Starting Trade Routes

[Arentak]

I'm finishing a nice spreadsheet of the Anuirean region.

I was wondering what to do about starting trade routes. None are listed.

I was thinking 1 trade route per 10 guild levels, what do you guys think?

[ryancaveney]

I'm finishing a nice spreadsheet of the Anuirean region. I was wondering what to do about starting trade routes. None are listed. I was thinking 1 trade route per 10 guild levels, what do you guys think?

Well, the *sea* trade routes for Anuire are listed in the Khinasi boxed set, along with the Anuirean navies, on one of the unbound cards.



Aerenwe: A sea trade route from Calrie to Mermoune in Binsada generates 4 GB per domain turn to one guild. Navy: 2 galleons, 6 caravels, 2 coasters. The fleet is based upriver at the port of Calrie itself, a day’s sail from the Gulf of Coeranys.

Avanil: Sea trade routes from Daulton to Ilien and from Anuire province to Seaward in Mieres generate 12 GB per domain turn for local guilds. Navy: 7 galleons, 12 caravels, 4 coasters. The Prince of Avanil holds the old Imperial Yards of the City of Anuire and uses the city’s harbor as his main naval base. The capital's fortifications protect the naval dockyards and slips.

Boeruine: Sea trade routes from both Seasedge and Tariene to Stormpoint in Taeghas and from Bacaele to Bliene in Diemed generate 13 GB per domain turn for local guilds. Navy: 6 galleons, 11 caravels, 5 coasters. Most of Boeruine’s fleet sails from the port of Tariene, which has a much better harbor than Seaharrow.

Brosengae: A sea trade route from Bindier to Crenier in Mieres generates 3 GB per domain turn for one guild. Navy: 5 caravels. Brosengae’s navy anchors in the bay of Bindier, although it often patrols the Arnienbae.

Coeranys: No one has established a sea trade route. Navy: 3 caravels. Rumors hint that Coeranys is embarking on a building program to achieve parity with Osoerde’s fleet.

Dhoesone: A sea trade route from Nolien to Riverford in Cariele generates 4 GB per domain turn for one guild. Navy: 5 caravels, 4 knarrs, 2 coasters.

Diemed: A sea trade route from Ciliene to Seaward in Mieres generates 5 GB per domain turn for one guild. Navy: 2 galleons, 7 caravels, and 3 coasters, split between Aerele and Ciliene. The Baron of Diemed hopes to see a new trade route forged from Aerele to one of the great Khinasi ports, probably Zikala or Turin.

Ilien: A sea trade route from Ilien to Ruorven in Coeranys generates 6 GB per domain turn for one guild. Navy: 2 galleons, 4 caravels, 2 coasters.

Medoere: No one has established a sea trade route. Navy: 4 caravels. The fleet is based in Alamier.

Osoerde: A sea trade route from Gulfport to Zikala generates 5 GB per domain turn for one guild. Navy: 3 galleons, 6 caravels, 2 coasters. Osoerde sails out of Gulfport and is thought to sponsor pirates and smugglers in the Sunken Lands.

Roesone: As Roesone is not a seapower, local guilds maintain no sea trade routes. Navy: 2 caravels anchored in Abbatuor, 1 coaster in Proudglaive, and 1 coaster in Abbadiel. (Note: These two coasters are mentioned in the Player’s Secrets of Roesone domain sourcebook as the Registered Baron’s Ships Exploit and Adventure.)

Taeghas: A sea trade route from Bhaine to Abbatuor in Roesone generates 5 GB per domain turn for one guild. Navy: 2 galleons, 5 caravels, and 2 coasters, based in the royal harbor at Stormpoint.

Talinie: Two sea trade routes from Lindholme to Stormpoint in Taeghas each generate 4 GB per domain turn for one guild. Navy: 1 galleon, 6 caravels, and 1 coaster, divided between Seaport and Nowelton.


I'm not keen on that last bit about two TRs which *both* go from Lindholme to Stormpoint, but that's canon for you. :) The land trade routes should be different, but the total numbers should be similar. The places that *need* road-based TRs are Endier, Belvadruor and Bhalaene, since they are the only big (level 6) cities not on this seaborne list; however, based on the small numbers above, probably only Endier has two. Haesrien, Alaroine, Ansien and Ghiere as 5s should probably also have one each (though not with each other, due to political opposition). That's probably it at game start, except for whatever 3s and 4s lie at the other end of those TRs.

