What is the game effect of fortifying a holding?

Dungeons & Dragons The Royal Library
1

I have some questions about fortifying. First, if I understand correctly, the fortify action itself is not a separate domain action like it was in the computer game, but a build action that your court can undertake. You can use this to build a castle or to fortify a holding, right?

I’ve read a few times in the BRCS that you can fortify a holding, but I can’t pin down the exact game effects.

-- Do I fortify a holding once to make it "fortified" or does it have levels of fortification?
-- How much does it cost?
-- Most importantly, what does it do?  Affect contest actions?  Stop hostile units?
-- What's the difference between a greatly fortified holding and a castle?

Thanks so much if you can help me clear this up. We’re in a situation where a country is under threat of war and a non-landed is considering either fortifying his few holdings there or trading them for holdings in safer lands. But, I don’t know what the point of fortying a holding is right now, so… :slight_smile:

I also have another questions… I think you can spend as many court actions as you have building up a castle. But I guess this means if you have a big court, you could punch a castle out really quickly. Unrealistically so, you might say, given the technology available to that society. Does anybody have house rules on the amount of build you can pump into a castle or other structure?

2

As far as my understanding goes…

– Do I fortify a holding once to make it “fortified” or does it have levels of fortification?
It has levels of fortification. They build up over time.

– How much does it cost?
A holding costs 4 GB per level, a province (castle) costs 8 GB per level at normal speed. Progress continues at a random pace (d6 per turn, I believe).

– Most importantly, what does it do? Affect contest actions? Stop hostile units?
A castle (fortified province) forces invading units to stop. Once the invading armies equal the size of the castle, additional units can then pass through the province. So a castle [2] will require 2 enemy units in the province for allied units to pass through to the next province.
A fortified holding can not be contested. I can only be reduced by occupation/pillaging actions. However, these rules are unclear - see my posting: Occupation and Pillaging clarification

– What’s the difference between a greatly fortified holding and a castle?
A castle protects the province it is in. You can’t pillage a province (maybe - see the above linked topic) if it has a castle. A fortified holding (law, guild, temple) can’t be contested, it must be occupied and pillaged. You could have a law (10) fortified to max, but the province can be wiped out by occupation, destroying your law holdings.

3

– How much does it cost?
A holding costs 4 GB per level, a province (castle) costs 8 GB per level at normal speed. Progress continues at a random pace (d6 per turn, I believe).

Seasonal Maintenance:
Provincial Castle: 2/3 x level GB
Fortified Holding: 1/3 x level GB
[Asset Costs, p. 90 of BRCS]

Build is a Court Action, continues at a pace of 1d4 GB per action. A Professional Engineer can attempt to set the pace of construction if backed by a Standard Domain Action (Build) to begin construction. This check is made once, against a DC equal to the total cost (in GB) of the project, and if successful the regent can decide exactly how many GB to spend on each Build action: from 1 to 4 GB per action. So with a master engineer supervising it, a Castle could spring up pretty quickly IF the regent can afford it! Great way to drain the treasury in no time! :wink:

[b]-- Most importantly, what does it do? Affect contest actions? Stop hostile units?
A castle (fortified province) forces invading units to stop. Once the invading armies equal the size of the castle, additional units can then pass through the province. So a castle [2] will require 2 enemy units in the province for allied units to pass through to the next province.
A fortified holding can not be contested. I can only be reduced by occupation/pillaging actions. However, these rules are unclear - see my posting: Occupation and Pillaging clarification

– What’s the difference between a greatly fortified holding and a castle?
A castle protects the province it is in. You can’t pillage a province (maybe - see the above linked topic) if it has a castle. A fortified holding (law, guild, temple) can’t be contested, it must be occupied and pillaged. You could have a law (10) fortified to max, but the province can be wiped out by occupation, destroying your law holdings. [/b]

Sieges require at least 1 company per level of fortification being seiged. Fortified holdings cannot be directly reduced through pillaging - they must first be laid low by siege or by storm. Once a provincial castle is under siege, it is considered neutralized, and excess troops may move freely through the province. Fortified holdings don’t restrict enemy troop movement in the province, they only protect the holdings from physical harm. But pillaging the entire province does reduce the overall province level, which might reduce the holding level if it exceeded the province level. Things get trickier if there are 2 or more holdings of the same type, and only 1 of them has to drop a level because the province was plundered. Certainly in this case, fortified holdings would last the longest (as a subject, where would you turn when your lands are being ravaged? I’d go to the place that could protect me, or at least stand up to the pillagers!)

Which means they definitely can be contested through political means. After all, a holding is mainly the people who work for it or are under its influence, not the buildings and physical assets. So Contesting it is a matter of political influence, which has very little to do with whether or not a holding is fortified.

One thing that has always been unclear to me is: once a provincial castle is neutralized by siege, why can’t the province be pillaged by excess troops occupying the province? It’s hard to justify things any other way if we give even a nod to history. One might allow pre-emptive pillaging by a ruler’s own troops, dropping the province one level, gaining 1/2 normal plunder (burning fields isn’t generally very profitable), and preventing enemy pillaging for one full season. But this last one is just my own idea, nothing official (just makes sense to me as a logical extension of the rules).

-Osprey

4

Thanks for the clarifications!

I think I understand it now. Was it really necessary to include fortified holdings? Now it seems pretty easy for somebody to make a holding in your realm, and if you let them get away with it they can fortifying it. Then, you’re screwed, right? For example, let’s say a neutral faction to me makes a guild or something in my province and fortifies it. Later we get warlike. I can’t get rid of it unless I occupy my own province. Is this right?

