Little incentive to separate Dukes and Margraves

[Velax]

With the new system it is possible for a ruler to appoint a Duke that is not also the Margrave of the city, or the Lord of any region. But there is little reason for the ruler to do so (aside from creating another position to give to someone) and one very big reason not to: it significantly reduces the ruler's own income.

If the Duke is also the Margrave of the city, then the ruler's share of the taxes comes from both the Duchy share and the entire Lord's share of the city. If the Duke is not the Lord of a region, the ruler's share comes from only the Ducal share, which is considerably less.

[egamma]

I think we should dramatically decrease the effectiveness of the lord's estate. This will encourage the lord to have a smaller, or perhaps no, estate, and thus encourage him to take on knights.

It gets a bit harder to separate Dukes and Margraves, because you have to have a margrave to create a duchy.

[Alpha]

A Duke without an estate can't join an army, which is bothersome.

As I see it, none of the realms that I play in have enough nobles to properly fill all the estates anyway. It just seems more efficient for Dukes to have Lordships and estates.

[Indirik]

Lack of nobles is really the big reason that the position is not split more often. A realm with a large number of nobles is more likely to split the positions. That and the ingrained habit of most players that duke=city lord.

[LilWolf]

I think it's important to keep in mind that this is a relatively new change. There has been very little time for dukes to step down/lose their position. Those are the times when already established duchies might see an separation in margrave/duke.

[De-Legro]

I think we should dramatically decrease the effectiveness of the lord's estate. This will encourage the lord to have a smaller, or perhaps no, estate, and thus encourage him to take on knights.

It gets a bit harder to separate Dukes and Margraves, because you have to have a margrave to create a duchy.

Or you could reduce the effectiveness of wild lands so that leaving land vacant doesn't actually produce more income for the Lord then if he allowed knights onto the estate.

[BardicNerd]

It should be noted that it's not always possible for the ruler to make the decision to separate the two positions, since the ruler can no longer appoint lords.  So if there isn't a margrave when the duke is appointed, or if it becomes vacant later on, it's entirely up to the new duke to decide who to appoint . . . which for most people would probably be themselves (though some places may have elections, though of course they can appoint themselves before the election finishes).

[fodder]

...technically, in election happy realms, because there's no such thing as automatic dukeship referendums... it's highly feasible to have the lordship election done and then do the duke ones manually.(that is.. if a duo holder lose both positions)  probably doesn't happen much in practice.

[Revan]

With the new system it is possible for a ruler to appoint a Duke that is not also the Margrave of the city, or the Lord of any region. But there is little reason for the ruler to do so (aside from creating another position to give to someone)

I think you're looking at it the wrong way. Look at it terms of politics and power instead. The sorts of people that become margraves aren't always the sorts of people you want to be dealing with as a ruler. The opportunity to separate city from duke is an opportunity to shake up the hierarchy of the realm and to get the right sort of people into power. Allies and loyalists and the like. It doesn't matter if the Duke presides over the most wretched non-city region imaginable so long as they're a firm friend. Bear in mind too, that in democracies/republics dukeship also affects who sits on the council, so it is an important thing to think about.

As regards any financial penalty for separating Duke and Margrave, I'll confess I wasn't really aware of it. As with a lot of the more recent changes to the game, the nuances rather pass me by. Still, I think in certain circumstances folk might find it's a sacrifice worth making.

[Velax]

I wouldn't call it a nuance. It's a potentially huge drop in income for the Ruler. As an example, one of my characters is King of Arcaea, a realm with only one non-Margrave Duke in its six duchies. Last tax, I received 210 gold from the Ruler's share. If every duchy had a non-Margrave Duke? 48 gold. That's a pretty big difference. Almost an 80% drop in income.

[Tom]

Your ruler share is based on their income. A duke without a region would usually raise his tax rate enough to still get a solid income. If he doesn't - well, you've not put greedy enough people into those positions. :-)

[Scarlett]

In Cathay we have separated these things (mostly) to great effect.

It added another rung on the ladder for promoting nobles. Now knights want to be lords, lords want to be Margraves, Margraves want to be Dukes, and Dukes want to off Galiard. It's nice to be able to promote people another time - adds complexity and everybody likes rewards.

It minimizes concentration of power - a Duke can still secede, of course, but he can't dissolve all the militia in a city.

The tax thing doesn't concern me too much. I just crank up the ruler's tax share until I get what I need. Or I borrow a region from Vellos. Both methods seem to work pretty well.

[fodder]

odd thing is that you don't need to be margrave to be dukes.
only reason it would be necessary is if you are making a new duchy.

don't quite understand why lords want to be margraves and the margraves dukes when anyone can be any of those...

[BardicNerd]

The tax thing doesn't concern me too much. I just crank up the ruler's tax share until I get what I need. Or I borrow a region from Vellos. Both methods seem to work pretty well.

Don't worry, we'll come pick it back up soon, but thanks for taking care of it for us meanwhile.


Margraves and dukes are in theory separate in Zonasa, but since almost all of our old dukes still have their positions, things haven't yet changed much . . . and I don't know it they will, since dukes in Zonasa have the final say (really, the only say, the council will sometimes give advice, but mostly just if asked) over the lords of regions in their duchy.  The one new duke we have had appointed themselves as Margrave of Palnasos . . . we do have one margrave (or did, until a certain region was borrowed) who isn't a duke since the duchy of Haul was abolished.