Province levels and income? [Archive]

Angelbialaska

01-19-2005, 04:43 PM

In the 2e rules, your income increased proportional to your province. In 3e the income is fixed and it doesn't matter if you have 7 provinces with level 1 and 2 or one province of level 10.

I'm not sure if I'm the only one that has noticed this? It gives some realms that were before getting much less income because it was many provinces of low levels a huge income boost.

For most the income remains the same as before, but for some it's much higher. The best example is the Chimaeron, where they were lucky if they could gather 9 GB before, but now they pull in around twice that. 10 GB for tax, 3 GB for law and 5 2/3 for guilds.

Ilien would on the average pull in around 11 GB before, now they get Around 14GB. But they pay for it with the loss of three trade routes, which is an income of 10.5Gb, much more than they'd get in.

Couldn't we somehow make income more province dependent? Otherwise I feel a big shift in some power balance.

The Jew

01-19-2005, 05:00 PM

True, but the new system is much simpler and less time consuming to calculate. From my perspective that is worth the shift in revenue for a few realms

Osprey

01-19-2005, 06:07 PM

I agree with the Jew - simpler is better here. And if the shift makes formerly weaker provinces a bit stronger, all the better - it levels the playing field somewhat, and makes more realms viable competitors or significant as allies/supporters to other realms. This is, IMO, a more interesting game setting with greater potential for PC's and less absolute dominance by big guys like Avan. Of course, there were so few high-level provinces in BR anyways that it doesn't make for a huge change in power all in all.

The incredible, edible Phil

01-19-2005, 06:46 PM

what the big realms need to do is have other revenue streams. Namely Ilien could get some gb from el-hadid for example.

epicsoul

01-21-2005, 12:13 AM

Actually, there is one flaw, still.

You see, it is now MUCH more beneficial to rule low level provinces than it is to rule a province beyond level 6.

Why? Better chance at success, less expenditure, but you still increase your income all the same.

Let's look at this from the perspective of Elinie.

We could rule Ansien, a province 5, to 6; costs 5 GB, DC 15 before any bonuses from feats/skills. Net gain; 1 GB to income. Should we succeed, and even assuming that we have maxed out our regent to rule provinces, statistically, it may take 2 rule attempts.

Or, we rule Chalsedon, a province 3 to 4; costs 3 GB, DC 13 with same net gain of income when we succeed, and more likely TO succeed.

Even better, we rule Mholien, only costs 2, DC 12.

Not having a variance, one of the last and only advantages to having a high level province is to be allowed to have a high level court. However, we can overcome this with a palace.

I pity the wizards. They will have a REAL fight on their hands now to keep lands undeveloped. Admittedly, it was always easier to rule low level holdings. And cheaper, for that matter. However, the advantage to a high level holding was that they generated more wealth, the more you invested into it.

Compensation could be said to be granted that the higher the province level, the more trade routes and holdings for guilds and temples are gained. However, this means that the regent is now expected to gain more revenue from these. Re-negotiating this is significant. Most realms have a set rate that their guilder gives them. For instance, using Elinie as an example, where the Points East Trading Company gives 2 GB as tribute (according to the Organizations sheet in the Atlas section). Thus, the realm leader, trying to make up for diminishing returns on ruling high level provinces, would increase taxes and instead of having a set tribute amount, should have a percentage amount of the guilder's incomes... and the temples' too, perhaps.

I hate advocating the squeezing of guilders/temple rulers. However, there is otherwise, not very many reasons to rule a province beyond about level 5 or 6. Too difficult and costly, comparitively. Other reasons, other than the threat of elven invasion (who don't want to see the land scarred, but anything already having reduced the potential source to a 0 they can't care too much about), to rule a high level province? Increased muster speed (w/ law holding), should you be using that optional rule, increased muster amounts, the option to have a high level court w/o palace, and, of course, if you are a wizard ruler, you don't really want to weaken your sources. However, the muster rules for speed rarely have that much impact, nor do increased muster sizes, and both of these are minimized by the idea that if you spread out your muster thru your land, and rule other provinces/law holdings up to higher levels, you will get the same effect.

I think I hit it on the nose earlier when I used the term diminishing returns. Ruling a province to a super high level creates diminishing returns... which, when one thinks about it, it should not.

Angelbialaska

01-21-2005, 01:32 AM

Yes, I feel that it's important that the higher level holdings are worth more to develop than low level holdings.

