In a message dated 1/28/99 11:54:16 PM Central Standard Time,
jingram@pacifier.com writes:

> So, if I have a G(2) in Caercas (5) and a G(1) in Abbatuor (2), the income
> from my trade route is 2 + 1 / 2 = 1.5 rounded to 2GB rather than 5 + 2 / 2
> = 3.5 rounded to 4GB.
>
> To be even sterner, round numbers down instead of up. And keep in mind that
> any regent worth his salt will claim around 50% of income from trade routes
> running through his territory, so the guild makes at best 1GB under this
> formula.
>
This is too hard on non-guilders who own TRs. I typically set up many
provincial NPC regents with a few level 0 guilds and set up some trade routes.
ProvinceThis allows them to easily compete with guilders (they now control
the land, the military, AND trade routes). For instance, the Baroness of
Roesone may have a couple level 0 holdings herself for the purpose of
maintaining her own trade routes. She then makes a decree: "Her Royal Guild
will not expand. But! any action taken against her guild will be regarded as
act of war against Roesone and will be treated as such." Or something similar.

Once one regent makes a bold sweeping statement like this (and it *is*
respected by other guilds who are not ready to face down a regent early in the
game), many other provincial regents follow suit, quickly realizing that if
they want to stay in power, they had better darn well get an income.

Also note that most trade routes in the north should *not* be functional at
least in the winter months--no income, no regency. This slows down the
guilder of Brechtur a little at least.

- -DKE