PDA

View Full Version : Fortified Holdings and Contest Actions



soudhadies
10-01-2005, 01:21 AM
I got asked an interesting question by one of my players today. He asked if there was any way to fortify himself against contest actions. As far as I can figure, this question is not addressed in the BRCS (at least the version that I have): It was not endorsed or forbidden.

Here is what I came up with.

First, the new contest action has fundamentally changed from the 2nd edition action. The old action reflected a struggle for control of the entire holding (hence contested), while the new action reflects a reduction that seems to be best paralleled in military occupations. The new language also states that "[c]ontesting another holding is like declaring war."

It seems to me then, that given the similar principles and effects, fortified holdings should also e protected against contest actions. What I ruled was that each individual level of damage from a successful contest action should be examined individually. If there is an unprotected holding level, that will be reduced, otherwise a level of the holding's fortification will be reduced. So a Guild 3 with a level two fortification will lose its unprotected level first, then will have its fortification reduced one level, then will lose another guild level that has become unprotected.

I think there is a good policy implication for this, first of all it will make holding fortifications more desireable by making them more useful to domains that generally do not participate actual warfare. However, it will not make the fortifications all powerful such as, say, requiring that an actual military siege be used to reduce the fortifications before the holdings protected by them can be contested.

The only question then would be how holdings protected by province fortifications should behave. I tend to think that such holdings should be protected until siege is used to reduce the level of protection. However, that would make it almost impossible for domains without state support to compete with those that have state support. It just seems wrong to me that a province fortification could be weakened by contest actions though.

irdeggman
10-01-2005, 02:35 AM
The reason that the BRCS doesn't address fortifying against contest actions is because you can't - that is what spending RP is for - to counter influence the population.

Fortifications are assets and counted in domain maintenance as such. Basically they are structures built for a siege. Contest actions work on the basis of changing influence of the respective people (or land/source). Think of it like armor and attacks. Armor works against a sword but not against a touch attack.

No wall in and of itself will make the population feel better about the regent in charge and the quality of his rule. Using fortifications to resist contest actions will end up diluting the importance of RP and that is something people have already displayed a desire to change - i.e., increase the value of RP in regards to domain actions and reduce the importance of GB on them inn relationship toRP.


Fortifications (Province): Province fortifications include a province-wide system of fortifications dominated by a massive seat of military power (usually a castle or walled city).


Fortification (Holding): Holding fortifications are small systems of fortifications that are constructed to protect the holdings of one regent. This might include fortified cathedrals, armed warehouses, walled forts or small castles, or any other reasonably limited defensive structure.


Contest Holding [Standard/Realm; Administrate; 1 GB]

A regent can neutralize another regent’s domain by contesting his influence. This action targets one holding held by an opposing regent. The DC for the domain action check is 10 plus the level of the targeted holding. On a successful check against a holding, you reduce the level of the contested holding by 1d3 levels; if the holding is reduced below level 0 then it is destroyed. This reduction is permanent, although subsequent rule actions could allow the holding to reestablish itself.

Generally, holdings can only be contested by other holdings of the same type. Law holdings are also able to contest guild and temple holdings (but not source holdings). Contesting another’s holding is like declaring war. A successful contest action robs the victim of regency and gold collection and other support from the holding, bidding wars for Contest actions can get ugly and expensive very fast. In most cases, regents use the Contest action as a threat or a negotiating tool, rather than actually performing it often.

Realm action: As a standard action, Contest affects one target holding. This action can be supported by court actions to affect the scope of an entire realm. For each court action spent, an additional holding of the same type or held by the same opposing regent can be targeted. Success rolls and costs (including RP bidding) are calculated separately for each target


Military domain assets

Fortifications

Provinces and law, guild, or temple holdings have goods, buildings and personnel that are critical to the power base that they represent. Without protection, these critical assets are vulnerable to occupation or destruction by military forces. Fortifications make a province or holding more difficult to attack. Fortifications are built using the fortify domain action. There are two types of fortifications: fortified holdings and province fortifications.



A fortified holding makes one holding resistant to destruction. Fortified holdings might be defensible monasteries or cathedrals, walled warehouses, or hidden bandit strongholds. A fortified holding remains under a regent's control even if hostile forces occupy the province in which it lies. Normal (unfortified) holdings may be razed when an attacker chooses to occupy a province, but fortified holdings remain until taken by siege or storm. Fortified holdings are rated by level, just like holdings. The level of a fortified holding cannot exceed the level of the holding it protects. The fortification only protects holding levels equal to its rating, any holding level which exceed the fortification are subject to destruction. Fortifications have a maintenance cost equal to a holding of the same level. Thus, a fully fortified holding has double the maintenance cost of a normal (unfortified) holding.



