Domain/Realm/Free actions

Dungeons & Dragons The Royal Library
1

Times for performing actions are either a domain round, or free. This can
be interpeted as allowing infinite free actions in a domain turn. A
solution Ive seen is to limit free actions to the characters level.

A solution I like better is to clock actions in terms of days. A Cerilian
month is 32 days, so 96 days are available each turn to operate in.

When listing an action in days, it doesnt mean you spend a solid 8 or 12 hours working on it, x days in a row, and its done. A Decree that takes
a day would probably be drafted in an evening after dinner with a couple
of close advisors, reviewed a couple of days later during the Dukes Court for public comment, copies sent out to vassals thereafter, theyd have a
chance to stop by in a week or so and note their concerns, then it gets
sent to the clerk for proper writing up, and finally is read aloud by the
Duke`s herald from the steps of the manor while the Duke looks on in
approval, maybe a month after he originally conceived the idea. Total
time expended, maybe a day of effort.

Domain actions take three weeks (24 days on Cerilia).

Realm actions take a full month (32 days).

Free actions take a day, in general.

Character actions like travel or adventuring can be clocked in terms of
days out of the court, and may or may not interfere with getting in a full
3 domain actions in a season.

I might make a change such as having declare war be 1 day, move troops 1
day per war move per army group, unless the regent is leading the troops,
in which case each war move takes 8 days. Have to think about that one.

A lieutenant adds 3 weeks to the regents total. Adding more lieutenants doesnt give more time because at that point the regent is eating into
his own work time checking on numerous lackeys each day, and there`s no
net gain.

Other possibilities:
-Collecting taxes takes a week, or perhaps a day/holding.
-Running a trade route(s) takes time, a day/route maybe.
-Realm spells could take 24 days to cast, unless your holding is higher
than the required level, then casting time is less. Alchemy requires a
source (1); Cast it from a source (5) and you can grind it out in 5 days.
That could be abusable, hmm.
-Priests might lose 4 days/month, 12 total, because of responsibilities on
weekly holy days, but their free agitate is included in those days.
-Build or Fortify could take a day per GB you spend that turn.
-Mustering EACH unit takes a day, not 1 day/whole muster.

Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

2

daniel mcsorley wrote:

>Times for performing actions are either a domain round, or free. This can
>be interpeted as allowing infinite free actions in a domain turn. A
>solution Ive seen is to limit free actions to the characters level.
>
This is the same as was written on the cardboard that came with the
Birthright boxed set listing the domain turn:
1 free action per character level per domain turn

>A solution I like better is to clock actions in terms of days. A Cerilian
>month is 32 days, so 96 days are available each turn to operate in.
>When listing an action in days, it doesn`t mean you spend a solid 8 or 12

hours working on it, x days in a row, and its done. A Decree that takes >a day would probably be drafted in an evening after dinner with a couple >of close advisors, reviewed a couple of days later during the Dukes Court
for public comment, copies sent out to vassals thereafter, theyd have a >chance to stop by in a week or so and note their concerns, then it gets >sent to the clerk for proper writing up, and finally is read aloud by the >Dukes herald from the steps of the manor while the Duke looks on in
approval, maybe a month after he originally conceived the idea. Total
time expended, maybe a day of effort.

Or it might be an important law, negotiated with several regents who are
affected (who may have influential friends or be protegees of the
neighbouring landed regent), which is carefully worded by the regents
numerous courtiers and advisers to avoid legal loopholes and could take
several month and perhaps even a prior diplomacy action before the
decree is issued to the public - everything is possible depending on how
you play.

Domain actions take three weeks (24 days on Cerilia).
Realm actions take a full month (32 days).
Free actions take a day, in general.
>
Or none at all, when all the regent does is let the action perform by
his court - the regent certainly loses no time when his minor nobles
muster men to be trained as soldiers throughout the regents provinces.

>Character actions like travel or adventuring can be clocked in terms of
>days out of the court, and may or may not interfere with getting in a full
>3 domain actions in a season.
>I might make a change such as having declare war be 1 day,
>
Or just leave it with a full month action, as it is not only “declaring
war” (= telling your enemy “I come now over the border!”), not even only
a formal, traditional declaration of war by sending a herald informing
your enemy that you will solve your quarrel by military force - no, it
can be seen as the whole preparation of war.

