Noble Land Grant confusion

[rancke]

but aforementioned Viscount has to maintain a small personal army (Huscarles) and have sufficient spaceships to transfer them off world to serve the Imperium if needed and sundry Escort vessels, which are not cheap, plus presumably some of the taxes go to maintaining the various Imperium ministries.

Unless the rules routinely allot a handful of fully paid huscarles bodyguards to PC viscounts, then I'd say that, no, they don't have to maintain huscarles out of their personal income. They may have a unit of huscarles back home paid for by the government part of their income, but that's not the same.

And if you explain to me or one of my players that my viscount character only gets a few tens of thousand credits for my personal expenses because I'm spending millions on maintaining a unit of huscarles far far away, I can guarantee you that we'd all instruct our deputy to downsize the huscarles by ten percent and send us the savings. On top of the savings on the laid-up yachts and closed hunting lodges that we're not around to use anyway.

Historically, absolute monarchs (and much less absolute nobles too) have been able to live sumptuously and still manage to salt away huge personal fortunes. I see no reason why Imperial nobles with the powers T5 ascribes to them wouldn't be able to do the same, given comparable numbers of subjects/tenants. I grant you that nobles with only a few hundred subjects wouldn't be able to do it, but then, they wouldn't really be able to get even the sums the rules say they'll get.


Hans

 

[Dagrill]

Yes. You are correct. The American pilgrims were all poor and impoverished people who only moved to America because they were starving.

And in the case of those pilgrims? They had to get onto ships and spend months travelling in conditions we would regard as horrific. Many of them died during the voyage. The reason they took the trip was because Europe was relatively densely populated and countries weren't really looking for more mouths to feed.
.

Hi,

If you are talking about the original pilgrims this is incorrect, John Tilley certainly had sufficient money to pay for an apprenticeship for his second son Robert.

The reason they left was religion.

Kind Regards

David

 

[rancke]

I've been reading 'pilgrim' as 'emigrant' in this thread. I know there's a difference, but that's how I've perceived the usage. In this thread, that is.


Hans

 

[Dagrill]

Historically, absolute monarchs (and much less absolute nobles too) have been able to live sumptuously and still manage to salt away huge personal fortunes. I see no reason why Imperial nobles with the powers T5 ascribes to them wouldn't be able to do the same, given comparable numbers of subjects/tenants. I grant you that nobles with only a few hundred subjects wouldn't be able to do it, but then, they wouldn't really be able to get even the sums the rules say they'll get.
Hans

I agree that is true in the present day as well and likely to happen in the future, but I don't think you are the 'absolute' ruler, as part of your title you would be required to maintain x huscarles, y transports and z escorts, or be replaced. Also in some situations like a vacuum, or desert world you need to spend money on the equipment producing the air/water, I saw a remake of total recall recently where the martians were deprived of oxygen, but I see the TU as rather more humanitarian than that.

Regards

David

 

[rancke]

I agree that is true in the present day as well and likely to happen in the future, but I don't think you are the 'absolute' ruler...

Quoting myself from an earlier post (#33):

"...someone with the governmental powers -- the hereditary governmental powers -- described in the rules are much closer to that of an absolute monarch than that of a democratically elected leader. Perhaps not a straight analogy, but fairly close. So take a look at the sort of personal spending Age of Sail rulers did historically while still being able to salt away huge fortunes that still place their present-day descendants among the richest people on Earth.

For that matter, take a look at relatively moderate nobles (relative to kings, that is) such as English peers and the sort of boodle they managed to extract from their personal estates alone, never mind tax-like incomes."​

...as part of your title you would be required to maintain x huscarles, y transports and z escorts, or be replaced.

And that would come out of the part of your income that wasn't your personal income for your personal expenses, the part of your income that corresponds to what historical rulers and nobles spent on their personal lifestyle and on adding to their personal fortune.

Also in some situations like a vacuum, or desert world you need to spend money on the equipment producing the air/water, I saw a remake of total recall recently where the martians were deprived of oxygen, but I see the TU as rather more humanitarian than that.

If you have subjects living on your fief, they'll be paying for infrastructure out of the part of their production that you're not taxing for your personal income.

As an aside, I agree that desert and vacuum worlds should yield somewhat less income (as should poor, non-agricultural, and non-industrial worlds), but as I understand it, the RAW_T5 doesn't take that into account. In fact, paradoxically as it sounds, if each trade code increases the income a noble gets from his fief, he'll be getting more money from desert and vacuum worlds. (I hope I've misunderstood that, but that's the impression I've gotten).