For instance Iilien should be worth more than having 7 level 1 provinces. But it it's right now. In fact it's worth for the ruler to have the 7 low level provinces rather than the high one, since they're not that concerned about trade routes like the guilders and even then there's still quite a jump from level 4 to level 7, theoretically more than there is from 1 to 4 due to the difficulty.

Maybe as some sort of compensation/some sort of equalizer, one could change numbers a bit?

A level 1 to 3 province is worth 2/3 GB per province level.
A level 4 to 6 province is worth 1 GB per province level
A level 7 to 9 province is worth 1 1/3 GB per province level
A level 10 province is worth 1 2/3 GB per province level

Possibly adjust income of guilds, temples and law accordingly
Guild/Temple:
1-3: 1/3GB level
4-6: 2/3GB level
7-9: 1 GB level
10: 1 1/3 GB level

Law:
1-3: 0
4-6: 1/3GB level
7-9: 2/3GB level
10: 1 GB level

I know that it would increase the administrative work a bit. But on the other hand we'd also see how it becomes attractive to have higher level provinces.

For instance with this calculation Ilien is woth 11 2/3 GB in taxes, 4 2/3 in law, 7 GB in temples and 7 GB in guilds.

This is better than a level 3 and a level 4 province, where the level 3 province is totally worth 4 GB and the level 4 province is worth 8GB.

Raesene Andu

01-21-2005, 06:19 AM

If the issue of diminishing returns with high level province was a problem, then why does everyone always try to rule up their highest level province... Something I never understood.

If you want to make low level province harder to rule up, change the rules to allow wizards with holdings in the province to oppose any attempt to rule the province. This is what I do in my games, and while it wasn't mentioned in the original rules, was a common solution to the problem of ruling provinces in 2E.

If you use Diemed as an example, under the current rules the DC to rule Moere (5/0) is 15, while it is DC of 12 for Tier (2/3) and DC 13 for Bliene (3/6). However, if you allow a wizard to effect the roll, then Hermedhie's holdings gain more significance. By applying her holdings to the roll, the DC for Moere remains at 15, Tier rises to DC 13, and Bliene shoots up to DC 17.

This is even more pronounced in somewhere like Aerenwe where wizards hold all the source slots. If Liliene Swordwraith attempted to rule Shadowgreen (1/6) under the current rule, her DC would be 11, but if you apply the holdings of the two wizards against the roll, then the DC would rise to 17.

Using that method, it actually makes it easier in a lot of cases to rule 5/0 provinces where there are no significant source holdings. This method also has the advantage of giving wizards much more influence over a realm and a little negotiating power. On top of changes being proposed to increase the DC of rule province actions, mean landed regents really have to be nice to their wizards.

I have previously suggested an altered income system similar to what is being proposed here, but eventually rejected it simple because it is adds a lot to the administrative work. It is just so much easier to stick with the current income structure.

epicsoul

01-21-2005, 06:53 AM

If the issue of diminishing returns with high level province was a problem, then why does everyone always try to rule up their highest level province... Something I never understood.

Oddly, I think it is a status thing. Mostly, players want to prove that they have the biggest... province. :) DMs seem to fall for this too; the amount of times I see the major NPC lands ruling their highest province instead of lowest is even more common than the players.

Myself, as long as I know that I am not ticking off some wizard, I will always go for the low province. Now if only I could make my rolls! However, I like your suggestion of having the wizard able to oppose the roll. It goes towards helping... somewhat. The problem is, while you have increased the DC, you still haven't increased the cost, nor the benefits for a higher level province. So, it is still more advantageous to rule the lower level province. Especially considering that often, those lower level provinces are rolling hills, and thus have a max source rating of 5.

Consider your own example of Diemed. Tier matches Moere for DC if you allow the wizard to oppose, but Tier costs 2 GB to make the check... yet still results in the same 1 GB bonus to income should the check succeed.

It's a step in the right direction, I grant, but still; can anyone justify to me, truly, why they NEED a level 10 province anyways? Other sections of this forum have bemoaned how easy it is to get a province there.... but why would you bother?

Angelbialaska

01-21-2005, 08:25 AM

You only bother with ruling your level 10 province rather than ruling up a lot of lower level provinces, because you can then present and say you got the bigger one... It's not like in 2e a matter of the larger provinces being more profitable, which I feel is a shame.

