Results 1 to 8 of 8
Thread: Managing military assets
07-17-2009, 05:21 AM #1
Managing military assets
Discussion thread for Managing military assets. If you would like to add a comment, click the Post Reply button.
07-17-2009, 05:32 AM #2
I have being doing some work on the wiki relating to fortifications and I noticed the following in this section of the BRCS (or what will be marked as BRCS later).
Fortified holdings are rated by level, just like holdings. The level of a fortified holding cannot exceed the level of the holding it protects. The fortification only protects holding levels equal to its rating, any holding level which exceed the fortification are subject to destruction. Fortifications have a maintenance cost equal to a holding of the same level. Thus, a fully fortified holding has double the maintenance cost of a normal (unfortified) holding.
A province fortification represents a castle and a system of walled towns, armories, and other military buildings can provide some level of protection throughout the entire province. The overall strength of a province fortification is represented by its level. A province fortification can be built up to level 10, regardless of the level of the province. A province fortification has a maintenance cost equal to a province of the same level. Thus a fully fortified province has double the maintenance cost of an unfortified province.
Oh, if a city has a fortified castle, then I take it that that would normally mean that a law holding is fortified, not the province?
07-17-2009, 07:34 AM #3
Ius Hibernicum, in nomine juris. Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
07-19-2009, 12:45 AM #4
- Join Date
- Apr 2002
- BR mailing list
At 12:34 AM 7/17/2009, Thelandrin wrote:
>Oh no. A fortified province is always represented by a castle. I`d
>imagine that a fortified temple shows up as a militant abbey, a
>fortified guild as a guild manor or Fort Knox-like guild-house and a
>fortified law holding as either a small fort or something like
>barracks and guardhouse.
Couldn`t the underground population of a dwarven province be
considered fortified and, therefore, get the benefits of what the BR
materials often calls castles? This isn`t a big deal or anything,
but one of my pet peeves is that some of the vocabulary used in the
BR materials takes its readers in a particular direction, and that
direction might not really be the most appropriate for the situation,
the gamers, or even the setting itself.
"Knights" as a unit of soldiers, for instance, takes people in the
direction of the lowest order of ennobled equestrians elites. That`s
all well and good, but should we assume that everyone of the members
of that unit is knighted? Might not some or many of them simply be
heavily armed and armored soldiers on large mounts? Couldn`t the
same or similar numbers be used to represent varsk riders? Or
charioteers? Or elves riding stags? Or halfings mounted on giant
badgers bred for that purpose? The stats of a knight could be used
to portray any number of troop types and role-play incarnations. In
general, it`s more useful to describe such units with something like
"heavy cavalry" and leave the specifics of their role-playing
presentation up to the player.
Similarly, when it comes to the defenses of a province 30 miles by 30
miles (or so) I don`t think we should assume a fortification
represents a concentric castle or some other simple
manifestation. It could represent a series of motte and bailey
outposts, the walls of a few cities and towns, the ability to quickly
cut certain fjords and bridges, underground construction, an
extensive system of pitfalls and traps, "impenetrable" hedgerows,
etc. "Fortification" is a more general concept than "castle" it
makes best sense for how the idea in BR.
07-27-2009, 02:55 AM #5
07-28-2009, 11:54 AM #6
Thus a fully fortified province has double the maintenance cost of an unfortified province.
Moreover, in the chapter 5, we already have the maintenance cost of fortification in the asset table.
Maintenance cost for holding fortification: Fortification level / 3 (GB)
Maintenance cost for province fortification: Fortification level x 2/ 3 (GB)
I hope it help you to answer your question.Agelmore Tallow, Lord Prefect of Alamier (MA;Br,Major,21;LG)
07-28-2009, 01:05 PM #7
Quite true... [[Table 5-4: asset maintenance costs]] .
This just adds to the confusion then. So we need to decide how this conflict should be quickly corrected so I can add something to the errata. Else, I will just have to record the error, but not the correction.
Either way, I have to write something so that everyone knows what the known errors in the BRCS are.
08-01-2009, 06:08 PM #8
- Join Date
- Oct 2006
- Chelmsford, Essex, England
I believe that the maintenance should be based on the asset level not the province level, that appears to be the normal rule - roads possibly being excepted.
So a L1 castle (fortification for the province) costs the same to maintain in a L1 province or a L10 province as the structures, manpower, etc are of a similar size and game effect in both provinces.
Similarly a L10 castle in a L1 province would cost as much to maintain as if it had been built in a L10 province, even though its build cost would have been higher than if it was built in the larger province as the castle exceeds the province level.
I think that the paragraphs are using the term 'fully fortified province' to indicate that the castle level equal the province level - but even then it appears unclear.
Forts (fortification for a holding) would then follow the same rule for maintenance.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
By Vicente in forum The Royal LibraryReplies: 11Last Post: 04-22-2009, 08:27 PM
By kgauck in forum The Royal LibraryReplies: 16Last Post: 04-15-2009, 06:31 PM
By Lee in forum BRWiki DiscussionsReplies: 11Last Post: 07-04-2008, 08:52 PM
By Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel in forum The Royal LibraryReplies: 17Last Post: 12-31-2002, 03:08 AM
By Lord Rahvin in forum The Royal LibraryReplies: 15Last Post: 11-04-2002, 08:43 PM