Brethren of the Brick Seas (BoBS) Intro Thread, Era II

[Bregir]

3 minutes ago, Drunknok said:

I would be very careful with that. While some individual "bank accounts" might look way off, those players have earned it over time.

4 minutes ago, Ayrlego said:

but that wasn't very popular! (taxes never are...)

...

However, to

3 minutes ago, Drunknok said:

make ingame money somewhat meaningful again

the stock of money will have to be addressed somehow, and I will stand by this. It is one of my main concerns with the game, and hence also part of my agenda in court. (Which everyone in there will know)

But we are also looking at ways to make such a measure meaningful, and perhaps even to some degree voluntary. Examples could be a large expense for the factions that would require the levy of taxes, or anything between confiscation and donation, probably to be determined by the faction.

But more on that whenever we know more.

[Maxim I]

Some money sinks:

• Embassies in foreign settlements (set-up cost, altough it gives a modifier to your income in that settlement). A small embassy could give 5% bonus to all income for example (also TMRCA income)
• paying for contracters to build properties (in other words: pay for unbuilt properties, but then like 10x the normal licence price)
• buy islands or even settlements
• set up museums with expensive artifarcts and art. During AMRCA's, artifarcts can be found. Players can sell them to other players so they can be put in a "Museum/Display Hall". Art & Culture buildings have a small chance of producing a piece of art.

edit: I would be pissed of if someone confiscates the money I assembled.

Edited January 14, 2019 by Maxim I

[Darnok]

1 hour ago, Ayrlego said:

Very true and something we have considered. Next we are looking at ways to drain those accounts..... the term 'money sink' has been used.

As Bregir says, it should be something meaningful. Any solution that translates to "basically a chunk of your money is just gone" should not even be considered.

Quote

Any creative ideas are welcome!

My first suggestion would be to cap individual accounts - other than the factions, so this includes (trade) organisations and settlements - to a certain amount. Maybe 10000DB, maybe 6000DB (the latter being two Royal residences in cost, for something a bit less arbitrary). Nobody needs that amount of money anyway.

Any account having more has to spend it in a given timeframe (no transfer shenanigans, actual spending) between announcing this change and it coming into effect (three months? more?). After that, any money - at that time or earned later - over that treshold goes into a "price pool" from which ingame prices for (mini-) challenges are paid in the future.

This way no longterm players are "robbed", and accounts that regularly earn more contribute to something that benefits the community at large.

Quote

I have suggested a one-time income tax tiered by your current balance, but that wasn't very popular! (taxes never are...)

Well, taxes are a good thing as long as they pay for things that benefit the community - but that is another discussion.

Just removing money without any kind of return is a big no-no though.

 

1 hour ago, Bregir said:

the stock of money will have to be addressed somehow, and I will stand by this. It is one of my main concerns with the game, and hence also part of my agenda in court. (Which everyone in there will know)

But we are also looking at ways to make such a measure meaningful, and perhaps even to some degree voluntary. Examples could be a large expense for the factions that would require the levy of taxes, or anything between confiscation and donation, probably to be determined by the faction.

See above.

 

P.S.: The list of settlements with too few Royals is missing Quinnsville (having none, being a City). Or did I miss something (again)?

Edited January 14, 2019 by Drunknok

[Bregir]

51 minutes ago, Maxim I said:

Some money sinks:

As I see it, all your suggestions will simply lead to more income in the long run?

And personally, I am directly against non-built assets in a Lego building commmunity.

53 minutes ago, Maxim I said:

buy islands or even settlements

From who? You can trade all the settlements you want (if anyone wants to sell. But see above about non-build assets.

We could introduce a price to establish a settlement. Initial investments that needs to come out of the game. I think I will suggest that, but it is a very rare sink, that will only affect few people, and rarely at that.

53 minutes ago, Maxim I said:

I would be pissed of if someone confiscates the money I assembled.

*If* the court decides to take away fictional money for the betterment of the game in some way, I hope and expect that all players will accept it.

*If* a faction decides to confiscate your money, you have plenty of IC ways to conduct politics or even use force to oppose them.