In the system I pointed out above, it would have much more effect. A level 10 province is worth 53 1/3 for all the holding slot. That system makes it less worth to have level 1 to 3 provinces than now, the level 4 to 6 provinces remain the same and the level 7+ provinces become more provinces and therefore more interesting for a ruler to develop up to, even if it costs a lot.

As for Wizards getting the ability to oppose a rule action, isn't that wrong, because if Wizards are allowed to oppose, shouldn't the temples and the guilders allowed to support?

Also a thing to consider is the whole problem about how much gold you get compared to how many you tax in the inflexible system. If you have 1000 people in a province you can tax 1GB. If you have 100.000 people in a province you can tax 10GB. It doesn't make that much sense to me. Instead the tax should be 100GB and some might be lost in administration and such, but still the loss of 90GB in the whole matter is nuts IMO.

Arius Vistoon

01-21-2005, 08:30 AM

because to run a multitude of holding is more hardiest,
there could be a modifier to action check or/and to income allowing thus the interest of the govern to increase its levels of holding ( with less number of holding )

example :
-1 to income or/and -1 to action check for 3 number of holding

it's not very complex and give us the same effect attitude....it's good to increase level of holding than increase number of holding...no ?

Your impression ?

Raesene Andu

01-21-2005, 10:07 AM

Originally posted by Angelbialaska@Jan 21 2005, 05:55 PM

You only bother with ruling your level 10 province rather than ruling up a lot of lower level provinces, because you can then present and say you got the bigger one... It's not like in 2e a matter of the larger provinces being more profitable, which I feel is a shame.

In 2E the large provinces were potentially less profitable than under the 1 GB/province level rule, and then on top there was maintenance to be paid for holdings and provinces. If you look at the Province Taxation table in the original BR rulebook (pg 43) and assume moderate taxation and then average out the value, you get the following.

Level 1: 1 GB
Level 2: 1.5 GB
Level 3: 2 GB
Level 4: 2.5 GB
Level 5: 3.5 GB
Level 6: 4.5 GB
Level 7: 5.5 GB
Level 8: 6.5 GB
Level 9: 8 GB
Level 10: 9 GB

Of course, you could roll well and get more GB, up to 18 GB from a level 10 provice, and likewise you could roll really badly and get only 4 GB from a level 10 province. Then you had to take out maintenance, which could be considerable for a large realm.

As for Wizards getting the ability to oppose a rule action, isn't that wrong, because if Wizards are allowed to oppose, shouldn't the temples and the guilders allowed to support?

Why would it be wrong, the wizard is the one who loses holding slot is the rule province action is successful, so it obviously affect him. He should be able to use his holding levels to oppose the action (make the land hostile to an increase level of development if you like). Guilds, Temple, and Law holdings only gain from a province level increase, while a wizard loses out.

As the rules stand, the wizard just loses his holding level with no way to stop it, which is really unfair to wizards and forces the to do nasty things to regents who raise their province level without asking.

Also a thing to consider is the whole problem about how much gold you get compared to how many you tax in the inflexible system. If you have 1000 people in a province you can tax 1GB. If you have 100.000 people in a province you can tax 10GB. It doesn't make that much sense to me. Instead the tax should be 100GB and some might be lost in administration and such, but still the loss of 90GB in the whole matter is nuts IMO.

Well it does in a way. The higher the level of a province the most things the regent needs to pay for. A level 1 province is a couple of small towns with some dirt roads, while the level 10 province is a highly populated province with roads, bridges, markets, schools, and a hundred other things to maintain. Look at the Imperial City, it has universities, art galleries, theatres, a hundred or so bridges, the various markets, sewer systems, and a vast number of other things that must all be maintained somehow. If you like the tax collection represents a regent's profit from his tax take, the rest goes on maintenance.

Also you need to consider that a higher population province is going to have a lot more middle-class and upper-class citizens who don't like paying tax at all. It is fairly easy to wring money from a peasent, but a lot harder to get it from a noble who is going to winge with every coin he loses.

Of course I once came up with a similar system of increasing income as yours, but I didn't make it cumulative. My system was primarly for guild/temple collection, but could be adapted to provinces as well.

Quite simply, it was
+0.5 GB to guild and temple collection for holding level 4-5
+1 GB to guild and temple collections for holding level 6-7
+1.5 GB to guild and temple collection for holding level 8-9
+2 GB to guild and temple collection for holding level 10+

So take the example of a level 10 province. If you had a level 10 guild you would get 8.5 GB collection (6.5 GB for 2/3 level + 2 GB). If you only had a level 8 guild you would get 6.5 GB. (5 GB for 2/3 level + 1.5 GB).

