Sea Trade Routes

[Whalejudge@aol.co]

For trade routes between two provinces by sea, does a route count against the
maximum regardless of the initiating province, or can each initiate as many as
are desired? For example, Ilien can support three routes. Can it send one to
Ariya, one to Rjuvik, and one to Talinie, as well as receive one from Taeghas,
one from Zikala, and one from Dhoesone?

[Jim Cooper]

Whalejudge@aol.com wrote:
> For example, Ilien can support three routes. Can it send one to
> Ariya, one to Rjuvik, and one to Talinie, as well as receive one from Taeghas, one from Zikala, and one from Dhoesone?

[Gary V. Foss]

Whalejudge@aol.com wrote:

> For trade routes between two provinces by sea, does a route count against the
> maximum regardless of the initiating province, or can each initiate as many as
> are desired? For example, Ilien can support three routes. Can it send one to
> Ariya, one to Rjuvik, and one to Talinie, as well as receive one from Taeghas,
> one from Zikala, and one from Dhoesone?

I only allow as many trade routes (land or sea) into a province as are possible to
go out of a province. That forces players to make some choices regarding who they
are going to make alliances with because they don't have an unlimited amount of
trade routes into their provinces with which to deal. Plus, if there are
unlimited trade routes into a province, why make trade routes anywhere else? Why
wouldn't all trade routes lead to the Imperial City?

Gary

[Trizt]

Whalejudge@aol.com (Whalejudge@aol.com) wrote:

- -> For trade routes between two provinces by sea, does a route count against
the
- -> maximum regardless of the initiating province, or can each initiate as
many as
- -> are desired? For example, Ilien can support three routes. Can it send
one to
- -> Ariya, one to Rjuvik, and one to Talinie, as well as receive one from
Taeghas,
- -> one from Zikala, and one from Dhoesone?

I have ruled that if a province can support 3 trade routes, then it may be
three land-trade or three see-trade or any combination there between.

//Trizt of Ward^RITE

--------------------
E-Mail: trizt@iname.com URL1: http://home.bip.net/trizt/
ICQ# : 13696780 URL2: http://www.ukko.dyn.ml.org/~trizt/
Nick : Trizt IRC: lib.hel.fi Channel:
#Opers
MUD: callandor.imaginary.com 5317
--------------------
OS : AmigaOS 3.1 / openBSD 2.3 CPU: PPC603e/160Mhz & MC68040/25Mhz
--------------------

[Jim Cooper]

Gary V. Foss wrote:
> Plus, if there are unlimited trade routes into a province, why make trade routes anywhere else? Why wouldn't all trade routes lead to the Imperial City?

[Gary V. Foss]

Jim Cooper wrote:

> Well, because they have to go through Avan or Diemed to do it. That has
> tariffs written all over it. I'm sure everybody wants to trade in the
> big old city, but the tariffs are just too darn much!
>
> Otherwise, the sea has to be used, and few domains have seaport
> provinces.

Tariffs are an issue. The rulers of Avanil and Diemed, however, would not have to worry so much about that.... If there is not limit to the amount of trade
routes possible going into a province, then wouldn't Avan have all his available provinces trading with the IC? Wouldn't Diem do the same? If there is not
limit then trade would only occur to the highest possible provinces, and would earn considerably more GBs too.

The only trade routes set up if there is no limit to the number that can go into a province would be ones to highly populated provinces. I admit, those trade
routes would be the first to be set up, but I don't think there should be no limit on the number that can go into a single province.

I think guilds are at a rather unfair advantage already when it comes to trade routes. They can potentially double, treble or quadruple their earning potential
using them, plus thieves gain regency from trade routes based upon their GB earning potential. The number of guilders who actually have high enough bloodlines
to earn the kind of RPs possible from even the smallest guild is pretty rare, but the point is that they can bring up their potential with ridiculous ease.

Gary

[Memnoch]

Actually, a strict reading of the trade route rules from the Rulebook do not
make a distinction between "incoming" or "outgoing" trade routes from a
province. A Level 7 province can support only 3 trade routes period.
Incoming or outgoing trade routes do not factor in. Ilien could have 2
incoming land routes, with one outgoing land route and 1 incoming sea route
with 2 outgoing sea routes. The distinction between incoming and outgoing
trade routes are house rules made up by various DMs to make a distinction.
If one follows the strict reading of the rules, one doesn't have to worry
about runaway trade route income.

Just my 2 cents.

