Trade and Prosperity

[Urban fox]

I think the suggestions outlined are more than sufficient for guild holdings.

I mean if we start building up the holdings that aspect of the game may start to take precedence, because the other holding may need their own upgrades to balance things out.

[The Jew]

Originally posted by Urban fox@Dec 16 2004, 01:26 PM
I think the suggestions outlined are more than sufficient for guild holdings.

I mean if we start building up the holdings that aspect of the game may start to take precedence, because the other holding may need their own upgrades to balance things out.

But the balance comes from the reduction in guild holding income from 2/3 GB per level to 1/3GB per level. When you look at what guild holdings can do right now, aside from generate cash, it is petty compared to what the other holdings can do.

[Urban fox]

I dont know that espionage bonus could really come into it’s own if properly used, and the reduction in income isnt really hurtful beacause guild based realms would still make more money than any other holding type, only it'd have Bonus to the rule action which would in effect help generate/make even more money and cause greater loyalty too.

Then look at source holdingings, compared to that they have very little bonuses they'r good for the environment and can help cast magic and.....................err that’s about it really

[Osprey]

QUOTE (Raesene Andu @ Dec 16 2004, 11:04 AM)
The only problem with granting a +1 bonus to Rule Province PER trade route is that for large province this could mean a potential +6 bonus to that action (3 land routes, 3 sea routes).*


You have a different reading of the rules than I do Ian. I always thought that for every 3 levels of of a guild 1 sea or 1 land route could be supported, not 1 sea and 1 land route.

I have the same reading: the max. number of trade routes is for total number of routes. I have no recollection of anything (2e or BRCS) ever stating that the maximum # of TR's applied seperately to both land and sea routes. My rule was designed based on the assumption that there may be between 1 and 3 TR's per province (I allow 4 TR's in a 10/0 province IMC, but this only matters for Rule Province bonuses if province levels are allowed to go above level 10; also allows a +4 attitude bonus for a L10 province w/ 4 TR's, which seems OK to me).

I think the suggestions outlined are more than sufficient for guild holdings.

I'm not quite certain what you mean by this, Urban Fox. Do you mean my original suggestions are good the way they are, or do you believe they are better than they should be? Please clarify.

I mean if we start building up the holdings that aspect of the game may start to take precedence, because the other holding may need their own upgrades to balance things out.

I'm not looking so much to "upgrade" holding effects as I am in fleshing out mechanics for synergystic effects between different types of assets. Trade routes were the focus because they have the least interactive power, which seems lacking in terms of realism.

Jew:
Don't forget that most holding types (unlike trade routes) can support or oppose a wide range of domain actions within their province, and allow for the expenditure of RP by their regents. This is the standing interactive effect of all holding types, and it is a powerful one.

I wouldn't mess with the income levels too much. IMC guilders often have quite a few expenses. For one thing, landed regents usually (unless they are very weak) expect them to pay tribute based on the profits they make within their borders. Plus, I (as a DM) decided that they are often expected to finance the construction and maintenance of any trade-related assets like roads, bridges, and seaports. Sometimes this is added to the base tribute or it can be tacked on as an additional form of tribute (when the landed regent controls the asset in question). In other cases the guild regent actually controls the asset with the understanding that the landed regent will utilize the roads, bridges, etc. for military and personal use.

Beyond these (often significant) expenses, expansion into new areas, esp. frontier regions, can be quite expensive. Not only are roads etc. very expensive in under-developed and rough terrain areas, but the threat of raiding means new holdings must be fortified and guarded - and we all know how expensive troops are to maintain. Likewise, sea trade routes can also become quite expensive in areas where piracy and privateering is a threat; more capable ships and marine contingents really cut into the profitability of a naval trade route.

All in all, there are plenty of ways for a good DM to keep guild profits at relatively reasonable levels; the exception are the truly powerful guildmasters who dominate weak landed regents, such as Mheallie Bireon, or who are landed themselves, such as Guilder Khalien. But that's why they make for such excellent villains.