In the end it just made it harder to work out and I stopped using it.

Raesene Andu

01-21-2005, 10:11 AM

There is also the question of balance. At the moment the rules are relatively balance, at least by my experience, but you add additional income to the mix, then that will unbalance the rules. Big realms will have larger armies, while small realms won't be much better off than they are now. A realm like Dhoesone, which is big but with a lot of small provinces would really lose out when compared to Ghoere which has a lot of level 5+ provinces.

If you change the income, then you are going to have to change the rest of the rule to take the higher income into consideration and that isn't an easy task.

Angelbialaska

01-21-2005, 12:04 PM

I've put the average of a max roll in for income. Please note that I have not put in the trade routes outside their own realms.

I'll first start out with the two most even realms that I can think of, Brosengae and Mieres. In the old system those two generated about as much gold as each other.

Old system:

Brosengae:
3 provinces of level 4: 7,5
3 level 4 guilds in level 4 provinces: 9
1 level 2 holding in level 7 province: 1,5
1 level 2 holding in level 4 province: 1
1 level 1 holding in level 4 province: 1,5
1 level 3 holding in level 5 procince: 2
1 level 3 holding in level 3 province: 2

3 coastal provinces of level 4+: 6 sea trade routes and 6 land trade routes (Total income 24 GB)

Total income: 48,5 GB
Upkeep: 2 GB

Mieres:
1 province of level 1: 1
3 provinces of level 2: 4,5
2 provinces of level 3: 4
2 provinces of level 4: 5
1 level 1 holding in level 1 province: 0
3 level 2 holdings in level 2 province: 3
2 level 3 holdings in level 3 province: 4
2 level 4 holdings in level 4 province: 6
1 level 1 holding in level 5 province: 1
1 level 2 holding in level 5 province: 1,5

1 coastal province of level 4+: 2 sea trade route and 10 land trade routes (Total income 18.5GB)

Total income: 48,5 GB
Upkeep: 5 GB

New system:

Brosengae:
12 province levels: 12 GB
6 law levels: 2 GB
23 guild levels: 15 1/3 GB
6 trade routes from level 4 province: 12 GB

Total income: 41 1/3 GB

Mieres:
21 province levels: 21 GB
8 law levels: 2 2/3 GB
24 guild levels: 16 GB
10 trade routes: 16 GB

Total income: 55 2/3

The balance between those two realms are completely distorted.

Or let us look at the Chimaeron before and now:

Before:
4 level 1 provinces: 4
3 level 2 provinces: 4,5
3 level 2 guilds in level 2 provinces: 3
2 level 1 guilds in level 1 provinces: 0

Total income: 11,5 GB
Upkeep: 4 GB

Now:
10 province levels: 10
9 law levels: 3
8 guild levels: 5 1/3

Total income: 18 1/3

Ilien now and before: (Rogr and EH is put together for effect)
Before:
1 level 7 province: 5,5
1 level 7 guild: 5
3 land trade routes and 3 sea trade routes: 21

Total: 31.5GB

Now:
7 province level: 7
7 law level: 2 1/3
7 guild level: 4 2/3
3 trade routes: 10.5

Total: 24.5

So if anyone say that there's balance, then I'm not sure what balance is, because it doesn't add up anywhere close to what the old rules gave for some of the domains.

Raesene Andu

01-21-2005, 01:37 PM

Including trade routes in the equation is primarily what distorts the balance. If you take out trade routes and look again at Brosengae and Mieres, then you get something like this.

Old System:
Brosengae - 24.5
Mieres - 30 GB

New System:
Brosengae - 29.33 GB
Mieres - 39.67

The difference is 6 GB under the 2E rules, and 10 GB under the 3E system, yet the income from both realms has risen. Note: I'm not including maintenance cost for holding here, if they are also taken out then the 2E difference is only 3 GB and there is a large difference between the realm.

I'll ignore the Chimaeron because it is a NPC realm, but I do agree it has got a big income boost, but so have most realms, so that is not out of the ordinary.

Looking at Ilien, I'll again take out the trade routes from the equation, because they are a seperate issue.

Under 2E rules, Ilien (including el-Hadid) collects 10.5 GB, while under 3E it collects 14 GB. Again there is an increase of about 1/3 over 2E income.

