Twilightpeaks.net
RoE Development => Regent Guide => : X-Osoerde (Alan) December 14, 2008, 04:10:42 PM
-
These seem a little broken.
Hardiness adds the holding level.
Advantage at max offers a +4 bonus.
Additionally, many of the actions are strange in that you can either add difficulty or reduce difficulty, but rarely can a regent choose to do both.
For instance:
Rule Holding -- Regent can use holdings to INCREASE difficulty (Hardiness), but can use support to reduce difficulty.
Contest -- A regent can Reduce the difficulty (Advantage), but not increase the difficulty.
Conceptually, this appears to be significant change from RoE. It basically means the relationship between state faith and state is a little different. The state can't help protect any particular holding, save through increasing the difficulty of creating & ruling. But in a contest war, the state would be unable to help defend against the hostile action.
This is very different than before, I think...
-
Hardiness should work exactly like Advantage;
Hardiness [Law, Temple, Manor, Guild, Trade, or Source]: These actions allow you to add to the DDC if you have a significant presence in the province.
Example: If the target of an espionage action you can use your law or guild holdings in the province to increase your opponent’s DDC.
Hardiness otherwise follows the same rules as Advantage does (use of diplomacy, synergy bonus etc.).
-
These seem a little broken.
Hardiness adds the holding level.
Advantage at max offers a +4 bonus.
+6 if you count the synergy bonus.
-
Conceptually, this appears to be significant change from RoE. It basically means the relationship between state faith and state is a little different. The state can't help protect any particular holding, save through increasing the difficulty of creating & ruling. But in a contest war, the state would be unable to help defend against the hostile action.
This is very different than before, I think...
Conceptually as before; but with a flat +2/+4/+6 bonus instead of all those province lvls added together
-
Conceptually as before; but with a flat +2/+4/+6 bonus instead of all those province lvls added together
Ahh, so this is the easier to destory than build up, thing again.
-
With the adding of the province level to the difficulty, it is now easier to destroy in smaller provinces, and more difficult in the larger.
-
With the adding of the province level to the difficulty, it is now easier to destroy in smaller provinces, and more difficult in the larger.
Intentional
-
Makes sense. A lone constable office in a small village is much easier to smack around (read: chase away, maim, murder...) than a constabulary of a major city. I would assume that even though both might be law (1), that their magnitude, complexity and dispersion increases exponentially as the province increases.
-
Conceptually as before; but with a flat +2/+4/+6 bonus instead of all those province lvls added together
Maybe I'm a bit slow but I'm having a hard time grasping the essence of it. Say in the contest action. If I contest TrB's (sorry Bobby, you're my resident nemesis ;D): law (1) with my law (5), what's the target number?
Does my law (5) provide a +4 bonus (difference between the two holdings) against a DDC of 17 (prov 6, hold 1) or just a +2 bonud (half of max holding's advantage)?
And how does synergy factor in this?
-
Example of play; rule holding difficulty:
Domain Difficulty: The DDC is 10 + province level + the new holding level.
Modifiers: Prosperity; Stability; Advantage [Law] – Does not apply to ruling law holdings; Advantage [Guild] – Applies to ruling trade holdings; Hardiness [Law or same holding; guild holdings also apply to ruling trade].
This looks rather complicated, but really it isn't:
Base DDC is pretty simple. Just add together the province level and the new holding level; to rule a holding to lvl 4 in a province 6 is 10 + 4 + = DDC 20.
Stability - Almost always applies to all domain actions, so no shocker there.
Prosperity - Pretty straightforward. A well-run province is easier to do business in; applies equally to all regents in this case.
With a prosperity of Loyal, you get a -1 reduction. With a prosperity of, lets say Content, you get another -2, for a total of -3. DDC now 17.
A little bit more complicated, but only a little
Advantage [Law] - If you're ruling any non-law holding the DDC is reduced by 2 if you've got half or more law. The reduction is 4 points if you've got all the law. Remember that a law (0) in a province (0) counts as 1/2 law.
