New Domain Action Idea: Create Urban Province

[ericthecleric]

As far as I know, the only such province is the Imperial City of Anuire. On page 89 of the BRCS, there is a two-paragraph note about “Urban Provinces”. This is an interesting idea, so over the last few days I’ve been thinking about the following new Domain Action idea, that of Create Urban Province.
In medieval times, it was not uncommon for nobles to found cities as speculative ventures; for example, there are many market towns throughout England that are still extant examples of such ventures.
Using such an action not only helps increase the maximum potential population of a realm. Such an action may also be beneficial for a realm’s Court Wizard, because the urbanisation of a province increases the mebhaighl in the surrounding province.

---ooOoo---

Create Urban Province [Standard; Administrate; ? GB]
Some regents may wish to increase the size of an urban area in a province such that a new “urban province” is created; an example of of an urban province is the Imperial City of Anuire. This may be done in two ways: Planned Migration, and Province Splitting. Note that this action is only available to regents who own provinces. It may not be used in a province that already has an urban province (the only province in which this is the case is Anuire province). New urban provinces are always called “City of x” province, where x is the name of the province in which the urban province is established, or of the major town in that province; for example, using this action in Ciliene (Diemed) would result in Cilience province and City of Ciliene province, while in Caercas (Roesone), this action would result in Caercas province and the City of Proudglaive province. Regardless of which method is used to create the urban province, the maximum level of the urban province is equal to the maximum level of the old province, while the old province’s maximum level remains the same.
When a new urban province is created, the requirement that an urban province requires at least one active trade route (BRCS, p. 89) is suspended until either two domain turns have passed, or if the urban province has is ruled before that time. This it is because it is assumed that the regent is dedicating resources to ensuring that the new urban province is successful. For example, if this action is used in Domain Turn 6, then the urban province must have at least one active trade route by Domain Turn 8 (including that turn), or its level will drop; if the urban province was successfully ruled in Turn 7, then it must have an active trade route in that turn.
This action generally requires the regent to name the largest town/city within a province as the new urban province.
The maximum source level of all urban provinces is 0.

Province Splitting: With this method, the regent splits one province into two provinces, the original province, and the new urban province. When using this action, the regent may split the province as he likes, but the urban province must have a level higher than or equal to the new level of the old province.
For example, if this action was used in Cieliene (6), the new urban province would range between level 3-6, with the new level of the old province correspondingly ranging between 3-0.
When using this action, the regent may decide how to split existing Law, Temple, and Guild holdings amongst the two provinces; he cannot split Source holdings. For example, if Hierl Diem uses this action in Ciliene, to create City of Ciliene (3) and Ciliene (3), he may decide to split the Law holdings such that the two provinces look like this:
Law Temple Guild Source
Ciliene (3/2) HD (1) OIT (3) GK (3) -
DA (2)
City of Ciliene (3/0) HD (3) OIT (3) EH (3) -

Planned Migration: With this method, the regent moves the people from one province to create an urban province in another province. Such action takes a lot of planning, and moves all people from the affected province such that it becomes level (0). Such an action might be used, for example, to allow a Court Wizard to develop a stronger source, or to clear a province of a particular race.
For example, Aeric Boeruine might migrate the population of Calant (3) to Seasedge, creating the City of Seasedge (3) province. This would leave Calant province as (0/7), which would allow Arlen Innes to develop a Source up to level 7, so that he could use the Transport realm spell, for instance.
As another example, Thurazor, Cariele, and Mhoried might strike a deal such that the three realms have a non-aggression agreement and will work together to gain The Gorge and Floodspaeth provinces for Thurazor, and Puinol for Cariele. In an additional clause, once the provinces are gained, Thurazor migrates the goblins of Doom’s Peak to create the City of Mergarrote (2), leaving Doom’s Peak a level (0) province, which he then gives to Cariele so that Doom’s Peak can now be developed as a human province.
Unlike with province splitting, an urban province created using this method has no Law, Temple, or Guild holdings when created (or Source holding either, but that is the same as for province splitting), meaning that the old holdings no longer exist.

---ooOoo---

Any comments, people?

Several issues remain, such as DC and cost; I’ve got no idea, but the DC for planned migration should be easier than for province splitting. Alternatively, DCs should stay the same, but perhaps affected regents may ). Also:
* Once an urban province is established, should the original province have a lowered maximum level (eg. by 0, -1, or -2)?
* What should happen if a castle exists in the province. Should it be part of the urban province or the old province?
* What happens if an urban province is in the middle of a province?
I’m sure there are other issues people can think of, but it’s now late and the post is long enough! 

[ThatSeanGuy]

I think that's pretty interesting...a sort of refinement on just upping the Province's population level. I especially like that you used Thurazor in your example; the whole idea of the goblins trying to uplift themselves past 'humanoid horde' and into 'civilized species'-ness was always one of the most fascinating aspects of Birthright's setting, to me.

[Rowan]

I've actually done this before. To relate to your original idea, though, what I'd recommend is that

1. An urban province can only be created from a province of level 4 or higher (I'd actually restrict it to level 7 or higher myself, to make this a rarer event), the regent must hold all law holdings in the province, at least one holding or the whole province must be fortified, and all possible trade routes must be connected to that province
2. The urban province from the initial split cannot be greater than the original province in level (most of that province has been rural; shifting it all to the city and leaving a province 0 just doesn't sound right, and the countryside should be initially considered to have the greater population)
3. Maximum levels are restricted only by terrain and modifiers
4. For each season that an urban province does not have Guild or Law holdings equal to at least half of its level, loyalty drops 1 grade (lack of jobs or law can be devastating to a city)
5. In addition to the rule that cities must have at least one trade route connected to them each season, a city cannot be ruled without having all trade route slots full (cities do not grow unless there is much opportunity and trade to provide wealth away from the agricultural countryside that is the mainstay of society during these periods.

DC of splitting an urban province is equal to 20 + the level of each province in the split (effectively requiring the use of RP and/or extra GB), and the GB cost is equal to three times the level of the city province to be created, and carried out in Build actions by the Court.

The restrictions I put in place make city provinces very rare, as they should be. First, it's very difficult to raise a province to level 7 (my preferred requirement), but it would make Ilien eligible for this, the best case for this anyway. The other requirements also make it difficult, as all guild holding slots must be full to support all possible trade routes, and the regent must hold all the law to support a split.

Second, the cost is quite high, both in terms of RP (to overcome the DC) and GB (typically 9GB for a level 3 city, more if you include the cost of the Court actions needed to Build this out, as well as to fortify holdings and such).

Third, cities are pretty fragile. Bad times or internal conflict causing loss of law or guild holdings can devastate the city, as can hostile armies--particularly by disrupting trade.

