Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 29 of 29

Thread: Chapter 5

  1. #21
    Senior Member ploesch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    182
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    I tink the reason it doesn't work that way o BRCS is because a highway represents more than the physical roadways....

    Highway: This construction includes both a network of paved or packed dirt highways and a system of inns, caravansaries, and other structures that support overland trade and travel.
    So while an invading army would get the benefits of walking on a paved road, they would not gain the benefits of the government sponsored structures. Actually, those structures could impede their march, as they would need to carefully attack each one assuring noone escapes to make sure the Local regent isn't informed of their progress, and possible interference by the keepers and patrons of such structures. Caravan guards sent to harry their lines, and inn keepers and staff that set traps for them in the inns, or on the road approaching them. Notice I said Could, I'm not saying they would, it's likely the most they'd do is raze the structures so the aproaching army couldn't use them as shelter.

    No matter what, the army would still need to call a halt after 8 or so hours to raise camp, and build what minor defenses they can.
    When you play the game of thrones you win or you die.
    George R. R. Martin - A song of Ice and Fire

  2. #22
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0

    Roads

    Armies don't stay at the local inn.

    For roads to work this way, they are not roads at all, but routes. If these lines of travel are not roads, but rather established watering points, rest stops (what used to be called posts), and other services for travelers (fresh horses, collected animal forage, beast-healers, &c) then this interpretation makes sense. Aside from the watering points, these things will help trade caravans, assist friendly troops (although not sufficiently to explain the advantages gained), but be of little use to invading armies, because they don't represent infrastructure so much as they represent services.

    All armies need are improved surfaces. If road surfaces are improved than the invading army gets a bonus, and that bonus is going to be more or less the same as the bonus for the defending army. Service posts for caravans won't produce the assistance neccesary for armies (with great effort, ie extra GB, maybe a single company) so all that really should be considered for armies are infrastructure, like improved roads and bridges.

    However, until the railroads, routes were not pre-planted this way, with the trade route following the establishment of the route (actually the railroad built the route and the rails simultaneously, so this represents planning and preperation - administration, still not demonstrated until air travel). Trade routes were undertaken without regard to the existence of posts, and the posts grew up along the routes to profit from the needs of the travelers.

    While I am scratching my head over the way trade routes work, I will point out that trade routes are generally once-annual affairs, and don't reflect a constant flow of goods. Part of this has to do with weather. Some seasons just don't work well for travel. Too hot, too cold, too wet, all make travel a bad idea. Another example of this phenomena are the existence of fairs. Fairs were short duration, annual trade events. They suggest that the benefit of the trade route should occur once in summer. Whether its the annual arrival of the treasure ships from the Spanish Main, the annual arrival of the silk and spices on the Silk Road, or the annual arrival of the Polish wheat in France every autumn, trade over distance is annual, not seasonal.

    Kenneth Gauck
    kgauck@mchsi.com

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Lacalfiusa
    Posts
    110
    Downloads
    1
    Uploads
    0
    First off, if we're going to aspire to fill the shoes of Game Designers, we should start making the distinctons they make, and that this game makes. We are talking about "highways", not "roads". As written, every province of Lvl 3+ has "roads" (as opposed to being "trackless"); "highways" are the assett/improvement in question here.

    (As used, the term "roads" also at times refers to anything better than "trackless".)

    For reference, here's the majority of the BRCS blather on roads and highways, and how they work, mostly from Chapter 5.

    Highways are well-maintained (and usually paved) roads with frequent inns, stables, supply depots, and other facilities that expedite the movement of massive forces such as military personal and trade caravans.... Most provinces of level 3+ have simple roads, but a system of well-maintained highways is an optional expense. Highways are necessary for overland trade routes and increase the speed of travel within the province...

    Even in fairly prosperous provinces, most roads are simple single-lane dirt trails. While these roads are sufficient to allow the transport of farmer's goods to the local market, more carefully constructed paved highways, realm-sponsored inns, and permanent military encampments are required to support major overland trade routes or to facilitate the expeditious movement of military units. Likewise bridges must be built over major rivers in order to allow trade routes or quick military travel between provinces. Military/trade highways and bridges are domain assets that are constructed using the Build
    domain action.

