Province level, taxation and population

[Sir Tiamat]

I am thinking out loud here…

Ruling the “population level” should affect sources and should definitely be harder than ruling the “control level”. Ruling the “control level” would likely be aided by law holding

[ryancaveney]

-The first view is that province level represents the population under taxation of and loyal to the province ruler in this view the actual number of people is greater.

-The second view is that the province level is the actual number of people, and the loyalty to the ruler is represented by the part of the law the regent controls.

The second view you list is that of the original rulebook, pages 33 and 34: level 0 provinces have less than 1,000 people, level 1 to level 3 provinces have 2,000 to 10,000 people, level 4 to level 6 provinces have 10,000 to 40,000 people, and provinces level 7 and up have 40,000 to 100,000 people. The most elegant formula derivable from this, as Kenneth once pointed out, is population in thousands equals province level squared. To give level 0 provinces a nonzero population under this system, I use one-half instead of zero, giving a total of 250 people in a level zero.

The first view you list is what a number of people, including me, have adopted as a replacement over the years because there are some serious believability problems with the rulebook's view. One is that the population of Cerilia is absurdly low -- only about 2 million instead of the 20 to 120 million it really ought to have, given its size, time since settlement, and medieval agricultural yields. Far worse than that, in my opinion, is its effect on the Rule action. When you rule a province 3 up to a province 4, where do the other 7,000 people come from? When you rule it up to level 5 three months later, another 9,000 people appear out of nowhere. This is ridiculously fast for real population growth: even at modern-world rates, each of those actions should be thirty years apart, not three months. Gary Foss suggested this was due to migration, but I just don't see the Cerilian population as anywhere near mobile enough for that. Also, as soon as you start a new campaign, provinces start getting ruled up all over the place -- migration is a zero-sum game, because all those people have to come from somewhere, which should become less populated as a result. When Rule Province is going on all over the place, migration would mean hundreds of thousands of new immigrants arriving from Aduria or Djapar or someplace, which seems almost as hard to believe. Since I would otherwise have to limit the Rule action to once per province per campaign, which is much less fun, I have to decouple province level from raw numerical population.

First view:
Why do source levels lower when the ruler increases control of the population?
Why does rule get harder with increased control?
What is the actual population in the province?

I'll answer these according to my own interpretation and implementation of the view, but others who agree with me that province level and population are not the same may have other answers -- which I would be particularly interested to hear!

Kenneth already answered the first for me: they're determined by actual population, not control of it. He also answered the second quite well, to which I will add one additional point. Consider that when you start increasing your control of a province, the minor nobles, burghers and other landholders will not all have the same attitudes: some will be easier to bring into your control than others. It seems perfectly sensible to start with the people most likely to agree with you, then those in the middle, and only at the end turn to the ones most resistant to your control. Similarly, you buy the cheapest land (relative to productivity) first and the most expensive land last. This accounts for increasing investment, bribery and influence costs in GB and RP quite nicely, I think.

My answer to the third question depends on the original province population table, together with the maximum province level by terrain type table on the last page (96) of the original rulebook:

3 Desert
1 Glacier
6 Heavy Forest
9 Hills
8 Light Forest
6 Marsh / Swamp
7 Low Mountains
5 Medium Mountains
3 High Mountains
6 Moor / Highland
10 Plains
6 Steppes
2 Tundra

Sadly for rules clarity, the maps do not make this table easy to use: for example, many provinces have two or three different types, and there is no visual distinction made between the three kinds of mountains. Perhaps worse, it is not quite the same list of terrain types as appears on page 81, in the table showing maximum source level by terrain type. However, both those problems need to be resolved in order to play the game in the first place, without making any changes to the meaning of province level. Some modifications also need to be made by species (e.g., maximum dwarf population level in mountain provinces ought to be substantially higher), but the idea should be clear.

As a simple example, consider Medoere. It consists of three plains provinces, one each of levels 2, 3 and 4. In my model, it has three plains provinces, so it has 300,000 inhabitants. In the other model, it has only 29,000. The larger number is far more consistent with historical population densities for the heart of the settled lands of the empire. The smaller number could be improved by multiplying by an overall scaling factor, but the big problem comes when Suris Enlien starts Ruling up the provinces. In my model, all she does is increase her control over the sub-BR-scale landowners; the population stays the same, which IMO is good -- the ruler should really not be able to affect that much at all. In the other model, she creates people out of thin air, which I find so unbelievable that I had to change the rule.

To me both are legitimate views, but either view has a major effect on tax collection and the rule province domain action. Currently, the use of both incompatible views interchangeably obfuscates the provincial rule, growth, tax collection and loyalty. This should be addressed by selecting one view and make all other things compatible with this view.

Within any one model, yes. However, I don't think there will ever be complete agreement over which model is best. I prefer my way, and modify all the things you mention to make a coherent system. However, I recognize that many people play a different way, and I still participate in their discussions, but I have to modify my assumptions to do so effectively.


Ryan

[Sir Tiamat]

If

"population level" = size of settled population

&

"control level" = amount of the settled population that pays tribute to the king.

then:

The way I see it both "population level" and "control level" determine tax income. The current scores on the map represent tax income.

