I think that a level 0 holding is an existing stage of any holding. It's the foundation so to speak.
It doesn't just disappear.
I.e. a level 2 holding contains: One level 2 holding, one level 1 holding and one level 0 holding.
And I think it should be necessary that another realm already have established a presence (lvl 0 holding) in order to be on the receiving end of a holding transfer. Otherwise you're essentially skipping past the create holding rule.
The only exception is the transfer of all holdings, which includes the foundation lvl 0 holding.
My take on it, is that there indeed are three levels there:
Level 2
Level 1
and Level 0
But unlike Jon, I dont think its a problem that the recipient can "skip" the create holding rule. Think on how impossible it will become to transfer a holding, if the recipient has to create a lvl 0 himself, first.
If someone takes over a whole chain of guilds, fx through inheritance, or even have to try and create a lvl 0 holding i Ariya, where it is notoriously difficult to establish a presence.
So, I think the best solution could be that the Level 0 holding can be left to the giving party OR given up as part of the deal, AS AGREED BY THE PARTIES IN QUESTION.
For sure, in some cases the receiver is NOT going to accept that the giver remains as a lvl 0 holding, while in others, it will mean you can still trace fx a ley line through or grant influence support on certain common goals.
No, ruleswise it must be necessary to either receive the entire holding or create a level 0 holding of your own and receive only some of the holding.
But unlike Jon, I dont think its a problem that the recipient can "skip" the create holding rule. Think on how impossible it will become to transfer a holding, if the recipient has to create a lvl 0 himself, first.
Situation:
Regent A has a holding (2) in province X.
- he transfers 1 lvl to regent B --> he now has a holding (1) in province X.
or
- he transfers 2 lvls to regent B --> he now has a holding (0) or no holding at all in province X.
Which is better? Should regent A retain some level of influence in a province even if he transfers his entire holding (i.e. he's left with a lvl 0 holding). We did that in RoE I, but not in RoE II. What do you think is more appropriate?
If you transfer a lvl 0 holding, you will NOT get to keep a lvl 0 holding; we're talking lvl 1+ holdings here...
Situation:
Regent A has a holding (2) in province X.
- he transfers 1 lvl to regent B --> he now has a holding (1) in province X.
or
- he transfers 2 lvls to regent B --> he now has a holding (0) or no holding at all in province X.
Which is better? Should regent A retain some level of influence in a province even if he transfers his entire holding (i.e. he's left with a lvl 0 holding). We did that in RoE I, but not in RoE II. What do you think is more appropriate?
If you transfer a lvl 0 holding, you will NOT get to keep a lvl 0 holding; we're talking lvl 1+ holdings here...
B.
In my opinion, it isn't possible to transfer an 'entire' holding away -- some residual influence remains for a time, and this is simulated by a Holding (0).
If someone want to get rid of it, force them to Contest the holding, or use some other domain action to be rid of it.
OoC:
Two Suggestions:
(1)
Transferring a full holding (1+) to an other regent leaves the transferring regent with an holding (0). However, the transferring regent may employ Disband Holding (as a free action), with respect to such an holding (0), as a part of the investiture ceremony.
(2)
Transferring a full holding (1+) to an other regent leaves the transferring regent with an holding (0); but the ceremony of recognition implies a Disband Holding action (as a free action), with respect to such an holding (0). However, the transferring regent may retain this holding (0), by employing a court action toward that end. The said court action, which applies to a single holding (0), has no cost and is automatically successful.
OoC:
Two Suggestions:
(1)
Transferring a full holding (1+) to an other regent leaves the transferring regent with an holding (0). However, the transferring regent may employ Disband Holding (as a free action), with respect to such an holding (0), as a part of the investiture ceremony.
(2)
Transferring a full holding (1+) to an other regent leaves the transferring regent with an holding (0); but the ceremony of recognition implies a Disband Holding action (as a free action), with respect to such an holding (0). However, the transferring regent may retain this holding (0), by employing a court action toward that end. The said court action, which applies to a single holding (0), has no cost and is automatically successful.
Brandon summed up my thoughts.
My thoughts:
I think it would be okay to transfere other holding types than Guild without a spell, but agree that province rulership should require a spell.
I think when transfering your entire holding, it is silly that you should be able to retain a lvl 0 holding.... It was part of the holding you transfered.
That being said I think this would make some sense:
If X transferes a lvl 1+ holding to Y who have no previous holding then X is left with no holding.
If X transferes a lvl 1+ holding to Y who already have a lvl 0+ holding then it would be okay with me if X were left with a lvl 0 holding at no extra cost.
If X transferes some but not all of his 2+ holding to Y who have no previous holding it should cost 1 GB extra to reflect the creation cost of Y's new holding.