    Most provinces do not have highways, but almost all civilized provinces have systems of minor roadways, most of which are simple single-land dirt tracks wide enough for a wagon or carriage. All provinces of level 3 or higher are assumed to have normal roads. Provinces of level 2 are considered trackless for purposes of military movement; the few paths that may exist in the province provide no major benefit to an advancing army.

    Travel is quickest on major highways in friendly provinces. Paved military/trade highways are engineered to allow for the quick passage of military forces and laden wagons. Highways are domain assets constructed using the build domain action. Such highways have fortified inns or semi-permanent camps, regular supply depots, and other amenities that allow friendly units to travel at an increased rate. Hostile units do not receive any advantage in a province that has highways as taking the minor fortifications that protect the resources of the highway by force is more time consuming than traveling on less welldefended roads.


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Now, that last may be an ahistorical rationalization for game balance, but it does balance well, and reduces the temptations (already strong) to invade neighbors.

    Roads/routes/highways are not "planned" in BR- they are simply an abstraction of connecting two provinces, assumably following the terrain of least resistance.

    kgauk-
    For an army to follow a "route", it would imply (to me) longer distances than what we are talking here, which is a province that might only take 2-3 days to cross on foot. And "a road" or "a highway" doesn't necessarily mean a single strip of prepared surface, such as the M1 or Route 66 - whether singly or a network, it is an in-game abstraction, (as are Trade Routes.)

    Games don't need to be "models" of reality (tho' they can be); they are representations of reality- there's a significant difference in the end result.

    ----------

    While I am scratching my head over the way trade routes work...
    (They work just fine, thanks for the concern.)

    ... I will point out that trade routes are generally once-annual affairs... trade over distance is annual, not seasonal.
    Interesting point, but not completely relevant for our purposes. Also, how do you determine which Trade Routes are "over distance", and which aren't? Trade routes "to parts unknown" would certainly fall into this category, but not ones between two adjacent provinces. And (semi)local trade IS a constant flow- providing the route doesn't close due to a bad-weather season, flow is profit, and the goods keep moving year round. Lastly, a single Trade route is (again) an abstraction- it doesn't have to be one commodity, nor a steady month-to-month flow. (Tracking variations season by season could be prohibitively detailed.)

    (The fact that equivalent Trade Routes between two adjacent home provinces, and between two Nations across the Seven Seas, both create the same revenue bothers me, but that's a different discussion.)

    Further, to impliment such a consideration ("once annual" trade routes) would change the way the rules work, especially the way Trade Routes can be broken, or plundered by unfriendly navies, considerably. You seem to want to re-write the entirety of the highway rules (or are not completely familiar with them)- they work well as implimented, just could use some tightening up and re-wording around the edges, imo.

    -----------------

    Quote Originally Posted by gazza666
    Err, yes there is. A big one. In fact, it's so big that I'm surprised any province ruler would even consider building highways rather than let the guilder be responsible for it.
    You misread, or I did not make my position clearly enough. Once those roads are in place, (assuming the Regent isn't willing to burn them down again), there is little incentive. The Guilder can be happy being a parasite on the existing roads.

    Or, if one Guilder is paying for the roads (perhaps one out of Province even, with a long-range Trade Route), and a second shows up- what does he care? No Economic incentive to donate to the local Regent of the Province.

    ------------------

    Kgauk typed:
    ...Law holdings should collect money like any other holding because law is a huge source of income. Courts impose fines, fees, often require bribes, and often are willing to accept cash in lieu of other punishments. Medieval monarchs often made an extra 20-30% more money when they controlled the legal system...
    Law holdings DO collect money. A Regent who does NOT control the Law holdings as well, and tries to run a Province only on the Province income, is in a world of hurt!

    But it's a tough stretch to argue that Law holdings should be as lucrative as Bussiness ventures, or even as profitable as a Church. Even IF there is historical evidence for this (which does not carry much weight in this discussion- some, but not overly), it doesn't "feel" like it should, and we're going for "feel" and flavour as much as balance.

