Author Topic: Transfer of holdings  (Read 6694 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline X-DM Jon

  • Former players
  • Sovereign
  • ******
  • Posts: 1.655
  • Regency: 21
  • Gender: Male
  • Slide
Re: Transfer of holdings
« Reply #30 on: July 11, 2009, 07:21:12 pm »
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.

 Well it would be good to have a rule to cover it. There's already been various holding transfers conducted and more are probably to come. And considering that many holding transfers might be with NPCs, we're not going to spend too much time negotiating.

Offline DM B

  • Green Knight
  • Deity
  • Emperor
  • *
  • Posts: 5.210
  • Regency: 51
  • Gender: Male
    • Twilightpeaks.net - Hone of Ruins of Empire
Re: Transfer of holdings
« Reply #31 on: July 12, 2009, 12:49:55 am »
My fault. I just wanted to get some input. Nothing has changed. Thanks for creative and insightful feedback.
DM Bjørn

Offline DM B

  • Green Knight
  • Deity
  • Emperor
  • *
  • Posts: 5.210
  • Regency: 51
  • Gender: Male
    • Twilightpeaks.net - Hone of Ruins of Empire
Re: Transfer of holdings
« Reply #32 on: July 27, 2009, 06:56:46 am »
After due consideration:

Seeing as 1-1 = 0...

...that probably should apply to holdings as well. So if you transfer you lvl 1 holding, you retain a holding 0. Transfer of a lvl 0 holding does of course leave you with nothing.

Sorry for the confusion.
DM Bjørn

Offline X-SASI/Orthien Tane (Rune)

  • Former players
  • Scion
  • ***
  • Posts: 166
  • Regency: 12
  • Gender: Male
  • Maester Orthien Tane
Re: Transfer of holdings
« Reply #33 on: July 27, 2009, 09:23:58 am »
Will the one receiving a holding in such a transfer need to use a create holding action prior to the transfer, if he does not have any holdings in the province beforehand? Since we in reality start at -1 holding levels in a province, that would make more sense, at leaste rule-wise.

E.g, it would be difficult for BC to transfer guild "power" (12 whores and a pimp, a lumberjack company, or whatever) if there are no SASI agents in the province to contact. (Yes, I'm simplifying, but you see where I'm going with this  ::))
Orthien Tane, Maester of Southern Anuire Shipping and Imports

Offline DM B

  • Green Knight
  • Deity
  • Emperor
  • *
  • Posts: 5.210
  • Regency: 51
  • Gender: Male
    • Twilightpeaks.net - Hone of Ruins of Empire
Re: Transfer of holdings
« Reply #34 on: July 27, 2009, 10:04:23 am »
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.
DM Bjørn

Offline DM B

  • Green Knight
  • Deity
  • Emperor
  • *
  • Posts: 5.210
  • Regency: 51
  • Gender: Male
    • Twilightpeaks.net - Hone of Ruins of Empire
Re: Transfer of holdings
« Reply #35 on: July 27, 2009, 10:05:41 am »
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.

This is very much correct. I've even made mention of it in Chapter 2: Domains.
DM Bjørn

Offline X-LPA/Gaerred Khaiarén (Gray)

  • Former players
  • Noble
  • ****
  • Posts: 427
  • Regency: 10
  • High Hierophant Gaerred Khaiarén
Re: Transfer of holdings
« Reply #36 on: July 28, 2009, 03:48:03 am »
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.

Bjorn, this seems very onerous, actually.  Particular for an action which already requires some other action before it can even be done (diplomacy, wage war, etc).  In all the examples I have run, say where a new regent is granted a domain or another domain is spun out of another domain (vassalage, etc),  the difficulties of this action is very prohibitive.




