> > 4. Creation of a Trade Route requires a guild in both the originating and
>
> > terminal province. The guilds don't have to belong to the same
> organization, but both must agree to the creation of the route. The TR
> counts toward the
> > maximum allowed in both the originating and terminal provinces.
> >
> This is your house rule, I suppose. I'm pondering it. Most BR games have a
> house rule that limits the total "in" TRs to the same number of "out" TRs
> (I.E. a Province (4) on the coast can have 2 land TRs and 2 TRs originating
> from it, and thus it can have 2 of each likewise having it as a
> destination. Thus no 40 TRs to Anuire the City).

This is half the rule and might be enough. If it was what was used in the on-
line game where the "race" occured though, it obviously isn't enough.

Not sure about your "both
> guilders" rule. Typically you need at least the aquicence of the ruler of
> both provinces in order to create the route, anyhow. Unless the guilder in
> the destination province controls the buyers (as opposed to sellers, which
> is what guilds represent), I don't see how his/her approval/disaproval can
> matter if the province's ruler does not oppose the TR. . .unless he wants
> to be some kind of outlaw or rebel.
>
I disagree. The rulebook says a guild controls "the economy" of province.
Having an economy involves an exchange of goods/services of some kind. If a
guild 3 in a province 4 controls 75% of the economy, it controls not only 3/4
the means of production, it controls 75% of the buyers. Most people have to buy
goods at guild stores, use guild services, and work at/for some enterprise
associated with the local guild. In fact the major purchaser of goods for the
area would be the local guild itself, since it generates 75% of the goods/
services produced in the province. At the very least, I think a TR needs some
type of infrastructure (ie a guild holding) on the receiving end to properly
receive and distribute the large flow of goods that a Trade Route represents.

I've included some of my past ravings on TRs (from when we were discussing desired
changes for the hardcover edition) below.

Randax

>
> BR Economic Rules suggested changes:
>
> Well, if the "official" ruling is that you don't need a guild holding in both to
> establish a trade route, the BR economic rules definately need some retooling.
>
> First, decide where BR should go as a campaign setting. BR realm rules are meant to be a simple
> representation of kingdom dynamics. The kingdom dynamics were meant to serve as a generator for
> stories and adventures. I don't think this has changed. If anything, I believe that the new BR
> intends to emphasize roleplaying more, since marketing BR as a wargame didn't generate the level of
> sales desired. Unless the original philosophy has changed, the realm rules must remain simple with
> lots of room for DM interpretation/manipulation.
>
> Second, you have to decide your philosophy of what or how powerful guild holdings
> are. If a regent who controls a level 3 guild in a level 4 province really
> controls 75% of the economy as stated in the rulebook, guilds should be very powerful. Those of you
> who've read any of my stuff on the old aol boards dating back the last 3 years should be familiar
> with some of my philosophies (love 'um or hate 'um as you will). One of them is this: One of D&D's
> great strengths is the interdependence of the character classes. ie to have a good adventuring party
> you need characters with a variety of classes. The BR realm rules reflect this same strength and
> should not be change. Thieves/Guilders SHOULD CONTROL MOST OF THE MONEY. This is the strength of
> their class. It's what they have to offer/threaten the other regents with.
>
> With this in mind, a clear change to the official rules should state that a guild holding (not necessarily
> controlled by the same person) is required at both the origin and terminus of a trade route,
> with the route counting against the allowed number in both provinces. This is a simple, (more)
> realistic representation of major trade routes. It should placate those who are (presumably) playing
> with the flawed Trade routes that are giving Guilders too much power vs. Law regents and reduce the
> number of routes going from every hick county to the City of Anuire.
>
> Some counterpoints could be made. See the excellent post by relve of Helsinki for (what I would
> consider) optional rules involving local or minor trade routes. Sadly, I better cut it short and getback to work,
> otherwise my economic condition will deteriorate significantly. Lots more could be
> "said", but this one example will have to suffice. Why did the Iberians (Spanish and Portugese) desperately sail
> west looking to establish trade routes with India and the Far East? Because the Italians held (in BR terms) the
> guild holdings and trade route slots in the eastern med and near east and used their economic, political and
> military influence there to prevent others from establishing holdings there. Major Trade routes around Africa
> weren't established until the Portugese built bases (guild holdings) in Angola, Mozambique and "factories"
> (guild holdings) at Goa in India. Why did they spend years of national effort (RP, GB, ships, troops, diplomacy,
> exploratory trade, building,etc) when they could have spent (by a present rules interpretation) one domain action,
> a few RP and GB and had the same cash flow as the Italians? And if you don't need guild holdings, and there's no limit to
> the number of rich routes coming out of India, why didn't England, France, Holland and every two-bit
> city state in the HRE jump on the bandwagon? Get rich quick! Spend a little effort and money!
> Be as rich as Venice overnight!
>
> It's not just which ruling makes economic sense. It's which is easier to keep track of, helps
> maintain play balance and, most importantly, is one heck-of-a-lot more fun to play.