Why wizards are weak

[ryancaveney]

So an LT should be able to have the ruler's RP funneled through him, like a vassal

LTs already have RP funneled through them -- otherwise, you couldn't use a LT to try to Rule a guild (2) into a guild (3), which costs 1 GB and 3 RP. The limitation is not that LT actions can't ever spend RP, it's that they have to spend some RP but can't choose to spend more RP than the base cost.

As far as structures: The Arcane Tower idea itself is paralleled closely with the Palace and Fortified holding, so there are equivalents for other rulers. The additional structure types/add ons to Arcane Towers I always envisioned would be very much dependent upon the type of game, but they operate on some parallels with the Embassy and Spy Network entities (allowing some Standard actions to become Court actions).

Personally, I never liked any of the structures at all, so I usually just don't comment on them. For a player who has one small domain, they make pretty window dressing (to do things which are already covered by other holdings and actions), but for a DM they're just too big an administrative headache to imagine every realm in the game having a few. That said, if you think nonwizards should get structures, then surely wizards ought to as well. I just don't happen to think anybody should get any structure that isn't already in the original rulebook, or even some that are (palaces, for example).

When I talked about no PC-on-PC Dominating, I was referring mainly to PBEMs, where PC teams aren't working together, DMs often don't allow even its use

I think they should. Magic in BR performs much the same function as high technology and nuclear weapons in modern real world geopolitics -- if you and your allies have more and better than your adversaries do, then they are going to have to (at least sometimes pretend to) knuckle under to you on the world stage until they can get better and more powerful "magic" of their own.

I'd apply the holding level to everything but skill points--instead just apply a bonus to skills, rather than have people recalculate by new character level.

Yeah, that's definitely a good idea. It's probably why I hadn't yet done it. =)

What about doing the same thing for other regent types?

My first reaction is to say no, because my original inspiration was the immense powerup already provided by realm spells. On the other hand, it wouldn't really hurt anything -- having a few provinces where a fighter regent gets an extra feat and a few hp and BAB is lost in the noise compared to how many units of troops he brought along. It also helps only the defense, and I always like things that make regents more resistant to assassination than other people. I think you've talked me into it. However, I don't think any regent should really be able to take it with them: forging a ley line is a realm action, which other wizard regents can use holding levels and RP to support or oppose. Forging one into someone else's domain is an extremely aggressive act, the wizard version of a declaration of war: "Attention, neighbor -- I am going to cast a realm spell on you next month!" For other regents, it's the same thing as creating a holding in someone else's domain: it's an announcement that you are starting to try to take part of their domain away from them.

I don't think you can just contest then invest existing holdings, can you?

Sure you can! Read the description of the Investiture action on page 56: "Investing Provinces and Holdings: A single province or holding can be invested without the permission of its ruler if it has been conquered or contested by the investor. The base success number is 10, and the investor must pay RP equal to the province or holding level." That's one of the least confusing rules in the whole book. =)

[irdeggman]

Thanks for helping me understand some other game styles, guys!

I agree that there doesn't seem to be anything in the rules requiring wizards to take on every domain action personally. Certainly some of the magical theory would seem to indicate this, but explicit rules about Courts don't exempt wizards from having Courts and LT's that can act in their stead. Nothing also prevents LT's from casting realm spells.

Here is the "logic" and rules governing sources and actions (note that they are very much different than other holding types).

BRCS-playtest pg 96

Regents forge a link to their source through the casting of ritual arcane magic to forge a semi-permanent link between themselves and a manifestation of the land's mebhaighl.

This is a personal link, unlike what other holdings represent (the "faith and support of the people").