Two very different scenarios... ;)

43 minutes ago, Drunknok said:

"price pool" from which ingame prices for (mini-) challenges are paid in the future.

For the record, in game prizes are already being paid out of existing cash. I seem to remember this has been in place all of era II.

44 minutes ago, Drunknok said:

My first suggestion would be to cap individual accounts

While the suggestion definitely have merits, it will not (alone) solve the problem. If many players generally have thousands of dbs, or quickly earn enough to reach /(and stay at) that cap, money are still largely irrelevant, if you ask me.

46 minutes ago, Drunknok said:

Just removing money without any kind of return is a big no-no though.

Hence why we are considering how to make it make sense. But the issue is of course that if we allow a return that somehow generates more cash in the long run, we have not solved the problem.

______________________________

It is a complex matter, that we are constantly discussing in court, and something that will be sought addressed over several iterations, as we try to attain a balance.

Personally, and something that will probably never be implemented, I think we would all have more fun if all money was removed, and our income slashed, and we had to start from scratch where money was much harder to come by. ;)

[Captain Dee]

.

Edited January 16, 2019 by Captain Dee

[Darnok]

Just now, Captain Dee said:

@Drunknok The Royal Wagonway from last year was supposed to be licensed in Quinnsville.

That it is then, thanks!

 

@LM71Blackbird: Could you please add it to the Quinnsville settlement summary?

[Bart]

11 hours ago, Ayrlego said:

We are currently working on implementing a number of rule adjustments to help combat inflation. These adjustments focus on settlement and property rules (particularly regarding forts and royal builds). The biggest effects most players will experience is a slowing of their property income, and increased expense to sistership lost ships. Here is a full list of the adjustments:

'Royal' / Great Properties

1. Ownership of Royal properties will now be limited to factions, settlements and charted organisations. Royal Palaces (residences) are exempt from this rule and may be licensed by individual players. The five current players who own Royal (non-residential) properties will be contacted via separate correspondence. 

2. The income from Royal properties will be reduced to 100DB per MRCA turn. Income from Royal residences will remained unchanged at 15DB per MRCA turn.

3. Royal properties will now increase settlement values by 10 points (previously only 5).

4. To increase a settlement in size to 'City' at least one Royal Property is now required. To increase to 'Large City' two are required. To increase 'Grand City' three are required. To increase to 'Capital City' five are required. (Note: existing cities will keep their current size despite the number of royals, but cannot progress to the next level without meeting the requirement of that level. Cities effected by this ruling are listed in the spoiler below)

Other incentives for building Royal properties are being considered and will be introduced in due course.

Forts and Troops.

1. The faction starting forts now require upkeep to be paid. (ES = 4 large and 1 royal, OL = 4 large, COR = 2 large, SR = 2 large)

2. Fort maintenance costs will increase to 50DB for a small fort, 100DB for a medium, 200DB for a large, 600DB for a Royal per turn.

Other

1. Property income will now only be paid each MRCA turn rather than monthly.

2. Mayoral pay will be eliminated.

3. The 'Town Bank' will be eliminated from the game. Properties will now no longer automatically contribute money to a 'Town Bank'. Settlements must now find other ways for financing expenses. In the case of a successful raid, funds will now be deducted from faction and not settlement accounts.

4. Sister-shiping costs will be doubled. eg. You will now pay double the original license fee for that class to sister ship.

As some of these changes will require substantial modification of the accounts system, they may take some time to implement - changes will not be instantaneous!  The goal is to have them fully implemented before the next MRCA turn.

  Reveal hidden contents

The following settlements do not meet the modified 'Royal' property requirements. These settlements will not be able to advance to the next level until requirements have been meet.

- Arlinsport (needs x1 Royal)

- Mesabi Landing (needs x2 Royals)

- Weelond (needs x1 Royal)

- Charlatan Bay (needs x1 Royal)

 

On Royals nr: 2
 This sucks, to say it blunt, a 100db/turn reward for something that costs 3000 db . then it will take 2,5 years before you are going to get any profit from it! It's already hard for players to find the cash to license it anyway, and now there is no reward into building it. 

