Reaving is generally opportunistic, and I'll be looking to design the system with that in mind--hit and run attacks, high variability in returns, and lowish death chance.

This system is done with the intention of being a choice for Ironborn--they can have a mechanical business, or they can utilize these mechanics to reave for their extra income.

My system intends to allow for strategy and expression of philosophies therein.

A cautious player, who seeks to have fewer losses/risky attempts, can reduce risk by choosing more favorable factors, but will in turn, face reduced payouts.

A bolder player will have more opportunities to get gold, but will, in turn, have more chances to lose men.

Regions have set wealth, but it is "replenished" at year's end. This allows a controlled amount of gold into the economy.

6 possible attempts per year IC per claim is what I'm aiming for. This can be adjusted later if needed.

As this is a replacement for businesses, it should act similarly--there is chance for loss, but also somewhat reliable gain. There is no way to have 1:1 correlation, but when I make significant diversions in result, I will explain why.

Considering businesses do not have to face the chance of death on the reg, I'd argue that one of two options be considered: 1) Very low chance of "common" loss(namely PCs or ships) or 2) higher chances for windfalls.

I will be going with the second option, for the following reasons:

1) Death and risk needs to be integral to the practice. People die in reavings and shying away from that would be dishonest. However, as these are opportunistic attacks, they will still be relatively low chances for death(aka not 30%).

2) This requires active engagement--if a player does not submit orders to reave, it won't happen. That is not the case with businesses, which require literally 0 work to reap rewards from once begun. As such, I am inclined to have that reflected in the system.

3) Obvious regional bias. Unlike businesses, reavings require men to be raised and ships to be deployed. Covering these costs is not assured, but making it likely puts it on more even ground with businesses, which again, require no such upkeep.

Let's look at the easiest ways to take hits in the current business system:

As seen, the chance for strikes from 0 is relatively low. Considering it's a little hard to quantify "loss" in the same way for businesses in comparison to reaving, I'm going to look to make losses somewhat comparable with striking.

The difference, of course, is that businesses require startup investments. Reaving will not,though it will require ships.

Obviously, these are not the same level of investment, but time building ships, traveling, risk of levies and PCs are something to take into account.

As such, I'll be looking for ships to be lost around the same amount of time and deaths to be around 7%~ of the time. This seems particularly reasonable if PCs are required to lead assaults, which may or may not be required(businesses don't~)

I'll look to set low returns around 30%~. Lower than businesses, but again, businesses do not have the same chance of immediate loss.

Average incomes per city in a year:

In light of this, I'll look for the window of reaving returns to be 15-85~/per reaving to reflect similar returns as businesses. However, this may vary on location, depending on pre-set gold values.

As this is a replacement for businesses, I will be forgoing the first gatekeeper, AKA the patrols, as again, businesses don't face this--and honestly, they don't make a lot of sense IC for random villages or for what Ironborn would be doing.

As these will be fairly large in number, I will be relying on simple rolls so as to expedite the process. Ideally, a template will be developed so that players could roll for their reavings and ping mods afterwards?

For simplicity's sake, I'm going to balance this for Ironborn longships only for now.