Trade and Prosperity

[Osprey]

First off: I think the BRCS made the right decision in creating a flat limit to trade routes, though I think (following the 1 per 1-3 province levels progression) that 4 trade routes should be allowed in a Level 10 province - the same as the maximum number of regents per holding type (L1-3: 1; L4-6: 2; L7-9: 3; L10: 4).

The main effect, of course, is that in 551 the Imperial City could have 4 trade routes. Which I think it should.

However, being able to "double up" with trade routes can make trade income even more ludicrous...not only is it not necessary, it's really overkill.

As for things for guilders to do...build Wonders! Talk your DM's into it! They're expensive, they're cool...everybody happy, ja?

In my experience, the power of having the most wealth is neither slight nor uninteresting. Quite the opposite: those with the wealth are very often the power behind the throne. "He who controls the king's purse strings...controls the king." Medieval kings had constant issues with their money running out (war being the incredible expense that it is); and who did they turn to? The guilds, of course. When the king needs money, and he's willing to actually ask for a loan, this speaks volumes about the real power of the guilds; and once the king is indebted to them, there's all sorts of pressure the guilder can place upon the king: Favors like "My neice has just come of age. Perhaps she might find patronage as a lady at court?" [insert spy into royal court].

All in all, the power of wealth is significant, because it can be used to create influence, which can extend a guilder's power to almost anywhere. Which then requires a creative player and/or DM to exploit. The only thing I think is lacking is things to spend money on, which was why I created all those wonders in the first place.

Geeman made some great points about uses for wealth. And I think the last one concerning palaces and the guilder's role as expert diplomat shouldn't be underestimated either. If the guilder becomes chief diplomat, this is yet another power placed in his hands, because it requires he be entrusted to speak in another regent's name.

So that's three potentially very powerful roles for a guilder to play: financier, spymaster, and diplomat. If he tries to play all three, do you think he'll really have enough time left over to do anything else?

[Angelbialaska]

I'm playing Brosengae in a PBEM game. And there it's obvious that my main advantage is the abilities of a guilder. I get enough gold from the taxes to sustain the court and only little of the army. The guild holdings however add a lot of gold to the treasury. My guess is that the income=upkeep is very true for most landed realms. Not much gold to fool around with. But the guilder has the cash and if they lend or donate some, they expect something in return. This makes the guilder incredibly powerful and possibly also the most social character. You want to stop a realm? Talk to the guilders and get them to stop their donation. It's rather easy to make it look like it has been a bad year with no income, so no taxes can be paid.

If you want to give the guilders more power, then create some strike action. The guilders, artisans and all the workers go on a strike for some reason. There's no money to be law claimed from the guilds, only the temples and since there's no earning, there can't be taxed. The guilds of course wouldn't give any income either. Gives the guilder a bit more power, similar to the realm spells that a temple can use, such as Interdiction and Blight Province.

[Justinius_ExMortis]

Hi everyone, I'm a Guilder. My before expenses income after ten years in game play, forging an Alliance of nations to defeat the Gorgon and reclaim the empire, and surviving not one, not two, not even three but five seperate disembowlements is upwards of 400 GB. My after expenses and tithes income is more like 180 GB. Though these numbers may sound big to some of you keep in mind something very important. over 50% of my income is spent on expenses and tithes to Landed Regents. Also understand that my character is a dedicated regent. Until very recently his skills and feats centered around building his mercantile empire and producing as many money making ventures as possible. I can honestly say that over six years of in game time and almost fifteen levels of character were used in the forging my trade and holdings empire. I maintain over a 100GB's worth of Wonders, A standing army of over a dozen 7GB minimum units with a few in the 10+ range. I also maintain a network of highways through southern Anuire, a large fleet of several galleons and almost a dozen caravels and cogs. An opulent palace, expansive court, and hefty province wide fortifications in my one province that I have attained in my time. My character splits his time between diplomatic missions, manipulating public opinion, espionage on several fronts, expanding his mercantile holdings, maintaing the cohesion of the alliance through support and intermediary roles, as well as find time for his wife and three young heirs.

Anyone else feel that Guilders don't have enough to do? To be quite honest if you're a guilder or a GM with a guilder and there's complaints about nothing to do then someone is selling themselves short or seriously lacking in the imagination department. In many ways Guilders have far more on their plates given any level of ambitious play then any of the other Regents. Landed regents merely conquer each other and rule provinces attempting to maintain their bloodline, Temple holders minister to the masses and occasionally cast a realm spell or go to war. Source regents sit at home and play with pretty lights and sounds. In the end, due to class skills, time, money, and impetus, a guild regent can and should be the most politically and financially active of all the regents and can interact with and play on the same field as any other regent in Anuire.