I am of two minds regarding the Imperial City. On the one hand, that kind of population density simply cannot exist without lots of trade going on. On the other hand, given that no sea trade routes connect to it, and lots of competing regents have small holdings there, no one should get to start the game controlling any that reach it.

[kgauck]

Its odd that there would be sea trade routes from both Seasedge and Tariene to Stormpoint in Taeghas. And why Stormpoint, a town of something like 3,850 in a province 3, instead of the city of Bhaine, which almost certainly has a town twice that size, in a province 6? Are the Taeghan Outfitters supposed to be remote enough from Avanil to elect to enrich them as much as Boeruine Trading Guild? Why not a trade route to Talinie? Instead Lindholme also goes to Stormpoint?

Trade in Lindholme would almost certainly be about collecting the goods of the Black River region and transporting them north to the Taelshore (including Dhoesone), and bringing Taelish goods back to the Black River for local distribution.

Directly or through intermediaries, Stjordvik Traders has holdings in Tariene, Boeruine; Lindholme, Talinie; and Winter's Deep, Talinie. These three ports are going to trade with Nolien, Dhoesone; Bjarnheim, Svinik; and Saerskaap, Stjordvik. This way Storm makes money both coming and going and because two of these routes cross from Rjurik to Anuire, its easy to match the other one in terms of geography.

Further, what's the whole focus on realm to relam. Trade isn't done that way. Its guild to guild.

Take the Nolien, Dhoesone route to Riverford, Cariele. Sorry? Storm Holtson to Mheallie Bireon? Hack, cough, choke!?!

El-Hadid has seven guild holdings, is described as having built his empire on trade with Khinasi (its sure not his bloodline or his character level), and has a single trade route to Coeranys? I assume he collects his proportional share of the Daulton to Ilien route which presumably was created by Prince's Pride.

Its material like this that gives BR canon a disreputable name. Burn it.

[ryancaveney]

why Stormpoint, a town of something like 3,850 in a province 3, instead of the city of Bhaine, which almost certainly has a town twice that size, in a province 6?

Because whoever controls the one sea route already leading out of Bhaine wants the one remaining slot for themselves, and thus spends RP to keep any from coming in, I suspect.


Further, what's the whole focus on realm to relam. Trade isn't done that way. Its guild to guild.

I think it's because the realm, not the guild, owns the navy which transports the goods. Which is silly, because the guilds should just buy coasters of their own. Not galleons, surely, but coasters. The galleons should patrol the sea lanes and defend any merchant who has paid the proper fees (1-3GB/TR/turn, depending on size) and let, ahhh, "pirates" attack any who haven't.


Storm Holtson to Mheallie Bireon? Hack, cough, choke!?!

Quite.


Its material like this that gives BR canon a disreputable name. Burn it.

I posted it as a starting point for further discussion, which is beginning to work. =) Please, continue to make suggestions for what to use instead!

[ryancaveney]

I'm finishing a nice spreadsheet of the Anuirean region.

Which you will post here on the downloads page when you are done, I hope?

[Arentak]

Its funny they list a trade route in Gulfport, Osoerde, but there is no guild there.

[kgauck]

I think navies are mostly a guild thing, not a realm thing. Boeruine has no need for a navy. Repelling an invasion is much easier on land

The Trading Guild of Boeruine has every reason to have a navy to protect its merchant ships.

Side note. The guild doesn't own them, they register them. For the same reason a realm doesn't raise a unit of knights by buying several scores of horses and suits of plate armor.

[Arentak]

I think navies are mostly a guild thing, not a realm thing. Boeruine has no need for a navy. Repelling an invasion is much easier on land

The Trading Guild of Boeruine has every reason to have a navy to protect its merchant ships.

Side note. The guild doesn't own them, they register them. For the same reason a realm doesn't raise a unit of knights by buying several scores of horses and suits of plate armor.

Actually, securing Taergas is a lot easier by sea. And think strategicly, a smaller force, with lots of scouts (which Boeruine has), could hold off a larger force that wasnt very eager to do battle without revealing that 1/2 the army has left by sea to land behind the lines and pillage freely..

I'm disinclined to think that these navies belong to the guilds. Guilds should have their own navies.

I'm looking at land trade routes, its kinda like ley lines, they just don't fill in the details do they?

I'm thinking maybe 1 land trade route per 10 levels of guild holding, and most should begin and end in territories the guild leader has guilds in, rather then be revenue-sharing type routes.

Also, doing this requires you to know what roads exist at start...lol..

