Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 40 of 40
  1. #31
    Member stv2brown1988's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Brussels, Belgium
    Posts
    93
    Downloads
    31
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by kgauck View Post
    Yes. The only way for Roesone to lower Ghoere's province holding levels is through war. You have to take them by force (or destroy them, which is very hard and would require pillaging ruthlessly for a long time).
    Thanks for clearing that up.

    Now then, what about Realm spells that affect Province (holding) levels? A Bless or Blight spell would only affect the targeted holding or all? By all, I mean the Area of Effect is so great that it always effects all province holdings (in addition to other holdings in this case)? Or a death/disease type spell? Can you target these to only work on certain Province holdings? If so, then what happens if by Realm Spell you reduce an opponent's (or your own) Province holding below 0, effectively destroying it?

  2. #32
    Member stv2brown1988's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Brussels, Belgium
    Posts
    93
    Downloads
    31
    Uploads
    0

    Investure

    How does the Investure spell work? Do you have to destroy all the province holdings of other regeants before you can cast it? Or just have the only military units in the province until the spell is finished being cast? Do you need the permission of the other ruler?

    Examples: King B names Jarl Kjessen of Helkstraad to be the new King of Halskapa. Jarl Kjessen has had enough of Jarl Dherg Wir of Selkhauste saying bad things about him and the his being named the new King. Does he march his 4x units of Mercenaries into Selkhauste and have his own personally allied Druid cast the Investure spell? Now he has all of Dherg Wir's province and law holdings? What can Jarl Dherg Wir do about this tatic? Does running away help?

    Now that Jarl Kjessen owns two provinces he convinces Rvanik of Dvasiik to hand over control to him. This can happen without destroying the Province Holdings as long as they both agree?

  3. #33
    Member stv2brown1988's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Brussels, Belgium
    Posts
    93
    Downloads
    31
    Uploads
    0
    Sorry. In the previous post I was talking about the 2nd ed. Investure spell. I now see that is a Ceremony Action in BRCS. :confused: Seems pretty straight forward, so I guess nothing changes if you are using Province Holdings.

  4. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    439
    Downloads
    31
    Uploads
    0
    To keep the link between the number of province holdings and the population you just need to accept empty slots as potential and track the overall cap - much as you do for any other holding.
    AT, are you saying that you're going to track an extra number? So Bellam in your example has a population of 4, but only 3 province levels are claimed?

    I'm assuming you're saying that a max pop level needs to be attributed to each province that, for the time scale of most games, is relatively static (which is what Kgauck is going for, as well). Unless you set the population max to some standard, such as province level maximums by terrain, this creates an arbitrary system that requires a bunch of extra book-keeping. That's not necessarily a problem, but I don't know that many people that would want to do that kind of work. You could always accept the map statistics, but then you'd be saying they are static except for taking existing holdings away from other people. And in the end, you're actually not tying province level to population, just setting a different static number.

    If my assumption is wrong and you're not suggesting a static max pop level for each province, then you have the problem of Rule Province actions rapidly expanding populations (which offends the sensibilities of us simulationists). For example, using Bellam, Roesone could Rule into a Province level 3, but then keep going, till Ghoere and Roesone chase each other up to the likely max of 8 or 9 for the terrain. Now, if you don't tie province level to population, you're saying that those 80-90,000 people were already there. If you DO tie province level to population, you end up saying that this province of originally 40,000 or so people doubles in size--possibly in a single year. Where do those people come from? Migration can't contribute that many people unless other provinces are losing population. And given the increase in GB and RP from province level increases, the majority of that population needs to be productive adults--which doesn't happen in 1 year.

    There's another, perhaps more disturbing scenario caused by tying province level to population: what happens when province level goes down? In discussion about a PBEM after it had ended, I heard the idea espoused that an entire realm could be pretty much wiped out with all its people--nobility and peasantry alike--through a short but determined occupation and sequence of pillaging. The rationale was that as province level goes down due to pillaging, so does population. So if Bellam is pillaged 1 province level, 10,000 people or 25% of its population is considered slaughtered. Imagine the effect that sort of thing should have on the in-game psyche!

    Even more odd is what happens if a few hundred levies desert, are dispersed, or killed outside their nation's borders: with the loss of a few hundred people, suddenly 10,000 die back home.

    As well-ingrained as the tendency is to associate province level strongly with population, I personally think it is perhaps the poorest abstraction in the game, the one that strains the suspension of disbelief the most when you really start to think about it

  5. #35
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by stv2brown1988 View Post
    What about Realm spells that affect Province (holding) levels?
    That's a DM call. I'd look at the spell description. The thing I would focus on is does it only effect my holdings or if my enemy had holdings in the province would they be effected too? If the spell description effects friend and foe in holdings, it would work that way for province holdings too. Otherwise, it is selective.