Behind my guilders gilded smile is more political muscle and ability to change sovereignty than perhaps any other Regent in Anuire.

Guilders Unite!
Justinius ExMortis

"He who controls the spice, controls the Universe!" -Assorted, Dune

[Angelbialaska]

Behind my guilders gilded smile is more political muscle and ability to change sovereignty than perhaps any other Regent in Anuire.

400 GB? 180 GB? No doubt that you have sovereinity over any other Regent in Anuire. 180GB is about twice as much than Avan, Boeruine and Ghoere generate per round, even with massive tributes from vassals and others. A quick estimate gets me to the Gorgon having an income of around 100 GB, also with money from all of his vassals. So yes, with 400GB one can definitely destroy any realm with a single word.

[Osprey]

He forgot to mention that this is in 562 MR, and he is an epic-level character with several epic-level allied regents running epic realms... <_<

The Gorgon makes alot more than that IMC...

Things have progressed in the 12 years or so of campaign time, including the PCs&#39; surviving rivals and enemies. Competition has a way of doing that.

[hazard]

Even in our time every company (guild) gives about ½ of its profit to the state. Every transaction that is made you must pay same tax. So for me it is not strange that land regent asks at least 1/3 of profit .Why should he let guilder to get rich on his land if he doesn’t have something in return? He can always take same troops and destroy or confiscate guild. After all nothing is stopping him from running his one guild or letting same new guilder to step in.
Also being a non-land regent is benefit for guilder because if you have some land every regent in Cerilia will look at you not as an honest merchant how wont to make some profit but as an threat to his domain. One more thing I think that guilds often contest each other.
All in all guild is very important financial backup for any domain. Regent and at least one more guilder is on your tail. It is important that PC get that impression.
Guilders have lot of thing to spend his money on:
-Law claim
-Vassalage to lend regent
-Influencing court (Guilder must have few nobles on court to defend him before the King)
-Espionage and defending from espionage
-Intrigue
Guilder in not someone who sits in his palace and wait for the gold. He must always have a secret war with his enemies and that cost a lot&#33;

[Demonizer]

The illusion that trade always benefits both sides does nothing more than simplify the campaign world. It brings in few opportunities to tinker with the game mechanics or engage in solid RP, while diminishing the simulation aspect of the game. Let&#39;s face it: when unregulated with the proper laws and ethics, trade more often leads into disaster than prosperity. You need only look at the short-term, successful policies employed in modern times to realize this. Factory farming, for instance, can bring in enormous profits at the expense of food quality, which slowly results in the workforce losing its strength, unemployment soaring and disease increasing; armies find it difficult to recruit sturdy soldiers, which makes the monsters more daring in their raids, and so on. The vicious consequences of eating nutrient-free food have been observed in animals (Pottenger&#39;s cats come to mind) as well as humans (quite a number of diseases are, in fact, deficiencies), and can have far-reaching consequences the likes of increasing sterility. Generally, they destroy the economy in the long term, but start out by improving trade. This is one example of the slow, nearly imperceptible and poorly-documented consequences of bad business practices. I don&#39;t see them being represented in Birthright&#39;s handbook; but then, other long-term effects (such as the spread of ideologies and scientific research) have no relevance if one clings strictly to the standard rules.

Then there are more obvious, more rapid consequences of trade that should be considered. Suppose a foreign company captures all mines within the realm, supplies the miners with tools purchased from abroad and imports the ore gathered here to manufacture weapons. Some people would call this "trade", especially if miners and the like were paid for it. The king might even receive a few taxes out of it. Let&#39;s suppose that, at some point, the kingdom also needed weapons. Tough... With all its resources around, it still has to buy them from foreigners, who might decide to withhold them and arm themselves instead. Later on, the foreign company that controls ore production might raise its own army at a low cost, since outfitting it wouldn&#39;t be a problem, and take over the ore-rich country for some reason or another. Here, "trade" means the loss of indepence, as well as (initially) an isolation from one&#39;s own natural resources.

