Twilightpeaks.net
RoE Development => Regent Guide => : X-Points East November 21, 2008, 08:46:30 PM
-
OoC:
Is the cost to rule an holding now based on province level?
http://ruinsofempire.twilightpeaks.net/forums/index.php?topic=292.msg2475#msg2475
If so, does province level contribute to the DDC?
-
That remains to be seen - Chapters 4 & 5 are being reviewed ATM.
-
Why not balance it in between both. GB Cost = ProvLevel + HoldLevel /2
-
I think we'll try the following:
Cost: Province level 1-3 – 1GB; province level 4-6 – 2 GBs; province level 7-9 – 3 GBs; province level 10 or greater – 4 GBs.
In addition you must pay a number of GBs equal to the new (increased) holding level.
Example: It would cost you 3+6 = 9 GBs to increase a holding from 5 to 6 in a province of level 8.
It will cost slightly more to rule holdings in high-level provinces. Similar actions (Contest comes to mind) will have a similar change in cost.
Comments?
-
Cost progression should slow down runaways at the top, although this happens to a degree with DC on actions already. Arithmetic plus a multiplier is fairly innocuous - a more 'long term only' variant would be level squared as a base cost although this would need expenditure over many turns causing issues on success/failure rolls.
-
Cost progression should slow down runaways at the top, although this happens to a degree with DC on actions already. Arithmetic plus a multiplier is fairly innocuous - a more 'long term only' variant would be level squared as a base cost although this would need expenditure over many turns causing issues on success/failure rolls.
Or rather new holding lvl * province level. From a mechanical point of view that should be the core function. But is it very playable? Sadly no...so we'll try something a little in between...and see how it feels.
We'll also see more difficulties based on both province and holding level, so there is a hidden extra cost there as well (to reduce the difficulty). So playtesting might reveal its become a bit too harsh. We'll see. It can be changed again if it works poorly in practice.
-
Or rather new holding lvl * province level. From a mechanical point of view that should be the core function. But is it very playable? Sadly no...so we'll try something a little in between...and see how it feels.
Indeed - I was forgetting you scaled income by province level, a RP issue is also that some would argue (with good reason) that forming a L1 temple in a L10 domain should actually be easier than forming it in a L3-4 domain...
We'll see. It can be changed again if it works poorly in practice.
changing might require ret-conning levels - or constant monitoring of emergent trends which would be time consuming. I've no problem with ret-conning, although I'd prefer GC/etc to reduce the excess levels to simply wishing them out of existence / transferring them to a rival.
-
From Brandon;
OoC:
[also to Jon & Even]
Bjørn,
Is the RoE II forum experiencing some difficulties? At any rate, earlier, I read some of your Rule Holding comments. Here follow some of mine (mostly in interrogative form). . . .
(1) What is the reasoning behind an increasing GB cost (based upon holding level) to Rule the same market share?
(2) Which rôle do you want Hardiness to play? Assume a Province 6, in which two regents control law,—the one, a Law 4; the other, a Law 1,—and in which each of them is attempting to Rule Holding in a given turn; and assume other factors to be equal. With an increasing GB cost (based upon holding level) to Rule, the action would be cheaper for the regent with the Law 1, although his DDC would be three points higher. Alternatively, with an equal GB cost to Rule, the action would cost the same for each regent (obviously), yet the DDC would be three points higher for the regent with the Law 1. Again, which rôle do you want Hardiness to play?
(3) If you go with the increasing GB cost (based upon holding level), in addition to an equal GB cost (based upon province level), to Rule,—as detailed in one of your forum posts,—would you consider setting a maximum cost, in GB, at the current level of the province (e.g., setting a maximum of 6 GB on Rule Holding actions in a Province 6)?
-
Just my two cents.
But unlike Andy's view, I would consider it harder to rule holding in a larger province since it would entail to invest more in order to have people, infrastructure, etc. etc.
Of course I agree with Andy that in a barren province it is harder to make things happen.
-
It seems like the whole "barren province" = harder is covered by the "prosperity modifier".
That leaves then, the "scale of operations" to consider. I think the proposal above is reasonable, Cost =Holding level + a variable based on province size.
