I’m finishing a nice spreadsheet of the Anuirean region.
I was wondering what to do about starting trade routes. None are listed.
I was thinking 1 trade route per 10 guild levels, what do you guys think?
Well, the sea trade routes for Anuire are listed in the Khinasi boxed set, along with the Anuirean navies, on one of the unbound cards.
Aerenwe: A sea trade route from Calrie to Mermoune in Binsada generates 4 GB per domain turn to one guild. Navy: 2 galleons, 6 caravels, 2 coasters. The fleet is based upriver at the port of Calrie itself, a day’s sail from the Gulf of Coeranys.
Avanil: Sea trade routes from Daulton to Ilien and from Anuire province to Seaward in Mieres generate 12 GB per domain turn for local guilds. Navy: 7 galleons, 12 caravels, 4 coasters. The Prince of Avanil holds the old Imperial Yards of the City of Anuire and uses the city’s harbor as his main naval base. The capital’s fortifications protect the naval dockyards and slips.
Boeruine: Sea trade routes from both Seasedge and Tariene to Stormpoint in Taeghas and from Bacaele to Bliene in Diemed generate 13 GB per domain turn for local guilds. Navy: 6 galleons, 11 caravels, 5 coasters. Most of Boeruine’s fleet sails from the port of Tariene, which has a much better harbor than Seaharrow.
Brosengae: A sea trade route from Bindier to Crenier in Mieres generates 3 GB per domain turn for one guild. Navy: 5 caravels. Brosengae’s navy anchors in the bay of Bindier, although it often patrols the Arnienbae.
Coeranys: No one has established a sea trade route. Navy: 3 caravels. Rumors hint that Coeranys is embarking on a building program to achieve parity with Osoerde’s fleet.
Dhoesone: A sea trade route from Nolien to Riverford in Cariele generates 4 GB per domain turn for one guild. Navy: 5 caravels, 4 knarrs, 2 coasters.
Diemed: A sea trade route from Ciliene to Seaward in Mieres generates 5 GB per domain turn for one guild. Navy: 2 galleons, 7 caravels, and 3 coasters, split between Aerele and Ciliene. The Baron of Diemed hopes to see a new trade route forged from Aerele to one of the great Khinasi ports, probably Zikala or Turin.
Ilien: A sea trade route from Ilien to Ruorven in Coeranys generates 6 GB per domain turn for one guild. Navy: 2 galleons, 4 caravels, 2 coasters.
Medoere: No one has established a sea trade route. Navy: 4 caravels. The fleet is based in Alamier.
Osoerde: A sea trade route from Gulfport to Zikala generates 5 GB per domain turn for one guild. Navy: 3 galleons, 6 caravels, 2 coasters. Osoerde sails out of Gulfport and is thought to sponsor pirates and smugglers in the Sunken Lands.
Roesone: As Roesone is not a seapower, local guilds maintain no sea trade routes. Navy: 2 caravels anchored in Abbatuor, 1 coaster in Proudglaive, and 1 coaster in Abbadiel. (Note: These two coasters are mentioned in the Player’s Secrets of Roesone domain sourcebook as the Registered Baron’s Ships Exploit and Adventure.)
Taeghas: A sea trade route from Bhaine to Abbatuor in Roesone generates 5 GB per domain turn for one guild. Navy: 2 galleons, 5 caravels, and 2 coasters, based in the royal harbor at Stormpoint.
Talinie: Two sea trade routes from Lindholme to Stormpoint in Taeghas each generate 4 GB per domain turn for one guild. Navy: 1 galleon, 6 caravels, and 1 coaster, divided between Seaport and Nowelton.
I’m not keen on that last bit about two TRs which both go from Lindholme to Stormpoint, but that’s canon for you. 
The land trade routes should be different, but the total numbers should be similar. The places that need road-based TRs are Endier, Belvadruor and Bhalaene, since they are the only big (level 6) cities not on this seaborne list; however, based on the small numbers above, probably only Endier has two. Haesrien, Alaroine, Ansien and Ghiere as 5s should probably also have one each (though not with each other, due to political opposition). That’s probably it at game start, except for whatever 3s and 4s lie at the other end of those TRs.
