Ch. 5 Asset Construction Costs

[Raesene Andu]

Now that we have settled (well sort of) on the maintenace costs of a domain's assets, does anyone have any ideas about changes that may be necessary to the consturction/muster costs, or any additional assets that they think might need to be added.

To refesh your memory, here is the current table, with the changes made over the past week or so.

Asset Type..............Build Cost..........Maintenance/Season
Bridge (Wood)...........3 GB................0 GB
Bridge (Stone)..........6 GB................0 GB
Ferry...................1 GB................0 GB
Seaport.................6 GB................0 GB
Shipyard................4 GB/Level..........1/2 GB/Level

Fortification
(Province)..............8 GB/Level..........1/2 GB/Level
(Holding)...............4 GB/Level..........1/4 GB/Level
Palace..................6 GB/Level..........1/2 GB/Level

Highway
(Plain, Steppe, Scrub)..2 GB................0 GB
(Desert, Forest, Hills).4 GB................0 GB
(Swamp, Tundra).........6 GB................1/4 GB
(Glacier, Mountain).....8 GB................1/2 GB

Ships
(At Sea)................Varies..............1/12 Muster Cost
(In Port)...............Varies..............1/24 Muster Cost

Army Units
(Active)................Varies..............1/2 Muster Cost
(Garrisoned)............Varies..............1/4 Muster Cost

Wondrous Structure......25 GB/Level.........2 GB/Level

[irdeggman]

I still like the idea that building a ship costs 1/2 the market price in materials. This way if a regent owns a shipyard he can build them cheaper and sell them for a profit. It meshes with the craft skill system. Using the market value for determing how long it takes to build still works, since that is also consistent with the craft skills.

Ships are the only asset being built that can be sold which is why I bring it up. troops aren't sold, roads aren't sold, etc. But ships are built to be sold (or used by the builder).

Why are the maintence costs for ships so much cheaper than troops? I understand they should be less, but 1/6 the cost - that seems to be far too low. Maybe 1/2 the cost for troops or 1/4 (at the least). There are fewer salary costs involved with a ship, but higher food stuffs. Troops can always pillage and find food in the wild, ships don't usually get to stop and 'fish' for food. They aren't designed to be condusive for that type of endevour. Ships also have more expensive material costs for maintenance than do troops. Troops require requipping (pretty standard, in general there are plenty of weapon/armor smiths around). Ships require tar, replacement planks, sails, etc. Mostly specialty goods that are only found in the vicinity of a shipyard.

[The Jew]

It would make the math a little more consistent with the rest, if ship maintenance cost were 1/16 in port or 1/8 active

[Raesene Andu]

It might pay to increase the maintenace costs of ships a little, as at the moment they are working out fairly cheap for fairly large fleets. It doesn't make a difference to the maths changing it to 1/16 and 1/8 though, as 15/8 is 1.875 and 15/16 is 0.9375. The old fractons were probably better than these.

The only easy way you are going to work out the cost is to use something similar to the orginal system and calculate using the size of the ships, not their cost.

Something like this

Ship Class.....GB Cost.......Active..........In Port
1..............10+...........1 GB............1/2 GB
2..............5-10..........1/2 GB..........1/4 GB
3..............2-4...........1/4 GB..........0 GB
4..............0-1...........0 GB............0 GB

Class 1 Ships (Galleon, Roundship, Zebec)
Class 2 Ships (Caravel, Cog, Drakkar, Knarr)
Class 3 Ships (Coaster, Dhow, Longship)
Class 4 Ships (Riverboats, Keelboats, Fishing Boats, Barges, etc)

So using this system to calculate Bannier Andien's navy cost would go something like this. He has 4 Galleons and 6 Caravels, and half are active at any one time, so thats a maintenance cost of 3.5 GB for the active vessels and 1.75 for the inactive ones, or a total of 5.25 GB for his whole fleet. I had calculated 6 GB using the old system, so it is a little under, but that can be solved by increasing the values on the table above.

If you change it to the following.

Ship Class.....GB Cost.......Active..........In Port
1..............10+...........1 GB............3/4 GB
2..............5-10..........3/4 GB..........1/2 GB
3..............2-4...........1/2 GB..........1/4 GB
4..............0-1...........1/4 GB............0 GB


And using the same example the maintenance costs of Bannier Andien's fleet jumps to 7.25 GB which is higher. It is a little more difficult to work out that the first table I put above, but still easier than the original /12 or /24 method.

Just tossing some ideas out there, let me know what you think.

[Raesene Andu]

And for those who are interested, if you are to use the original method to calculate maintenance of a fleet of that size, then it works out at 6 GB as well. (Bannier's fleet can carry a total of 18 units of soldiers).

