Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18
  1. #11
    Gary V. Foss
    Guest

    Sea Trade Routes

    Jim Cooper wrote:

    > Which is why I posted the question about a week or two ago pointing that
    > out, and suggesting a correction. What did you think about it? (That
    > provincial rulers control the TRs in a realm).

    Well, I think guilders should still control trade routes, but I'm starting to suspect a few things:

    1. Law holdings should be able to tax each trade route just as if it were a holding.

    2. Law holdings should collect more taxes from all holdings.

    3. Maybe trade routes should make half of what they currently make. I mean, a single trade route makes something like 30% or 40% more GB per domain turn than the average province taxes generated. That just
    seems wrong to me. Ilien could potentially make 42GB/turn with six trade routes, while only pulling in d8+1 in taxes. That's too much.

    4. If a province regent sets a tax on a trade route it should be paid automatically. I mean, it's not like caravans can just traipse on by a toll booth in the middle of the night.

    5. It should be somewhere in the printed materials that a tax on trade routes as high as 33% for trade routes that cross a national border and 50% for those that stay within a single country should not
    considered too high. Trade routes should exist at the whim of the province ruler, after all. He should just be able to snap his fingers and they are gone. My understanding of medieval taxes leads me to
    believe they could be pretty draconian, so I don't think this is unreasonable. Besides, I think a province ruler should be able to earn a competitive amount of money from trade routes in his domain as the
    guilder who set them up.

    In fact, I'd like to see some sort of guidelines for vassalage agreements in general. All the published materials do is state that vassalage agreements are possible without really going into how they work or
    what kinds of terms are "standard" in them. It would be interesting to see what kinds of vassalage agreements had occurred in the past under the Empire, for instance, just by way of an example. I'm pretty
    sure the Gorgon takes just about every RP and GB from his vassals, but he's a scuzbucket. What about a more benign ruler? What kind of agreement does Avan have with his vassals? What about even more kindly
    rulers? Anybody want to take a stab at this one? (Note: In BR asking someone to take a stab at something is probably a stupid thing to do.... That's probably how Cerilians first came upon bloodtheft.)

    Gary

  2. #12
    Sindre Berg
    Guest

    Sea Trade Routes

    Jim Cooper wrote:

    > Gary V. Foss wrote:
    > >> If there is not limit to the amount of trade routes possible going
    > into a province, then wouldn't Avan have all his available provinces
    > trading with the IC? Wouldn't Diem do the same? If there is not
    > limit then trade would only occur to the highest possible provinces,
    > and
    > would earn considerably more GBs too.
    > Of course, which makes them very powerful rulers. It pays to be the
    > closest to the IC. The point remains the same though: *other* rulers
    > have to pay *them* - which, of course, is why all TRs don't go to the
    > IC.
    >
    > >I admit, those trade routes would be the first to be set up, but I
    > don't think there should be no limit on the number that can go into a
    > single province.<
    >
    > I didn't say that there shouldn't be a rule - just that currently,
    > there
    > isn't a limit. At least, as far as I am aware - nothing is mentioned
    > in
    > the rulebook that I know of.
    >

    In my PBMG there is a house rule that severly limits the number of TR's
    and also keeps the amount of Diplomacy up...I say a province can support
    the number of TR given in the Rulebook, but Regardless of whether they
    go in or out of the province. In this Case Imp City can only support 4
    TR in total....

    > > I think guilds are at a rather unfair advantage already when it
    > comes to trade routes.
    >
    > Which is why I posted the question about a week or two ago pointing
    > that
    > out, and suggesting a correction. What did you think about it? (That
    >
    > provincial rulers control the TRs in a realm).
    >
    > Cheers,
    > Darren
    >
    > ******
    > ************************************************** ******************
    > To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the
    > line
    >

    - --
    Sindre

    Take a look at my homepage and Birthright PBMG at:

    www.uio.no/~sindrejb

  3. #13
    Whalejudge@aol.co
    Guest

    Sea Trade Routes

    >>Actually, a strict reading of the trade route rules from the Rulebook do not
    make a distinction between "incoming" or "outgoing" trade routes from a
    province. A Level 7 province can support only 3 trade routes period.
    Incoming or outgoing trade routes do not factor in. Ilien could have 2
    incoming land routes, with one outgoing land route and 1 incoming sea route
    with 2 outgoing sea routes.