A few more examples of trade being harmful:
I trade my country&#39;s narcotics (wine) for your country&#39;s raw materials (timber). My puritanical population won&#39;t mind. Your rowdy population, however, will get washed down in liquor to feed my country&#39;s construction projects. Hurray&#33; You might argue that this makes your people more happy; in truth, they make your people dependent to mine, and worse off when it comes to fighting (as it happened to the gauls, historically. You might also enjoy learning that the first dacian king, Burebista, made the brave and wise decision of destroying his country&#39;s vineyards, thereby making his own people more prepared for warfare).

Same thing goes for trading anything that hampers the economy in subtle or obvious ways.

With a huge inheritance consisting mainly of gold bars, a manufacturer moves into a new country and sets up workshops all over the place. He sets his prices very low, driving out the rest of the producers and creating unemployment. This is a fairly common strategy in the real world, by the way. Taking advantage of the collapsed market, he lowers salaries to his own workers, and is able to make up for his losses. He also boosts the price as much as he can get away with. Then, seeing as how few folks in this new country can afford his products (partly because of the unemployment and all), he exports most of the stuff back to his homeland and sells it an obscene price. There&#39;s definitely some prosperity to be had, but certainly not on the part of the new country.

Some entrepreneuring bastards get their hands on my village&#39;s farmlands, in which they clear away all the low-profit wheat and plant glittering-silk-flowers for noblemen to buy. They do this with all the country&#39;s villages, until there&#39;s little real agriculture left to speak of; everyone working on the silk-trees gets 500 a year in salary, 2/3rds more than they used to get when selling their own crops; they thus become the richest in the village, epitomes of the prosperity that comes with trade. The bastards, of course, make piles of money. Several years later, a famine comes upon the land, requiring people to import wheat from the very same bastards who bought all the fields. Suppose they&#39;d like to weaken the local economy, take out the cobblers and such. They agree to inflate food prices, so that it takes each person 1,000 coins to survive over the year, and many of the poorer die because of this. What&#39;s left is a bundle of silk-flower-pickers, now entirely dependent on their employers, who will soon find their payment of coins turned into boots and bread. So much for prosperity.

Then there&#39;s the classical example: A village of jewellers sits in the desert, next to a village of gem-diggers. A merchant comes along, buys up the gemstones from the gem-diggers at the same price the jewellers would have bought them, then declares that the jewellers can either work for him or starve. The villagers comply, and end up making less than they used to, while the merchant (who does nothing for the economy) gets rich at their expense. This is supposedly an anectode from real life, between a village of Iranians and a jew. While I can&#39;t vouch for the accuracy of these facts, the story itself does seem probable, and must have happened many times since the invention of true currency.

Now that it&#39;s been said, let me show you an interesting model for managing trade in birthright. It introduces one new concept: resources, which can be moved around like armies. Every province contains four specific "resource slots", which can very well be occupied by the same resource. The order of these resource slots is crucial, as it determines how quickly the province stands to lose them: the first resource disappears when the province is ruled up to level 10; the second resource, when it&#39;s ruled up to level 7; the 3rd resource, by level 4; the final resource always stays available for trade. Development is discouraged in some provinces because of this, while other provinces (which contain more than one trade route) would help spread resources around. Once collected, a resource may only be placed in a province that&#39;s connected via trade routes to the province of extraction (the resource&#39;s "native province", so to speak). There&#39;s more than one way to apply this rule. Three variations follow:
-a resource may be deployed in any province that contains trade routes leading directly or indirectly to the resource itself. Provinces in which more than one trade route is passing are considered to contain all these trade routes, so if (for instance) there&#39;s no guild in endier, but three trade routes are passing through it, then these trade routes are considered "connected" via endier and resources may pass from one trade route to the others.
-Only provinces which contain the endpoint of one trade route and any portion of another ar considered "junctions" for the purpose of determining where a resource can be deployed. In this case, the three trade routes passing through Endier are not considered connected; if Endier starts a trade route into Spiderfell, however, any resource from either of the three trade routes may also go into Spiderfell, and any resource native to spiderfell may go into the domains of the three trade routes. Even so, the three trade routes are still not considered connected.
-Only provinces that contain the endpoints of two or more trade routes are considered "junctions". Resources may still be deployed anywhere along these trade routes.

Resource slots don&#39;t indicate the mere presence of materials, but rather, the outstanding quality of these materials - while many provinces might grow wheat around Anuire, the presence of "grain" in a resource slot indicates farmland specifically suited for grain plants. To simplify things, mountain regions could all contain the same four resources, forests would all be stuffed with the same type of wood, etc... But this would dumb the game down, so I won&#39;t even consider it. Instead, the "generic goods" shipped via trade routes aren&#39;t considered to be rare or prominent resources, but artefacts, processed materials and even services. After all, trade routes depend on the level of guilds, which indicate the development of crafts and such, not necessarily resource extraction.