    Quote Originally Posted by stv2brown1988 View Post
    How does the Investure spell work? Do you have to destroy all the province holdings of other regeants before you can cast it? Or just have the only military units in the province until the spell is finished being cast? Do you need the permission of the other ruler?
    The Investiture spell means about a million things so every questions gets a sometimes yes, sometimes no answer. And sometimes its just a question of where you set the DC for a certain action. You can destroy everything before you cast investiture, and then you own a waste land. Why not capture holdings intact and get those?

    Considering your occupation scenario, having the only military units in the province, it sounds like you are still at war with someone. I don't like investitures during war. I prefer settling matters at the peace table. I set the DC high and it has an effect on the other side's attitude towards you. I prefer territory changing hands by treaty. So its the easiest way to make that happen. Once you have physical possession of territory, you want to establish a civil administration. Use the investiture for this by naming someone count.

    Examples: King B names Jarl Kjessen of Helkstraad to be the new King of Halskapa. Jarl Kjessen has had enough of Jarl Dherg Wir of Selkhauste saying bad things about him and the his being named the new King. Does he march his 4x units of Mercenaries into Selkhauste and have his own personally allied Druid cast the Investure spell? Now he has all of Dherg Wir's province and law holdings? What can Jarl Dherg Wir do about this tatic? Does running away help?
    It make a world of difference if Kjessen is still Jarl in this scenario or if he is acting as King. As king, Dherg has acted as a rebel, and his power will fade quickly once you have control of his province. He will spend every last RP and GB to hold his province, but once these are spent, the province is basically yours. Keep a garrison there, but the DC's for investiture will be easy.

    On the other hand, if you are just the heir, the DC for outright conquest (no agreement) would be very high. Plus it would make the other Jarls frightened.

    Now that Jarl Kjessen owns two provinces he convinces Rvanik of Dvasiik to hand over control to him. This can happen without destroying the Province Holdings as long as they both agree?
    I don't know what would make Rvanik agree. If you bought two houses on the same block, would you expect a third home owner to give you his house? I think most nobles are the type to die trying rather than just give up.

  6. #36
    Site Moderator AndrewTall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    2,476
    Downloads
    30
    Uploads
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Rowan View Post
    AT, are you saying that you're going to track an extra number? So Bellam in your example has a population of 4, but only 3 province levels are claimed?
    Yes, if you want to keep source tied to province, keep population increases to a reasonable pace, but still allow rapid increase in'holding size' then I think you need the extra number.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rowan View Post
    I'm assuming you're saying that a max pop level needs to be attributed to each province that, for the time scale of most games, is relatively static (which is what Kgauck is going for, as well).
    I figure you can stay flexible. if the actual population level can be increased as per standard rules then it is not static at all. If you increase the cost significantly then the actual population present will change only very slowly - at least at high population levels.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rowan View Post
    Unless you set the population max to some standard, such as province level maximums by terrain, this creates an arbitrary system that requires a bunch of extra book-keeping.
    Hopefully the extra book-keeping would be kept to a minimum - we aready have maximum levels based on terrain and certain features, the only real book-keeping cost comes in the initial set up, and as you generally know who the province holder is, the book-keeping cost is less than if you added a new holding type completely like manor holdings.


    Quote Originally Posted by Rowan View Post
    You could always accept the map statistics, but then you'd be saying they are static except for taking existing holdings away from other people. And in the end, you're actually not tying province level to population, just setting a different static number.
    I figure you'd take the map level as the holding level of the main local regent, then up the province level to reflect 'uncontrolled' population. That way you can set the population you think is reasonable without unbalancing the existing system - at least in the short term.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rowan View Post
    If my assumption is wrong and you're not suggesting a static max pop level for each province, then you have the problem of Rule Province actions rapidly expanding populations (which offends the sensibilities of us simulationists). For example, using Bellam, Roesone could Rule into a Province level 3, but then keep going, till Ghoere and Roesone chase each other up to the likely max of 8 or 9 for the terrain. Now, if you don't tie province level to population, you're saying that those 80-90,000 people were already there. If you DO tie province level to population, you end up saying that this province of originally 40,000 or so people doubles in size--possibly in a single year. Where do those people come from? Migration can't contribute that many people unless other provinces are losing population. And given the increase in GB and RP from province level increases, the majority of that population needs to be productive adults--which doesn't happen in 1 year.
    This is why I'd not just create the holdings and actual population, I'd also make the cost of ruling the province total population up much higher, there are a couple of possible methods on the wiki, my preference (to avoid tracking exact population) being: cost = level squared, even level +1 squared, would pretty much stop population growth at high province levels, that way you get rapid growth to the province total population, then very slow growth - in fact aside from low level provinces (which are presumably underpopulated for some reason which can be countered) it would almost certainly be more cost effective to do some other action than trying to rule the province population.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rowan View Post
    There's another, perhaps more disturbing scenario caused by tying province level to population: what happens when province level goes down? In discussion about a PBEM after it had ended, I heard the idea espoused that an entire realm could be pretty much wiped out with all its people--nobility and peasantry alike--through a short but determined occupation and sequence of pillaging. The rationale was that as province level goes down due to pillaging, so does population. So if Bellam is pillaged 1 province level, 10,000 people or 25% of its population is considered slaughtered. Imagine the effect that sort of thing should have on the in-game psyche!
    This is not uncommon - especially when referring to non-human populations. I see genocide as a far more prevalent threat in any fantasy game than in RL simply because you have so many different competing sentient species - but possibly there are still neanderthals around that I just haven't met outside gym...