BRCS-playtest Pg 92

The court of a powerful regent may have many trusted courtiers, but most courtiers have strictly defined responsibilities and checks and balances to keep them from overstepping their prerogatives. A domain's regent may, however, name one or more of his courtiers as his lieutenant(s). A domain's lieutenants are authorized to speak with the voice of the regent, even to the extent of waging war against a foreign nation, spending significant portions of the realms treasury, dispensing justice, making binding agreements, and other activities that are generally considered the prerogative of the regent alone. Thus a lieutenant can perform most domain actions with the same advantages that a regent receives when personally attending to domain actions and events. Refer to Chapter Eight: Outside the lines for more details on Lieutenants.

Speaking with the voice of the regent is a very strong implication that he represents the regent on matters. Well since "speaking" has no effect on a source (and only on "people") this greatly limits what role a Lt has in regard to sources.

BRCS-playtest pg 102

Each domain normally is allowed one standard domain action per domain round. A regent's standard domain action represents the primary focus or goal of the regent's court and agents for the domain round. The regent need not be physically present for his domain to take a standard action; only routine communication is required. If the regent is unable to communicate to his realm, the character's player should still be allowed to select a reasonable domain action for the domain that represents the court's attempts to maintain the realm in the regent's absence. A regent's court can be reasonably expected to perform the same actions as the regent would; a regent's courtiers make it their business to have a fair idea of the regent's opinions on important matters. A regent can spend regency to support his domain's standard domain actions, regardless of his personal involvement.

A court has no effect on what a manifestation does (remember that a source holding is really a manifestation groomed individually).

BRCS-playtest pg 107

Lieutenancy: You declare a character as having the authority to speak on the domain’s behalf. A recognized lieutenant can stand in for the regent in almost any domain-level matter and is recognized as wielding the same authority as the regent himself. A domain’s heir is often a lieutenant first, but this need not be the case. A lieutenant character may spend character actions to provide bonuses to domain actions in the same way that the domain’s regent can. There is no limit to the number of lieutenants that a realm can have, but a clear system for determining the responsibilities and resolution of conflicts between them must exist.

See above the logic in what a Lt does and what "speaks with the voice of the regent" means.

[kgauck]

As a side note on the slowness of development after conquest, the single most important reason that every ruler should want to capture his enemies alive, and no regent should ever let themselves be captured alive, is that if you are both present at the investiture ceremony, even under duress, the captor can invest every province and holding in the captive's domain with a *single action*, which provides the opportunity to double your domain overnight instead of taking a decade. And then you can stab him through the heart, but the couple extra bloodscore points you gain is vastly less important than completely digesting his whole domain in one gulp. Personally, I think that is just too powerful, but that's what the rulebook says.

I think they are trying to represent a few catastrophic state collapses, such as the disappearance of Hungary after Mohacs, or Burgundy after Nancy. Generally I would only see such an event as a DM fiat, because they want to change the configuration of states.

Let's say you're playing the Habsburgs, first Maximillian and then his grandson Ferdinand. You marry Marie de Bourgogne the daughter of the Duc de Bourgogne, and he dies fighting the French at Nancy. He named you as his heir, so when he dies, suddenly you have his domain intact. The problem is, now France is your sworn enemy. Where you had been reasonably friendly, you are now going to be dire foes until the Seven Years War, nearly 300 years later.

Then skip forward a bit, Max's empire fell to his oldest grandson, Charles, who is also king of Spain, duke of Burgundy, and Holy Roman Empire. He can't spend time in the old ancestral archduchy of Austria, so he puts his younger brother Ferdinand there as a governor. Ferdinand and his sister Mary get involved in a double marriage with the King of Hungary and his sister. But then Louis of Hungary gets himself killed at Mohacs and Hungary is erased from the map. The Turks control most of the country, but Louis named Ferdinand has his heir (actually Mary was, but she stepped aside for her brother, since war with Hungary was obviously next on the agenda) and Ferdinand gets Hungary intact. However, as a consequence, the Ottoman Turks are now the great rival and will be until the late 19th century when Austria switches over to prefering a sick Turkey to a growing Russia.

Just like these cases, the expansion of the realm creates a new and powerful enemy for the realm.

So passing on a whole realm has a place. These examples, however were of inheritance, rather than capture of a ruler. There are two examples of capture, that I think are telling. Both of French kings (go figure). Jean the Good was captured by the English during the Hundred Years War at Poitiers (and the Scottish king had been captured the year before at Neville's Cross). But what did England gain from the capture of David and Jean? Mostly just peace on favorable terms. Edward III could not assert his claim to the French crown, or re-establish the lordship which Edward I claimed over Scotland (and Edward asserted only to keep the claim alive).

Second is the capture of Francis at Pavia in 1525. Francis swore to hand over the Duchy of Burgundy and a huge ransom, but when he was released to organize the transfer he reneged.

The case discussed in the rules is the death of a ruler without a named heir, and its possible to read Mohacs that way as well, with Mary and Ferdinand scrambling to collect some small part of Hungary after most of it ended up in Turkish hands.

What I do think is that capturing a ruler should break a realm. I don't think that a single capture is sufficient to remove a ruler from a realm in total. Every contest appears evenly matched until some battle breaks the enemy, and from then on, victory seems inevitable.

When is a realm totally destroyed and when does it remain resolute despite the capture of the king? The total victory at Pavia destroyed a French army, but the capture of the King of France got them nothing. Francis didn't pay his ransom or hand over Burgundy. Ultimately, this is for the DM to decide, and the mechanics are just instruments for him to implement his decision. But I follow a general principle. No matter how long the preceding fighting has gone on (generations or 3 months) if one side scores a crushing victory, and has the means to follow up on it, I allow the victor to strip away tangential goodies. If Avanil defeated Boeruine in Boeruine and annihilated an army, and captured Aeric, then all of Aeric's allies, including Talinie would defect and Darien would get peace with Aeric. Aeric's old allies would be neutral to friendly to Darien depending on what their peacetime relations were like. In the next go-round, Aeric would be alone, or relying on new allies forged from scratch (perhaps Ghoere, looking to humble Avanil), and if Darien won again, perhaps the Hidden Temple of Cuiraecen and Arlen Innis would come over to Darien, and the Boeruine Trading Guild would be mostly consumed by guilders friendly to Darien. Darien might end up with law holdings in Boeruine. In the third struggle, anything goes, including the total absorption of Boeruine as a puppet vassal with Darien's chosen man as the new Archduke of Boeruine.

This three victory model can be thought of as the struggle between Rome and Carthage. But its quite possible for a few indecisive wars to fill the gaps between the decisive wars.

[kgauck]

My point about extortion was that in Anuire, culturally, wizards pretty much can't assume a "mantle of legitimacy" to cover their threats. The people would not consider it so. That's a valid point in the story, it just puts game play at a bit of a disadvantage.

Social arrangements are fluid and negotiable. If a woman could become pharaoh of Egypt, a highly legalistic and ritualistic society, I don't know why any scion of Diesmaar couldn't rule in any capacity as long has he fulfills some of the expectations of people regarding what a king looks like.

The primary thing which anyone must do in Anuire to wear the mantle of legitimacy is to emulate Haelyn. The more closely you seem to be like Haelyn, the more legitimate you are. Of course a noble who rides a horse well, who commands in war, and who provides justice and good laws is going to fit people's concept of a king. But if your wizard dresses like a noble, can ride a horse, looks good in armor (doesn't need to fight in armor so much as look good in it), commands in war (that's what divinations are for), and provides justice and good laws, then why should he not be legitimate?

Of course if he goes around in a purple robe with moons and stars on it, speaking only of esoteric subjects and uses secret languages and weird, exotic objects then surely he is no king.

The people don't have a copy of the Domain Holding Table to figure out where someone's holdings lay. The people live on a manor, and the lord of that manor has a lord, and that lord pays homage to a count, and that count to a king. If two men on horseback ride around claiming to have the loyalty and friendship of the local knights, lords, and counts, the people are going to look to their local knights and lords, the notables they know to guide them.

For the nobles, guilders, and templars, they are looking for the man in fancy clothes who provides justice, settles disputes, and defends them from enemies. They know who has what title and what holdings, but they are still going to be interested in who can provide justice and protection. If the local noble ruler is doing his job, you need to make him look ineffective, by discovering or creating scandals that make him look unjust and incapable of settling disputes. If he is already unjust and ineffective, most of your work is done. Just provide a contrast as the hero who settles matters and provides justice. If you can defend the people from enemies, then all the better.

[AndrewTall]

I personally think there ought to be more structures available for detailed games (I'd love them in all games, myself, but I can see where they'd be tough to have in PBEMs).

I personally like the idea of wondrous events as well - effectively 1-round wonders. I recently talked my DM in Rjurik Winds into a 'Field of Gold' event as a MacGuffin to bring a new player into an existing realm and get them a rack of lieutenants after the old court was forcibly relocated - the Field was effectively a sword and crown / olympics cross that made some actions (ceremonies, hiring lietenants, scheming within the boundaries of the field) very easy albeit at a huge cost to arrange. Similarly I'd let any regent turn GB into RP with grand events - so if Kalien sponsors a huge artshow he gets more respect than if he simply sits on a big pile of gold, if Boeruine showers gold on the people they are more likely to give that little extra effort in return, etc. Basically like alchemy in reverse...

I like most of the ideas you guys have for fixing the system; they address the key problems I've identified, some in the same way as I suggested, some differently. The key fixes seem to be:
1. Alchemy should be cheaper and less restricted
2. LT's and/or others should be able to take domain actions for the regent; courts should not be so necessary for wizard regents (what about Realm actions?)
3. Research should not take so long (I'll concede the full cost, but I still don't think realm spells should be so high in level as to be out of reach of most PC's and thus researching them shouldn't take more than 2 months for most, 3 for only the most powerful)
4. Wizards should be able to use RP in place of GB directly for standard domain actions having to do with sources, needing GB primarily for research, casting realm spells, and building things they can't/don't want to build with their spells
5. Allow wizard regents to use source holdings to oppose and contest province levels

1 and 4 overlap, I'd keep 4 and drop 1 - the last thing I'd want in a campaign is elves with effective income of 9 GB per province for the cost of a single action, it would also make the Khinasi overpowered and have a huge impact on the Rjurik and Vos. Gold has a very direct and measurable effect and while wizards do gain effectively only half the income of other regents (if you value GB and RP equally) dropping alchemy to 2:1 or even 1:1 could easily be unbalancing - particularly for regents who also rule provinces.

I'd allow any wizard lieutenant to do an action - or for better story impact any magician (the only way they get to touch true magic is through their masters gift). I wouldn't allow a non spellcasting lieutenant to rule sources etc although this is mory of a story point than a balance point.

I'm playing a wizard regent now in a PBEM and admit that having no income is a pain, even with a very co-operative regent! I spend 1 action a round 'paying' for my stipend, 1 action adventuring for want of funds, and the remaining action is my shot at expanding my domain - but that doesn't stop me being as vocal as anyone else on the forums, offering advice, etc, etc. The Prince holds the power but barring an idiot on the throne plenty of other people get their share of power - and a wizard 'lapdog' has very sharp teeth.

It depends what you gain from playing the game - are you interested in the roke-playing story or the vicarious power? It is, imo, far easier to play a wizard with low income than to play one in a realm with a player who thinks "I am King therefore my lightest whim is law and the slightest opposition treason". Frankly if my PC had income they could simply ignore all the other players totally - the need for money draws me into the game as far as they are concerned.

I don't actually think the Rule Province thing is broken. ...

Not broken, but too fast imho. I prefer cost equal to target level squared - with the standard rule son building large assets. Goblins may get target level -1 squared (and then raise militia to send mobs of rabble raiding) elves and dwarves have to pay level +1-2 squared. This makes low level provinces easy to rule, but keeps L5+ provinces very rare. I do like the idea of being able to oppose the rule, but again this needs the ruler to accept the opposition. If you are a court mage forcing the king to spend a fortune due to your opposition is a good way to lose your position - and head. Even if you serve another king you may cause a war by meddling in the other kingdoms internal affairs. As a result the opposition will always in practice come down to diplomacy in 'civilised' areas.


Bonus levels for source holdings
I'm not sure this will harm adventuring as much as is feared - I expect that most regents adventure to grow their realm (i.e. in areas where they have little influence), gain something they cannot get through their realm (indiciating again low influence in the area), etc mostly making the boost primarily defensive. I'd add a cost though of 1 RP per spell level cast beyond the normal maximum - being on your home turf is great, being the 'real McCoy' is always better. Similarly I might make the boost effective only in areas of strength - so if my PC held 5 of 9 source levels and they went exploring they would not get the benefit in the areas that they didn't touch the mebhaighl already. Similarly you could say that other regents benefited only when surrounded by their followers. This sort of rule however perhaps most lends itself to the 'place of power' sort of bonus rather than being province wide.

[Halancar]

I think that a large part of the problems of wizard regent, and particularly non landed wizard regent, comes from the fact that source holding are the lowest income of all when you add both RP and GP.

Source produce 1 RP/level. Compare that to 1RP and 1/3 GB for law holding (but non-landed law regents are almost unheard of, at least as PC), 1RP and 2/3 GB for temples (and the Bless spell generates extra income), 1 RP and 2/3 GB for guilds (and there is all that trade route potential !), and 1 RP and 1 GB for provinces.

So to compete with the other non-landed regents out there, whether guild or temple, the source holding need to be 66% larger at the very least. Otherwise, well, since their total income (considering both GP and RP) is lower, whenever there is a conflict of interest, the wizard will lose. Or more prosaically, a temple or guild regent with a similar-sized holding can perform more and bigger Rule Holding actions, and so grow his holdings faster, than a source regent.

Now you add the fact that source generate no gold, which means somehow "converting" part of the RP income into gold, whether by Alchemy, some form of Diplomacy, or hiring out. 1 for 1 conversion is almost impossible (it is possible in support of an Agitate action, but other that that ?). So the wizard will lose some of its (already lower) income to conversion. Plus, he's losing a domain action as well.

So at the end of the day, the wizard holdings may look impressive on paper, but a temple holding of half the size has more real power.

So I would like to suggest a simple solution : give source holding a RP income of 2 per season (since the income stems from mebhaigl and not political power, a different collection rate is easily explained; or it could be that a source holder has income both from mebhaighl and the political power that derives from the fact he can make people lives truly miserable all by himself with a few Realm spells). Wizards holding only sources will still have to resolve to Alchemy or other measures, but at least they'll have the RP to do it and still accomplish something. They will still need to become team players to be most effective, but they'll bring enough to the table to become an asset to the team and not a net drain of ressources

[ConjurerDragon]

Halancar schrieb:
> This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
> You can view the entire thread at:
> http://www.birthright.net/forums/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=4104
> Halancar wrote:
> I think that a large part of the problems of wizard regent, and particularly non landed wizard regent, comes from the fact that source holding are the lowest income of all when you add both RP and GP.
>
> Source produce 1 RP/level. Compare that to 1RP and 1/3 GB for law holding (but non-landed law regents are almost unheard of, at least as PC), 1RP and 2/3 GB for temples (and the Bless spell generates extra income), 1 RP and 2/3 GB for guilds (and there is all that trade route potential !), and 1 RP and 1 GB for provinces.
>
> So to compete with the other non-landed regents out there, whether guild or temple, the source holding need to be 66% larger at the very least.
Yes. But the source regent normally does not compete with the other regents.
He normally does not field a huge army like the province regent who is
expected to field an army and pay a large amount of his income there.
He has normally no need of some impressive court with dozens of servants
to impress the ambassadors of all surrounding realms like a province
ruler would be expected to.
He has normally not 3 or more other guilds contesting his holdings
constantly in RP/GB bidding wars or has to bribe province rulers to not
cut off the precious but vulnerable trade routes or to pay for roads to
be able to start those trade routes.
And he has normally to pay no taxes while the other holdings could be
expected to do so. At least in 2E the law holdings could take their law
claims from guild and temple holdings.

