Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 25
  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Victoria BC, Canada
    Posts
    368
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    One thing that has been noticed in a few campaigns I have played in is that when you take ito account all of the army units, ships, spy networks and assets that are attributed to specific realms, quite often you will find a realm has a negative income before the game even starts. One good example is Avanil. For a realm with a huge treasury, it runs at a deficit.

    I propose changing the asset maintenence costs as follows:
    • Castles/Province Fortifications: 1/3 GB per level
    • Holding Fortifications: 1/6 GB per level
    • Ports: 0 (excise and import taxes offset)
    • Bridges: 0 (tolls offset)
    • Ferries: 0 (tolls offset)
    • Shipyards: 1/6 GB per level (you may only 'repair' as many ships per month as levels of shipyard)
    • Highways: 0 (tolls offset)
    • Wondrous Structures: .5 GB per level (gain 2 RP per level ala Vassalage ie it counts above max collection)
    • Palaces: No change
    Transportation and trade assets should pay for themselves in tolls. I realize that the largest changes and probably the most controvertial changes is slashing Most other maintenence costs in 1/2. With the asset lists of most kingdoms, I feel that it is necessary to balance the budgets.
    "It may be better to be a live jackal than a dead lion, but it is better still to be a live lion -- and usually easier."

    - R. A. Heinlien, from The Collected works of Lazarus Long

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Victoria BC, Canada
    Posts
    368
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    I would also like to point out that as this information is of vital import to the Atlas, that we need to start discussing this quickly, and put it to a vote. It will affect every nation on the map.

    -Mike
    "It may be better to be a live jackal than a dead lion, but it is better still to be a live lion -- and usually easier."

    - R. A. Heinlien, from The Collected works of Lazarus Long

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    california
    Posts
    317
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Could you give a couple examples of before and after costs vs. income?
    Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a night. Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Victoria BC, Canada
    Posts
    368
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    The only immediate example I have the time for is the Brecht realm of Berhagen.

    The income of Berhagen is 26-2/3 GB.

    The Army sucks 9 GB at garrison
    The Navy (active, since a navy in port is useless) eats 2-1/12 GB

    The writeup specifies that all holdings are fortified. There are 22 levels of province, so that's 22 levels of Fortification
    There are 3 forest roads (one *could* be mountain) according to the map.
    The map also states that the capital is also a Port
    If Berhagen has a navy, it needs a shipyard to repair them and construct new ships. I have assumed a Level 4 shipyard.

    Total (BRCS) asset maintenence is 17-1/6 GB, plus military, and not even counting a Court is 28-1/4 GB.

    Total (proposed) asset maintenence is 8 GB, when added to military is 19-1/12 GB. This will allow a decent Court *and* some operating budget.
    "It may be better to be a live jackal than a dead lion, but it is better still to be a live lion -- and usually easier."

    - R. A. Heinlien, from The Collected works of Lazarus Long

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    california
    Posts
    317
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    I agree with the reduced fortification costs, at least from a accuracy standpoint. From my understanding of fortifications, they are expensive to build but have little upkeep. I believe the main cost was in garrisoning them.
    Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a night. Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    california
    Posts
    317
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Their are 3 other ways to help balance the books. Lessen the number of troops, add trade routes for guilds with a tax by the relevant landed regents, and figure that those with shipyards can probably sell ships for a profit. The benifit of the 1st and 2nd solutions is that it can be tailored to the individual realms. Otherwise I am guessing that their will be other realms which will become overly wealthy. Whatever general forumula is found will require some amount of tailoring.
    Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a night. Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

  7. #7
    Senior Member Osprey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Ashland, NH
    Posts
    1,377
    Downloads
    6
    Uploads
    0
    I actually like the asset maintenance costs from the BRCS. I think there are a few cases where realm maintenance might be higher than income, but I think you're forgetting one very essential element that would likely be present in those realms: tribute.

