Fortified province or holding

[Arjan]

ON a tall hill in the province of Lemjohen (giantdowns) lies an old fort build by anuirean forces long ago.
Present day the watch has taken over it and uses it as a base for their law holding.
My players have now taken control of the province (now a lvl2 prov) and use the old fort for all their holdings. the temple is there, the watch with teir law, the guild and the landed regent.

so the old forts used to be a fortified law holding, but how to handle it now?
should this be handled as a fortified holding, if yes, who pays for it?
or should it be handled as a fortified province?

anyone?

Arjan

[mhelles]

Considering what your players have crammed in there (player innovation is impressive ;-), I would probably say that the old fort is really a small castle that offers protection to the entire province.

Your players may then decide on how to pay for the castle upkeep.

Cheers,

Morten

[Nikolai II]

Did the players pay for placing temple and guild holdings there (that is, did they build fortifications?), in that case they should have paid enough to call it a province fortification, if they want, with pros and cons.

If they just placed their holdings there without paying for fortifications on their own then they haven't expanded the fortress to fit all the new necessary functions and now they are horrendously cramped, like in; half income, negative modifiers to all actions, sinking morale, desertions and generally bad things.

[Lord Grave]

> Arjan wrote:
> ON a tall hill in the province of Lemjohen (giantdowns) lies an old fort
> build by anuirean forces long ago.
> Present day the watch has taken over it and uses it as a base for their
> law holding.
> My players have now taken control of the province (now a lvl2 prov) and
> use the old fort for all their holdings. the temple is there, the watch
> with teir law, the guild and the landed regent.
>
> so the old forts used to be a fortified law holding, but how to handle it
> now?
> should this be handled as a fortified holding, if yes, who pays for it?
> or should it be handled as a fortified province?
>
> anyone?
>

If it is a fort, than it was always a Castle Holding and it was wrong to treat it as fortified holding. The fact that the Watch used it as base for their law holding doesn`t change that. If we say that the Mhor is using a village in Ghoere as base of his Law Holding, does that village become a Law Holding? Of course not. When the Law Holding is removed, the village still stays there.

I think it`s best to treat it as the province of Sorelies in Alamie and the Fort Sorentier in it. It is a fort with a small settlement in and around it. All holdings in the province are based in the fort, but they are not considered fortified themselves. They are still protected from the outside threat, but not if Duke Alam decided to occupy the province and destroy some holdings.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Peter Lubke]

On Mon, 2003-03-17 at 09:33, Milos Rasic wrote:

> Arjan wrote:
> ON a tall hill in the province of Lemjohen (giantdowns) lies an old fort
> build by anuirean forces long ago.
> Present day the watch has taken over it and uses it as a base for their
> law holding.
> My players have now taken control of the province (now a lvl2 prov) and
> use the old fort for all their holdings. the temple is there, the watch
> with teir law, the guild and the landed regent.
>
> so the old forts used to be a fortified law holding, but how to handle it
> now?
> should this be handled as a fortified holding, if yes, who pays for it?
> or should it be handled as a fortified province?

They players have not fortified the province nor have they taken control
of a previously fortified province with an intact province
fortification. So far then, it`s still a fortified holding.

The upgrade to fortified province is possible because the players have
control of the province. Since the idea seems to be to fortify all
player controlled holding assets at the same time it is not unreasonable
to expect that the upgrade will be required. Physically the space may be
large enough - but do you have storerooms and armories for the extra
level of protection being supplied (to speculate on just a few things).

I would rule upgrade to fortified province at half the cost.

>
> anyone?
>

If it is a fort, than it was always a Castle Holding and it was wrong to
treat it as fortified holding. The fact that the Watch used it as base for
their law holding doesn`t change that. If we say that the Mhor is using a
village in Ghoere as base of his Law Holding, does that village become a
Law Holding? Of course not. When the Law Holding is removed, the village
still stays there.

I disagree. The actual building is a fortification. The use that it is
put to is another matter. Control of the fortification allows the
controller to use it to protect what he wishes to. (within reason) With
respect to your example, the law holding exists independently of the
village - yes - but this works both ways - the law holding can change
its base without ceasing to exist. Another law regent could then use the
village as a base for his holding.


I think it`s best to treat it as the province of Sorelies in Alamie and
the Fort Sorentier in it. It is a fort with a small settlement in and
around it. All holdings in the province are based in the fort, but they
are not considered fortified themselves. They are still protected from
the outside threat, but not if Duke Alam decided to occupy the province
and destroy some holdings.

Under the usual rules, only the holdings of the regent who controls the
castle are considered fortified as a result of the castle. All holdings
in the province are protected from outside threat of military occupation
while the castle stands.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Raesene Andu]

In my games I have always ruled that a castle can be used to fortify any allied holdings. The official material supports this idea in some cases, and rejects it in others.

Given the region, I would say that it is acceptable in this case, as the fort would be the only major site in the entire province, so it is logical that any police, temples and guilds are also based there.

[Beruin]

Ajan wrote:
>>so the old forts used to be a fortified law holding, but how to handle it now?
should this be handled as a fortified holding, if yes, who pays for it?
or should it be handled as a fortified province?<<

Generally, I`d say just because there`s an old crumbling fort lying around does not mean that any holding based there is fortified. I`d rule that the players would have to decide for themselves whether they want to fortify their holdings or build a castle on this site and they would have to pay the full cost. If I feel generous I might reduce the cost somewhat to take this structure into account. Then again, maybe the rebuilding could afford additional costs, e.g. some parts of the castle are so ruined that they must be dismantled before any building can occur.

Here are the reasons for this:

Some of the Player`s secrets book (I have Talinie in mind) show drawings of law holdings which clearly depict some sort of defensive structure (walls, towers etc.) without the holding being fortified.
I`d reason that this would provide some protection and cover for troops /guards stationed there, but to make the holding truly fortified, there must be more. You need additional manpower, a larger stock of weapons up to and including siege weapons and provisions. The costs for fortifying a holding or maintaining a castle reflect these additional costs as well, not just the costs of the buildings. As far as I recall a castle counts as being defended from at least one unit, even if no troops are present. This would mean that a sizeable garrison would be always present at the castle.

So, all in all this boils down to one question:

What do you want the fort to be? To quote the extremes, you could rule that the PCs have to start from scratch or that the watch already had improved the fort to a sizeable castle when the PCs took over.

Just my two cents,
Christoph Tiemann

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.