Results 21 to 30 of 43
Thread: Trade and Prosperity
-
12-16-2004, 11:22 PM #21I 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).
A port can support as many sea trade routes as land trade routes, so a coastal province (7) can support three land and three sea trade routes.
It seems this was missed when creating the BRCS, as what was included on maximum number of trade route if effectively cut and pasted from original Birthright Rulebook, it ignored the other texts.Let me claim your Birthright!!
-
12-17-2004, 12:12 PM #22
- Join Date
- Oct 2004
- Posts
- 125
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
So a sea province can hold twice as many trade routes as an inland province? That instantly makes the guilders that has a focus in sea provinces potentially much richer. The major example here is El-Haddy. 7 levels of guilds in Ilien. 2 2/3 GB. 3 land trade routes is 10 1/2 GB and 3 sea routes is 10 1/2 GB. So Ilien is worth almost twice as much as before. I don't want to think about how rich Mieres or Brosengae could become too, by being coastal provinces, compared to the inland province of Endier.
-
12-17-2004, 05:08 PM #23
- Join Date
- Oct 2003
- Location
- california
- Posts
- 317
- Downloads
- 2
- Uploads
- 0
Originally posted by Osprey
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. wink.gif
What I am suggesting is that guilders recieve less money, but more interesting benefits, like other regents get. Source and temples get realm spells, while law gets to have influence on everyone else and is the best at raising soldiers. Strengthening trade routes and the ability of guilds to use espionage would be the two that immediately come to mind. More trade routes, and better ones, means that diplomacy becomes more tricky since often this requires multiple realms to participate and war becomes so costly due to disruption of said trade routes. Osprey has put forth some wonderful ideas which I think most people agree with, but I would like to go further in that direction.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.
-
12-17-2004, 05:30 PM #24
At 01:12 PM 12/17/2004 +0100, Angelbialaska wrote:
>So a sea province can hold twice as many trade routes as an inland
>province? That instantly makes the guilders that has a focus in sea
>provinces potentially much richer. The major example here is El-Haddy. 7
>levels of guilds in Ilien. 2 2/3 GB. 3 land trade routes is 10 1/2 GB and
>3 sea routes is 10 1/2 GB. So Ilien is worth almost twice as much as
>before. I don`t want to think about how rich Mieres or Brosengae could
>become too, by being coastal provinces, compared to the inland province of
>Endier.
A lot of people house ruled that inland provinces got "sea trade routes" if
they are on a river as is Endier or that people could at least use rivers
in lieu of roads to establish trade routes. Historically and thematically
this makes sense because it corresponds to the fact that most larger trade
centers are coastal or located upon natural waterways, and it increases the
value of those provinces appropriately.
Gary
-
12-17-2004, 07:15 PM #25
- Join Date
- Oct 2004
- Posts
- 125
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
What I am suggesting is that guilders recieve less money, but more interesting benefits, like other regents get. Source and temples get realm spells, while law gets to have influence on everyone else and is the best at raising soldiers. Strengthening trade routes and the ability of guilds to use espionage would be the two that immediately come to mind. More trade routes, and better ones, means that diplomacy becomes more tricky since often this requires multiple realms to participate and war becomes so costly due to disruption of said trade routes. Osprey has put forth some wonderful ideas which I think most people agree with, but I would like to go further in that direction.
Landed regents/Law holders can destroy holdings as easily as anything and in addition to this, they claim taxes. Temple holders can cast clerical realm spells and get some donations. Guilders get money and can create trade routes. The trade routes is the advantage of the guilders, but I can't see the reason why to punish them because of this.
As for Sources, then they have some advantages too. You don't need to civilize an area to build them (in fact the opposite is true), your sources can't be destroyed by ordinary means, only by another wizard or a successful rule province. And they have realm spells too.
I like the idea of allowing trade routes to give advantages to realm rulers, other than they can tax them. A +1 to loyalty for each trade route would be nice. However to regulate it so that the provinces with both types of routes aren't too advantaged, there could simply be a maximum gained, depending of the size of the province.
-
12-17-2004, 07:50 PM #26
- Join Date
- Apr 2002
- Location
- BR mailing list
- Posts
- 1,538
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
> This is my point though. Their are plenty of ways
> to keep guild incomes at a reasonable level. But
> then what do guilders have? They get almost no
> other special benefits. All holdings (except
> sources) get certain base benefits. Lets exclude
> those for this discussion since everyone is equal.
> Guilders get money, and the means (trade routes) to
> make more money. That is their power.
Maybe, what we need then, is more possible ways to
invest money so that guilders have something cool to
do with their wealth. Other than hiring a HUGE army
of mercenaries, there isn`t much for a guilder to do
with his wealth other than distributing it to other
regents and being a pawn in their greater schemes
(albeit, a highly mischievious and ambitious pawn...)
Perhaps we need to think of other types of assetts for
nonlanded guilders to buy. Similiar to how priests
and wizards might want to collect realm spells and a
law/land regent might collect troops, maybe the
guilder needs some option of something to collect...
something fun for the player to choose and strategize
with, not just a numeric value that goes up and down.
Trade routes, maybe? Could we make different types of
trade routes have different types of effects, and a
description to written up for each type of trade
route? Any other ideas?
=====
While I wrought out these fitful Danaan rhymes,
My heart would brim with dreams about the times
When we bent down above the fading coals
And talked of the dark folk who live in souls
Of passionate men, like bats in the dead trees;
And of the wayward twilight companies
Who sigh with mingled sorrow and content,
Because their blossoming dreams have never bent
Under the fruit of evil and of good:
And of the embattled flaming multitude
Who rise, wing above wing, flame above flame,
And, like a storm, cry the Ineffable Name,
And with the clashing of their sword-blades make
A rapturous music, till the morning break
And the white hush end all but the loud beat
Of their long wings, the flash of their white feet.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do?
http://my.yahoo.comNOTE: Messages posted by Birthright-L are automatically inserted posts originating from the mailing list linked to the forum.