  4. #14
    Kenneth Gauck
    Guest

    Sea Trade Routes

    Historically taxes were impossible to collect reliable, except at a specific
    point (entering a town for eg.) One of the consequences of this was a huge
    number tax sites, which restricted trade and made both investment in trade
    and the purchasing of distant goods undesirable. Attempts at taxation of
    trade routes should be largely ineffective and have the effect of sending
    trade elsewhere. Guild holdings should be taxed normally.

    Kenneth Gauck
    c558382@earthlink.net
    - -----Original Message-----
    From: Gary V. Foss
    To: birthright@MPGN.COM
    Date: Thursday, October 22, 1998 4:57 PM
    Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] - Sea Trade Routes


    >Jim Cooper wrote:
    >
    >> Which is why I posted the question about a week or two ago pointing that
    >> out, and suggesting a correction. What did you think about it? (That
    >> provincial rulers control the TRs in a realm).
    >
    >Well, I think guilders should still control trade routes, but I'm starting
    to suspect a few things:
    >
    >1. Law holdings should be able to tax each trade route just as if it were a
    holding.
    >
    >2. Law holdings should collect more taxes from all holdings.
    >
    >3. Maybe trade routes should make half of what they currently make. I
    mean, a single trade route makes something like 30% or 40% more GB per
    domain turn than the average province taxes generated. That just
    >seems wrong to me. Ilien could potentially make 42GB/turn with six trade
    routes, while only pulling in d8+1 in taxes. That's too much.
    >
    >4. If a province regent sets a tax on a trade route it should be paid
    automatically. I mean, it's not like caravans can just traipse on by a toll
    booth in the middle of the night.
    >
    >5. It should be somewhere in the printed materials that a tax on trade
    routes as high as 33% for trade routes that cross a national border and 50%
    for those that stay within a single country should not
    >considered too high. Trade routes should exist at the whim of the province
    ruler, after all. He should just be able to snap his fingers and they are
    gone. My understanding of medieval taxes leads me to
    >believe they could be pretty draconian, so I don't think this is
    unreasonable. Besides, I think a province ruler should be able to earn a
    competitive amount of money from trade routes in his domain as the
    >guilder who set them up.
    >
    >In fact, I'd like to see some sort of guidelines for vassalage agreements
    in general. All the published materials do is state that vassalage
    agreements are possible without really going into how they work or
    >what kinds of terms are "standard" in them. It would be interesting to see
    what kinds of vassalage agreements had occurred in the past under the
    Empire, for instance, just by way of an example. I'm pretty
    >sure the Gorgon takes just about every RP and GB from his vassals, but he's
    a scuzbucket. What about a more benign ruler? What kind of agreement does
    Avan have with his vassals? What about even more kindly
    >rulers? Anybody want to take a stab at this one? (Note: In BR asking
    someone to take a stab at something is probably a stupid thing to do....
    That's probably how Cerilians first came upon bloodtheft.)
    >
    >Gary
    >
    >************************************************* **************************
    >>'unsubscribe birthright' as the body of the message.
    >

  5. #15
    Memnoch
    Guest

    Sea Trade Routes

    Whalejudge: I believe you missed what I said about coastal provinces:
    Let me reiterate: Ilien [being a coastal province of level 4 or above]
    could have 2
    incoming land routes, with one outgoing land route and 1 incoming sea route
    with 2 outgoing sea routes, [or any combination totaling 3 land routes and 3
    sea routes].

    If you do not make the distinction between incoming and outgoing trade
    routes, this limits the vast amount of gold bars collected by guild regents
    and keeps the game more in balance. This seems to be the goal of everyone
    here. Since this is exactly what it states in the rulebook, I believe that
    this would be the best way to go.

