or all the provinces in Lluabraight are */9.

In Khinasi we are back to the strange system of varying source potential again. It is an entirely elven realm, but the source levels vary from 4-7. Then in Rhuannach, the source potentials suddenly jump and source levels there vary from 6-8, despite (and this is the really stupid part) 20% of the population there being human.

Then we get to Brechtur and Vosgaard where the two elven realms mention (Coullabhie and Cwmb Bheinn) all have */9 levels.

The only reason I can see for the difference is that each region was written by different authors, with Ed Stark writing both Vosgaard and Brechtur, the two regions where elven realms seem to behave as they should, and Rich Baker wrote Ruins of Empire and the Khinasi expansion, where they jump all over the place.

So the question is, what should we do for the updated Atlas. Follow the current levels, or change all elven realms or assume that ancient elven forests have a source potential of 9 and that elven populations do not reduce this?

[geeman]

At 02:26 AM 9/18/2003 +0200, Raesene Andu wrote:



>Quite simply the question is should all elven forest province be changed

>to */9 provinces. (* being the population level).



This question actually sounds apt for a poll, eh?



Off the cuff, I would vote yes, excepting those occasions where elves and

humans reside in the same province in which case humans would dampen, or

even cancel the ability of elves to rule up their population without

damaging source potential.



Actually, I think source potential for provinces should range up into the

double digits, and be based on a more complex system of terrain type,

magical features, etc., but that`s a whole `nother thing.



Gary

[Justinius_ExMortis]

Honestly I'd got with the basics on this. Use initially what the basic terrain justifies for the Source potential, which with Elves is almost invariably Deep Forest. Then add a plus one or two based on the particular provinces exposure to Humans and other non-Elven Humanoids that would drain the source; perhaps even no bonus at all if the exposure was great enough.

Geeman, I'm really interested to see what you think about the current Source system and how to possibly give it some optional rules or even revise the whole thing. Have you or could you possibly start a thread on it?


Justinius_ExMortis
Entropy is my Master

[geeman]

At 04:35 AM 9/18/2003 +0200, Justinius_ExMortis wrote:



>Geeman, I`m really interested to see what you think about the current

>Source system and how to possibly give it some optional rules or even

>revise the whole thing. Have you or could you possibly start a thread on it?



It`s part of a very large document handling domain level of play that in

all honesty needs a lot of revision to be presentable at all--let alone in

a D20/3e/3.5 format. A lot of it, however, is already in the birthright-l

archives under the titles "Level 10+ source levels"

http://oracle.wizards.com/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0106B&L=birthright-l&P=R4821&D=0&H=0&O=T&T=1

though the reproduction of the table is a bit problematic through message

boards and mailing lists.



Basically, it boils down to several tables with a primary terrain type for

each province that provide a base source potential for the province

(ranging from 1-9) and modifiers for secondary, tertiary terrains as well

as additional modifiers for special terrain types of the type occasionally

mentioned in the BR materals. The existence of a huge crystalline cliff

face, for instance, can add +1 to +3 to the source potential of a province

beyond what would exist in a province that had no such feature.



It also accompanies some stuff regarding maximum population level as is

determined by terrain type, tech level of the predominant culture and

additional things like trade routes.



Gary

[Raesene Andu]

On the population level of a province, I was thinking that perhaps that should be capped at level 9, and that when a province was ruled to level 10, then it actually split, either into two level 7 province (level 7 province having 1/2 level 10 population), or into a city type province (100,000+ population) plus a level 7 province.

After all in Avanil there is a level 7 province called Anuire. I imagine that once the province and the city were combined, but the city grew too large and so it split in two, the city becoming its own province, and Anuire becoming a level 7 province.

[Athos69]

If we were to do that, how would existing holdings get split up between the province and the city?

[Osprey]

I think the province should remain the base level, and the urban province splits off from that. I've been pondring this very question recently, as my own campaign has a few provinces approaching level 10.