-
It's reasonable...but is it also neat?
And is the cost about right (remember that the vast majority of provinces will be in the 4-6 range)? Especially when you look at the final DDC - if that is very high, then you really need to use more resources to bring it down...which amounts to even higher cost...
I'm good at playing round with numbers in my head, but nothing beats playtesting...
-
I think this only works if actions like Contest are also scaled to be more difficult, but I think this adds some additional complexity to the holding scheme as a whole.
In a sense, a level 8 holding in a level 8 province is very much entrenched in the province. This entrechment, could also be seen as a significant boon to a particular regent: a monopoly in which the rules give significant advantage to the holding instead of player action.
There are also some interesting domain rules which could be added, like...
"Anuire is steeped in a deep tradition in which the faith of Haelyn rules the pantheon. As such, haelynic temples ignore province levels when contesting Non-haelynic temples."
Or...
"The Spider River Traders' strong alignment to the waterways of Roesone & Aerenwe, ignore province level for rule & contest actions within those domains, as long as the SRT remains a shining example of how guilders should work for the people (remain LG in alignment)."
There are a lot of possibilities to add additional flavor and potential conflict within domains.
-
In a properly populated world, added costs wouldn't be necessary, because high-level provinces generate so much holding income, there should be frequent contests going on in them, whereas in the backwaters, its like a safe zone, who'd want to fight for what is essentially scraps.
I'd rather a system to encourage players to fight over holdings rather then one that simply increases the cost of competing against the environment.
(math follows)
For instance, a manor o to 1 in a province 1 used to take 5 turns to pay itself off(if you pay in GB to improve changes, 50 turns). Now it would take 10. A manor 7 to 8 in a province 8 used to take 5 turns to pay itself off. Now it would take 6 and a half turns.
It only penalizes the smaller holdings really.
If you did it with plevel+hlevel then...
the manor 0 to 1 would cost 2gb and pay itself off in 10 turns
the manor 7 to 8 would cost 16 gb, and pay itself in 10 turns
So, if we really want to up cost for Rule holding, I'd suggest a steeper rule cost then just 1-3gbs
-
Hmm,
I think I'm leaning towards keeping GB = new holding lvl, and instead making a link to province lvl in DDC. This will drive the DDC up a number of steps, which will add (indirectly) to cost.
Incidentally this may solve the fact that with all the new modifiers available in RoE, some actions (rule included) were getting too low DDCs.
So for Rule holding we're looking at:
GB cost = new holding lvl (as before)
DDC = 10 + new holding lvl + province lvl
So for a very typical example, ruling up to lvl 4 in a province 6 = 4 GBs, DDC 20. No change in GB cost but +6 to DDC when compared to the old system.
It even looks neat!
-
I like this change. One reason is stability and continuity. In standard BR rules, the whole of Cerilia can look completely different in 10 turns. This will slow things down, but not "gimp" any one type of ruler over another.
-
Me likes too...
Similar actions will have their DDC reworked too, to keep things consistent.
-
Very cute!
-
So how does this affect the Rule Source Holding action? Is the magic potential or the province level added to the DC?
-
Magic potential
-
A small concern... I think this might be a little over the top.
Understand me right, I've not played with this or the previous edition of the rules and I get that this is supposed to make the holdings a little more static and more of a long term investment.
I hope I'm not whining, but I look at the numbers and I think that the small fish (anyone with <20 GB income, <50 RP gen) are gonna get hit very hard by this.
Some examples:
My domain, Tornilen, has a Source (2) holding in the North Fell of the Spiderfell. It's competing against Lord Gorman's Source (4) holding. The magic potential of the North Fell is 8. It's very hard for either of us to increase our holdings.
DDC to rule my Source (2) to Source (3): 10 + 3 (holding lvl) + 4 (gorm's source) + 8 (potential) = 25. In order to make that by taking 10, I have to spend 30 RP, I get 38 each turn. I have the remaining 8 to overcome whatever lord Gorman spends on stopping me.
For Gorm the DDC to rule his source (4) to source (5): 10 + 5 + 2 + 8 = 25. Making 18 RP/turn, he's not ever going to rule that one up, having to spend 30 to take 10, then overcome what I spend to stop him.
