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%
Results 11 to 20 of 47
-
10-05-2005, 04:28 AM #11
For the most part I agree with Irdeggman, Raesene, and Tchar, mainly for the sake of keeping things somewhat simplified and easy to manage. While there is some merit to fortifications standing as symbols of control and influence, ultimately there are too many ways for a contesting regent to simply bypass physical fortifications and their skeletal garrisons, and still achieve a measurable level of success (see my posts in previous threads for examples).
By keeping these things seperate we emphasize the difference between military and political struggles. Military conflict is is about the bottom line, who rules by force. It's no mystery that the easiest way to devestate an enemy's holdings is to simply march in, occupy the province, then pillage the living sh...t out of them. This is a very good reason indeed to fortify one's holdings, especially those in high-threat areas (ex: in provinces bordering the Five Peaks, Markazor, Thurazor, Rhuobe's Domain, the Spiderfell, etc.). Expensive? Yes...but easily worthwhile if your holding is a frequent target of pillage.
Contest actions, otoh, are battles of influence, and influence in BR is primarily measured by regency - the power of rulership. Those with the most divine blood power and political might to back it up are the strongest. Start adding too many non-RP types of modifiers, and you will dilute the core essence of the BR domain system, what sets it apart from a straight-up medieval political RPG.
Fortifications provide enough benefit as is...if they're not profitable, then perhaps the owning regent should consider dismantling them....
Osprey
-
10-05-2005, 02:12 PM #12
- Join Date
- Jul 2004
- Posts
- 125
- Downloads
- 81
- Uploads
- 0
Voted yes, but I am in favour of only a seriously minor bonus (+1 or +2). Either this, or really, the fortification rules for holdings should almost be removed. There is no real use for them, other than flavour. By the time they are built, the hostile regent will know what you intend.
The cost of them to maintain and build means that, should a regent actually be cooperating with one or more of the other powers in the province, it is actually better to build a castle, and share the cost of maintenance with your guilder or temple holder(s). If one of those pays half, and you pay the other half, then suddenly, you have the full effectiveness of protecting the whole province, with the guilders/temples paying the difference.
Either this or, at the least, you can't reduce beyond a 0 level holding without a save or something.
Give those non landed regents some kind of break.
-
10-05-2005, 02:55 PM #13Originally Posted by KGodwin
The fortified holdings are like walled warehouses by the docks for guilds or walled church. That is what a holding usually is in a town or city. As the province consists of several of these small towns and usually 1 major city then there are several of them. Which is what irdeggman said, and for once I totally agree with him!
I also agree with Osprey as there does need to be a simplification of the ideas so the rules don't become too complex. So keep the military action of burning the holdings as a separate action to the political action of contesting the holdings.
So as you didn't understand what I meant before, this may have explained it in a manner easier for you to understand and like I said before you may want to reconsider your vote.
It's like the difference between Ringu and the Ring sometimes..."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
-
10-05-2005, 04:01 PM #14
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- Virginia Beach, Virginia
- Posts
- 3,945
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
There seems to be a falicy that all domain actions need to be useful to all regents all of the time.
Like 3.0/3.5 itself everything is situational. For example while all regents can raise troops is it advantageous for a guilder to do it? It is an extremely cost draining evolution and what would he gain by it? How about a temple holder? even more applicable how about a source regent?
Things need to be looked at situationally and determined whether or not is a good thing for the regent to do. In most cases it is not in a guilder's best interest to raise troops or build fortified holdings while it could definitely be in his interest to build roads and ships to move his goods. Just some examples of things that clearly fall into a range of situational advantage/disadvantage.
Now having fortified holdings for provinces that are theorcracies like Moedore it makes perfect sense to have fortified holdings since the realm regent (controlling the law, province and temple or in some cases just the temple and provonce) could greatly benefit from having a fortified temple (or temples) - because they function to halt all enemy troop progression and could be used to stop the regenthaving the law holdings from taking over the provincemilitarily. Again - situational use of domain actions.Duane Eggert
-
10-05-2005, 05:33 PM #15
- Join Date
- Feb 2002
- Location
- New Haven, CT
- Posts
- 231
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
Changed my mind
Well, I voted yes, based on my gut instinct. I figured "hey, a big castle with my holdings inside - hard to contest those!".
