Twilightpeaks.net

RoE Development => Regent Guide => : DM B September 07, 2012, 02:35:13 PM

: Domain maintenance and court expenditure
: DM B September 07, 2012, 02:35:13 PM
I'm also intoducing small changes here:

Domain maint becomes simpler to claculate, but is mostly unchanged.

For court exp 1 Gb does not neccesarily mean 1 court 'level' anymore. High-level courts cost a bit more. A level 7 court costs 8 Gb rather than 7, all the way up to 15 Gbs for a level 10 court. You can have courts of even higher level than 10 - but they only give you exctra actions, not a bigger bonus (+5 is max). That last bit is actually unchanged.
: Re: Domain maintenance and court expenditure
: DM B September 07, 2012, 02:36:04 PM
TABLE 4-7: COURT EXPENDITURE
Level   Expenditure   DAC mod   Description
-   0 GB   -20   You do have no court at all. Court actions are next to impossible.
0   0,5 GB   -5   Your court is a joke; other regents are offended if approached by you.
1   1 GB   -4   Your court is very quaint, but still provides some basic functions.
2   2 GB   -3   Your court is rather poor, but is adequate for most purposes.
3   3 GB   -2   Your court is small, but is approaching acceptable standard.
4   4 GB   -1   Your court is below average, but hardly enough to be noticed.
5   5 GB   0   Your court considered average for a medium-sized realm.
6   6 GB   +1   Your court is considered above average for a medium kingdom.
7   8 GB   +2   You court is large and provides you with many competent hirelings.
8   10 GB   +3   Your court is prestigious, suitable for a great kingdom.
9   12 GB   +4   Your court is renowned for its size, retainers, and many events
10   15 GB   +5   Your court is opulent with fantastic spending, and numerous retainers.
+1   +3 GB   +0   You court is fantastic, you gain few actual benefits, but it is good for prestige.
: Re: Domain maintenance and court expenditure
: DM B September 07, 2012, 02:36:20 PM
TABLE 4-6: DOMAIN MAINTENANCE
# Provinces
and Holdings   Maintenance
Cost
0-5   0 GB
6-10   0,5 GB
10-100   1 GB/10 lvls
101-200   1, 5 GB/10 lvls
201-300   2 GB/10 lvls
301+   3 GB/10 lvls
: Re: Domain maintenance and court expenditure
: X-Osoerde (Alan) September 08, 2012, 02:39:58 AM
I like the streamlined domain maint rule.  The court rule probably doesn't affect most domains...
: Re: Domain maintenance and court expenditure
: X-Haelyn's Aegis/RK (Andy) September 08, 2012, 12:51:58 PM
Is the cost stepped or cumulative?

So if a player has 101 holding levels do they pay:

a. 5*0 + 5*.5 + 90*1 + 1*1.5 = 94     or
b.  101 * 1.5 = 151.5?

The first is slightly more complex the first time that it's calculated (changes are easy once the base is done) but you get some nasty "cliff-edges" with option b.
: Re: Domain maintenance and court expenditure
: DM B September 08, 2012, 08:04:55 PM
It would be b.

The idea is that having more than 100 lvls should be inefficient.
: Re: Domain maintenance and court expenditure
: X-Haelyn's Aegis/RK (Andy) September 08, 2012, 08:42:05 PM
It would be b.

The idea is that having more than 100 lvls should be inefficient.

Gaining that extra holding level costs you 5.15 GB in upkeep so the regent's income would probably reduce from gaining a holding level which seems extremely inefficient  :o

100 holdings, 100*1/10=10 GB vs 101 holdings, 101*1.5/10 = 15.15 GB.

Method "a" makes additional holdings increasingly unproductive which reflects inefficiency but the cliff edge is avoided as you cross a boundary - you could ramp up the step cost to really push the "don't get cocky" message though.

As an alternative to increasing cost to deter large domains, have you considered stability?

A simple conversion:
0-5   +2 stability
6-10   +1 stability
10-100   no impact
101-200   -1 stability
201-300   -2 stability
301+   -3 stability

I'd consider reducing the top "step size" from 100 blocks to blocks of, say, 2*bloodline score.  Or to be tough [bloodlinescore+court spend] although that would leave a lot of current domains on a base of -1 stability (modified by alignment, etc).