A province fortification represents a castle and a system of walled towns, armories, and other military buildings can provide some level of protection throughout the entire province. The overall strength of a province fortification is represented by its level. A province fortification can be built up to level 10, regardless of the level of the province. A province fortification has a maintenance cost equal to a province of the same level. Thus a fully fortified province has double the maintenance cost of an unfortified province.



Hostile forces cannot move through a fortified province without neutralizing the province fortifications (see Strategic movement). Province fortifications can protect a number of law, temple, and guild holding levels equal to the level of the province fortification; the province ruler decides which holdings they wish to protect. Province fortifications are dependent upon a castle that acts as the province stronghold; if the castle is taken then all benefits of the province fortification are lost.

soudhadies
10-01-2005, 06:30 AM
I would argue that to a certain extent the text you cite would seem to support my obervations. Mostly because I'm insufferably contentious :)

In the text, a holding is made up of the interplay of two components "influence" and the "critical assets" (which should in theory be protectable by an asset) that underly it. The better one's infrastructure, the easier it is to maintain and expand influence. A contest action needs to be an attack on both, otherwise destroying a fortified holding through it would leave some interesting problems. Mostly, if the regent has such strong protections built around his critical assests, why does he suddenly lose control of them?

In considering unfortified holdings, it is not difficult to surmise what happens to these critical assets as the holding as the holding is contested into the ground. they are merely appropriated by the people as influence is lost.

With fortified holdings, however, the people must also contend with the walls, barricades, and armed guards who are paid to ensure the regent's property rights. Extra effort is therefore required to ensure that the holding is razed to the theoretical ground. The small network of protections is disassembeled node by node, allowing critical assets to be lost, and thus guaranteeing a permanent diminishment of influence.

The alternative, I suppose would be that if a fortified holding is contested out of existence, that the regent can keep the asset itself: He has a network of walls. Thrilling to be sure, but fairly useless. Perhaps he could sell them to the usurper, but otherwise their construction was ultimately a tremendous waste of money.

I think what needs to be considered is what exactly the nature of a holding is. The abstract nature of the Birthright system makes this difficult to guage. In my mind, however, it works something like this:

Influence is the result of a holding, not the holding itself. There is a direct causal relationship between the holding and the influence. Consider a law holding for example. The law regent does not have influence over his people as an innate aspect of his character, but because the sharp swords of his guards and the dungeons below his keep demand that they obey his laws and respect his influence. A guild holding controls economic influence because the people have to meet their economic needs somehow, and the fact that the guild controls what wagons come, and what goods are sold demands that they give you their coin, and thus influence. People have religious needs, the spiritual influence of a temple is determined by its capacity to meet those needs.

Holdings are not influence. Holdings command influence. This is why the contest action in the original edition worked the way it did. In that action the agressor attempts to assert control over the entire target holding. When this happens, the holding enters a state in which the holding becomes controlled by neither party. The people, unsure of what is happening, cannot grant influence (in the form of regency or income) to either party. Once one regent regains control of the holding, he enjoys all the influence that it grants.

So how would I define a holding?

A holding is a combination of infrastructure, assets and the people required to administrate them, that are bound to the regent and command influence for him over a specific sphere.

Of course, this is only my opinion.

geeman
10-01-2005, 07:58 AM
Yeah, fortifying a holding again contest actions (and other things) makes
sense. Spending RP to oppose such things is... something
else. Fortification is best defined as taking the trouble not to just have
something like a guild holding, but the security measures taken to prevent
that holding and its assets from simply being destroyed or
confiscated. Enclosed buildings, locks, safes, guards, etc. are all things
that might be considered "fortification" when it comes to a holding.

Gary

ConjurerDragon
10-01-2005, 11:17 AM
Bearcat schrieb:

>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
>You can view the entire thread at:
>http://www.birthright.net/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=2792
> Bearcat wrote:
>I got asked an interesting question by one of my players today. He asked if there was any way to fortify himself against contest actions. As far as I can figure, this question is not addressed in the BRCS (at least the version that I have): It was not endorsed or forbidden.
>
>Here is what I came up with....
>
Why not simply use the 2E Bless Holding realm spell from the Book of
Priestcraft? It already describes a protection against Contest actions.
bye
Michael

Osprey
10-01-2005, 04:30 PM
Hmm, this is interesting. Bearcat, I can see your point in viewing Contest throught the 2e lens: one holding (or set of holdings), over which various regents vie for control.

The BRCS, I think, takes a different view on the matter. Contest actions are about rival holdings/regents vying for control of a province within a certain domain (commerce, spiritual influence, law and order, or magic). That's why it requires a regent to have at least a L0 holding to initiate the action.

When a regent tries to contest another rival within the same province, he is not trying to take over the existing holding - he's trying to destroy its influence. Once he's damaged or destroyed that holding's influence, the resulting vacuum of power makes it possible for him to begin ruling up his own holding and thus establishing a new source of power within the province.

