Provinces as holdings

[stv2brown1988]

I was reading around some old posts and found something about this topic but then I promptly lost it again. :( Has anyone posted any variant on using Provinces as Holdings? For Example: In Halskapa, Jarl Kjessen has 2 levels of his Province and King Bevering (sp?) has the other level. I think this would allow the Jarls in the Rjurik domains to have more money and power.

Steven

[kgauck]

There are two advantages to considering a province as a kind of holding. First it solves the problem where provinces don't actually belong to the realm regent. As you mention, there is the case of Halskapa. The Eastern lands of the Great Bay are rife with this kind of thing. Another is that you no longer have to wonder why the great farmlands of Cerilia are devoid of people (and why so many end up in marginal places) and instead can assume that provinces contain more or less their carrying capacity, and that province ratings indicate only how much control the ruler has over feudal vassals (which effects both what kinds of units are created and how many can be supported) and how much of the tax money works its way into the hands of the regent and his followers.

[ryancaveney]

Another is that you no longer have to wonder why the great farmlands of Cerilia are devoid of people (and why so many end up in marginal places) and instead can assume that provinces contain more or less their carrying capacity, and that province ratings indicate only how much control the ruler has over feudal vassals (which effects both what kinds of units are created and how many can be supported) and how much of the tax money works its way into the hands of the regent and his followers.

Music to my ears!

It even continues to explain why law, temple and guild holdings are limited to the province ruler's holding level -- they are still held by someone, but they generate zero profit in either RP or GB because there are too many taxes paid to and RP spent against Contest actions from all the unnamed minor nobles who each have only one level of province holding to their name. Centralization means streamlined taxation and diplomacy, which allows guild and temple holdings to expand efficiently.

What it does *not* do is explain why source holdings go down as province levels go up. Instead, I use a fixed max per terrain type and race (so elves still get more out of a forest, or even plains, than humans do), which stays that way regardless of the province level, unless there is an awful lot of Death Plague going on.

[Rowan]

I have also always thought this could be a good approach. Having provinces as holdings, however, would seem to not limit the size of other holding types, and possibly change the interaction of maximum Source levels. With each province well settled, the influence of the temples or guilds over the people need not be limited by how much influence the feudal lords have over them. So if Tireste has max levels of 9, and Ghoere holds 5 while Alamie might hold 2 province levels there, Kalien could hold Guilds 4 and Ghorien Hiriele Guilds 5 in the same province, and temples could be similarly split. Even Law could exceed province level, with outposts of the Duke's men exerting influence over regions not formally envassaled to Duke Alam, and other areas controlled more by banditry or local town councils. It would also seem to remove the restriction on number of regents having non-province holdings.

What is perhaps more difficult to resolve satisfactorily is how to determine maximum Source levels. If you want these to reduce at all, it would seem that they should not be tied to population or "settlement" if you're also assuming that the entire province is settled. Instead, it could be linked to a tension between the flow of mebhaigl and the control exerted by a scion over the people of the land--preserving the interaction between total province holdings and max Source levels. If the conflict is supposed to be related more to the utilization of resources, then perhaps it should be tied to total guild holding levels instead--which could even help explain why elves don't have guilds. An interesting variant would be to have max Source levels diminished by total temple holdings, a sort of conflict between the power of the gods and the natural mebhaigl of Cerilia.

Regardless of the limiter you choose for max Source levels, if you have a limiter at all, Source levels overall will diminish faster under this system than any others. This is because it costs marginally less to develop low level holdings, province or otherwise. So you're likely to see more mixed provinces with one regent holding 4 levels and another holding 2 levels (cheaper and lower DC's involved than ruling it up to one level 6 province). If you want to keep magic relevant in the game, it might be a good idea to either remove limiters entirely (and instead perhaps increase slightly the RP cost for things), or to change their structure a little more. Perhaps max Source levels diminish by 1 for every 2 levels of total Guild holdings (largest possible reduction would be 5 for 10 levels of Guilds), or each time total levels of a holding reach half maximum and then maximum (this is clumsier, as it is dependent on the max levels in that province, but the largest possible reduction is 8 with all other holding types maxed out).

One more thought. Core materials, inconsistent and confused as they may be, do still tend to refer to many areas as "frontier" or "sparsely settled." That idea could just be done away with, but even calling Dhoesone and Mhoried and Roesone "fully settled" doesn't eliminate the problem of more truly wild lands (like the Giantdowns) or lands controlled by other races, if those provinces ever change hands. A province of the Five Peaks, Thurazor, or Tuarhievel just is not fully settled by humans, so having a human kingdom take it over and try to settle it with humans doesn't make it fully populated by humans all of the sudden. I haven't come up with a solution for these last problems that satisfies me yet. Kgauck?

[kgauck]

I have one test for a good mechanic. Does it better reflect the game world.

Most of this comes down to the fact that if I don't use a real world analog for demographics I have to invent a whole new demographics either from some other analog (Galapagos Tortise?) or I could just make stuff up and hope that I am a good enough demographer to explain the canon information without creating even stranger set of implications.

This is why one's reference should always be a real world analog and not a set of logical consequences from a rule set, or an invented set of circumstances, because it quickly gets ridiculous.

The game world is supposed to have three human cultures at a renaissance level of technology (more or less). Either this is because you have all of the accumulated knowledge and all of the infrastructure of a renaissance culture (the accumulation of intellectual, philosophical, scientific, and technical knowledge, and diffusion of same) or you have some other explanation that can stand up to the same kind of scrutiny. Because players will try and maximize their advantage and minimize the vulnerabilities (and would be fools not to).

These questions are entirely artificial because they are based on a rules set which was simple and quirky to begin with. I would go so far as to say unplayable (see almost any PbEM as an example of ridiculous interpretations). The way to answer any such question is to ask what situation is this analogous to, and referring back to the real situation, answer the question. Not by referring to the rules. In part this is because some rules seem mysteriously suspended, when I would imagine them to still apply, and others seem to apply when I would have imagined their application was a problem to be solved.