That would give the very small domains a good chance of pulling off actions despite minimal income, while encouraging larger domains to create vassals - the value of take 10 is quite significant in RP saving.
: Re: Domain maintenance and court expenditure
: X-Osoerde (Alan) September 09, 2012, 02:25:50 AM
The solution is to get a vassal -which is likely the point.
: Re: Domain maintenance and court expenditure
: DM B September 09, 2012, 11:12:27 AM
It would be b.

The idea is that having more than 100 lvls should be inefficient.

Gaining that extra holding level costs you 5.15 GB in upkeep so the regent's income would probably reduce from gaining a holding level which seems extremely inefficient  :o

100 holdings, 100*1/10=10 GB vs 101 holdings, 101*1.5/10 = 15.15 GB.

Method "a" makes additional holdings increasingly unproductive which reflects inefficiency but the cliff edge is avoided as you cross a boundary - you could ramp up the step cost to really push the "don't get cocky" message though.

As an alternative to increasing cost to deter large domains, have you considered stability?

A simple conversion:
0-5   +2 stability
6-10   +1 stability
10-100   no impact
101-200   -1 stability
201-300   -2 stability
301+   -3 stability

I'd consider reducing the top "step size" from 100 blocks to blocks of, say, 2*bloodline score.  Or to be tough [bloodlinescore+court spend] although that would leave a lot of current domains on a base of -1 stability (modified by alignment, etc).

That would give the very small domains a good chance of pulling off actions despite minimal income, while encouraging larger domains to create vassals - the value of take 10 is quite significant in RP saving.

Very interesting feedback!

The stability idea was very intriguing - it's easier to keep control of a very small domain than a very large one. Conceptually very sound.
: Re: Domain maintenance and court expenditure
: X-Mhoried/Constantine Mhor (Wiktor) September 09, 2012, 11:24:01 AM

I'd consider reducing the top "step size" from 100 blocks to blocks of, say, 2*bloodline score.  Or to be tough [bloodlinescore+court spend] although that would leave a lot of current domains on a base of -1 stability (modified by alignment, etc).


Connecting the bloodline power to the stability of the realm is also a nice idea!

Basically creating vassals should be the only way for huge domains, something similar to the demense score in CK I & II
: Re: Domain maintenance and court expenditure
: X-Osoerde (Alan) September 09, 2012, 04:10:00 PM
The stability idea, particularly if the upper and lower limits of stability are expanded, could explain the tendency of large domains to break up.  Or, why the Gorgon, never quite seems to steamroll Anuire (hard to do if you have a -5 to everything).
: Re: Domain maintenance and court expenditure
: X-Haelyn's Aegis/RK (Andy) September 11, 2012, 09:18:47 PM
I agree entirely on the "that's why you get vassals" point, but you could look at it from another perspective "in a large domain vassals are important enough to be a master in their own right" - if a large domain has no Vassals (big "V") then that indicates that the "mid/upper tier" of vassals (small "v") are so pitiful that no-one puts true faith in the vassals - which would fit in with a stability hit for the domain.

Every regent has vassals, minions of greater and lesser degree, these vassals become Vassals at the point that the lord is sufficiently distant for the people to see the Vassal as their "real" lord whilst the Vassal still accepts the "real" regent as master (the "story" issue which the Vassal mechanic is trying to reflect in my view)

I like tying stabilty in a large realm to bloodline because in my view it fits in with the "born to rule" aspect of BR, destiny conspires to weave fate's tapestry around a scion's life and the people instinctively look to scions for guidance and rule - if a commoner and a scion both have the same legal power, rights and wealth then over time the scion should pull ahead, and the same holds true between scions of differing bloodline - that is why in BR cannon all rulers are scions and more powerful domains and bloodline go hand in hand (mostly, and yes I accept that other matters also come into play, etc, I'm taking poetic licence for effect ok?)