Hans

 

[esampson]

Hi,

If you are talking about the original pilgrims this is incorrect, John Tilley certainly had sufficient money to pay for an apprenticeship for his second son Robert.

The reason they left was religion.

Kind Regards

David

Yes, I know it was incorrect. I was being sarcastic as the reason that the Pilgrims came to the New World was, as you said, for religious reasons.

However I was also incorrect in the point I was trying to make as the claim was that many (or possibly most) of the large scale emigrations that have historically occurred have been due to impoverished conditions, rather than a claim that all (or nearly all) of them were for reasons of impoverished conditions (as I thought was being claimed when I responded). While there are examples other than simply the Pilgrims there probably are not enough historical examples to disprove a statement of 'most' (and certainly not enough to disprove 'many').

 

[whulorigan]

. . . part of your title you would be required to maintain x huscarles, y transports and z escorts, or be replaced.

High Nobles have the option of maintaining huscarles for themselves up to a given unit-size, based on Noble-title as a privelige of their rank, but they are not mandated. You are confusing huscarles with the local planetary system squadron/forces, and/or the subsector colonial squadrons.

Also in some situations like a vacuum, or desert world you need to spend money on the equipment producing the air/water. . .

And that would come out of the part of your income that wasn't your personal income for your personal expenses, the part of your income that corresponds to what historical rulers and nobles spent on their personal lifestyle and on adding to their personal fortune.

If you have subjects living on your fief, they'll be paying for infrastructure out of the part of their production that you're not taxing for your personal income.

Hans is correct on this. The incomes listed have to do entirely with personal wealth and income. They have nothing to do with tax revenues to support the fief-infrastructure or other government/economic functions. The income represents that portion of the total taxes that is the Noble's "salary", so to speak.

As an aside, I agree that desert and vacuum worlds should yield somewhat less income (as should poor, non-agricultural, and non-industrial worlds), but as I understand it, the RAW_T5 doesn't take that into account. In fact, paradoxically as it sounds, if each trade code increases the income a noble gets from his fief, he'll be getting more money from desert and vacuum worlds. (I hope I've misunderstood that, but that's the impression I've gotten).

You haven't misunderstood. In T5, each trade code for a given world produces a Noble Income of Cr 10,000 per Trade Code for each Fief-Terrain Hex. Worlds with no trade codes generate a flat Cr 5000 per Terrain Hex. And I agree it makes for some akward rationalizations for some of the types of trade codes.

 

[Dagrill]

Hans is correct on this. The incomes listed have to do entirely with personal wealth and income. They have nothing to do with tax revenues to support the fief-infrastructure or other government/economic functions. The income represents that portion of the total taxes that is the Noble's "salary", so to speak.

You haven't misunderstood. In T5, each trade code for a given world produces a Noble Income of Cr 10,000 per Trade Code for each Fief-Terrain Hex. Worlds with no trade codes generate a flat Cr 5000 per Terrain Hex. And I agree it makes for some akward rationalizations for some of the types of trade codes.

Hi,

thanks for this I have totally misunderstood my apologies to Hans.

This trade code business is insane though, how can non-industrial world generate more income than one without a trade code? You are being penalised for having a larger population.

Regards

David

 

[Dagrill]

Hi Sorry,

I don't get sarcasm, bit like Sheldon out of big bang theory in that regard, but yes most is economic, with the british government having this habit of sending convicts to the colonies, just read an amazing book of my wife's called the floating brothel about a chip full of female convicts going to Australia,

regards

David

Yes, I know it was incorrect. I was being sarcastic as the reason that the Pilgrims came to the New World was, as you said, for religious reasons.

However I was also incorrect in the point I was trying to make as the claim was that many (or possibly most) of the large scale emigrations that have historically occurred have been due to impoverished conditions, rather than a claim that all (or nearly all) of them were for reasons of impoverished conditions (as I thought was being claimed when I responded). While there are examples other than simply the Pilgrims there probably are not enough historical examples to disprove a statement of 'most' (and certainly not enough to disprove 'many').

 

[rancke]

You haven't misunderstood. In T5, each trade code for a given world produces a Noble Income of Cr 10,000 per Trade Code for each Fief-Terrain Hex. Worlds with no trade codes generate a flat Cr 5000 per Terrain Hex. And I agree it makes for some akward rationalizations for some of the types of trade codes.