If X transferes some but not all of his 2+ holding to Y who already have a lvl 0+ holding then no chage.
Here is an additional issue:
Province 7; regent A has a holding 5, regent B has a holding 1. Regent B transfers his holding to regent A. Regent A now has a holding 6.
As you can see, 5+1 is 6 in this case, even though it certainly involves a LOT less effort than for A to rule from 5 to 6...
Here is an additional issue:
Province 7; regent A has a holding 5, regent B has a holding 1. Regent B transfers his holding to regent A. Regent A now has a holding 6.
As you can see, 5+1 is 6 in this case, even though it certainly involves a LOT less effort than for A to rule from 5 to 6...
Well... You could always introduce the whole transfer of holdings thing as a new action, make it cost the same for the lucky recipient as it would ruling up a holding and/or creating holdings - and give it the same DDC's as well?
You are after all convincing a large group of people that it's a good idea to jump on your wagon AND inserting your own leadership so the holding is loyal...
As an afternote. I think it is a bit much to make the transferance of holdings cost the same as rule holdings. Sure, temples might have that problem Jon describes, as it is hard to convince a clergy to change faith. But a city guard is in it for the pay. So is a guilder or a trader. (I am not exactly sure about Manors)
Perhaps you could insert a period of decreaced income from the holding, based on how many holding levels were given, after each transferance to reflect the problems of incorperating old enemies into your workforce?...
Well... You could always introduce the whole transfer of holdings thing as a new action, make it cost the same for the lucky recipient as it would ruling up a holding and/or creating holdings - and give it the same DDC's as well?
You are after all convincing a large group of people that it's a good idea to jump on your wagon AND inserting your own leadership so the holding is loyal...As an afternote. I think it is a bit much to make the transferance of holdings cost the same as rule holdings. Sure, temples might have that problem Jon describes, as it is hard to convince a clergy to change faith. But a city guard is in it for the pay. So is a guilder or a trader. (I am not exactly sure about Manors)
Perhaps you could insert a period of decreaced income from the holding, based on how many holding levels were given, after each transferance to reflect the problems of incorperating old enemies into your workforce?...
OoC:
Regent Guide quote (regarding Recognition): "This action is commonly used to transfer holdings between regents as arranged through diplomacy."
Yes, but if IHH agrees in diplomacy to transfere a tempel holding to ETN it doesnt mean that the priests in the holding want to change religion. So wether or not it is arranged by diplomacy seems irrellevant.
Just my 2. cents
Here is an additional issue:
Province 7; regent A has a holding 5, regent B has a holding 1. Regent B transfers his holding to regent A. Regent A now has a holding 6.
As you can see, 5+1 is 6 in this case, even though it certainly involves a LOT less effort than for A to rule from 5 to 6...
Yes, but if IHH agrees in diplomacy to transfere a tempel holding to ETN it doesnt mean that the priests in the holding want to change religion. So wether or not it is arranged by diplomacy seems irrellevant.
Just my 2. cents
Yes, Diplomacy can fail. This happened to me once when arrangement holding transferals.
As a side note, RoE temples are not monolithic, nor monotheistic. It is VERY plausible that certain domains may integrate within one another, based upon their dogma, current relationship, etc. The IHH integrated the Lysheans for instance; the ETN took over their vassal the NOS after the death of Honored Brother Moor, etc.
Basically, I am saying that saying that the priests are changing religion is somewhat inaccurate. It would be more like they are changing between denominations of christanity, or something similar to that.
Here is an additional issue:
Province 7; regent A has a holding 5, regent B has a holding 1. Regent B transfers his holding to regent A. Regent A now has a holding 6.
As you can see, 5+1 is 6 in this case, even though it certainly involves a LOT less effort than for A to rule from 5 to 6...
Here is an additional issue:
Province 7; regent A has a holding 5, regent B has a holding 1. Regent B transfers his holding to regent A. Regent A now has a holding 6.
As you can see, 5+1 is 6 in this case, even though it certainly involves a LOT less effort than for A to rule from 5 to 6...
Guys, guys, guys, until we have someone creating low level holdings, then selling them off to the primary holding owner in that province, do we need to even care?
The system isn't broken, its quirky, maybe, not broken. Why are we arguing this over?
Personally I like to tweak character impact on the domain level, not nitpick about a potential loophole that is not even being used.
Also, to the ones awaiting emails from me, my internet is kinda screwy atm as I'm between ISP's. Gonna make an effort to get stuff out this weekend though.
Yes, but if IHH agrees in diplomacy to transfere a tempel holding to ETN it doesnt mean that the priests in the holding want to change religion. So wether or not it is arranged by diplomacy seems irrellevant.
Just my 2. cents
Yes, Diplomacy can fail. This happened to me once when arrangement holding transferals.
