PDA

View Full Version : Asset Question



Arken2011
08-18-2006, 03:24 PM
Not sure if I'm reading this right...

If a province ruler is to build/raise his Provincial Fortification from 2 to 3, it will cost him 24GB? 8GB x Level?

nagebenfro
08-18-2006, 05:03 PM
No, I it is a simple cost per level, not a multiple. Raising from 2 to 3 should cost 8 GB, I believe.

Arken2011
08-18-2006, 05:30 PM
Yes, that makes more sense, otherwise it's quite expensive to build a fortification...I just saw the 'x' and assumed it was a multiplier. Thanks for clearing that up.

ploesch
08-18-2006, 10:19 PM
hmmm, I always thought it was the other way also.

Yeah it is expensive, but it's supposed to be. Ever Built a castle using the castle builders guide, hundres of thousands of gold are involved.

gazza666
08-19-2006, 05:41 AM
Yeah it is expensive, but it's supposed to be. Ever Built a castle using the castle builders guide, hundres of thousands of gold are involved.
There are many cases where GB and gp just do not interchange. Compare the cost of 200 suits of banded mail to what it costs to get a single unit of heavy infantry, for example.

It's pretty clear that it isn't intended to be a cumulative cost here.

irdeggman
08-19-2006, 11:54 AM
The text is not clear on whether it should be cumulative or not.

My opinion is that it should not be cumulative and use the adding magic properties to an item guidelines for the costs of increasing the "value" of something. At least a similar type of comparison in RAW.

DMG pg 288 adding new abilites (you subtract the previous cost to determine the cost that must be paid now).

ploesch
08-19-2006, 06:21 PM
Well, it looks like everyone is opting for the lower cost, fine by me. My players will be happy to hear it. LOL

I understand that GB do not match GP, and that a unit isn't ussually 200 soldiers, and that it is significantly less expensive to buy the raw materials and hire people to make armor than to buy the finished goods.

gazza666
08-20-2006, 02:08 AM
If it is supposed to be cumulative, then it definitely needs to point out that you can't buy level 2 before buying level 1 (for example). That's why I say that it is clear to me that it isn't - because there is nothing to say that lower level fortifications are prerequisites for larger ones; there's just a cost for the level you want. If you decide to build a level 3 province fortification from scratch, the formula tells you that the cost is 24 GB. If it's supposed to mean that the real cost would be 48 GB, then some sort of footnote to the table would be needed.

Cuchulainshound
09-03-2006, 11:32 PM
I suggest that that would be prohibitively expensive, not to mention time consuming.

ploesch
09-04-2006, 08:39 AM
I swear I had posted this before....

I went and read through the rules again, and it does seem to indicate that it is not a cumulative cost. I'm fine with that, as it was very, very expensive before. I can't find the exact quote that changed my mind.

It's funny how you can play a certain way for years, and no one ever bothers to see if it's right. I guess we all accepted it because of the cost of Building castles in castle builders guide.

Cuchulainshound
09-04-2006, 07:02 PM
I wonder how it would effect the game if there was some sort of progressive cost for more complex (aka higher level) assetts. Altho' the current system certainly works, it does seem a bit quick and dirty that to bump a Province Fortification from 6 -> 7 costs the same as creating a Lvl 1 in the first place.

Not a flat "+level" increase, but maybe, say something like:

Province: 5GB + 1GBxLvl (vs 8/)
Holdings: 3 GB + 1/2GBxLvl (vs 4/)
Palace: 4 GB + 1GB/Lvl (vs 6/)
Shipyard: 2 GB + 1GBxLvl (vs 4/)
and so on. Something similar with maintanance would be optional.

This would make low-level assetts relatively cheaper to improve than higher-level ones. Starting/fledgeling regents could own the basics more easily, and high-end improvements would be more imposing prospect, making them that much rarer and valuable.

The final costs would, naturally, have to be scrutinized for balance.

Any thoughts?

ploesch
09-04-2006, 07:45 PM
Actually, I like that idea. Maintenance costs could remain based on level, since that is more about size of structure than cost of building it.