Memnoch
- -----Original Message-----
From: Gary V. Foss
To: birthright@MPGN.COM
Date: Thursday, October 22, 1998 11:40 AM
Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] - Sea Trade Routes


>Jim Cooper wrote:
>
>> Well, because they have to go through Avan or Diemed to do it. That has
>> tariffs written all over it. I'm sure everybody wants to trade in the
>> big old city, but the tariffs are just too darn much!
>>
>> Otherwise, the sea has to be used, and few domains have seaport
>> provinces.
>
>Tariffs are an issue. The rulers of Avanil and Diemed, however, would not
have to worry so much about that.... If there is not limit to the amount of
trade
>routes possible going into a province, then wouldn't Avan have all his
available provinces trading with the IC? Wouldn't Diem do the same? If
there is not
>limit then trade would only occur to the highest possible provinces, and
would earn considerably more GBs too.
>
>The only trade routes set up if there is no limit to the number that can go
into a province would be ones to highly populated provinces. I admit, those
trade
>routes would be the first to be set up, but I don't think there should be
no limit on the number that can go into a single province.
>
>I think guilds are at a rather unfair advantage already when it comes to
trade routes. They can potentially double, treble or quadruple their
earning potential
>using them, plus thieves gain regency from trade routes based upon their GB
earning potential. The number of guilders who actually have high enough
bloodlines
>to earn the kind of RPs possible from even the smallest guild is pretty
rare, but the point is that they can bring up their potential with
ridiculous ease.
>
>Gary
>
>************************************************** *************************
>>'unsubscribe birthright' as the body of the message.
>

[Jim Cooper]

Gary V. Foss wrote:
>> If there is not limit to the amount of trade routes possible going into a province, then wouldn't Avan have all his available provinces trading with the IC? Wouldn't Diem do the same? If there is not
limit then trade would only occur to the highest possible provinces, and
would earn considerably more GBs too.

[Jim Cooper]

Memnoch wrote:
> Actually, a strict reading of the trade route rules from the Rulebook do not make a distinction between "incoming" or "outgoing" trade routes from a province.

[Gary V. Foss]

Memnoch wrote:

> Actually, a strict reading of the trade route rules from the Rulebook do not
> make a distinction between "incoming" or "outgoing" trade routes from a
> province. A Level 7 province can support only 3 trade routes period.
> Incoming or outgoing trade routes do not factor in. Ilien could have 2
> incoming land routes, with one outgoing land route and 1 incoming sea route
> with 2 outgoing sea routes. The distinction between incoming and outgoing
> trade routes are house rules made up by various DMs to make a distinction.
> If one follows the strict reading of the rules, one doesn't have to worry
> about runaway trade route income.

This is also true. The Rulebook does not differentiate between incoming and
outgoing trade routes. It just seems to me that even a province which can only
support a single trade route would be able to have one going in and one going
out, so I kind of like that as a house rule until I get some word from the
TSR/Wizards guys. Since it looks like that ain't gonna happen any time soon,
I'll just go with things like they are....

Gary

[Gary V. Foss]

Jim Cooper wrote:

> Which is why I posted the question about a week or two ago pointing that
> out, and suggesting a correction. What did you think about it? (That
> provincial rulers control the TRs in a realm).

Well, I think guilders should still control trade routes, but I'm starting to suspect a few things:

1. Law holdings should be able to tax each trade route just as if it were a holding.

2. Law holdings should collect more taxes from all holdings.

3. Maybe trade routes should make half of what they currently make. I mean, a single trade route makes something like 30% or 40% more GB per domain turn than the average province taxes generated. That just
seems wrong to me. Ilien could potentially make 42GB/turn with six trade routes, while only pulling in d8+1 in taxes. That's too much.

4. If a province regent sets a tax on a trade route it should be paid automatically. I mean, it's not like caravans can just traipse on by a toll booth in the middle of the night.

5. It should be somewhere in the printed materials that a tax on trade routes as high as 33% for trade routes that cross a national border and 50% for those that stay within a single country should not
considered too high. Trade routes should exist at the whim of the province ruler, after all. He should just be able to snap his fingers and they are gone. My understanding of medieval taxes leads me to
believe they could be pretty draconian, so I don't think this is unreasonable. Besides, I think a province ruler should be able to earn a competitive amount of money from trade routes in his domain as the
guilder who set them up.