    Memnoch
    - -----Original Message-----
    From: Whalejudge@aol.com
    To: birthright@MPGN.COM
    Date: Thursday, October 22, 1998 8:11 PM
    Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] - Sea Trade Routes


    >>>Actually, a strict reading of the trade route rules from the Rulebook do
    not
    >make a distinction between "incoming" or "outgoing" trade routes from a
    >province. A Level 7 province can support only 3 trade routes period.
    >Incoming or outgoing trade routes do not factor in. Ilien could have 2
    >incoming land routes, with one outgoing land route and 1 incoming sea route
    >with 2 outgoing sea routes. Yes, that's what the Rulebook says. However, that was modified by Cities
    of
    >the Sun, and the modification seems to have been retained in Rjurik
    Highlands
    >and Havens of the Great Bay. According to Cities of the Sun pages 70-71, a
    >coastal province can support as many sea trade routes as it can land trade
    >routes, and the slots are independent. The catches are that the sea routes
    >cannot originate from a province of lower than 3 and that the route must be
    >staffed by ships. The cargo capacity of the ships determines the amount
    the
    >route pays, up to the maximum.
    >************************************************* **************************
    >>'unsubscribe birthright' as the body of the message.
    >

  6. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio, United States
    Posts
    440
    Downloads
    20
    Uploads
    0

    Sea Trade Routes

    In a message dated 98-10-22 13:54:35 EDT, you write:

    >
    I have to concur with this ruling. More TRs are not what this game needs.
    I might differ with the "terrain type" argument, and declare the IC top be
    "urban" terrain, since it is so huge, population to ground-wise.


    Lee.

  7. #17
    Jim Cooper
    Guest

    Sea Trade Routes

    Peter Hodge wrote:
    > The reason why Avanil and Diemed couldn't simply create a trade route from every province to the Imperial City is simply because they can't. A trade route has to start and end in two provinces that are different terrain types (or different from different cultures, eg. Anuire - Khinasi).>If you look at a map showing the provinces in Avail and Diemed, Diemed only has one province which could create a trade route with the Imperial City. Avanil has a few more, but there also has to be roads to "carry" the trade and the cost

  8. #18
    Gary V. Foss
    Guest

    Sea Trade Routes

    Kenneth Gauck wrote:

    > Historically taxes were impossible to collect reliable, except at a specific
    > point (entering a town for eg.) One of the consequences of this was a huge
    > number tax sites, which restricted trade and made both investment in trade
    > and the purchasing of distant goods undesirable. Attempts at taxation of
    > trade routes should be largely ineffective and have the effect of sending
    > trade elsewhere. Guild holdings should be taxed normally.

    Wouldn't taxes be much easier to collect from trade routes? I mean, a trade
    route has to cross bridges and go through city gates and such. Ships have to
    dock, load and unload their cargo. Generally, those are pretty noticeable kinds
    of activities, and ones that would have to deal directly with the kinds of "tax
    sites" that you mentioned. Guilds often operate behind closed doors, which is
    why they would be so hard to regulate and tax.

    As for the economic shift of trade to other places caused by taxation: That is
    very true in modern terms. In BR/medieval terms, however, it seems to me that
    trade is more reliant upon diplomacy rather than standard economics. To open
    trade routes across borders requires an agreement between regents, so the effect
    of taxes is less upon trade routes. Unless those taxes were actually
    prohibitive trade routes would continue, because alternatives don't exist.
    That's the advantage province rulers have. They are the only game in town.

    Gary

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Trade routes
    By teloft in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-01-2004, 09:18 PM
  2. Trade Routes (Well I'll be....)
    By morgramen in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 05-06-2002, 08:49 PM
  3. Trade Routes
    By abeard@zebra.net (Adam B in forum MPGN Mailinglist archive 1996-1999
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 06-02-1998, 02:09 PM
  4. Trade Routes & Law
    By Hibbs, Philip in forum MPGN Mailinglist archive 1996-1999
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-21-1997, 07:33 AM
  5. Trade Routes
    By Sepsis in forum MPGN Mailinglist archive 1996-1999
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-23-1997, 05:44 PM

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.