As far as espionage goes, I currently use several mechanisms to handle this:
1. Spy Networks not only grant a +2 bonus to Espionage actions, but allow that action to be done as a COurt Action. IMC, if the Esp. action is performed by a the regent or their Lt., then RP and extra GB may be spent to ensure success.
2. Even a Level 0 guild holding is sufficient to allow RP to be spent to support (or oppose a known) espionage action.
3. I allow Hidden Holdings in my BRCS campaign. By adding +20 to the DC of the action, regents may essentially combine an Espionage and Create, Rule, or Contest Holding action to make it secret. This is very powerful (hence the whopping +20 DC), as it cannot be opposed by other regents if no one knows it's going on. I encourage the PC's to spend even more RP and GB by making the excess success number (i.e., how much the check result exceeds the action's DC) a penalty that applies to any future espionage checks made to uncover the organization.
So for example, say my PC guilder from Ilien wants to establish a secret level 0 guild in Tier (Ghoere). The base DC is 10 to Create Holding, and another +20 to make it secret (so DC 30). IMC, any law and guild holdings automatically oppose such an action, AND the presence of enemy Spy Networks will each add an additional +2 tot he DC. So let's say Tier is a 6/0 province, with 6 levels of guilds between GK and GH, and Gavin Tael has a Law(6) holding. Also, Guilder Khalien has a spy network here on his border. So that's a total of +14, making the final DC for the action 44. Whew! This won't be cheap...RP and GB will flow like water to ensure success.
But is it worth it? Absolutely, if you're a strong guild regent. Do this in a few different provinces within the same realm, slowly building up a network of secret guild holdings. Then one day, out of nowhere...perform a Contest realm action, hitting enemy guild holdings and/or trade routes in several provinces in a single month. If you're wealthy/powerful enough, you can maintain your holdings' secret identity by adding +20 to the Contest DC's in each province - the targeted regents and their allies can still spend RP to oppose the action, of course, but all they will know is that someone is Contesting them...they must perform a successful Espionage action, wagering enough RP and GB to beat the invisible DC and discover the secret holdings and their regent.
This tactic was used to devestating effect by a secret coalition of guilders in my campaign. Three allied guilders built secret guilds in every single province where Ghorien Hiriele had a guild over a year's time, several of them overlapping (w/ 2 secret guilds in the big areas like Gheiste and Tier). Then they made plans, and starting one spring they delayed their domain initiatives and WHAM! Contest, contest, contest...for 3 consecutive months they did nothing but contest GH's guilds again and again and again...by the end of spring, one of Anuire's most powerful guilders was reduced to a single level 2 guild holding - and they didn't even know who was responsible! (not at first, anyways - the following season Gavin Tael poured his RP into discovering the culprit, and a single hidden guild was uncovered).

OK, so all of that was a bit off-topic re. espionage, but hidden guilds are quite useful for secretly countering enemy guilds in provinces where you are performing espionage. If you manage to rule them up and maintain their secrecy, they can also lend bonuses.

3. I have also designed 2 Wondrous Structures, the Rogues' Guild and the Bardic College, that can provide some hefty bonuses to Espionage in different ways, especially if built up to sufficient levels. If curious, you can check out the details at my website: The Southern Alliance Some of these bonuses apply "anywhere the regent has a guild holding of level X or higher", allowing for yet another use of secret holdings.

So there's some ideas for you if you want to allow a few ways for guilders to get an additional advantage in espionage.

Now there are some real examples of added complexity...which is why I never pushed much for them to be included in the core BRCS revision. There are levels, and there are levels...

Osprey

[Osprey]

Then look at source holdingings, compared to that they have very little bonuses they'r good for the environment and can help cast magic and.....................err that’s about it really

Unless they're high level sources (4+), in which case they also have a virtual guild (VG) rating according to the BRCS. Which was a tremendously cool addition IMO. This doesn't apply to too many source holdings as laid out in Ruins of Empire, but it does encourage source regents to fight hard to consolidate source monopolies in high-potential provinces, such as in the Erebannien or Five Peaks. The PC regent wizard IMC, who is Aelies' son and successor, has gained complete control of the Erebannien's sources - which gives hime level 2 VG's in each of his source(6) provinces...with 5 such provinces, that's 10 levels of guilds generating a base 6-2/3 GB per season. Not too shabby for a wizard, who truly does have little to no seasonal GB maintenance.

And those virtual guilds can do everything normal guilds can do, even act as one end of a trade route! IMC, they supply rare and exotic natural materials, such as gems, rare woods and earths, and unusual spell components. They also act as a constant source of information, so that source regents with at least level 4 sources are much more aware of what goes on in those provinces in general. This has the advantage of allowing strong source regents to be much more connected to the outside world, at least where their control of the mebhaighal is strong.

I dont know that espionage bonus could really come into it’s own if properly used

Agreed, which is why I require hyper-expensive investments like wondrous structures (costing 25GB per level to build, and 2GB per level in seasonal maintenance&#33 to allow such bonuses. WAY more expensive than a simple guild holding of comparable level.

Osprey

[Urban fox]

I'm not quite certain what you mean by this, Urban Fox. Do you mean my original suggestions are good the way they are, or do you believe they are better than they should be? Please clarify.

Oooops, sorry to clarify my statements I think they are better than they should be, but if you use the restrictions you outlined in your last post then it may balance out more.

