Starting Trade Routes

[kgauck]

Originally Posted by AndrewTall

I see that as a bug in the system - if you want overlapping domains in a game, then the PC ruler who says '100% of income is better than 20% tax' and starts hoovering up every holding in their domain is a game-buster.

It shouldn't be a game buster. It should be a reasonable strategy for a small realm. The game should already impose brutal diseconomies of scale as a domain gets too large. With only three actions, its quite easy to cause havok on a large realm, just putting out fires, never mind dealing with rivals.

Boeruine and Avanil don't have pet guilders because they don't want the money, obviously they do, and they get it. But to deal with the complications of a hybrid realm and the mere size problem, a vassal is the best way to make use of those holdings.

We've talked about ways to impose diseconomies of scale, like having random events for every domain sized thing, so Talinie, gets two random events, one realm directed, one temple directed.

Another stiffer penalty is to make loyalty a serious problem when you can't collect regency (for any holding) in a province.

[AndrewTall]

I disagree Ken, total control of a realm (i.e. totalitarian dictatorship) generally has horrible side effects quite apart from action constraint issues and regardless of the size of the realm.

Even though scientific advance is far less important in a medieval world like Cerilia, and similarly economies are far less advanced, the realm is still going to suffer badly if the ruler refuses to share any power or influence at all, multiple power centers make advancement possible encouraging people to strive to better themselves (within social roles of course) and also minimises the damage caused by a single idiot in charge of everything.

I'd have no problem with vassalage of all other regents in a realm, but the 'munchkin approach' to play is usually to eliminate all vassals as they are seen purely as a cost, or as potential rivals. I'd see a realm with only 1 all-dominating regent as a land where anyone with talent or ability has left to win fame and fortune elsewhere - why stay when the guy at the top refuses to consider sharing the power/ wealth in even the slightest degree? Crushing the nobility and middleclass in such a fashion should have all sorts of downsides...

[Vicente]

Originally Posted by kgauck

It shouldn't be a game buster.

I see it as a game buster, but for a different reason: if two regents are fighting to control one type of holding the PC ruler has too much power to drive one out and let the other one get the holding levels. Maybe it's realistic, but it bugs me a lot.

[kgauck]

The extra power comes from the character being a PC, or from some other circumstance?

[Vicente]

Well, for NPCs I can control that behavior and not do it, but I haven't found any good explanation to discourage the PC landed regent to not do that to protect the guilder PC regent (that is also his adventures friend).

[kgauck]

My question was, why is it a problem in the first place. If some theoretical action is a problem, it should be disadvantageous for both NPC's and PC's alike. Simply restraining NPC's only addresses a problem from the NPC side.

I can think of a dozen reasons why any character is asking for trouble trying to hold every type of holding themselves, but those may not address the issue you have.

[Vicente]

Originally Posted by kgauck

I can think of a dozen reasons why any character is asking for trouble trying to hold every type of holding themselves, but those may not address the issue you have.

I agree it would be a problem if the character tries to hold all the holdings for himself, mostly because he wouldn't have enough actions to develop/protect all of them.

My problem comes when the land regent player uses his position of power to help another player hold all the holdings, it's too easy to use taxes to force other regents out of your domain except the ones you want to be in without the expensive contest/rule war that would be needed without taxes.

This also is a problem for me because it creates too easily power blocks in kingdoms (like Avanil, where every regent bows to Avan) instead of what happens in most other places where domains overlap and are mixed in a more chaotic way.

Maybe it has to do with my way of playing too, but I would be glad to get some comments about how to discourage that behavior.

[AndrewTall]

I see the answer as roleplaying - powerblocks encourage counter-reactions, dissent within the ranks (why is our noble prince consorting with lowly guilders and giving them fine titles?) and so on.

In Ruins of Empire each holding has 'goals' - stated broad ideas of what the domain considers important / wants to achieve. Many of these overlap or are contradictory to the goals of other domains - even 'allied' ones. Going against goals such as 'don't swear fealty, keep at least 50% of the guild outside of any one realm to prevent domination, etc then causes major internal problems since the regent is clearly pushing the domain in a direction it doesn't want to go - the regent could of course try to change the domains intentions up front, but they'd better be persuasive!

As long as you clearly state to players that their domains have these goals, having their npc's go great captain, impose loyalty drops, RP losses, etc if they ignore the goals is fair enough. Particularly if you show the suffering happening to npc's who go Louis the 16th first or explain why the poor roleplaying of the domain is a problem.

My real problem is with the ruler simply declaring martial law and wiping out other holdings - or threatening it to enforce dominance. Even casual talk of pillaging holdings forces the other regents to kowtow unless they are sure that the DM will impose crippling penalties for the occupation.

[kgauck]

Originally Posted by AndrewTall

I disagree Ken, total control of a realm (i.e. totalitarian dictatorship) generally has horrible side effects quite apart from action constraint issues and regardless of the size of the realm.

I don't see this as a totalitarian dictatorship, since that would impose a kind of government not invented yet into a renaissance scenario. We have plenty of examples that seem to show three of the real four together without much difficulty. Medici Florence, the Counts of Tyrol, Venice (which can go for four since they often had considerable influence on the Church), the Counts of Champagne, all spent some time controlling the local wealth. Protestant countries took control of the Church, and since the Church actually was an obstacle to the new learning of the renaissance science and learning shifted north.

None of this strikes me as horrible.

I'd see a realm with only 1 all-dominating regent as a land where anyone with talent or ability has left to win fame and fortune elsewhere - why stay when the guy at the top refuses to consider sharing the power/ wealth in even the slightest degree? Crushing the nobility and middleclass in such a fashion should have all sorts of downsides...

All of this assumes way, way more than is implied by having all of the holdings. The Hanseatic League lasts beyond the Reformation and so there is a time where many Hanseatic cities and countries controlled their own trade (and part of a shrinking trade empire) their religion, their law, and their land. They took part in the progress of the North after the Renaissance. On the other hand, they weren't game breakers either.

[kgauck]

Originally Posted by AndrewTall

My real problem is with the ruler simply declaring martial law and wiping out other holdings - or threatening it to enforce dominance. Even casual talk of pillaging holdings forces the other regents to kowtow unless they are sure that the DM will impose crippling penalties for the occupation.

This is not at all what I am talking about. This the obvious bull in a china shop way to get to the ends under discussion. But in no way is this the only way to go about affairs. Talinie starts with law, land, and temple. This game already broken?