> Otherwise, well, since their total income (considering both GP and RP) is lower, whenever there is a conflict of interest, the wizard will lose. Or more prosaically, a temple or guild regent with a similar-sized holding can perform more and bigger Rule Holding actions, and so grow his holdings faster, than a source regent.
>
Unless those other regents have not only more income, but also more
expenses.
> Now you add the fact that source generate no gold, which means somehow "converting" part of the RP income into gold, whether by Alchemy, some form of Diplomacy, or hiring out. 1 for 1 conversion is almost impossible (it is possible in support of an Agitate action, but other that that ?). So the wizard will lose some of its (already lower) income to conversion. Plus, he`s losing a domain action as well.
>
Unless he - as supposed in the BR material - finds himself a regent with
lots of gold who is ready to exchange gold for a realm spell now and
then. Then he has his 1:1 - or depending on the other regents need
better - exchange ratio.

> So at the end of the day, the wizard holdings may look impressive on paper, but a temple holding of half the size has more real power.
>
Which is to blame in part on the 3E conversion. Temple regents should
not be able to cast all divine realm spells, but be severly restricted
like in 2E where they could only cast those realm spells from the
spheres they had.
> So I would like to suggest a simple solution : give source holding a RP income of 2 per season (since the income stems from mebhaigl and not political power, a different collection rate is easily explained; or it could be that a source holder has income both from mebhaighl and the political power that derives from the fact he can make people lives truly miserable all by himself with a few Realm spells). Wizards holding only sources will still have to resolve to Alchemy or other measures, but at least they`ll have the RP to do it and still accomplish something. They will still need to become team players to be most effective, but they`ll bring enough to the table to become an asset to the team and not a net drain of ressources
Not necessary and in my opinion not even desirable.

[Rowan]

Interesting ideas, Halancar.

Conjurer, you make some good points about expenses, except that I think you're forgetting a few things. Wizards still have significant expenses--researching spells is enormously expensive (1,000gp per level, +100gp per level to write to spell books); creating magic items similarly so (though particularly in BR, this should be infrequent). All domain actions for a wizard still cost 1GB in material components, representing significant expenditures, and without some exception to allow more Court actions, realm actions are virtually impossible for wizards, again making them the weakest characters in the game with by far the least to do.

Further, the armies and bribes and courts and so forth that other regents are spending their money on are not some useless form of domain maintenance, but rather a method of projecting power--a method that wizards lack. Wizards have low RP in addition to low GB, making even their one-month-to-cast realm spells, limited by source and ley line and level, difficult to pull off, especially frequently or in a pinch. And temple regents--of which there are usually many--can easily counter or mitigate many of the wizard's actions.

Also, I think the game intended for wizards to frequently vie against each other for Sources, so contestation is frequent and ley line creation and destruction is frequent as well--at least as frequent as other realms. Perhaps a few more realm spells geared mainly towards wizard v wizard conflict need to be created to represent this mysterious magical conflict that happens beyond the knowledge of most other regents.

Regents paying wizards to cast realm spells doesn't do much for them, because 1:1 costs mean that a wizard is still wasting an action to do a regent's bidding at no net gain unless he wants to do it for his own purposes as well. 2:1 costs have very little gain at the expense of a precious domain action. What regents are willing to spend the 5-10GB per turn to keep a wizard properly funded? And if they are spending that much, how can the wizard possibly oppose the regent who has them on such a huge hook, and be anything other than a realm-spell factory for the regent?