The military planning of which troops move, when, where. The
establishing of supply routes to enable your troops to operate in
foreign territorry without running out of food, arrows or simple things
as horseshoes or even nails for horseshoes.

In my opinion it would be best to not only leave the “Declare War”
action as a domain action, which can only be performed by the regent
himself, but to make it a realm action - this would explain why no
lieutenant can declare war.

>Other possibilities:
>-Collecting taxes takes a week, or perhaps a day/holding.
>
For whom? For the regent? Do you imagine Prince Avan, collecting 10 eggs
from the peasant working the field in a small village in northeastern
Daulton, because that peasant has no coin, only goods to give as tax? I
do not - even the Sheriff of Nottingham would send his men to “tax” the
population and not ride out personally and so spend no time doing it.

>-Running a trade route(s) takes time, a day/route maybe.
>
Again: For whom does it take time? When the trade route is set up and
established, then the employees of the guild of XY are travelling with
their wagons between a and b and buying/selling wares to produce the
profit of the trade route. The regent only spent time when he created
the trade route, he does not run the trade route personally.

>-Realm spells could take 24 days to cast, unless your holding is higher
>than the required level, then casting time is less. Alchemy requires a
>source (1); Cast it from a source (5) and you can grind it out in 5 days.
>That could be abusable, hmm.
>
You would need a source 1 to create Alchimists Fire or Acid? You do not
even need to be a wizard to learn alchemy so why have a source for it?
Or do you mean the realm spell “Alchemy” and not the skill Alchemy? Even
then why would a wizard exchange RP to GB at a cost of 1:4 when he can
sell his labour/spells for a better exchange rate (hey, landed regent, I
cast that spell -costing him say 5 RP- and he demands and gets 6 GB from
the landed regent or guilder or whomever).

>-Priests might lose 4 days/month, 12 total, because of responsibilities on
>weekly holy days, but their free agitate is included in those days.
>-Build or Fortify could take a day per GB you spend that turn.
>-Mustering EACH unit takes a day, not 1 day/whole muster.
>
Mustering takes only 1 day? You are referring to the american civil wars
minuteman are you? :wink:
bye
Michael

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

3

On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Michael Romes wrote:
> >Times for performing actions are either a domain round, or free. This can
> >be interpeted as allowing infinite free actions in a domain turn. A
> >solution Ive seen is to limit free actions to the characters level.
> >
> This is the same as was written on the cardboard that came with the
> Birthright boxed set listing the domain turn:
> 1 free action per character level per domain turn

Hmm, Ive played in enough pbems that didnt have a limit that it blew my
mind. And its not in the rulebook, which is wierd, I dont remember the
last time I looked at that card. Good catch.

> Or it might be an important law, negotiated with several regents who are
> affected (who may have influential friends or be protegees of the
> neighbouring landed regent), which is carefully worded by the regents
> numerous courtiers and advisers to avoid legal loopholes and could take
> several month and perhaps even a prior diplomacy action before the
> decree is issued to the public - everything is possible depending on how
> you play.

Diplomacy is an action of its own already.

> >I might make a change such as having declare war be 1 day,
>
> Or just leave it with a full month action, as it is not only “declaring
> war” (= telling your enemy “I come now over the border!”), not even only
> a formal, traditional declaration of war by sending a herald informing
> your enemy that you will solve your quarrel by military force - no, it
> can be seen as the whole preparation of war.

I dont think that its preparation, because theres no lag between the action of declaring war` and being able to move your troops out. The
preparations of war and logistics are more subsumed in the move troops
cost, and the maintenance cost of troops.

Other possibilities:
-Collecting taxes takes a week, or perhaps a day/holding.

For whom? For the regent? Do you imagine Prince Avan, collecting 10 eggs
from the peasant working the field in a small village in northeastern
Daulton, because that peasant has no coin, only goods to give as tax? I
do not - even the Sheriff of Nottingham would send his men to “tax” the
population and not ride out personally and so spend no time doing it.

Eh? Like he could do it all in a day anyway? The day metaphor isnt just the lords own time, it represents the attention of his government and
aides, and the time he spends managing those apparatuses of power. The BR
rules use the regent as the personification of the realm, and I`m
following the same convention.

> When the trade route is set up and established, then the employees of
> the guild of XY are travelling with their wagons between a and b and
> buying/selling wares to produce the profit of the trade route. The
> regent only spent time when he created the trade route, he does not
> run the trade route personally.