Advantage [Guild] - Same as above, but only applicable to trade holdings. Note that if you've got both guild and law, you might qualify for the +2 synergy bonus.
So lets say your a guilder improving your guild from 3 to 4. Luckily you're the royal guild of the realm and get support from the law ruler, who has sufficient law to get you the 2 point decrease. DDC is now 15.
Hardiness [Law or same holding] - Follows the same rules as advantage...
The other major guild has a guild (2) in the province. That's not enough to qualify for Hardiness, so DDC stays at 15.
Now anyone who has a holding or is the province rule can start spending influence to further affect the DDC.
-
Conceptually as before; but with a flat +2/+4/+6 bonus instead of all those province lvls added together
Maybe I'm a bit slow but I'm having a hard time grasping the essence of it. Say in the contest action. If I contest TrB's (sorry Bobby, you're my resident nemesis ;D): law (1) with my law (5), what's the target number?
Does my law (5) provide a +4 bonus (difference between the two holdings) against a DDC of 17 (prov 6, hold 1) or just a +2 bonud (half of max holding's advantage)?
And how does synergy factor in this?
Difficulty: DDC 10 + province level + target holding’s level.
When using contest as a realm action the DDC increases by 1 per target affected. The increase in DDC applies equally to all targets.
Modifiers: Prosperity; Stability; Advantage [Law or same holding; guild holdings also apply advantage against trade holdings].
So to contest TrB law in Caercas base DDC is 10 + 1 +6 = 17.
You get -1 for stability and -2 for prosperity. DDC 14
You get advantage since you have 1/2 or more law in Caercas. That's a -2 reduction, down to 12.
-
The synergy text should read:
If you also have another holding of sufficient level to provide advantage, you get a +2 synergy bonus to your advantage.
-
You get -1 for stability and -2 for prosperity. DDC 14
Does stability count in defense as well? In this particular exampe Bellam has stability 1 as well.
-
Vs. contest it does, since the contest action is targeting the other domains holding, but not for rule for example, since it targets a vacant slot.
-
Additionally, many of the actions are strange in that you can either add difficulty or reduce difficulty, but rarely can a regent choose to do both.
For instance:
Rule Holding -- Regent can use holdings to INCREASE difficulty (Hardiness), but can use support to reduce difficulty.
Contest -- A regent can Reduce the difficulty (Advantage), but not increase the difficulty.
Conceptually, this appears to be significant change from RoE. It basically means the relationship between state faith and state is a little different. The state can't help protect any particular holding, save through increasing the difficulty of creating & ruling. But in a contest war, the state would be unable to help defend against the hostile action.
This is very different than before, I think...
Actually, I am not sure this is correct. Upon closer inspection between the actually Actions and the Action Table, Advantage (Law) is granted for Rule Actions (except Law holdings).
There is a lot of discrepancy between the table and the action descriptions actually.
-
Actually, I am not sure this is correct. Upon closer inspection between the actually Actions and the Action Table, Advantage (Law) is granted for Rule Actions (except Law holdings).
There is a lot of discrepancy between the table and the action descriptions actually.
I have noticed this also. When reading the tables and comparing it against detailed descriptions, if there is a discrepancy, does one always trump the other (i.e. table>detail or detail>table?).
Thanks
-
Actually I've made a post stating that the table hasn't been updated, so I'm aware of the problem. Until fixed - the tables are WRONG, the action descriptions are RIGHT.
-
Thanks Bjorn. :)
-
Example of play; rule holding difficulty:
<snip>
Hardiness [Law or same holding] - Follows the same rules as advantage...
The other major guild has a guild (2) in the province. That's not enough to qualify for Hardiness, so DDC stays at 15.
The latest RG draft does not reflect this, and rather uses the old system of adding the holding level to the DDC. The Advantage write-up does state the new (IMO unnecessary more complicated) mechanic. What's the correct version for this?
-
This discrepancy has already been pointed out by Brandon and has been fixed, but not published.
The new rules applies equally to advantage AND hardiness.
-
I cannot grasp this. I need somewhere to look for advantage/hardiness and what it is.