On royals nr. 4
Sounds fair, but with the enormous cost of a royal you basically halted settlement growth this way,  ( yes it will grow but not level up)

1&3 I've been contacted indeed, for those curious the Basilica of the Faith will change ownership to the faction. And okay, 5 or 10 points I don't see a big difference. 

On forts and troops
This will result in the Searats being bankrupt before next Christmas, The Faction doesn't have much yield of it's own, 150db/turn I believe it is. so if you are going to charge 2x200db's for a fortress every month, that is going to bleed us dry.

on the Others
1. okay, I can see why, 
2. Fair enough.
3. uh? so where does the yield for properties owned by a settlement go? For instance, in Poppy Port all most all the builds I did I licensed by Poppy Port, because that way if I where to ever transfer the ownership of the town to another player/TC/faction for some reason or another, they have the means to maintain it, and that yield isn't lost in my inactive account. 
Raids out of the faction pocket? see my point about the Searats above.

So by taking away mayor pay and removing the automatic income of the town bank you have removed all the benefits of owning a settlement, and by removing the raid part you have removed all the risk aswell. So what is the point and fun in starting a town then?

It would be more interesting if a town where to get money based on the trade that has happend that turn, like it gets 1% of all the trade done in that town, and that then pays for upkeep costs, projects and raid. That will push the nr of builds in that town to increase tradevalue and attract more shipping.

4 so a sisstership is now more expansive then a new one? 

[Maxim I]

1 hour ago, Bregir said:

As I see it, all your suggestions will simply lead to more income in the long run?

And personally, I am directly against non-built assets in a Lego building commmunity.

From who? You can trade all the settlements you want (if anyone wants to sell. But see above about non-build assets.

I don't think that art is really such a good investment in the long run. One finds an artifarct and sells it to the highest bidder. Now the highest bidder owns it as a sign of prestige. The only way I see someone buying it from the new owner is that guy has found a treasure filled with doubloons and seeks a way to spend it (considering that incomes are decreasing.after the new update, so it will take longer to amass a bunch of doubloons).. Anyway, the cash flows in the game and a poor guy can find something valuable and become a rich guy by selling it If you want an amount of it being gone from the game, make a "digging up" or "transportation" cost.

-

The non-built assets in a Lego community is something very interesting. We have to accept that a lot of things are happening that are not being built. How else can you explain that Lotii residents are arriving in Port Raleigh, without anyone every made a MOC of their arrival? I am a huge fan of building etc, but we have to accept that for a world as big as the one we are playing in, not everything can be built by 20 active players. So building should be recommended and supported, hence the huge penalty for non-built assets (10x original price...).

-

I would love to spent 10k just to buy a nice piece of land in the South of the Mokolei Empire.

 

edit: the reason I am focussing on prestige as money sink, is because that is how it works in other games (like Runescape). If you want a big fancy house, you have to pay a lot for that (money that leaves the game).

Other prestige projects could be a Zoo (oldest known zoo is established in 1752) where one can collect anymals.

and yes an embassy should have some benefits, but make them so low as possible (what is 5% for example?). The other benefits of embassies could be better relations, safe haven, harbors open for trade, ... . But just like in the real world, embassies are mostly prestige and cost money (personel, building, ... )

Edited January 14, 2019 by Maxim I

[Maxim I]

Double post, my bad, but I know that edits are not being seen by most after they read the original post.:

As an argument for museums:

http://museums.eu/highlight/details/105317/the-worlds-oldest-museums

A possible mechanic:

One has to built at least a large property to host a museum. This building costs 500 db (example) as the building is built with the finest materials. It has no income, since there is nothing to see there... Now the museum is set up, the owner can start assembling pieces of art and artifarcts, fossils, ... . Each piece shown, gives a yield of 5 db's (or less?).