Is there a project for this? Should we make a wiki article with our suggested roads?

Maybe we need roads before we have land trade routes?

[AndrewTall]

I'd differ to earlier posters - I'd expect most trade routes to be between different guilds. The reasoning is my interpretation of the likely cost : profit ratio.

To get a trade route, a guild needs:

1.1. A consenting guild at each end.
1.2. Consent of the law holder in each realm the trade routes passes through.
1.3. A maintained road (land) or ships (sea route).
1.4. Freedom from piracy (sea) or banditry (land).

Now consider the cost of this.

2.1. With two different guilds, each builds only the holding at their end - halving the cost for each guild.

2.2. Each guild persuades their own local ruler - who may see the guild as 'theirs' or otherwise favour it over a foreign guild - likely dropping the price by over half for each guild.

2.3. With two rulers from whom to choose ships, or to pay part of the fleet cost for merchant marine rights, the cost of the vessels reduces lowering the total cost and dropping each guilds share by more than half.

2.4. Who wants two enemies rather than one? Even if each of the two is smaller, that simply means they have more time to focus on individual issues - both will happily collaborate to destroy bandits preying on their mutual route, the cost of piracy / banditry reduces overall as a result, dropping the cost of each share by over half.

The end result is half the income :mad: - but less than half the costs :), resulting in the same profit despite spending less. :D

As long, of course, as you can trust the other guilder ;)

[Arentak]

I tried to make land trade routes at 1 per 10 levels of guilds, considering i put in a limited network of roads, most guilders HAD to share their trade routes in order to even have eligible trade routes.

[kgauck]

Many guilds are forced by circumstances to work with other guilds to establish trade routes. But guilds like Stjordvik Traders, with guilds in three regions in two different culture groups has only two reasons to trade with other guilders 1) more money and 2) diplomatic benefits.

Stjordvik Traders may not be common in this regard, but other guilds do have extensive holdings across space, terrain, and culture which allow a guilder to avoid the necessity of forging trade routes with other guilds.

Money is good, and guilds want it. Everyone wants it. But establishing trade with someone and getting it cut off by your partner, your partner's enemies, or having contest or law claims adds costs to that income that you don't get if you trade with yourself, or with good reliable friends in a strong position.

Guilds have no natural friends. Realms and temples do, but guilds, by their nature are natural competitors. Even so, there can be friends even so, because you share other interests. The most obvious is having the same friends and the same enemies. They can make good trade partners. Figuring out who makes trade partners involves a little role play for each guild.

[AndrewTall]

I'd expect that the Stjordvik traders built its wide reach by forging trade routes with 'competitors', then absorbed those competitors over time using the trade route as a foot in the door and method to identify key personnel in the rival guild. I see large domain-level guilds as conglomerates of a multitude of smaller guilds, certainly in modern economics one sees mergers and acquisitions arising from joint ventures akin to trade routes.

In my opinion guilds are probably actually the least competitive of the landed holdings - guilds naturally tend towards monopolies and cartels (i.e. a single super guild) whereas religious faiths and the nobility tend towards centralisation of power and fragmentation which invite competition - the clergy actively push for laws on heresy and make rivals outcast, the nobles wage war, tourney, and the like - guilds by contrast mostly compete on price or through varying degrees of extortion.

Whether that is reflected in the game is another matter of course, playing merchants as grasping seems to come naturally, so equally does playing a 'noble' noble or 'beatific' priest - the latter two possibly being what one would hope of such folk rather than what one would historically have found.

[kgauck]

Monopolies and a single cartel seem best represented by a preference for trade within a guild.

I also miss the contrast between monopolistic guilds and centralization among other holdings. Monopoly seems pretty centralizing to me.

Trade between guilds seems most likely to me between regions. Yet the official list gave us no examples of Khinasi-Anuirean trade despite the descriptions of same being important in the Southern Sea.

Part of the problem from my point of view is that short trade routes provide the same income as trade that crosses more geographical and cultural distance.

[AndrewTall]

I agree on the long vs short trade routes - creating an income inequality would also encourage people to spread their gaze which would encourage communication, etc. You could however increase the value of the trade route to reflect distance (+10% per 10 provinces crossed) or culture (+25% per different culture in the trade chain).

On competition; guilds tend to have no ideology or purpose beyond the creation of wealth and continuance of employment. Competition between another guild of similar power is wasteful - smaller guilds can be crushed and subsumed, larger guilds would normally come to a nice cosy arrangement that left them both raking in the cash without any unpleasant price wars, etc. The ego of the guild master will obviously have a role, so cartels will be common at first, but as the cartel matures and new blood rises increasingly the cartel will be seen as the 'wider guild' not just each individual guild and there will be a pull towards mergers.