Can law holdings exceed province levels? What is the situation? How was it created? Are we assuming that there are minor independent lords who govern as part of the realm, but have special rights to exempt them from taxation and supplying men, but not from appeals to the regent's courts? OK, fine, in that situation law could exceed province levels by standard regents, but in fact a better way (for consistency) is to name the minor regents who hold a single level of province and give them their little realms. Then you can remain fast and say holdings can't exceed province, because in any other situation, holdings cannot make money and build organizational cohesion usable elsewhere as RP if the conditions are chaotic or primitive, or otherwise disorganized.


So you're likely to see more mixed provinces with one regent holding 4 levels and another holding 2 levels (cheaper and lower DC's involved than ruling it up to one level 6 province).

I have no idea why you would suppose ruling a province would work this way. I cannot think of an example in which this would make sense. Is this supposed to break down how a Great Captain event works in slow motion? In any event it would be highly unusual for things to work this way.

For instance, if power A holds all of province A1 weakly, how does another power (outside of war, vassalage, or cooperation) come into the territory and create a holding in the first place? I understand how territory can be divided if I give you some, willingly or as a term of peace. But certainly you're not proposing that large scale squatting is normative and routinely accepted.

Finally, 2000 years after settlement, its inconceivable that land was occupied and not filled up. References to sparse settlement not withstanding. Populations tend to expand until they meet limits. So either we need to imagine frequent, indeed constant limits (an awful lot of Death Plague), or imagine that population expanded to carrying capacity.

[Rowan]

Then you can remain fast and say holdings can't exceed province, because in any other situation, holdings cannot make money and build organizational cohesion usable elsewhere as RP if the conditions are chaotic or primitive, or otherwise disorganized.
Why would temple organizations or mercantile ones (guilds) need lords to exert influence over a segment of the population first in order for them to exert influence from the same people or extract revenue from them? Are there not places where no noble overlord (province holder) has consolidated power, but where temples and guilds might have? I may be dodging around your answer here, because I think you suggested that all province holding levels up to the max for that terrain type would automatically be held by someone, whether noble overlord or minor noble, town council or other association.


I have no idea why you would suppose ruling a province would work this way. I cannot think of an example in which this would make sense. Is this supposed to break down how a Great Captain event works in slow motion? In any event it would be highly unusual for things to work this way.

For instance, if power A holds all of province A1 weakly, how does another power (outside of war, vassalage, or cooperation) come into the territory and create a holding in the first place? I understand how territory can be divided if I give you some, willingly or as a term of peace. But certainly you're not proposing that large scale squatting is normative and routinely accepted.
As you said earlier, players make the most benefit of the rules, deliberately or not. If the cost of Ruling provinces up one level is 1GB per level of the Province (with similar DC escalation), then it behooves rulers to try to exert influence in encroaching on neighboring territories with smaller provinces holdings perhaps even in preference to ruling up their own. Of course, level 4 province holdings bear many benefits, but rather than spend 18GB on difficult Rule efforts to expand to level 7, players could squabble over nearby provinces with their neighbors and snatch up 6 level 2 provinces for the same absolute cost. Vassal states might go even further: Avanil may share some provinces extensively with their vassals, achieving 2 level 4 province holdings much more cheaply than one might create a level 8. Much disputed territories might find 3 rulers with level 2 or 3 province holdings.


Finally, 2000 years after settlement, its inconceivable that land was occupied and not filled up. References to sparse settlement not withstanding. Populations tend to expand until they meet limits. So either we need to imagine frequent, indeed constant limits (an awful lot of Death Plague), or imagine that population expanded to carrying capacity.
Europe went through several population shifts involving settlement, depopulation through attrition or migration, and resettlement. Climatological changes affected carrying capacity and famine, plagues drove people out of cities (or killed them off), and conquerers and raiders caused refugee migrations. Cerilia would face the same pressures, and perhaps more of the latter. As tough as humans find getting along with each other, any time lands trade hands between different species (elves, dwarves, goblins, gnolls, orogs, etc), they are likely to become depopulated and have to repopulate by migration and settlement. This is not terribly rapid, hence the problem. If a human realm conquers a goblin province, the goblins are likely to flee or be put to the sword, and humans have to start with a sparsely-settled province. So how do we handle that in the rules?

Furthermore, the prevalence of more random monsters and of magical phenomena will likely cause more refugee migrations and abandonment of land than we saw in historical Europe. Thus, I think it entirely possible that there may be provinces that are not completely settled. Do you not?

Do you have any ideas or recommendations about what to do with Sources? Ryan just removes the limiters, which I find acceptable as well, but that does involve a change in story flavor for the game.

[AndrewTall]

Rowan - I see your point on the cost mechanic, but suggest the following fix:

Cost to rule a province up is function[sum of all existing provinces holding level] not function[province level of the particular regent].

So the cost of ruling a L2 to a L3 when there is another L2 in the same geographical region is the same as ruling L4 to L5 if no-one else has an overlapping province holding.

I'd be as nasty cost-wise on someone trying to split their province into a province and a city.

So I'd have province population of, say, '7' of which 2 levels are owned by Prince Avan, 3 levels by various vassals, 1 level evaporates through inefficiencies and 1 level is not controlled by anyone due to the death intestate of a noble without heirs. This province could then hold L7 law, temple, guild etc but not L8.

This mechanic is very good for provinces of mixed races - i.e. Dhoesone's eastern provinces of humans, elves, and possibly goblins in the north. It is also handy if you want to be able to rule up provinces realistically on a PBEM timeframe (you have 4 levels of 7, the other 3 produce no income due to your appallingly inefficient court) but put a cap elsewhere on growth.

[AndrewTall]

Sources. I'm tempted to stiffen the maximum population levels for holding types, and then apply source based on terrain only.

So if you want to expand your heavy forest province 4 to a province 5, just cut down the forests and have a light forest 5, you keep breeding up the peasants, go from light forest 6 to plains 7.

Mind you I'm a mebhaighl = plant life energy type and would therefore by default give little or nothing in mountains and ice plains - and provide some in even the most heavily populated plains (corn is plant-life too).

Having recently been reading Janny Wurts war of light and shadow and considering the source implications of the compact of the fellowship, I suppose you could reduce source levels for major structures/cities that are in the wrong place if you wanted to keep down human source levels.