What a can of worms!

If the province rules to level 10, that should be possible. I prefer 10, rather than 9, as the peak level, if only because things tend to be on a 0-10 scale already. By that same reasoning, however, I would also cap Sources at 10 (rather than 9, as in the original material).

I would say that an urban province might be able to split off from a larger province before level 10, however. Level 8 is extremely high already, and by the current (BRCS) rules, only coastal provinces could ever develop urban provinces. I think it should be possible for inland urban provinces to exist (Endier might be a prime candidate, for example, or even Bhaelene in Ghoere).

Also, since an urban province is so concentrated, it need not begin life at the province's former level. Even a level 1 urban province should be a major city, right?

OK, this is just hypothetical right now, but here's a rough system:

Province Level 8+ is necessary to create an urban province.

A regent uses the Create Province action to create the Urban Province. However, instead of creating a level 0 province, the regent may split the levels of the "parent province" between the new urban province and the original. He may create the urban province with a level up to half of the level of the original province (rounded down). Thus, a level 8 province could become a level 4 province with a level 4 urban province within. Holdings would be split within the 2 provinces in a proportional manner. Any contentions could be resolved with a contested Bloodline check (or any other suitable mechanic)between the 2 regents.

I don't think there should be "free levels" of province or holdings added in as a result of creating an urban province. It doesn't balance out within the game.

Urban provinces' populations would be the same as normal provinces, only concentrated within the boundaries of a relatively small area. And the parent province's population would also drop as a result of losing its major city. It makes sense, too, that it's own level would be significantly lowered as a result of losing its major city. Now it's just a fairly rural province.

The case of Anuire is a tough one, because the split between province and city happened a LONG time ago. The current levels don't tell us anything about the levels they had when the split occured. If the province of Anuire were level 10, and then split into 2 level 5 provinces, both could have (and would have) been ruled up to their current levels over the course of time.

Trade routes under the outlined system would definitely be a trickier (mesier?) issue, however. Any suggestions are welcome.

-Osprey

[DanMcSorley]

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, Osprey wrote:

> Also, since an urban province is so concentrated, it need not begin

> life at the province`s former level. Even a level 1 urban province

> should be a major city, right?



No. A level 1 city would have the same population as a level 1 province,

or about a thousand people. Good sized, for medieval times, but not

really major.



> Urban provinces` populations would be the same as normal provinces,

> only concentrated within the boundaries of a relatively small area.

> And the parent province`s population would also drop as a result of

> losing its major city. It makes sense, too, that it`s own level would

> be significantly lowered as a result of losing its major city. Now it`s

> just a fairly rural province.



Creating a city (1) out of a province (10) would have negligable effect on

the province`s level, see below.



> The case of Anuire is a tough one, because the split between province

> and city happened a LONG time ago. The current levels don`t tell us

> anything about the levels they had when the split occured. If the

> province of Anuire were level 10, and then split into 2 level 5

> provinces, both could have (and would have) been ruled up to their

> current levels over the course of time.



If a province 10 (population ~100,000) split in half, it would produce two

level 7 provinces (~49,000 apiece), since the original scale was roughly

population= level^2 * 1000.

--

Daniel McSorley

[Athos69]

Yes, but in the case of someone who has a monopoly on holdings in the province (10), say a Temple (10), would that regent suddenly get two Temple (7) holdings for a net increase of 4 RP and 2 1/3 GB overnight?

We need to look at the repercussions on holdings for splitting provinces. We can't declare that someone with 100% of the holdings gets 100% of the holdings in both provinces because of the increase they get in RP and GB. On the other hand, it is only logical if they were the only game in town that they should get the whole pie in both locations.

This is where having a non-linear population to province level falls apart, but otherwise it is an excellent way to determine population.

-Mike

[destowe]

Perhaps using something similar to the spell Population Growth, a way to resolve some of the "free" holdings from a split.