To add those pieces, they can go on hunts (hunting costs), expeditions (journey costs), order by an artist (very huge cost) or buy from other players or NPC's in the Old World (very huge cost as well, as they will mostly already be in hands of noblity there). Hunts and expeditions are not guaranteed results. It is possible one sends an expedition to somewhere, without any luck. Ofcourse, every now and then, a small MOC is needed to show the process. Expeditions are not AMRCA's!

As an example: expeditions costs 200 db's/turn and has a 20% chance to find something. If after 4 turns, a piece is found, it would mean that this piece costed 800 db's. For a return of 5 db's/MRCA Turn, I think this is a pretty good money sink

During AMRCA's, there is a small chance to find a piece of art or artefarct (a kind of bonus) during your journey.

The player with the most filled museum can boast about that during fancy parties

Edited January 14, 2019 by Maxim I

[Bregir]

1 hour ago, Bart said:

On forts and troops
This will result in the Searats being bankrupt before next Christmas, The Faction doesn't have much yield of it's own, 150db/turn I believe it is. so if you are going to charge 2x200db's for a fortress every month, that is going to bleed us dry.

This will hopefully limit the number of forts generally, making it more feasible to conduct raids. If the Sea Rats, or any other faction are having problems paying, we will of course look at this, but it hasn't been mentioned in court. There are a lot of money in game overall, but it is true that the SR might not be as wealthy as others. The income from properties and trading are the same for the SR, though, so there is a chance to build up some income. And there are ongoing efforts to make piracy more feasible.

1 hour ago, Bart said:

3. uh? so where does the yield for properties owned by a settlement go?

To the settlement account. There is a lot of confusion around town banks vs. settlement accounts, it seems. A settlement has an account like every player, and this is not changed. We are changing some of the "free money" generated for a settlement.

1 hour ago, Bart said:

by removing the raid part you have removed all the risk aswell.

Raids have not been removed, and raid spoils are now specifically taken from the faction raided instead of out of thin air.

1 hour ago, Bart said:

It would be more interesting if a town where to get money based on the trade that has happend that turn, like it gets 1% of all the trade done in that town, and that then pays for upkeep costs, projects and raid. That will push the nr of builds in that town to increase tradevalue and attract more shipping. 

You are more than welcome to set up taxes for your ports like OL, ESL, and TER has done. But we want this to be money taken from somewhere, not created out of nothing, adding to inflation.

1 hour ago, Bart said:

4 so a sisstership is now more expansive then a new one? 

Yes, twice as expensive.

1 hour ago, Bart said:

This sucks, to say it blunt, a 100db/turn reward for something that costs 3000 db . then it will take 2,5 years before you are going to get any profit from it! It's already hard for players to find the cash to license it anyway, and now there is no reward into building it. 

There is no economic reward. But there is value in the requirement to level up a city. And yes, we have slashed income - there are generally too much money in game. You may not experience it yourself, but how long did it take to find funding for yours? I didn't see a request reach me, at least. ;)

If everyone is rich enough to do everything, we might just as well remove the concept of a currency entirely.

There may well be imbalances in how the money is distributed, which I think is more to the point, but again, we are working on a general balancing act and it is a work in progress. We need time both to develop new things, and to see the impact of the things we implement, so we need you guys to have a little patience with us.

Just now, Maxim I said:

A possible mechanic:

Interesting suggestion, but keep in mind that we are highly focused on avoiding complicating the rules too much. One thing is the time and infrastructure to handle it, another is making the game accessible for us as players. While the rules you propose in themselves are not super complex, they add to a already very large ruleset.

[Darnok]

1 hour ago, Bart said:

On royals nr. 4

Sounds fair, but with the enormous cost of a royal you basically halted settlement growth this way,  ( yes it will grow but not level up)

Royal residences only cost 300DB, affordable for anybody.

[Bart]

@Bregir

I didn't intent to say that the whole Raid thing was removed. Just the part where it was previously paid out of the settlement account/town bank, not out of thin air. 

Yeah sure the rat's will up their faction yield. 5 active players will somehow build enough of medium/large builds to up it with 360db/turn just to pay for fortresses, no worries. 

The one basic principle of the SeaRats is not having taxes. 