So -1 maximum source for each city or major structure, there being one/two/etc cities in the province if now or in the past (ignoring barbarian invasion) there has been a holding over L6/8/10 in the province.

[kgauck]

Why would temple organizations or mercantile ones (guilds) need lords to exert influence over a segment of the population first in order for them to exert influence from the same people or extract revenue from them?

This is essentially the question, "why do we need government at all". Its obvious why those in control of government want government, but what about the rest of us? Without examining the free rider problem in which guilds especially might like to conduct some business in an ungoverned space, certainly it is obvious that places of sustained disorder and random violence are not also experiencing prosperous trade or religion. Order is the first prerequisite of all the other benefits of civilization (including liberty and recognition of principles other than violence).

Order is created by establishing who is in authority, and backing them up with organized violence (reflected by titles, recruiting soldiers, and the ability to collect taxes to carry out these efforts.)


If the cost of Ruling provinces up one level is 1GB per level of the Province (with similar DC escalation), then it behooves rulers to try to exert influence in encroaching on neighboring territories with smaller provinces holdings perhaps even in preference to ruling up their own.

Give this a little more thought and I think you'll recognize its about the same as trying to take one level of every class on the premise that it takes 1000 xp to get to it, rather than taking the total character level into consideration to determine the cost of the next level.

Ruling a province likewise must take all province levels into consideration, because unlike guild or temple holdings, control of a province does not concern itself with a part of the whole, but with the whole itself. As a guilder you can dominate the grain trade, then bakers guild, then the merchants who sell the grain in the neighboring provinces, then the tanners, then smiths and so on. That's an extending sphere of power. But a province doesn't work that way. The Province 1 ruler doesn't just claim a small district, then another small district. The province ruler claims the province, and gradually intensifies their control over the whole province.


Europe went through several population shifts involving settlement, depopulation through attrition or migration, and resettlement.

There is simply no comparison between a population occupying available territory despite migration, disease, and climate change, and populations that are at their carrying capacity and then experience disease or climate change. Populations that suffer catastrophes recover quickly (in mere generations).

Real, sustained population declines (say 20,000,000 Anurieans to 5,000,000) are always accompanied by a decline in tech level.

If Anuire is not at (or near) its carrying capacity, then what precisely killed off all those people, and how has it not had its own profound effects that also need to be reflected in the game (rapid inflation, continuing outbreaks, random destabilization, abandonment of core beliefs). Vast knowledge is lost and a dark age ensues.

The current Anuire in a dark age, because it was once a modern, early industrial society?

If Renaissance is the high point in technology, then at least Anuire, Khinasi, and Brechtur are at or near their high points in population.

The argument that populations decline requires that we must also consider both what caused them to decline (and its recurrence) and the profound effect such a catastrophe would have on people's behaviors, attitudes, and the social fabric.


If a human realm conquers a goblin province, the goblins are likely to flee or be put to the sword, and humans have to start with a sparsely-settled province. So how do we handle that in the rules?

The goblins don't flee, and genocide isn't possible without an industrial state to manage it. You have conquered a hostile people and will never fully gain their cooperation (without special actions at a minimum). So penalties to loyalty, RP collection, GB collection, and maximum province level penalties should all apply.


Furthermore, the prevalence of more random monsters and of magical phenomena will likely cause more refugee migrations and abandonment of land than we saw in historical Europe. Thus, I think it entirely possible that there may be provinces that are not completely settled. Do you not?

No. Because there is a counter balance of magic, both divine and arcane to offset this. Sure the world is fantastical, but its fantastical in both resilience and in threats to people. The best guide is the setting itself, in which human settlement in creeping forward, not backward as it certainly would if whole provinces were being abandoned.


Do you have any ideas or recommendations about what to do with Sources? Ryan just removes the limiters, which I find acceptable as well, but that does involve a change in story flavor for the game.

Ryan doesn't remove the limits, but makes them structural rather than variable. I don't think it changes the flavor, because I don't think population can grow quickly within the span of a game, which is less than a single generation. The only difference is whether I can't rule up provinces because the DM says no growth, or whether the populations are fixed because the DM says no growth but province holdings represent control, so they can rise.

With exponential population growth at work and populations near carrying capacity, you will not see overall growth in the tens of years but it will have a profound influence over tens of hundreds of years.

[stv2brown1988]

Maybe I'm just lazy but I like the idea of keeping the province/source ratings equivilent to what they are on the maps. I think it is just easier that way.

However, after living in Europe for almost three years now I wonder if increasing province level should effect sources at all. Weren't all cities small back in the old days, even if they had alot of people living there? Should a town of 5,000 people really take so up much land in a 20-40 square mile province that you couldn't find remote spots in natural settings. In fact, driving across Northern Scotland we saw more waterfalls than people or cars one afternoon. And that was in the 21st century! To be fair, there were about a thousand sheep though.

[kgauck]

A medieval town of 5000 would take up 82 acres, or one eighth of a square mile.

The problem is that 5000 townsfolk probabaly means 50,000 famers.

If elves (and giants, and dragons) live and are sustained by Mebhaighl, rather than by harvesting food (plant and animal), and the humans come and tear up the natural world to plant their slave-plants in their precise rows against all that is true and right and natural, hunt by killing the strong beasts rather than culling the weak, and in every way offend what is the right way to live in harmony with the land.

After all a province 1 with Rjurik hunters devoted to Erik still drops the source potential by 1.

[Rowan]

Don't have time right now to write a complete response...If I get to it later tonight, I'll edit this post.

This is essentially the question, "why do we need government at all". Its obvious why those in control of government want government, but what about the rest of us? Without examining the free rider problem in which guilds especially might like to conduct some business in an ungoverned space, certainly it is obvious that places of sustained disorder and random violence are not also experiencing prosperous trade or religion. Order is the first prerequisite of all the other benefits of civilization (including liberty and recognition of principles other than violence).
I know the benefits of order and government, but I don't think that's what we're talking about here. Unless you want to say that 2 levels of province holdings in most areas, especially plains, effectively represents mass anarchy. I think you've got bigger problems if you start going down that road. Just as you say, a certain amount of order is necessary for civilization at various levels. You can't have a plains province supporting 100,000 people (considered wholly "settled"), but only having 2 province holding levels IF you are saying that province holding levels equate to the order necessary for civilization. Instead, the anarchy and poverty caused by such a condition would lead to emigration as famine, strife, and factional warlordism became the order of the day until that province reached near its max province levels.