The primarily concern I can see is not the actual province and guild income, for the most part they increase at about the same ratio (and extra 1/3 over 2E) but the changes to the maintenance and trade route rules. That is where the major differences in income arise and perhaps that is what needs to be looked at rather than the income itself.

Angelbialaska

01-21-2005, 01:54 PM

Well, I can agree to looking at trade routes and maintenance.

With maintenance the difference between Mieres and Brosengae would only be 3GB in the old system. I feel that the more than 10GB difference between the two realms is a bit harsh.

Also I feel that we should either have ports being automatic at a province reaching level 4 or it's buildable only after the province reaching level 4. And of course we need to get back to the land trade routes and sea trade routes. It gives people a reason to invest in both ports and roads.

epicsoul

01-21-2005, 04:40 PM

In 2E the large provinces were potentially less profitable than under the 1 GB/province level rule, and then on top there was maintenance to be paid for holdings and provinces. If you look at the Province Taxation table in the original BR rulebook (pg 43) and assume moderate taxation and then average out the value, you get the following.

Level 1: 1 GB
Level 2: 1.5 GB
Level 3: 2 GB
Level 4: 2.5 GB
Level 5: 3.5 GB
Level 6: 4.5 GB
Level 7: 5.5 GB
Level 8: 6.5 GB
Level 9: 8 GB
Level 10: 9 GB

I am opposing your math here. by my humble calculations, it is:

Level 1: 1 GB
Level 2: 2 GB
Level 3: 2.5 GB
Level 4: 3.5 GB
Level 5: 4.5 GB
Level 6: 5.5 GB
Level 7: 6.5 GB
Level 8: 7.5 GB (look! a d12! someone uses a d12!)
Level 9: 9 GB
Level 10: 11 GB

As an average for moderate province taxation... however, you received no law taxation, other than seizing assets. Whereas you do now. Perhaps I was just in cruel campaigns then, because practically everyone I played with did Severe taxation, which altered it more;
Level 1: 2 GB
Level 2: 2.5 GB
Level 3: 3.5 GB
Level 4: 4.5 GB
Level 5: 5.5 GB
Level 6: 6.5 GB
Level 7: 7.5 GB (d12! again)
Level 8: 9 GB
Level 9: 11 GB
Level 10: 13 GB

Note that it gives an extra 2 (due to getting 2 dice instead of 1 for the lower levels) for levels 8-10.

Under the old system, due to diminishing returns, it was often best to leave a province at level 2, or get it up to 9. Now, it's better to leave it at a 3... period. Unless you have NOWHERE else to rule, and nothing better to do.

I also challenge your assertion about maintenance. Under old rules, it was cheaper to maintain 2 level 10 provinces (w/ 2 law holdings) at a maintenance of 1 GB, than 7 provinces plus their law holdings at a maintenance of 3 GB.

Also, under old rules, you have to remember that bless land and other realm spells (ie; the broken ones! such as gold rush) made those higher level provinces
MUCH more profitable. While there was simplification with the BRCS, and it fixed these broken rules, IMO, it took away serious advantages to a high level province.

.

Osprey

01-21-2005, 04:41 PM

I don't think trade routes can be left out of this equation. Even under the BRCS system, trade routes are a HUGE reason to build up province levels. Not only does the value per route increase, so does the maximum number of routes. Enough provinces in a realm start hitting level 4 (allowing 2 trade routes at 2 GB each), a guilder can get very rich (see Ghorien Hiriele). Naturally, no landed regent is going to let that kind of cash slip out from under their fingers.

IMC most tributes are done as fractions of the guilders' net profits - 1/4 to 1/3 being the norm. Guilders still get hugely rich, and landed regents get a vital boost to their income.

Ilien, at level 7, can support 3 trade routes at 3.5 GB each (on the Ilien end), in addition to a level 7 guild (4-2/3 GB). So that's 15 GB gross guild income for El-Hadid from Ilien alone. All of this can use a single seaport for sea trade, which is conveniently efficient. Do they really need 6 trade routes here (3 land, 3 sea)? I don't think so. Ilien was never meant to be a powerful landed realm - it relies on its allies (Medoere and Roesone) for its landward military defense, and would probably rely on outside help to build a strong navy. I think that's OK. Ilien's main power is the wizardry of its regent, on which its allies also rely. Symbiotic relationship, in which Ilien can't do much without some interdependence among allies. I like that scenario, it's one of the reasons the southern 3 realms are such good PC regent realms - there's a built-in need to work together.