As a side note, RoE temples are not monolithic, nor monotheistic. It is VERY plausible that certain domains may integrate within one another, based upon their dogma, current relationship, etc. The IHH integrated the Lysheans for instance; the ETN took over their vassal the NOS after the death of Honored Brother Moor, etc.
Basically, I am saying that saying that the priests are changing religion is somewhat inaccurate. It would be more like they are changing between denominations of christanity, or something similar to that.
I would go further.
All they are changing is the political group to which they belong - I would expect that all "people" domains, whether law, guild, temple have large numbers of groups with differing agenda's in them. the domain is then the 'wider' political group which says 'we'll take care of external matters, referee disputes, etc' - basically a stronger than usual vassal:lord bond.
So when a temple 2 is transferred from say, the Aegis to the Militant order, it would reflect not a mass conversion of the brethren, but rather an agreement by a number of independent churches to seek guidance from Patriarch States rather than High Marshal Khairien.
If you make domains monolithical blocks then any sort of conversion, contest, rule etc becomes almost impossible - changing people's religion and cultural identity in particular. If however a relatively small amount of the domain is 'core' representing the political/spiritual leadership then the system works far better.
I'm changing the way several investiture ceremonies work; that will take care of this:
The DDC for the recognition ceremony, for example, will be set to 5 + province level + recipient's new holding level (for holdings). +5 DDC if you have no holding of the same type in the province.
That brings it in line with the DDC calculation used for Rule actions (quire neat). It will make the trading of multiple holding levels in high-level provinces much more costly, without inventing a completely new balancing mechanism.
I'm changing the way several investiture ceremonies work; that will take care of this:
The DDC for the recognition ceremony, for example, will be set to 5 + province level + recipient's new holding level (for holdings). +5 DDC if you have no holding of the same type in the province.
That brings it in line with the DDC calculation used for Rule actions (quire neat). It will make the trading of multiple holding levels in high-level provinces much more costly, without inventing a completely new balancing mechanism.
Hmm, can't decide if I want to increase the DDC by another +5 for the rare occurrence of uncontrolled provinces/holdings.
Btw: The investiture spell will no longer be required for investiture. Rather, it will make investitures more likely to succeed. But I expect that priests would usually be present anyway (as a Free or Court action?) for cultural reasons...Haelynic priests for lands and such, Sarimite priests for guilds or trade, perhaps even one of Ruornil if godly sorcerers are involved.
+5 DDC if you have no holding of the same type in the province.
I'm changing the way several investiture ceremonies work; that will take care of this:
The DDC for the recognition ceremony, for example, will be set to 5 + province level + recipient's new holding level (for holdings). +5 DDC if you have no holding of the same type in the province.
That brings it in line with the DDC calculation used for Rule actions (quire neat). It will make the trading of multiple holding levels in high-level provinces much more costly, without inventing a completely new balancing mechanism.
Hmm, can't decide if I want to increase the DDC by another +5 for the rare occurrence of uncontrolled provinces/holdings.
Btw: The investiture spell will no longer be required for investiture. Rather, it will make investitures more likely to succeed. But I expect that priests would usually be present anyway (as a Free or Court action?) for cultural reasons...Haelynic priests for lands and such, Sarimite priests for guilds or trade, perhaps even one of Ruornil if godly sorcerers are involved.
I'm changing the way several investiture ceremonies work; that will take care of this:
The DDC for the recognition ceremony, for example, will be set to 5 + province level + recipient's new holding level (for holdings). +5 DDC if you have no holding of the same type in the province.
That brings it in line with the DDC calculation used for Rule actions (quire neat). It will make the trading of multiple holding levels in high-level provinces much more costly, without inventing a completely new balancing mechanism.
Hmm, can't decide if I want to increase the DDC by another +5 for the rare occurrence of uncontrolled provinces/holdings.
Btw: The investiture spell will no longer be required for investiture. Rather, it will make investitures more likely to succeed. But I expect that priests would usually be present anyway (as a Free or Court action?) for cultural reasons...Haelynic priests for lands and such, Sarimite priests for guilds or trade, perhaps even one of Ruornil if godly sorcerers are involved.
Edit.
Spell no longer NEEDED, but gives a bonus.
So what are you investing?
Edit.
Spell no longer NEEDED, but gives a bonus.
So what are you investing?
I'm changing the way several investiture ceremonies work; that will take care of this:
The DDC for the recognition ceremony, for example, will be set to 5 + province level + recipient's new holding level (for holdings). +5 DDC if you have no holding of the same type in the province.
That brings it in line with the DDC calculation used for Rule actions (quire neat). It will make the trading of multiple holding levels in high-level provinces much more costly, without inventing a completely new balancing mechanism.