This pull towards conglomeration is less between the nobility, where ego is even more important to each person and ties of blood, feud, culture etc get in the way and cause uncommercial views to become predominant and far less amongst temples where ideology is key and doctrinal differences may e seen as fundamental to the character of the domain rather than an impediment to its growth.

[kgauck]

Competition between another guild of similar power is wasteful...

This is true for all domains (and all human interactions) but it is neither the human experience, nor is it the campaign description. Were I to rank the ruthless competition I would be hard pressed to decide whether the guilders or the dukes are more liable to fight one another. The temples are clearly less combative, and we have little information on the wizards, so they might be entirely withdrawn from affairs, or highly involved. They may also be highly variable.


This pull towards conglomeration is less between the nobility

I think this is mostly irrelevant. The new monarchies of the Renaissance formed because new ideas of government, the revival of Roman law (along with the rest of Classical culture), and the cost of fortification and artillery. I think that with translation, all of these factors are present. We get the idea that feudal forms are creaky and giving way to something new, Anuirean law and Haelyn's law never went away and so don't require a revival. Fortification and the high cost of magic are both expensive. Put this all together and the domain regent becomes much more powerful than their nobles.

I think one of the current trends in Anuire, certainly, and to a lesser extent, in Brechtur and Khinasi is the rise of the domain regent, and the decline of the sub-domain figures.

Can I re-imagine a new order of things based on an abstract theory of what might be in the interest of guilders? Sure. But since the descriptions seem to strongly contradict that interpretation, I continue to view them as rival gangs, no more likely to bow to a single godfather than the Dukes will bow to a single Emperor. Turf wars, rival factions, and constant conflict seems to be the norm.

[AndrewTall]

Hmm, conglomeration increases profits and so is potentially in the interests of everyone (except the down trodden masses) - the nobles have more money to tax and the priests in tithe.

The counter to the conglomeration method of growth theory is the domain set up, possibly the domain indicates the maximum 'natural accumulation' size before the ego of the leaders outweighs the economic benefits of mergers - or the point at which the efficiencies of scion rule come to dominate any 'inherent' efficiencies. And since only one scion can gain regency from the domain each scion has a strong degree of self-interest in keeping the 'super guild' from forming. That would explain the existing guild domains stability - if scions were more or less common likely the stable size would fifer significantly.

In Anuire I'm note sure that the nobility is resurgent, has it's power ever really fallen away? I thought that if anything guilds were supposed to be growing in power, while the last decade has seen a second theocracy rise.

Note. Wow I talk to much - 1,000 posts made...

[kgauck]

Possibly the domain indicates the maximum 'natural accumulation' size before the ego of the leaders outweighs the economic benefits of mergers - or the point at which the efficiencies of scion rule come to dominate any 'inherent' efficiencies.

If we look to mechanics, in RP at least, bloodline serves this purpose. A domain larger than the regent's bloodline contributes no RP.

Which hardly disputes the other arguments that the typical domain is near the optimal size of a given domain: efficiency of scale stuff. Just that in terms of RP, its obvious and easy to read.

[templaralberic]

Do any of you ever see every nation nationalizing all their guilds because guilds and trade routes are such a great source of GB?

[kgauck]

Only very small ones (Endier, Ilien, or in the case of Cariele, the guild acquiring a realm) because the limits on RP collection are a huge limiting factor, and trying to do two kinds of holdings has many of the same problems as multi-classing.

[AndrewTall]

Do any of you ever see every nation nationalizing all their guilds because guilds and trade routes are such a great source of GB?

I see that as a bug in the system - if you want overlapping domains in a game, then the PC ruler who says '100% of income is better than 20% tax' and starts hoovering up every holding in their domain is a game-buster.

The way to get around the urge to monopolise provinces is, imo, to recognise that holdings are not just a source of income - RP or GB, they are collections of loosely tied together groups who often have competing agenda's. These groups want to have 100% of the regent's attention - not just a fraction, they want to know that their aims (downtrodden peasants, free trade for guild members, the greater glory of Haelyn, etc) are the aims of the regent, etc - and if a regent is clearly careless of their wants and needs they should seek guidance elsewhere.