However some of those restrictions would also affect other holding such the difficulty of setting up on the frontier and bandits etc. The only holding type that I think would have some immunity to that is source, It relays on wild untamed land and bandits are unlikely to raid source holdings unless they’ve taken to stealing trees or get paid to do it. :lol:


And you did say landed Regents with guilds would be much more powerful, I shudder to think about the prospect my 8 provinces realm being brought down by a 1 provinces realm with a few guilds, *mutters* Damn Ender guilds i'd send my armys to deal with them, if it wasnt for those damn Alams/Avans/Borunes/Bandedts/Elfs ARG. :wacko:

[Osprey]

And you did say landed Regents with guilds would be much more powerful, I shudder to think about the prospect my 8 provinces realm being brought down by a 1 provinces realm with a few guilds, *mutters* Damn Ender guilds i'd send my armys to deal with them, if it wasnt for those damn Alams/Avans/Borunes/Bandedts/Elfs ARG.*

Yes...things do get interesting in areas where the guilds are hostile tot he landed regent, don't they? If trade routes add to a landed regent's Rule Province and attitude checks, it puts the hostile guilder in a sticky spot: if he creates trade routes, he makes far more money than from local commerce alone, but he also strengthens the landed regent, whom he doesn't really like or support. Heh, puts Kalien in a dilemma in many places, doesn't it? Also puts him in a "I could help" position, which strengthens his "power through diplomacy" strategy outlined in RoE.

This is exactly the sort of interdependent dynmaic I wanted to create with this rule: trade is good for most everyone involved, even if untaxed (a policy certain landed regents like Gavin Tael maintain with no discernible, direct benefit according to the original domain rules).

[Urban fox]

Originally posted by Osprey@Dec 16 2004, 08:15 PM

And you did say landed Regents with guilds would be much more powerful, I shudder to think about the prospect my 8 provinces realm being brought down by a 1 provinces realm with a few guilds, *mutters* Damn Ender guilds i'd send my armys to deal with them, if it wasnt for those damn Alams/Avans/Borunes/Bandedts/Elfs ARG.*

Yes...things do get interesting in areas where the guilds are hostile tot he landed regent, don't they? If trade routes add to a landed regent's Rule Province and attitude checks, it puts the hostile guilder in a sticky spot: if he creates trade routes, he makes far more money than from local commerce alone, but he also strengthens the landed regent, whom he doesn't really like or support. Heh, puts Kalien in a dilemma in many places, doesn't it? Also puts him in a "I could help" position, which strengthens his "power through diplomacy" strategy outlined in RoE.

This is exactly the sort of interdependent dynmaic I wanted to create with this rule: trade is good for most everyone involved, even if untaxed (a policy certain landed regents like Gavin Tael maintain with no discernible, direct benefit according to the original domain rules).

Yes Disagreement involeing Guild holdings can be very intresting but sometimes they can be just downright Strange I remember speculating on a game in progress. A non-landed but very rich/powerful guild regent had a disagreement with a landed regent of fairly sizeable realm and started disrupting the guilds holdings and trade routes the guild leaders response was basically to declare war. Unlikely yes? And landed regent dismissed the threat, but the guild was VERY rich, so it soon had a huge army of mercs under its banner invaded and seized 3 provinces. So unlanded guild regent became a landed guild regent.


That aside if the benefits of these new guild changes can work both ways, then I have no objection to then I assumed all the benefits of trade would go mostly to the guild owner.


So you've pretty much won me over to the idea *mutters* but I still think source is hard done by.

[The Jew]

Interesting peculiary of this rule is that for source regents who get virtual guilds and then create trade routes, it would become easier for the landed regent to then rule up the province, thereby threatening the source.

[irdeggman]

Actualy Ian is right and wrong on the number of trade routes a guild can have.

In 2nd ed:
Cities in the Sun pgs 70+ Sea trade Routes. “A port can support as many sea trade routes as land trade routes; so a coastal province (7) can support three land trade routes and three sea trade routes.”

While the BRCS:
BRCS-playtest pg 92 under trade routes “There are two types of trade routes: overland trade routes and sea trade routes. Both type of trade routes are considered equivalent for the purposes of determining the maximum of trade routes per holding. For example consider a sea trade route forged between a guild (6) in Illien (forest) and a guild (3) in AERELE (plains). The guild (3) is involved in one trade route (its maximum) and cannot be involved in any new trade routes. The guild (6) has one free trade route remaining (it has a maximum of two); this additional trade route can be either an overland trade route or a sea trade route.”


As I recall this disparity came up when we were putting this together and the reduced number of trade routes was resolved based on the fact in 2nd ed a guilder could swiftly generate a tremendous amount of GB due to trade routes. The logic of a maximum based upon goods was used to rationalize this new limit. Combine this with the reduction in maintenance costs (for holdings) in the BRCS and the GB generated was closer to the original amount. Plus the booking was made simpiler.

If we are seriously looking at increasing the benefits of trade routes (and complexity) here is something to consider - troop maintenance. If there is a trade route connecting the home province and the troop ase then the maintenance of troops could very easily be reduced since supplies can be used or accompany the trade goods.