I like what you've written pretty much as is, the only change I would make is that the cost/Level should even out at level 5, which is halfway to max.

Province - 3 + 1/Level
Holding - 1.5 + 0.5/Level
Palace - 1 + 1/Level
Shipyard - 1.5 + 0.5/Level

Otherwise the cost diference is too much, IMO. Your way, the cost/level balances at level 3, so by level 10 it will have been 25 GB more than the current system. By balancing it at level 5, it's only 5 GB more by level 10. Half that for Holding fortification. It also ends up with the same overall cost at level 9, while the overall cost your way balances at level 5, so from level 6 on your paying more than you would have under the original system, not just more per level, but more overall.

Anyway, that's my thought, but all credit goes to you for an excellent idea.

Cuchulainshound
09-04-2006, 09:34 PM
Thanks. Hardly earthshattering in its originality, but...

I ballparked the values just for demonstration purposes, but was thinking that most provinces would top out around Level 6-7. I wouldn't want to make low-level assetts TOO cheap- keep the bellcurve narrow, rather than flat. The rare Level 8+ assett, well, usually those improvements will be in place before the game starts - and by the time a Regent gets big enough to have Ruled a new Holding up that big, they ~should~ be able to scrape up the extra GB for the few high-level assetts if it's that important to them. :cool:

ThatSeanGuy
09-04-2006, 11:18 PM
The rare Level 8+ assett, well, usually those improvements will be in place before the game starts - and by the time a Regent gets big enough to have Ruled a new Holding up that big, they ~should~ be able to scrape up the extra GB for the few high-level assetts if it's that important to them.

Good point, but don't forget small-but-dense domains like Illien. It wouldn't be entierly out of line for an Illien player to rule the province itself up to level 8 quickly, and have to deal with that kind of stuff.

On the other hand, its not entierly out of like for an Illien player to have a few extra GB for stuff like that either, I suppose.

gazza666
09-05-2006, 12:07 AM
I wonder how it would effect the game if there was some sort of progressive cost for more complex (aka higher level) assetts. Altho' the current system certainly works, it does seem a bit quick and dirty that to bump a Province Fortification from 6 -> 7 costs the same as creating a Lvl 1 in the first place.
Yes, but the incremental effect of an increase from 6 to 7 is the same as creating it in the first place. So it makes sense that it should cost the same.

Cuchulainshound
09-05-2006, 04:59 AM
It makes "one" sense. There are other approaches that make "more" sense to some people. See "Law of Diminishing Returns."

All depends what paradigm you want to use.

gazza666
09-05-2006, 05:41 AM
If you want to recruit 10 identical units, they all cost the same. The first one costs exactly the same as the tenth one. There is no incremental increase.

If you make it incrementally more expensive to build fortifications without making it incrementally more expensive to build units to attack those fortifications, then you have created an imbalance.

Applying the Law of Diminishing Returns must be done across the board to avoid this imbalance - and I remain unconvinced that the added complexity of doing this adds anything worthwhile. I would instead propose that certain benefits above and beyond the fortification increase could apply. For example, perhaps a province with a level 6 fortification gets a +2 on Initiative checks in battle, or maybe an extra point of regency collection (because all the subjects feel much safer).

Your mileage may vary, of course.

kgauck
09-06-2006, 02:59 AM
Recruiting 10 units at the same cost is absurd. Barring extraordinary circumstances (The Gorgon approaches and if we do not all take up arms and abandon our homes and fields, there won't be any homes and fields here any way.) you simply can't find an unlimited supply of men willing to join a military, serve an indefinite period of time (determined by the ruler), face death and injury, leave their homes and families in order to fight your wars. You can't find an infinite number of qualified, able bodied men to undertake serious soldiering as any kind of unit except a militia unit (where the quality is undertood to be low, hence the poor combat ratings). The militia is at least limited in that it reduces the province level for each unit that is raised.