Let's take guilds for example: Say we have EH (El-Hadid) with a level 4 fortified guild holding in Braeme (a 4/1 province), and GK (Guilder Kalien) with a level 0 holding there. Kalien has representatives, an office, maybe some contacts among the local merchants. But EH controls all of the vital trade and commerce in the province, and makes the real profits there.

However, GK's foothold is enough to launch a series of "attacks" on EH's control of Braeme's trade. People are "persuaded" to buy Endier's goods instead of Ilien's; propoganda undermines the people's trust in EH's merchants and goods; perhaps Kalien diverts vital products out of Braeme's markets entirely (through banditry, bribery, conspiracy, or simply buying up all the trade goods before they reach the market), leaving the people with nothing to buy - and they'll hopefully blame EH for not coming through.

Point is, fortified walls and guards on EH's warehouses and offices won't do a damned thing to protect his control of commerce in the region. Kalien is undermining his credibility and control, not necessarily razing his stockpiles of trade goods. Ultimately, if Kalien is successful, he can then try to rule up his own guild holdings and start asserting the control of the Endier guilds in Braeme. Whether he builds his own structures or buys EH's is somewhat irrelevant - the infrastructure exists only to support his growing commercial power, it isn't the power itself.

I would reason that EH is indeed left with a set of L4 holding fortifications - only they aren't really protecting anything worthwhile anymore, and so will probably be abandoned by an efficient regent like El-Hadid - unless he re-establishes control of trade there, in which case I as a DM would allow him to retain his former fortification levels so long as he pays the seasonal maintenance for them.

Interestingly, though, this does raise a good tangental point: why in the world should fortified holding levels be limited to the level of holding? Why not allow a L4 temple to be a L10 fortified holding? Treat them much like provincial fortifications - double the build cost and maintenance for every level above the supporting holding level. With such a rules change in place, it becomes easy enough to deal with fortified holdings whose influence has declined but whose physical defenses remain (those unsupported levels now have double maintenance!).

As far as I can tell, fortified holding levels being limited by the level of holding is a completely arbitrary rule that has little or no rational, in-game justification. Writing in a statement that landed regents would tend to discourage or prohibit such things is well enough, but a flat game rule prohibiting such construction seems...odd.

There's my take on the whole issue, anyways, and a suggested rules adjustment for the 3.5 BRCS to boot.

Osprey

Lee
10-01-2005, 04:32 PM
In a message dated 10/1/05 2:51:03 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET writes:

<< So how would I define a holding?

A holding is a combination of infrastructure, assets and the people required
to administrate them, that are bound to the regent and command influence for
him over a specific sphere. >>

IMO, you are overstating the capital assets and understating the human
assets. In the case of the Law holding you mention, I see the holding more as
the local judge(s) and sheriff (jarl, chieftain, whatever) and their deputies,
and the influence they hold among the people; as well as their
courthouse/jail/castle. In that order.
If a foreign regent wants to contest a Law holding, then his best course
of action is to sway the loyalty of the law-keepers. For instance, Avanil has
Law holdings among his vassals of Brosengae and Taeghas-- does that mean he
holds the deed to the courthouses? To my mind, he has the loyalty of the
judges or sheriffs, not the rulers of the province, they judge according to his
wishes, and everyone knows it.

Lee.

soudhadies
10-01-2005, 06:24 PM
"IMO, you are overstating the capital assets and understating the human
assets."

Which is why I said that a holding was also "the people required to administrate them." An attack on a holding could consist on an attack any one of these elements. If you burn the keep to the ground and break the swords, then the law holding is hurt as much as if you rode about and killed all the sheriffs and guards who would use them to keep order. If you steal the goods, then it doesn't matter if you have wagoneers to drive them, or merchants to sell them. Its all interrelated, but the people who run the holding's business are an important part of it.

"If a foreign regent wants to contest a Law holding, then his best course
of action is to sway the loyalty of the law-keepers. For instance, Avanil has
Law holdings among his vassals of Brosengae and Taeghas-- does that mean he holds the deed to the courthouses? To my mind, he has the loyalty of the
judges or sheriffs, not the rulers of the province, they judge according to his
wishes, and everyone knows it."

Even if he doesn't hold the deed to the courthouse, it doesn't mean that he doesn't control it through those agents. De facto ownership is as valid as de jure ownership in my opinion. But what you say is very much in line with the classical contest action: create a crisis of leadership so it is unclear who is really in charge, and then use the investiture action to assert control.

Human resources are as much an asset of the holding as anything else, and because people are the ones actually moving stuff around they are the gatekeepers to the other aspects of the holding. This does not, however, mean that the other aspects are not important. And it does not mean that my assertion that holdings are not influence, but instead command influence is not true.

The number of people that are required to administrate the holding will be relatively small when held up against the entire population of the province, and yet the holding will command influence over a significant portion of the people as a result of the power of the holding.