I've ignored stability for this example.
Different example:
Barony of Serien, Serien (5/2):
Someone wants to create a Law (0) holding in Serien, Xavier Zenneth controls a Law (4) holding, hardness applies.
DDC: 10 + 5 (province lvl) + 4 (hardness) = 19. The agressor has to spend 18 RP to reduce it to 10, then overcome XZ's defensive spending.
Now... My point is, those numbers look awfully high, unless you've the income to overcome them. GB counts more than RP - they can be spent 1/1 to reduce the DDC. I think that adding the province level / magic potential to the DDC of rule *whatever* actions reinforces the status quo rather heavily. In my example, neither lord Gorman nor Tornilen/SM, is going to get that remaining source level anytime soon.
I'd suggest that we start out with adding ½ magic potential or province level to the DDC and see where that takes us, which is more in line with the numbers you initially suggested.
DDC = 10 + new level + ½ province level is almost as cute :)
Of course, my perspective is that of a small fish looking at the big boys, but the numbers seemed... daunting, considering the income of my domain and other small realms in the game.
-
Why add both your's and his source?
L2 to L3 in a L8 potential realm is then DC 10+3+8=21 - take 10 and spend 11 RP?
Gorm L4 to L5 - DC 10+5+8=23 - take 10 and spend 13?
Am I missing something on the cost - I thought it was 1 RP per 'bump', not 2 as per your example?
-
According to the regent guide:
Hardness applies to the rule holding/source action. You add both your new holding level and the levels of opposing holdings of the same type.
The lowest price for 1 "bump" of influence (+1 DAC or +1 DDC) is 2 regency points OR 1 gold bar. So if you have a high income, it's not such a big problem. If you have to rely primarily on regency, it might be.
Like I said, I've only played previous editions of birthright and I'm just looking at the numbers here. If this is supposed to be part of the challenge of playing a small domain, then I'm looking forward to finding a way around it :) I'm just feeling that the change in the rules will have a huge effect on relatively small domains that rely on regency points a lot. Perhaps bigger than intended.
-
Looks to me like Alexander has a point.
These rules will make the GB low rulers like source holders very slow in expanding. Obviously that could be considered a point in itself, forcing the source holders to either expand into actual nationbuilding - or spending some of their precious time on either diplomacy or alchemy.
-
A small concern... I think this might be a little over the top.
Understand me right, I've not played with this or the previous edition of the rules and I get that this is supposed to make the holdings a little more static and more of a long term investment.
I hope I'm not whining, but I look at the numbers and I think that the small fish (anyone with <20 GB income, <50 RP gen) are gonna get hit very hard by this.
Some examples:
My domain, Tornilen, has a Source (2) holding in the North Fell of the Spiderfell. It's competing against Lord Gorman's Source (4) holding. The magic potential of the North Fell is 8. It's very hard for either of us to increase our holdings.
DDC to rule my Source (2) to Source (3): 10 + 3 (holding lvl) + 4 (gorm's source) + 8 (potential) = 25. In order to make that by taking 10, I have to spend 30 RP, I get 38 each turn. I have the remaining 8 to overcome whatever lord Gorman spends on stopping me.
For Gorm the DDC to rule his source (4) to source (5): 10 + 5 + 2 + 8 = 25. Making 18 RP/turn, he's not ever going to rule that one up, having to spend 30 to take 10, then overcome what I spend to stop him.
I've ignored stability for this example.
Different example:
Barony of Serien, Serien (5/2):
Someone wants to create a Law (0) holding in Serien, Xavier Zenneth controls a Law (4) holding, hardness applies.
DDC: 10 + 5 (province lvl) + 4 (hardness) = 19. The agressor has to spend 18 RP to reduce it to 10, then overcome XZ's defensive spending.
Now... My point is, those numbers look awfully high, unless you've the income to overcome them. GB counts more than RP - they can be spent 1/1 to reduce the DDC. I think that adding the province level / magic potential to the DDC of rule *whatever* actions reinforces the status quo rather heavily. In my example, neither lord Gorman nor Tornilen/SM, is going to get that remaining source level anytime soon.