I have a feeling I am going to completely utterly f... up when making my new DO
-
Fucking up is an essential part of creating your first 4+ DO's. Don't worry about it, but learn it as you go.
Here's the simple version:
Advantage reduces your DDC.
Hardiness increases your DDC.
Each action description has a Modifier section. It defines whether advantage/hardiness is applicable. F.ex. Advantage is applicable towards rule holding actions, Hardiness isn't.
-
Say you want to contest another temple holding; both advantage and hardiness applies.
Advantage: Say the province ruler controls half the law in that province and supports you. That is a big advantage for you; i.e. you get a 2 point reduction in DDC.
Hardiness: At the same time the temple ruler control the other half of the law. That is a big boost in his temple's hardiness against aggression; i.e. you get a 2 point increase in DDC.
-
Let's try to construct some examples - I need to clarify this as well. Can you please tell me if any of the examples below are wrong.
1.
I have a Province (4), in which I have two holdings: Law (4) and Manor (4). For an Agitate Action Advantage (Law) and Advantage (Manor) applies.
I get a +6 bonus to my Agitate Action. +4 from the law (or manor) holding and +2 for the other holding (because it's bonus equals my current).
2.
I have a Province (5), in which I have a Law (5) holding. Again I am Agitating. Additionally I have a Manor (3) holding and an ally is helping me with a Guild (3) holding.
I get a +6 bonus in total. +4 from the Law holding, and since the Guild holding and the Manor together equal or exceed the number of levels giving me +4 bonus, they give me +2 synergy bonus.
3.
I have a Province (5), again I am agitating. In that province I control Law (5) and Manor (3). Additionally, an ally is helping me with her Guild (2) holding.
I get a total +6 bonus for the action. +4 for the Law, +2 synergy from the Manor and Guild because the total levels of assisting holdings equal or exceeds the number of levels providing the +4 bonus.
4.
I have a province (6). I am Agitating. I have a Law (4), an Ally controls a Law (2) and a Guild (2), he is helping me with both holdings.
The total bonus is +4. +2 from the Law holding, +2 synergy from my ally because the total number of levels he is helping me with equals the levels providing my +2 bonus.
An important question:
Option a) To gain the +2 synergy bonus in addition to the highest holding giving me advantage does the level from the other holdings need to equal or exceed the holding levels giving me advantage? This is how it is written in the regent guide pg. 75.
OR
Option b) Does the advantage I would gain from each holding need to equal the advantage I gain from the highest level holding to give me +2 synergy?
This becomes important if I eg. have a Law (5) providing me advantage and getting advantage from from a Guild (2) and a Manor (3) holding, all in a Province (5). Option a) would give me a total +6 bonus. Option b) would only give me +4, since the Guild holding is too small to provide advantage and the manor only provides +2 (less than my +4 bonus).
I have a feeling the intent might be option b, but personally I like option a better (slightly simpler).
-
1. Correct.
2 & 3. Question is whether different holding types stack regarding synergy. Bjørn?
4. A holding don't count twice, no synergy. You do get the +4 total bonus due to all law control.
The answer is a) The regent guide is correct until the moment Bjørn states otherwise.
-
No. 2 is wrong. No extra synergy. Total is +4 for the Law
No. 3 is wrong. No extra synergy. Total is +4 for the Law
No. 4 is wrong. No extra synergy. Total is +2 for the Law
-
Clearly this needs further clarification; I'll post the updated rules section when I'm back from Tromsø, with examples and comments. And then we can have a go at discussing things again.
-
Well, then the Regent Guide is currently incorrect on this issue. It specifically refers to levels. To quote pg. 75:
"If the sum of other holding levels providing advantage is at least equal to your highest-level holding providing advantage, you get a +2 synergy bonus to your advantage."
So, a short clarification from the examples.
Advantage from all of the levels in a province of a type of holding grant +4 (from you, you and your allies, or just from allies).
To gain the +2 synergy bonus you must get advantage from full control of another type of holding. Getting +2 advantage from two other different types of holding is not enough.
If you gain advantage from half or more of the available levels of a type of holding, you gain +2 bonus.