I think that the new version's contest action is more about the numbers game than it is about whatever the philosophical foundation of the holding is. I will be the first to admit that it is annoying to think that a level 7 holding can be disabled, destroyed or usurped so quickly. Incremental damage can make the pill easier to swallow.

But I think that when contest actions are incremental attacks, even if they are ultimately undertaken to reduce the influence of the target regent in the province, they do so through attacks on the human and material assets of the holding. To assert otherwise seems to confuse the end with the means. It only seems logical, then, to force an attacker to peal away whatever defenses may have been erected around these assets before allowing him to destroy them.

Osprey
10-01-2005, 07:11 PM
But I think that when contest actions are incremental attacks, even if they are ultimately undertaken to reduce the influence of the target regent in the province, they do so through attacks on the human and material assets of the holding. To assert otherwise seems to confuse the end with the means. It only seems logical, then, to force an attacker to peal away whatever defenses may have been erected around these assets before allowing him to destroy them.

If a Contest action is viewed as eroding influence, I don't think it is at all confusing means and ends to think that there are plenty of non-physical ways to do this (numerous examples supplied in my previous post). It seems to me that you are somewhat fixated on the nature of this action being a direct physical attack on the holding and the assets (material and human) it represents.

That is certainly one valid approach, but it is hardly the sole means of contesting a holding. In fact, I'd say it is a rather crude and unlikely means of contesting political influence. Since Contest actions are based heavily on RP expenditures, it stands to reason that political and social influence play by far the largest role in determining the success or failure of a contest action.

At best, Bearcat, it might be reasonable to allow fortifications to provide a small bonus to resist Contest actions. The reasoning behind this is not the physical defenses they provide to the regent's assets, but rather the permanence and strength they represent. If a holding regent is willing to invest the time and monies to build and maintain fortifications, it stands as a symbol of supreme confidence that says to the effected people "these holdings are here to stay."

In mechanical terms, I might assign the following bonuses:
Holdings Fortified to at least 1/2 total holding levels: +1 to Contest DC's
Holdings Fortified to full holding levels: +2 to Contest DC's

Or something along those lines, enough to provide a +1 or +2 bonus at best. Beyond that, I think it should remain true that the primary function of fortifications is to protect against raiding and pillaging. In my experience, this is an extremely valuable function, since an occupying army is often quite tempted to sack the hell out of unprotected enemy holdings, while fortified ones require dedicated effort and risk (especially if they have standing garrisons as well).

Osprey

soudhadies
10-02-2005, 12:25 AM
That I don't put my attacks in quotation marks does not mean that they are limited only to physical violence =)


>However, GK's foothold is enough to launch a series of "attacks" on EH's
>control of Braeme's trade.

>People are "persuaded" to buy Endier's goods
>instead of Ilien's;

Not likely, a level 0 guild holding does not have the capacity to meet demand. Endier does not have the merchants, guards, employees, warehouses, and supply routes in place to bring his goods to market. It is one thing to persuade (or threaten as you seem to imply) people into agreeing to buy your goods. However, when push comes to shove when i need bread, or pants, or a new cow and El Hadid can sell them to me and Guilder Kalien can't I'm gonna have to buy El Hadid's pants.

>propoganda undermines the people's trust in EH's
>merchants and goods;

Same as above. I'll buy it, but i won't like it. This would be an agitate action to reduce loyalty, not a contest action. Don't confuse influence with loyalty. Loyalty indicates how cooperative I feel, influence indicates how much of a choice I have in the matter. If you are the only person that can give me what I need, then you have a great deal of influence over me, regardless of whether or not I'd like to kick you in the shins. If I kick you in the shins and take it anyway, well that is a revolt.

>perhaps Kalien diverts vital products out of Braeme's
>markets entirely (through banditry, bribery, conspiracy, or simply buying up
>all the trade goods before they reach the market), leaving the people with
>nothing to buy - and they'll hopefully blame EH for not coming through.

These would qualify as attacks as I see them.

Banditry= attacks on human and material assets.

Bribery and conspiracy= attacks on human assets, and perhaps indirectly on the material assets as the human assets exert control over the material assets for the regents.

Buyout scheme= a fairly obvious, but nonviolent attack on the material assets.

What each of these does, as you point out, is reduce the ability of El Hadid to meet the needs of the population. Now nobody has pants. Because influence is a product of the holding (the material and human assets), a diminuition of those assets results in a diminuition of influence. El Hadid's influence extends only as far as his wagons will travel. Laws will be enforced and obeyed only where the guards are willing to patrol. Religious doctrinal authority will only be maintained where there are those able to ensure that it is maintained. The holding is not the influence, the holding commands the influence.

>the primary function of fortifications is to protect against raiding and
>pillaging.

