Results 1 to 10 of 13
Thread: Maintenance costs
Hybrid View
-
07-08-2008, 05:05 PM #1
- Join Date
- Mar 2007
- Location
- Quebec (Canada)
- Posts
- 49
- Downloads
- 2
- Uploads
- 0
Maintenance costs
Hi,
question about maintenance of fortification.
I found the ratio really high (2/3xlevel or 1/3xlevel) compared to the cost. It means that the maintenance cost is around 30% to 66% per season of fortification value.
I think those value should be less, more around 10% to 20% ?
What do you think ?
Thanks !
-
07-08-2008, 05:27 PM #2
- Join Date
- Mar 2007
- Location
- Quebec (Canada)
- Posts
- 49
- Downloads
- 2
- Uploads
- 0
Also,
I have difficulty transforming my players catles into BR ratings.
That is I used Stronghold Builders to construct their Temple and Castles.
Temple cost is 40,000 gp (a simple temple with 20 seats in SB)
Motte-and-Bailey is 30,000 gp. (wooden palissade with stone manor)
Castle on cliff is 80,000 gp. (small stone castle)
Those are supposed to be Fortification (province) and/or Fortification (Holding) ?
The Temple is an holding.
but the other two are castles and the players are law regent only.
-
07-08-2008, 06:05 PM #3
- Join Date
- Feb 2003
- Posts
- 388
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 1:05 PM, Panics <brnetboard@birthright.net> wrote:
> question about maintenance of fortification.
>
> I found the ratio really high (2/3xlevel or 1/3xlevel) compared to the cost. It means that the maintenance cost is around 30% to 66% per season of fortification value.
>
> I think those value should be less, more around 10% to 20% ?
>
> What do you think ?
Reducing the cost of maintaining a fortification will encourage them
to proliferate, obviously. Do you want that in your game? If so,
make it so.
Alternatively, make a rule that a fortification can be "active" or
"inactive". If it`s active, pay full maintenance. If it`s inactive,
pay no (or minimal) maintenance, but it provides no benefit in event
of war. If you want to bring it back to active, pay GB=its level for
repairs and restaffing, and start paying maintenance on it again.
Keep the ones on your border with Markazor active, put the rest on
standby.
Also, "inactive" castles may occasionally be infested by goblins,
brigands, and assorted other adventuring opportunities, either as a
random event, or by GM fiat.
--
Daniel McSorley
-
07-08-2008, 06:16 PM #4
- Join Date
- Feb 2003
- Posts
- 388
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 1:27 PM, Panics <brnetboard@birthright.net> wrote:
> I have difficulty transforming my players catles into BR ratings.
>
> That is I used Stronghold Builders to construct their Temple and Castles.
>
> Temple cost is 40,000 gp (a simple temple with 20 seats in SB)
>
> Motte-and-Bailey is 30,000 gp. (wooden palissade with stone manor)
>
> Castle on cliff is 80,000 gp. (small stone castle)
>
> Those are supposed to be Fortification (province) and/or Fortification (Holding) ?
>
> The Temple is an holding.
>
> but the other two are castles and the players are law regent only.
How does that compare to the cost of a fortified holding or castle? I
vaguely think a castle cost 10GB/level; 30000gp is 15 GB, so that
would be a level 1 or 2 castle? Sounds reasonable. The 80k castle is
40 GB, so a level 4 castle. Again, works for me.
Really, eyeballing it may be your best bet, here, since you`re trying
to combine two systems that weren`t designed to work together. A
motte-and-bailey could easily be a level 2 castle, and a small stone
castle on a fortified location sounds like about a level 4 castle to
me, so it kinda works out.
--
Daniel McSorley
-
07-08-2008, 07:15 PM #5
- Join Date
- Mar 2007
- Location
- Quebec (Canada)
- Posts
- 49
- Downloads
- 2
- Uploads
- 0
Well if I follow the rules set
Fortification (Province) is 8 GB/level and Fortification (holding) is 4 GB/level.
In the description, province fortification are more like a system of towers and a castle or series of barracks laid out in the province.
holding are more like small castle... but how small... if you emulate that a GB equal ruffly 2,000 gp.
So my 30k castle would be a holding of level 4 ! or a province fortification level 2.
Maybe I should draw a new "level" system for the fortification and/or make only one Fortification cost and maintenance entry.