    To make the game "work", there needs to be incentives for alliances and interaction. If a Province Regent had all the money they needed (not all they "wanted"), then Guilders would be just so much sh-t on the noble's shoe. But Guilds are the cash cow, and Temples aren't bad either, and have a monopoly on popular sentiment- it's all set up to be symbiotic, IF the regents can work together. The challenges and handicaps of the various Holding types are the glue that binds the game together.*

    (* I just think that the glue that binds the Province Regent to the Guilder, and vice versa, is a bit off in many situations.)
    Last edited by Cuchulainshound; 09-04-2006 at 05:51 PM.

  4. #24
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0

    Rules

    Rules have to withstand the scrutiny of players. If one plays both at the realm level and the adventure level, then what is easy to achive at one level should easy to achive at the other level unless some compelling explanation can satisfy the players. If the rules work differently at different levels, players will simply handle a situation using the most favorable set of rules. If role playing winter travel requires outdoor skills, weather checks, ill consequences for bad results, the use of spells, extraordinary or supernatural powers, or magic items to make such travel safe, then at the realm level, armies, caravans, or others seem to travel without encumberance in winter (keeping in mind that Rjurik and Vos realms are all described as having difficult winters) some kind of explanations is called for.

    My general view is that the tactical level of the game, described in the core rules, for example, in the movement section of the PHB, takes precidence over the very brief, terribly abstract rules provided in the BR materials to cover trade, war, or other realm level conditions that are described in more detail, albeit adventure oriented, in the core rules. These rules don't describe roads or highways as being friendly or unfriendly. They state that a cart can move 16 miles per day on roads and highways in most types of terrain.

    If we assume the players are elsewhere, they might well accept the argument that contact with the enemy, obstructions left by retreating forces, or whatever, slow their advancing forces. But, when the players are present, every obstacle you put forth is a challenege to overcome. Players with skill, ingenuity, creativity, and drive will not be stopped by challenges, but might profit from them by resolving them in ways that improve their position. You might place ambushers to slow down their advance only to have the players take prisoners and gather intelligence. Now its doubly hard to explain why they can't move as fast on the roads as they think they ought (generally 16 miles per day). Players tend to do things like march 8 hours and then force march an hour or two extra. Now we're talking 18-20 miles.

    I won't assume that players are ignorant of the experience of the Romans, Persians, or Chinese, so if their game experience is to differ from these experiences, I need a reason.

    Also consider that the core rules gives us nice overland movement rules as well as nice weather rules. But the core rules don't explicitly combine them. For tables that give me overland movement during heat, cold, rain, &c, I am forced to either find a d20 guide that does (such as Legends & Lairs Wildscape) or just make sensible adjustments based on the tactical guidelines in the weather rules. Rain is mostly described as a visibility impediment, but anyone who has traveled with weight across a dirt surface after some rain can imagine the problems an army will have moving across an unimproved surface in rainy conditions. To then take no account of these conditions at the realm level, either because its too complicated, or because we imagine that a normal amount of bad weather is averaged in is only satisfying to players if they are not involved in the action because they are elsewhere.

    Therefore if Highways exist, they are available to attackers as well as defenders. The existance of fortified places, suppy depots, and other things (camps are only meaningful if their are troops in them, and then its the troops, not that camp that matter) can just as easily be used by attackers as defenders. Instead of just abstracting than on balance these things will tend to slow down invaders, it makes much more sense to allows invaders to use the highways normally and see how encounters with enemy forces or forts are resolved. The players are heroic types, so the occasional extraordinary performance, the consistantly above average outcome is to be expected. To say no, the rules don't allow it is to fall back into a 2nd edition (or worse) mode of judgement. The current era calls for allowing players to undertake actions and check them against their skills and the prevailing conditions. Too often I have seen night marches, surprise envelopments, and other devious tactics turn enemy forts into friendly bases which now hinder enemy action and guarantee friendly lines.