Fourth, it is more difficult to Rule urban provinces than standard ones, because you must have all guild holdings full to support full trade routes.

In the end, I primarily like the idea of urban provinces primarily to support Ilien, and to give Mhoried, Boeruine, Ghoere, and Diemed something to strive for. In long term games, I can see several cities springing up, but I think that would be a natural part of a resurgent Anuire pulling itself out of disorganization and expanding trade and prosperity again.

[Getters]

resion why this is a bad idea

1) the Imperail city is the only urban province becose it was and will be a seat of uniaginable power base at a vast empire.

2) you unblance the game to much form the sprit of what was built.
when this game from my point of view cose that all we can give.
is use to give a player a new uber province in side a province
your give a unfair advantage to the player/plays.
ask youer self if any one could build it why is there only one.

3) there are more than 4 size level 7 in Bracht alone. and Bracht one of the most developed area in the game why was thay not built with
there are two in khinis why have thay all so more developed than the empire after it fall.

[ThatSeanGuy]

Wait, how is "A ruler trying to improve his or her kingdom." not Birthright material?

What this is, somantics aside, seems to be a mechanic for making the growth of a province more complex than "Six goes to Seven."-which is, I think, definately in line with the whole idea of Birthright. Founding cities, bringing great works of culture and learning to your kingdom, trying to be recgonized as a signifigant part of civilization instead of just another warring successor state, all of these are legitimate goals for a Birthright character.

Heck, that could be the east path into epic level gameplay; since you do epic, kingdom level stuff as a matter of course, just have the epic level stuff impact a whole hunk of the continent. The lower levels are all about you and your kingdom surviving-once you become a real, honest to goodness Hero King, then the game switches over into trying to make your kingdom one of the legendary domains of fantasy tradition, and dealing with the sorts of antagonists who wouldn't want that to happen.

"It doesn't fit the feel of the setting." is a common argument around here, and one that forgets a very important aspect of the setting: The players are the rulers. They're the ones who get to try and pull the politically shattered world of Cerilia together, or keep it forced apart, or otherwise enact change on the setting. It's the hero aspect of hero kings: The PCs have the potential to be Charlemanges and Augustines, and this is half of the appeal of playing in the setting. You're not just the hero of a town, of a city, or a region, or even a nation, you have the potential to be a heroic leader for a whole civilization.

[kgauck]

Making a city province is more than founding a city, its getting a city to be as important as a province is, which is why it gets its own province rating. From a simulationist point of view, this is going to be extreamly rare in the span of history, let alone a single campaign.

[ericthecleric]

Sean: Thanks- I’m glad you like the idea!

Getters: I agree with you that it’d be unbalanced to allow it only to PCs. It wouldn’t be available to PCs only, but to all landed regents.
As to what the “spirit of the game”, everyone has a different opinion, and IMO, the 3.x BRCS is very different in spirit to what the 2E spirit was. However, the 3.x BRCS does have a two-paragraph description of “Urban Provinces” (emphasis mine), and implies that more such provinces can be created, but doesn’t have rules to do so. The 2E rulebooks didn’t have such rules either, but maybe it just wasn’t thought of then.
An urban province isn’t necessarily “uber”. Any coastal plains province can theoretically be raised to level 10 given time, as could any urban province that was originally part of a coastal plains province.
As to why there’s only one, well there may have been more in the past, but perhaps they were destroyed by war and/or natural disasters. Rowan put it best, I think: “…I can see several cities springing up, but I think that would be a natural part of a resurgent Anuire pulling itself out of disorganization and expanding trade and prosperity again.”
BTW, I’m not dissing you. I respect your opinion, but I’d prefer to have the Action available in any games I might run.

Rowan: Thanks for your reply. You’ve said much to think about. Regarding your numbered and other points:
Point 1: I’d thought about this, but left the idea open for discussion. A minimum level 4 is what I’d thought was fair, and still do. I don’t agree with level 7+ (but that’s just me(!);you’re entitled to pick whichever minimum level you want.), as it would prevent, for example, coastal mountain provinces such as those in Brosengae and Diemed, from using this action; I can imagine that there were many (relatively) large cities in Mediterranean mountainous areas in ye olden times.
If a level 4+ province is split, then any knight unit and seaport that was created should still existence (the urban province will hold the sea port), but no new knight unit or seaport can be created in the either province until/unless both are raised to level 4.
Point 2: I’d thought about this, too; I had wondered if the non-urban province should have a minimum value of half the new urban province’s level at the time of the split. You’re right about the “…leaving a province 0…” comment, so I’ll adopt your suggestion there.
Point 3: That’s what I intended for the urban province level, but perhaps thought that maybe the non-urban province maximum level should be lowered a little to reflect the fact that the urban province takes up some space from the non-urban province. It seems that you think that the non-urban province’s max level should stay the same, so I’ll keep it the same, too.
Point 4: That’s fair. I think that there should be a “window of time” when the urban province is created that such a rule shouldn’t apply though, as the hope of the citizens would counteract that effect. I think the turn of “opening” and the following Domain Turn is a reasonable window.
Point 5: That’s fair, too. Something I meant to include in the turn description- but forgot- was that it should be possible for a trade route to be created from any province to an urban province. (The general rule is that trade routes can’t be created between provinces of similar terrain types or culture, but an urban province will always need food, therefore an urban province created out of a plains province can be supplied by a plains province.)

Your DC seems steep, but logically, it SHOULD take a lot of effort to complete such an undertaking. The GB cost seems reasonable; while it doesn’t actually achieve much by itself, the existence of an additional province within a realm enables the realm’s overall maximum population to increase, which is partly what the action’s all about!

[Getters]

ericthecleric:

Ok in the anchent world citys rose our fell depend on the local resources
leaders and climate.

real citys take decades to build even centuries. you cant in my mine build what your calling a "urban" city in that short of time. Rember mediaeval times place were sqalour ever were. To build some thing on the imperail city size you would need great mine's of the equivalent of Michelangelo our leonardo and to be frank this kine of engineer dont come round it buckets so you could have mabe 2 our let go out on a limb 4 men /woman of this calber of craftmenship so it player bass your not going to get so many that joe king can have one and you too.
You see in the late mediaeval times men like this could chage thousands no tens of thousands for there servise you as a regent is going to spend this kine of mony on a possable gamble there no way your going to pass perfectly it more than likely your going to fail and then worsh you money gone.

In a game i'm running with a friend one of our player is all most scraming at the mony he has spent try to rule Ilien to size 8 and that was blood and tears and money going done a drain.

[AndrewTall]

In game terms what this action does is effectively double the size of a realm (maximum pop level, law holdings, guilds, temples ). That makes it potentially a gamebuster as you don't need to expand into someone else's land to increase your power - it could also encourage 'turtling'.