I tried beefing the likelihood of random events to add a mechanic to reflect this, but the main stopper I'd use in practice is the 3 action limit, RP caps, and internal dissent which show the danger of trying to do everything by oneself.

The other stopper needed is a huge negative impact to pillage actions - the romp 'n' stomp approach to rulership should destroy most realms in months (since effectively the soldiers are massacring civilians wholesale, destroying buildings, etc, etc). If a ruler has to contest down every 'foreign' holding in their realm and rebuild from scratch it will take them an age, cost a fortune, and leave their neighbors far wealthier in the meantime.

In short, make it clear to PCs that a wise ruler sticks to the knitting, and tolerates dissent if need be - absolute power may sound fun to the PC but no one below the regent will be happy about it!

[kgauck]

I see that as a bug in the system - if you want overlapping domains in a game, then the PC ruler who says '100% of income is better than 20% tax' and starts hoovering up every holding in their domain is a game-buster.

It shouldn't be a game buster. It should be a reasonable strategy for a small realm. The game should already impose brutal diseconomies of scale as a domain gets too large. With only three actions, its quite easy to cause havok on a large realm, just putting out fires, never mind dealing with rivals.

Boeruine and Avanil don't have pet guilders because they don't want the money, obviously they do, and they get it. But to deal with the complications of a hybrid realm and the mere size problem, a vassal is the best way to make use of those holdings.

We've talked about ways to impose diseconomies of scale, like having random events for every domain sized thing, so Talinie, gets two random events, one realm directed, one temple directed.

Another stiffer penalty is to make loyalty a serious problem when you can't collect regency (for any holding) in a province.

[AndrewTall]

I disagree Ken, total control of a realm (i.e. totalitarian dictatorship) generally has horrible side effects quite apart from action constraint issues and regardless of the size of the realm.

Even though scientific advance is far less important in a medieval world like Cerilia, and similarly economies are far less advanced, the realm is still going to suffer badly if the ruler refuses to share any power or influence at all, multiple power centers make advancement possible encouraging people to strive to better themselves (within social roles of course) and also minimises the damage caused by a single idiot in charge of everything.

I'd have no problem with vassalage of all other regents in a realm, but the 'munchkin approach' to play is usually to eliminate all vassals as they are seen purely as a cost, or as potential rivals. I'd see a realm with only 1 all-dominating regent as a land where anyone with talent or ability has left to win fame and fortune elsewhere - why stay when the guy at the top refuses to consider sharing the power/ wealth in even the slightest degree? Crushing the nobility and middleclass in such a fashion should have all sorts of downsides...

[Vicente]

It shouldn't be a game buster.

I see it as a game buster, but for a different reason: if two regents are fighting to control one type of holding the PC ruler has too much power to drive one out and let the other one get the holding levels. Maybe it's realistic, but it bugs me a lot.

[kgauck]

The extra power comes from the character being a PC, or from some other circumstance?

[Vicente]

Well, for NPCs I can control that behavior and not do it, but I haven't found any good explanation to discourage the PC landed regent to not do that to protect the guilder PC regent (that is also his adventures friend).

[kgauck]

My question was, why is it a problem in the first place. If some theoretical action is a problem, it should be disadvantageous for both NPC's and PC's alike. Simply restraining NPC's only addresses a problem from the NPC side.

I can think of a dozen reasons why any character is asking for trouble trying to hold every type of holding themselves, but those may not address the issue you have.

[Vicente]

I can think of a dozen reasons why any character is asking for trouble trying to hold every type of holding themselves, but those may not address the issue you have.

I agree it would be a problem if the character tries to hold all the holdings for himself, mostly because he wouldn't have enough actions to develop/protect all of them.

My problem comes when the land regent player uses his position of power to help another player hold all the holdings, it's too easy to use taxes to force other regents out of your domain except the ones you want to be in without the expensive contest/rule war that would be needed without taxes.

This also is a problem for me because it creates too easily power blocks in kingdoms (like Avanil, where every regent bows to Avan) instead of what happens in most other places where domains overlap and are mixed in a more chaotic way.

Maybe it has to do with my way of playing too, but I would be glad to get some comments about how to discourage that behavior.

[AndrewTall]

I see the answer as roleplaying - powerblocks encourage counter-reactions, dissent within the ranks (why is our noble prince consorting with lowly guilders and giving them fine titles?) and so on.