To get the +2 synergy bonus, you must gain advantage from half or more of the available levels of a type of holding.
-
Well, then the Regent Guide is currently incorrect on this issue. It specifically refers to levels. To quote pg. 75:
"If the sum of other holding levels providing advantage is at least equal to your highest-level holding providing advantage, you get a +2 synergy bonus to your advantage."
So, a short clarification from the examples.
Advantage from all of the levels in a province of a type of holding grant +4 (from you, you and your allies, or just from allies).
To gain the +2 synergy bonus you must get advantage from full control of another type of holding. Getting +2 advantage from two other different types of holding is not enough.
If you gain advantage from half or more of the available levels of a type of holding, you gain +2 bonus.
To get the +2 synergy bonus, you must gain advantage from half or more of the available levels of a type of holding.
Well, sum of the same type of holding. That was the intention.
-
Which is different from what is written ;)
Anyway, now we know, and knowing is half the battle.
-
OoC:
Bjørn,
If accurate, could you confirm the following breakdown of advantage/hardiness scenarios, which qualify for a bonus? . . .
Regent X may call upon at least half, but not all, of the levels of a single relevant holding type: +2 Modifier.
Regent X may call upon all of the levels of a single relevant holding type: +4 Modifier.
Regent X may call upon at least half, but not all, of the levels of two or more relevant holding types: +4 Modifier.
Regent X may call upon all of the levels of a single relevant holding type and upon at least half, but not all, of the levels of one or more additional relevant holding types: +4 Modifier.
Regent X may call upon all of the levels of two or more relevant holding types: +6 Modifier.
Regent X may call upon all of the levels of two or more relevant holding types and upon at least half, but not all, of the levels of one or more additional relevant holding types: +6 Modifier.
-
This is correct.
-
From turn 67:
With the change in base DDC for several important actions - i.e. rule, contest, etc.
There is no longer a need for this overly complex and artificial Advantage/Hardiness rule.
More later - but you'll be pleasantly surprised I think...
-
New rule:
Advantage/hardiness = Holding level + some permutations (cap = province level)
Very simple. And with the general overhaul it also FITS.
-
Well, first question is - how does this affect multiple holding types? We mix and match all over the place, how does that play out?
-
Well, first question is - how does this affect multiple holding types? We mix and match all over the place, how does that play out?
That's the big question...that has yet to be answered...
-
Well... as I read it, you take all holdings, any type, on my side.
= X
Then you take all the holdings directly opposed to my action. = Y
Subtract the second from the first. X-Y = Z
If Z is > Province Level; SET Z = PL
Use Z in formula.
This means the max possible advantage goes up, to potentially 9 in Ilien, but mostly, its impossible to get a +6 anymore, as most provinces are 4-5 in size.
It does make it easier to Get Z = PL though, since your allies holding levels can often be counted in. (Depending on your treaties)
It'll work.
-
It'll work.
-
...I'm allowed one-liners...
-
That will indeed work. Might even work well.
"any type" of course means the holding types that grant advantage to that type of action - no manor holdings granting advantage to rule temple or rule trade, for instance. Or do I read you wrong Niels?
-
Not all holdings though should be relevant, I would think/
Having Temples should translate into the ability to aid/hinder Guilds/Trade holdings, or vice versa or maybe they help at a reduced rate (1/2 holding level round down).
-
Source is only relevant for source.
Law is relevant for everything (except source of course)
Manor/Temple/Guild only relevant for same type
Guild also relevant for trade.
A few deviations; construction/fortify for example gets Guild Advantage.
-
A few deviations; construction/fortify for example gets Guild Advantage.
Incidentally making - for the first time - it better to make those big structures in the best possible province. Neat.
-
Oh, yes, there may be cases where some holding types are not counted I suppose. My logic is still applicable, just, of course, reduce X further, by ignoring unallowed holdings
A few deviations; construction/fortify for example gets Guild Advantage.
Incidentally making - for the first time - it better to make those big structures in the best possible province. Neat.
Which is just as you planned it. Of course.