Claiming resources: this is the tricky part. If more developed provinces lose out on their resources whenever the regent "rules" them to a certain level, they should normally be getting more than enough perks to compensate. The extra gold they can derive from law and guild holdings, as well as benefits such as a higher mustering capacity, ought to make it an advantage to possess high-level provinces, but also give players incentives to keep their neighbours undeveloped. Planting guilds into a vassal&#39;s lower-level provinces and sucking out the resources within can give a regent&#39;s prosperous domain a major boost, while at the same time hindering the poor vassal himself.

One problem complicates things, though. You can&#39;t base who controls a resource on guild levels, period. Higher guild levels can only be obtained in higher-level provinces, which (as per the basic rules I&#39;m making up), cannot support more than a small handful of resources. Instead, you might treat "caputred" resources as separate level-zero holdings, which regents can contest and build as normal. Destroying a "resource holding" simply frees it up for other leaders to take over. You might introduce the rule that every "captured" resource in a province adds 1 to its level of civilization for the purpose of determining the province&#39;s maximum source level. This might be a bit overkill, though it would certainly reflect the difference between heavy logging operations and peaceful, unhindered forests.

Resources are first exploited for their native provinces; they provide bonuses to these when they&#39;re not being exported, or when the trade routes shipping them away are blocked somehow. However, when their native province contains guilds of the same faction that controls them, these resources may be moved into other provinces, where they will manifest their bonus until further notice. Destroying or contesting guilds halts trade, which also causes resource bonuses to be brought down. The regent, a skilled underling and the court itself may perform a resource distribution domain action, which enables him to transfer a number of resources equal to his administration skill, at a cost of one gold bar each. The court can also transfer a number of resources equal to its level. If the guild holding or "resource holding" of a particular resource is destroyed, the regent will have to perform resource distribution once against after the holding has been rebuilt, in order to send the resource to its proper destination. Note that if the crucial trade routes leading to the resource&#39;s host province are only temporarily blocked, no resource distribution action will be needed for things to return to normal once the "blockage" clears up.

Resources could do a host of things, from bringing down consruction costs to giving boosts to the owner&#39;s agitate actions in a province. Some might grant a nice decrease to the costs of running a navy, removing all upkeep costs for three ships anchored in port (in other words, sparing the king 1/4 GB in expenses), and others might grant a boost to a regent&#39;s rule actions. In a true colonialistic spirit, all resources may be gathered into a single host province, as there are no limits to how many a single province can possess - this forces the game designer to be careful about bonuses, as too many in too great a concentration might truly imbalance the game. All bonuses ought to be small, bearing in mind that they add up (and at four bonuses per province, they add up really, really quickly). "+1 morale to all new units built here" would be far too powerful, yet a small 1d20 chance for the same +1 bonus might work.

A regent could halt their transition into an occupied province, though he may not take hold of them and benefit from their effects without actually possessing their respective "resource holdings" (and the guilds needed to transfer them). Through diplomacy, the benefits (though not the ownership) of resources may be transferred for a number of rounds, and agreements could be made to allow two different regents to use each other&#39;s trade routes for the purposes of moving resources around.

Does this system intrigue anyone? I&#39;d love to provide a few resources for others to toy around with, if enough interest shows.

[ConjurerDragon]

hazard schrieb:



>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/ind...ST&f=36&t=2858

>

> hazard wrote:

> Even in our time every company (guild) gives about ½ of its profit to the state. Every transaction that is made you must pay same tax. So for me it is not strange that land regent asks at least 1/3 of profit .Why should he let guilder to get rich on his land if he doesn’t have something in return? He can always take same troops and destroy or confiscate guild. After all nothing is stopping him from running his one guild or letting same new guilder to step in.

>

There is - the need to compete against other realms who might run different.

If one landed regent tries to have such a close control on his provinces

and all holdings there, e.g. taking over the guilds or temples himself

as you mentioned trying to become the "overlord", then he faces several

problems:

- it is likely that he does not gain RP for the guilds as he (2E) has no

classlevels of Thief yet or (3E) developed the wrong skills as up to

this point he was a landed ruler and concentrated on law holdings and

provinces.