I'd suggest that we start out with adding ½ magic potential or province level to the DDC and see where that takes us, which is more in line with the numbers you initially suggested.
DDC = 10 + new level + ½ province level is almost as cute :)
Of course, my perspective is that of a small fish looking at the big boys, but the numbers seemed... daunting, considering the income of my domain and other small realms in the game.
Valid points all. Of course, you realize that you are using a high-magic province as an example, which would make it as difficult as ruling mundane holdings in for example Endier. A more common example would be a magic (5) province, ruling the source up to lvl 3. Then the base DDC would be 10 + 3 + 5= 18.
Of curse, with the rules as is, any other source holder (if any, that is!) could increase the difficulty by adding his existing source. So lets say that's another +2, for a final DDC of 20.
Admittedly quite high, and 5 full points higher than before. And you can't take 10 if you spend RP/GB on the action, so you'd be forced to roll. So you probably want to give yourself a +15 bonus, and that's a lot of RP/GB, even before Gorm starts spending in return.
The problem is a bit more acute for mages perhaps, but the points are valid for all domains and regents.
-
Looks to me like Alexander has a point.
These rules will make the GB low rulers like source holders very slow in expanding. Obviously that could be considered a point in itself, forcing the source holders to either expand into actual nationbuilding - or spending some of their precious time on either diplomacy or alchemy.
Making mages more dependent on mundane resources (GBs) is part of the agenda. But we have to remember that sources does not generate gold, so pushing them too hard is unfair.
-
Will the contest action be changed as well? Or is it going to be easier to destroy than to build?
-
Contest will be changed if rule is changed - but contest will be slightly cheaper (as it has been all along in RoE). It's an important principle; it's easier/cheaper to destroy than to build.
-
is it possibile, if I'll spend many RPs, while contesting to lower an holding more than one point?
-
is it possibile, if I'll spend many RPs, while contesting to lower an holding more than one point?
No. Only one point at a time.
-
Maybe sources could have a special rule, perhaps even allowing 1:1 RP ratio. Although this would make the system a bit more non-unified one could argue that sources as such are not tied to matters of mundane infrastructure, logistics, bribes etc like law, guilds and temples are since all of these "more public holdings" depend on and try to reach out to the masses.
-
Maybe sources could have a special rule, perhaps even allowing 1:1 RP ratio. Although this would make the system a bit more non-unified one could argue that sources as such are not tied to matters of mundane infrastructure, logistics, bribes etc like law, guilds and temples are since all of these "more public holdings" depend on and try to reach out to the masses.
I've been contemplating just that; all it would require is one more line in the influence table...
The problem is doesn't fix is that holdings count "double"; you get to add/subtract them to the DDC AND you get RP from them. In high-level provinces this gets very aggravated.
-
Hmm... the effects of source holdings on actions is fairly limited, with the very big exception of realm spells (I neeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeed a 3rd level source).
However, I see your point. There is already a limit on modifiers from friendly holding - the province level. If you reduce that by half, it changes things... hardness should likely be reduced accordingly.
I don't know though, is this a problem? This is supposed to be the big advantage of higher level holdings, as I understand it - the RP and GB gain is very long term. If you want to increase your income noticably, you pretty much have to go to war (unless you're a guilder... trade routes!).
Btw, I assume you all know that the only reason Jon is apparantly agreeing with me is because we're Danish (not the damn cake!). Gogo Danish alliance!
-
SHHHHH! :-X
Don't give us away dammit!
-
Since this hasn't reached a definite conclusion I take it that we're using the old rule holding rules for #60.5?
-
Since this hasn't reached a definite conclusion I take it that we're using the old rule holding rules for #60.5?
Yes
-
[Edit. I want to check this with the DM's before posting here].
-
Old rules applied for turn 60.5; new rules for turn 61.
Thread closed
-
I just thought I'd add one little thing:
Remember the 'Take 20' rule!
You want that law 6 in your province 9? Take 20 and use some influence. Especially useful if you really want to be sure to grab those key vacant slot before anyone else does!