One downside to the approach in RoE is that to a large degree the idea is "play the domain" not "play the ruler" but I don't see that as a big issue given the opportunity for bloodline inheritance - the bloodline effectively flows with the domain barring catastrophe or exaltation which sounds about right.
: Re: Domain maintenance and court expenditure
: DM B September 12, 2012, 08:43:22 AM
Very interresting.

Bloodlines ARE part of  domain. Your current regent is only a vessel for that bloodline. So it's conceptually sound.
: Re: Domain maintenance and court expenditure
: X-WIT/Toreas Kharnmoin (Rune) September 12, 2012, 11:46:05 AM
How does that translate to the non-landed regent domains where the bloodline wouldn't neccesarily be passed down?
: Re: Domain maintenance and court expenditure
: DM B September 12, 2012, 12:00:40 PM
I'm thinking that transference of bloodlines from old regent to new has not been given enough attention with regards to non-landed domains. Now have we really taked much about how the Land's Choice might figure into it all.

So many permutations...
: Re: Domain maintenance and court expenditure
: X-Osoerde (Alan) September 13, 2012, 12:29:26 AM
We seem to have deviated from Domain maintainence to Stability.  Bjorn, can we start a new thread for Stability?
: Re: Domain maintenance and court expenditure
: X-Points East September 13, 2013, 08:59:58 AM
OoC:

Edit:  Feel free to delete this post.
: Re: Domain maintenance and court expenditure
: Ruideside/OM (RP) September 13, 2013, 09:40:17 AM
I kind of like this better than the previous flat rate actually.
I'll have to do some number crunching to see if I agree with the rates, but the per level idea is really good.

ETA: I meant having it always be per level is a good idea.
: Re: Domain maintenance and court expenditure
: Ruideside/OM (RP) September 13, 2013, 09:15:10 PM
Assuming that this is intended to work along the lines of Andy's option A from the first page, then this works quite well. I wonder though if it reflects the desired effect of larger domains being substantially more expensive to maintain to the degree that Bjorn apparently intended.
Perhaps the progression after 10 levels could increase by .02 rather than .01 (i.e. 1, 1.2, 1.4, 1.6, etc.) and have the break points every 20 levels, rather than every 40.
That would give a slightly less linear progression and also get the cost of the really big domains up closer to the levels Bjorn had intended.
: Re: Domain maintenance and court expenditure
: Ruideside/OM (RP) September 13, 2013, 09:29:52 PM
Also, the costs at under 10 levels are too high -- they would cripple the smaller domains.
: Re: Domain maintenance and court expenditure
: Ruideside/OM (RP) September 13, 2013, 09:59:42 PM
After playing around with the numbers; I would suggest the following
Levels   GB/Lvl
0-2              0
3-4           +0.025
5-6           +0.05
7-8           +0.075
9-10           +0.1
11-20   +0.11
21-30   +0.12
31-40   +0.13
etc, increasing by .01 every extra 10 levels.

This has the added advantage of being easy to convert into a formula for the P&H, thereby avoiding another resource heavy table lookup.
: Re: Domain maintenance and court expenditure
: X-Points East September 24, 2014, 07:43:25 AM

OoC:

Suggestion:

Domain Maintenance
(Based on Province Levels and/or Non-Source Holding Levels)

Total
Levels
Maintenance
(in GB)
0
0
1-40
+0.10/level
41-80
+0.11/level
81-120
+0.12/level
121-160
+0.13/level
161-200
+0.14/level
201+
+0.15/level

: Re: Domain maintenance and court expenditure
: Ruideside/OM (RP) September 24, 2014, 04:48:19 PM
Well that would certainly increase the amount of available capital, especially for the bigger domains. :)
: Re: Domain maintenance and court expenditure
: X-Points East September 29, 2014, 11:26:01 AM


OoC:

Suggestion:

Domain Maintenance
(Based on Province Levels and/or Non-Source Holding Levels)

Total
Levels
Maintenance
(in GB)
0
0
1-40
+0.10/level
41-80
+0.11/level
81-120
+0.12/level
121-160
+0.13/level
161-200
+0.14/level
201+
+0.15/level

OoC:

Or perhaps there could simply be a flat maintenance rate of 0.1 GB per level (for province levels and for non-source holding levels).