In Ruins of Empire each holding has 'goals' - stated broad ideas of what the domain considers important / wants to achieve. Many of these overlap or are contradictory to the goals of other domains - even 'allied' ones. Going against goals such as 'don't swear fealty, keep at least 50% of the guild outside of any one realm to prevent domination, etc then causes major internal problems since the regent is clearly pushing the domain in a direction it doesn't want to go - the regent could of course try to change the domains intentions up front, but they'd better be persuasive!

As long as you clearly state to players that their domains have these goals, having their npc's go great captain, impose loyalty drops, RP losses, etc if they ignore the goals is fair enough. Particularly if you show the suffering happening to npc's who go Louis the 16th first or explain why the poor roleplaying of the domain is a problem.

My real problem is with the ruler simply declaring martial law and wiping out other holdings - or threatening it to enforce dominance. Even casual talk of pillaging holdings forces the other regents to kowtow unless they are sure that the DM will impose crippling penalties for the occupation.

[kgauck]

I disagree Ken, total control of a realm (i.e. totalitarian dictatorship) generally has horrible side effects quite apart from action constraint issues and regardless of the size of the realm.

I don't see this as a totalitarian dictatorship, since that would impose a kind of government not invented yet into a renaissance scenario. We have plenty of examples that seem to show three of the real four together without much difficulty. Medici Florence, the Counts of Tyrol, Venice (which can go for four since they often had considerable influence on the Church), the Counts of Champagne, all spent some time controlling the local wealth. Protestant countries took control of the Church, and since the Church actually was an obstacle to the new learning of the renaissance science and learning shifted north.

None of this strikes me as horrible.


I'd see a realm with only 1 all-dominating regent as a land where anyone with talent or ability has left to win fame and fortune elsewhere - why stay when the guy at the top refuses to consider sharing the power/ wealth in even the slightest degree? Crushing the nobility and middleclass in such a fashion should have all sorts of downsides...

All of this assumes way, way more than is implied by having all of the holdings. The Hanseatic League lasts beyond the Reformation and so there is a time where many Hanseatic cities and countries controlled their own trade (and part of a shrinking trade empire) their religion, their law, and their land. They took part in the progress of the North after the Renaissance. On the other hand, they weren't game breakers either.

[kgauck]

My real problem is with the ruler simply declaring martial law and wiping out other holdings - or threatening it to enforce dominance. Even casual talk of pillaging holdings forces the other regents to kowtow unless they are sure that the DM will impose crippling penalties for the occupation.

This is not at all what I am talking about. This the obvious bull in a china shop way to get to the ends under discussion. But in no way is this the only way to go about affairs. Talinie starts with law, land, and temple. This game already broken?

[kgauck]

Maybe it has to do with my way of playing too, but I would be glad to get some comments about how to discourage that behavior.

The easiest way to encourage multiple, overlapping regents, and to discourage picking off holdings of other domains in your area is to make having contact with other holdings where you have holdings to be useful.

For instance, if you and I have holdings in a province, we can do most kinds of basic diplomacy as a court action anywhere this occurs. Otherwise its a domain action.

Using your domain as a conduit for espionage, basically my guys asking your guys, heard any news lately? Its cheap and easy if we share holdings. We can't spy on one another this way, the question was "heard any news" not "what are your secrets". But we can gather information on the domain level as a court action espionage. Otherwise espionage gets harder and harder because every bit of news has to be gotten the spy way, with all its costs and risks, rather than just collecting news.

Another kind of benefit is that when third parties mis-behave, neutrals in your area are likely to back you this one time, against the bad actor. If you're alone no one comes when you need help. This one can be the difference between a domain with a lot of friendly, neutral realms who lend support from time to time, and the lonely realm surrounded by enemies who has no friends, or one close ally.

Imagine a neighborhood. Are you friendly, keep your yard nice, keep your music down, end parties at a reasonable hour? Maybe you get invited to the neighbor's barbecue. Do you spray neighbor kids with the hose if they get on your lawn? Are you suspected of poisoning a neighbor dog that admittedly barked all night? Do you key cars that park in front of your house. Do you call the police at the drop of a hat? No one cares of you get cancer. Think of the world of regents and scions as a neighborhood, or playground. If you play nice with others they will play nice with you. When a bully comes along, people will back you up. If you are the bully, everyone roots for you to get you hat handed to you.

[Rey]

Sometimes you try to hold as much as you can not because of power, but of fear. Sometimes you can't trust anyone. Though this makes hard to hold all the reins.
Certainly dividing the "business" between people will make it easier on yourself, but then you'll have to play you cards well. It's easy if you have the leverage, but what if you are a ruler and someone else dictates the politics?
There are pros and cons for each choice, and certainly there's a need to keep it all balanced to run smoothly.