    Lets go further into what history can tell us about such forts, for in fact there is a whole type of warfare called the war of posts. However a whole series of small forts will capitulate in the face of a major army. No normal couple dozen men will attempt to hold out in the face of a thousand who surround them. When the main army doesn't encounter the fort directly (which is not how highways are described, but for the sake of completeness...) they can mask the force by putting sufficient force outside the force to besiege the fort. What generally happens in these cases, is that after a while the defenders surrender at one or two places, either being convinced, frightened, or bribed into giving up their fort. Depending on how this achieved, the men who surrounded this post move on to another and as the posts fall, the number of men harrassing the posts grows. As this happens the will of the defenders shrinks, and sometimes the attackers even decide to storm. This doesn't even include the potential for one powerful character to entirely tip the balance. All the while the main force seeks a battle or conducts a siege. The war of posts is normally irrelvant, which is why so many campiag histories ignore it, and the issue is settled by the main army. Occasionally, the war of posts speeds the attacker along or slows him down. Overall, these posts have no significant effect on a campaign. Experienced soldiers know how to deal with such forts.

    Kenneth Gauck
    kgauck@mchsi.com

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Lacalfiusa
    Posts
    110
    Downloads
    1
    Uploads
    0
    Well argued and insightful*, but I don't agree with part of your premise. I DO agree that the rules should not conflict with the Core rules, or at least as little as possible, and that they could possibly be tightened up in spots. But remember, this is not just simple expansion material for adventuring, but another game layed on top of the personal-focused individual Character game that we are used to, and that requires balance and playability considerations on that level as well.

    (* and thanks for both- too often folk rant and blather on, with much waving of arms and too little content. )

    The part I don't buy into, and I think you'll agree with, is the fallacy raised in the "Pikemen with Shields" thread- that a game mechanic that works for an individual should work the same for a unit. How often in history and stories does a commander or such ride ahead of their troops' ability to keep up, not because they want to or have a faster horse, but because smaller groups travel faster? It's not just a rule, it's an accepted truth.

    And I would propose a similar distinction can be made with defended highways, and with ~any~ military or trade-route aspect. But regardless of the "reality" of that (too much depends on the specific details, at a level we are NOT going to achieve!), it's an in-game assumption that does not break the credibility bank (imo), and works for balance. As a GM and a Player, you gloss over it unless the adventure centers on it, and then the GM goes with the level of detail they need at the time.

    As to whether the current BRCS movement rules are ~too~ abstract? Possibly. Certainly a bit slapped together. Dovetailing those in better with the movement/terrain/weather rules in the PHB wouldn't hurt anything, tho' remember- combat is measured in "provinces/week", and that's a ~lot~ grainier than miles/day. To change that would be to insert unnecessary detail for no appreciable advantage in play, and much added book-keeping. (The Military rules, and the Trade rules, are simple and abstracted for a reason- that's not the focus of the game. If you want reality in combat, buy Avalon Hill.)

    As to the difference between 500 men (~5 units?) marching down a defended road, and those same 500 men led by a 12th level Noble/Assassin, 9th level blasto-wizard and 12th Level Cleric of Surliness? Well, that's a good point, inarguably. Currently, that's entirely up to the GM, and generally addressed (or should be) in the "Outside the Box" section of the rules. There are ~many~ situations where the particular special abilities of a PC could radically alter the outcome of an action, of a Domain Level Action. Do we want to RP out every Contest Holding, every Espionage, every Troop Mustering? Maybe yes! But we do NOT want to write into the rules that a) it ~should~ be done, or b) imply that PC presence will usually grant a huge bonus, or c) when and how to do it. Way too variable- leave it up to the discretion, timing, and imagination of the GM.

    (Wouldn't hurt to address it in a footnote or appendix, but it's definitely "outside the box".)

  6. #26
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0

    Making the game work

    The phrase "to make the game work" implies some kind of right outcome, an outcome which is revealed later in the text as "alliances and interaction." I don't think rulers in the same province should neccesarily get along. I have no problem with a realm where everyone is at war with everyone else. Should each type of ruler be equal? Clearly there are certain game play advantages to having one holding type be roughly equal to another holding type in terms of its potency. Are law holdings the equal of other types? Or are law holdings to be merely a prize captured by the most able and vigorous of the other rulers?

  7. #27
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Cuchulainshound, I agree with your latest post about things working reasonably well at the level of weeks and at a distance removed from adventuring. However, what I want from the rules is the ability to step towards adventuring by degrees so that as the players take a greater and greater interest, that is as they begin to make decisons, I can get as detailed as I need to in order to satisfy a micro-managing ruler with a reasonable outcome.