Forgive me for being cynical, but i think that the primary function of fortifications is to maintain control :)

I think it is also a fallacy to think that a fortification is just a wall. Frankly, it is a pretty crappy wall that will fall over almost immediately if the regent fails to pay maintenance. There are examples of walls all over the world that have stood for hundreds if not thousands of years without being maintained.

So where does the money go? I will admit that some will go to routine maintenance, but consider also this: walls have gates, and gates need people to open and close them, and walls need people to walk them. A fortification is more than just a wall. It is too is human and material assets, but unlike a holding whose assets are directed outward towards the province, the fortification is directed at the holding. It controls who has access, when they have access, what they can bring with them, what they can take with them. In short it is vigilance, "security measures" if you will, and people are watched.

Even if the primary purpose of the fortification were protection against pillaging, that purpose would be only rarely used. It seems that all this expense could also be put to another use, a more commonplace use. Think along the lines of this analogy: A fortification is to a holding as a law holding is to a province. It provides control, but it doesn't ensure it.

And don't think that the only means to get around it is through a "physical attack". Guards can be bribed, elaborate means of getting messages in and out can be devised, security can be overcome. However, all that is an extra effort. You have to peel back the levels of protection before you can get at the meaty bits. Hence, my proposal.

>If a Contest action is viewed as eroding influence, I don't think it is at all
>confusing means and ends to think that there are plenty of non-physical
>ways to do this (numerous examples supplied in my previous post).

What I meant by my admittedly cryptic remark was this: Holdings are not influence, holdings produce influence. If I have a holding, I therefore have influence. If your end is to reduce my influence, you don't sally forth to wage a campaign against the influence itself. That would be tilting at windmills, it would be akin to persuading people to buy your goods instead of mine without having any means of backing up the persuasion. The means then by which you deny me influence is by attacking the source of that influence.

If I have a shady parking spot and your end is to deny me that shade, then you don't attack the shade itself, you chop down the tree that provides it. Or you take care of it through other, sneakier means ;)

irdeggman
10-02-2005, 01:23 AM
Not likely, a level 0 guild holding does not have the capacity to meet demand. Endier does not have the merchants, guards, employees, warehouses, and supply routes in place to bring his goods to market. It is one thing to persuade (or threaten as you seem to imply) people into agreeing to buy your goods. However, when push comes to shove when i need bread, or pants, or a new cow and El Hadid can sell them to me and Guilder Kalien can't I'm gonna have to buy El Hadid's pants.

But with a 0-level holding as a base Kalien can convince the populace that El Hadis's products are not worth buying. Then when the guild level drops (a refelction of this) he then steps in to meet the demand by raising his guild level.


>propoganda undermines the people's trust in EH's
>merchants and goods;

Same as above. I'll buy it, but i won't like it. This would be an agitate action to reduce loyalty, not a contest action. Don't confuse influence with loyalty. Loyalty indicates how cooperative I feel, influence indicates how much of a choice I have in the matter. If you are the only person that can give me what I need, then you have a great deal of influence over me, regardless of whether or not I'd like to kick you in the shins. If I kick you in the shins and take it anyway, well that is a revolt.

Contest is like an agitate except it has a direct concrete effect (i.e., it lowers a holding level) - it is more focused than an agitate action.


>perhaps Kalien diverts vital products out of Braeme's
>markets entirely (through banditry, bribery, conspiracy, or simply buying up
>all the trade goods before they reach the market), leaving the people with
>nothing to buy - and they'll hopefully blame EH for not coming through.

These would qualify as attacks as I see them.

But not in the way that a fortification would help defend. Having walls and swords won't deter this type of action.


Banditry= attacks on human and material assets.

Yes, but that is not what we are talking about. Banditry is an act of physical violence and not one based on influence and advertising if you will.


Bribery and conspiracy= attacks on human assets, and perhaps indirectly on the material assets as the human assets exert control over the material assets for the regents.


Buyout scheme= a fairly obvious, but nonviolent attack on the material assets.

These are the tools of a contest action. Those more subtle less dependent on troops with swords.



>the primary function of fortifications is to protect against raiding and
>pillaging.

Forgive me for being cynical, but i think that the primary function of fortifications is to maintain control :)

I disagree - the primary function of a fortification is to provide a physical defense usually against invasion, but also against insurrection.


I think it is also a fallacy to think that a fortification is just a wall. Frankly, it is a pretty crappy wall that will fall over almost immediately if the regent fails to pay maintenance. There are examples of walls all over the world that have stood for hundreds if not thousands of years without being maintained.

So where does the money go? I will admit that some will go to routine maintenance, but consider also this: walls have gates, and gates need people to open and close them, and walls need people to walk them. A fortification is more than just a wall. It is too is human and material assets, but unlike a holding whose assets are directed outward towards the province, the fortification is directed at the holding. It controls who has access, when they have access, what they can bring with them, what they can take with them. In short it is vigilance, "security measures" if you will, and people are watched.