"population level" determines holding level

"population level" determines source level

"population level" determines infrastructure

"population level" = maximum "control level"

Is this correct?

[Sir Tiamat]

Kenneth already answered the first for me: they're determined by actual population, not control of it. He also answered the second quite well, to which I will add one additional point. Consider that when you start increasing your control of a province, the minor nobles, burghers and other landholders will not all have the same attitudes: some will be easier to bring into your control than others. It seems perfectly sensible to start with the people most likely to agree with you, then those in the middle, and only at the end turn to the ones most resistant to your control. Similarly, you buy the cheapest land (relative to productivity) first and the most expensive land last. This accounts for increasing investment, bribery and influence costs in GB and RP quite nicely, I think.

The point remains that maximum guild, temple and law holding also depend on that figure, which makes no sense. Moreover, a regent would use loyalty and coercieve power (law holding) to increase his share of the pie. Rule province is does not allow any aid of holdings or regency because it is assumed to stand for population level.

Edit: And how would one determine the level of settlement, it could not alone depend on landscape cultivated plains can hold more people than plains with herding nomads

[ryancaveney]

If ... then ... Is this correct?

That's what I do, yes. The one distinction I would add is that while "population level" determines what infrastructure is present, "control level" determines how much of the existing infrastructure the province ruler can effectively access. That is, if population is high but control is low, then much of the industrial base will belong to someone else, so the ruler will have to pay through the nose to gain temporary access to it. To my mind, getting around these costs by getting the middleman to work for you is part of why net income goes up with control level: you're now getting a cut of their profits, instead of contributing to the share of their profits which they pass on to someone else.


Ryan

[ryancaveney]

The point remains that maximum guild, temple and law holding also depend on that figure, which makes no sense.

Right, so I've changed that, too. One rules tweak often implies another, and I am constantly tinkering with the result to improve the overall consistency and elegance of the model.

Moreover, a regent would use loyalty and coercieve power (law holding) to increase his share of the pie. Rule province is does not allow any aid of holdings or regency because it is assumed to stand for population level.

It doesn't allow RP expenditure? That's certainly not how I read the rule! In my games, spending lots of RP to decrease the target number of Rule Province is almost universal. I allow law holding level to affect the target number as well, but only those law holdings in the part of the land you don't already control. I don't keep separate track of where holdings are; I just assume that as many of yours as can fit in your controlled lands are there, so the bonus from law holdings is holding level minus province level: TN = 11 + 2P - L, where P is the current province level and L is your law holding level. Other law regents may add or subtract their holding levels normally; any uncontrolled law holdings automatically count against you, since clearly those people already don't like being ruled by your government.

And how would one determine the level of settlement, it could not alone depend on landscape cultivated plains can hold more people than plains with herding nomads

To me, that's precisely the difference between the "steppe" terrain type and the "plains" terrain type: they have the same movement cost, so the only practical difference is the factor of three difference in population density. As DM, I set all that up at the beginning of a campaign. Some places are treated specially from the start (like the Basilisk's three nearly-empty provinces), and others can happen during play (for example, the Death Plague realm spell reduces both control level and population level).


Ryan

[Jaleela]

The population levels as defined by the original boxed set are way too small to support the towns and cities envisioned in the domain supplements, in any agrarian society pre late 19th century in technology level. There is no way around this concept, unless suspension of disbelief involves Cerilian humans living on air alone. I think we have gone over this more than adequately on other threads. Also, armies cannot be raised or sustained at the levels envisioned without a more realistic population level. This would aslso make source reduction based on population a lot more reasonable proposition.

Untill this root problem is resolved, any 'elegant solution' cannot be reached.

[AndrewTall]

It doesn't allow RP expenditure? That's certainly not how I read the rule! In my games, spending lots of RP to decrease the target number of Rule Province is almost universal.
Ryan

Spending RP on rule province actions
In the BRCs they changed this - in my view probably to make it harder to rule provinces. I prefer to increase the cost (see below) or force a time delay (see the wiki houserule).

Importance of province level
I dislike the idea of a 'ruler' only getting a fraction of the RP income - I'm not so fussed about GB as I can accept the tiers of bureaucracy argument. Whether or not Joe the miller pays his taxes direct to the king for use of a toll road, etc or whether he pays it to the squire, who pays it to the lord who pays it to the count etc shouldn't change the fact that Joe knows that the king is the chap on a big white horse with a crown - in BR that should mean the RP is based on total population. If the opulation is detached from prvince level then currently Joe should consider the squire to be his regent and the rule action actually changes tribal loyalties - a very hard thing generally...

I am happy to have intersecting populations - Knukk the goblins tribe (pop level 1) and the dwarves of the hills (pop 3) may live in the same province but have no reason to be amalgamated into a single province population, similarly Harl Diem and Suris may both have distinct populations (east and west of a province for example) - but generally I'd draw the province borders to avoid that sort of problem - a bigger issue however is whether the province and source populations should overlap given that one wants to follow political boundaries and the other terrain types - the two often overlap but not always.