My personal solution would be to make a new province for the city and get rid of the 'city' province idea at all to avoid the issue.

My RP concern is that many of the Khinasi provinces are already described as a city plus some surrounding empty land - so are ilien and Endier. Frankly a L6-7 province MUST have a fairly big city in it with the population level as it is. Plus food must surely be an issue - if plains can support L10 population why would that suddenly double because one city is deemed to be a separate province?

That said whatever works in your campaign of course - but if the player is after power I'd suggest the time honoured strategies of treachery, guile and war; if the player is after RP'ing a mighty city then by all means encourage them to describe the province capital in suitably ringing terms - simply because any rules change tends to have a cascade effect and being able to create 'free empty provinces' could have a significant impact.

[geeman]

I`ll just drop this one note into the fray and then back away slowly....

The issue of urban provinces and the Imperial City is best handled by
allowing for provinces with population levels above 10 and rolling
the IC into the adjacent province. It eliminates all the issues
having to do with population density, splitting population levels,
vast numbers of trade routes, multiple splits of provinces into any
number of urban provinces, etc. The vagaries of cities are better
handled at the domain level by assuming they are part of the overall
province structure rather than entities of their own.

Gary

[Rowan]

All this worry about population levels only matters if you stick within the very deficient idea of province levels as population levels. Trying to explain realm-level rules having to do with province levels in terms of population alone or even primarily is doomed to failure.

It's time, in my opinion (and I think that of many others here) to get out of our heads the idea that province level = a certain population, period.

Instead, we're talking about level of economic and administrative sophistication, and how much control singular governmental bodies or guilds or temples wield over the general populace. Much, much economic wealth is generated by a province wholly outside of guilds, temples, and the lord's taxation. Province levels work better as a descriptor of degree of control over resources, efficiency of administration, and efficiency of the economy.

I personally have always thought that Anuire had reached a height such as the Roman Empire or the Renaissance had reached. If that's true, it's not doomed to exist perpetually in dark age squalor. Rather, it has been struggling to regain its former development and achievements, but has been limited in doing so because of internal strife and factionalism.

If my memory serves, many nations (France, Austria, Prussia, and more) have been turned around from countries in disastrous disarray and economic tatters to tremendous regional powers well within a single man's rule, and certainly over generations. BR should definitely allow this kind of rapid recovery.

As for cities developing, it's certainly not easy by my standards, but something like what Constantine did with Constantinople, or Louis XIV with Versailles, should be possible. Even a level 10 urban province is not really a city comparable with Italian City-states, Paris, London, Rome, Constantinople, or other great cities of the time (and a level 10 urban province would be incredibly difficult to create, indeed). Rather, cities like those are better represented by either levels above 10, or a cluster of Urban and regular provinces of high level.

Remember, the Imperial City is supposed to be in great decline, only a shadow of its former self, and yet it is Level 10, with many almost "suburb" provinces of high level (5's, 6's, and 7's).

[kgauck]

If my memory serves, many nations (France, Austria, Prussia, and more) have been turned around from countries in disastrous disarray and economic tatters to tremendous regional powers well within a single man's rule, and certainly over generations. BR should definitely allow this kind of rapid recovery.
It would seem, if this were how things work, that the primary mechanic would be founded in skills or attributes, so that the gifted ruler, whether this was skills or talent, would be more successful than his rivals.

There is certainly something to this, but often times I think sudden revivals are the product of the fact that two realms have different reform curves. One realm has adopted reform and improvement while another realm is trying to adjust, so one is rising while a rival is struggling.


As for cities developing, it's certainly not easy by my standards, but something like what Constantine did with Constantinople, or Louis XIV with Versailles, should be possible.
Versailles, which was financed by all of France, as opposed to the much smaller Principality of Avanil, for instance, was started in 1671, really got going in 1682, when Louis moved his residence there, and was basically stopped in 1715 because Louis XIV died. There are a lot of ways to represent this, but why spend 300 billion US dollars this way?

Which brings up the observation that both Constantinople (as were all Roman cities) and Versailles were administrative centers, which means they were expensive cost centers, not valuable profit centers. You can't just build stuff and expect economic activity to happen, even if you're a guilder. Command economies just aren't successful.


Even a level 10 urban province is not really a city comparable with Italian City-states, Paris, London, Rome, Constantinople, or other great cities of the time (and a level 10 urban province would be incredibly difficult to create, indeed). Rather, cities like those are better represented by either levels above 10, or a cluster of Urban and regular provinces of high level.

Actually I think most cities are well below level 10. I'd figure London is a Province 8 with no need for a special province of its own. Paris, as the largest city of the west might be the only city in Europe to get an urban province.


Remember, the Imperial City is supposed to be in great decline, only a shadow of its former self, and yet it is Level 10, with many almost "suburb" provinces of high level (5's, 6's, and 7's).

If the city had been a great administrative city, it is a shadow of its former self. But that doesn't mean its population has declined, only that its no longer the place to be and get things done.

[geeman]

At 08:19 PM 2/10/2008, Rowan wrote:

>Province levels work better as a descriptor of degree of control
>over resources, efficiency of administration, and efficiency of the economy.

The economic efficiency argument has a certain appeal when trying to
interpret what is meant by a population level, but in practice it has
the same faults and fumblings as the assumption that population
numbers represent actual numbers of people. It still goes up too
quickly to be realistic and if population level really represents
advances in technical control why doesn`t it accompany any other type
of technical progress? What`s worse, if population level represents
control over an already existing (and relatively static) population
level then why does control over population rather than the actual
population that apparently already exists reduce the source potential
of a province?

The best interpretation of what a population level represents is...
all of them. Efficiency should be considered a factor, actual
birthrate/infant mortality a factor, an increase in lifespan a
factor, health services, immigration, incorporation of previously
uncontrolled population, etc.

IMO, the best interpretation made for what population numbers
represent was suggested quite a while back. Population levels
represent family units, not individuals. That way an increase in
population can be interpreted as an increase in households
(journeymen set up as independent craftsmen, for example) creating
new taxable income earners. That`s an "efficiency" argument that is
much more specific and makes better sense of the low population
numbers of Cerilia when compared to medieval Western demographics.

Efficiency should be a factor, but to discount actual numbers in
population level is just as bound up in contradiction and fallacy as
anything else, and equally problematic. Rather, it`s simpler, more
sensible and a lot less of a headache to treat population level as an
abstraction like so many other aspects of game mechanics. It is a
combination of ALL these factors, not one over the other.

Gary

[Rowan]

Geeman: It still goes up too
quickly to be realistic and if population level really represents
advances in technical control why doesn`t it accompany any other type
of technical progress? What`s worse, if population level represents
control over an already existing (and relatively static) population
level then why does control over population rather than the actual
population that apparently already exists reduce the source potential
of a province?

