Players Guide, page 46 wrote: You take a cumulative –1 item penalty on Trade checks for each settlement in your kingdom that has no Land Borders, unless it has at least one Water Border with a Bridge.
(snip)
If a settlement has only Water Borders, it is on an island. Until you build at least one Bridge, that settlement's Influence is 0.
Beg pardon, but I have an issue with this...
Well, no, I actually have three issues with this. ;-)
(1) If the kingdom in question has the Boating skill (at Trained proficiency or better), then I would expect for that kingdom and its island settlements to not be suffering these penalties.
(2) If the kingdom in question has the Lake/River heartland, then I would expect for that kingdom and its island settlements to not be suffering these penalties.
(3) If the specific settlement in question has some dockyards -- i.e.: a Piers structure and/or a Waterfront structure -- then I would expect for that kingdom and that specific island settlement to not be suffering these penalties.
In support of this thesis of mine, I'd like to point to the historical example of the Most Serene Republic of Venice, if you please.
Merry Christmas, and Happy New Year!
Franklin
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Sounds like a good excuse to house rule.
Yup, and already did so. ;-)
Nonetheless, I was wondering if any one on the playtest had also noticed these exceptions. This seems (to me, at least) like something that should possibly be amended into the rules.
Thanks,
Franklin
I don't know these actual rules, but it seems like you are over-estimating the effectiveness of boats: They can get the job done, but no where near as effectively as bridges can, so I'd expect some penalty for a lack of land connection...
Influence 0 for unconnected islands sounds a bit rough, but there probably should be a hefty penalty and I'm guessing they just went with '0' as the ruleset is presumably not intended to support island empire building...
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Actually, it's the reverse. Historically, it has always been easier, cheaper, and otherwise more effective to ship stuff by water than by land.
I already mentioned the historical example of Venice, during the late medieval era and all throughout the Renaissance.
There is also the example of the British Empire.
In the U.S., there was the Erie canal, and even more importantly, there was the entire Mississippi river network (with New Orleans being the strategic bottleneck).
Here is just one reference I found via Google:
"Maritime transport is the backbone of international trade and the global economy. Over 80% of the volume of international trade in goods is carried by sea, and the percentage is even higher for most developing countries."
https://unctad.org/webflyer/review-maritime-transport-2021
Franklin
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Boats are great for transporting. Not much traffic. Ocean travel is flat. Boats can carry a ton. A lot of advantages to using the Sea or river for trade.
The rules are overly harsh, but not completely wrong. Bridges are very helpful to maritime empires. Venice had bridges, so did Manhattan.
Cargo conversion is an issue. Bringing your goods by wagon from the local farm, then unloading them, then loading them onto a small river boat, then unloading them again on the island is a lot of extra time. Rolling across a bridge in the original wagon and then unloading at the warehouse is more efficient.
The river kingdoms are not the Mississippi. Large cargo vessels are probably not navigating the shoals, rapids and such that's possible on a monster like the Mississippi, or Amazon. You still get to start a trade route faster with the Boating skill than any other method. Medium Cargo vessels are a thing, but building big boats takes more of an industrial base than building a stone bridge.
There should probably be a bigger bonus for a kingdom with both bridges and water transport. Redundancy is king. look at the last several years, China, and logistics issue for a glaring example of why.
Still game-wise making the island kingdom not be king from the get-go is fair.
Actually, I'd just roll that wagon onto that river barge, unhitch the oxen,, and have the oxen either pull the barge alongside the river bank,
or else tether the oxen (and blindfold them, so they won't get scared) next to the wagon, and away we go. Then, at the destination port, I'd just hitch those oxen back to my wagon, and finish the rest of my trip to the market on the road from the dock to the marketplace.
We do not need to reload from a wagon to a barge. We use the barge to transport the wagon.
Horses and oxen might be a little rich for a level 1 settlement, but yes there are easier ways to move goods then loading and unloading. You still need a dock at both ends of the system for your plan to work. At that point a bridge isn't much more difficult depending on conditions, magic, monster muscle, etc.
I'm not sure historical knowledge is all that valuable a reference point. I mean the game lets you trade through magic portals if your Magic skill is high enough. You don't need coffer damns to build if your sorcerer can part the river with a single spell. It's an abstraction. Communication and moving animals (horses, oxen, drakes, etc.) is easy with a bridge, more complicated with a boat, or ship.
Your 18 Int character can easily figure out a system of reflected light to communicate across distance, but you still have to train a bunch of illiterate peasants in how to use such a system. Otherwise you're just talking to yourself. Until your kingdom advances to a point where that's a possibility the water protects you, but still hampers communication. You can't have the messenger simply hop on a horse and go. He needs a boat big enough for a horse, or a stable on the other side of the river (which wouldn't have the water as a wall).
I'm saying that level of detail isn't fun for many people.
I think you might want to re-read my original post. I was using real-world historical examples to explain why building a bridge should not be "the One and Only True Solution" for islands having "economic isolation." That's all. Any details beyond that point were merely to support my thesis.
The players actually do not need the specific details on how all their farmers move crops to the market. I'm just saying that there is more than one solution available, so if you do not (or CAN not) build a bridge, you are NOT necessarily screwed over. I'm actually trying to make these situations (islands) EASIER for the players.
But on the subject of more details -- yeah, Venice did have bridges. They deliberately built their city in a SWAMP, with BURNABLE bridges connecting to the mainland, so they could DESTROY those bridges if the local duke (whom the founding merchants of Venice were trying to cheat out of his taxes) tried to invade their city.
Venice did NOT ship goods overland, long distance. They used their NAVY, which was the DOMINANT navy in the Mediterranean for CENTURIES.
Aservan wrote: Horses and oxen might be a little rich for a level 1 settlement... Boats, on the other hand, are really inexpensive, especially in bulk (i.e. on the kingdom scale) ^_^
Recent threads in Kingmaker Second Edition
|