-
12-17-2004, 08:10 PM #27
- Join Date
- Oct 2004
- Posts
- 125
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
Other than hiring a HUGE army of mercenaries, there isn`t much for a guilder to do with his wealth other than distributing it to other regents and being a pawn in their greater schemes (albeit, a highly mischievious and ambitious pawn...)
-
12-17-2004, 10:27 PM #28
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- Virginia Beach, Virginia
- Posts
- 3,945
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
Many people have pointed out that Ilien was cash poor and couldn't afford the maintenance on what it had - both in the orginal material and the BRCS. Allowing more trade routes (i.e., as many sea as land) alleviated that problem by allowing a greater influx of cash to the otherwise cash stripped realm.
Guilders, being the bankers they were had more power than can really be imagined (well maybe not to those of us with grandeous imaginations). They (in 2nd ed) typically controlled the finances that the realm regent needed to support his army while having realitvely low maintenance possesion - typically no armies and only trade routes, roads, ships (often 'rented' to the realm regent for troop movement) and guilds.
IMO in 2nd ed the most powerful regents were guilders and priests (in that order). Both received a bonus domain action, both had minimal maintenance costs and both could have tremendous influence over the realm regent. The guilder controlled the money while the priest controlled the attitude of the people.
The point in 3.5 is to somehow ensure that all regents are on as level a playing field as possible - that is to not give any one an inherent bonus. So if a regent is oriented towards generating cash (i.e., guilder) then there should be something that he isn't as good at and is used as a drain on is assets.
When I pointed out that the BRCS didn't have the "as many sea trade routes as land trade routes" like the 2nd ed rules did I didn't mean I "agreed" with the decision, only what I recalled going into it. Personally I think we should attempt to capture as much of the 2nd ed rules as possible and this is most likely a case we can, if we keep an eye on ensuring that all regents are mostly balanced in power.Duane Eggert
-
12-18-2004, 12:10 AM #29
- Join Date
- Apr 2002
- Location
- BR mailing list
- Posts
- 1,538
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
> Isn`t that enough? I`m finding guilders to be one of
> the best groups to be friends with. The money they
> can either fund you or others, or the mercenary army
> they can raise should it be needed, is more than
> enough. The guilder gives 50GB to the landed regent
> they support and then the landed regent owes them
> big time. In addition to this, guilders are also the
> perfect explorers and/or settlers. They have the
> financial backing for such projects and the
> possibility of finding new resources or markets is
> worth a lot.
The possibility of "finding new resources or markets"?
What`s that mean in game terms? A rule action? You
don`t DO anything.
And giving them more actions doesn`t mean they lose
their role as bankers and supporters and such. I`m
simply suggesting, they should have some alternative
to "I give this guy money. I give that guy money. I
save the rest."
It`s a perfectly valid playing style, and very fun.
But a lot of people seem to be dissatisfied that the
rules put the player into this cookie-cutter role
simply because their isn`t really anything else to do.
There`s an asset associated with every other type of
regent, but not for the guilder. I`m simply
suggesting some players might have some more fun with
the guilder player if there was something to collect
and build, like for all the other regents, instead of
just a numeric value that goes up and down (which all
the other players have, too). The primary strength in
the guilder right now is in their supporting role.
Ships do kind of help this a little if you`re using
sea trade routes, but I`ve never really used ships too
much in my games.
=====
While I wrought out these fitful Danaan rhymes,
My heart would brim with dreams about the times
When we bent down above the fading coals
And talked of the dark folk who live in souls
Of passionate men, like bats in the dead trees;
And of the wayward twilight companies
Who sigh with mingled sorrow and content,
Because their blossoming dreams have never bent
Under the fruit of evil and of good:
And of the embattled flaming multitude
Who rise, wing above wing, flame above flame,
And, like a storm, cry the Ineffable Name,
And with the clashing of their sword-blades make
A rapturous music, till the morning break
And the white hush end all but the loud beat
Of their long wings, the flash of their white feet.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Send holiday email and support a worthy cause. Do good.
http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.comNOTE: Messages posted by Birthright-L are automatically inserted posts originating from the mailing list linked to the forum.
-
12-18-2004, 01:50 AM #30
There are things that guilders who have a large stockpile of wealth can
spend that money on if one takes a look at the bigger picture.
Traditionally the thing those with control over large economic resources do
is buy their way into the aristocracy, buying or otherwise controlling
estates, purchasing titles, establishing alliances by marriage to older
houses of the nobility, etc. They finance the military by loaning monarchs
large sums of money at relatively high interest rates which must be then
either paid for later with taxation upon the citizenry or "forgiven" in
exchange for the trappings of nobility.
In BR, this is a little hard to adjudicate since the only really obvious
method of getting hold of provinces is through war. In the long run, one
has to keep this kind of transition in mind as GM in order to portray it in
the game, and one has to recognize both the means and the ends as being
possible. That is, the DM has to acknowledge the overall goal of a guilder
if he means to become a "true" noble in this way.
That said, there are the more standard uses of wealth: luxury, opulence and
possession of material goods that are rare or otherwise
collectable. Guilders might build palaces to show off their wealth. In
fact, such a thing might be used game mechanically by connecting it up with
their ability to make trade agreements with other realms or to do things
like bypass the rules established by their local sovereigns.
Gary
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks