Birthright: Chimaeron

RS - Rogr Smith wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 23, 2019 4:30 pm

I can see the espionage action to eliminate the last vestiges (a level 0 holding). However wiping out guilds, temples, and organized law -- military is very good at knocking it down. Not so good at putting it back up.

I suppose that depends on what you think those holdings represent. IMO, law support captures the support of the aristocracy and lesser nobility of a society. The only way to remove that militarily would be to massacre the aristocracy -- which would have far broader casualties than the nobles themselves. Likewise, guilds don't represent store fronts. They represent large swaths of apprentices, journeymen, master Craftsmen, and the like. Militarily destroying guilds would require massacring 100s of people. Clergy are only a very small part of a church. The regular faithful exert most of the influence of a church. Again, would require massacring 100s of people.

Driving down holdings militarily requires massacres, and the only mechanic that really captures that is pillage province.

It can also be done by disrupting their basic organizations and forcing them underground (ie they were in charge as a Law 2, but now are reduced to a Law 0 and aren't in charge). Law, especially given an occupation, could be much like the English during the time of Longshanks. They occupied Scotland, while the Scots still had their nobles and whatnot, they couldn't enact much of anything. The same for trade, regular trade is broken up, the merchants ledgers are burned (now who owes who what), the stockpiles are torched, the smithy broken down, the farrier run out of town, etc. Doesn't require a massacre at all.

This is also why there were often so many turncoats during times of occupation. Most of the people in privilege (ie holding owners) weren't willing to sacrifice their stuff just for someone else -- so they'd cut a deal to avoid being removed (Vichy France, etc).

I will comment on it here, updated the Create Trade Route action with further details, and updated Decrees. There was a lack of clarity, and confusion regarding previous versions of things being referenced.

Under Decree: You can decree tax on trade

This makes requiring a diplomacy action redundant if there is going to be income splitting on a trade route.

Also seems too strong. Law claims is based on comparative strength of holdings. Decree only requires a court or action.

What is the capacity for such a tax to keep it from being punitive, or can a Decree shut down a trade route after all by declaring a 200% tax? You also state a player cannot suppress trade by decree. Taxing seems to accomplish this anyways.

What happens if there are multiple regents? Can the land make this decree? Multiple law holders? The temple declare a tax/tithe. A competing guild?

Can I decree a tax on trade passing through my realm, or sea zone I control. Even though my realm is not the terminus for the route.

In my opinion: This kind of mechanic has ruined many campaigns in the past. It creates a massive tonal shift in Guilder vs Noble interplay, that again in my opinion, devalues roleplaying a core class in the game.

Also under Decree: Can end State X

This make a decree more powerful than an investiture. Also removes the point of State X's protection. There needs to be a penalty on par or more severe than simply going to war with a state X.

Only Province Owner can tax trade at either end of the route. I suppose you could say "you cannot tax trade" ... if the guilder refuses to pay a tax, then you just destroy his trade. This was actually possible since forever, and people were doing it in previous games. I just realised it wasn't actually written in the rules when updating how to get rid of trade routes.

That is fair. I will remove the decree on removing State X. Should require a new investiture, probably.

Just a note though, unofficial state X grants the defection effect. Though that is apparently pointless, since you can bypass it by hiring an external force to attack your state faith anyway...

Removing State X, Y, Z --

Ending it should be as simple as a decree. Ending it so they don't have a de facto State X, Y, Z takes contesting and/or military action.

For example, Graven ends Dhoesone and Randor with a decree. Great. They still had 100% of law/temples, so whether recognized or not, they were the State Faith/Law still. Until they had holdings reduced at least.