Trade Route

[Arius Vistoon]

Why the action "Contest Trade Route" is a Standard action, not a standard/realm action ?

As realm action, this action will be contest every trade route of a specific regent where the man who contest have a holding
one action court for another one trade route
( as contest holding )

And

why not
a level of trade route which increase independendly of level of guild but the average level of guild is a maximun ( as temple/law/guild for province )
in this form, the contest not destroy the route but decrease that by 1d3 level ( as contest holding )
but for trade route continue to be lucratif, the action for rule trade route cost nothing in GB and RP except a court action....

tell me what do you thing of this ( and why )

[Osprey]

Why the action "Contest Trade Route" is a Standard action, not a standard/realm action ?

As realm action, this action will be contest every trade route of a specific regent where the man who contest have a holding
one action court for another one trade route
( as contest holding )

Well, I'm not one of the Playtest designers, but having worked with the system for a while, I can tell you this: Trade Routes are big deals. Destroying a trade route represents a massive blow to a rival's income (losing multible GB income in one move is extremely viscious, and might very well provoke serious retaliation&#33. In order to affect multiple trade routes, you could always Contest a rival's guilds as a Realm Action.
-Osprey

[destowe]

I am currently playing a nasty guilder, and have found a good way to do things like this.

Trace the path of the route(s) that you wish to interrupt. If there is a critical bridge/ford/crossroad that most go through, you have it made.

Bandits, occupation, espionage (destroy bridge or road), or get the landed regent to deny passage are ways to stop them. If you can legitamately stop traffic from crossing, you disrupt the routes.

I suppose even a mage could get in with warding a critcal province.

Of course these are a little more high profile than the standard contest action.

On a side note, we are also looking into supply routes for invading armies (similar to trade route). Things like this could also be used to deny the troops supplies. (Leaning toward subdual damage at start of battle.)

[Osprey]

On a side note, we are also looking into supply routes for invading armies (similar to trade route). Things like this could also be used to deny the troops supplies. (Leaning toward subdual damage at start of battle.)

I've actually wondered about that myself. If you come up with a workable system, let me know. It would add a cool strategic factor to invasions, and force commanders to guard their backs a little more. Hitting supply lines is a classic way to paralyze, cripple, even destroy an invading army that has extended itself too far. And keeping open supply lines has always been a major undertaking for large armies.

Realistically, the factors involved are:
1. How big is the invading force? How much do they need in provisions?
2. How much can the invaded land support the invaders through foraging, pillage, etc.?
3. How would that be affected by a "slash and burn" defense, where the crops are burnt and stores evacuated? Would the province drop a permanent level as a result, or would it only be temporarily affected? What if the fields are burnt AND salted (like the Russians did against the Germans in WWII)?

This also brings up another facet of the game: how can there be any raiding when it take s a full month of unengaged occupation to pillage? The general point to raiding is to strike fast, plunder, then withdraw before the enemy can mount a full-scale retaliation. By the current rules, such raiding is impossible. Yet that is exactly what I imagine Rhuobe and the Spider doing periodically to make everyone's lives difficult and themselves (& their troops)a bit richer. Still haven't heard a satisfying answer to this one.
-Osprey