[kgauck]

I see the answer as roleplaying - powerblocks encourage counter-reactions, dissent within the ranks (why is our noble prince consorting with lowly guilders and giving them fine titles?) and so on.

This makes no sense to me. Nobles are not peasants done good any more than guilders are craftsmen done good. Nobles and guilders (and priests and wizards) are the same people, siblings, cousins, and other equal relations.

Take Dhoeosne. The guilders are all of the same bloodline strength as the counts are. One of them, Mheallie Bireon, is substantially greater. Guilders and Counts form a common marriage pool. They are cousins, in-laws, and so on.

The medieval church was run (Bishops, Archbishops, and Cardinals) by the nobility and very talented commoners. The Church leaders socialized, identified, and cooperated with the nobility.

Likewise guilds would work the same way. Not by rising from the ranks to leadership any more than the church, but by providing opportunities for nobles to direct an organization.

The medieval social construction of status was based on one's family, one's marriages, one's offices, and one's accomplishments. I see no reason to assume Cerilia is any different. Bloodlines are real, manifest, and directly useful. One's family and one's marriages (and therefore the basis of one's heirs) may or may not be more important, but its hard to imagine how a character with two minor blood abilities can look at another character with two minor blood abilities and think, he's lowly. Guilders are no less educated, sophisticated, or worldly.

Historically economic enterprises were not united into domains the way church and realm were, so that nobles could not find their social equals in the world of commerce, until the 19th century when it was possible to find men who owned so much, so many ships, so many factories, but this is why you can't just use historical analogies without considering how Cerilia is different from our historical experience.

When we find occasional analogs, they have shifted from being obvious guilders to being aristocratic. But I contend there is no difference. The Medici were a dynasty, who merely happened to be bankers, then bankers and executives in a Florentine republic, then Grand Dukes of Tuscany, marrying into French (Catherine, Marie) royalty and Austrian (Claudia and Anne Marie) as well.

England experienced an unusual relationship between nobles and merchants that was unique to England because of its inheritance system, its commercial success, and its different definition of nobility. Case 1 and 3 don't exist anywhere in Cerilia.

Money seeks land because it seeks a safe store of value that is a hedge against inflation and price changes. Land seeks money because land is not at all liquid. If we conjecture a guild domain, with people clearly manifest as scions at the head, its hard to imagine why they were not be seen as total equals.

[AndrewTall]

I'm looking at how the holding spilts analogue to society as a whole.

The issues I was referring to were the monopoly and the huge power block syndromes

Monopoly implies that the ruler has dispossed all rivals near and far - the rest of the nobility / clergy / etc have effectively been dispossed. As such you get dissent from those who should be your core supporters as they stop seeing you as the apex of a triangle they'd like to win a higher place in and start seeing you as someone forcing them down into lower status.

The power block approaxh while fine meta gaming has similar issues regardless of social mobilty, if a noble ruler ignores the wants and needs of the lower nobility as they provide no game mechanic bonus, but courts the guild,temple and source regents (and vice versa) then again they should generate perverse reactions within their domain.

It is hard to make mechanics for this, but easy for dm fiat to warn and then respond to.

In terms of mobility low mobility cripples long term stability - as does social exclusion for castes between spheres of influence.

I'd see the br approach being a noble's children going heir, army, clergy, guild - the nobles (having the capital to invest) will be behind most guilds, and spreading in such a way maximises familial influence and reduces family risk. Even so, you will get a lot of 'us and them' between domains that must be considered in diplomacy.

[Vicente]

Yeah, I find it very hard to make rules for that, although Kenneth ideas are nice. Usually when this happens to me all the involved regents are PCs, so it's not like that they aren't going to support each other, but I can see how this could make their foreign relations much harder.

Regards,

Vicente

[kgauck]

Rules exist so that people don't have to think.

[kgauck]

Or in more detail, don't make a contract with your players about how domains function, or how war works. Use the rules, such as they are, as guide-lines, this is normal for this situation, but its not reliable. Old school D&D manages this with wild randomization. Modern D&D (both 3x and 4e) is less random, but with the DM's friend the +2 to -2 penalty, you don't get much flexibility. There are circumstances that are clearly predictable, but worth way more than just a -2 (or +2) and may require more fundamental adjustments to the rules. Do what makes sense and adjust the rules as necessary, including on the fly. You can't (nor would you want to) create comprehensive rules for war or politics. Its better, to know certain fundamental principles and to impose penalty or rewards because of how the principles play out in a given situation.