Hmm, can't decide if I want to increase the DDC by another +5 for the rare occurrence of uncontrolled provinces/holdings.
Btw: The investiture spell will no longer be required for investiture. Rather, it will make investitures more likely to succeed. But I expect that priests would usually be present anyway (as a Free or Court action?) for cultural reasons...Haelynic priests for lands and such, Sarimite priests for guilds or trade, perhaps even one of Ruornil if godly sorcerers are involved.
Edit.
Spell no longer NEEDED, but gives a bonus.
So what are you investing?
Here is an additional issue:
Province 7; regent A has a holding 5, regent B has a holding 1. Regent B transfers his holding to regent A. Regent A now has a holding 6.
As you can see, 5+1 is 6 in this case, even though it certainly involves a LOT less effort than for A to rule from 5 to 6...
The bonus from the investiture spell must be significant enough that it is attractive to have it cast; not for small transfers, but for all larger transfers + transfers of provinces.
DDCs must be adjusted to accommodate that, but NOT so much as to make every transfer either very expensive or near impossible without the spell.
Anyone?
I.
. . . what is the maximum province transfer that you think ought to be possible via Taking 10, with and without an Investiture spell?
For example, taking "5 + (Province Level x 2)" as an hypothetical DDC for province transfers, one could Take 10 on Recognition ceremonies involving provinces (2) without a spell bonus; provinces (3) with a +2 DAC spell bonus; provinces (5) with a +5 DAC spell bonus; and provinces (7) with a +10 DAC spell bonus.
For an other example, taking "10 + Province Level" as an hypothetical DDC for province transfers, one could Take 10 on Recognition ceremonies involving provinces (0) without a spell bonus; provinces (2) with a +2 DAC spell bonus; provinces (5) with a +5 DAC spell bonus; and provinces (10) with a +10 DAC spell bonus.
II.
. . . what is the maximum holding upgrade transfer that you think ought to be possible via Taking 10, with and without an Investiture spell?
For example, taking "5 + Province Level + New Holding Level" as an hypothetical DDC for holding upgrade transfers, one could Take 10 on Recognition ceremonies involving 5 combined province/holding levels without a spell bonus; 7 such levels with a +2 DAC spell bonus; 10 such levels with a +5 DAC spell bonus; and 15 such levels with a +10 DAC spell bonus.
The bonus from the investiture spell must be significant enough that it is attractive to have it cast; not for small transfers, but for all larger transfers + transfers of provinces.
DDCs must be adjusted to accommodate that, but NOT so much as to make every transfer either very expensive or near impossible without the spell.
Anyone?
Transfer 4 No Minor Holdings = DDC 13 (4 No separate checks)
Transfer 4 No Moderate Holdings = DDC 17 (4 No separate checks)
I think another factor is to what extent one want to decouple the temples from the politics of the landed regents. If temples are no longer required, they could be in danger of becoming similar to guilds except one pays for blessings rather than information.
Based only on the effort involved in the preparing spell (one regent action, 1 GB and 1 RP), the bonus should at least be +4, otherwise one can get just as big a bonus without it. With that as a baseline one can increase it as much as one think the landed regents should be 'dependent' on the temples to easily undertake investiture ceremonies.
According to the Regent Guide version of Recognition, multiple checks do not seem to raise the DDC in realm action fashion . . . although there is a location modifier.
The bonus from the investiture spell must be significant enough that it is attractive to have it cast; not for small transfers, but for all larger transfers + transfers of provinces.
The DDC for the recognition ceremony, for example, will be set to 5 + province level + recipient's new holding level (for holdings). +5 DDC if you have no holding of the same type in the province.
| * * * * * | * * * * * |
| Ceremony | DDC |
| * * * * * | * * * * * |
| Coronation (Province) | 7 + Province Level |
| Coronation (Holding) | 2 + Province Level + Holding Level |
| * * * * * | * * * * * |
| Designation (Province) | 10 + Province Level |
| Designation (Holding) | 5 + Province Level + Holding Level |
| * * * * * | * * * * * |
| Recognition (Province/Transfer) | 10 + Province Level |
| Recognition (Holding Upgrade/Transfer) | 5 + Province Level + New Holding Level |
| Recognition (New Holding/Transfer) | 7 + Province Level + New Holding Level |
| * * * * * | * * * * * |
| Divestiture (Province/Target Regent Present) | 10 + Province Level |
| Divestiture (Holding/Target Regent Present) | 5 + Province Level + Holding Level |
| * * * * * | * * * * * |
| Divestiture (Province/Target Regent Absent) | 15 + Province Level |
| Divestiture (Holding/Target Regent Absent) | 10 + Province Level + Holding Level |
| * * * * * | * * * * * |
OoC:
Is COURT a modifier for any of the investiture ceremonies, under the new rules?