Province levels and income?

[Angelbialaska]

Originally posted by Raesene Andu@Jan 21 2005, 10:27 PM
My main concern with 3E trade routes, and I have raised this before is that the way the rules are written now, it makes no difference which realm you create a trade route with. A trade route from a level 7 guild to another level 7 guild generates exactly the same amount of income for the guy in the first level 7 province as it would if he had created it with a level 1 province. Surely this has to be considered a broken rule and in serious next of change.

My proposal was to combine the totals of the two guilds and half it and then give each guild half of that total. So a trade route between 2 level 7 guilds would generate 7 GB (half of the guild totals) and then split in half again to give 3.5 GB to each guild. While a trade route from a level 7 guild to a level 1 guild would generate 2 GB for each guild.


You also have to consider that trade route income for guilder in the BRCS is effectively 1/4 what it original was and guilder don't get RP from trade routes any more. They have really been hammered.

If we use the example of Ilien as it has come up. Under the old rule, trade route income was half the combined total of the linked provinces. So Ilien, assuming it linked to only level 7 provinces could potentially generate a total of 42 GB for el-Hadid's guilds. With the BRCS rule, he can generate a maximum of 10.5 GB (3.5 x 3) and no RP. His potential trade route income is now 1/4 what it was in 2E and he has lost his RP income from those routes.

Note: I agree with the lose of the RP income, and it rarely makes any difference due to the low bloodline scores of most guilders.

I agree that guilders have seriously gotten hit by a 250 pound maul swung by a mighty raging Half-Orc Barbarian level 20 with 24 natural Strength and a Belt of Giant Strength +6. (38 strength... Ouch&#33 h34r:

The RP income from trade routes isn't the most important. Because as pointed out, the guilders have low regency. This is also the reason that they need to make up for it with generating much much more gold, so they can lower success numbers that way.

I can't see what's wrong with the trade route generating half of the guild level of GB for the ruler. It just encourages to create trade routes. Of course two regents may decide on some other arrangement if they find it fitting.

[ConjurerDragon]

edible Phil 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=2944

>

> The incredible, edible Phil wrote:

> Don`t forget the size of the law holding the regent could stand to control. A level 10 holding is a pretty good deterrent for those that try to perform espionage actions or agitate actions against you.

>

If the Espionage action is made easier by the size of the province and

(if the regent is hostile) made more difficult by the size of the law

holding then it won´t matter if the law holding is 1 or 10 - the law

holding can´t be larger than the province size only smaller and the

difference in difficulty won´t change. At least it was in 2E.

bye

Michael

[epicsoul]

Originally posted by Osprey@Jan 21 2005, 05:41 PM
I don't think trade routes can be left out of this equation. Even under the BRCS system, trade routes are a HUGE reason to build up province levels. Not only does the value per route increase, so does the maximum number of routes. Enough provinces in a realm start hitting level 4 (allowing 2 trade routes at 2 GB each), a guilder can get very rich (see Ghorien Hiriele). Naturally, no landed regent is going to let that kind of cash slip out from under their fingers.

IMC most tributes are done as fractions of the guilders' net profits - 1/4 to 1/3 being the norm. Guilders still get hugely rich, and landed regents get a vital boost to their income.

Ilien, at level 7, can support 3 trade routes at 3.5 GB each (on the Ilien end), in addition to a level 7 guild (4-2/3 GB). So that's 15 GB gross guild income for El-Hadid from Ilien alone. All of this can use a single seaport for sea trade, which is conveniently efficient. Do they really need 6 trade routes here (3 land, 3 sea)? I don't think so. Ilien was never meant to be a powerful landed realm - it relies on its allies (Medoere and Roesone) for its landward military defense, and would probably rely on outside help to build a strong navy. I think that's OK. Ilien's main power is the wizardry of its regent, on which its allies also rely. Symbiotic relationship, in which Ilien can't do much without some interdependence among allies. I like that scenario, it's one of the reasons the southern 3 realms are such good PC regent realms - there's a built-in need to work together.

Osprey

I retract a bit of what I said earlier; it is best to get a province to level 4, not 3. To get that extra bit o' trade routes, and allow for extra troop types.

Ultimately, only 1 high level province is needed, if you want some knights.

[Raesene Andu]

Originally posted by Angelbialaska@Jan 22 2005, 07:28 AM
I can't see what's wrong with the trade route generating half of the guild level of GB for the ruler. It just encourages to create trade routes. Of course two regents may decide on some other arrangement if they find it fitting.

My prime concern was the one I outlined earlier, that it no longer matters where the destination of a trade route is, it still generates the same income. I'd like to see both the source and destination guilds have an effect on the trade route income, it makes more sense that way. It would also mean that the high level provinces with strong guild (example, Ilien) become much more important. It would mean that in Anuire, el-Hadid has the largest guild holding, so every other guilder is going to want to trade with him, because they will make more income that way.

As for the income of trade routes, well you can calculate it a number of way. Currently it is just half the holding level, which isn't a lot in most cases. Under the 2E rules it was half the combined total of the provinces, which was significantly more in most case, but also didn't take into consideration of guild's holding level and was unbalanced because of that.

