Knight and Lord Relationship

[fodder]

... it just doesn't work that way.

the lord or steward pays out of his own pocket if he buys food. therefore it's only reasonable they get all the dole if they sell.

now, if you go back to something akin to the old system or a regional treasury type thing where profits and costs is done via taxes, then it's another matter. but you'll end up having to figure out how to not end up with phantom money. ie.. you buy food with money that will never be produced. the seller gets the money and you lose all your infrastructure as you have no money to pay for it, if you have any infrastructure. if you don't.. you don't lose anything.

[Tom]

The system as it is allows for a great deal of flexibility.

For example, the lord of a rural region could decide to tax his knights very little because his personal main source of income is food sales. Or he could promote one knight with a small estate to steward with an understanding that he can profit from food sales.
The lord of a city, on the other hand, can tax his knights high, with the understanding that these taxes also pay for the food he needs to buy.

But how exactly these deals work is left to everyone to figure out for themselves, and that's a cool thing because it allows different solutions to co-exist.

[Chenier]

Hm, I'm surprised. Why don't they care about knights? Without them, you get maybe half the region income.

Without, they get half, sure. But with them, they get even less.

Unless, of course, he taxes the hell out of them. :P

[Eldargard]

The system as it is allows for a great deal of flexibility.

For example, the lord of a rural region could decide to tax his knights very little because his personal main source of income is food sales. Or he could promote one knight with a small estate to steward with an understanding that he can profit from food sales.
The lord of a city, on the other hand, can tax his knights high, with the understanding that these taxes also pay for the food he needs to buy.

But how exactly these deals work is left to everyone to figure out for themselves, and that's a cool thing because it allows different solutions to co-exist.

Thank you Tom. This puts things in perspective for me and is so very cool.

[Zakilevo]

Well Tom the problem is if you give your knight a big estate, you get less gold since your knight won't have 100% efficiency. If you give your knight a 40% estate, your knight's estate will have about 72% efficiency. tax 50% of that you will only get about 36% while wild lands actually give you 14% more.

If you want to promote people from having more knights, I think knights shouldn't suffer from less efficient estates.

[Tom]

Well Tom the problem is if you give your knight

The missing "s" at the end there is your conceptual issue. You are supposed to have more than one knight.

[De-Legro]

Well Tom the problem is if you give your knight a big estate, you get less gold since your knight won't have 100% efficiency. If you give your knight a 40% estate, your knight's estate will have about 72% efficiency. tax 50% of that you will only get about 36% while wild lands actually give you 14% more.

If you want to promote people from having more knights, I think knights shouldn't suffer from less efficient estates.

Then don't give the knight a larger estate?

[Anaris]

The missing "s" at the end there is your conceptual issue. You are supposed to have more than one knight.

Except that's not realistic with the income of some regions.

[vonGenf]

Except that's not realistic with the income of some regions.

It's not only that. On Dwilight, there are on average 2.16 characters per region only. That's a great result of the new estate system: realms are not constrained to remain small because of lack of nobles, they are constrained only by their ability to wage war.

[Foundation]

Low efficiency is not bad when a reasonable income is desired for a knight not in a city or townsland.

The bad part is that wildlands and empty estates give the lord strictly more, and a lot more than if a knight takes a non-completely efficient estate.

A simple solution is to lower wildlands default taxes to 25% and empty estate max efficiency to 75%.  This way, lords have an incentive to create empty estates and fill them if they can, and knights are not left with pitiful allowances in average regions.

[fodder]

... honestly, I'm not seeing why this is an issue.

the questions you should ask is
1) are there tons of nobles with no estates because no one is offering them, as opposed to them not bothering to get one... whilst the absence of some sort of "at a glance" nearby estate tracker doesn't make life easy, it's not all that hard to look up every region in your own realm to see if there are estates

2) does it matter whether a rural/wildlands/whatever lord doesn't offer estates... if the richer city/stronghold/townsland lords take a huge cut out of their own region and don't give their knights much. ie.. no point forcing the poorer regions to have knights and lower individual income, if the rich region lords don't take more knights and don't give their knights much.

[egamma]

Low efficiency is not bad when a reasonable income is desired for a knight not in a city or townsland.

The bad part is that wildlands and empty estates give the lord strictly more, and a lot more than if a knight takes a non-completely efficient estate.

A simple solution is to lower wildlands default taxes to 25% and empty estate max efficiency to 75%.  This way, lords have an incentive to create empty estates and fill them if they can, and knights are not left with pitiful allowances in average regions.

You would then have to put in place something to prevent lords from kicking knights out of an estate that they want to leave empty.

[Zakilevo]

You would then have to put in place something to prevent lords from kicking knights out of an estate that they want to leave empty.

Why? Some knights are unfavourable. It is up to lords to decide who get which estates.

[vonGenf]

Why? Some knights are unfavourable. It is up to lords to decide who get which estates.

As long as both empty estates and wild lands yield the same, there is no reason not to, but if they were changed then some people would just make empty estates and kick everyone who takes it rather than assigning the land as wild.

[Anaris]

As long as both empty estates and wild lands yield the same, there is no reason not to, but if they were changed then some people would just make empty estates and kick everyone who takes it rather than assigning the land as wild.

That's the kind of behaviour that gets not only the realm, but the game as a whole seen as newbie-unfriendly.

Lords like that should be banned as a menace to everyone.