Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 36
  1. #1
    Special Guest (Donor) morgramen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    367
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    0
    I was flipping through the rule book earlier today, and noticed a small little snippet I've always glanced over I suppose.

    On page 35, last paragraph under Trade Routes it says:

    "Like fortifications, trade routes are rated by level to reflect their importance."

    Now if you are also on the Br mail list, you might recall that someone (I don;t remeber who) had the notion of altering the trade route action so that they would function like a holding. They would require a Create action, resulting in a level 0 TR, then you would use the Rule action to have them go up in level.

    It seems to me now, that this might have been the original intention all along, but somehow, the action got axed to it's tradition self.

    What say you all about this?
    "You need people of intelligence on this mission... quest... thing."

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Montréal, Québec - Canada
    Posts
    156
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    This would surely solve the problem that is traditional with the "I-get-a-couple-of-hundreds-of-GB's-per-turn-cause-I'm-a-guilder". In a way, it makes sense I guess. Wonder if that was the original intent? We probably wouldn't get an answer on this one though, and even if we got one, it might not be the right answer! =) But anyways, its surely something worth pondering about.
    Respectfully submitted,

    Temujin,
    Would-be ruler of you all. =)

  3. #3
    Mike Cod
    Guest
    As a guilder I protest this discussion of limiting the abilities of trade routes ;)
    Seriously, that's an interesting point. A question I would raise is if that were the case, trade routes would not be profitable. To create, then invest further GB and RP to build up a route that could easily be destroyed would not make it worth the expense. Building guild holdings produces both GB and RP, trade routes only produce GB's.
    IMOH- trade routes are more fluid than regular holdings. If one sees that a trade route to a different province would be more profitable, disolve the first route and divert it to the second province.
    The dinosaur PC game "Gorgon's Alliance" by Sierra(released in 97 or 98) allows one to create trade routes the usual way and the guild need not have holdings in the end province; Furthermore, the end province can have an unlimited number of trade routes ending in it. (eg. All the Provinces in Sielwode could create trade routes to a single dwarven province and that dwarven province would still have its own land trade routes).

    Something I just thought of, what if the guilder had to purchase caravans for their land routes like they purchase ships for their sea routes?
    You would have sml,med or lge caravans which are lightly, moderately or heavily guarded, all with varying costs and cargo capacity. The more I talk about it the more it makes sense. ;)
    Anyways we'll see what the moot says to this one.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    United Provinces of Ceril
    Posts
    1,028
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Orginally posted by morgramen

    On page 35, last paragraph under Trade Routes it says:

    "Like fortifications, trade routes are rated by level to reflect their importance."

    It seems to me now, that this might have been the original intention all along, but somehow, the action got axed to it's tradition self.

    What say you all about this?
    I say trade routes do have different ratings under the current rules. The higher the provinces that the trade route connects the higher the rating of the trade routes reflecting its importance. I think if you ask for original intent that will be the answer.

    Do I like the idea of changing it yes. I would argue that Mike shows how the trade route would increase in rating. By ruling the route up you are really saying I am increasing the number of guards and size of the caravan.
    Lord Eldred
    High Councilor of the
    United Provinces of Cerilia
    "May Haelyn bring justice to your realm"

  5. #5
    Senior Member Lawgiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Murray, KY
    Posts
    1,054
    Downloads
    9
    Uploads
    0
    The easiest way I've found to limit the Trade Route income is to use the levels of the guild in the province rather than the province level. That way the guilder doesn't get a free boost in income for doing nothing when the regent raises the province level. Its sort of like a market share type thing. If the guilder has 2 of the 5 slots available in the province they have a 40% market share. Having all 5 is a monopoly, which is generally frowned upon by the people who prefer competition. Monopolies don't effect the technical game rules, but allows for additional roleplaying flavor.

    If the province grows in population its assumed that the market share has increased and that there is room for competition. Thus the guilder has to work to gobble up the new market if they want to prevent opposing guilds from popping up.