I would, however, prefer to base it either on the class of ship (as above) or one the ship's cost (as with the BRCS), rather than the number of units of soldiers a ship can carry.

[Athos69]

But if we were to use 1/10 and 1/20, it would be closer to the original values *and* be easier to calculate....

[Raesene Andu]

Lets have a looks.
2 active galleons (3 GB)
2 port galleons (1.5 GB)
3 active caravels (1.8 GB)
3 port caravels (0.9 GB)

Total = 7.20 GB

You still end up with an odd fraction, but it is very easy to calculate. And the total is out, as the original and BRCS were both 6 GB

If you were to say 1/10 & 1/20 and then round up, then I'd accept that, which would bring it 7.25 GB (the same as I worked out with my table above).

[Osprey]

I'm not certain I accept that ship maintenance needs to be higher than it is in the BRCS. There are some game-balancing factors that I thought were pretty well in-line as they were.

1. Ships are very expensive to build - consider that a caravel costs as much as a unit of knights, while a galleon is 2-1/2 times that. Naturally, maintenance costs anything like troops (1/2, 1/4 muster cost) would be ludicrous.

2. Ships have three main functions in BR: naval trade, transport, and combat. As trade vessels, they will automatically be Active units. Transports are active only when being used, and warships may or may not be active depending on whether they are used for patrol or coastal/port defense.

Trade ships earn money, but the active maintenance costs of the ships (plus any Marines on board, likely in pirate-infested waters) is the primary expense of running the route (not to mention the natural hazards of sea travel and the chance of losing ships). Higher maintenance will mean lower profits on sea trade routes - while land routes have no corresponding maintenance costs except for roads in rough terrain. This lacks balance.

Warships and transports shouldn't be as expensive as troops to maintain for one simple reason: they cannot be used to occupy, pillage, or invest territory. Which makes them zero-profit assets, with the possible exception of raiding enemy shipping (piracy/privateering). Which reminds me, we should definitely add some rules for running banditry and piracy as domain actions.

Most warships will be used to attack or protect sea trade and transport - which makes them an extra burden on any treasury. Also, most decent warships carry compliments of Marines, who are also active if the ship puts to sea. If you combine the costs of ships and marines when determining the price tag of a navy's maintenance, you'll see a dramatic increase using BRCS values.

This is difficult to explain, but do you get the point? For game balance alone, ships would do well to remain low in maintenance.

Beyond that, how much can we really argue for cost vs. maintenance based on realism? Who of us is really an expert on the costs of running a medieval or Renaissance sailing ship? The best we can do is project using logic and scraps of related knowledge.

I think the principal that ships are quite expensive to build but fairly cheap to operate makes a lot of sense. Irdeggman, I have to disagree when you talk of troops living off the land - as I understand history, that tends to happen mainly in wartime and occupation, not in garrison. Garrison troops need to be fed, clothed, housed, and paid - and 200 regular soldiers (incl. officers) are going to draw a much larger drain on the treasury than a comparable ship's crew.

I don't know how big we're talking, but I expect a caravel's crew might be what? 15-20 men at most? Oared ships are the big manpower-eaters, which is why slave rowers are so popular in our own colorful history of seafaring. They're cheaper, and they don't have to like their job to keep doing it... Food stores, too, wouldn't be tremendously more expensive than landlubbers' fare - just pretty lousy once the fresh supplies run out, and you're down to hardtack, saltpork, and jerky. While ships have a running cost in maintaining their seaworthiness, I can't imagine this would be a terribly expensive process (in domain terms) so long as the ships are reasonably well-built.

All in all, while ship maintenance is fractionally messy by the BRCS method, it was pretty well-balanced in my playtesting experience. If anything, I'd prefer we either leave it alone, or use a table that gives set active and garrisoned maintenance very close to the BRCS values.

Osprey

[Athos69]

Something else to consider when working on these values is the impact that they have on the Atlas. As Rasene has stated, we find that there are some realms that either have a negative or a positive income so close to 0 that they start the game with a disadvantage.

What further complicates this issue is that in my experience, a realm's navy *should* be at least 75% active at all times. While troops on garrison will activate to defens a province from invasion, it takes far less time to organize a unit of men to armour up and march to meet an invader than it does to collect a crew, ensure that fresh provisions are on board, see that the ship is shipshape and cast off. While it may only take a few hours to prep a shp for departure, those few hours will invariably result in the ship being caught in harbour and be a sitting duck.

So, in summary: Troops at rest = good. Ships at rest = dead.

We should be looking at a reduced maintenence cost for ships to reflect their limited capabilities.

[The Jew]

That assumes that the ships recieve no warning. I would think a few fast ships could serve as scouts to provide early warning of an attack. Also if the ships only need to be prepared for battle, rather than a long ocean voyage the prep time should be less.