I am of two minds regarding the Imperial City. On the one hand, that kind of population density simply cannot exist without lots of trade going on. On the other hand, given that no sea trade routes connect to it, and lots of competing regents have small holdings there, no one should get to start the game controlling any that reach it.
Its odd that there would be sea trade routes from both Seasedge and Tariene to Stormpoint in Taeghas. And why Stormpoint, a town of something like 3,850 in a province 3, instead of the city of Bhaine, which almost certainly has a town twice that size, in a province 6? Are the Taeghan Outfitters supposed to be remote enough from Avanil to elect to enrich them as much as Boeruine Trading Guild? Why not a trade route to Talinie? Instead Lindholme also goes to Stormpoint?
Trade in Lindholme would almost certainly be about collecting the goods of the Black River region and transporting them north to the Taelshore (including Dhoesone), and bringing Taelish goods back to the Black River for local distribution.
Directly or through intermediaries, Stjordvik Traders has holdings in Tariene, Boeruine; Lindholme, Talinie; and Winter’s Deep, Talinie. These three ports are going to trade with Nolien, Dhoesone; Bjarnheim, Svinik; and Saerskaap, Stjordvik. This way Storm makes money both coming and going and because two of these routes cross from Rjurik to Anuire, its easy to match the other one in terms of geography.
Further, what’s the whole focus on realm to relam. Trade isn’t done that way. Its guild to guild.
Take the Nolien, Dhoesone route to Riverford, Cariele. Sorry? Storm Holtson to Mheallie Bireon? Hack, cough, choke!?!
El-Hadid has seven guild holdings, is described as having built his empire on trade with Khinasi (its sure not his bloodline or his character level), and has a single trade route to Coeranys? I assume he collects his proportional share of the Daulton to Ilien route which presumably was created by Prince’s Pride.
Its material like this that gives BR canon a disreputable name. Burn it.
Because whoever controls the one sea route already leading out of Bhaine wants the one remaining slot for themselves, and thus spends RP to keep any from coming in, I suspect.
I think it’s because the realm, not the guild, owns the navy which transports the goods. Which is silly, because the guilds should just buy coasters of their own. Not galleons, surely, but coasters. The galleons should patrol the sea lanes and defend any merchant who has paid the proper fees (1-3GB/TR/turn, depending on size) and let, ahhh, “pirates” attack any who haven’t.
Quite.
I posted it as a starting point for further discussion, which is beginning to work. =) Please, continue to make suggestions for what to use instead!
Which you will post here on the downloads page when you are done, I hope?
Its funny they list a trade route in Gulfport, Osoerde, but there is no guild there.
I think navies are mostly a guild thing, not a realm thing. Boeruine has no need for a navy. Repelling an invasion is much easier on land
The Trading Guild of Boeruine has every reason to have a navy to protect its merchant ships.
Side note. The guild doesn’t own them, they register them. For the same reason a realm doesn’t raise a unit of knights by buying several scores of horses and suits of plate armor.
Actually, securing Taergas is a lot easier by sea. And think strategicly, a smaller force, with lots of scouts (which Boeruine has), could hold off a larger force that wasnt very eager to do battle without revealing that 1/2 the army has left by sea to land behind the lines and pillage freely..
I’m disinclined to think that these navies belong to the guilds. Guilds should have their own navies.
I’m looking at land trade routes, its kinda like ley lines, they just don’t fill in the details do they?
I’m thinking maybe 1 land trade route per 10 levels of guild holding, and most should begin and end in territories the guild leader has guilds in, rather then be revenue-sharing type routes.
Also, doing this requires you to know what roads exist at start…lol..
Is there a project for this? Should we make a wiki article with our suggested roads?
Maybe we need roads before we have land trade routes?
I’d differ to earlier posters - I’d expect most trade routes to be between different guilds. The reasoning is my interpretation of the likely cost : profit ratio.
To get a trade route, a guild needs:
1.1. A consenting guild at each end.
1.2. Consent of the law holder in each realm the trade routes passes through.
1.3. A maintained road (land) or ships (sea route).
1.4. Freedom from piracy (sea) or banditry (land).
Now consider the cost of this.
2.1. With two different guilds, each builds only the holding at their end - halving the cost for each guild.
2.2. Each guild persuades their own local ruler - who may see the guild as ‘theirs’ or otherwise favour it over a foreign guild - likely dropping the price by over half for each guild.
2.3. With two rulers from whom to choose ships, or to pay part of the fleet cost for merchant marine rights, the cost of the vessels reduces lowering the total cost and dropping each guilds share by more than half.
2.4. Who wants two enemies rather than one? Even if each of the two is smaller, that simply means they have more time to focus on individual issues - both will happily collaborate to destroy bandits preying on their mutual route, the cost of piracy / banditry reduces overall as a result, dropping the cost of each share by over half.
The end result is half the income :mad: - but less than half the costs :), resulting in the same profit despite spending less. 
As long, of course, as you can trust the other guilder 
I tried to make land trade routes at 1 per 10 levels of guilds, considering i put in a limited network of roads, most guilders HAD to share their trade routes in order to even have eligible trade routes.
Many guilds are forced by circumstances to work with other guilds to establish trade routes. But guilds like Stjordvik Traders, with guilds in three regions in two different culture groups has only two reasons to trade with other guilders 1) more money and 2) diplomatic benefits.
Stjordvik Traders may not be common in this regard, but other guilds do have extensive holdings across space, terrain, and culture which allow a guilder to avoid the necessity of forging trade routes with other guilds.
Money is good, and guilds want it. Everyone wants it. But establishing trade with someone and getting it cut off by your partner, your partner’s enemies, or having contest or law claims adds costs to that income that you don’t get if you trade with yourself, or with good reliable friends in a strong position.
Guilds have no natural friends. Realms and temples do, but guilds, by their nature are natural competitors. Even so, there can be friends even so, because you share other interests. The most obvious is having the same friends and the same enemies. They can make good trade partners. Figuring out who makes trade partners involves a little role play for each guild.
I’d expect that the Stjordvik traders built its wide reach by forging trade routes with ‘competitors’, then absorbed those competitors over time using the trade route as a foot in the door and method to identify key personnel in the rival guild. I see large domain-level guilds as conglomerates of a multitude of smaller guilds, certainly in modern economics one sees mergers and acquisitions arising from joint ventures akin to trade routes.
In my opinion guilds are probably actually the least competitive of the landed holdings - guilds naturally tend towards monopolies and cartels (i.e. a single super guild) whereas religious faiths and the nobility tend towards centralisation of power and fragmentation which invite competition - the clergy actively push for laws on heresy and make rivals outcast, the nobles wage war, tourney, and the like - guilds by contrast mostly compete on price or through varying degrees of extortion.
Whether that is reflected in the game is another matter of course, playing merchants as grasping seems to come naturally, so equally does playing a ‘noble’ noble or ‘beatific’ priest - the latter two possibly being what one would hope of such folk rather than what one would historically have found.
Monopolies and a single cartel seem best represented by a preference for trade within a guild.
I also miss the contrast between monopolistic guilds and centralization among other holdings. Monopoly seems pretty centralizing to me.
Trade between guilds seems most likely to me between regions. Yet the official list gave us no examples of Khinasi-Anuirean trade despite the descriptions of same being important in the Southern Sea.
Part of the problem from my point of view is that short trade routes provide the same income as trade that crosses more geographical and cultural distance.
I agree on the long vs short trade routes - creating an income inequality would also encourage people to spread their gaze which would encourage communication, etc. You could however increase the value of the trade route to reflect distance (+10% per 10 provinces crossed) or culture (+25% per different culture in the trade chain).
On competition; guilds tend to have no ideology or purpose beyond the creation of wealth and continuance of employment. Competition between another guild of similar power is wasteful - smaller guilds can be crushed and subsumed, larger guilds would normally come to a nice cosy arrangement that left them both raking in the cash without any unpleasant price wars, etc. The ego of the guild master will obviously have a role, so cartels will be common at first, but as the cartel matures and new blood rises increasingly the cartel will be seen as the ‘wider guild’ not just each individual guild and there will be a pull towards mergers.
This pull towards conglomeration is less between the nobility, where ego is even more important to each person and ties of blood, feud, culture etc get in the way and cause uncommercial views to become predominant and far less amongst temples where ideology is key and doctrinal differences may e seen as fundamental to the character of the domain rather than an impediment to its growth.
This is true for all domains (and all human interactions) but it is neither the human experience, nor is it the campaign description. Were I to rank the ruthless competition I would be hard pressed to decide whether the guilders or the dukes are more liable to fight one another. The temples are clearly less combative, and we have little information on the wizards, so they might be entirely withdrawn from affairs, or highly involved. They may also be highly variable.
This pull towards conglomeration is less between the nobility
I think this is mostly irrelevant. The new monarchies of the Renaissance formed because new ideas of government, the revival of Roman law (along with the rest of Classical culture), and the cost of fortification and artillery. I think that with translation, all of these factors are present. We get the idea that feudal forms are creaky and giving way to something new, Anuirean law and Haelyn’s law never went away and so don’t require a revival. Fortification and the high cost of magic are both expensive. Put this all together and the domain regent becomes much more powerful than their nobles.
I think one of the current trends in Anuire, certainly, and to a lesser extent, in Brechtur and Khinasi is the rise of the domain regent, and the decline of the sub-domain figures.
Can I re-imagine a new order of things based on an abstract theory of what might be in the interest of guilders? Sure. But since the descriptions seem to strongly contradict that interpretation, I continue to view them as rival gangs, no more likely to bow to a single godfather than the Dukes will bow to a single Emperor. Turf wars, rival factions, and constant conflict seems to be the norm.
Hmm, conglomeration increases profits and so is potentially in the interests of everyone (except the down trodden masses) - the nobles have more money to tax and the priests in tithe.
The counter to the conglomeration method of growth theory is the domain set up, possibly the domain indicates the maximum ‘natural accumulation’ size before the ego of the leaders outweighs the economic benefits of mergers - or the point at which the efficiencies of scion rule come to dominate any ‘inherent’ efficiencies. And since only one scion can gain regency from the domain each scion has a strong degree of self-interest in keeping the ‘super guild’ from forming. That would explain the existing guild domains stability - if scions were more or less common likely the stable size would fifer significantly.
In Anuire I’m note sure that the nobility is resurgent, has it’s power ever really fallen away? I thought that if anything guilds were supposed to be growing in power, while the last decade has seen a second theocracy rise.
Note. Wow I talk to much - 1,000 posts made…
If we look to mechanics, in RP at least, bloodline serves this purpose. A domain larger than the regent’s bloodline contributes no RP.
Which hardly disputes the other arguments that the typical domain is near the optimal size of a given domain: efficiency of scale stuff. Just that in terms of RP, its obvious and easy to read.
Do any of you ever see every nation nationalizing all their guilds because guilds and trade routes are such a great source of GB?
Only very small ones (Endier, Ilien, or in the case of Cariele, the guild acquiring a realm) because the limits on RP collection are a huge limiting factor, and trying to do two kinds of holdings has many of the same problems as multi-classing.
I see that as a bug in the system - if you want overlapping domains in a game, then the PC ruler who says ‘100% of income is better than 20% tax’ and starts hoovering up every holding in their domain is a game-buster.
The way to get around the urge to monopolise provinces is, imo, to recognise that holdings are not just a source of income - RP or GB, they are collections of loosely tied together groups who often have competing agenda’s. These groups want to have 100% of the regent’s attention - not just a fraction, they want to know that their aims (downtrodden peasants, free trade for guild members, the greater glory of Haelyn, etc) are the aims of the regent, etc - and if a regent is clearly careless of their wants and needs they should seek guidance elsewhere.
I tried beefing the likelihood of random events to add a mechanic to reflect this, but the main stopper I’d use in practice is the 3 action limit, RP caps, and internal dissent which show the danger of trying to do everything by oneself.
The other stopper needed is a huge negative impact to pillage actions - the romp ‘n’ stomp approach to rulership should destroy most realms in months (since effectively the soldiers are massacring civilians wholesale, destroying buildings, etc, etc). If a ruler has to contest down every ‘foreign’ holding in their realm and rebuild from scratch it will take them an age, cost a fortune, and leave their neighbors far wealthier in the meantime.
In short, make it clear to PCs that a wise ruler sticks to the knitting, and tolerates dissent if need be - absolute power may sound fun to the PC but no one below the regent will be happy about it!