I didn't suggest it had much at all to do with technology, if that's what you're getting it. It's about efficiency and how much of the population is actually brought under the control of the regent. One of the biggest problems of a state until modern times has been actually getting out and collecting taxes from everyone. The state's apparatus for this was usually very small compared to today, inefficient, and prone to corruption or simply lack of information. Therefore a rapid rise in province level can easily be accounted for by getting better control of taxation. Urban populations are relatively easy to tax, and therefore urban provinces can easily represent higher levels of prosperity. Further, urban populations consist of artisans more than farmers, so we're talking about a much greater level of refined, tradable goods.

You're right about the discrepancy with Source potential; reduction of source potential has always been a clumsy, game-balance-related idea. I think it can still be accounted for if you assume that temporal control of a landed regent interferes, through the blood-land connection, with mebhaigl availability. This makes sense in the context of divine beings and thus divine power primarily relying upon the Seeming of their native plane, rather than the mebhaigl of Cerilia. It affects scions by extension of their inherited powers.


Kgauck: It would seem, if this were how things work, that the primary mechanic would be founded in skills or attributes, so that the gifted ruler, whether this was skills or talent, would be more successful than his rivals.

BRCS accounts for this in regency collection. Further, any advancement in one's realm in Birthright requires either skilled rulers or luck. So it seems to me that BRCS already accounts for the wise rulership of regents. I don't know how you can ascribe it to reform rates when you consider that these turnarounds and the prior declines have been attributed to the good or poor rule of the rulers involved (Constantine, Basil the Great, Charlemegne, Louis XIV, Napolean, Bismarck).

As for cities as administrative centers, yes that's how they began. Constantinople, though, and likely others (such as Rome itself) took on economic lives of their own. They were centers of trade and finance and production of refined goods.


Kgauck:Actually I think most cities are well below level 10. I'd figure London is a Province 8 with no need for a special province of its own. Paris, as the largest city of the west might be the only city in Europe to get an urban province.

London and Paris of what period? They, like Greek and Roman and Italian cities, reached population levels alone much, much higher than 200,000, if we're going by that measure for level 10. Further, provinces can support much greater population densities than is currently indicated in the Birthright system. Especially if you expand their land areas, like many of us do. I prefer to view Anuire as the size of France. Even at smaller sizes, greater troop numbers and more trade (in terms of gold production) can be supported. In Louis XIV's reign, as well as in earlier Roman periods, we were talking about budgets of tens of millions in standard currency, and constant warfare with tens of thousands of troops.

I can't seem to find where, but I thought I remembered the Imperial City being described as having many vacant districts due to its decline in population.

[geeman]

At 07:43 AM 2/11/2008, Rowan wrote:

>I didn`t suggest it had much at all to do with technology, if that`s
>what you`re getting it. It`s about efficiency and how much of the
>population is actually brought under the control of the regent. One
>of the biggest problems of a state until modern times has been
>actually getting out and collecting taxes from everyone. The
>state`s apparatus for this was usually very small compared to today,
>inefficient, and prone to corruption or simply lack of
>information. Therefore a rapid rise in province level can easily be
>accounted for by getting better control of taxation. [snip]

I`m sure there are lots of folks who`d disagree with me on this one,
but what you`re talking about *is* a form of technological
progress. Larger, more efficient bureaucratic entities and
organizations represent a knowledge base just as the organization of
any other means of production are technology. Where one has an
infrastructure that is made up of officials and clerks the other has
managers and workers. Whether one agrees with my definition of
terms, though, isn`t really the issue. The issues is that if the
"efficiency" a province goes from level 1 to level 2 is a 100%
increase in a season.... That`s rather a heady amount of progress
and control if one considers the nature of such things. The
presentation of population levels as up to a 1,000% increase in
efficiency isn`t the kind of thing that could be done even in modern terms.

When it comes to the simple terminology, it`s hard for me to look at
the expansion of a government`s control over a population and
characterize that as "efficiency." It just strikes me as counter intuitive.

>You`re right about the discrepancy with Source potential; reduction
>of source potential has always been a clumsy, game-balance-related
>idea. I think it can still be accounted for if you assume that
>temporal control of a landed regent interferes, through the
>blood-land connection, with mebhaigl availability. This makes sense
>in the context of divine beings and thus divine power primarily
>relying upon the Seeming of their native plane, rather than the
>mebhaigl of Cerilia. It affects scions by extension of their inherited powers.

That`s very interesting. So the conflict is more a psychic battle
for control over a set amount of province "popular and mystical"
resources? It turns the issue into a direct conflict of regents and
removes it from the structure of the domain.... Off the cuff, I`m
inclined to think such an interpretation would muck about with a
whole bunch of other domain level concepts, but it`s definitely
something worth thinking about of only because the implications are
so broad and potentially useful in actual play. I don`t know if it
really addresses the issue of population vs. source potential, but
it`s definitely something to think about.

Gary

[Rowan]

A 100% increase in tax collection from level 1-2 province could be created by doubling the number of tax collectors and administrators, cataloguing a larger portion of the wealth of the region and the people themselves, and expanding systems of allegiances and communication from the regent through his servitors to the people.


As for source levels, I don't really see the conflict as a psychic one. It has more to do with all of this BR terminology of the "land" accepting a ruler, or the regent's connection with "the land." It's not conscious among the rulers; it's an unseen conflict between divine power connecting itself with the land and the mebhaigl running through the land. The only problem created that I can think of right now is if a province has levels and is left uninvested. I suggest that those provinces simply retain an "impression" or "memory" of the divine connection to a regent they once held. If you allow Source regents to contest Province Levels (like I do), that represents the Source regent erasing that impression or memory, not driving off or slaughtering whole populations.

In the instance of an uninvested province, no regent is gathering RP or gold from it, and so the province levels are essentially useless until a regent moves in and invests it, taking control of the existing political infrastructure and bonding himself with the land at the level of connection that the land "remembers." If source levels are not full, then the source potential doesn't really matter and doesn't become a problem; if they ARE full, the source regent can contest the province level to erase the land's memory and restore the flow of mebhaigl, possibly also disrupting existing political infrastructure (any other holdings in the province).

[kgauck]

The domain system's primary virtue is its flexibility and abstraction, so that whatever kind of game you want is easily manageable with major changes. Want a game where players inherit a late medieval state and impose a new renaissance administration on it, like Henry VII in England, Ferdinand in Castille (in his wife's kingdom), or France by a series of monarchs after the Hundred Years War? Great, determine populations, reduce source holdings to match, and use province level as a measure of administrative reform.

