PDA

View Full Version : Wild income in Anuire, how to g



James Ruhland
10-31-1997, 07:12 PM
>
> On Wed, 29 Oct 1997, James Ruhland wrote:
> > It shouldn't, nessisarily; but historically, in Mideival times, most of
the
> > wealth came from the land (backwards agriculture-based societies), not
from
> > trade.
>
> Anuire & Brechtur have more renaissence level economies.
>
True, but it just reinforces what I said, actually. The Renaisance saw the
rise of the central ized state (or actually, the return of it) with a
monetized economy. This let lords raise a lot more taxes, with most of it
now comming in cash; the fact that these lords had to pass the hat was more
a function of them using their new income to raise huge armies for massive
wars, thus spending way to much (deficits start here), going into debt to
merchants, and eventually defaulting...but, point is they recieved a lot of
income, more than merchant houses, even.
>
>
> So the landowners impose taxes upon the merchants (Tribute in game
> terms) and if the merchants disagree they send in the troops to impose
> martial law - they can knock those guild holdings (on which the trade
> routes rely) down automatically by occupying their own provinces.
>
Again, though, this restricts the nature of the campaign, 'cause what if
you're playing a character that doesn't want to rely on trade income,
however indirectly, for his cash?

> Boy, I guess I am generously liberal. But this is susposed to be a
heroic game
> (AD&D), NOT a realistic one (if it was truly austere, then I'd say "ah,
too
> bad.").

I agree with that, actually (I was just pushin your buttons). Sorry; you
got me started on one (well, two) of the things that bug me (I.E. published
adventures with lots of magic items, numerous Staffs of Power, etc. but
then gamers are constantly admonished by the same company that puts out
these products to "avoid the dangers of power gaming" I.E. do as I say, not
as I do). I like heroic games where the players have awesome powers, access
to great magics (which is why BR, with its realm & battle spells is so
cool), and who face equally (or more) powerful enemies (which is why BR,
with its Awensheglien and wicked sorcerors is so cool). But some folks like
to keep the magic level down, and that was my main point re the artifact of
regeneration. Heck, he only lost his left hand (ok, I'm left handed, so
that would bug me). Just call him "righty" (no one's ever been called that
before; it's always "lefty") and have him go on with his life. Might make
for an interesting character. he could get all kinds of prosthetics made up
(skrew-on knife and sword hands, etc...) if he's creative.

Realism: in a game with magic etc. realism might be a push, true. But 1)
realism within the game system (I.E. no tanks in BR, right?) 2) realism
when it improves playability. I.E. I wouldn't care so much about the tax vs
trade income debate if my only problem with it was that it isn't realistic
real-world wise. My main prob is it is unbalanced, and gives (IMO) one
class a very large advantage. Thief regent's advantage should be income
(other classes have magic, armies, etc). But IMO the thief's advantage is
*too" large, 'cause lots of the time the others end up depending on the
thief for everything (they can't afford armies, fleets, spells, etc. with
out him, or have to scrimp and spend a lot of actions just sitting and
waiting to save up enough cash...meanwhile, the thief is measuring his
treasury in the hundreds...even thousands...of GB).

> I hold out no great hope for getting
> the Book of Preistcraft in Canada before December. After waiting for TSR
> products for so long, during the buyout, and then having Birthright
novels
> cancelled, I am really impatient with further delays now that the stuff
is
> being printed.

I live in the boonies (make that the Haelyn-forsaken boonies); if I want
anything, I have to mail order it (no game shops around here). I'd suggest
that if you don't want to wait till your local game store gets the product,
you mail order it. I think Amazon delivers to Canada. I know for a fact
that their is at least one mail order place in Canada itself that delivers
(I can't remember the name, but check out old issues of the Dragon; look
for the adds that list a bunch of hobby/game stores--there is usually a
couple listed for Canada.) usually it takes about a week for my loot to
arrive after I order it...but that's better than waiting several months,
and you can usually find a place that will give you a good (20-30%)
discount.

Michael Andrew Cullingha
11-03-1997, 08:11 PM
> On Fri, 31 Oct 1997, James Ruhland wrote:
> > > So the landowners impose taxes upon the merchants (Tribute in game
> > > terms) and if the merchants disagree they send in the troops to impose
> > > martial law - they can knock those guild holdings (on which the trade
> > > routes rely) down automatically by occupying their own provinces.
> > >
> > Again, though, this restricts the nature of the campaign, 'cause what if
> > you're playing a character that doesn't want to rely on trade income,
> > however indirectly, for his cash?
>
> Then you're poor. Historically Trade = Wealthy country. Countries
> without much trade have less money. cf Venice & Genoa during the
> renaissence and Holland & Britain sometime afterwards. Overall trade
> generates more money than agriculture, & without trade then that's all
> you're left with. Even gold is pretty irrelevant if you've not got
> anything to buy with it.
>
> neil

I must agree. I believe it was Alexander the Great that changed
his path to conquer the eastern coast of the Meditteranean for
the purpose of controlling the large amount of trade that went
through that area. Then he used this money to finance his inland
campaign.

At least I think that's how it went. Anyway, the point is that
controlling trade can be very important in an empire, kingdom, etc.

Of course, my characters have resorted to out and out piracy
to make cash, but that's another story.

Mike

James Ruhland
11-04-1997, 01:10 AM
>
> I must agree. I believe it was Alexander the Great that changed
> his path to conquer the eastern coast of the Meditteranean for
> the purpose of controlling the large amount of trade that went
> through that area. Then he used this money to finance his inland
> campaign.
>
Yah; but you'll notice that Alexander the Great wasn't flat out broke to
the point that he couldn't muster a powerful army. Traditionally, realms
don't have to be trade heavy to be able to mobilize (muster) big, powerful
barbarian hordes, much to my distaste. Also, a significant reason for
Alexander's swing down the Levantine coast and into Egypt was his desire to
eliminate the ports so he wouldn't have to worry about a fleet
raiding/invading his rear while he went into Mesopotamia et al. You're
right that money was a factor, however. But again, he had the cash to
muster a big army b4 that. Also, trade may have made Italian city states
wealthy, but not wealthy enough to keep the large, landed powers of France
and Spain from pretty much doing whatever they wanted with 'em.

FRANKEN*RC
11-04-1997, 12:00 PM
> > I must agree. I believe it was Alexander the Great that changed
> > his path to conquer the eastern coast of the Meditteranean for
> > the purpose of controlling the large amount of trade that went
> > through that area. Then he used this money to finance his inland
> > campaign.
> >
> Yah; but you'll notice that Alexander the Great wasn't flat out broke to
> the point that he couldn't muster a powerful army. Traditionally, realms
> don't have to be trade heavy to be able to mobilize (muster) big, powerful
> barbarian hordes, much to my distaste. Also, a significant reason for
> Alexander's swing down the Levantine coast and into Egypt was his desire to
> eliminate the ports so he wouldn't have to worry about a fleet
> raiding/invading his rear while he went into Mesopotamia et al. You're
> right that money was a factor, however. But again, he had the cash to
> muster a big army b4 that. Also, trade may have made Italian city states
> wealthy, but not wealthy enough to keep the large, landed powers of France
> and Spain from pretty much doing whatever they wanted with 'em.
>
What IS missing is the fact that you sometimes don't need money to
muster armies. Sometimes soldiers join under a charismatic leader for
the promise of plunder.