Osprey

The incredible, edible Phil

01-21-2005, 08:08 PM

Don't forget the size of the law holding the regent could stand to control. A level 10 holding is a pretty good deterrent for those that try to perform espionage actions or agitate actions against you.

Raesene Andu

01-21-2005, 09:15 PM

I am opposing your math here. by my humble calculations, it is:

Level 1: 1 GB
Level 2: 2 GB
Level 3: 2.5 GB
Level 4: 3.5 GB
Level 5: 4.5 GB
Level 6: 5.5 GB
Level 7: 6.5 GB
Level 8: 7.5 GB (look! a d12! someone uses a d12!)
Level 9: 9 GB
Level 10: 11 GB

Ok, I see what you have done. For example, with level 4 provinces you have assumed that the average roll on a 1d4 is 3, while I have assumed it is 2. You've gone for the high average, I've gone for the low. Neither is really correct. I suppose you could split it down the middle, average a d4 roll at 2.5 GB instead of either 2 or 3. If you do that you get a sequence of 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10. For severe taxation it would be 2, 2.5, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12.

Under the old system, due to diminishing returns, it was often best to leave a province at level 2, or get it up to 9. Now, it's better to leave it at a 3... period. Unless you have NOWHERE else to rule, and nothing better to do.

Well personally I'd like to see province levels remain just as they are, but there are benefits for increasing the province level. You get better troop types, you can build large castle, and if you have a coastal province then you can build better shipyards and therefore also construct more powerful ships.

I also challenge your assertion about maintenance. Under old rules, it was cheaper to maintain 2 level 10 provinces (w/ 2 law holdings) at a maintenance of 1 GB, than 7 provinces plus their law holdings at a maintenance of 3 GB.

Did I have a position on maintenance? I don't think I did, other than to say that it was dropped. This was done in favour of a maintenance for other assets, including an increased maintenance for castles and fortifications. I don't have time to the the exactly calculations right now to compare 2E and 3E maintenance costs.

Raesene Andu

01-21-2005, 09:27 PM

My main concern with 3E trade routes, and I have raised this before is that the way the rules are written now, it makes no difference which realm you create a trade route with. A trade route from a level 7 guild to another level 7 guild generates exactly the same amount of income for the guy in the first level 7 province as it would if he had created it with a level 1 province. Surely this has to be considered a broken rule and in serious next of change.

My proposal was to combine the totals of the two guilds and half it and then give each guild half of that total. So a trade route between 2 level 7 guilds would generate 7 GB (half of the guild totals) and then split in half again to give 3.5 GB to each guild. While a trade route from a level 7 guild to a level 1 guild would generate 2 GB for each guild.

You also have to consider that trade route income for guilder in the BRCS is effectively 1/4 what it original was and guilder don't get RP from trade routes any more. They have really been hammered.

If we use the example of Ilien as it has come up. Under the old rule, trade route income was half the combined total of the linked provinces. So Ilien, assuming it linked to only level 7 provinces could potentially generate a total of 42 GB for el-Hadid's guilds. With the BRCS rule, he can generate a maximum of 10.5 GB (3.5 x 3) and no RP. His potential trade route income is now 1/4 what it was in 2E and he has lost his RP income from those routes.

Note: I agree with the lose of the RP income, and it rarely makes any difference due to the low bloodline scores of most guilders.

Angelbialaska

01-21-2005, 09:58 PM

Originally posted by Raesene Andu@Jan 21 2005, 10:27 PM
My main concern with 3E trade routes, and I have raised this before is that the way the rules are written now, it makes no difference which realm you create a trade route with. A trade route from a level 7 guild to another level 7 guild generates exactly the same amount of income for the guy in the first level 7 province as it would if he had created it with a level 1 province. Surely this has to be considered a broken rule and in serious next of change.

My proposal was to combine the totals of the two guilds and half it and then give each guild half of that total. So a trade route between 2 level 7 guilds would generate 7 GB (half of the guild totals) and then split in half again to give 3.5 GB to each guild. While a trade route from a level 7 guild to a level 1 guild would generate 2 GB for each guild.

You also have to consider that trade route income for guilder in the BRCS is effectively 1/4 what it original was and guilder don't get RP from trade routes any more. They have really been hammered.