And it`s a pretty large benefit to guilders for a one-time cost,
especially since they get RP from it too. I was suggesting it should take
more effort for the guilders than just an initial setup which provides
perpetual income.

You would need a source 1 to create Alchimists Fire or Acid? You do not
even need to be a wizard to learn alchemy so why have a source for it?
Or do you mean the realm spell “Alchemy” and not the skill Alchemy?

Glad to see you figured that one out on your own. :wink:

Even then why would a wizard exchange RP to GB at a cost of 1:4 when
he can sell his labour/spells for a better exchange rate (hey, landed
regent, I cast that spell -costing him say 5 RP- and he demands and
gets 6 GB from the landed regent or guilder or whomever).

How would I know? I pulled an example spell, and it happened to be the
first one on the list. Why they would cast it is totally beside the
point: Might a realm spellcaster be able to cast low-requirements spells
faster, if he has a powerful holding to do it? If you don`t like it, you
could leave all the realm spells at a 24 day casting time, as regular
domain actions.

> >-Mustering EACH unit takes a day, not 1 day/whole muster.
>
> Mustering takes only 1 day? You are referring to the american civil
> wars minuteman are you? :wink:

The minutemen were revolutionary war. :slight_smile: But as you pointed out above,
it doesnt take much effort on the governments part to assemble a mere
200 soldiers from a province of thousands, especially when the duke has
feudal vassals underneath him with their own pre-existing bodies of
soldiers. Which is why it was a free action in the original rules. I
dont think theyd actually become available until later.

Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

4

daniel mcsorley wrote:

>On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Michael Romes wrote:
>
>>Or it might be an important law, negotiated with several regents who are
>>affected (who may have influential friends or be protegees of the
>>neighbouring landed regent), which is carefully worded by the regents
>>numerous courtiers and advisers to avoid legal loopholes and could take
>>several month and perhaps even a prior diplomacy action before the
>>decree is issued to the public - everything is possible depending on how
>>you play.
>>
>Diplomacy is an action of its own already.
>
Yes. And it could be seen as that a regent who issues a decree/law
without using diplomacy first is not caring for the wishes of his fellow
regents, an Autocrat…

>>>I might make a change such as having declare war be 1 day,
>>>
>>Or just leave it with a full month action, as it is not only “declaring
>>war” (= telling your enemy “I come now over the border!”), not even only
>>a formal, traditional declaration of war by sending a herald informing
>>your enemy that you will solve your quarrel by military force - no, it
>>can be seen as the whole preparation of war.
>>
>
>I dont think that its preparation, because there`s no lag between the

action of declaring war and being able to move your troops out. The
preparations of war and logistics are more subsumed in the move troops
cost, and the maintenance cost of troops.

So because the game mechanics lack a delay between “Declare War” and the
first possible movement of troops you assume that “declare war” is not
taking so long? Would you have seen it else, if the game mechanics would
say a regent uses declare war and can march his troops next season to
show the importance of planning?

The game mechanics of the 2E rules do also change loyalty for example
only at the start of the domain turn in the loyalty phase - equally what
the regent does in the 3 action rounds he has, the people start hating
or loving him next season - it´s very abstract and the Declare War
action is nearly as abstract in my eyes.

When the trade route is set up and established, then the employees of
the guild of XY are travelling with their wagons between a and b and
buying/selling wares to produce the profit of the trade route. The
regent only spent time when he created the trade route, he does not
run the trade route personally.

And it`s a pretty large benefit to guilders for a one-time cost,
>especially since they get RP from it too.
>
No, they COULD get RP from it - that´s an important difference. Most
rogues/thiefs/guilders have bloodlines which can exactly reap the RP
from their guild holdings. Creating trade routes creates income, but to
collect RP the bloodline has to be enhanced which can take years
depending on which rule is used, to collect the full possible amount of
RP from trade routes.
bye
Michael

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

5

The problem with the Declare War action is that it automatically grants 4 war moves in the same round (that is 4 more weeks of actions). Hence the regent declaring war automatically gets 2 domain actions at once. Also the war moves are carried out “after” all of the domain actions are resolved - so if another regent was performing a domain action that affected the war it didn’t really have an affect. There was not a lot of real play testing going into the “original” rules.:slight_smile:

6

Everyone gets four war moves every turn - the only difference with the
Declare War action is that your troops may enter hostile territory. Thus,
anyone can defend themselves without taking a Declare War action. In fact,
as long as you don`t need to move troops - you can keep up hostile action,
such as occupation or siege, without performing a Declare War action,
either.