    I can't comment much on Berhagen, since I don't own Havens of the Great Bay, but I would ask: who are the guilders? What is paying for all of those fortified holdings? What about income from trade routes? If trade routes are run by a foreign guild, wouldn't they pay a slice tot he landed regetns? If guilds and temples are fortified, wouldn't those costs be paid by their respective regents, not the landed regent?

    Here are a few ways I've managed to justify asset costs IMC:

    1. As guilds are the connecting points for Trade Routes, it makes sense that the guilds should be responsible for building and maintaining the roads as a built-in expense of operating a trade route. Landed regents should expect to be able to use these roads as a side-benefit of promoting trade in their realm. Alternately, landed regents could build the roads and maintain control of them, then allow guilders to use them for trade and charge seasonal tarrifs for their use. This would help justify the landed regents earning a percentage of the trade income from the Trade Routes.

    2. Law regents have excellent bargaining power. While law holdings don't make much money themselves, they have superior strategic power in that they may support, oppose, or contest any law, temple, or guild holdings.

    I have assumed that powerful regents with patron temple and guild regents (like Avanil and Boeruine) would have an arrangement to recieve a portion of those domain's profits in exchange for supporting them in their realms. This would be even more blatant in the case of puppet guilders whose every move is controlled by the landed regent.

    For instance, I expect Darien Avan recieves between a third and half of PAI's net profits in Avanil - in exchange Darien Avan not only tolerates PAI's existence, but actively supports PAI's domain actions with his Law holding levels and maybe even RP from time to time. Knowing Avan, I suspect PAI is also invested as a Vassal and pays some RP in addition to GB.

    Likewise, I expect the Western Imperial Temple also pays some tribute to Avan in exchange for the law's continued support against its rivals. As temples (especially militant ones) are less money-making machines than guilds, I ruled 1/4 of the WIT's net profits was sufficient tribute.

    Boeruine I would expect to have a very similar arrangement, as would Taeghas (mentioned as having a pet guilder too).

    Other landed regents could set up more general policies, like 1 GB per trade route in their domain, and maybe 1 GB per 3 guild levels as well.

    As for shipyards and navies, consider this: guilders, having the main use for ships, would probably be expected to contribute to the naval defense of ports they operate from. So demanding some tribute to pay for a navy, as well as a fee for leasing the shipyards to build merchant vessels AND having the guilders use ther ships in case of attack, could all contribute to supporting naval expenses.

    Also, not all naval fleets, especially those used for coastal defense, need be considered active. I use as a default that about 1/3 of a nation's fleet are typically on active patrol while the other 2/3 are garrisoned in port. The ships then rotate duties seasonally, so a different third is active each season. The only time they would all go active is when the whole fleet is needed for a major naval action, like attacking a pirate base or defending against an invasion fleet. Having the ships and crews around in garrison keeps them available in time of need without paying for them to be out and about at all times.

    Fortifications: a Provincial Castle should be able to fortify at least its own level in holdings in addition to the province itself. So a Level 4 castle could also fortify the regent's Law(4) holding at no additional cost. Note that this is my own interpretation of the BRCS rule, as I don't think there should be an unlimited number of fortified holdings up to the castle's level - it gets a bit ridiculous at that point.

    Fortification expenses do include garrisons - a castle is always assumed to have a basic garrison in it, even if there are no additional troops stationed there. So the maintenance would include pay for the guards and officers as well as the castellan, servants, bulk supplies in case of siege (many of which must be replenished each season), etc.

    Now all that being said, I agree that fortification upkeep is still quite high. I'd be okay with a modest reduction, say to 1/2 GB per level for provincial castles and 1/4 GB per level for fortified holdings.

    I also don't mind roads, ferries, bridges, and ports being without maintenance if it's assumed that tarrifs and taxes will provide for their maintenance. This simply reduces book-keeping of nattering details, which is fine by me. They should remain as listed assets, however, since they provide important functions (and have a decently high Build cost as well&#33. And since they cost money to build, a regent can still expect a cut of trade routes to eventually pay for those construction costs and eventually make a little money off of them.