No I didn't ask you personally, I asked in public, and some people replied, I took a loan if you want to know, which I'm paying back.

Speaking of money out of thin air the bank of Corrington is minting a 1000 doubloons monthly, which nobody is using, or at least I'ven't seen any transactions happening in the account sheets. nor did I ever found the builds that would explain this yield. But now I'm pulling up old stories of a time I wasn't here into current afairs, so I might be very wrong. 

 

[gedren_y]

An in-game benefit for the 'taxes' intended curb inflation could be BOBS Cards that get applied to all faction/settlement owned, and possibly TC owned, ships for a limited number of turns on a sliding scale. For realism sake these Cards would only apply to ships being used in the T-MRCA, because ships in the A-MRCA are generally considered 'out of contact' with their faction/owner for those turns. Any ships that leave A-MRCA during the time these are applied gets the modifier added, and those that leave the T-MRCA get the modifier removed.

Eg:
Eslandola player accounts 'taxes' total: 90,000 DB = +1 Crew modifier on all faction/settlement owned ships for 4 MRCA turns
Corrington player accounts 'taxes' total: 69,000 DB = +1 Guns modifier on all faction/settlement owned ships for 3 MRCA turns.
Oleon player accounts 'taxes' total: 58,000 DB = +1 Maneuver modifier on all faction/settlement owned ships for 3 MRCA turns.
Sea Rats player accounts 'taxes' total: 28,000 DB = +1 Range modifier on all faction/settlement owned ships for 2 MRCA turns.
TC #1 account 'taxes': 23,000 DB = +1 Range modifier on all TC #1 owned ships for 1 MRCA turn.
TC #2 account 'taxes': 19,000 DB = +1 Hull modifier on all TC #2 owned ships for 1 MRCA turn.

Scales:

For amount of turns-
1 DB - 25,000 DB = 1 MRCA turn
25,001 DB - 50,000 DB = 2 MRCA turns
50,001 DB - 75,000 DB = 3 MRCA turns
75,001 DB - 100,000 DB = 4 MRCA turns
100,001+ DB = 5 MRCA turns

For modifier type-
1 DB - 20,000 DB = +1 Hull modifier
20,001 DB - 40,000 DB = +1 Range modifier
40,001 DB - 60,000 DB = +1 Maneuver modifier
60,001 DB - 80,000 DB = +1 Guns modifier
80,001 DB - 100,000 DB = +1 Crew modifier
100,001+ DB = +1 Crew & +1 Hull modifiers

-----------------------

The above Artifacts idea could work in a similar way. Artifacts found on A-MRCAs immediately add to the coffers of the A-MRCA, but get transferred to the end point settlement if it has an Art and Culture property. If the end point settlement doesn't have an Art and Culture property, then the nearest same faction settlement with an Art and Culture property receives the Artifact. Settlements can only hold the same number of Artifacts as the amount of their Art and Culture properties, so Artifact transfer can also happen if the end point settlement already has its allotment of Artifacts.

An Artifact's effect each MRCA turn would be +[(some number of DBs) x (number of ships that visit the settlement)] to the settlement's account (think tourism income). The duration of the effect would depend on the number of Art and Culture properties at the time of activation: the MRCA turn after the settlement receives the Artifact. Later increases to the Art and Culture properties only increases the number of Artifacts a settlement can hold, not the duration of an Artifact's effects. At the end of the effect, the Artifact is voided, and a settlement can receive a new Artifact in its place.

This would add to the incentive to build in that category, and create limited windows of settlement income that shouldn't add too much to inflation.

@Maxim I, I already built two museums in story, though I think only one build was large enough to license.

Edited January 14, 2019 by gedren_y

[Bregir]

Just now, Bart said:

Just the part where it was previously paid out of the settlement account/town bank, not out of thin air.  

It is most specifically not coming out of thin air. It is taken from the raided faction. :)
So it seems there is a misunderstanding here or that something is unclear?

Just now, Bart said:

Yeah sure the rat's will up their faction yield. 5 active players will somehow build enough of medium/large builds to up it with 360db/turn just to pay for fortresses, no worries. 

