Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    Site Moderator Sorontar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    3,942
    Downloads
    23
    Uploads
    1

    Managing military assets

    Discussion thread for Managing military assets. If you would like to add a comment, click the Post Reply button.

  2. #2
    Site Moderator Sorontar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    3,942
    Downloads
    23
    Uploads
    1

    fortification levels

    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.
    So there is a province level, a holding level and a fortification level for all holdings and provinces. No problem with that. My problem is with the final two sentences of the second paragraph. When it says "province of the same level", is that "same level as the fortification" or "same level as the province which the fortification is for"? If it is the first, then the maintence cost of a fortified province may be *more* than double the cost of an unfortified province. If it is the second, then in a level 5 province, it will cost just as much to maintain a level 10 province fortification as it would to maintain a level 5 fortification.

    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?

    Sorontar

  3. #3
    Ehrshegh of Spelling Thelandrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,084
    Downloads
    64
    Uploads
    0
    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.

    Ius Hibernicum, in nomine juris. Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    BR mailing list
    Posts
    1,562
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    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.

    Gary

  5. #5
    Site Moderator Sorontar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    3,942
    Downloads
    23
    Uploads
    1
    Since I am trying to clarify part of the BRCS, I ask again ....

    When it says "province of the same level", is that "same level as the fortification" or "same level as the province which the fortification is for"?

    That is the real issue I need answering, not what is a fortification.

    Sorontar

  6. #6
    Member Agelmore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    France, Paris
    Posts
    52
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Sorontar View Post
    Since I am trying to clarify part of the BRCS, I ask again ....

    When it says "province of the same level", is that "same level as the fortification" or "same level as the province which the fortification is for"?

    That is the real issue I need answering, not what is a fortification.

    Sorontar
    I think there is an inconsistency in the rule.

    Thus, a fully fortified holding has double the maintenance cost of a normal (unfortified) holding.
    Thus a fully fortified province has double the maintenance cost of an unfortified province.
    In chapter 5 of our rules, it is stated that there is no maintenance cost for holding and province whereas there are maintenance cost in AD&D 2E-Birthright for holding and 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)

  7. #7
    Site Moderator Sorontar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    3,942
    Downloads
    23
    Uploads
    1
    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.

    Sorontar

  8. #8
    Site Moderator AndrewTall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Chelmsford, Essex, England
    Posts
    2,305
    Downloads
    25
    Uploads
    0
    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.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Empire Building/Managing Rules
    By Vicente in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 04-22-2009, 08:27 PM
  2. Military Composition
    By kgauck in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 04-15-2009, 06:31 PM
  3. Dhoesone military
    By Lee in forum BRWiki Discussions
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 07-04-2008, 08:52 PM
  4. Military Units
    By Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 12-31-2002, 03:08 AM
  5. Military Deployment
    By Lord Rahvin in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 11-04-2002, 08:43 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.