    And as an aside, I'd love to see all asset costs restructured to negate thirds and sixths of GB's - it's a pain in the arse. By keeping it at 1/4 and 1/2 fractions only, it streamlines the maintenance tables and meshes them with troop costs much more seamlessly.

    The Wondrous Structures should, I think, be an entirely seperate issue - your proposal there is quite a revision to the game, and one I am personally not sure is a good addition. I much prefer Wonders to be non-generic (I've posted a number of wonders previously in the Royal Library) and much more unique - they are supposed to be Wonders of the World, right, not Monolith #18 (a level 4 RP generator / pseudo-vassal).

    Also, concerning the idea that wonders could be vassals: I'd say "no way." It makes it too easy to get vassalge RP (you only need to be wealthy) without going through all the difficulties and headaches of acquiring real vassals. Such a possibility would beg the question: why wouldn't every regent build a wonder if he could scrape together the money?

    Osprey

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    125
    Downloads
    73
    Uploads
    0
    While it may be overly complex, why not this:

    If a fortification (perhaps this could be extended to other assets) HAS a garrison, such as a unit of troops, THEN it pays the reduced maintenance cost... as the troops there, while in garrison, PERFORM the maintenance required in the expenditure. However, if no troops are present in a province with a fort, then you pay the increased labour cost, bringing in outside labour to perform the duty.

  9. #9
    Well, remember when troops attempt to take a fortification (ie castle wall) they are automatically attacked by missle fire. Thus, its obvious that castles are assumed to have garrisons which protect them.

    Also, dont forget the Provincial fortifications is not just the central castle it includes all the little garrisons along the roads and on the boarders, ect. So, it makes sense that it would require more than just a unit to garrison all of the fortifications.
    "Who was the first that forged the deadly blade? Of rugged steel his savage soul was made." --Tibullus

    "Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum." --Vegetius

    "Men grow tired of sleep, love, singing and dancing sooner than war." --Homer

  10. #10
    Senior Member Osprey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Ashland, NH
    Posts
    1,377
    Downloads
    6
    Uploads
    0
    Yep...fortification maintenance always include active defense costs, which means permanent [skeletal] garrisons, regular patrols, rotating food and munition supplies in case of siege, structural maintenance (repairs, whitewashing, etc.)...

    I think 1/2 GB per level for provincial fortifications and 1/4 GB per level for fortified holdings is quite reasonable given their usefulness in preventing enemy movement and sacking of a regent's province and holdings.

    If a regent is so heavily militarized that they must fortify every province and holding in the realm, and maintain a large army and navy, then they SHOULD be rather wealthy to be capable of supporting all of that. If land, tribute, and trade combined isn't paying the maintenance bill, then the realm is obviously living beyond its means and needs to either trim the fat from its expenses or convince other regents to help foot the bill that is likely helping to protect their own interests. Agreed?

    The other problem I have reflected on concerns having seaports, bridges, and roads be self-sustaining in maintenance, which is that it guarantees that trade routes will be even more lucrative than they already were, especially land-based routes (which will now have no overhead costs other than tribute demanded by local landed regents). On the other hand, I can see the logic in these constructions actually generating a small amount of revenue in usage fees.

    Finally, I agree that shipyards had rather high maintenance in the bRCS, and dropping this to 1/4 GB per level would be reasonable.

    So let's try this on for size, assuming that Build costs will remain the same as in the BRCS:

    Domain Assets Maintenance Costs
    Court: 1 GB per level
    Palace: 1/2 GB per level
    Provincial Fortifications: 1/2 GB per level
    Holding Fortifications: 1/4 GB per level
    Shipyards: 1/4 GB per level
    Seaports: 0 (excise and import taxes offset)
    Bridges: 0 (tolls offset)
    Ferries: 0 (tolls offset)
    Highways: 0 (tolls offset)
    Wondrous Structures: 2 GB per level

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
BIRTHRIGHT, DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, D&D, the BIRTHRIGHT logo, and the D&D logo are trademarks owned by Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and are used by permission. ©2002-2010 Wizards of the Coast, Inc.