Look at the bright side: Everyone will have to pay for fortresses. We in fact made this rule to make fortresses less attractive, so it would be easier to raid. Neither me, nor the court is out to get you or the SR. I suggest you ask your leadership to bring it up in court, so we can discuss this issue.

Just now, Bart said:

Speaking of money out of thin air the bank of Corrington is minting a 1000 doubloons monthly, which nobody is using, or at least I'ven't seen any transactions happening in the account sheets. nor did I ever found the builds that would explain this yield. But now I'm pulling up old stories of a time I wasn't here into current afairs, so I might be very wrong. 

I can find the exact specification for this, but I believe it is the Royal Wagonway on Cocovia and another royal collab. The BoC is basically just a tool to handle a shared property, and the income is distributed to player accounts in the bank. But case in point, no one has taken money out of the bank since it was established, more or less, because no one has had a need for it.

Just now, gedren_y said:

An in-game benefit for the 'taxes' intended curb inflation could be BOBS Cards

I am not a fan of this - seems a bit like pay-to-win improved ammunition bought in some computer games. When two ships meet, and cannonballs are flying left and right, the rich and poor are truly equals. And it should stay that way, I think.

[Maxim I]

Just now, Bart said:

Speaking of money out of thin air the bank of Corrington is minting a 1000 doubloons monthly, which nobody is using, or at least I'ven't seen any transactions happening in the account sheets. nor did I ever found the builds that would explain this yield. But now I'm pulling up old stories of a time I wasn't here into current afairs, so I might be very wrong. 

 

@Bregir:

I have found this:

 

 

[Bart]

Thanks for the explenation on the BoC, I might need to start an amcra to rob the place  

I understand that you want to take the raid from the faction account, but I am of the opinion that that is putting it further away from the feelings of the mayors, in other words, closer to the 'out of thin air' feeling to the mayors.
Side question, the raid price was set at 50% of the town bank/settlement account. I can now start a settlement without licening anything in their name, so the account stays 0, so a raid would earn nothing, and cost a faction nothing. so how are you going to set the raid price now? 50% of trade value?

No need to take it back behind the shrouds to court. Our searat representative @Professor Thaum is a very good pirate, but he cannot know and over see everything every time, so that is maybe why he hadn't put it up. I noticed it now, so I point it out here.

Not saying I oppose these changes!

 

[Bregir]

I am actually not sure how raid gains are calculated currently, as the rules are somewhat in a limbo. But it is meant to be a significant cost. On the other hand, we do not want to encourage too many forts (hence the price increase) - so it is a complex balance.

Just now, Bart said:

I noticed it now, so I point it out here.

As you should. We will of course review this, and no faction should be left undefended.

[gedren_y]

Just now, Bregir said:

I am not a fan of this - seems a bit like pay-to-win improved ammunition bought in some computer games. When two ships meet, and cannonballs are flying left and right, the rich and poor are truly equals. And it should stay that way, I think.

I understand your concern, but these 'taxes' would ONLY be imposed by the BOBS leadership, and ONLY when the in game monetary inflation becomes too high. The benefit I am suggesting would be so that the players who's accounts get 'taxed' won't feel they have been cheated. The built in time frame limit to the benefit is so that these modifiers don't become too much of a burden. I structured this on how governments' taxes are supposed to work.

[Darnok]

I think land income works more or less fine as it is now, synchronising it with the MRCA turns was a good move. Lowering the income from land properties any further should not happen: it could discourage building due to little or no ingame incentive. I think encouraging building is the most important goal of the game, so leaving land properties as they are (at least for now) is the way to go.

Now trade income needs to be addressed. I have no solution ready, but currently the "risks" are ignorable when weighted against the much higher possible income.

 

But...

 

One part of a solution could be to give players (much) more things to spend their money on. Something meaningful in terms of prestige, with possible ingame rewards.

[Capt Wolf]

6 hours ago, Drunknok said:

Quote

Other incentives for building Royal properties are being considered and will be introduced in due course.