Its one thing to say that given a certain set of circumstances, the benefits of figuring and implementing rising costs of recruitment are not worth the candle, it is quite another to do as gazza666 has here, and defend the principle of unlimited resources expanding infinitly at a fixed cost.

The reason this is so undesirable is that it is so easily corrected. One could argue that it is a custom in the realm to require military service and so the available number of potential recruits (obligated to serve under conditions of land tenure) is 12 units, so recruiting 1 or 10 units is within the same set of costs. However, after 12, the costs are so high as to be prohibitive. Or, you could pretend that scarcity always is just around the corner, but hasn't kicked in quite yet because of circumstances which are already existing. Well since the havest was ______, recruits are plentiful. Or just make up some cost increases and justify them based on anything at hand. Any explanation that's not silly will do well enough. Generally players will take any reasonable explanation and run with it (suspension of disbelief). What players have a hard time doing is just accepting that one size fits all. One DM may have a group that gives such issues no second thought, but in my experience gamers are a smarter breed than normal and will question and exploit any poorly expressed rule.

A much better argument to achieve the same effect is, "Sure scarcity will raise the cost of additional troops, at some point. But how often is it in the game that its worth it to take that into consideration? Most of the time its just easier to explain it away and go on without getting bogged down."

gazza666
09-06-2006, 03:12 AM
I am not arguing the merits or otherwise of whether or not 10 units should incur no incremental cost. I am merely saying that in the rules as written, this is the case - and therefore if you apply an incremental cost to fortifications without also doing so for army mustering costs, you are creating an imbalance. I see no flaw with my logic here.

As far as the practical consideration of, "Does it really matter?", I already covered that - I don't believe that the size of fortifications and armies we're considering will arise often enough to make it worthwhile to complicate the process. Having realistic rules is a laudable goal, but in my case, whenever realism comes up against playability, it must be sacrificed.

kgauck
09-06-2006, 04:31 AM
My only reply is that oft times, you can have both, by just crafting an explanation that conceeds the reality while justifying the application of the standard rule. It need not be either or.

geeman
09-06-2006, 05:03 AM
First off, let me note that a system of flat increments, such as
purchasing 10 units of a particular type all of which cost the same
amount, can exist in a balanced (or, at least, game mechanically
purposeful) way with an incremental system, such as the increased
cost per level of fortification. The issue here is not "balance" per
se. It`s reflecting a particular dynamic relationship. The flat
cost is to reflect that each unit is of the same type, equipped the
same way, etc. The incrementally increasing cost reflects that one
gains little benefit from constructing a second barbican in the
middle of the road after one has already constructed the first. A
more elaborate and extensive system is required to gain greater
defensive power. Armor that is twice as thick is not necessarily
twice as strong. The chinks of the armor remain the places of
vulnerability and the process of making armor with fewer chinks or
making those areas less vulnerable is more difficult than simply
buying a second sword.

"Balance" is a somewhat vaguely defined term. It seems to mean
something different to various people. Sometimes it means something
different to the same people based on the context. Sometimes people
seem to mean that the situation is a "fair match" with about a 50/50
shot of either side winning, while at other times people seem to mean
parity with other rules. Neither of those things are really balance,
though. Balance really means that game mechanically things will work
out in a logical and systematic way with costs that are commensurate
with the ability gained.

In this particular case, there`s nothing inherently unbalanced
against a flat cost "offensive" vs an incremental cost
"defense." What matters is what one gets for that cost. The 10
units of soldiers never become more effective as an offense. That
is, their attack values don`t increase based upon their
numbers. Their values are as flat as their costs. If the defense
values for fortification and the use of those values has more
application then an incremental cost can be balanced. One just has
to be sure that what one gets for the incrementally increased cost
stacks or has an impact that is increasingly broad in order to
justify the cost increase, while flat costs have stats that remain flat.

Also, don`t BR units exist in their own cumulatively increasing cost
system ranging from levies to heavy cavalry? Shouldn`t that be
factored into the assessment of flat vs incrementally increasing costs?

Gary