Well that is were reality and fantasy have to diverge. It is also the way to handle things game-mechanically - otherwise it really can't be done.


Even if the primary purpose of the fortification were protection against pillaging, that purpose would be only rarely used. It seems that all this expense could also be put to another use, a more commonplace use. Think along the lines of this analogy: A fortification is to a holding as a law holding is to a province. It provides control, but it doesn't ensure it.

And that is why almost all fortifications are at the province/capital level. They are designed to keep invaders out. Fortifying holdings is an expensive option with not too much to be gained by it - unless of course you are anticipating someone to use troops against you. Like say the province regent when he tries to use an occupy province action to lower your holding level.


And don't think that the only means to get around it is through a "physical attack". Guards can be bribed, elaborate means of getting messages in and out can be devised, security can be overcome. However, all that is an extra effort. You have to peel back the levels of protection before you can get at the meaty bits. Hence, my proposal.

>If a Contest action is viewed as eroding influence, I don't think it is at all
>confusing means and ends to think that there are plenty of non-physical
>ways to do this (numerous examples supplied in my previous post).

What I meant by my admittedly cryptic remark was this: Holdings are not influence, holdings produce influence. If I have a holding, I therefore have influence. If your end is to reduce my influence, you don't sally forth to wage a campaign against the influence itself. That would be tilting at windmills, it would be akin to persuading people to buy your goods instead of mine without having any means of backing up the persuasion. The means then by which you deny me influence is by attacking the source of that influence.

The system in the BRCS is an attempt to capture what the 2nd ed system did with fortifications (which was indeed only to defend against troops by the way - that was their only function) and still try to make things a skill based system ala 3/3.5.

soudhadies
10-02-2005, 03:37 AM
>But with a 0-level holding as a base Kalien can convince the populace that
>El Hadis's products are not worth buying. Then when the guild level drops (a
>refelction of this) he then steps in to meet the demand by raising his guild
>level.

>Contest is like an agitate except it has a direct concrete effect (i.e., it
>lowers a holding level) - it is more focused than an agitate action.

[Quote]
Hostile populaces despise or ridicule the regent . . . the regent receives no seasonal regency or gold collection from areas that maintain a hostile attitude from the regent . . .
[\Quote]

I don't know, it seems to me that encouraging a boycott of El Hadid's products by the populace thus denying him the revenues and, incidentally, the influence (in the form of RP) generated by the holding sounds a lot like agitating the people's attitude of the guild to a hostile attitude. Just goes to show that there is more than one way to achieve an end.

>Yes, but that is not what we are talking about. Banditry is an act of
>physical violence and not one based on influence and advertising if you will.

>These are the tools of a contest action. Those more subtle less dependent
>on troops with swords.

I was not the one to bring up banditry, Osprey did. I was responding to that.

>Well that is were reality and fantasy have to diverge. It is also the way to
>handle things game-mechanically - otherwise it really can't be done.

Ah, but I've just provided a simple, functional game mechanic for the complexity I'm talking about.

The way I have explained my vision of the birthright campaign to my players is as follows: Imagine that you take the greyhound from New York to LA. You see a narrow swath of the country in tremendous detail: people going about their business, trees, rows or corn, gas stations, etc. Now imagine that you fly over the same route. You now have a much broader view of what the country is like, instead you see forests, farms, cities. However, you understand that all the detail and complexity you saw before was there, even if you can't see it.

The flight is of course the BR ruleset. It is the big picture, but in applying it, and playing with it you lose sight of all the richness and detail that underly it. If you refuse to consider it, even in a cursory manner, then you turn it into a "tactical war game with role-playing" rather than a rich, complicated, and living role-playing campaign setting.

>And that is why almost all fortifications are at the province/capital level.
>They are designed to keep invaders out. Fortifying holdings is an expensive
>option with not too much to be gained by it - unless of course you are
>anticipating someone to use troops against you. Like say the province
>regent when he tries to use an occupy province action to lower your
>holding level.

The problem is that fortifying a holding is not only a very expensive proposition, it takes a long time to do. When you have anticipated an imminent attack, it will generally be too late. If the province regent is of a mind to attack you he will do so immediately when you start building. At the very least he will suddenly become very suspicious. It is currently just an expensive boondogle for regents to build on the off-hand chance that maybe someone in the future will somehow try to attack you.

My design philosophy, which you are more than welcome to disagree with, is that if some rule or apect of the game is useless, it either needs to be made useful, or it needs to be cut from the game entirely.

>The system in the BRCS is an attempt to capture what the 2nd ed system
>did with fortifications (which was indeed only to defend against troops by
>the way - that was their only function) and still try to make things a skill
>based system ala 3/3.5.