    In general though I'd expect that most of the population would flee not be killed - logistically genocide is very hard to do - even the Nazi's, a very Belinik bunch, took years to carry out their 'final solution' - and no BR realm even approaches their organisation or power. In terms of impact on the game psyche, six decades later and Germany and Japan still bear the burden of their actions in WW2, in fact many nations are still marked in one way or another. Taking the Janjaweed in Darfur, or government in Zimbabwe as more current examples, you still see years taken to reduce the population, even though in those cases the aim seems more forced flight than extermination.

    I'd say that when pillaging the population level you first destroy the holdings, then, and I'd need to think of a mechanic, a much slower reduction of the people themselves. This reduction should mostly involve flight - trying to prohibit flight would encourage mass uprisings - which would destablise neighbours (possibly aiding their growth, but likely with someone native to the new population holding the province level).

    Quote Originally Posted by Rowan View Post
    Even more odd is what happens if a few hundred levies desert, are dispersed, or killed outside their nation's borders: with the loss of a few hundred people, suddenly 10,000 die back home.
    The province holding mechanic would help here - the regent's holding reduces, reflecting loss of morale, loyalty, whatever, the actual population would not itself then reduce. I'd note that I think think levies were intended to mostly be for low level provinces - where the old population figures made the levy a much higher percentage of the population.[/QUOTE]

    Quote Originally Posted by Rowan View Post
    As well-ingrained as the tendency is to associate province level strongly with population, I personally think it is perhaps the poorest abstraction in the game, the one that strains the suspension of disbelief the most when you really start to think about it
    I think that province holdings are a way to reduce these tensions somewhat - they don't solve the problem completely, but its a start.

  7. #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    439
    Downloads
    31
    Uploads
    0
    I think that province holdings are a way to reduce these tensions somewhat - they don't solve the problem completely, but its a start.
    I agree that province holdings help solve a lot of these problems. I was advocating for a more or less fixed population. It seems like our main difference is that you'd assign the max pop level and provide an expensive mechanism for increase, while I'm still leaning a little more in favor of Kgauck's fully settled provinces, just trying to figure out what to do with refugees of conquered areas and frontier areas.

  8. #38
    Member stv2brown1988's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Brussels, Belgium
    Posts
    93
    Downloads
    31
    Uploads
    0
    Would province holdings generate GB equiv. to % of Province Level?

    For Example:
    Bellam is a Province Level 3 (30,000 people?)
    Bellam Generates 3 GB per turn
    Marlae Roesone has 1 Province Holding = 1GB
    Baron Ghoere has 1 Province Holding = 1GB
    And noone claims the last GB of potential income?

  9. #39
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Currently, Province level produces a GB per level. I see no reason to alter that because all the provinces are not in the same hands.

  10. #40
    Site Moderator AndrewTall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    2,476
    Downloads
    30
    Uploads
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by stv2brown1988 View Post
    Would province holdings generate GB equiv. to % of Province Level?

    For Example:
    Bellam is a Province Level 3 (30,000 people?)
    Bellam Generates 3 GB per turn
    Marlae Roesone has 1 Province Holding = 1GB
    Baron Ghoere has 1 Province Holding = 1GB
    And noone claims the last GB of potential income?
    Yes and no - I'd say that a regent gets 1 GB for each province level they hold, and just as with temple or guild if a level is not 'controlled' then it produces 'no' income. I use quotes as the province will no doubt be controlled by any number of minor nobles, courtiers, etc and will produce the income - but either squander it in inefficiencies, corruption, etc or see it go to 'below the radar' leaders.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Grabentod provinces
    By cccpxepoj in forum BRWiki Discussions
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 11-14-2008, 08:24 PM
  2. How do you tell which provinces have castles?
    By devall4000 in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 02-22-2006, 10:16 PM
  3. Urban Provinces
    By tcharazazel in forum BRCS 3.0/3.5 Edition
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 07-14-2004, 08:51 PM
  4. Source in non-provinces
    By Don E in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 05-19-2004, 10:03 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.