Questions

[DM Juan]

Raided resources would be usable only in province raiders came from...

There doesn't need to be a new action. You raid yourself. Pay the loyalty price and action cost... it is stupid, but technically possible.

[DM Juan]

Actually, you also pay the GB cost BTW. Raiding resources takes eg 3 wood, but costs the target 4GB

[TH - The Hunt]

Hmm. 'This is what I get for refusing to trade with me, me!' Sounds about right.

[DM Juan]

I mean, it is even viable I guess. Kind of cheesy, but ... pay 3GB, 1 loyalty and an action for 1 wood/1 stone (trade route theft!) in second province to build a granary... sigh. It could be worth it.

[MS - Meaghan Smith]

Robber-Barons!

And your random event can be the Lone Ranger working to stop the resource theft!

[TH - The Hunt]

The raid destroys the trade route, too, doesn't it? So you lose the income and action as well. Unless it wasn't your route.

[DM Juan]

As currently written, you'd target the province that has access to wood+stone, and steal it from the province.

My concern with modifying it to targeting trade routes: every trade route in the game will be a smuggling trade route...

[YK - Yuri Khavlor]

Maybe cant target land routes, as the resource and gold trickles over the course of the year. Sea trade though you could do a war action to capture ships assigned to the route. Their holds would be carrying the resources.

[DM Juan]

I don't know, I like it in concept. But I think it makes things really complex.
I don't think the "Exploit" of self-raiding is the end of the world. It's a bit cheesy, but 3GB/Loyalty Hit/Action to be able to build 1 building? eeeh... not sure it will come up. Obviously, could just say you cannot raid yourself, but cooperative self-raiding is still the same thing, so really. If raiding for resources is abused, with internal shenanigans, I probably go more towards you cannot raid for resources.

[TH - The Hunt]

I would just have it so an overland raid disrupts land trade routes and a sea raid disrupts sea trade (the ships engage) regardless. It'd be targeting the province, not the trade route, the trade route would be collateral damage. That way, provinces need to be kept safe in order for trade to be undisrupted, and there's more of a reason to band together against raiders if a valuable trade route is hit than if the province is isolated. Smuggling would make no difference, since raiders wouldn't discriminate.