Here's my suggestion for determining the income from a noble's fief at a level of complexity low enough to match that of the RAW:

1) Determine the number of hexes of the world on which the fief is. (If there isn't already a table for that, make one with entries for each world size from 1 to 10).

Note: This present problems with asteroid belts. What does the RAW prescribe in such a case?

2) Divide the number of the fief's hexes with the number of the world's hexes to get the fraction of the world's population living on the noble's fief. Multiply the world's population with this fraction to get the number of people living on the fief. Do the same for the number of hexes that constitute the noble's personal estates.

Note: One major source of variation is being ignored here: The possibility of different populations in different hexes. However, getting into that will complicate the rules considerably.

3) Calculate the world's per capita income in the normal manner.

Note: This will account for all variations due to trade codes.

4) Multiply the world's per capita income with the number of people on the fief to get the gross annual product of his fief. Do the same for the estate.

5) Calculate the noble's personal income as 2% of the gross annual product of his fief plus 20% of the gross annual product of his estates.

Note: Yes, the estates contribute twice, first 2% in taxes then 20% in direct income.

Note: The two percentages are guesstimates. I'm fairly happy with the 2% for the entire fief, but the 20% for the estates is pretty pure guesswork. Anyone who can provided documentation for different figures are more than welcome to propose such.


Hans

 

[Dagrill]

Here's my suggestion for determining the income from a noble's fief at a level of complexity low enough to match that of the RAW:

5) Calculate the noble's personal income as 2% of the gross annual product of his fief plus 20% of the gross annual product of his estates.

Note: Yes, the estates contribute twice, first 2% in taxes then 20% in direct income.

Note: The two percentages are guesstimates. I'm fairly happy with the 2% for the entire fief, but the 20% for the estates is pretty pure guesswork. Anyone who can provided documentation for different figures are more than welcome to propose such.

Hans

Hi Hans,

I'm not comfortable with 20%, if we are talking agricultural land that's double the tithe the church used to take and some of that went back into the community. If we are talking Industrial that's a massive dividend, I would suggest keeping below 10%.

Incidentally the only Lord I ever spoke to was a non executive director of the Christie Group when I was doing some consultancy work there, he was concerned that they'd raised the renumeration and backdated it and wanted to know about his tax position, so even Lords pay taxes if they can't hide the money offshore.

Regards

David

 

[rancke]

I'm not comfortable with 20%, if we are talking agricultural land that's double the tithe the church used to take and some of that went back into the community. If we are talking Industrial that's a massive dividend, I would suggest keeping below 10%.

Tithes were paid over and above what the lord of the manor got. I very much doubt he got less than 0%.

And while I freely achnowledge that my 20% is pure guesswork (I was actually thinking it was probably too low), I was asking for documented figures. I'm sure somewhere there are essays about how much a tenant farmer used to pay his landlord, but when I try to google, all I get are links to present-day real estate firms.


Hans

 

[Dagrill]

Tithes were paid over and above what the lord of the manor got. I very much doubt he got less than 0%.

And while I freely achnowledge that my 20% is pure guesswork (I was actually thinking it was probably too low), I was asking for documented figures. I'm sure somewhere there are essays about how much a tenant farmer used to pay his landlord, but when I try to google, all I get are links to present-day real estate firms.
Hans

Hi,

actually depending on category of the peasant it was so many days working on the lord's lands for no pay, this produced poor quality work and absence, who then ended in the manor court getting fined.

I totally forgot about property income though (5-8%) and multiple sources of incomes, so 20% does seem about right for the gross, what percentage you take off for maintenance and other costs is harder to determine. Perhaps a flux roll?

Some skills like admin, gambling, economics might help, but you can hire people with those and presumably they are cost effective.

Kind Regards

David

 

[rancke]

actually depending on category of the peasant it was so many days working on the lord's lands for no pay, this produced poor quality work and absence, who then ended in the manor court getting fined.

I may have the terms wrong, but by 'tenant farmer' I was thinking of a rental agreement a little more sophisticated than that of medieval peasants. A straightforward payment of rent.

I totally forgot about property income though (5-8%) and multiple sources of incomes, so 20% does seem about right for the gross...

I meant the 20% as net. Property income wouldn't go to the landlord.