I will agree that the only function of fortifications in the original birthright campaign was to defend against troops. I will also say that the destruction of holdings was not the only function of the contest action, nor even the most useful function of that action in the original campaign. In fact, I would argue that it would be most foolish use of the original contest action. Contest-Invest was the way to go.

The current incarnation of the contest action functions like pillaging: a limited number of levels are utterly destroyed. Call it symmetry, call it underlying complexity. It just makes sense to me. ::Shrug::

However, I am well aware that my ideas are not neccessarily popular, and that nine times out of ten anything that I post will be met with casual disregard if not outright derision. That happened last time I started a campaign and tried to contribute. I don't see much point in continuing the argument. My idea is out there. If anyone likes it, they can use it. I yield the field, and the last word to those who may wish it.

Robbie
10-02-2005, 12:20 PM
I tend to agree with Bearcat's reasoning and I'd like to add a few thoughts on the matter.

The primary function of a castle in the middle ages was not to defend against an invader, it was the control of the population. When 5,000 Normans conquered a 1.5 million Saxon England, the only way for them to maintain a hold over the extremely overwhelming hostile populace was to build a network of Donjons (and later full size castles) which had the following effect:

- The lord and his relatively small retinue (let us assume about 20 armed men at most that any particular lord could command - there were about 250 greater lords in William's England) could focus their attack on any single village, farmstead, or perhaps even a small town because 20 armoured and armed men did command respect and, if it came down to that, could in fact defeat a bunch of peasants without weapons or armor. Moreover any lord had connections (allies, relatives) which could provide him with reinforcements if things got really ugly. So, even if there was a large scale revolt, lets say a few hundred peasants rebell, all he had to do was sit in his castle until enough seasoned troops of other lords or the king arrive to do some crowd control.

In fact the castles were the law, since the very sight of their impregnable walls (one mustn't forget that even seasoned armies actually resorted to siege warfare, as there was little chance of capturing a castle by storming before the age of gunpowder, and it happened very rarily in the middle ages), showed the populace that "resistance is futile" since there was no chance of a coordinated all out assault against the entire noble population of the country, which would have been the only way to defeat them - take on all of them at once (which was impossible, of course)

Because of the power a castle gave to a noble residing in it, most kings reserved the right to approve any castlebuilding projects. In Hungary, the king had many castles build after the Mongol invasion in 1241, so one could say that the external threat was the motivating factor, but one needs to see the effects of this decision. As long as the majority of the castles were in the hands of the king (during the Angevin dynasty for example in the 14th century) things were fine and the powerful lords were obedient and loyal. However, when Sigismund of Luxemburg was elected he had to grant many of the royal castles to his followers (since his claim to the throne was weak he depended on their support), giving them in fact the "keys to the realm." Since he commanded great personal respect, especially after becoming Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, this problem did not surface in his lifetime, but after 1437, the kingdom became the private playing ground of contesting noble factions - basically - anarchy. Castles equalled power and control of the land, and without a strong king this power became nearly absolute. The only reason why the kingdom didn't fall apart was because the magnates' castles were dispersed throughout the land (which was the Angevin strategy for maintaining control).

Therefore, what Bearcat argues is correct from this point of view. As long as the castle physically stands it commands influence and respect. If a sheriff appears with 50 men and tells the villagers that his liege is the new lord, while the castle of the previous lord still stands on the hill, how can the villagers react. Most likely they would pay both the new sheriff and the local lord who would again reassert his power the moment this new sheriff left the county.

The lord of the castle needs perhaps 10-20 men to defend the castle and ride out to punish the villagers who refuse to pay, whereas a new claimant would probably need 40 or 50 to control the region without a castle. When you don't have a place to hide and rest in, accidents can happen. A guard will fall asleep, a stray soldier will vanish in the forest etc. Feeding and paying so many troops will become a logistical nightmare and sooner or later, unless the castle itself is taken, the local lord will reassert his claim.

Of course, how this should be reflected in the game mechanics, I have no idea.

Robbie
10-02-2005, 12:32 PM
Perhaps a fortification could add to the level of the holding for the purposes of defending against contest only (no income, rps, offensive contest etc) AND unless destroyed it could regenerate the owner's influence over time.

Perhaps the owner could use a contested rule (I think there was once an action of this sort in some home rules) which allows the takeover of an opponent's level up to the level of the fortification. This would simulate the ease with which one who controls the fortification can reassert his influence in the local population, whereas it makes it increasingly difficult and costly for the opponent.

Let's say lord A has a fortification 2 and a holding 4 in a province. Lord B contests him out of existance in a series of actions, but doesn't storm the fort itself. Lord B builds up his holdings to level 4, but during this time he has to defend against lord A using contested rule to snatch a level from him. If lord A succeeds in his action (which is a question of GB/RP) and steals a level of holding he's back in business and lord B has to contest again. Once lord A has reclaimed 2 levels he can no longer use the contested rule action as his holdings cannot regenerate more than they're worth.