So no, I reject the idea that province holdings represent the proportional order necessary for civilization. Instead, they represent many things perhaps most easily summarized by centralization of government and its efficient administration. 100,000 people can live happily in a plains province, scattered about in hamlets, towns, and villages governed loosely by town councils, village elders, etc. That provides the structure necessary for most societies, but its lack of centralization means that power is too diffuse to defend against major invasions or construct vast public works (defense and infrastructure being two of the major benefits of centralized government).

However, such a loose governing structure does NOT preclude a centralized religious or mercantile organization from coordinating its resources and efforts across the larger area. Thus Temples and Guilds should be able to exceed Province levels if we assume a fully settled land. I find it harder to imagine Law holdings exceeding Province levels by much, though.


AT, your solution for ruling Provinces helps fix the cost problem I had observed. As I have above explained, I don't see why the other holding types should be constrained by the province level, however, if we're assuming fully-settled provinces. I think Kgauck would agree with you, but I'm puzzled by this statement:

The province ruler claims the province, and gradually intensifies their control over the whole province.
Kgauck, I thought you liked the Provinces-as-Holdings system precisely because multiple regents could lay claim to the same province, controlling different levels of Province Holdings within it? This statement implies otherwise.

[Sorontar]

Rowan, is what you suggesting similar to the idea of a Christian church (say the Catholics) organising its ministers and missionaries in a third world country where most communities only have local governance (ie. tribal councils)? The Church may be good at being a set of church holdings across the entire province but it can not manage a law holding/central government at all? Therefore the level of the chruch can be higher than the law/province level?

And on that point, can you realistically have someone as regent of (say) a level 4 province without having any law holdings? I suspect it is possible by the rules.

Sorontar

[Rowan]

Populations that suffer catastrophes recover quickly (in mere generations).
Oh? With the fall of Rome, did not populations decline until after the turn of the millenia? With the Little Ice Age and the Black Death, did it not take populations centuries to recover? I don't remember exactly, but I believe I have read in many places that the populations reached in the 14th or 15th centuries were not seen again in Europe until the 18th and 19th centuries.



If Anuire is not at (or near) its carrying capacity, then what precisely killed off all those people, and how has it not had its own profound effects that also need to be reflected in the game (rapid inflation, continuing outbreaks, random destabilization, abandonment of core beliefs). Vast knowledge is lost and a dark age ensues.
I'm not saying that Anuire isn't at its carrying capacity. I'm saying that some realms, just a few in Anuire, more elsewhere, could conceivably not be totally densely settled. In Anuire, Dhoesone was only recently carved out and settled, its frontiers limited somewhat in immigration due to strife. Mhoried may suffer sufficient invasions from the Gorgon that some of its provinces don't maintain dense settlement like they would in Avanil. The Five Peaks have few humans living in them, and the brutish and strife-torn life of all the clashing humanoids would not lend itself to full agrarian population density; what if Anuirean realms conquer it? How do you handle Ruling provinces in those areas?

Similarly, though the culture is highly developed, regions of Brechtur speak of a lack of settlement due to gnoll invasions and monstrous threats. You say:

The goblins don't flee, and genocide isn't possible without an industrial state to manage it. You have conquered a hostile people and will never fully gain their cooperation (without special actions at a minimum). ... Because there is a counter balance of magic, both divine and arcane to offset this. Sure the world is fantastical, but its fantastical in both resilience and in threats to people. The best guide is the setting itself, in which human settlement in creeping forward, not backward as it certainly would if whole provinces were being abandoned.
Yet superstition and fear led to people leaving otherwise arable areas largely abandoned due to fears of what lurked in those areas. How much moreso would this occur when the fear of something lurking in an area were real? You're saying people wouldn't stay the hell away from those haunted forests or the Troll bogs or this or that monster's territory, when all of those things actually exist and will kill our common peasants or prey upon their farms?

Also, there have been plenty of massive refugee emigrations in pre-industrial cultures and early history that I think do indeed suggest that areas can become depopulated due to strife. Thousands, perhaps millions, fled the advance of the Mongol hordes and their derivatives. Arguably, fleeing Germanic tribes largely abandoning their ancestral lands due to Eastern invasion caused the collapse of the Roman Empire. People fled coasts and rivers in the wake of the Viking scourge. How much less would elves acquiesce to live under human rule rather than leave the land, or humans remain under goblin occupation?

No, interracial conquest of provinces would almost certainly lead to emigration without genocide needing to even be part of it. However, given the success of the Mongol hordes and various other peoples at putting whole cities and peoples to the sword, and the carnage wrought in some of the poorest places of the world, I really have to question your assertion that it requires an industrial age power to commit genocide. And certainly, I see humans, elves, and dwarves being more than willing to attempt to purge the land of goblins and vice versa, and the same for the human-elf conflict. Will gheallie Sidhe elves suffer humans to live in lands that they have effectively conquered (by destroying any organized defense/province and all holding levels)?

[Rowan]

Sorontar, that's part of what I'm suggesting. I don't see where this fits in, though:

The Church may be good at being a set of church holdings across the entire province but it can not manage a law holding/central government at all?
Sure they could manage law or province holdings, and in some places it would be appropriate to reflect the situation so (the Papal States, the intermingled governance of the Patriarch of Constantinople with the Eastern Roman Empire, the intermingled religious authorities of any number of pagan faiths, or theocracies like we see today primarily in Islamic nations).

However, with Europe as our analogue, the centuries perhaps from 700-1200 (rough guesstimate) saw little centralized power among the nobility, little legal apparatus, relatively lower mercantile output and trade than in later times, but much more organization and power within the Catholic Church. This might best be reflected by low province, law, and guild holding levels and high temple holding levels (exceeding province levels). In most areas, there were definite divisions between secular and Church power (in terms of who held authority over what), so the Church would not accurately be represented as controlling all those province holdings or law holdings (though it might hold some law).