...what percentage you take off for maintenance and other costs is harder to determine. Perhaps a flux roll?

Some skills like admin, gambling, economics might help, but you can hire people with those and presumably they are cost effective.

All this would be appropriate for the next level of complexity. For this one a straight percentage provides the same type of result as the RAW, i.e. a simple figure.


Hans

 

[Dagrill]

I may have the terms wrong, but by 'tenant farmer' I was thinking of a rental agreement a little more sophisticated than that of medieval peasants. A straightforward payment of rent.

I meant the 20% as net. Property income wouldn't go to the landlord.
Hans

Hi Hans,

Sorry, but Full control implies a medieval background, which is why I used the example, in the 14th Century the Duke of Bedford would have been responsible for all his 'tenants' and would have had total control over their lives, these days his place in Woburn is rented out for weddings etc and his acreage is a zoo, described grandiloquently as a 'wild animal kingdom'.

Still whatever the case full control implies that you are providing all the services to the inhabitants, so a gross return of 40% seems reasonable, the question is how much of that goes expenses and investment. I would think taking half out to get 20% net would be too much.

Full control also would give you the freehold of any properties on the hex, so you would get the rents as landlord, whereas economic would only give you control over the type of property built on the land.

Kind Regards

David

 

[rancke]

Sorry, but Full control implies a medieval background, which is why I used the example, in the 14th Century the Duke of Bedford would have been responsible for all his 'tenants' and would have had total control over their lives, these days his place in Woburn is rented out for weddings etc and his acreage is a zoo, described grandiloquently as a 'wild animal kingdom'.

The rule that I've seen quoted says 'economic control', not 'full control'. And whatever it implies, it's specifically different from 'outright ownership'.

"Economic Control is similar to governmental control: the ability (within reason) to create law and behavioral expectations; the ability to control who can occupy the land (and pay rent or taxes)."​

Hans

 

[Dagrill]

The rule that I've seen quoted says 'economic control', not 'full control'. And whatever it implies, it's specifically different from 'outright ownership'.

"Economic Control is similar to governmental control: the ability (within reason) to create law and behavioral expectations; the ability to control who can occupy the land (and pay rent or taxes)."​

Hans

Hi,

reread page 49 and I think this rule is broken - outright ownership of 5 square miles would give you central London and an income in billions, 5 square miles of tundra would give you nothing.

Also if you have governmental control you can borrow billions and leave it for your descendants to pay (in the OTU this would mean never).

I think land grant size needs to be dictated by type of terrain type and the size limited to give a similar possible income for equivalent ranks.

Kind regards

David

 

[rancke]

reread page 49 and I think this rule is broken - outright ownership of 5 square miles would give you central London and an income in billions, 5 square miles of tundra would give you nothing.

I agree that it's broken. See my suggestion for a better way to do it in a previous post.

I think land grant size needs to be dictated by type of terrain type and the size limited to give a similar possible income for equivalent ranks.

For world-building purposes I see nothing wrong with (some) Imperial nobles having humongous incomes. Norris, for one, must have a pretty decent private income to maintain the 4518th.

I just wouldn't allow any of my players to play someone like that.


Hans

 

[Dagrill]

I agree that it's broken. See my suggestion for a better way to do it in a previous post.

For world-building purposes I see nothing wrong with (some) Imperial nobles having humongous incomes. Norris, for one, must have a pretty decent private income to maintain the 4518th.
I just wouldn't allow any of my players to play someone like that.
Hans

The idea a citizen can get 3,000 Cr per term would give 15000 Cr after 5 terms, so a noble with no trade codes would only get 5,000 Cr is ridiculous, might as well be a citizen
.
I think I will use your system from post 50, I don't normally allow my players to play high nobles, but I would use NPC's * Norris and Delphine are presumably NPC's anyway.

Many thanks

David

 

[savage]

Location, Location

Been reading this thread, very interesting points so far.

Hi,

reread page 49 and I think this rule is broken - outright ownership of 5 square miles would give you central London and an income in billions, 5 square miles of tundra would give you nothing.

David, I'm glad someone brought this point up. The rule needs more work.

That is exactly where the worlds' ruling noble should be located in a Central London, Washington D.C., or Moscow...and on the planetary scale they should be wealthy from it.

Or perhaps even the starport. On another note, the rules don't clearly define other investments the nobles family may have made in the past or the length of fief control.