-
07-08-2008, 10:26 PM #6
Part of the maintenance cost is probably maintaining rights, etc - a GB is not simply gold despite its name, it is influence, labour, and much more. A PC adventurer pays in cash and gets the service they pay for, a PC regent gets much more bang for their buck by paying in RP (people's willingness to support their lord) and tax rights, tithes, etc.
Don't forget that much of the cost is maintaining stocks of food, servants, guards, etc - a castle without food or warriors may have strong walls but will offer little resistance to invasion.
If a ruler takes the rights over a castle them they could have to keep the local lords happy with their rule ($ kerching!) or spend to keep them crushed and obedient. I like Dan's idea of active and inactive castles (i.e. those with stores and guards and those without) but would add to goblins intenral politics like robber barons and renegade knights - leaving a big fortress to go idle is asking for the local lord to take over, get delusions of grandeur, and turn into a great captain.
Ultimately though as Dan said, it is an issue of balance and how frequent you want your castles - and how rapid you want your wars to be. One issue I have is timespan - big stone castles do not get built in mere months, and do not fall down in months of neglect either - but that's a separate issue.
-
07-09-2008, 12:35 AM #7
Another, perhaps related, interpretation, is that a fortress has been built, but lands must be alienated to support it, so actually your income goes down, but instead of handling the accounting by reducing income, they just impose a "maintenance cost" because the end result, less GB, is the same.
-
07-09-2008, 05:06 AM #8
- Join Date
- Jan 2004
- Posts
- 439
- Downloads
- 31
- Uploads
- 0
One way to limit the power of fortresses despite reducing maintenance costs might be to, as Andrew implies, increase the construction time. But I don't particularly like the idea of wasting Court actions on them continually, either, both from a gameplay and a story standpoint.
So here's a variant rule:
Build/Fortify would be a Court action costing 1GB (in addition to the cost of the construction) performed once to initiate construction. It would represent arranging the personnel and setting up the administrative oversight required to support ongoing construction at a reasonable pace.
Construction would then continue at the rate of 1GB per month automatically until complete (you could make this 2GB if you really want it speedy in your game, but see below). This incremental pace allows each level of province fortification to be built in 8 months. A significant fortification (3 or higher) thus takes at least 2 years to construct at a normal pace.
Hastening construction requires another Build/Fortify Court action costing an additional 1GB to represent the hiring/setting up of additional staff and devoting more resources to the job, but would increase the pace appropriately (another 1GB per month).
If for any reason construction is halted (for instance because the regent can't pay for the construction in a given month), another Court action is required to re-initiate construction.
To offset the greater build times, as well as to make book-keeping easier, province fortifications cost 0.5GB per level per season to maintain (0.25 if you're really generous). Fortified holdings (often neglected in the game because they're not worth it) don't cost anything to maintain--the greater security and value of the asset effectively covers the slightly-increased maintenance cost of revenue-generating holdings. (Province fortifications are not revenue-generating holdings, so they don't get any benefit).
I would tend to increase the battle rule tactical impact of fortifications to be 4+ the level of the castle, by the way, otherwise low level castles still aren't worth it. I also wouldn't levy a penalty for construction costs in provinces of level 3 or lower unless the fortification exceeds the level of the province. Border provinces often raise fortifications despite being sparsely populated, and should be able to do so freely. Further, I tend to think of minor fortifications (1 or 2) as rather minor affairs--motte and bailey, ditch and palisaded towns, signal and guard towers (mostly wooden), barricades and barracks, the occasional small stone inner keep. I see 3+ as increasingly sophisticated affairs using more stone, higher walls, siege engines, additional curtain walls, etc.
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Similar Threads
-
brwiki maintenance
By Arjan in forum Birthright.net supportReplies: 0Last Post: 05-30-2007, 07:21 PM -
Forum down for maintenance
By Arjan in forum Birthright.net Official AnnouncementsReplies: 1Last Post: 04-09-2007, 08:49 PM -
Navy Maintenance
By ploesch in forum BRCS 3.0/3.5 EditionReplies: 1Last Post: 09-04-2006, 06:00 PM -
Summoning Maintenance
By A_dark in forum The Royal LibraryReplies: 18Last Post: 06-10-2004, 02:37 PM -
Administrate And Maintenance
By Osprey in forum BRCS 3.0/3.5 EditionReplies: 1Last Post: 07-31-2003, 09:57 AM
Bookmarks