Birthright: Chimaeron

The Create Trade Route action does nothing but create a trade route, so any action that results in the destruction of a trade route (by decree or otherwise) as collateral damage or a side effect, or as the main effect but that accomplishes something else at the same time, is 'easy' in the sense it's more action-efficient than creating the trade route was.

Create Trade Route wrote: Base Cost: 1GB, 1RP (2GB, 2RP for a Smuggler's trade route)
DC: 10+
Modifiers: Law or guild at either end can support or oppose. You can bid RP to increase or decrease success chances. Requires a Guild at both ends. If agreeing to split TR income by using an allied guild at each end, requires a diplomacy action by both guilders involved.

In order to destroy trade routes, you must remove the guilds they were built from, or you may occupy a province and destroy trade routes that way. You can alternatively also contest them with a guild or law holding. If the trade route does not have the guild on both sides of the trade route, a holder of a guild can destroy a foreign trade route as a free action.

An action to create, an action to destroy. It isn't easier in any sense of the word.

Or you can compare trade routes to armies, instead of realm spells. I have endurance nwp and can train scouts. If my heir doesn't the nwp the realms scouts dont suddenly disband or become irregulars again.

A realm spell is more of a realm ability.
Trade routes, like holdings and armies are realm assets.


Also regarding trade screeching to a halt, would be unexpected. Your domain runs well enough when you are a POW. The people running the day to day aren't going to stop work just because the CEO if gone

But if you have a crappy CEO for 2 years? Your company could very well start to tank.

You need to manage your merchant heirs. Make sure you have someone who is around level 5-7 before they take over. It isn't impossible to start trying to help them XP up when you are getting old, after all.

Yeah, it isn't perfectly logical, but that is the way it works. You might have a hiccup for a while when you transition, and it may provide opportunities for predatory competitors to move in to "make up for your shortcomings" while you try to establish yourself back up to being able to chain 4 provinces...

Really, all (except maybe warriors) need to do the same. A priest dies, and suddenly the heir can only bless 2 provinces? The faith might start to suffer, if the place you used to bless isn't getting it anymore.

Or the wizard who everyone relied on to be able to ward 3 provinces in a shot, suddenly can't even ward?! Disaster scramble mode...

went with 1+LVL/3, so 1 more than before

Just to loop back to this, are we saying standard Rogues get a +1 on trade chains? Was that the agreed upon outcome? I ask because as one on a small island in the middle of the bay, I find it very difficult to only have 2 sea trade routes available. It would ease the pain if I could chain an extra link on the lands.... Somewhere.

Good Q

So level 1 = A to B

Level 3 = A to B to C

Level 6 = A to B to C to D

Level 9 = A to B to C to D to E

Is this correct?

That would be correct for a single trade chain without the Rogue class, yes.

If we were to give the Rouge class a +1 link, then everything would have one extra on it and make the rogue class much more able to ply trade.

Right now there is no limit to the number of chains, just the number of links in the chain. The limit on province level is also to be observed; so a level 3 province would only have a single Sea Trade Route available. For those of us that only have Island provinces, It would be nice to trade in the Land routes for additional sea routes.

By Rogue do you mean Thief? or Bards, Thieves, and Guilders?

Cause non-Rogues can't chain at all I thought?

But still that means with +1

So level 1 = A to B to C

Level 3 = A to B to C to D

Level 6 = A to B to C to D to E

Level 9 = A to B to C to D to E to F

Sorry, when I say Rouge I mean Thief only. Bard and Guilder would not have the +1 as they have other benefits.

Your table would then be correct if you were a Thief, this of course all needs to be confirmed by Juan, but that was the conversation that was being had, and I hope is approved, as it would help me out.