Don't care for that? Want static province figures so that players engage in politics (diplomacy, espionage, war!) instead of taking all their turns ruling things up? Great, provinces are mostly population with enough other factors that you can explain various curiosities.

It slices, it dices, it julliens carrots! But wait, there's more!

I also think that most province levels are basically agricultural with a few towns. But some provinces that get past, say level 5, might have other kinds of activity, like banking. Banking centers were very rare in the early days of finance, so this isn't springing up all over, but when cities like Ilien or Endier go up a level, it might be banking rather than administration. Increases in such places might also represent more trade that isn't represented by trade routes (because the benefits are general, rather than being confined to the guilders). So there are several things that can go on at higher levels of provinces that adds still more texture.


BRCS accounts for this in regency collection. Further, any advancement in one's realm in Birthright requires either skilled rulers or luck. So it seems to me that BRCS already accounts for the wise rulership of regents.
The reason I raised the issue is that most rulers are roughly the same level, and can be expected to have a reasonable assortment of the same kinds of skills available in their own persons or in their lieutenants. So a rise in one realm can't be ascribed to skills if everyone has access to the same skills in roughly the same proportion.


I don't know how you can ascribe it to reform rates when you consider that these turnarounds and the prior declines have been attributed to the good or poor rule of the rulers involved (Constantine, Basil the Great, Charlemegne, Louis XIV, Napolean, Bismarck).
Everything was attributed to rulers, including things we know that they had nothing to do with. If we all put on our Hegalian hats, then the reforms happen on their own and given monarchs and ministers are just the instruments of the dialectic of the age. Not terribly heroic, but it is an alternate explanation of why states rise and fall. Did Rome fall because of a series of bad emperors, or because the global climate cooled in the 3rd and 4th centuries BC?


As for cities as administrative centers, yes that's how they began. Constantinople, though, and likely others (such as Rome itself) took on economic lives of their own. They were centers of trade and finance and production of refined goods.
Rome never produced anything for export. All Roman trade routes went one way, goods into Rome (there was almost no trade between regions) and money to Rome as taxes and back again for the goods the city needed. Money also went to the Asian empires for exotic imports, like silks and spices. Indeed, all of Italy exported no goods.

Constantinople developed a trade in luxury goods in the later middle ages, but this has more to do with her geographical position between east and west than it did in the great industry of the city.


London and Paris of what period?
Our period, the 15th and 16th centuries. The times when analogy to BR is the easiest and most natural because they are most similar.


They, like Greek and Roman and Italian cities, reached population levels alone much, much higher than 200,000, if we're going by that measure for level 10.
Most poleis had a population of 20-30,000 citizens, and used colonization to keep this functional ceiling. Rome, its true got to a million, and a few other Imperial capitals got big, but that's not common.


I prefer to view Anuire as the size of France.
I think that's the consensus view.


In Louis XIV's reign, as well as in earlier Roman periods, we were talking about budgets of tens of millions in standard currency, and constant warfare with tens of thousands of troops.
Louis XIV is after the military revolution, and his armies numbered in the hundred's of thousands. Unless your Birthright has wigs and frock coats I think this is too late for much use. My target France for Birthright is between the end of the Hundred Years War and the Wars of Religion. Its a big hundred year window and that's a lot to draw on.

[geeman]

At 08:50 AM 2/11/2008, Rowan wrote:

>A 100% increase in tax collection from level 1-2 province could be
>created by doubling the number of tax collectors and administrators,
>cataloguing a larger portion of the wealth of the region and the
>people themselves, and expanding systems of allegiances and
>communication from the regent through his servitors to the people.

Presumably, actual population numbers in this interpretation would
exist up to the maximum population of the provinces according to
their terrain types. That might get us closer to a set of realistic
demographic numbers, but I don`t find that rationale any more
satisfying than any of the ones having to do with actual numbers of
people. The static population argument falls flat on a couple of levels.

It ignores the population vs source potential issue, but let`s ignore
that for the moment and address just the population side of things.

It also begs certain questions, like why are holdings bound to
population level? This interpretation of what a population level
means turns it into a sort of governmental tax "holding" rather than
an actual population number. If population level represents
efficiency and size of a regent`s taxation system (rather than the
tax base itself) shouldn`t law, guild and temple holdings be able to
surpass population level? Those domain structures do, after all,
represent the legal, economic and religious control over a
population. Shouldn`t it be possible for a priest regent`s control
over the religious sentiment of a static population to surpass the
taxation structure of the province ruler? Along those same lines,
shouldn`t it be possible for there to be more than one domain ruler
in a province just as there can be more than one regent for each of
the holding types? Surely there are any number of examples of more
than one regent taxing the population (which is why law holdings are
used to represent that kind of thing rather than population level.)

The big picture here is that this interpretation isn`t by itself any
more satisfying than several others. It`s not a panacea to the
issues having to do with how BR`s domain level handles population levels.

>As for source levels, I don`t really see the conflict as a psychic
>one. It has more to do with all of this BR terminology of the
>"land" accepting a ruler, or the regent`s connection with "the
>land." It`s not conscious among the rulers; it`s an unseen conflict
>between divine power connecting itself with the land and the
>mebhaigl running through the land. The only problem created that I
>can think of right now is if a province has levels and is left
>uninvested. I suggest that those provinces simply retain an
>"impression" or "memory" of the divine connection to a regent they once held.

I like the idea that the land itself is "alive" or sentient in BR, so
this would go along with such an idea.

>If you allow Source regents to contest Province Levels (like I do),
>that represents the Source regent erasing that impression or memory,
>not driving off or slaughtering whole populations.

Though it`s a bit obscure, contesting province levels is part of the
original materials.

Gary

[Rowan]

KGauck, I'm not sure I'm in much dispute with you. As for regent skills, it's more a regent's CHOICES than their skills that matter.

The historical points I'd mention are that even though trade routes may flow products in, they flow money out, which encourages further trade and development elsewhere. Also, I believe Athens and Sparta reached well over 100,000 in and around their actual cities.

I will admit that I'm biased more towards a grander view of Cerilia, placing the potential of Anuire at either late Renaissance or height of the Roman or Eastern Roman empires as for the potential power and economic sophistication. For me that's more of a latent possibility that the fractured Anuire hasn't been able to recover, but if it got organized it could certainly achieve, even fairly quickly. Therefore I am fine with a few smaller city provinces cropping up, more provinces getting ruled, much economic growth and trade, and even over a hundred thousand soldiers supportable across the empire.

Geeman, I think I can address some of your concerns. Taxes are only said to come from province levels and law holdings and discretionary taxes on guilds and temples, so yes, province levels correspond to taxation. Taxation from multiple rulers would be less efficient and correspond only to the law holdings aspects.

I don't think the land is necessarily "sentient" in any way. Rather it just responds to the divine bloodlines that call out to it, and can only bond to one bloodline at a time, thus precluding multiple province regents. Multiple regents could tax a populace, but that would only be captured by law holdings. The invested province regents gather taxes in addition to law holdings directly from the province level because their connection with the land also amounts to influence manifested over the people, allowing him to gain RP, greater control, and greater taxation through that influence from the provinces.

As for temple and guild holdings exceeding province levels, I agree this could be a problem. I'm not sure I'd mind temple and guild holdings exceeding province levels, though it should be harder to do so. As a converse to what you're talking about, large provinces with no temple holdings don't lack worship, just organization and linkage to a blooded high priest (churches had trouble reaching everyone as well). Also, a guild holding all the guild holding levels in a province does not control all the commerce; far from it. If taxes are supposed to amount to so much, there's actually a ton more economic activity outside the guilds. To me, the guild holding limitation seems to me the most nonsensical in the game. I'd be more comfortable limiting individual guild holding maximums to the province level, but allowing larger numbers of guilders to get into the province, thus allowing total guild holding levels to exceed the province level. I've never implemented that because it would require more rebalancing for game play that I haven't gotten to yet.

I think instead what we're talking about is that all regency and blooded regent control over domains stems ultimately from this divine connection to the land. Only realm/landed rulers have a direct connection to the land, but the temple and guild regents ultimately receive power through this connection to the land, and so they are limited to the extent of the connection between landed regent and the land. Temples, already concerned with divine power, find themselves limited in their influence and ability to draw power (RP) by the strength of influence over the land and its population. Guilds find it difficult to control and manipulate so much commerce to their effective benefit without that divine connection as well.

My explanations of connections to the land really play up the whole Birthright theme of blooded rulers. If you want to have non-blooded rulers, you can say the connection is still forged, but the ruler just can't draw power (RP) from it, just like small bloodlines may not be able to capture all RPs. You could also just say that the province level represents state control/organized civilization in a realm, thus limiting significant Temple and Guild influence to this civilization extent and pitting organized civilization against the mebhaigl of the land--sort of a Gestalt mental opposition of a national peoples that doesn't manifest when they're scattered in disunity. Those people not involved subsisting in self-sufficient villages pay no tribute, can't be organized effectively enough to provide excess Temple or Guild collections or regency (effectively level 0 holdings possible), and do not oppose mebhaigl.

The alternative is to assume that humans, dwarves, and goblins (but not other sentient creatures) disrupt mebhaigl just as part of their bodily existence, and that just doesn't seem as elegant to me or able to account for rapid province level rise. Note that mebhaigl is not primarily a function of vegetation, because high mountains have highest mebhaigl and humans and goblins living in forested provinces still reduce the source potential.

[kgauck]

It ignores the population vs source potential issue
It doesn't ignore it. Once population is determined, sources have to be re-calculated. Just as the population doesn't change in the game's span of time, neither do sources. The major change is that a lot of plains end up having a source rating of zero. Plains have a low potential rating, and its easy for a province to reach that even if half the land in the province is not suitable for agriculture. Wild places, mostly mountains and forests, are left as the only good locations for sources, because they have a higher source potential and because many fewer people live in such places.

Its a substantial change, but its not been ignored.


It also begs certain questions, like why are holdings bound to population level? This interpretation of what a population level means turns it into a sort of governmental tax "holding" rather than an actual population number.
Yes, the current province level becomes an administrative holding, from which taxes are derived. I recall a thread on this not too long ago.


If population level represents efficiency and size of a regent`s taxation system (rather than the tax base itself) shouldn`t law, guild and temple holdings be able to
surpass population level?
I think you've switched back to an earlier model. If you are actually referring to population level, then that is a fixed maximum for normal growth, limited by the administrative capacities of the age. In a sense, having any holding at the population level represents 100% efficiency.

If you don't actually mean population level, but province level, then sure the efficiency of guilds or temples should be able to exceed the administrative efficiency of a landlord. That's why its better to think of an administrative holding as separate from the population level. The current system, in which province level combines population and administrative efficiency assumes that land rulers don't control their own efficiency, since they can't tweak it the way other rulers can.


Along those same lines, shouldn`t it be possible for there to be more than one domain ruler in a province just as there can be more than one regent for each of the holding types?
Yes! Interesting places like the Maesil river where Ghoere and Mhoried have law holdings in each other's domains could be improved by having administrative holdings on each side, indicating they control towns or keeps in each other's domains, either directly because they captured them in a previous war or because the lords or towns have sworn vasalage, or because they or their vassals have inherited these places.


The big picture here is that this interpretation isn`t by itself any more satisfying than several others. It`s not a panacea to the issues having to do with how BR`s domain level handles population levels.

I can see why this model is more complex and may be more complex than some DM's prefer. But I don't see why you don't find it satisfying.

[geeman]

At 08:31 AM 2/12/2008, kgauck wrote:

>>It ignores the population vs source potential issue
>
>It doesn`t ignore it. Once population is determined, sources have to
>be re-calculated.
[snip]
>>If population level represents efficiency and size of a regent`s
>>taxation system (rather than the tax base itself) shouldn`t law,
>>guild and temple holdings be able to surpass population level?
>
>I think you`ve switched back to an earlier model. If you are
>actually referring to population level, then that is a fixed maximum
>for normal growth, limited by the administrative capacities of the
>age. In a sense, having any holding at the population level
>represents 100% efficiency.
>
>If you don`t actually mean population level, but province level,
>then sure the efficiency of guilds or temples should be able to
>exceed the administrative efficiency of a landlord. That`s why its
>better to think of an administrative holding as separate from the
>population level. The current system, in which province level
>combines population and administrative efficiency assumes that land
>rulers don`t control their own efficiency, since they can`t tweak it
>the way other rulers can.

There`s very little for me to go on here, since nobody`s really
described what the ideas are in anything other than generalities, and
we`re running into a little confusion regarding terms, so let`s see
if we can fix that first off....

For the sake of nominal nomenclature, let`s keep "population level"
actually meaning the number of people in the province. You`re saying
that population level is fixed and it still interacts with source
potential, right? So a province might have a rating of 6/1 (or
whatever depending on its terrain type.) There are law, guild,
temple and source holdings in addition to a new factor that
represents the province ruler`s control over that fixed level 4
population level. Let`s call that "tax base" since that seems to be
the more pertinent aspect of the concept as has been
discussed. Effectively, a province ruler`s domain represents a sort
of holding rather than the province itself. Population level in this
interpretation doesn`t earn a regent RP, only tax base does. At
least, it looks to me like it works that way from what`s been
suggested. Is that about right?