If we use the example of Ilien as it has come up. Under the old rule, trade route income was half the combined total of the linked provinces. So Ilien, assuming it linked to only level 7 provinces could potentially generate a total of 42 GB for el-Hadid's guilds. With the BRCS rule, he can generate a maximum of 10.5 GB (3.5 x 3) and no RP. His potential trade route income is now 1/4 what it was in 2E and he has lost his RP income from those routes.

Note: I agree with the lose of the RP income, and it rarely makes any difference due to the low bloodline scores of most guilders.
I agree that guilders have seriously gotten hit by a 250 pound maul swung by a mighty raging Half-Orc Barbarian level 20 with 24 natural Strength and a Belt of Giant Strength +6. (38 strength... Ouch!) :ph34r:

The RP income from trade routes isn't the most important. Because as pointed out, the guilders have low regency. This is also the reason that they need to make up for it with generating much much more gold, so they can lower success numbers that way. :)

I can't see what's wrong with the trade route generating half of the guild level of GB for the ruler. It just encourages to create trade routes. Of course two regents may decide on some other arrangement if they find it fitting.

ConjurerDragon

01-21-2005, 11:30 PM

edible Phil schrieb:

>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=36&t=2944

>

> The incredible, edible Phil wrote:

> Don`t forget the size of the law holding the regent could stand to control. A level 10 holding is a pretty good deterrent for those that try to perform espionage actions or agitate actions against you.

>

If the Espionage action is made easier by the size of the province and

(if the regent is hostile) made more difficult by the size of the law

holding then it won´t matter if the law holding is 1 or 10 - the law

holding can´t be larger than the province size only smaller and the

difference in difficulty won´t change. At least it was in 2E.

bye

Michael

epicsoul

01-22-2005, 04:21 AM

Originally posted by Osprey@Jan 21 2005, 05:41 PM
I don't think trade routes can be left out of this equation. Even under the BRCS system, trade routes are a HUGE reason to build up province levels. Not only does the value per route increase, so does the maximum number of routes. Enough provinces in a realm start hitting level 4 (allowing 2 trade routes at 2 GB each), a guilder can get very rich (see Ghorien Hiriele). Naturally, no landed regent is going to let that kind of cash slip out from under their fingers.

IMC most tributes are done as fractions of the guilders' net profits - 1/4 to 1/3 being the norm. Guilders still get hugely rich, and landed regents get a vital boost to their income.

Ilien, at level 7, can support 3 trade routes at 3.5 GB each (on the Ilien end), in addition to a level 7 guild (4-2/3 GB). So that's 15 GB gross guild income for El-Hadid from Ilien alone. All of this can use a single seaport for sea trade, which is conveniently efficient. Do they really need 6 trade routes here (3 land, 3 sea)? I don't think so. Ilien was never meant to be a powerful landed realm - it relies on its allies (Medoere and Roesone) for its landward military defense, and would probably rely on outside help to build a strong navy. I think that's OK. Ilien's main power is the wizardry of its regent, on which its allies also rely. Symbiotic relationship, in which Ilien can't do much without some interdependence among allies. I like that scenario, it's one of the reasons the southern 3 realms are such good PC regent realms - there's a built-in need to work together.

Osprey
I retract a bit of what I said earlier; it is best to get a province to level 4, not 3. To get that extra bit o' trade routes, and allow for extra troop types.

Ultimately, only 1 high level province is needed, if you want some knights.

Raesene Andu

01-22-2005, 11:38 PM

Originally posted by Angelbialaska@Jan 22 2005, 07:28 AM
I can't see what's wrong with the trade route generating half of the guild level of GB for the ruler. It just encourages to create trade routes. Of course two regents may decide on some other arrangement if they find it fitting.
My prime concern was the one I outlined earlier, that it no longer matters where the destination of a trade route is, it still generates the same income. I'd like to see both the source and destination guilds have an effect on the trade route income, it makes more sense that way. It would also mean that the high level provinces with strong guild (example, Ilien) become much more important. It would mean that in Anuire, el-Hadid has the largest guild holding, so every other guilder is going to want to trade with him, because they will make more income that way.

As for the income of trade routes, well you can calculate it a number of way. Currently it is just half the holding level, which isn't a lot in most cases. Under the 2E rules it was half the combined total of the provinces, which was significantly more in most case, but also didn't take into consideration of guild's holding level and was unbalanced because of that.