    I certainly am happy to use the abstract rules when no one is looking. Fortunatly, no one has asked for a detailed analysis of neighboring realm A's invasion of neighboring realm B's country. The problem I have is that the choice of the realm rules or the adventure rules are in some whays binary opposites. Super detailed or very abstract. Since they don't scale into one another very nicely, its hard to use the right amount of complexity in order to be only as complex as I need to in order to satisfy players.

    So my own sense is that I would like some more thinking to go into the "When and How" to work up and down that scale of complexity. I also think that it doesn't take a whole lot to turn the BR war game into a very workable and satisfying wargame in the complete sense, warcards and all.

    Its great that BR can be played so many different ways. As political intrigue, as epic struggle against a terrible foe, as wargame, as a setting for traditional adventuring, &c, &c, but what it needs now, I think, is some attention to each of these areas in turn, rather than the original model of "something for everyone." This would seem to be the ideal purpose of a supliment, which is extra depth, but not required by those who do not seek it.

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Lacalfiusa
    Posts
    110
    Downloads
    1
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by kgauck
    I don't think rulers in the same province should neccesarily get along. I have no problem with a realm where everyone is at war with everyone else. Should each type of ruler be equal?
    But I think there should be an "incentive" to achieve that, if a small one. There is already enough incentive for conflict.

    The map of regents and holdings is actually 4 maps overlaid on each other (5 if you distinguish Law from Province). The alliances a Guilder makes may conflict with the relationships of a Temple Regent he shares a province with. And that Guilder may be in a Trade War with another Guilder who has made an alliance with the Baron holding most of the Provinces that first Guilder shares. And that's only the tip of the political iceberg.

    The "optimal" situation is for a "team" of Province/Law, Guilder, Temple, and Source regents to all share common goals, and sweep all before them- that will ~rarely~ be achieved, not so much that the alliance can't be formed, but those "common goals" are nearly impossible to coordinate.

    There's more than enough cause for strife (hell, toss 4 Player Characters in a room and it's likely someone will try to backstab another!) But, for those who do want "peace", there should be an objective reason behind it other than "because that's my alignment."

    ------------------------------------

    A gradiation of scale for RP, huh? Hmmm... that's asking a lot. Not insurmountable, but quite a task. Likewise, have to think about that.

  9. #29
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    I think the incentive to cooperate is obvious. Cooperative efforts are much more powerful, especially where actions are strictly limited, and there is a cap on RP collection. It seems to me that this would be the normal state of affairs if men were angels. The total cooperation of not just the several domains in a single realm, but potentially all domains in all of Cerilia is what the dream of Roele's empire, and the continuing dream of empire represents. All men working together in common goals and with common interests.

    Utopian, for sure.

    Since men are jealous, greedy, untrustworthy, vain, angry, &c, &c, men fight one another rather than cooperate.

    Still, some events, such as the rampages of the Gorgon, seem to bring differnt domains together in a common purpose, and so the hope lives on.

    Christian Europe had the universalizing vision of the Church to create a veneer and a hope for common cause, Cerilia, and especially Anuire, has the Imperial project.

    When players get together in my experience, they are much more likely to cooperate and adopt the Musketeers' motto. If a realm like Medoere, Roesone, Aerenwe, Elinie, or Coeranys was governed by a party of players who worked for a common interest, you suddenly have a powerful realm capable of standing up to the powers. If Avanil, Ghoere, Tuornen, or Alamie was put into the hands of four or five players who acted in common, I think it would herald a real imperial contender.

    That's why I like the fact that jurisdictions overlap, and domains are not naturally allied and coordinated. Not only are there more opportunities for conflict and action if realms are divided against themselves as well as against one another, but it provides the opportunity for a ruler to first unify his realm, then face his external rivals.

    Perhaps it bears making the thing explicit, but my template for BR, the genre which I have always in the back of my mind is Arthur. Not only does Arthur first have to unify his realm, and then go on to fight Rome and Gaul, but many a historical great ruler inherits a realm which is divided. Starting off with the realm united in common cause seems like giving the players half of the campaign as a present. If their starting realm is small and beset on all sides, it can be different, because there are challenges enough. Otherwise I prefer for there to be a 1st act where the realm must be united.

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.