Of note, though, is that the Catholic Church was only truly centralized in theory at that time. It would not have been well-represented by hundreds of holdings all held by one regent (the Pope). Rather, the different bishoprics held more local authorities, creating a situation better described by numerous temple domains, some perhaps not even envassaled (in practice) to the Pope. Certainly the other Sees and the Eastern Orthodox would have been separate. The Catholic Church, just like most other organizations, has become increasingly centralized over the years, and is more so now than back in medieval times.


And on that point, can you realistically have someone as regent of (say) a level 4 province without having any law holdings? I suspect it is possible by the rules.
You can by the rules, yes, though it would be a tenuous hold. Just as I have difficulty seeing law holdings exceeding province holdings much by level, I also have difficulty seeing them far below province levels. I sometimes wonder if the two types of holdings should not be combined into one.

[Arentak]

I believe the "Manor" function of RoE nicely covers the scenarios presented without the need to divide a province.

[AndrewTall]

Manors are fine for some purposes, but are less useful for mixed races - those province levels simply don't acknowledge the same ruler at all - and different province holdings would make it much easier to constrain cross-species holding levels if you wanted too (i.e. if Baroness Fhiele owns 2 province levels and her brother 1, the maximum temple holding is L2...)

Province holding levels representing a mix of actual population level, centralisation (efficiency by another name), etc much as other holdings represent several abstract possibilities seem good to me - easy to handle, they allow for 'inefficient' lands and for 'migrant booms' or, if you wish, let you constrain upper province limits easily.


Depopulation is fine at village level - villages regularly moved, died out, were reborn, etc. It is also fine for small local areas - the highland clearances emptied vast tracts of land to turn subsistence agriculture into profitable sheep farming, the clearances of centuries before in England by the monasteries had an identical effect (indeed clearing the land of people was a deliberate policy of the monks to prevent them from being contaminated - the wealth was the unexpected side issue).

As a province is 20 miles x 20 miles I can just about see it being depopulated. Where the system breaks is the idea of depopulating an entire realm - and making big bucks from it. Most people would be displaced, not destroyed. Try and destroy them and all of a sudden you turn 50,000 fleeing villagers into 10-20,000 of levy/irregulars.

Such an annihilation should also have a major impact on neighbours who have to deal with refugees by the truckload - all of whom want food and jobs.

Incidentally I see the position as both stable and unstable - I have no problem with provinces here and there being under/over the norm - a generation ago the situation may have been reversed, as long as overall realm X is a% bigger than realm Y then the balance of power would not be affected.

[stv2brown1988]

And on that point, can you realistically have someone as regent of (say) a level 4 province without having any law holdings? I suspect it is possible by the rules.

Sorontar

I do not have a suitable reference from European history but how about the USA around 1800's or so. Where large Cattle Barons owned 100,000's of acres of range and made huge fortunes from their cattle sales but used their own cow-hands as enforcers making squatters leave there homes on the range? Or tearing down fences that blocked water sources? If there was a town of 1,000 people but 90% lived within the close proximity of main street. Would this not be a case where Guild level could exceed province level? I would guess Guild 3-4 in a Province 1 with maybe a Law 1?

[stv2brown1988]

Also, to get back to the original question...Does anyone have a rule system for using Provinces as Holdings?

Can a Province be contested if using this system? If the province can be contested do you still need the investure spell? And would this take power away from Temples? Also, if Ghoere takes the majority of Province Holdings in Bellam does that mean the Province is automaticlly moved to Ghoere from Roesone?

I like the idea of adding all Province holding levels together to get the cost for increasing the level.

Finally, does anyone let Jarls keep the Province in addition to the Law Holdings in Rjurik? Would the same apply to the Thanes in Baruk-Azhik?

Steven

[Sorontar]

Well Halspaka looks like an interesting situation. It has a King (Bervinig) and 7 jarls. Each jarl has a law holding in a province and I imagine has been invested for the province as well. The king has a law holding in one other province (and the province) but does not manage it well due to his age and senility. The King presumably has vassalage from the jarls so thus his domain gains regency from all the provinces.

The following are possible occurences:
* King loses control of his law holding to someone else but retains the regency of the province as the head of state.
* King loses vasalage/s from one or more of the Jarls.... not sure how this is done. Is it a deinvestiture or just another ceremony or is vassalage really no more that a diplomatic agreement?

So you could have a "powerless" king who is head-of-state for one province with vassalages from a few others.

Sorontar

[kgauck]

Can a Province be contested if using this system? If the province can be contested do you still need the investure spell? And would this take power away from Temples? Also, if Ghoere takes the majority of Province Holdings in Bellam does that mean the Province is automaticlly moved to Ghoere from Roesone?

Well, in a way you can contest a province: its called war. The war rules exist for this purpose and should not be replaced by a holding type contest system, unless you want to eliminate warfare.

Why would this take power from temples?

There is no reason to think of Bellam as either Roesone's or Ghoere's. If its Ghoere owns 2 province holdings and Roesone 1, then Ghoere owns 2/3's of Bellam and Roesone owns 1/3. At some point the Count of Bellam has a choice to make, but that's a role playing issue. There is no reason there can't be eight counts of Bellam, in terms of who has the title. (That's kind of silly, two is a typical ceiling, but you get then point).

The neat thing about provinces is how you can have wars take parts of a province, rather than whole provinces. I would require an investiture when you install a count (or any civil authority) and end occupation. Not a separate investiture as you extend your control of the province.

[kgauck]

So you could have a "powerless" king who is head-of-state for one province with vassalages from a few others.

Like the early Capetians.

[kgauck]

I do not have a suitable reference from European history but how about the USA around 1800's or so.

Guild activity is an extensive activity. I would say the income and wealth of the cattle barons was in Texas, which was a state since 1836 and was reasonably well organized. The wealth and holdings were not in Oklahoma where the cattle drives passed by on the way to market. After some time, guilds developed in Kansas City and Independence where Philip Armour and Gustavus Swift moved guild holdings from their base in Chicago.

Regarding the Church model. Many missionary activities are properly thought of as an expense, not as a source of revenue and regency.

