PDA

View Full Version : Sea Trade Route question



Blackfrost
04-19-2008, 09:19 PM
I apologize if this question has already been answered somewhere, but are the maintenance costs for ships used to conduct sea trade already deducted from the GB produced by that trade route?

Ian

irdeggman
04-21-2008, 09:58 AM
No they are not. Neither are the costs of highways or seaports deducted from the income generated by trade routes. They are treated separate due to the fact that they serve multiple purposes. Highways allow easier troop movement as well as supporting trade routes - seaports are a diffierent matter and the more I think about them the more they are probably best handled more like "guilds" than actual "assets" since their only game function is to support sea trade routes. But that is something to look at later and is not directly related to this question.

Ships are treated like military units in regard to maintenance costs.

See Table 5-4 and 6-3

Also (from Chap 6):



A garrisoned naval unit incurs expenses equal to its muster cost every four years. To simplify bookkeeping, unit expenses are tracked seasonally.

A unit is considered to be active if it leaves its home province or if its home province contains potentially hostile forces. Active units incur double the maintenance expenses of units garrisoned in their home province.

Blackfrost
04-21-2008, 11:18 AM
Thanks for the clarification on that! I was a bit unsure after noticing that maintenance costs were no longer used for holdings (which never really made sense anyway as it created more paperwork when all one had to do was reduce the income earned to account for these costs).

I see how the ships are different in this respect though and it makes sense to pay the maintenance costs separately.

Great work covering these areas, btw. Chapter 5 & 6 are VASTLY superior compared to what was presented in the original 2ed products (especially the more in depth look at assets and rules for creating military units from the ground up.

Thanks again for the assistance!

Ian

bbeau22
04-21-2008, 02:36 PM
Yeah Seaports right now are a little off. Rulers tend to control them but they really get no major benifit from them. I have given added bonuses for controlling seaports.

1. +1 bonus on guild actions in that province.
2. +1 to contest trade routes using that seaport. (could be even stronger)
3. Reduce the troop movement cost when boarding a ship in a seaport you control. Make it cost just 1 movement point to board ship.

Wanted to make some reason why rulers would want to control their own seaports.

-BB

The Swordgaunt
04-21-2008, 04:01 PM
I'm just tossing this in. Would it be feasible to allow a guild ruler to establish a seaport? I believe it could lead to interesting game-play, and a fair bit of local politicking.

"No, My Lord, I am afraid your ship will have to wait, you see, the Alderman is receiving his mistress on the eastern pier, and it may take the afternoon - Ladies, you see..."

irdeggman
04-21-2008, 09:59 PM
I'm just tossing this in. Would it be feasible to allow a guild ruler to establish a seaport? I believe it could lead to interesting game-play, and a fair bit of local politicking.

"No, My Lord, I am afraid your ship will have to wait, you see, the Alderman is receiving his mistress on the eastern pier, and it may take the afternoon - Ladies, you see..."


Nothing wrong with that - it is just like a guilder building the highways.

Realizing of course that nothing stops the landed regent (with armies) from moving into the sea port and "taking it over" - but there are no real game-mechanics for that part.

AndrewTall
04-23-2008, 08:00 PM
Hmm, I'd say that the ruler must either dominate the law (i.e. their law exceeds the guilder's guilds) or occupy to take the seaport - an interesting idea is that rival guilds could co-operate to boost the effective level of the other (for a price of course) and law holders do likewise - the diplomacy gets more interesting when you need friends.

One possibility on a seaport is that it could be treated as an asset that generates money or permits a larger population (both arise from fishing, one assumes that the controller aims to maximise trade, the other that they demand a share of the catch to feed their people).

I can see a canny ruler allowing the guilder to control the port (so only that guilder can operate sea trade routes) but requiring some form of levy to be applied for the privilege.

The Swordgaunt
04-23-2008, 10:28 PM
Dammit! I want to play BR.

kgauck
04-23-2008, 10:36 PM
I can see a canny ruler allowing the guilder to control the port (so only that guilder can operate sea trade routes) but requiring some form of levy to be applied for the privilege.

Traditionally states did not maintain navies, but had the right to rent ships in wartime for their navies. Andrew's description is how it worked.

The Swordgaunt
04-23-2008, 11:05 PM
Traditionally states did not maintain navies, but had the right to rent ships in wartime for their navies. Andrew's description is how it worked.

I'm nitpicking again... Actually, during the Hundred Years War, both the French and the English crowns built and maintained royal fleets.

kgauck
04-24-2008, 12:18 AM
Yes, during wars states built ships (from the guilds who did this) then after the war they sold them to the guilders because without a day to day need, money was better spent elsewhere. Ships, however, take a long time to build, so states need an expectation of a long war to shift from renting existing ships to spending capital on ship ownership.

The Swordgaunt
04-24-2008, 07:55 AM
Absolutely, although it was not uncommon for ships to rot in their moorings due to neglect of upkeep either - something that should not be ignored in this setting.

AndrewTall
05-02-2008, 09:06 PM
Absolutely, although it was not uncommon for ships to rot in their moorings due to neglect of upkeep either - something that should not be ignored in this setting.

sounds like a random event...

kgauck
05-02-2008, 09:18 PM
Letting ships rot was more of an unwillingness to pay upkeep for extra capacity shipping. Paying the maintenance to keep a ship seaworthy is only desirable if you plan to use it again in the near term.

The Swordgaunt
05-03-2008, 02:27 PM
sounds like a random event...

After the English broke the French fleet during the Hundred Years War, several ships were left to rot. The Crown decided that they no longer needed/could afford a navy. The money was in stead funneled into more land units.

Derthric
06-22-2008, 06:52 PM
I can see a canny ruler allowing the guilder to control the port (so only that guilder can operate sea trade routes) but requiring some form of levy to be applied for the privilege.

I am trying to do this in my current BR game, only as the landed ruler and either going to sell off exclusive rights to access the seaport or get the guilds to form together to pay fees at the seaport to keep it as an open port.