I think rather than letting wizards receive 2RP per source level, however, I'd eliminate the GB cost for all of their domain actions--converting it to RP cost instead--and slightly reduce the costs of a few realm spells, so wizard actions only cost GB if they are spell research actions, realm spell casting, or magic item creation. I would also still give them income equivalent to law holdings to cover some of the costs of that research and spellcasting, largely because I dislike the idea of wizards having to waste actions and become gold factories casting Alchemy all the time.

[Rowan]

Also, to respond to Andrew, I don't think that province levels are too easy increase, or too fast, if one just changes one's perceptions about them.

Kgauck likes to stress that Cerilia is settled almost to the max current carrying capacity, and many various statements in the BRCS and source materials seem to go back and forth, some supporting this idea, others less so. If population levels are settled at essentially the max level per province--a more realistic proposition, I agree--then province level assumes the level of administrative efficiency, civil control, and societal organization.

Consider also one huge aspect of realm governance from ancient times to the present that BR ignores: financing. Unless it is meant to be captured in the abstract of province and holding level income, the raising of income through governing debt and the payment of that debt is not measured. I have heard solid arguments by noted historians speaking of the massive strategic reality and advantage of good government financing. Nations go into debt to fight wars; they don't just rely on a positive balance in their treasuries. A nation's ability to raise money through debt financing is key to their success in wartime.

Personally, I'd love to have some real, usable financial rules in BR, even if they are very simplified. It would serve both as a historical simulation and as a learning facet--I'm always fond of RPG's as learning tools, and I believe they have contributed over the years quite a bit to various skills in my life.

However, at this point, I think province and holding levels can represent financing as part of their abstraction. That is, income from provinces and holdings for most realms represent in large part loans minus the payment of interest on those debt facilities. A realm with many province and holding levels can finance construction projects, realm activities, and war to a much greater degree than one with lower, as it should be. In fact, by this reasoning, regents should not hesitate terribly to "pillage" their own provinces as necessary during times of extreme need, as this represents raising more money from loans, but either almost extorting it, or taking on high-interest loans and losing the confidence of many creditors who will likely go unpaid--or even flat out canceling debt (thus representing freeing a burden of debt and interest at the expense of the lowered loyalty rating of the pillaged province). Pillaging also helps explain why province levels remain fairly low.

[kgauck]

Regents paying wizards to cast realm spells doesn't do much for them, because 1:1 costs mean that a wizard is still wasting an action to do a regent's bidding at no net gain unless he wants to do it for his own purposes as well. 2:1 costs have very little gain at the expense of a precious domain action. What regents are willing to spend the 5-10GB per turn to keep a wizard properly funded? And if they are spending that much, how can the wizard possibly oppose the regent who has them on such a huge hook, and be anything other than a realm-spell factory for the regent?

I think its worth observing that this is probably what the designers intended (its not a bug its a feature!) But I think the more important question is, is the role fun to play when the the wizard is not part of a team. If its not, I think it reveals a design problem. Merlin is fun, only when you have an Arthur.

Consider also one huge aspect of realm governance from ancient times to the present that BR ignores: financing. Unless it is meant to be captured in the abstract of province and holding level income, the raising of income through governing debt and the payment of that debt is not measured. I have heard solid arguments by noted historians speaking of the massive strategic reality and advantage of good government financing. Nations go into debt to fight wars; they don't just rely on a positive balance in their treasuries. A nation's ability to raise money through debt financing is key to their success in wartime.

I've always advocated a finance system. Fortunately, state finance was pretty simply. States basically took loans that were in effect bonds. I borrow 10 GB now, pay you 15 GB in three years.

Its not the mechanics of finance that are hard to handle, its the nature of the credit market. How much capital is available in this way? This could be seen as a fraction of guild holdings, so that NPC guilds only loan out so much money. PC domains could loan money on whatever terms they please. The real question regards limits to how much money can be borrowed. Basically guilders need a return on their investment better than they could get investing in their own holdings and trade routes, plus the risk of loss.