/Carl

----- Original Message -----
From: “irdeggman” brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG
To: BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
Sent: Saturday, January 04, 2003 4:05 PM
Subject: Re: Domain/Realm/Free actions [2#1191]

This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
You can view the entire thread at:
http://www.birthright.net/read.php?TID=1191

irdeggman wrote:
The problem with the Declare War action is that it automatically grants 4
war moves in the same round (that is 4 more weeks of actions). Hence the
regent declaring war automatically gets 2 domain actions at once. Also the
war moves are carried out “after” all of the domain actions are resolved -
so if another regent was performing a domain action that affected the war it
didn`t really have an affect. There was not a lot of real play testing
going into the “original” rules.:slight_smile:
>
>

> The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
> Birthright-l Archives:
http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
> To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
> with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.
>

Gratis e-mail resten av livet på www.yahoo.se/mail
Busenkelt!

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

7

On Sun, 2003-01-05 at 02:05, irdeggman wrote:

This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
 You can view the entire thread at:  [http://www.birthright.net/read.php?TID=1191](http://www.birthright.net/read.php?TID=1191)

 irdeggman wrote:
 The problem with the Declare War action is that it automatically grants 4 war moves
in the same round (that is 4 more weeks of actions).  Hence the regent declaring war
automatically gets 2 domain actions at once.  Also the war moves are carried out
"after" all of the domain actions are resolved - so if another regent was performing
a domain action that affected the war it didn`t really have an affect.  There was not
a lot of real play testing going into the "original" rules.:)

Nah, it does not, and they do not.

I must say that I had once thought that too on a first (or even second
reading) of the rulebook. But you cant move troops normally and then use them in a war move - its one or the other. Also, any troops that
have moved “normally” (as free troop movements) can be retrospectively
“unmoved” after an opponents war moves - more correctly after “all”
opponents war moves.

The order of a war move (“after”) is a convenience of sequence but does
not denote any real marching order. It`s main purpose is in fact to
inform other regents that they may need to respond to war moves from
that regent. Although they may move troops normally through free actions
they can also “take back” that move.

So war moves start with all regents troops unmoved (or potentially so).

The order of domain initiative is no longer important. The aggressor(s)
moves first - the defender(s) respond during - and then moves his own
troops - if the defender has also declared war he may respond by moving
troops into enemy territory in the hopes of gaining aggressor status for
the next war move - otherwise he may move troops normally. No unit may
be moved more than once, a unit may not retreat from an enemy move and
then move itself - if engaged and choosing not to respond it may not
move (from province to province).

****************************************************************************
The Birthright Homepage: [http://www.birthright.net](http://www.birthright.net)
Birthright-l Archives: [http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html](http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html)
To unsubscribe, send email to [email]LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM[/email]
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

8

On Sun, 2003-01-05 at 04:16, Stephen Starfox wrote:

Everyone gets four war moves every turn - the only difference with the
Declare War action is that your troops may enter hostile territory. Thus,
anyone can defend themselves without taking a Declare War action.



In fact,
as long as you don`t need to move troops - you can keep up hostile action,
such as occupation or siege, without performing a Declare War action,
either.

That`s being very rules-lawyering IMO. The verbiage (wording) may state
that the condition is “move”, but the intent is clear.

If a regent has troops on hostile soil - he`s at war. Occupation and
siege must have the troops “active” i.e. they “move” around in the
province. Even occupying your own province requires a “Declare War”,
regardless of whether troops move there or not.

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

9

At 10:50 AM 1/5/2003 +1100, Peter Lubke wrote:

>If a regent has troops on hostile soil - he`s at war. Occupation and siege

must have the troops “active” i.e. they “move” around in the province.
Even occupying your own province requires a “Declare War”,
regardless of whether troops move there or not.

Do you make regents burn their subsequent actions if theyre in a prolonged siege then? They dont have to do that in the rule here that you`re
finding so lawyerly.

Gary

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

10

On Sun, 2003-01-05 at 11:51, Gary wrote:

At 10:50 AM 1/5/2003 +1100, Peter Lubke wrote:

>If a regent has troops on hostile soil - he`s at war. Occupation and siege
>must have the troops "active" i.e. they "move" around in the province.
>Even occupying your own province requires a "Declare War",
>regardless of whether troops move there or not.