Offline DM B

  • Green Knight
  • Deity
  • Emperor
  • *
  • Posts: 5.210
  • Regency: 51
  • Gender: Male
    • Twilightpeaks.net - Hone of Ruins of Empire
Re: Transfer of holdings
« Reply #37 on: July 28, 2009, 10:18:54 am »
The transfer of holdings system has been broken since the inception IMO, and I'll make an attempt at fixing it.
DM Bjørn

Offline X-Points East

  • Grand-Maester of the P&H
  • Former players
  • Regent
  • *****
  • Posts: 626
  • Regency: 15
Re: Transfer of holdings
« Reply #38 on: July 30, 2009, 09:43:01 pm »

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.

OoC:

Lower DDC for transfers of guild, trade, and/or source holdings (with a corresponding lower investiture spell bonus for such transfers)?


Offline X-Points East

  • Grand-Maester of the P&H
  • Former players
  • Regent
  • *****
  • Posts: 626
  • Regency: 15
Re: Transfer of holdings
« Reply #39 on: July 31, 2009, 01:21:12 am »

+5 DDC if you have no holding of the same type in the province.

OoC:  Does this apply to transfers of holdings (0)?


Offline X-MOC/Leman States (Even)

  • Ser Engineer
  • Former players
  • Regent
  • *****
  • Posts: 501
  • Regency: 16
  • Patriarch Leman States
Re: Transfer of holdings
« Reply #40 on: December 07, 2009, 07:53:00 pm »
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.

Do we have a new writeup for the investiture rules? I've been asked to perform some investiture actions, and do not know what the current status is. Roughly as outlined above, or as per the current Regent Guide rules? Whether an Investiture spell is required or not makes a big difference.

E
"We are RuinsofEmpire now, and when we act, we create our own reality."

Offline DM B

  • Green Knight
  • Deity
  • Emperor
  • *
  • Posts: 5.210
  • Regency: 51
  • Gender: Male
    • Twilightpeaks.net - Hone of Ruins of Empire
Re: Transfer of holdings
« Reply #41 on: December 07, 2009, 08:50:15 pm »
Edit.

Spell no longer NEEDED, but gives a bonus.

So what are you investing?
« Last Edit: December 07, 2009, 08:52:11 pm by DM Bjørn »
DM Bjørn

Offline X-Points East

  • Grand-Maester of the P&H
  • Former players
  • Regent
  • *****
  • Posts: 626
  • Regency: 15
Re: Transfer of holdings
« Reply #42 on: December 07, 2009, 10:15:32 pm »

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.

OoC:

Any change to modifiers?


Offline X-Osoerde (Alan)

  • The Dragon
  • Former players
  • Sovereign
  • ******
  • Posts: 1.394
  • Regency: 21
  • Gender: Male
Re: Transfer of holdings
« Reply #43 on: December 07, 2009, 11:21:36 pm »
Edit.

Spell no longer NEEDED, but gives a bonus.

So what are you investing?

Isn't it still needed for a Ceremony of Vassalage, though?
Yes, wyrmling, the meat is made all the more tender by armor...

Offline X-MOC/Leman States (Even)

  • Ser Engineer
  • Former players
  • Regent
  • *****
  • Posts: 501
  • Regency: 16
  • Patriarch Leman States
Re: Transfer of holdings
« Reply #44 on: December 08, 2009, 08:48:30 am »
Edit.

Spell no longer NEEDED, but gives a bonus.

So what are you investing?

In this case it is a province. Could we have a quick summary table of DDC and RP cost under the new rules?

Edit
As an example to start discussion:

Ceremony         DDC
Coronation        10 for single transfer
                      15 for dividing domain
Designation       15
Recognition       Hld: 5 + prov lvl + hld lvl
                      Prov: 10 + prov lvl
Vassalage         10 for new vassalage
                      5 to renew vassalage
Divestiture        Hld: 0 + prov lvl + hld lvl
                      Prov: 5 + prov lvl
                      Owner not present: +5
                      Not controlled: +20

Multiple ceremonies: Each check has in creased DDC by +1 per ceremony (as realm action)
Investiture spell: +10 magic modifier to DAC on each check

RP cost:
1 RP/ province or holding level
« Last Edit: December 08, 2009, 09:10:57 am by MOC/Leman States (Even) »
"We are RuinsofEmpire now, and when we act, we create our own reality."