I would personally favour setting trade route income to half the combined totals of the guilds involved. So linking a level 3 guild and a level 4 guild would earn each guild 3.5 GB a turn. This would provide a reason for high level provinces and guilds, as they make a lot more GB/turn from trade than smaller guilds and provinces. It may be considered too high though...

Another way guilders have been hammered is that they used to be able to create as many trade routes as they desired in a turn, but now this has been reduced to a single trade route from each domain action. I don't disgree with this change at all, but again it reduces the guilder's income in the short term. Also trade chain and exploratory fleet were dropped as actions. Exploratory fleet was a very cumbersome and confusing action, so I'm not sorry to see it gone, trade chain had potential however.

Angelbialaska

01-23-2005, 12:33 AM

Giving each side of the trade route half will be good for those trading with Ilien. But on the other hand El-Hadid will have little out of having such a high level, other than strengtening others.

The only guilders that El-Hadid should consider trading with this way would be Bor in Boeruine, who is the only guilder that has a couple of level 5 holdings near water and Endier who has a level 6 holding in Ilien.

And if El-Hadid will be using land trade routes, then there's no higher level holdings nearby, level 4 holdings being the highest all around, until we get many provinces away.

I agree that it should be the average of guild holdings, but then the guilders should also get some advantage. It seems very much to me like the guilder has lost, lost, lost, lost and gained absolutely nothing. Makes it unattractive to be a guilder IMO.

And yeah, what's with the stealing of all the nice guilderish orders? :(

Osprey

01-23-2005, 02:42 AM

As for the income of trade routes, well you can calculate it a number of way. Currently it is just half the holding level, which isn't a lot in most cases. Under the 2E rules it was half the combined total of the provinces, which was significantly more in most case, but also didn't take into consideration of guild's holding level and was unbalanced because of that.

I would personally favour setting trade route income to half the combined totals of the guilds involved. So linking a level 3 guild and a level 4 guild would earn each guild 3.5 GB a turn. This would provide a reason for high level provinces and guilds, as they make a lot more GB/turn from trade than smaller guilds and provinces. It may be considered too high though...

As I understand it in the BRCS, the value of a trade route is 1/2 the level of the guild on each end of the trade route. So EH (7) in Ilien trades with Bor (5) in Seasedge, earning EH 3.5 GB and Bor 2.5 GB. The total value of the trade route is 6 GB.

If I understand you correctly, your revision would maintain the total value of the trade route while mandating that each guilder split this value evenly (3 GB each). Correct?

I'm not certain this is a good revision to make. Perhaps I've just grown accustomed to the BRCS system over the last 2 years, but I rather like the idea that the bigger guild makes more money from the route than the smaller one. It has a certain logic to it: bigger guild = bigger market and more control over prices, which means bigger profits. This is also why I like trade route incomes being based on guild levels, not province levels.

Dunno, I guess I like the BRCS trade system pretty well as it is. If there were any changes I would make, it would be to increase the level of detail and allow for some adjustments to trade route values based on the actual goods being traded. So that really rare and valuable commodities like spices, silks, precious gems, mithril, moraskorr, and alchemicals would generate bonus income. However, I realize that this is a level of detail not wanted by everyone, so it's something better created as an optional sort of template to place on the game if the group desires it.

Osprey

Raesene Andu

01-23-2005, 04:46 AM

My main concern is that it doesn't matter who a guild trades with. For example, EH (7) in Ilien can trade with Bor (5) for 3.5 GB a turn, or he could trade with MA (1) in Shadowgreen for exactly the same amount, it makes no difference where the destination guild is.

It sort of makes sense that a powerful guild in Ilien trading with another powerful guild in Boeruine would make more gold from its trade route than if it were trading with some minor guild in the wilderness of Aerenwe. It comes down to the amount and value of goods being transferred between the two locations.

This is unless you wish to change the way you look at a trade route and instead of a two-way flow of goods, a trade route can be set up where there is primarily a one-way flow of goods. Using the example of the Shadowgreen -> Ilien trade route, it may have been set up by EH to bring lumber into Ilien for the shipyard there. In that case, EH is making a lot of money because he is selling that lumber at a good profit, while MA only makes his 0.5 GB because he is making only a small portion. Ok, in that case it makes sense, it just needs some explaining in the rules, and maybe an example or two.

I agree with the idea about rare and valuable commodities. Something like a gold mine would be very valuable to a regent who held a guild there or traded with that province.