If so, it’s super annoying, and I’m going to pull it on my PCs. Right now Osoerde has 2 law holdings in Coeranys (PC realm) and they can fortify them, huh? He he he…

Question then: fortification just “works” right? The PC regent can’t oppose them from fortifying with regency, can he?

thanks!

5

A castle, or fortification built without the approval of the landed ruler is

an adulterine castle. Most kingdoms regard this as illegal and a threat of

defiance of the landed ruler. Often times the landed ruler chose not to

deal with it, generally because they had their hands full somewhere else.

So, in the case of Osoerde fortifying 2 law holdings in Coeranys, what do

these holdings represent, and how do the people of Coeranys regard the canny

duke. This is a role play issue, as I approach it. The easiest thing for

Coeranys is for the holding to represent bandits and for the people effected

to hate the duke. The implications of the PC`s clearing out the bandits and

destroying their fortifications would make the PC`s appear heroic.

Rather, if you want to vex the players, make use of the factions that always

exist in a place, and have the duke ally with a faction that isn`t getting

what they want under the current PC leadership. Politics is a way to

allocate resources and value, and there is always competition for these

things, so there is the potential for conflict. The hardest conflicts to

solve are the one`s that involve zero-sum situations, where only one side

can win.

Before introducing the fortified law holdings, place a routine problem

before the PC`s about this issue. Introduce spokesmen for both sides of the

dispute, the humble petitioners seeking to redress a problem and the more

likable, well connected spokesmen for the PC`s favorite guild, a local

noble, or sensible townsfolk. These humble petitioners are not very savy

and basically just want the ruler to do somthing that is going to

inconvienience the ruler (lower taxes, allow to them to do something, or get

an advantage against some interest vital to the realm, like fence in vital

pasture land). The other spokespeople frame the debate in terms of its

benefit to the ruler and make it clear that a decision on their side helps

the realm. You many want to make it worth the PC`s while with some

incentive. Some third party might disparage the humble petitioners

(smugglers, disreputable swamp-folk) and have some hot-head whom the PC`s

don`t pay much attention too claim they have more allegience to Jaison

Raenech than they do to the PC`s. You may choose to run this event as a

Matter of Justice event.

If the PC`s give the humble petitioners everything they want, then perhaps

one of their leaders is an agent of Osoerde who can claim that the duke won

them their new rights by intimidating the PC`s. Loyalty for Raenech. If

the PC`s provide a comprimise, have the petitioners unsatisfied (have both

sides unhappy), and willing to turn to Raenech, who claims to have their

best interests at heart. If the PC`s reject the petitioners, they fall into

Raenech`s waiting arms.

A realm turn later, the “random” event is Brigandage-Unrest hybrid. The

loyalty of one province where Raenech has law holdings drops one grade, and

the people who were petitioning the crown before are now striking directly

at their enemies. The model I would use here is the Boston Tea Party, if

you familiar with it. The humble folk cause a serious problem for their

rivals by stealing horses, rustling cattle, raiding a caravan, burning a

building, or beating up a leader of their rivals. The rival faction should

now demand blood.

If the ruler does nothing loses regency for failing to respond to these

attacks on his supporters, and the loyalty reduction is permenent. The

riotous behavior does not continue unless their is fresh provocation.

Jaison Raenech was behind this all, and has spent a realm turn to make it

happen. The players should not know this until much, much later, if at all.

After its clear that the the rulers of Coeranys either won`t occupy the

province or have finished, Raenech throws up his fortifications. He uses

front men, so the spokesmen for Raenech are the sherrifs in question, though

it should be no question who they serve. Perhaps as badges, the sherrifs

wear the symbols of the province from back in the day when these provicnes

had been part of Osoerde.

If the PC`s do nothing, Raenech consolidates his hold. He makes no bold

moves, but steadily works to undermine the loyalty to the provinces in

question toward the PC rulers. He`ll expand his law holdings where he can.

Raenech is looking for Regency from these holdings. Later when he has a

stockpile of regency, when he has driven the law holdings of the PC`s to (0)

or nothing, when the loyalty of the province is poor or rebellious, and when

the PC`s are distracted by some other threat, Raenech will contest a

province and try to get it without military action.

Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

6

think I understand it now. Was it really necessary to include fortified holdings? Now it seems pretty easy for somebody to make a holding in your realm, and if you let them get away with it they can fortifying it. Then, you’re screwed, right? For example, let’s say a neutral faction to me makes a guild or something in my province and fortifies it. Later we get warlike. I can’t get rid of it unless I occupy my own province. Is this right?

There’s nothing to prevent you from contesting a holding with a Contest domain action - fortifications are irrelevant to the Contest action (I double and triple-checked the BRCS just to be certain). They do prevent the holding from losing income through law seizures, though, so there is some protection against banditry and oppressive rulers as well as marauding armies.

So no need to occupy your own province and assault the holding. Probably much easier, and less disturbing to your subjects, if you don’t institute martial law and simply discredit the enemy holding and its regent through a successful Contest action…if you can!

-Osprey

7

Thanks guy, you’re good at this. Someday I’ll get this good. But until then, I appreciate the help. The PCs don’t want to contest right now since they are in a bit of an uneasy alliance, and according to the book contestation is an act of war, so they aren’t quite there yet. But should they get hostile, duh, I had overlooked a simple contestation would do the trick – unless the holdings are fortified.

Seems all I need to do is either get permission to fortify from the PCs (extortion, while the cat’s away, or with an indignant reaction to local yokels raiding the place, per that excellent suggestion) to make it a bit harder on them should they decide to turncoat later on. I love it!