[Sorontar]

Re: the Church Model

But I thought that one of the things of the Birthright regency is that it is not about monetary wealth. It is about power and influence. If you have a level 2 holding, then a larger percentage of the population would dedicate their resources to you than someone with a level 1 holding. This enables you to "do things". The resources can be money, land, possessions, manpower, political support etc.

So a Church is powerful if it "controls" a large percentage of the population. "Missionaries" may not bring money to the church but they would still bring it resources, and hence regency.

My problem is that I thought the province level tended to indicate the population size of the province. So how can a temple holding have a level above the province level if both are indicating a proportion of the population? Or is that just indicating that it has resources that can't be included when considering the province level (ie. its not all about population)?

Sorontar
ps. this is all of the top of my head... I might need to recheck the definitions of the levels and regency

[kgauck]

Missionary work may have the faith of the people, but looking at actual missionary work, it doesn't pay for itself through the contributions of the converted, but through efforts from home. This was true when Patrick went to Ireland, Columbanus went to Germany, the attempts at re-conversion of heretics (in fact another of the Church's problems with wealth, was that it would gain revenues to combat heresies and pursue crusades, and then after the effort would still retain the ability to raise revenues).

Second, it doesn't follow that devotion of people translates into holdings. Holdings represent the ability to collect revenues and political capital. That may or may not mean lots of followers. It can also mean important, well placed followers; prestige; ownership of things (land, rights, privileges, &c).

And the purpose of province holdings would be to divorce province level from population size. So that province level represented how well organized the provincial rule was.

[stv2brown1988]

For example...Ghoere has 2 province holding levels in Bellam, Roesone has 1 province holding level.

For either regent to raise their province level holding they would need to succeed against the BRCS rules to raise a level 3 province to level 4?

Any raise in Province level would decrease Source level?

The only way for Roesone to lower Ghoere's province holding levels are through war? (Or the other way around) Or investure with both regeants present?

[stv2brown1988]

The following are possible occurences:
* King loses control of his law holding to someone else but retains the regency of the province as the head of state.
* King loses vasalage/s from one or more of the Jarls.... not sure how this is done. Is it a deinvestiture or just another ceremony or is vassalage really no more that a diplomatic agreement?

So you could have a "powerless" king who is head-of-state for one province with vassalages from a few others.

Sorontar

I want to begin play with King Bevering (sp?) issuing a Decree that Jarl X has been selected to be the next King. The six other Jarls have their own ideas about who should be King and it is not the PC. The next Decree from King B says the ceremony will be in the Spring, 6 months away. This gives the PC six action rounds to build alliances, remove enemies, strengthen their grasp on the Law/Guild/Province levels where possible, and hope the senile old fool doesn't change his mind between now and then. :)

[Rowan]

At some point, a mission may be successful enough that the community becomes self-sustaining. That's when it gains holding levels. Since Cerilia uses a polytheistic setting where many gods are revered even if the worship of one is more prominent in one area, temple holdings can grow rapidly. This is because there is less "conversion" that needs to happen, and instead a great show of wealth or power (building temples/Ruling holdings) or other concerted efforts can grow the influence of a temple in an area.


Any raise in Province level would decrease Source level?
The concept behind Province Holdings assumes that Province level has very little to do with the population in the province, and much more to do with influence over the people already settled their and organization/centralization/efficiency of government. As I tried to get into before, then, the interaction between Province level and Source level should change. By this mechanism, one way increased Province level would decrease Source potential is if you want to say that concentration of political power over a populace disrupts mebhaigl. That doesn't make much sense to me. Another way would be to say that as a land's people are brought under the influence of a divine bloodline, mebhaigl is disrupted.

I think I'd prefer to divorce Province level from Source potential entirely, though, in favor of maintaining the wildness/mebhaigl connection by instead perhaps linking Guild activity to Sources.

[AndrewTall]

Well, strictly province holdings doesn't have to budge from province level = population at all.

All the mechanic really represents is that some people in a geographical region follow one 'king' and a second lot follow another 'king'. Two kings thus get RP from the same geographic area for the same type of holding.

To keep the link between the number of province holdings and the population you just need to accept empty slots as potential and track the overall cap - much as you do for any other holding.

So you get a province 4 with holding levels Ghoere 2 / Roseone 1, Ghoere controls 2 levels (say the big city) and Roesone 1 (say the southern farms and villages) with 1 uncontrolled (say the farms in the north) which doesn't produce any significant RP or GB for a province regent.

Either Ghoere or Roesone could try and rule up their province holding by one level (effectively claiming the fealty of the independents, or straightening the chain of command to reduce inefficiency) or they could agree to an investiture to transfer their holdings.

War itself doesn't do much - the people retain their old loyalties until there is a ceremony of investiture.

[kgauck]

For example...Ghoere has 2 province holding levels in Bellam, Roesone has 1 province holding level.

For either regent to raise their province level holding they would need to succeed against the BRCS rules to raise a level 3 province to level 4?

Yes


Any raise in Province level would decrease Source level?

It depends on what you want Province holdings to indicate. My main reason for preferring province holdings is to allow a regent's hold on their province to rise and fall like every other holding without a connection to population. So while population may fluctuate, it does so much less than control of a province. So, with that in mind, I would not alter source levels with province levels.


The only way for Roesone to lower Ghoere's province holding levels are through war? (Or the other way around) Or investure with both regeants present?

Yes. The only way for Roesone to lower Ghoere's province holding levels is through war. You have to take them by force (or destroy them, which is very hard and would require pillaging ruthlessly for a long time).

Investiture is a positive act of claiming a province. Investiture with both regents present would become something that only happens in vassalization. Specifically not in the context we're discussing here. The other main advantage for me for province holdings is that there are too few provinces in any given realm for provinces to be handed over as the result of war. Instead the gains of a successful war should be fractions of a province, rather than whole provinces. So no more handing over a full province as a normal course of losing a war.

[stv2brown1988]

Yes. The only way for Roesone to lower Ghoere's province holding levels is through war. You have to take them by force (or destroy them, which is very hard and would require pillaging ruthlessly for a long time).


Thanks for clearing that up.