This would make the fortifications both realistic and useful, while justifying their high cost at the same time.

Additionaly, ther should perhaps be a way for the "invader" to contest the fortress itself, perhaps besieging it or something like that, be that through a non-declare war action or, in the end, perhaps one really needs to dedicate troops to be able to safely claim a province. No one said conquests should be easy

irdeggman
10-02-2005, 05:31 PM
Per Fields of Blood – the Book of War by Eden Studios.



The section on defining Realms has some definitions that are fairly consistent with the BRCS usage. Note that Fields of Blood was published in Nov 2003, a long time after the BRCS-playtest was posted (Feb 2003) – so we didn’t “take” anything from them. regardless it is averygood ruleset for those who want something other than the BRCS.



Under permanent Fortifications pgs 20+ it is extremely clear that fortifications provide a Physical defense only. Castles: In a strict, functional sense, a castle is a building with solid, stone walls meant to protect its defenders, no more and no less.”



DMG Chap 3 (Actually the SRD):




Walls and Gates

Many cities are surrounded by walls. A typical small city wall is a fortified stone wall 5 feet thick and 20 feet high. Such a wall is fairly smooth, requiring a DC 30 Climb check to scale. The walls are crenellated on one side to provide a low wall for the guards atop it, and there is just barely room for guards to walk along the top of the wall. A typical small city wall has AC 3, hardness 8, and 450 hp per 10-foot section.



A typical large city wall is 10 feet thick and 30 feet high, with crenellations on both sides for the guards on top of the wall. It is likewise smooth, requiring a DC 30 Climb check to scale. Such a wall has AC 3, hardness 8, and 720 hp per 10-foot section.



A typical metropolis wall is 15 feet thick and 40 feet tall. It has crenellations on both sides and often has a tunnel and small rooms running through its interior. Metropolis walls have AC 3, hardness 8, and 1,170 hp per 10- foot section.



Unlike smaller cities, metropolises often have interior walls as well as surrounding walls—either old walls that the city has outgrown, or walls dividing individual districts from each other. Sometimes these walls are as large and thick as the outer walls, but more often they have the characteristics of a large city’s or small city’s walls.



Watch Towers: Some city walls are adorned with watch towers set at irregular intervals. Few cities have enough guards to keep someone constantly stationed at every tower, unless the city is expecting attack from outside. The towers provide a superior view of the surrounding countryside as well as a point of defense against invaders.



Watch towers are typically 10 feet higher than the wall they adjoin, and their diameter is 5 times the thickness of the wall. Arrow slits line the outer sides of the upper stories of a tower, and the top is crenellated like the surrounding walls are. In a small tower (25 feet in diameter adjoining a 5-foot-thick wall), a simple ladder typically connect the tower’s stories and the roof. In a larger tower, stairs serve that purpose.



Heavy wooden doors, reinforced with iron and bearing good locks (Open Lock DC 30), block entry to a tower, unless the tower is in regular use. As a rule, the captain of the guard keeps the key to the tower secured on her person, and a second copy is in the city’s inner fortress or barracks.



Gates: A typical city gate is a gatehouse with two portcullises and murder holes above the space between them. In towns and some small cities, the primary entry is through iron double doors set into the city wall.



Gates are usually open during the day and locked or barred at night. Usually, one gate lets in travelers after sunset and is staffed by guards who will open it for someone who seems honest, presents proper papers, or offers a large enough bribe (depending on the city and the guards).





Simple House: This one- to three-room house is made of wood and has a thatched roof.



Grand House: This four- to ten-room house is made of wood and has a thatched roof.



Mansion: This ten- to twenty-room residence has two or three stories and is made of wood and brick. It has a slate roof.



Tower: This round or square, three-level tower is made of stone.



Keep: This fortified stone building has fifteen to twenty-five rooms.



Castle: A castle is a keep surrounded by a 15-foot stone wall with four towers. The wall is 10 feet thick.



Huge Castle: A huge castle is a particularly large keep with numerous associated buildings (stables, forge, granaries, and so on) and an elaborate 20-foot-high wall that creates bailey and courtyard areas. The wall has six towers and is 10 feet thick.



Moat with Bridge: The moat is 15 feet deep and 30 feet wide. The bridge may be a wooden drawbridge or a permanent stone structure.



Castles also evolved from forts which were used to defend the population against hostiles - either animals or armies (raiders, etc.) by giving them someplace to go to be better defended. For a BR related story - read the Spider's Test for the formation of Endier.

I still don't see how having a fortification should in any way aid a guild, temple or source holding against a contest action. I can see how it might work for law holdings - but to have a single exception seems kind of too particular and specific for me.

Regardless I'll start a poll to put this to rest, one way or another. If people want fortifications to assist against contest actions then we'll come up with something - if not then we won't.