- even if he would multiclass or spend precious skill points to be able

to earn RP from the new holding type this will take time and he will

much sooner run into the bloodline limit.

- other regents might offer their guilders/priests better conditions on

an more equal footing and these realms working together instead of one

overlord and his oppressed smaller lackeys, will eventually defeat the

overlord - especially as it would be in the best interest of every other

oppressed regent in his domain to get rid of him and even aid the

outside invader.



>Also being a non-land regent is benefit for guilder because if you have some land every regent in Cerilia will look at you not as an honest merchant how wont to make some profit but as an threat to his domain.

>

Anuire, not Cerilia. Other areas, e.g. Brechtür could see that

completely different.



> One more thing I think that guilds often contest each other.

>All in all guild is very important financial backup for any domain.

>

That is a view centered on the landed regent - the guild holdings or

other holdings are technically a "realm" of their own and not part the

realm of the landed regent. It had a reason that in the 2E rulebook it

stated that decrees can´t affect another regent´s domain in any way - as

they are not part of your realm.



> Regent and at least one more guilder is on your tail. It is important that PC get that impression.

>Guilders have lot of thing to spend his money on:

> -Law claim

> -Vassalage to lend regent

> -Influencing court (Guilder must have few nobles on court to defend him before the King)

> -Espionage and defending from espionage

>

Establishing Spy Networks.



> -Intrigue

>

Assasinating the overlord who demands too much gold ;-)

bye

Michael

[The Jew]

Demonizer, i&#39;ve actually studied a lot of this too. There is some truth to what you are saying, but you are using as examples two trading regions which are developmentally unequal. This is not the case within Anuire, and so actually trading between two developmentally equal areas is ussually beneficial to both sides, and so I think Ospreys trade rules work quite well.

[Demonizer]

There are more issues to consider than developmental equality. Indeed, while two provinces may be at equal levels, this simply points out that they have the infrastructure to sustain equivalent populations. The resources they produce, the resources they don&#39;t produce, the architecture of their cities and their cultural preferences (such as how much expensive trifles are valued in their society) all contribute to a complex set of weaknesses and strengths. Some of these weaknesses can lead to trade actually harming the economy - again, trading resources for luxuries is not a very bright thing to do, yet human nature dictates it in many people. Of course, if a city&#39;s population simply sells off all its suprlus and buys what it truly needs, at acceptable prices, that city&#39;s going to prosper.

It&#39;s also going to put more power in the hands of guilds (or whoever&#39;s running trade) and therefore make it a bit more cumbersome for the regent to rule it. Then again, it could be argued that, since the guilds are already providing for the province economically, the regent doesn&#39;t have to rally up an infrastructure and so has an easier time increasing the place&#39;s level.

One thing worth considering is that the more trade routes a province has, the less dependent it is on any single supplier. Therefore, a synnergy bonus to trade income could be applied when a province imports from two or more regions of the same type (such as plains or Khinasi lands). This is assuming both trade routes are owned by the same character, who also owns the guild in the importing province. Of course, this also says something about the other end of the trade routes: they&#39;re going to have to compete with each other unknowingly. Unless they set up other trade routes to give them a wider market, they&#39;ll end up with an income penality, regardless of the level of their provinces. However, things get interesting when two different guilds are running the two trade routes, competing with each other for the grace of the same province. They&#39;re going to have some price battles on their hands, which would, at least for the short term, boost the province&#39;s prosperity.

I do believe a guilder would be deeply interested in building up some provinces, but he would just as easily demand that others remain stagnant, merely to provide cheap imports that would help them compete in the major trade hubs. I&#39;ve yet to see any kind of economic warfare, other than people contesting each other&#39;s guilds (a targeted action, which doesn&#39;t have much to do with conquering the market as a whole), but I believe they&#39;d have an interesting part to play otherwise.

The main reason I endorse a resource-based economy: guilders don&#39;t just provide gold, historically or otherwise. Their imports can supply a regent with fortifications, weapons, fine shipbuilding timber and a host of other valuable supplies, which could paralyze his domain when withheld and traded elsewhere. Gold bars might be one thing the regent desires, but just above everyone has them. There&#39;s no need to go to war or build relations with a specific domain - diplomatic ties and relative weakness often precede economic potential when choosing a target, simply because there&#39;s no resource model to help things. Sure, a regent might pursue diplomacy based on the unoccupied guild levels in a domain, or on the number of his economic ties to it, but anything more complex has a hard time squeezing itself through the blunt game mechanics.