Do you make regents burn their subsequent actions if they`re in a prolonged
siege then?  They don`t have to do that in the rule here that you`re
finding so lawyerly.

“burn” as in throw away? Nothing is thrown away.

Not so, they are still besieging are they not? It still has an effect.
An effect which is combat on enemy soil. Do you really think that it
should be easier to lay siege than to occupy without one?

If they do not declare war in subsequent turns - all hostile troops must
return home. You can`t occupy hostile territory in a non-war turn.

The “Im not moving them so I dont have to declare war” argument is
terribly thin, and I cant see any decent DM accepting it. Quite apart from being a logically unsound argument. (its the old “a dog is an
animal, therefore all animals are dogs” logic)

The rulebook states (in Declare War) that “A regent must declare war
before he can move military units into provinces that don`t belong to
him”. This statement in no way precludes declaring war for other
purposes or under other obligations - in fact the end of the paragraph
states clearly that this paragraph is not the full story.: “see armies
and warfare for more information”.

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

11

At 01:40 AM 1/6/2003 +1100, Peter Lubke wrote:

>>Do you make regents burn their subsequent actions if they`re in a

prolonged siege then? They dont have to do that in the rule here that >>youre finding so lawyerly.

“burn” as in throw away? Nothing is thrown away.

Not so, they are still besieging are they not? It still has an effect.
An effect which is combat on enemy soil. Do you really think that it
should be easier to lay siege than to occupy without one?

I think occupying a province and laying siege to one are about equal in
relative ease/difficulty. The current method of prosecuting war makes
neither of those something one must “burn” a domain action on,
though. Declare War (as previously noted) is only necessarily to move
troops across a border. This is pretty clearly illustrated in the
description of that action. Once there the aggressor need no longer
dedicate a full action round to their supervision. Both occupying and
laying siege are “free” actions. That doesnt, of course, mean that it requires no attention at all on the part of the regent, just that it doesnt take up a whole action round worth of his attention, precluding any
other activities at the domain level.

If they do not declare war in subsequent turns - all hostile troops must
return home. You can`t occupy hostile territory in a non-war turn.

How does a regent actually invest a conquered province? Occupied provinces
will never be invested because they will always require the regent to
“burn” his action in a declare war action.

>The “Im not moving them so I dont have to declare war” argument is
>terribly thin, and I can`t see any decent DM accepting it.

No one has really made that argument that Ive seen, but here it is for the sake of full disclosure. The rationale is that one does not need to dedicate the same amount of time to the supervision of troops who are occupying (policing), pillaging (looting) and besieging (encircling a fortification and preventing its occupants from leaving) as one does when arranging for troops to cross a border which requires establishing the logistics of the assault, supply lines, etc. Once determined and established by the declare war action they need no longer be directly supervised by the regent in such a way as to require his full attention while they are in place. Its not as if the regent were himself/herself
patrolling the streets (occupying) burning down hovels (pillaging) or
loading the catapults (besieging.)

If it requires a declare war action to maintain the activities of troops in
hostile territory then does it require one to move them back the next
domain turn? Why should that be a free action? Why should moving troops
at all be a free action? Even mustering units is a free action. Many
things you just have to spend GB on at the domain level, and maintaining
troops in hostile territory is one of those.

Quite apart from being a logically unsound argument. (it`s the old “a dog
>is an
>animal, therefore all animals are dogs” logic)

I dont think the logic of the argument gets that far. The Rulebook pretty well equates the declare war action with moving troops across a border that he does not have permission to cross (a dog is a dog) since thats all it
does. It gives a few rules for how and when the action is required (the
specifics of war moves, and having the permission of a province ruler) but
thats all that the action really allows. Youre saying that any and all
military activities in hostile provinces (not dogs) require the regent to
dedicate an action round to declaring war (are dogs.) In fact, wouldn`t
your argument that all activities in hostile provinces (all animals)
require a declare war action (are dogs) be a better example of your fallacy?

The rulebook states (in Declare War) that “A regent must declare war
before he can move military units into provinces that don`t belong to
>him”. This statement in no way precludes declaring war for other
>purposes or under other obligations - in fact the end of the paragraph
>states clearly that this paragraph is not the full story.: “see armies
>and warfare for more information”.