Now then, what about Realm spells that affect Province (holding) levels? A Bless or Blight spell would only affect the targeted holding or all? By all, I mean the Area of Effect is so great that it always effects all province holdings (in addition to other holdings in this case)? Or a death/disease type spell? Can you target these to only work on certain Province holdings? If so, then what happens if by Realm Spell you reduce an opponent's (or your own) Province holding below 0, effectively destroying it?

[stv2brown1988]

How does the Investure spell work? Do you have to destroy all the province holdings of other regeants before you can cast it? Or just have the only military units in the province until the spell is finished being cast? Do you need the permission of the other ruler?

Examples: King B names Jarl Kjessen of Helkstraad to be the new King of Halskapa. Jarl Kjessen has had enough of Jarl Dherg Wir of Selkhauste saying bad things about him and the his being named the new King. Does he march his 4x units of Mercenaries into Selkhauste and have his own personally allied Druid cast the Investure spell? Now he has all of Dherg Wir's province and law holdings? What can Jarl Dherg Wir do about this tatic? Does running away help?

Now that Jarl Kjessen owns two provinces he convinces Rvanik of Dvasiik to hand over control to him. This can happen without destroying the Province Holdings as long as they both agree?

[stv2brown1988]

Sorry. In the previous post I was talking about the 2nd ed. Investure spell. I now see that is a Ceremony Action in BRCS. :confused: Seems pretty straight forward, so I guess nothing changes if you are using Province Holdings.

[Rowan]

To keep the link between the number of province holdings and the population you just need to accept empty slots as potential and track the overall cap - much as you do for any other holding.
AT, are you saying that you're going to track an extra number? So Bellam in your example has a population of 4, but only 3 province levels are claimed?

I'm assuming you're saying that a max pop level needs to be attributed to each province that, for the time scale of most games, is relatively static (which is what Kgauck is going for, as well). Unless you set the population max to some standard, such as province level maximums by terrain, this creates an arbitrary system that requires a bunch of extra book-keeping. That's not necessarily a problem, but I don't know that many people that would want to do that kind of work. You could always accept the map statistics, but then you'd be saying they are static except for taking existing holdings away from other people. And in the end, you're actually not tying province level to population, just setting a different static number.

If my assumption is wrong and you're not suggesting a static max pop level for each province, then you have the problem of Rule Province actions rapidly expanding populations (which offends the sensibilities of us simulationists). For example, using Bellam, Roesone could Rule into a Province level 3, but then keep going, till Ghoere and Roesone chase each other up to the likely max of 8 or 9 for the terrain. Now, if you don't tie province level to population, you're saying that those 80-90,000 people were already there. If you DO tie province level to population, you end up saying that this province of originally 40,000 or so people doubles in size--possibly in a single year. Where do those people come from? Migration can't contribute that many people unless other provinces are losing population. And given the increase in GB and RP from province level increases, the majority of that population needs to be productive adults--which doesn't happen in 1 year.

There's another, perhaps more disturbing scenario caused by tying province level to population: what happens when province level goes down? In discussion about a PBEM after it had ended, I heard the idea espoused that an entire realm could be pretty much wiped out with all its people--nobility and peasantry alike--through a short but determined occupation and sequence of pillaging. The rationale was that as province level goes down due to pillaging, so does population. So if Bellam is pillaged 1 province level, 10,000 people or 25% of its population is considered slaughtered. Imagine the effect that sort of thing should have on the in-game psyche!

Even more odd is what happens if a few hundred levies desert, are dispersed, or killed outside their nation's borders: with the loss of a few hundred people, suddenly 10,000 die back home.

As well-ingrained as the tendency is to associate province level strongly with population, I personally think it is perhaps the poorest abstraction in the game, the one that strains the suspension of disbelief the most when you really start to think about it :)

[kgauck]

What about Realm spells that affect Province (holding) levels?

That's a DM call. I'd look at the spell description. The thing I would focus on is does it only effect my holdings or if my enemy had holdings in the province would they be effected too? If the spell description effects friend and foe in holdings, it would work that way for province holdings too. Otherwise, it is selective.


How does the Investure spell work? Do you have to destroy all the province holdings of other regeants before you can cast it? Or just have the only military units in the province until the spell is finished being cast? Do you need the permission of the other ruler?

The Investiture spell means about a million things so every questions gets a sometimes yes, sometimes no answer. And sometimes its just a question of where you set the DC for a certain action. You can destroy everything before you cast investiture, and then you own a waste land. Why not capture holdings intact and get those?

Considering your occupation scenario, having the only military units in the province, it sounds like you are still at war with someone. I don't like investitures during war. I prefer settling matters at the peace table. I set the DC high and it has an effect on the other side's attitude towards you. I prefer territory changing hands by treaty. So its the easiest way to make that happen. Once you have physical possession of territory, you want to establish a civil administration. Use the investiture for this by naming someone count.


Examples: King B names Jarl Kjessen of Helkstraad to be the new King of Halskapa. Jarl Kjessen has had enough of Jarl Dherg Wir of Selkhauste saying bad things about him and the his being named the new King. Does he march his 4x units of Mercenaries into Selkhauste and have his own personally allied Druid cast the Investure spell? Now he has all of Dherg Wir's province and law holdings? What can Jarl Dherg Wir do about this tatic? Does running away help?

It make a world of difference if Kjessen is still Jarl in this scenario or if he is acting as King. As king, Dherg has acted as a rebel, and his power will fade quickly once you have control of his province. He will spend every last RP and GB to hold his province, but once these are spent, the province is basically yours. Keep a garrison there, but the DC's for investiture will be easy.

On the other hand, if you are just the heir, the DC for outright conquest (no agreement) would be very high. Plus it would make the other Jarls frightened.


Now that Jarl Kjessen owns two provinces he convinces Rvanik of Dvasiik to hand over control to him. This can happen without destroying the Province Holdings as long as they both agree?

I don't know what would make Rvanik agree. If you bought two houses on the same block, would you expect a third home owner to give you his house? I think most nobles are the type to die trying rather than just give up.

[AndrewTall]

AT, are you saying that you're going to track an extra number? So Bellam in your example has a population of 4, but only 3 province levels are claimed?