In fact, I'd like to see some sort of guidelines for vassalage agreements in general. All the published materials do is state that vassalage agreements are possible without really going into how they work or
what kinds of terms are "standard" in them. It would be interesting to see what kinds of vassalage agreements had occurred in the past under the Empire, for instance, just by way of an example. I'm pretty
sure the Gorgon takes just about every RP and GB from his vassals, but he's a scuzbucket. What about a more benign ruler? What kind of agreement does Avan have with his vassals? What about even more kindly
rulers? Anybody want to take a stab at this one? (Note: In BR asking someone to take a stab at something is probably a stupid thing to do.... That's probably how Cerilians first came upon bloodtheft.)

Gary

[Sindre Berg]

Jim Cooper wrote:

> Gary V. Foss wrote:
> >> If there is not limit to the amount of trade routes possible going
> into a province, then wouldn't Avan have all his available provinces
> trading with the IC? Wouldn't Diem do the same? If there is not
> limit then trade would only occur to the highest possible provinces,
> and
> would earn considerably more GBs too.
> Of course, which makes them very powerful rulers. It pays to be the
> closest to the IC. The point remains the same though: *other* rulers
> have to pay *them* - which, of course, is why all TRs don't go to the
> IC.
>
> >I admit, those trade routes would be the first to be set up, but I
> don't think there should be no limit on the number that can go into a
> single province.<
>
> I didn't say that there shouldn't be a rule - just that currently,
> there
> isn't a limit. At least, as far as I am aware - nothing is mentioned
> in
> the rulebook that I know of.
>

In my PBMG there is a house rule that severly limits the number of TR's
and also keeps the amount of Diplomacy up...I say a province can support
the number of TR given in the Rulebook, but Regardless of whether they
go in or out of the province. In this Case Imp City can only support 4
TR in total....

> > I think guilds are at a rather unfair advantage already when it
> comes to trade routes.
>
> Which is why I posted the question about a week or two ago pointing
> that
> out, and suggesting a correction. What did you think about it? (That
>
> provincial rulers control the TRs in a realm).
>
> Cheers,
> Darren
>
> ******
> ************************************************** ******************
> To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the
> line
>

- --
Sindre

Take a look at my homepage and Birthright PBMG at:

www.uio.no/~sindrejb

[Whalejudge@aol.co]

>>Actually, a strict reading of the trade route rules from the Rulebook do not
make a distinction between "incoming" or "outgoing" trade routes from a
province. A Level 7 province can support only 3 trade routes period.
Incoming or outgoing trade routes do not factor in. Ilien could have 2
incoming land routes, with one outgoing land route and 1 incoming sea route
with 2 outgoing sea routes.

[Kenneth Gauck]

Historically taxes were impossible to collect reliable, except at a specific
point (entering a town for eg.) One of the consequences of this was a huge
number tax sites, which restricted trade and made both investment in trade
and the purchasing of distant goods undesirable. Attempts at taxation of
trade routes should be largely ineffective and have the effect of sending
trade elsewhere. Guild holdings should be taxed normally.

Kenneth Gauck
c558382@earthlink.net
- -----Original Message-----
From: Gary V. Foss
To: birthright@MPGN.COM
Date: Thursday, October 22, 1998 4:57 PM
Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] - Sea Trade Routes


>Jim Cooper wrote:
>
>> Which is why I posted the question about a week or two ago pointing that
>> out, and suggesting a correction. What did you think about it? (That
>> provincial rulers control the TRs in a realm).
>
>Well, I think guilders should still control trade routes, but I'm starting
to suspect a few things:
>
>1. Law holdings should be able to tax each trade route just as if it were a
holding.
>
>2. Law holdings should collect more taxes from all holdings.
>
>3. Maybe trade routes should make half of what they currently make. I
mean, a single trade route makes something like 30% or 40% more GB per
domain turn than the average province taxes generated. That just
>seems wrong to me. Ilien could potentially make 42GB/turn with six trade
routes, while only pulling in d8+1 in taxes. That's too much.
>
>4. If a province regent sets a tax on a trade route it should be paid
automatically. I mean, it's not like caravans can just traipse on by a toll
booth in the middle of the night.
>
>5. It should be somewhere in the printed materials that a tax on trade
routes as high as 33% for trade routes that cross a national border and 50%
for those that stay within a single country should not
>considered too high. Trade routes should exist at the whim of the province
ruler, after all. He should just be able to snap his fingers and they are
gone. My understanding of medieval taxes leads me to
>believe they could be pretty draconian, so I don't think this is
unreasonable. Besides, I think a province ruler should be able to earn a
competitive amount of money from trade routes in his domain as the
>guilder who set them up.
>
>In fact, I'd like to see some sort of guidelines for vassalage agreements
in general. All the published materials do is state that vassalage
agreements are possible without really going into how they work or
>what kinds of terms are "standard" in them. It would be interesting to see
what kinds of vassalage agreements had occurred in the past under the
Empire, for instance, just by way of an example. I'm pretty
>sure the Gorgon takes just about every RP and GB from his vassals, but he's
a scuzbucket. What about a more benign ruler? What kind of agreement does
Avan have with his vassals? What about even more kindly
>rulers? Anybody want to take a stab at this one? (Note: In BR asking
someone to take a stab at something is probably a stupid thing to do....
That's probably how Cerilians first came upon bloodtheft.)
>
>Gary
>
>************************************************** *************************
>>'unsubscribe birthright' as the body of the message.
>