For simplicity I would say that the province level represents people (whether taxpayers, hearths, families, or actual bodies) that answer to the crown, the actual population level can be 1-2 levels higher. That preserves the possibility of wild realms, but grants justification both for slightly low populations in some areas and for rule actions more than once per generation in some areas.

Increasing population by a factor of 10 having no impact aside from the size of military units and impact of heroes on a battlefield as you just scale down the impact on source holdings to keep source+province level at the same maximum and scale movement to fit the new population parameters - if you double province size to make the continent a bit less dinky good for you...

Source level
It could be argued that sourse holdings reduce not simply due to the number of warm bodies present, but also disruptions to the land - roads, bridges, fields, forts, etc, etc. A series of small hamlets unconnected to civilisation has no impact, but if the local lord builds roads across the ancient ley lines disrupting the mebhaighl flow in order to get his taxes, etc then the source level reduces.

This is a gross simplification of course - particularly for higher level provinces, but to my mind it is the artifacts of civilisation that hit the source level - not just the presence of warm bodies. In my view, as an example, Elven populations don't reduce source levels not because elven regents know how to 'bend the rules' on magic, but because the population doesn't build roads, buildings, weirs, mills, etc like other races, or where they do so follow the natural mebhaighl flow to avoid disrupting it - I see the sidhe as far more like wood/forest elves in other settings than 'high' or 'grey' elves from those settings, even akin to the Cha'asi and Hulderfolk of Taladas, so most probably own no more than they can carry, have no need of shelter, etc - and as inherently magical beings need very little agriculture etc. (Much as BR dwarves can eat dirt the elves are sustained partly by mebhaighl - explaining why they are driven from tainted lands so easily).

Holdings over the province level
If the population can a 1-2 levels beyond the province level indicates, then a guild/temple holding could extend beyond the stated province level - but I'd say it should be difficult - at least double or triple cost - as it represents going beyond the normal bounds of civilisation, into the very private fiefdom of a noble, etc.

Rule actions
I'm not sure that slowing the rate a regent rule provinces is a big problem, you only really need to hit high level provinces (rule L0 to L1 and frankly you found a few farmsteads, even L2 to L3 isn't a killer to explain). So the easy fix is to say that to rule a province costs (in RP and GB) the province level squared - and builds at a maximum of 1d6 per round like anything else... Spending RP to boost the odds costs a minimum of 25% of the base cost per pip...

If regents in a game are simply using rule actions constantly to gain strength then they aren't striving for power with intrigue, trade, war, etc - a game where the players spend all their time rolling rules is impoverished compared to one where the players must interact with other domains to gains strength so restriction on rule actions should be fine. Of course if one regent wants to use diplomacy against another regent's population to convince the peasants to emigrate so that the first regent can rule their province, or allows bandits to lay waste to the other regent's realm to encourage the locals to flee to the 'safe' realm then fine - that's what DM's are for, to see circumstances outside the expectations of the game and judge their success fairly...

[kgauck]

And how would one determine the level of settlement, it could not alone depend on landscape cultivated plains can hold more people than plains with herding nomads

Certainly it is determined by landscape alone. The whole history of human existance is the displacement of nomands by settled people (nearly complete by 1500 AD) and the further displacement of hortoculturalists and pastoralists by intensive agriculturalists (nearly complete today).

This is one of those big engines of human history. The game gives us ideas about how technologically developed people are, so we can say, based on this level of technology, food yields are x, and population is y. By 1500, the only hunter-gatherers were in terribly inhospitable areas. Pastoralists and hortoculturalists could still control large expances where plow agriculture was impossible or impractical.

Steppes are short grass plains with no trees. Pairies have tall grass. Both are plains, and both can support very strong agriculture. However, both get far less rainfall than forested areas (or they would have trees, not grasses) so agriculture must rely on irrigation of one kind or another. So people with a medieval or renaissance level of technology would only grow crops close enough to rivers to irrigate.

One must keep in mind the natural landscape, not the man-adjusted landscape. This is the argument of the elves, is it not? Anuire was once all forest, so the rainfall is substantial and the soil is fertile. The easiest thing to do is read the books that describe the realms and work backwards. If the books say the land is empty, no rain.

Three things must exist for agriculture, flat land, rainfall, and a long enough growing season. Remove any one of them, and agriculture becomes impossible. So, if the books say no one lives in, say Hjorvaal, Stjordvik, then make the land too hilly for agriculture. If its plains, rule that the rainfall is too low. Or give the land a great slope, so that the fertility of the soil is low, because of erosion. Since these attributes rainfall, flatness, and tempreture are not really represented in the BR design, you can use them to plug any holes you want.

[Beruin]

Historically, half the income of royals and nobles (although the nobles have a much more varied situation) comes from law holdings. Another possible name for the "control level" would be administration holdings.

I maybe missing something here, but I always thought that "control level" is what law holdings are all about, while province level represents population. So far, I don't see the need for an additional kind of holding and I am at a complete loss with understanding the difference between the old law and your administration holding. So please explain: What constitutes a law holding and an administration holding?