Yes, if you want to keep source tied to province, keep population increases to a reasonable pace, but still allow rapid increase in'holding size' then I think you need the extra number.


I'm assuming you're saying that a max pop level needs to be attributed to each province that, for the time scale of most games, is relatively static (which is what Kgauck is going for, as well).

I figure you can stay flexible. if the actual population level can be increased as per standard rules then it is not static at all. If you increase the cost significantly then the actual population present will change only very slowly - at least at high population levels.


Unless you set the population max to some standard, such as province level maximums by terrain, this creates an arbitrary system that requires a bunch of extra book-keeping.

Hopefully the extra book-keeping would be kept to a minimum - we aready have maximum levels based on terrain and certain features, the only real book-keeping cost comes in the initial set up, and as you generally know who the province holder is, the book-keeping cost is less than if you added a new holding type completely like manor holdings.



You could always accept the map statistics, but then you'd be saying they are static except for taking existing holdings away from other people. And in the end, you're actually not tying province level to population, just setting a different static number.

I figure you'd take the map level as the holding level of the main local regent, then up the province level to reflect 'uncontrolled' population. That way you can set the population you think is reasonable without unbalancing the existing system - at least in the short term.


If my assumption is wrong and you're not suggesting a static max pop level for each province, then you have the problem of Rule Province actions rapidly expanding populations (which offends the sensibilities of us simulationists). For example, using Bellam, Roesone could Rule into a Province level 3, but then keep going, till Ghoere and Roesone chase each other up to the likely max of 8 or 9 for the terrain. Now, if you don't tie province level to population, you're saying that those 80-90,000 people were already there. If you DO tie province level to population, you end up saying that this province of originally 40,000 or so people doubles in size--possibly in a single year. Where do those people come from? Migration can't contribute that many people unless other provinces are losing population. And given the increase in GB and RP from province level increases, the majority of that population needs to be productive adults--which doesn't happen in 1 year.

This is why I'd not just create the holdings and actual population, I'd also make the cost of ruling the province total population up much higher, there are a couple of possible methods on the wiki, my preference (to avoid tracking exact population) being: cost = level squared, even level +1 squared, would pretty much stop population growth at high province levels, that way you get rapid growth to the province total population, then very slow growth - in fact aside from low level provinces (which are presumably underpopulated for some reason which can be countered) it would almost certainly be more cost effective to do some other action than trying to rule the province population.


There's another, perhaps more disturbing scenario caused by tying province level to population: what happens when province level goes down? In discussion about a PBEM after it had ended, I heard the idea espoused that an entire realm could be pretty much wiped out with all its people--nobility and peasantry alike--through a short but determined occupation and sequence of pillaging. The rationale was that as province level goes down due to pillaging, so does population. So if Bellam is pillaged 1 province level, 10,000 people or 25% of its population is considered slaughtered. Imagine the effect that sort of thing should have on the in-game psyche!

This is not uncommon - especially when referring to non-human populations. I see genocide as a far more prevalent threat in any fantasy game than in RL simply because you have so many different competing sentient species - but possibly there are still neanderthals around that I just haven't met outside gym... :(

In general though I'd expect that most of the population would flee not be killed - logistically genocide is very hard to do - even the Nazi's, a very Belinik bunch, took years to carry out their 'final solution' - and no BR realm even approaches their organisation or power. In terms of impact on the game psyche, six decades later and Germany and Japan still bear the burden of their actions in WW2, in fact many nations are still marked in one way or another. Taking the Janjaweed in Darfur, or government in Zimbabwe as more current examples, you still see years taken to reduce the population, even though in those cases the aim seems more forced flight than extermination.

I'd say that when pillaging the population level you first destroy the holdings, then, and I'd need to think of a mechanic, a much slower reduction of the people themselves. This reduction should mostly involve flight - trying to prohibit flight would encourage mass uprisings - which would destablise neighbours (possibly aiding their growth, but likely with someone native to the new population holding the province level).


Even more odd is what happens if a few hundred levies desert, are dispersed, or killed outside their nation's borders: with the loss of a few hundred people, suddenly 10,000 die back home.

The province holding mechanic would help here - the regent's holding reduces, reflecting loss of morale, loyalty, whatever, the actual population would not itself then reduce. I'd note that I think think levies were intended to mostly be for low level provinces - where the old population figures made the levy a much higher percentage of the population.[/QUOTE]


As well-ingrained as the tendency is to associate province level strongly with population, I personally think it is perhaps the poorest abstraction in the game, the one that strains the suspension of disbelief the most when you really start to think about it :)

I think that province holdings are a way to reduce these tensions somewhat - they don't solve the problem completely, but its a start.

[Rowan]

I think that province holdings are a way to reduce these tensions somewhat - they don't solve the problem completely, but its a start.
I agree that province holdings help solve a lot of these problems. I was advocating for a more or less fixed population. It seems like our main difference is that you'd assign the max pop level and provide an expensive mechanism for increase, while I'm still leaning a little more in favor of Kgauck's fully settled provinces, just trying to figure out what to do with refugees of conquered areas and frontier areas.

[stv2brown1988]

Would province holdings generate GB equiv. to % of Province Level?

For Example:
Bellam is a Province Level 3 (30,000 people?)
Bellam Generates 3 GB per turn
Marlae Roesone has 1 Province Holding = 1GB
Baron Ghoere has 1 Province Holding = 1GB
And noone claims the last GB of potential income?

[kgauck]

Currently, Province level produces a GB per level. I see no reason to alter that because all the provinces are not in the same hands.

[AndrewTall]

Would province holdings generate GB equiv. to % of Province Level?

For Example:
Bellam is a Province Level 3 (30,000 people?)
Bellam Generates 3 GB per turn
Marlae Roesone has 1 Province Holding = 1GB
Baron Ghoere has 1 Province Holding = 1GB
And noone claims the last GB of potential income?

Yes and no - I'd say that a regent gets 1 GB for each province level they hold, and just as with temple or guild if a level is not 'controlled' then it produces 'no' income. I use quotes as the province will no doubt be controlled by any number of minor nobles, courtiers, etc and will produce the income - but either squander it in inefficiencies, corruption, etc or see it go to 'below the radar' leaders.