View Poll Results: Should fortifications provide a bonus when defending against contest actions?

Voters
49. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    18 36.73%
  • No

    28 57.14%
  • Abstain

    3 6.12%
Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 47
  1. #1
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,946
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Chap 5 - Fortifications and contest actions

    Based on discussion in a recent thread let's see what the populace of the BR community want in the BRCS.
    Last edited by irdeggman; 10-02-2005 at 06:43 PM.
    Duane Eggert

  2. #2
    Look here for the discussion for and against such a rule:

    http://www.birthright.net/showthread...2&page=1&pp=10

  3. #3
    Birthright Developer Raesene Andu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    South Australia
    Posts
    1,357
    Downloads
    1
    Uploads
    0
    Voted no. Fortification's prevent military actions, contest is not a military action.

    A contest action is a contest of influence, and while there may be some violence between the two parties on the ground, it is primairly about expending RP (influence) to convince the people to follow you instead of the other regent.

    The only thing I would accept is that a fortification would likely mean that it was impossible to remove you holdings completely, a 0-level holding would always remain while your fortification was there.
    Let me claim your Birthright!!

  4. #4
    Raesene,

    I agree completely.
    "Who was the first that forged the deadly blade? Of rugged steel his savage soul was made." --Tibullus

    "Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum." --Vegetius

    "Men grow tired of sleep, love, singing and dancing sooner than war." --Homer

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Raesene Andu
    Voted no. Fortification's prevent military actions, contest is not a military action.

    A contest action is a contest of influence, and while there may be some violence between the two parties on the ground, it is primairly about expending RP (influence) to convince the people to follow you instead of the other regent.

    The only thing I would accept is that a fortification would likely mean that it was impossible to remove you holdings completely, a 0-level holding would always remain while your fortification was there.
    I have to agree too (though not about the 0-level holding thing, at least not without some sort of "saving throw" equivalent.) However, contest actions are fine fodder for adventures that may involve fortifications. For example, a law regent might hire some of the PCs to flush bandits out of an old fort that acts as their base of operations. (A fortified law(0) or law(1) holding.) Mentioning something like this in the BRCS might counter any urge to improperly use fortification levels in contest actions.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Raesene Andu
    Voted no. Fortification's prevent military actions, contest is not a military action.

    A contest action is a contest of influence, and while there may be some violence between the two parties on the ground, it is primairly about expending RP (influence) to convince the people to follow you instead of the other regent.

    The only thing I would accept is that a fortification would likely mean that it was impossible to remove you holdings completely, a 0-level holding would always remain while your fortification was there.
    It would be *signifcantly* easier to terminate/arrest/remove people who are attempting to influence your population if you have controlled methods of entry/exit. Otherwise, the most secure buildings wouldn't try to limit the entry/exit points in the real world. I view fortification as guard towers/forts/castles along major roads, city walls, fortified abbeys, etc.

    At the very least, there should be some kind of penalty in Contest actions for trying to influence fortification equipped holdings.

    So I voted yes. =0

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by KGodwin
    It would be *signifcantly* easier to terminate/arrest/remove people who are attempting to influence your population if you have controlled methods of entry/exit. Otherwise, the most secure buildings wouldn't try to limit the entry/exit points in the real world. I view fortification as guard towers/forts/castles along major roads, city walls, fortified abbeys, etc.

    At the very least, there should be some kind of penalty in Contest actions for trying to influence fortification equipped holdings.

    So I voted yes. =0
    Well, the influence you have is over all of the people who live in the province... and from what you just said for the fortifications to have any effect than all of the people would be needing to live in those holdings. That is obviously not the case. So you may want to reconsider your vote.
    "Who was the first that forged the deadly blade? Of rugged steel his savage soul was made." --Tibullus

    "Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum." --Vegetius

    "Men grow tired of sleep, love, singing and dancing sooner than war." --Homer

  8. #8
    Senior Member RaspK_FOG's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Moschato, Athens, Greece
    Posts
    1,130
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    I agree with Raesene Andu, tcharazazel, and Saragon but I made a mistake: I wanted to vote "No" and yet pressed "Yes".

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by tcharazazel
    Well, the influence you have is over all of the people who live in the province... and from what you just said for the fortifications to have any effect than all of the people would be needing to live in those holdings. That is obviously not the case. So you may want to reconsider your vote.
    Just ...

    1) Influence is based on population centers, directly contesting people's influence in the country side is hard because those people don't gather.

    2) Forts, guard towers, castles, city walls, etc. would all result in a limitation of traffic along roads and entry/exit into most population centers through 'normal' means.

    Fortifications (Province): Province fortifications include a province-wide system of fortifications dominated by a massive seat of military power (usually a castle or walled city).
    Fortification (Holding): Holding fortifications are small systems of fortifications that are constructed to protect the holdings of one regent. This might include fortified cathedrals, armed warehouses, walled forts or small castles, or any other reasonably limited defensive structure.

    3) This means that contestor's agents will have to avoid using virtually any roads in a heavily fortified province. Do you have any idea how much slower and suspicious looking it is traveling through farmer's fields and forests?

    Of course, none of this would apply if the fight was internal. But contesting in a fortified province would be far more difficult than in something without such defenses.

  10. #10
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,946
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Just to point something out - a guild 1 (or any number greater than 1) is not a single building or shop but a series of them stretched over the entire province that are compiled/combined to yield that net result. Single shops are run by people with the profession skill while holdings are run at a greater scale, essentially network.


    Guild holdings consist primarily of various guilds, especially of the primary economic activity of an area – artisan’s guilds being the most common, as well as merchant companies



    Temple holdings represent an organized faith of worship and the itinerant clergy, shrines, churches, or cathedrals that preach to the masses.



    Law holdings represent bureaucrats, constables, taxmen, highway bandits, rebel organizations, a system of feudal lords, or any other establishments whose primary purpose is to enforce laws/whims, collect taxes/tribute, and execute justice or injustice in their regent's name.
    Last edited by irdeggman; 10-04-2005 at 11:23 PM.
    Duane Eggert

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
BIRTHRIGHT, DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, D&D, the BIRTHRIGHT logo, and the D&D logo are trademarks owned by Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and are used by permission. ©2002-2010 Wizards of the Coast, Inc.