That doesnt provide for a lot of extrapolation, and certainly not the kind youre proposing which is already covered. The declare war action just
means one can move troops into provinces in which he normally
couldnt. Thats all. Once there he neednt continue declaring war to maintain them during pillaging, occupation or besieging. Those things can go on indefinitely. The rationale being that those sorts of operations dont require a regent`s personal attention in the same way launching an
attack across hostile borders does.

There is at least one rule mechanic reason for the way it works. If you
require a regent to continue dedicating his domain actions to a declare war
when he isnt continuing further into hostile territory then he cant do
things like invest his conquered provinces, contest the rule of other
regents, try to manipulate the loyalty levels of provinces hes occupying. Further, he cant deal with random events personally. While
that may have some merit depending on how much significance you want to
give to such activities, but it`s not what the rules indicate.

Gary

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

12

On Mon, 2003-01-06 at 03:46, Gary wrote:

At 01:40 AM 1/6/2003 +1100, Peter Lubke wrote:

>>Do you make regents burn their subsequent actions if they`re in a
>>prolonged siege then?  They don`t have to do that in the rule here that
>>you`re finding so lawyerly.
>
>"burn" as in throw away? Nothing is thrown away.
>
>Not so, they are still besieging are they not? It still has an effect.
>An effect which is combat on enemy soil. Do you really think that it
>should be easier to lay siege than to occupy without one?

I think occupying a province and laying siege to one are about equal in
relative ease/difficulty.  The current method of prosecuting war makes
neither of those something one must "burn" a domain action on,
though.  Declare War (as previously noted) is only necessarily to move
troops across a border.  This is pretty clearly illustrated in the
description of that action.  Once there the aggressor need no longer
dedicate a full action round to their supervision.  Both occupying and
laying siege are "free" actions.  That doesn`t, of course, mean that it
requires no attention at all on the part of the regent, just that it
doesn`t take up a whole action round worth of his attention, precluding any
other activities at the domain level.

(see comments below first)
I dont accept the "fire and forget" philosophy here. A regents attention during war must be constant and unwavering, whether its
planning for a border crossing or laying a siege or pillaging the
province or . Second, sieges are generally of greater length
than occupation to achieve their result. Occupation achieves its result
immediately - the province is occupied. A siege may take many turns to
be resolved - to neutralize the fortification. The application of effort
is (per turn), I agree, about the same - but the total effort is
greater. Perhaps I didn`t put that entirely clearly in the first place.

>If they do not declare war in subsequent turns - all hostile troops must
>return home. You can`t occupy hostile territory in a non-war turn.

How does a regent actually invest a conquered province?  Occupied provinces
will never be invested because they will always require the regent to
"burn" his action in a declare war action.

Ah, I see what you`re getting: playing the game in domain actions rather
than domain turns. See I consider that the domain actions happen through
the domain turn – but are resolved in a chosen order. The list has had
that discussion before. I believe the consensus was that both points of
view were valid.

Yes, if you play in domain actions rather than domain turns that would
be a problem. And your point of view completely justified. From mine,
however the war is declared for the entire domain turn, and the troops
don`t have to leave until the next domain turn (cf domain action). Note,
the use of “turn” in my original comments.

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

13

You guys need to agree on a common framework here. One of you arguing from
the rules and the other from RL is going in circles.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

14

At 12:52 PM 1/6/2003 +1100, Peter Lubke wrote:

>>How does a regent actually invest a conquered province? Occupied
>>provinces will never be invested because they will always require the
>>regent to “burn” his action in a declare war action.
>
>Ah, I see what you`re getting: playing the game in domain actions rather
>than domain turns. See I consider that the domain actions happen through
>the domain turn – but are resolved in a chosen order. The list has had
>that discussion before. I believe the consensus was that both points of
>view were valid.

So how would one invest a conquered province then? In your tweak a regent
must declare war once per domain turn to maintain troops in hostile territory?

Gary

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

15

At 12:20 AM 1/6/2003 -0600, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

>You guys need to agree on a common framework here. One of you arguing
>from the rules and the other from RL is going in circles.

I had thought we were talking about the rules given the title of the
thread, since the original discussion was on a rules tweak and the later
extrapolation was on what the actual effects of the rules were…

Just to note, only one post (maybe two) has dealt with “real life” so
far. I think we need to complete at least one circuit before we are
actually going around in circles…

Gary

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

16

On Mon, 2003-01-06 at 18:19, Gary wrote:

At 12:52 PM 1/6/2003 +1100, Peter Lubke wrote:

>>How does a regent actually invest a conquered province?  Occupied
>>provinces will never be invested because they will always require the
>>regent to "burn" his action in a declare war action.
>
>Ah, I see what you`re getting: playing the game in domain actions rather
>than domain turns. See I consider that the domain actions happen through
>the domain turn -- but are resolved in a chosen order. The list has had
>that discussion before. I believe the consensus was that both points of
>view were valid.