I would personally favour setting trade route income to half the combined totals of the guilds involved. So linking a level 3 guild and a level 4 guild would earn each guild 3.5 GB a turn. This would provide a reason for high level provinces and guilds, as they make a lot more GB/turn from trade than smaller guilds and provinces. It may be considered too high though...

Another way guilders have been hammered is that they used to be able to create as many trade routes as they desired in a turn, but now this has been reduced to a single trade route from each domain action. I don't disgree with this change at all, but again it reduces the guilder's income in the short term. Also trade chain and exploratory fleet were dropped as actions. Exploratory fleet was a very cumbersome and confusing action, so I'm not sorry to see it gone, trade chain had potential however.

[Angelbialaska]

Giving each side of the trade route half will be good for those trading with Ilien. But on the other hand El-Hadid will have little out of having such a high level, other than strengtening others.

The only guilders that El-Hadid should consider trading with this way would be Bor in Boeruine, who is the only guilder that has a couple of level 5 holdings near water and Endier who has a level 6 holding in Ilien.

And if El-Hadid will be using land trade routes, then there's no higher level holdings nearby, level 4 holdings being the highest all around, until we get many provinces away.

I agree that it should be the average of guild holdings, but then the guilders should also get some advantage. It seems very much to me like the guilder has lost, lost, lost, lost and gained absolutely nothing. Makes it unattractive to be a guilder IMO.

And yeah, what's with the stealing of all the nice guilderish orders?

[Osprey]

As for the income of trade routes, well you can calculate it a number of way. Currently it is just half the holding level, which isn't a lot in most cases. Under the 2E rules it was half the combined total of the provinces, which was significantly more in most case, but also didn't take into consideration of guild's holding level and was unbalanced because of that.

I would personally favour setting trade route income to half the combined totals of the guilds involved. So linking a level 3 guild and a level 4 guild would earn each guild 3.5 GB a turn. This would provide a reason for high level provinces and guilds, as they make a lot more GB/turn from trade than smaller guilds and provinces. It may be considered too high though...

As I understand it in the BRCS, the value of a trade route is 1/2 the level of the guild on each end of the trade route. So EH (7) in Ilien trades with Bor (5) in Seasedge, earning EH 3.5 GB and Bor 2.5 GB. The total value of the trade route is 6 GB.

If I understand you correctly, your revision would maintain the total value of the trade route while mandating that each guilder split this value evenly (3 GB each). Correct?

I'm not certain this is a good revision to make. Perhaps I've just grown accustomed to the BRCS system over the last 2 years, but I rather like the idea that the bigger guild makes more money from the route than the smaller one. It has a certain logic to it: bigger guild = bigger market and more control over prices, which means bigger profits. This is also why I like trade route incomes being based on guild levels, not province levels.

Dunno, I guess I like the BRCS trade system pretty well as it is. If there were any changes I would make, it would be to increase the level of detail and allow for some adjustments to trade route values based on the actual goods being traded. So that really rare and valuable commodities like spices, silks, precious gems, mithril, moraskorr, and alchemicals would generate bonus income. However, I realize that this is a level of detail not wanted by everyone, so it's something better created as an optional sort of template to place on the game if the group desires it.

Osprey

[Raesene Andu]

My main concern is that it doesn't matter who a guild trades with. For example, EH (7) in Ilien can trade with Bor (5) for 3.5 GB a turn, or he could trade with MA (1) in Shadowgreen for exactly the same amount, it makes no difference where the destination guild is.

It sort of makes sense that a powerful guild in Ilien trading with another powerful guild in Boeruine would make more gold from its trade route than if it were trading with some minor guild in the wilderness of Aerenwe. It comes down to the amount and value of goods being transferred between the two locations.

This is unless you wish to change the way you look at a trade route and instead of a two-way flow of goods, a trade route can be set up where there is primarily a one-way flow of goods. Using the example of the Shadowgreen -> Ilien trade route, it may have been set up by EH to bring lumber into Ilien for the shipyard there. In that case, EH is making a lot of money because he is selling that lumber at a good profit, while MA only makes his 0.5 GB because he is making only a small portion. Ok, in that case it makes sense, it just needs some explaining in the rules, and maybe an example or two.

I agree with the idea about rare and valuable commodities. Something like a gold mine would be very valuable to a regent who held a guild there or traded with that province.

[The incredible, edible Phil]

You can also see the MA-EH (Ilien) deal as el-hadid being able to offer so many goods that the people of shadowgreen can hardly ever get the chance to buy and are willing to pay more while on the other hand, the el-hadid guilds split up most of the profit from the sale of the timber in Ilien that when it comes time to pay MA there is little left.

[void]

You could also see the small amount of money made by MA as being a result of low demand in his own province. While many people in the city of Ilien have the money to spend on lumber from shadowgreen, the lumberjacks of shadowgreen have little disposable income given the low rate of development in their area, and so purchase few of the new goods available from the trade route. And given the general high demand for goods of any sort in Illen, MA isn't really getting big discounts on goods coming his way, so most goods are out of the price range of the local lumber jacks.