>>Along those same lines, shouldn`t it be possible for there to be
>>more than one domain ruler in a province just as there can be more
>>than one regent for each of the holding types?
>
>Yes! Interesting places like the Maesil river where Ghoere and
>Mhoried have law holdings in each other`s domains could be improved
>by having administrative holdings on each side, indicating they
>control towns or keeps in each other`s domains, either directly
>because they captured them in a previous war or because the lords or
>towns have sworn vasalage, or because they or their vassals have
>inherited these places.

OK, that`s interesting. Assuming the above assessment is correct, I
have a few specific questions:

1. Is "population level" the maximum set by the terrain type? If
not, then how is it determined?

2. Is "population level" changed in any way or is it forever static?

3. Can law, guild and temple holdings surpass "tax base" in this system?

4. Isn`t this "tax base" version of the domain level really just
splitting the law holding up? Or, more to the point, couldn`t one
just roll those two concepts into a single holding? Why have
both? I`ve fiddled around with an entirely holding based system in
the past, and that`s pretty much how it worked.

Gary

[kgauck]

You`re saying that population level is fixed and it still interacts with source potential, right? So a province might have a rating of 6/1 (or
whatever depending on its terrain type.)
Yes.


Effectively, a province ruler`s domain represents a sort of holding rather than the province itself. Population level in this interpretation doesn`t earn a regent RP, only tax base does. At least, it looks to me like it works that way from what`s been
suggested. Is that about right?
Yes.


1. Is "population level" the maximum set by the terrain type? If not, then how is it determined?
Its set by maximum possible for terrain type.


2. Is "population level" changed in any way or is it forever static?
I'd say at the game level, its forever static. The increase from x^2 to (x+1)^2 is in the ballpark of a hundred thousand people. As long as we continue to operate as a series of integers for describing these things, population should be static. I think it would take a century to increase a single level from natural growth.

Plus, if we assume that population is at its maximum set by terrain type, then new people are on marginal or unproductive land. Or they are just hungry marauders. Changes of this kind would seem to require tracking population on excel so you could have decimals out to here.


3. Can law, guild and temple holdings surpass "tax base" in this system?
Sure, why should the landlord always be the most efficient guy on the block?


4. Isn`t this "tax base" version of the domain level really just splitting the law holding up? Or, more to the point, could`t one just roll those two concepts into a single holding? Why have both? I`ve fiddled around with an entirely holding based system in the past, and that`s pretty much how it worked.
For people who like to roll hide and move silently together into a single hide skill, this might be attractive, but here's what you're giving up:

Landlords are not always the law. Sometimes, such as in a theocracy, the temples should have the law. If law is really part of land, then you can only do a binary situation where temples own land, or they don't own land. Although the temples could be more efficient, basically its either all church, or its church and state rivalry. Likewise the dominance of Miss Bireon over Cariele is only plain because she holds the law there (as well as some in Dhoesone).

Indeed, look at Dhoesone. We can see how the state is weaker than elsewhere, because the Baroness doesn't control much law. And its not just she's weak, we know who the other powers are who rival her power. Its not the temples, though it could be. Instead, its the guilders.

With PC's sometimes you re-design stuff to give everyone a part to play. The law holding allows you to put a PC in the Medoere spot, and another PC in the Celestial Spell spot, and RCS has most of the law (or 20% of the land and 80% of the law) while the Medoere PC has the rest (80% of the land, 20% of the law) then its plain that the RCS is the leader of the group (assuming another PC is the source guy and another is the guild guy).

Law also is different from land, which is about the military and the money to wage war, basically. When you break the law, who do you face? The nobles? the priests? the guilds? minions of the strange wizard who no one ever sees? Certainly a priest gets favorable treatment against his rivals if the courts are controlled by the temples. Blasphomy may annoy the nobles and require you to pay a fine, but priests may take that offense far more seriously. Law holdings tell you who controls the law from place to place. That certainly tells you a lot about who runs thing, rather than just assuming that the landlord is master.

[Rowan]

So Kgauck, would all Population levels be set at the race vs. terrain usage levels? So plains provinces by the sea would be 10, and elves in the forest would be 8, etc?

Then we have five holding types left: Land holder (the Province Rating--not owner necessarily, but invested controller, with a tax base), Law, Temple, Guild, and Source?

So the human coastal plains are 10/0, supporting up to 10 Land Holding levels, 10 Law, 10 Temple, 10 Guild, and 0 Source? And Elven forests would be 8/9, sustaining up to 8 Land, 8 Law, --Temple, 8 Guild, 9 Source (9/9 by rivers and 10/9 by seas)? Humans end up with almost no source potentials, btw: any plains or hills: 7 or 8/0; forests: 6/1; swamps: 6/2; mountains: 3/4; dwarven mountains: 7/0.

On a related note, I think there is a problem still with the disruption of mebhaigl on the land. Why would human, dwarven, and goblin bodies reduce mebhaigl simply as a function of their number? Mebhaigl seems to spring from some terrain-based source unrelated to what lives on that land. For example high mountains support higher mebhaigl than forests, despite the fact that they may sustain less life.

[kgauck]

So the human coastal plains are 10/0, supporting up to 10 Land Holding levels, 10 Law, 10 Temple, 10 Guild, and 0 Source? And Elven forests would be 8/9, sustaining up to 8 Land, 8 Law, --Temple, 8 Guild, 9 Source (9/9 by rivers and 10/9 by seas)? Humans end up with almost no source potentials, btw: any plains or hills: 7 or 8/0; forests: 6/1; swamps: 6/2; mountains: 3/4; dwarven mountains: 7/0.
These seem fine.


On a related note, I think there is a problem still with the disruption of mebhaigl on the land. Why would human, dwarven, and goblin bodies reduce mebhaigl simply as a function of their number? Mebhaigl seems to spring from some terrain-based source unrelated to what lives on that land. For example high mountains support higher mebhaigl than forests, despite the fact that they may sustain less life.
I don't think life produces mebhaigl. Call this the "rocks and streams" argument, many of the descriptions of mebhaigl say that this magical force pools in natural places, and we read about waterfalls, mountain peaks, and so on. Not bio-mass, but nature, including a lot of stuff we materialists don't regard as alive. Rocks and streams may have spirits, and be alive, but that's a cosmological question. Mountains are just as good an example of nature as forests, so they produce as much or more mebhaigl as forests.

Humans, dwarves, and goblins are not natural. They are, according to the man vs nature dicotomy, apart from nature. This setting seems to embrace this theory. Its related to the magic vs civilization theory. So men and their crafts, towns, and unnatural way of life reduce source potential.

[Rowan]

If you let holdings exceed province level and run up to 8-10 in most places, holding levels will race up and more than double across Anuire, doubling GB and RP. Expanding province holdings, if kept so much more difficult and expensive than expanding other holdings, will leave Temple and Guild regents significantly more powerful, likely moreso than the landed nobles. Wizards other than elves in elven realms will be incredibly weak.