So how would one invest a conquered province then?  In your tweak a regent
must declare war once per domain turn to maintain troops in hostile territory?

yeah, that`s right. One of the other actions in the turn would have to
be Investiture.

Investiture is the end of the war - not piecemeal as you go. It`s a
statement that “I have conquered and am uncontested in these lands and
claim them for myself”.

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

17

The Declare War action is only needed to move troops within an enemy
domain…stated quite clearly in the rules. If you want to reinforce troops
in the enemy kingdom or push further in, you do it. And yes, investiture is
a piecemeal deal…you can only invest one province at a time (as per the
rules for Investing a Province without permission on page 56 of the rule
book); unless the enemy comes to you and does a ceremony of investiture
which he wont do Im sure. Besides, if you had to conquer an entire
kingdom before you could invest yourself as it`s lord, you would never be
able to expand your kingdom for lack of troops to defend your own
kingdom…not to mention all the Regency Points it would take.

----Original Message Follows----
From: Peter Lubke peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU
Reply-To: Birthright Roleplaying Game Discussion

On Mon, 2003-01-06 at 18:19, Gary wrote:

 At 12:52 PM 1/6/2003 +1100, Peter Lubke wrote:

 >>How does a regent actually invest a conquered province?  Occupied
 >>provinces will never be invested because they will always require the
 >>regent to "burn" his action in a declare war action.
 >
 >Ah, I see what you`re getting: playing the game in domain actions

rather
>than domain turns. See I consider that the domain actions happen
through
>the domain turn – but are resolved in a chosen order. The list has
had
>that discussion before. I believe the consensus was that both points
of
>view were valid.

 So how would one invest a conquered province then?  In your tweak a

regent must declare war once per domain turn to maintain troops in hostile
territory? yeah, that`s right. One of the other actions in the turn would
have to be Investiture.

Investiture is the end of the war - not piecemeal as you go. It`s a
statement that “I have conquered and am uncontested in these lands and
claim them for myself”.

MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

18

[b]Originally posted by Birthright-L
So how would one invest a conquered province then? In your tweak a
regent must declare war once per domain turn to maintain troops in hostile
territory? yeah, that`s right. One of the other actions in the turn would
have to be Investiture.

Investiture is the end of the war - not piecemeal as you go. It`s a
statement that “I have conquered and am uncontested in these lands and
claim them for myself”.
[/b]

Investiture has no choice but to be “piecemeal as you go” if you intend to conquer a realm. With the limitation of a single province per month (which I personally dislike…) you have no choice but to invest provinces intermittently. Personally, I beleive that if the opposing regent is slain in combat and does not leave an effective heir or provide for an immediate investiture ceremony on their death bed any provinces under occupation should be immediately available for investiture. At the appropriate costs of the actions for each province.

As a radical/unrealistic example:
Suppose Gavin Tael were to make a massive military push into Roesone and utterly crush its ENTIRE army and its commanding officers. Simultaneously (and immedidately afterward), he conducts a strategic/swift genocide of its blooded regents that are related to the crown (see the Dark Elf trilogy by R.A. Salvatore). Even if he completes the task in 2-3 months he has to wait a full 7 for the investiture process to be completed. Unless the peasants revolt or a 3rd party becomes involved in the matter there is technically no one to oppose him (except the land itself…). However, this is far from the initial point of the discussion…

To me the Declare War action is needed solely for the initial planning/launching of the war. Once it has begun the use of Move Troops is sufficient to continue the conflict with in the single realm attacked. The troops are already in a state of war and as they “move” they should already be setting up supply lines.

What is interesting in this whole debate is that no one has taken the viewpoint of the defnder into account. According to the declare war action rules “Note that a regent who wishes only to defend territory without counter-invadeing need not declare war; he can make War Moves in response to the an attack as long as he doesn’t leave his domain.” I ask wherein is the difference? The only argument I can think of is the theory of supply lines. However, if pillaging is ordered the need for supply lines should be eliminate. Why then does a defender get “free” moves/actions when the aggressor must spend an action for an “equal” amount of work?