But after reading the discussions after I voted, I tend to agree that we have 2 overly simplified mechanics going on. Military bludgeon and political backstabbing. The forts are to defend against the military, not the political. The political is defended by RP and role playing.
So I've decided to switch my vote from "yes" to "no".
I would agree, though, with the idea that anyone with a fortified holding always keeps a level 0 holding - the infrastructure is there, just not the people to run it. Maybe have this as an optional aspect or a side-bar?
-
10-05-2005, 06:17 PM #16
Chap 5 - Fortifications and contest actions
A couple of points I`d like to address:
First, re: The definition of a "contest" action and how fortification is a
factor.
While "influence" is a factor (the end result) of such an action that does
not designate the action as being non-military or even "just political" as
has been suggested. Like most of the events/actions at the domain level
the action itself is broad enough to accommodate a wide range of
interpretations. It`s best not to be too specific in the description of
the contest action itself, but some guidelines as to it being things
ranging from the use of "hired thugs" to intimidate the individuals who
make up the holding to purely political infighting might be a reasonable
range. One could use the action to portray things that are in many ways
the equivalent of a "military" action but effecting the holding
alone. What is, after all, the difference between a barn burning performed
by a company of soldiers and one performed by a cadre of hired enforcers
ordered to simply attack the locations controlled by another regent,
intimidate those who patronize that holding, and otherwise disrupt the
processes that the holding represents?
Even a less violent interpretation of a contest action can still be (and
I`d argue should be) influenced by the presence of fortifications on a
holding. First of all, the fortification represents not only something
like wall, but the presence of guards or some such personnel. An
aggressive political attack can still be influenced by both the material
aspects of a fortification on a holding and the people it
represents. Fortifications render a holding more "permanent" in the same
way that, for example, a huge marble and steel bank looks more legitimate
than does one located in a local supermarket. From a political POV
fortifications symbolically represent the strength of the organization in
the same way that any other organization surrounds itself with the
trappings of wealth, power, influence, etc. A stone wall and guarded gates
around the warehouses and buildings of a guild holding, for instance,
suggest to the casual observer that the guild is there for the long
haul. Such a holding is more difficult to simply contest away from a
purely political standpoint.
Second, re: Simplification and Complexity.
This is one of those old saws that gets played far too often
IMO. Simplicity is, of course, an issue that people should be mindful of,
but in truth it gets used as an excuse to eliminate what are really already
pretty simple rules. Very few of the ideas I`ve seen as suggestions for
the updates of the domain level of play are anywhere near as complex as
things that are in the 3e+ rulebooks. Even in those cases where the
suggestions are complex the reasonable response isn`t to discount them on
the basis of complexity, but to try to simplify them while keeping themes
they suggest. In this case, I don`t think anyone is contemplating anything
more complex than a simple modifier on a die roll. That`s pretty
simple. Even if the means to determine that modifier have a couple of
steps so long as we stay within the realm of simple math the issue of
complexity shouldn`t really be used as an excuse to eliminate a rule.
Gary
-
10-05-2005, 06:46 PM #17
In that case Gary are you then as RP and good skills are no longer the only factors for contesting, then what about for military actions against holdings? Should we then allow RP to influence such military actions because the regent excerts some more influence over the soldiers guarding it that they suffer a penalty to defending the holding?
What I mean is, where is the balance as you are not offering one a complete solution to your proposed fix. If RP is now a smaller part of the equation than intended, then how will we make more use of RP to compensate for it? Because then we might as well toss in RP into all types of military actions in the forms of influence over troop moral and ability to fight on either side for example. For If you want to say that big fortifications have such a strong effect on influence that it justifies a modifier than why wouldn't the leader be able to use their divinity in the form of RP to influence troop moral and their ability to fight?"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
-
10-05-2005, 08:46 PM #18
Chap 5 - Fortifications and contest actions
At 08:46 PM 10/5/2005 +0200, tcharazazel wrote:
>In that case Gary are you then as RP and good skills are no longer the
>only factors for contesting, then what about for military actions against
>holdings? Should we then allow RP to influence such military actions
>because the regent excerts some more influence over the soldiers guarding
>it that they suffer a penalty to defending the holding?
