Post by Lidhuin on Aug 28, 2019 0:11:41 GMT
Currently, holdings increase maintenance Ob by +1 for every 2 holdings, and provide 1D for ever holding.
This works out to breaking even, and will work so long as:
Not every holding needs to be maintained every turn (unmaintained holdings provide no bonus)
Nothing else besides holdings & characters(extra actions) need maintenance (covered by personal resources, funds & whatnot).
However, it starts to fall apart ever so slightly once non-holding assets and units are introduced. The first question is therefore:
Should assets be treated separately from holdings? I.e. if someone builds a road, or a fort, or something akin to that, does that have an effect above and beyond that of a holding and does it require separate maintenance?
Should units be treated separately from holdings? I.e. affiliation to a mercenary company and a relationship with its commander is sufficient, in BW, to "rule" it.
The chief advantage of treating assets and units as holdings is bookkeeping, with the downside of abstraction - a Manor(3) would thus also represent the capability of a ruler to engage in warfare. A Trade(3) could represent exceptional roads and markets in a province (under the control of the holding owner). But either it must then always do so with particularly important assets, like units, or it will be arbitrary whether it does, which is problematic.
Units could also be reflected via characters(also granting extra actions) as their commander, with the relevant skill exponent of the character representing unit strength. This allows a unit to grow in experience and also be wounded or destroyed, while protecting the holding from direct influence.
Applying the same to assets would then mean that for a Trade(3) to function as a road above and beyond what a Trade(3) would ordinarily function, there must be some character reigning over it - be it an NPC Tollmaster who answers to a PC.
But this would also result in a lot of characters, so alternatives to the abstraction or character option are welcomed. If it ends up being actual assets and units, that is also welcomed, so long as the issue of maintenance is adequately dealt with to allow richer realms to have more assets and units vs poorer realms.
This works out to breaking even, and will work so long as:
Not every holding needs to be maintained every turn (unmaintained holdings provide no bonus)
Nothing else besides holdings & characters(extra actions) need maintenance (covered by personal resources, funds & whatnot).
However, it starts to fall apart ever so slightly once non-holding assets and units are introduced. The first question is therefore:
Should assets be treated separately from holdings? I.e. if someone builds a road, or a fort, or something akin to that, does that have an effect above and beyond that of a holding and does it require separate maintenance?
Should units be treated separately from holdings? I.e. affiliation to a mercenary company and a relationship with its commander is sufficient, in BW, to "rule" it.
The chief advantage of treating assets and units as holdings is bookkeeping, with the downside of abstraction - a Manor(3) would thus also represent the capability of a ruler to engage in warfare. A Trade(3) could represent exceptional roads and markets in a province (under the control of the holding owner). But either it must then always do so with particularly important assets, like units, or it will be arbitrary whether it does, which is problematic.
Units could also be reflected via characters(also granting extra actions) as their commander, with the relevant skill exponent of the character representing unit strength. This allows a unit to grow in experience and also be wounded or destroyed, while protecting the holding from direct influence.
Applying the same to assets would then mean that for a Trade(3) to function as a road above and beyond what a Trade(3) would ordinarily function, there must be some character reigning over it - be it an NPC Tollmaster who answers to a PC.
But this would also result in a lot of characters, so alternatives to the abstraction or character option are welcomed. If it ends up being actual assets and units, that is also welcomed, so long as the issue of maintenance is adequately dealt with to allow richer realms to have more assets and units vs poorer realms.