19

A generic “Free” action time period is difficult to determine. Micro-managing domain actions by days may be possible, but depending on the nature of your campaign this takes away from the “spirit” and flow of the game. The rules are designed to be generalities and an outline that facilitates smooth game flow. Working things out to the day may work for some tabletop campaigns with only a couple of players, but in PBeMs or large campaigns with 6+ people, it would be enough to drive a DM/players crazy. If you personally feel that a breakdown of days is needed for actions then I suggest you set estimates and then play with a couple of the actions and test them. Otherwise, a generic format is much more beneficial. Many PBeMs. Have adopted a standard of 1-3 Free actions per month simply for manageability. This seems to be a fairly acceptable standard. There are always exceptions, but for the majority of the cases common sense should be the determining factor not legalistic rules and standards.

20

On Tue, 2003-01-07 at 10:56, Anthony Edwards wrote:

The Declare War action is only needed to move troops within an enemy
domain...stated quite clearly in the rules.

actual quite emphatically NO!
e.g. Declare War is required to neutralize/suppress holdings within your
own provinces.

 If you want to reinforce troops
in the enemy kingdom or push further in, you do it.

The rules state “provinces that you own”. Since ownership is not
terribly well defined, you can argue that occupation == ownership.
However, that would be a very loose interpretation - it`s more likely
that you would define ownership as belonging within your domain (i.e.
invested provinces) .. and note that above you used “within an enemy
domain”, since uninvested provinces are still part of the enemy domain
this would imply that it does cost to reinforce.

The rule book mentions nothing about only having to Declare War once,
and thereafter get a free pass to move troops freely into enemy
territory. It says that for every Declare War you can move troops for 4
weeks of activity in enemy territory.

This does raise a question of definitions:
(i) controlled territory -
(ii) occupied territory - province with units of one regent present,
or province under siege
(iii) owned territory - invested province (invested regent is owner)
(iv) contested territory -

What, for example, is a province in rebellion? it no longer generates
RP/GB. And troops loyal to the rebellion are raised there - given that
the invested regent was last in control of the province and no troops of
the invested regent are present - does this constitute hostile
territory? Does the invested regent require a Declare War to move troops
to put down the rebellion?

[IMO, yes to both. The nearest situation about which a decision is known
is that of declaring war to suppress holdings in territory that a regent
“owns”.]

If the province is in rebellion against an uninvested occupying regent
and no troops loyal to the occupying regent have remained in the
province - does the province revert to the control of the invested
regent? Are any suppressed/neutralized holdings restored?

[IMO, yes to both again. To the second part, Castles are restored to
full strength whenever the siege is lifted - this being the closest
situation about which a ruling is known. To the first, a province
population can have a loyalty rating to more than one regent - rather
than a general feeling of unrest/loyalty/rebellion against “them”.]

  And yes, investiture is
a piecemeal deal.....you can only invest one province at a time (as per the
rules for Investing a Province without permission on page 56 of the rule
book);

First, I was talking more about the “way that it works” under the
conditions stated. From a practical point of view, an aggressor can
seldom just march in and follow up with a quick (hostile) investiture
and thats that. Theres way too many variables to generalize on exactly
what would happen, so for every example I could give there would be
another that is almost completely the opposite. I do however, suggest
that the way it works is bound up with the interpretation of the rules
– if you see one-at-a-time province investiture as your only option,
then that`s what you will do – but if you have a wider range of
possibilities then you may seek more varied solutions.

unless the enemy comes to you and does a ceremony of investiture
which he won`t do I`m sure.

Which he will in most cases do unless you destroy him utterly. The war
comes to an end with an agreement of who gets what. The most common end
(that I`ve found) has been a diplomatic solution, which involves
investiture.

(i) Losing regent becomes Vassal of conquering regent - vassalage
investiture
(ii) Losing regents cedes control of one or more provinces in return for
peace and an end to hostilities - cooperative investiture

  Besides, if you had to conquer an entire
kingdom before you could invest yourself as it`s lord, you would never be
able to expand your kingdom for lack of troops to defend your own
kingdom....not to mention all the Regency Points it would take.

Thats a big statement to make given the wide range of possible circumstances. Are you saying that Avanil couldnt conquer all of Endier
and Medoere before having to invest each province separately? That
Avanil and Ghoere in alliance couldn`t split up Turonen?

The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.