Results 1 to 10 of 21

Thread: Asset Question

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    11
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Asset Question

    Not sure if I'm reading this right...

    If a province ruler is to build/raise his Provincial Fortification from 2 to 3, it will cost him 24GB? 8GB x Level?

  2. #2
    Junior Member nagebenfro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen, UK
    Posts
    17
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    No, I it is a simple cost per level, not a multiple. Raising from 2 to 3 should cost 8 GB, I believe.

  3. #3
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    11
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Yes, that makes more sense, otherwise it's quite expensive to build a fortification...I just saw the 'x' and assumed it was a multiplier. Thanks for clearing that up.

  4. #4
    Senior Member ploesch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    182
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    hmmm, I always thought it was the other way also.

    Yeah it is expensive, but it's supposed to be. Ever Built a castle using the castle builders guide, hundres of thousands of gold are involved.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by ploesch
    Yeah it is expensive, but it's supposed to be. Ever Built a castle using the castle builders guide, hundres of thousands of gold are involved.
    There are many cases where GB and gp just do not interchange. Compare the cost of 200 suits of banded mail to what it costs to get a single unit of heavy infantry, for example.

    It's pretty clear that it isn't intended to be a cumulative cost here.

  6. #6
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,945
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    The text is not clear on whether it should be cumulative or not.

    My opinion is that it should not be cumulative and use the adding magic properties to an item guidelines for the costs of increasing the "value" of something. At least a similar type of comparison in RAW.

    DMG pg 288 adding new abilites (you subtract the previous cost to determine the cost that must be paid now).
    Duane Eggert

  7. #7
    Site Moderator geeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,165
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    0
    First off, let me note that a system of flat increments, such as
    purchasing 10 units of a particular type all of which cost the same
    amount, can exist in a balanced (or, at least, game mechanically
    purposeful) way with an incremental system, such as the increased
    cost per level of fortification. The issue here is not "balance" per
    se. It`s reflecting a particular dynamic relationship. The flat
    cost is to reflect that each unit is of the same type, equipped the
    same way, etc. The incrementally increasing cost reflects that one
    gains little benefit from constructing a second barbican in the
    middle of the road after one has already constructed the first. A
    more elaborate and extensive system is required to gain greater
    defensive power. Armor that is twice as thick is not necessarily
    twice as strong. The chinks of the armor remain the places of
    vulnerability and the process of making armor with fewer chinks or
    making those areas less vulnerable is more difficult than simply
    buying a second sword.

    "Balance" is a somewhat vaguely defined term. It seems to mean
    something different to various people. Sometimes it means something
    different to the same people based on the context. Sometimes people
    seem to mean that the situation is a "fair match" with about a 50/50
    shot of either side winning, while at other times people seem to mean
    parity with other rules. Neither of those things are really balance,
    though. Balance really means that game mechanically things will work
    out in a logical and systematic way with costs that are commensurate
    with the ability gained.

    In this particular case, there`s nothing inherently unbalanced
    against a flat cost "offensive" vs an incremental cost
    "defense." What matters is what one gets for that cost. The 10
    units of soldiers never become more effective as an offense. That
    is, their attack values don`t increase based upon their
    numbers. Their values are as flat as their costs. If the defense
    values for fortification and the use of those values has more
    application then an incremental cost can be balanced. One just has
    to be sure that what one gets for the incrementally increased cost
    stacks or has an impact that is increasingly broad in order to
    justify the cost increase, while flat costs have stats that remain flat.

    Also, don`t BR units exist in their own cumulatively increasing cost
    system ranging from levies to heavy cavalry? Shouldn`t that be
    factored into the assessment of flat vs incrementally increasing costs?

    Gary

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.