[Memnoch]

Whalejudge: I believe you missed what I said about coastal provinces:
Let me reiterate: Ilien [being a coastal province of level 4 or above]
could have 2
incoming land routes, with one outgoing land route and 1 incoming sea route
with 2 outgoing sea routes, [or any combination totaling 3 land routes and 3
sea routes].

If you do not make the distinction between incoming and outgoing trade
routes, this limits the vast amount of gold bars collected by guild regents
and keeps the game more in balance. This seems to be the goal of everyone
here. Since this is exactly what it states in the rulebook, I believe that
this would be the best way to go.

Memnoch
- -----Original Message-----
From: Whalejudge@aol.com
To: birthright@MPGN.COM
Date: Thursday, October 22, 1998 8:11 PM
Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] - Sea Trade Routes


>>>Actually, a strict reading of the trade route rules from the Rulebook do
not
>make a distinction between "incoming" or "outgoing" trade routes from a
>province. A Level 7 province can support only 3 trade routes period.
>Incoming or outgoing trade routes do not factor in. Ilien could have 2
>incoming land routes, with one outgoing land route and 1 incoming sea route
>with 2 outgoing sea routes. Yes, that's what the Rulebook says. However, that was modified by Cities
of
>the Sun, and the modification seems to have been retained in Rjurik
Highlands
>and Havens of the Great Bay. According to Cities of the Sun pages 70-71, a
>coastal province can support as many sea trade routes as it can land trade
>routes, and the slots are independent. The catches are that the sea routes
>cannot originate from a province of lower than 3 and that the route must be
>staffed by ships. The cargo capacity of the ships determines the amount
the
>route pays, up to the maximum.
>************************************************** *************************
>>'unsubscribe birthright' as the body of the message.
>

[Lee]

In a message dated 98-10-22 13:54:35 EDT, you write:

>
I have to concur with this ruling. More TRs are not what this game needs.
I might differ with the "terrain type" argument, and declare the IC top be
"urban" terrain, since it is so huge, population to ground-wise.


Lee.

[Jim Cooper]

Peter Hodge wrote:
> The reason why Avanil and Diemed couldn't simply create a trade route from every province to the Imperial City is simply because they can't. A trade route has to start and end in two provinces that are different terrain types (or different from different cultures, eg. Anuire - Khinasi).>If you look at a map showing the provinces in Avail and Diemed, Diemed only has one province which could create a trade route with the Imperial City. Avanil has a few more, but there also has to be roads to "carry" the trade and the cost

[Gary V. Foss]

Kenneth Gauck wrote:

> Historically taxes were impossible to collect reliable, except at a specific
> point (entering a town for eg.) One of the consequences of this was a huge
> number tax sites, which restricted trade and made both investment in trade
> and the purchasing of distant goods undesirable. Attempts at taxation of
> trade routes should be largely ineffective and have the effect of sending
> trade elsewhere. Guild holdings should be taxed normally.

Wouldn't taxes be much easier to collect from trade routes? I mean, a trade
route has to cross bridges and go through city gates and such. Ships have to
dock, load and unload their cargo. Generally, those are pretty noticeable kinds
of activities, and ones that would have to deal directly with the kinds of "tax
sites" that you mentioned. Guilds often operate behind closed doors, which is
why they would be so hard to regulate and tax.

As for the economic shift of trade to other places caused by taxation: That is
very true in modern terms. In BR/medieval terms, however, it seems to me that
trade is more reliant upon diplomacy rather than standard economics. To open
trade routes across borders requires an agreement between regents, so the effect
of taxes is less upon trade routes. Unless those taxes were actually
prohibitive trade routes would continue, because alternatives don't exist.
That's the advantage province rulers have. They are the only game in town.

Gary