    Economics 101 worked for me!!!
    Servant of the Most High,
    Lawgiver

    Isaiah 1:17
    Learn to do good; Seek justice, Rebuke the oppressor; Defend the fatherless, Plead for the widow.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    United Provinces of Ceril
    Posts
    1,028
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Lawgiver. Maybe you should be called EconomicsLessonGiver ;) I really like the idea that it should be based on guild level and not province level. It does help make things more realistic.
    Lord Eldred
    High Councilor of the
    United Provinces of Cerilia
    "May Haelyn bring justice to your realm"

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Montréal, Québec - Canada
    Posts
    156
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    I like the idea of TR income to be based on guild level, with one nuance: I would take into question the size of the guild at the start of the route, and the province level at the end. Why? Because the start reflects the holding's capacity to produce valuable trading goods, while the province level at the end reflects the ability of the receiving province to buy them. You don't need a monopoly in the Imperial City to be able to turn an awesome profit sending trade there after all, that's a reasonable point in my opinion. Furthermore, guilders often send routes into lands they don't owe guilds, and if you had the guild level in receiving province taken into account, they would either need to get the support of the local guilder to turn a decent profit(and even then, not likely as the local guilder is likely to ask for a share), or they wouldn't make a penny out of it.
    Respectfully submitted,

    Temujin,
    Would-be ruler of you all. =)

  8. #8
    Site Moderator Magian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Thief River Falls, MN
    Posts
    473
    Downloads
    182
    Uploads
    19
    In regards to trade routes I have been playing around with many ideas also. For the most part I am keeping with the tradition of the original trade route on province level since trade happens between two different economies not two guilders specifically, thus the end province does not connect or require a guild, though the courier of the merchandise and profits does gain the benefits.

    Now I have been playing around with the resources rules on this also. To make it simple I will just explain my latest and simplest version of this. The resource rules are the same except there are more specific types of food goods or precious metals to make more variety of commodities. I have changed that the limit of how many resources a province can have is the number of trade routes it can have. There can only be one type of resource in a province at any one given time and the terrain in the province dictates which resource types are allowed in the province. This does greatly expand the resources from rare to ultra-common, which the originator of the rules meant these resources to be rare, so I am thinking of toning down the benefits of them a little.

    Before a trade route can be made a resource must be developed and the trade route is linked to the resource. Only one trade route per resource and trade routes cannot go into a province with a resource already there. To make this book work more impossible if a province is end province of a gold trade route then another gold trade route cannot be linked to this province cause essentially the trade route gives the province these resources, not the benefits listed in the rules however.

    To make this even more impossible I was also playing around with building types needed to be made before the resources could be developed; a mill for grains, mine for metals, artisan specialty shop for trade goods and so one. This idea is good yet is it very micro managing and more like a city sim game not birthright. That is what guilds are for. Not to mention luxury goods and trade goods needed raw materials and cities in order to be made. Thus if you wanted to make golden jewelry you would have to develop gold resource then build a mine, then make a trade route to a province with a city then make a artisan shop for this, however then you could make a golden jewelry trade route.

    Anyway, with the exception of the buildings I am considering this idea for my campaign, however I do think the benefits of the resources need to be a little more tame, any ideas on this since a province can have up to 4 resources all at once.

    Maybe these ideas will assist you all with your trade route levels concept. I however think the commodities and terrain/culture are what affect a trade routes effectiveness. Think Marco Polo.
    One law, One court, One allied people, One coin, and one tax, is what I shall bring to Cerilia.

  9. #9
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Barcelona
    Posts
    10
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Has anybody heard about a rule about Source Holdings acting like Guild ones in terms of Trade Routes? A guy I know mentioned me that a long time ago, but I've tried to find it in the Core Rules and never found that. I know that doesn't make sense, though!

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    United Provinces of Ceril
    Posts
    1,028
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Oeric they were probably talking about ley lines between provinces and the power of the source can travel along the ley line. Not really acting as a trade route but the power travels along the ley line like goods travel along a trade route.
    Lord Eldred
    High Councilor of the
    United Provinces of Cerilia
    "May Haelyn bring justice to your realm"

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

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.