Seaports and/or trade routes.

[Fredrik Lundberg]

>I've always interpreted that line to refer to trade routes to "parts
>unknown" as you said. Although now that you come to mention it, I =
better
>check the accounting of the guilder character who is playing in my =
game,
>and make sure he is not interpreting it the other way. The bonus should
>come only from the trade routes, IMHO.

Mark VanderMeulen
vander+@pitt.edu

Then I have a little follow up question to you mark, why is it to =
different ways of calculation the income?
By the way I think it's the ruler of the province you should check since =
it's he/she who owns the seaport. On page 41 in BR rulebook the income =
is the province level divided by two (rounded up) plus one, and if I' =
not mistaken under the description of trade rutes it say that the income =
is the province level divided by two. The reason that I started this (as =
yet very small) discussion is that IMO it's not referong to TR and is a =
way for rulers (of that province) to earn a little extra money (come on =
all you persons who thought rulers got to few GB compared to guilders, =
support me). Historicaly provineces with seaports where richer, not only =
the merchant who used the port as a trading point. In 17th century the =
swedish king Gustav II Adolf campaigned in the east to take control of =
the and eastern ports in the Baltic sea for the reason that he wanted =
more income, he didn't push further inland to try to take large cities =
like Novgorod or Moscow.

Thak you all for your time,
Fredrik Lundberg

[Mark A Vandermeulen]

On Sun, 9 Nov 1997, Fredrik Lundberg wrote:

> Then I have a little follow up question to you mark, why is it two
different ways of calculation the income?
> By the way I think it's the ruler of the province you should check since
it's he/she who owns the seaport. On page 41 in BR rulebook the income is
the province level divided by two (rounded up) plus one, and if I' not
mistaken under the description of trade rutes it say that the income is the
province level divided by two. The reason that I started this (as yet very
small) discussion is that IMO it's not referong to TR and is a way for
rulers (of that province) to earn a little extra money (come on all you
persons who thought rulers got to few GB compared to guilders, support me).
Historicaly provineces with seaports where richer, not only the merchant who
used the port as a trading point. In 17th century the swedish king Gustav II
Adolf campaigned in the east to take control of the and eastern ports in the
Baltic sea for the reason that he wanted more income, he didn't push further
inland to try to take large cities like Novgorod or Moscow.
>

No, looking at the paragraph to which you are referring, I think it refers
strictly to income from trade routes: it refers to trade routes both
before and after that sentence there. So we seem to be left with two
versions of the same rule: probably an earlier one and a later rewrite. I
would suggest using the one under the Trade Route Domain Action (Divide
the province by two but don't add one).
On the other hand, if you wanted to add that little bit extra
realism to your games, I see no reason why not. But I'd probably operate
it a little differently: a seaport collects taxes AS IF it were one
province level larger on Table 17: Province Taxation. BUT I would only
allow this IF the the province WAS ACTUALLY a seaport. In other words, if
there was a city in blue shown on the map, i.e. the province of Duene in
Diemed and Gulfport in Osoerde would NOT be seaports unless the regent
spent some time developing them as such. Such development could be
handled as a Build Action, with perhaps 5 GB worth of spending per
province level required, and proceeding at 1d6 GB per Domain Turn.
Something similar could be done inland with roads. If a province
is connected via a road to another province (immediately adjacent) which
is higher in level than the first province, the first province generates
taxation as though it were one province level higher. This rule may,
however, make roads TOO valuable. On the other hand, it would help
encourage development rather than battles. Hard to know how this would
effect game balance w/o trying it out. Of course, if you want to keep
seaport property more valuable, you could make these two rules jointly
effective: a seaport with a road to a higher-level province taxes as two
levels higher.
This may sound like a big change, but remember that rising one
level on the taxation chart has relatively little effect: from d3 to d4,
for example, or from d4 to d4+1.

The easiest way to make seaports more "valuable" is if they were generally
more populated than inland provinces (which I expect is at least partially
the cause for the historical value of such property). But a brief glance
at the Anuire section of Cerilia shows this to not necessarily be the
case (partly the fault of the Erebannien and the swamps of Osoerde). If I
recall correctly, however, this IS more generally true in the other
sections of the continent we have seen (don't have those other Campaign
Expansions here with me right now).

If anyone DOES end up using these guidelines to create rules for their own
games, I would be interested in hearing how it effects game balance.

Mark VanderMeulen
vander+@pitt.edu