I'm not saying the game can't be rebalanced to accomodate these, but it will need to be rebalanced.



As for mebhaigl, I agree that it's not tied to living things in particular. In fact, if anything, it seems to follow the natural flow of water more than anything else (snow-capped mountains with many streams and lakes, swamps, forests, rivers; plains, hills, etc. are often more arid than these). Non-elven settled lands tend to involve irrigation, channelization, and other manipulation of water, so that could be considered the most direct source of impact.

I acknowledge the civilization vs. magic vibe in BR, but I'd make the adjustment IMC that this is more of a perception, and the reality has more to do with the conflict between blooded, landed regents tying themselves to the land that interferes with the mebhaigl of the land (as I've described in an earlier post). I think that's an explanation that fits with the flavor of the game pretty well and keeps the current province level structure.

[kgauck]

Expanding province holdings, if kept so much more difficult and expensive than expanding other holdings...
I don't what this means or where it came from. What does province mean? Population? or Administration?


I acknowledge the civilization vs. magic vibe in BR, but I'd make the adjustment IMC that this is more of a perception, and the reality has more to do with the conflict between blooded, landed regents tying themselves to the land that interferes with the mebhaigl of the land (as I've described in an earlier post). I think that's an explanation that fits with the flavor of the game pretty well and keeps the current province level structure.
I think that the core idea of the setting is the birthright to rule. Making that birthright a problematic element of the game in conflict with other values seems to oppose the very heart of the setting.

[geeman]

At 11:57 AM 2/12/2008, kgauck wrote:

One more question and a follow up question about the static concept
of population and "tax base" to represent the province ruler`s
control over the domain:

5. Is it rule in the same way population levels are ruled? That is,
can it be done only once per domain turn?

>>1. Is "population level" the maximum set by the terrain type? If
>>not, then how is it determined?
>
>Its set by maximum possible for terrain type.

So the entire continent is already at its Malthusian maximum
population level? I`m thinking that this would require a review of
the existing population level maximums as they appear to have been
set not as a base-line for population but as actual maximums. There
should be some sort of way to account for variables in population density.

Gary

[Rowan]

Kgauck, geeman just asked what I was referring to about provinces. You've suggested that there should be a province holding like the other four. We're asking if it still costs Target Province Holding Level in GB to Rule a Province Holding, if it can only be done once per season across the whole realm, with no Realm action, if the DC is still equal to Target Level and can't be modified by RP?

Or can you rule Province Holding levels just the same as any other holding (1GB, DC = to target level, modifiable by RP, can be done any time and as a Realm action).

How would you rebalance all of this?


I think that the core idea of the setting is the birthright to rule. Making that birthright a problematic element of the game in conflict with other values seems to oppose the very heart of the setting.

I don't see what you're getting at. All I'm talking about is explaining the current province level vs. source potential conflict that already exists. Landed rulers already conflict with source potential when they expand their provinces. Where's the opposition you see?

[AndrewTall]

I don't see what you're getting at. All I'm talking about is explaining the current province level vs. source potential conflict that already exists. Landed rulers already conflict with source potential when they expand their provinces. Where's the opposition you see?

In the standard system if landed regent A rules up their province causing source holder B to lose a source holding level, then landed regent A has boosted their nations strength and cohesiveness, and as a sad side effect weakened source holder B's holding - sorry dude, that's progress. Source holder B may be unchuffed but they can see that the rule action isn't personal. Under your suggestion, as I read it, land regent A is directly opposing source holder B purely on a personal power level with no 'benefit to the people' to justify the insult caused. Given the legendary vengefulness of gamers this could be hazardous to game survival.

My personal views on sources is to move towards a plant-life basis, with the mebhaighl flow being disrupted by straight fields, drainage ditches, etc which are needed by a civilised population. That then 'explains' the mebhaighl hit from most populations as the 'raw and wild' lands that let mebhaighl pool are converted into fields and the like which while potentially generating the same mebhaighl disperse it by their very nature.

My personal view on population is that I like to have frontiers and core states with differing populations - although that could easily be built in to the basic 'all provinces are full' argument. I do wonder about the effect of major plagues, and genocidal pillaging on the mechanic though - these are more common in a campaign than RL, similarly goblin (in particular) generational bulges that require either mass culls (ala sparta) or major wars to thin the herd.

A mechanic whereby the actual population could only be modified with extreme difficulty (to represent slow population growth barring mass immigration) with a new holding type for population level would certainly resolve some issues, but I wonder in practice what the impact would be since effectively you are simply swapping 'I hold the population level 4' for 'I hold government level 4'. The change in mechanic is handy for people like me who want to make, say, Soniele in Dhoesone have 1 level each of humans, goblins and elves with each having a completely distinct government, but it may possibly be easier to simply use the existing province level (split by ruler as necessary) with the actual population split a background issue. The source issue could then be side stepped by assuming minimal values in provinces and other high population areas and beefing it up in forests, swamps and the like to keep source levels low for everyone barring elves and goblins (who also suffer from weak holdings). Alternatively a DM could simply say that source levels relate to connection to the Shadow World, each source level in a realm increasing the chance of a random event by say 1%... that should encourage realm holders not to smile upon high source levels!

[Rowan]

Under your suggestion, as I read it, land regent A is directly opposing source holder B purely on a personal power level with no 'benefit to the people' to justify the insult caused.

It's not all personal power. It's still a matter of "progress," in the form of organization, administration, realm unity, and a realm ruler being able to better provide for and strengthen his people by making the realm more efficient/effective and gaining regency to further that. It's just that concurrent with this progress the land bonds more closely with the realm ruler; the progression really parallels the march of civilization, and sources suffer because the land's power gets channeled more through the unity of the people to a realm than through wild mebhaigl.

[ploesch]

I had houseruled something like this for my game a while back. No one ever managed to take advantage of it though.

I had some heavy restrictions.

1. You had to increase a province to 10. Not all provinces are suited to supporting a metropolis.
2. The maximum number of trade routes had to be established for the province in question.
3. The province must have a castle level equal to at least 4.

I had some other restrictions I can't remember, but those were the big ones.

You then had to pay a price as if you were increasing the province level to 11. Normal rules for increasing province level apply. This includes checks and challenges.

If successful, you now have an Urban Province level 8 and a normal province level 3. Trade routes and holdings would then need to be split between the provinces in whatever way seems most appropriate. GM adjudicated of course. The castle level would stay with the city.

If you don't like that, then leave the city at level 10, and you gain a level 1 provice around it, but that doesn't make as much sense to me.

In either case the maximum level of the normal province would be permanently reduced by one.