I hope for some proper benefits, as right now they are comically overpriced.

How much would you pay to increase a city to a large city? A large city to a grand city? With the increase in abilities to own more ship levels and recruit more troops per turn? The new rules create tangible benefits of royals, they're just not reaped in DBs. And as we said, we're looking to include other effects of royal properties as well.

3 hours ago, Bart said:

On Royals nr: 2
 This sucks, to say it blunt, a 100db/turn reward for something that costs 3000 db . then it will take 2,5 years before you are going to get any profit from it! It's already hard for players to find the cash to license it anyway, and now there is no reward into building it.

See my comments above.

3 hours ago, Bart said:

On forts and troops
This will result in the Searats being bankrupt before next Christmas

This is the biggest issue from the new rules IMO. We have to make sure the new upkeep rates work.

Something to consider: If settlements and factions now need more income, licensing properties for settlements and factions is an option, and having actual faction trade fleets sailing in the MRCA is another way of generating income.

[Darnok]

1 hour ago, Capt Wolf said:

How much would you pay to increase a city to a large city? A large city to a grand city? With the increase in abilities to own more ship levels and recruit more troops per turn?

How is that not already covered in the builds needed to "level up"?

1 hour ago, Capt Wolf said:

The new rules create tangible benefits of royals, they're just not reaped in DBs. And as we said, we're looking to include other effects of royal properties as well.

I am looking forward to those other effects.

[LM71Blackbird]

5 hours ago, Drunknok said:

That it is then, thanks!

 

@LM71Blackbird: Could you please add it to the Quinnsville settlement summary?

Will do! What was it licensed as? Commerce?

[Ayrlego]

As it's come up several times, here is a list of all current royal properties with their owners and locations:

Spoiler

Name and Link, Owner, Location, type

Corrington

Celestia Royal Sugar Plantation, Corrington, Jameston, plantation

Celestia Royal Sugar Plantation House, Corrington, Jameston, residence

The Majestic Gardens of King's Harbour, BoC, King's Harbour, arts and culture

The Cocovia Wagonway, BoC, Quinnsville, commerce

ETTC Cocoa Factory, ETTC, King's Harbour, factory

Royal Shipyard of Mesabi Landing, WTC, Mesabi Landing, factory

Moore House, Ayrlego, Mooreton Bay, arts and culture

Oleon

A Royal Vineyard on Le Bellan, Oleon, Breshaun, plantation

Hotel Royal des Monnaies, Oleon, Breshaun, factory

The Riverside Palace, Oleon, Mardier, art and culture

L'Arsenal Royal d'Astrapi, Oleon, Astrapi, factory

l'Arsenal Royal de la Marine - Slipway No. 3, kolonialbeamter, Breshaun, artisan

Eslandola

NPC Fort, Eslandola, Nova Terreli, fort

Fort Brickwall, Eslandola, Eslandola, Puerto Desafio, fort

Brickwall Memorial Park, Eslandola, Fuerte Unido, art and culture

The Grand Road of Nellisa, Eslandola, Nellisa, commerce

MCTC Cotton Plantation, MCTC, Bardo, plantation

Augustinian Colonial Textiles, MCTC, Weelond, factory

Elysabeth Town Commercial Centre, MAESTRO, Elysabethtown, commerce

Trador Royal Palace, Maxim I, Trador, residence

Trador Merchant Quay, Maxim I, Trador, commerce

Governor's Palace, Elostirion, Montario, residence

Cotton Island, Elostirion, Salida Este, plantation

Lion Hall, Elostirion, Montario, art and culture

Sea Rats

Royal Basilica of the Faith, Bart, Fatu Hiva, art and culture

 

[Darnok]

Question regarding royal residences: is "Royal Palace" a title only, or does it indeed have to be somewhat "palac-ish"? I just want to know if a "normal" residence quarter (multiple buildings, summing up to at least 10000 studs) of a high enough quality would be eligible for that type of license.

[Bart]

You could build a very nice house, with gardens and out houses and stables and support buildings and such. (for example) That would qualify too if you ask me.