Let the regents make a free rule holding roll to see if they can increase their holdings. Free as in not a domain action, but still costs GB and RP.

If two regents want the same slot, maybe an opposed check and only the highest gets created and the loser still pays for the chance.

If there is only one regent, that regent can attempt a "free" rule action until a failure, then a domain action is needed. (I can see maybe a court action.)

[ryancaveney]

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, Athos69 wrote:



> This is where having a non-linear population to province level falls

> apart, but otherwise it is an excellent way to determine population.



I don`t so much mind the nonlinearity; what I think this shows is the

danger of the idea of splitting provinces. AFAICT, it exists only as an

attempt to explain the origin of the Imperial City province. I am not

convinced of the need for such a rule; I am fairly content to say "at the

continent-spanning height of the Anuirean empire, a one-time-only

exception was made." The biggest problem with introducing an explict rule

to explain the IC is the slippery slope to allowing players to use it

themselves in every domain, which strikes me as disastrous.



The other reason I think splitting provinces is a bad idea is that one

major function of the division of the map into provinces is the regulation

of military movement. If you cut a province in two, you also double the

amount of time it takes an army to march across the same old distance!

Even worse, the speed change happens only in some directions: e.g., E-W

but not N-S! This is a truly horrible thing to do to the military part of

the game. Ideally, all provinces would either be identically sized in all

dimensions, or have different movement costs per province per compass

direction; both of these are quite challenging. A two-scale approach,

such as Kenneth`s method of chopping provinces up into 30-50 6-mile hexes

is pretty much the only way to maintain both variation in province shape

and sanity in movement rules.



This is why, in the D&D Companion Set, all "provinces" were defined

precisely as individual hexagons on the world map.





Ryan Caveney

[ryancaveney]

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, Raesene Andu wrote:



> Quite simply the question is should all elven forest province be

> changed to */9 provinces.



Absolutely yes, without any reservation. This is the very first change I

ever made to BR back when I first bought it -- the many cases in which the

source potential is listed as (9 - Province Level) are to me obviously an

error in applying the rules. All elven provinces are */9, yes definitely.





Ryan Caveney

[Osprey]

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, Raesene Andu wrote:

> Quite simply the question is should all elven forest province be
> changed to */9 provinces.

Absolutely yes, without any reservation. This is the very first change I
ever made to BR back when I first bought it -- the many cases in which the
source potential is listed as (9 - Province Level) are to me obviously an
error in applying the rules. All elven provinces are */9, yes definitely.


Ryan Caveney


I think PURE elven forests have a 9 source rating. However, I see many of them slowly being tainted on the borders with developed lands, and a resultant drop in source rating taking place, especially where roads have been built through the forests, but also on borders with any developed lands (say, -1 source bordering a province of level 3-5, -2 next to a 6+ province).

Yet another reason to resent the humans...they really are everywhere, aren't they?

-Osprey

[Raesene Andu]

On the whole source potential thingy, I was thinking of changing the way it is calculated (mainly to bring some order to the whole thing).

Basically my idea was that there were three underlying terrain types
5 - Plains/Hills
7 - Mountains
9 - High Mountains

And on to these basic types you applied a series of modifiers based on additional terrain features, like so.
Forest +2 (lowland, hills, mountains only)
Elven Influence +2
River +1 (if river flows through province, not just runs along its border)
Swamp +3 (lowland only)
Glacier +1 to +3
Dragon Bones +1
Coral Reef +3
And so on.

[Osprey]

I'd suggest adding a set of matching guidelines for things that decrease a source potential. Province levels and deforestation are the default ways, of course, but one could imagine magic-draining events in a province's history also dropping the source potential. Extensive mining and quarrying in hills and mountains might do that, as well as rifts into the Shadow World (where the SW source is leeching off the mebhaighal) or other corrupting magics. I reckon we could come up with a good list of ideas with some collective brainstorming.

-Osprey