[Rey]

Strict rules allowed players to hold on to them and argue with DM who is right and who is left and which rule has precedence over other and that kind of outplaying and outmaneuvering one another. Never liked those sessions. There's no role play, just bending the rules in your favor. When you have a friendly DM, even without rules (but with guidelines) you can arrange and discuss everything (with a little improvisation help). Accept failed missions and battles, because you can't win them all.

[Vicente]

Or in more detail, don't make a contract with your players about how domains function, or how war works. Use the rules, such as they are, as guide-lines, this is normal for this situation, but its not reliable. Old school D&D manages this with wild randomization. Modern D&D (both 3x and 4e) is less random, but with the DM's friend the +2 to -2 penalty, you don't get much flexibility. There are circumstances that are clearly predictable, but worth way more than just a -2 (or +2) and may require more fundamental adjustments to the rules. Do what makes sense and adjust the rules as necessary, including on the fly. You can't (nor would you want to) create comprehensive rules for war or politics. Its better, to know certain fundamental principles and to impose penalty or rewards because of how the principles play out in a given situation.

Well, I'm in strange position about that. Your writing is great for pure roleplaying, but I hope to translate Birthright (my own version) to a computer version, so I need pretty strict rules and players have to know how they work and what's expected from them.

You can have a lot of nice roleplaying and interaction in a sandbox, but the rules have to be clear and precise. But I agree that for pen and paper, your approach is how things should be.

[kgauck]

Its so true, computers don't think. So you need rules, because that's what they are good for.

What I would do for a computer is have separate variables for love, fear, and respect, and when they are all high, things work normally. When one or more of them start to fall, the chance of bad random events starts up.

See also my review of Crusader Kings
http://www.birthright.net/forums/showpost.php?p=49221&postcount=1

[The incredible, edible Phil]

In 2e, one of the main reasons domains didn't grow too much (more applicable to landed regents than non-landed as their expenses are much higher) was that the amount of holdings you had increased the cost of your domain maintenance. Simply put, the bigger your domain, the more costly it was to maintain it in addition to the stated examples of only having 3 actions. A quick and dirty way of going about this is by further reducing the number of court actions.

Take the base court (levels 0-10) and then multiply them by a number dependant on the size of the domain to determine court cost. So smaller domains have an advantage in being small to a certain extent. This further hinders regents that have grown too big for their own good. It is human nature for individuals to have ambition (particularly in players) to expand their holdings to beyond what they currently have. So the balancing act is to try to find that middle ground.

Take the guild situation in Ghoere. RoE states that Kalien has been able to outmaneuver HOT and kept his holdings in the west. This is because HOT has grown so big that he can't effectively face off against all his different competitors. Furthermore, maybe Gavin Tael has an interest in keeping Kalien around as he can always pressure the half-elf to reveal information from other realms in exchange for favours (like supporting trade routes through Ghoere) or getting him to act on his behalf in realms he doesn't have holdings by making it in Kalien's interest to help him for fear of getting his holdings removed. Also, Gavin might be concerned if HOT becomes too powerful and begins to have ambitions to remove him to place someone more sympathetic to his guild.

Another aspect to consider is that the landed regent does face competition from the non-landed regent. Maybe not directly in holdings but consider the consequences of military occupation or contesting such holdings. You're basically asking for retribution for such acts. Also, if you don't put up a fight, then you project yourself as weak and are thus encouraging other realms to target you in their own grab for power.

The other example is the Southern Coast. Roesone in particular has 3 different guilds plying trade in the barony. One of which nearly controls all mercantile affairs in Aerenwe. If the Baroness decides to promote OT as its pet guilder, then what prevents SG from going to Aerenwe and encouraging the kingdom to take umbrage to the baroness' preference? The same goes for Ilien and lesser extent Medoere. Diemed might be a different story of course, but then again he might be weary of allowing too much power to accumulate in a single guilder's hands to challenge his authority. Particularly when you consider that Kalien is a foreigner whose lands the Duke covets. Orthien Tane is a bandit lord and smuggler, and el-hadid is a foreigner whose interests lie in trade with Khinasi and he's also based out of Ilien; another land he may covet. Because these guilders also have interests in lands that are his traditional enemies, he may incur their wrath or make them stronger by forcing them to favor the guilds he is currently opposing at the expense of his pet guilder.