Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16
  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    20
    Downloads
    32
    Uploads
    0

    Sea Trade Route question

    I apologize if this question has already been answered somewhere, but are the maintenance costs for ships used to conduct sea trade already deducted from the GB produced by that trade route?

    Ian

  2. #2
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,946
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    No they are not. Neither are the costs of highways or seaports deducted from the income generated by trade routes. They are treated separate due to the fact that they serve multiple purposes. Highways allow easier troop movement as well as supporting trade routes - seaports are a diffierent matter and the more I think about them the more they are probably best handled more like "guilds" than actual "assets" since their only game function is to support sea trade routes. But that is something to look at later and is not directly related to this question.

    Ships are treated like military units in regard to maintenance costs.

    See Table 5-4 and 6-3

    Also (from Chap 6):

    A garrisoned naval unit incurs expenses equal to its muster cost every four years. To simplify bookkeeping, unit expenses are tracked seasonally.

    A unit is considered to be active if it leaves its home province or if its home province contains potentially hostile forces. Active units incur double the maintenance expenses of units garrisoned in their home province.
    Duane Eggert

  3. #3
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    20
    Downloads
    32
    Uploads
    0
    Thanks for the clarification on that! I was a bit unsure after noticing that maintenance costs were no longer used for holdings (which never really made sense anyway as it created more paperwork when all one had to do was reduce the income earned to account for these costs).

    I see how the ships are different in this respect though and it makes sense to pay the maintenance costs separately.

    Great work covering these areas, btw. Chapter 5 & 6 are VASTLY superior compared to what was presented in the original 2ed products (especially the more in depth look at assets and rules for creating military units from the ground up.

    Thanks again for the assistance!

    Ian

  4. #4
    Yeah Seaports right now are a little off. Rulers tend to control them but they really get no major benifit from them. I have given added bonuses for controlling seaports.

    1. +1 bonus on guild actions in that province.
    2. +1 to contest trade routes using that seaport. (could be even stronger)
    3. Reduce the troop movement cost when boarding a ship in a seaport you control. Make it cost just 1 movement point to board ship.

    Wanted to make some reason why rulers would want to control their own seaports.

    -BB

  5. #5
    Senior Member The Swordgaunt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Bergen, Norway
    Posts
    152
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    I'm just tossing this in. Would it be feasible to allow a guild ruler to establish a seaport? I believe it could lead to interesting game-play, and a fair bit of local politicking.

    "No, My Lord, I am afraid your ship will have to wait, you see, the Alderman is receiving his mistress on the eastern pier, and it may take the afternoon - Ladies, you see..."
    -Harald

    Today, we were kidnapped by hill folk never to be seen again. It was the best day ever.

    Blog

  6. #6
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,946
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by The Swordgaunt View Post
    I'm just tossing this in. Would it be feasible to allow a guild ruler to establish a seaport? I believe it could lead to interesting game-play, and a fair bit of local politicking.

    "No, My Lord, I am afraid your ship will have to wait, you see, the Alderman is receiving his mistress on the eastern pier, and it may take the afternoon - Ladies, you see..."

    Nothing wrong with that - it is just like a guilder building the highways.

    Realizing of course that nothing stops the landed regent (with armies) from moving into the sea port and "taking it over" - but there are no real game-mechanics for that part.
    Duane Eggert

  7. #7
    Site Moderator AndrewTall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Chelmsford, Essex, England
    Posts
    2,305
    Downloads
    25
    Uploads
    0
    Hmm, I'd say that the ruler must either dominate the law (i.e. their law exceeds the guilder's guilds) or occupy to take the seaport - an interesting idea is that rival guilds could co-operate to boost the effective level of the other (for a price of course) and law holders do likewise - the diplomacy gets more interesting when you need friends.

    One possibility on a seaport is that it could be treated as an asset that generates money or permits a larger population (both arise from fishing, one assumes that the controller aims to maximise trade, the other that they demand a share of the catch to feed their people).

    I can see a canny ruler allowing the guilder to control the port (so only that guilder can operate sea trade routes) but requiring some form of levy to be applied for the privilege.

  8. #8
    Senior Member The Swordgaunt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Bergen, Norway
    Posts
    152
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Dammit! I want to play BR.
    -Harald

    Today, we were kidnapped by hill folk never to be seen again. It was the best day ever.

    Blog

  9. #9
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by AndrewTall View Post
    I can see a canny ruler allowing the guilder to control the port (so only that guilder can operate sea trade routes) but requiring some form of levy to be applied for the privilege.
    Traditionally states did not maintain navies, but had the right to rent ships in wartime for their navies. Andrew's description is how it worked.

  10. #10
    Senior Member The Swordgaunt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Bergen, Norway
    Posts
    152
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by kgauck View Post
    Traditionally states did not maintain navies, but had the right to rent ships in wartime for their navies. Andrew's description is how it worked.
    I'm nitpicking again... Actually, during the Hundred Years War, both the French and the English crowns built and maintained royal fleets.
    -Harald

    Today, we were kidnapped by hill folk never to be seen again. It was the best day ever.

    Blog

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Questions/Problems with Trade Route Rules
    By Sathoth in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 05-19-2007, 03:59 PM
  2. Trade networks
    By teloft in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 06-02-2004, 07:46 PM
  3. Trade routes
    By teloft in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-01-2004, 09:18 PM
  4. Trade Route
    By Arius Vistoon in forum BRCS 3.0/3.5 Edition
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-06-2003, 10:36 PM
  5. Trade Routes (Well I'll be....)
    By morgramen in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 05-06-2002, 08:49 PM

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.