>
>What I mean is, where is the balance as you are not offering one a
>complete solution to your proposed fix. If RP is now a smaller part of the
>equation than intended, then how will we make more use of RP to compensate
>for it? Because then we might as well toss in RP into all types of
>military actions in the forms of influence over troop moral and ability to
>fight on either side for example. For If you want to say that big
>fortifications have such a strong effect on influence that it justifies a
>modifier than why wouldn`t the leader be able to use their divinity in the
>form of RP to influence troop moral and their ability to fight?
Let me make sure I`m clear on your argument. You`re saying that allowing a
modifier for fortified holdings against contest actions is, essentially,
the same as using RP to influence the outcome of that action. So if one is
going to allow a fortification modifier then RP should, thematically, be
used to effect all levels of military action, right down to individual
company level stats, not just the results of domain level actions. Is that
correct?
I don`t think it should necessarily work both ways, and we needn`t make
that extrapolation automatically. First of all, despite the fact that
there is interaction between them, we`re really talking about two different
levels of play; the domain level and the large scale combat
level. Fortifying a holding, the contest action and RP all are domain
level. The systems do interact with things like pillaging can reduce
holdings like the contest action, and that companies are actually mustered
at the domain level, but I don`t think that those interactions (or the
inclusion of another one like a fortification modifier) means RP should
operate at all levels of the large scale combat system the way they do at
the domain level. Morale checks and the stats of individual units don`t
happen at the month-long, province wide domain level that RP operate on, so
I don`t think it necessarily follows that because there are some
interactions between the two levels of play that domain level RP must
necessarily be used at the large scale combat level the way they are at the
domain level.
I don`t recall, can RP still be spent in lieu of GB to maintain units in
the update the way they could in the original rules? That`s a reasonable
interaction because that RP/GB spent is really at the domain level of play,
not the war move.
Anyway, if one is going to define the contest action broadly enough that it
could accommodate violent as well as non-violent attacks upon a holding
(and justify a fortification modifier on that basis) I don`t think it
necessarily follows that the door is opened to spend RP on all aspects of
the large scale combat level of play right down to the individual stats of
companies....
Gary
-
10-05-2005, 09:12 PM #19
I'm saying that by opening the door to allowing something like fortifications effect influence significantly enough on a provincial scale to justify a bonus, than something that already has such an obvious influence on the opinions of people ie RP really out to be allowed to influence such things as the military actions against the holdings.
Now, if you were talking about building a low level wonder worth of spendour put into those fortifications, all those marble walls ect, then that expense would justify the increase in the regents influence. However, simply building regular fortifications that are built for discouraging and defending against military actions is not really going to significantly influence enough of the population to justify giving a bonus.
Hence my point is where you draw the line between the military and the political actions really ought to be clear and not have too much mixing on the basic level. Even though we all know how much the military was a part of politics and still is. We then can easily see what parts we want to keep separate and what parts we want to integrate and then use other means of integrating them, ie wonders as they don't have to be somthing that just generates RP."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
-
10-06-2005, 02:20 AM #20
Chap 5 - Fortifications and contest actions
At 11:12 PM 10/5/2005 +0200, tcharazazel wrote:
>I`m saying that by opening the door to allowing something like
>fortifications effect influence significantly enough on a provincial scale
>to justify a bonus, than something that already has such an obvious
>influence on the opinions of people ie RP really out to be allowed to
>influence such things as the military actions against the holdings.
>
>Now, if you were talking about building a low level wonder worth of
>spendour put into those fortifications, all those marble walls ect, then
>that expense would justify the increase in the regents influence. However,
>simply building regular fortifications that are built for discouraging and
>defending against military actions is not really going to significantly
>influence enough of the population to justify giving a bonus.
>
>Hence my point is where you draw the line between the military and the
>political actions really ought to be clear and not have too much mixing on
>the basic level. Even though we all know how much the military was a part
>of politics and still is. We then can easily see what parts we want to
>keep separate and what parts we want to integrate and then use other means
>of integrating them, ie wonders as they don`t have to be somthing that
>just generates RP.
I still think fortifications and a modifier to contest actions from them
are primarily a domain level effect, while things like the stats of
companies of soldiers and the morale checks they must make are large scale
combat level effects. That`s where the line is drawn--between the domain
level and the large scale combat level--RP can be spent at one level but
not the other.
Gary
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks