I won't bother replying to all of this anymore, because it's the same things that get repeated.
You start off on false premises (that there is no incentives for lords to set up estates for knights) and follow up with measures that wouldn't in any way help the problems you've identified (low noble density)
You fail to properly identify cause and effect in all of your arguments, and simply ignore arguments and painfully obvious evidence to the contrary.
If you quoted my false premises correctly then I wouldn't need to repeat them.
You equated the existence of vacant estates to proof that lords benefit by having knights. I said there is no benefit for a lord to have knights residing in his region. If you think I'm wrong, please tell me what the benefits are.
As for the vacant estates, I don't know who set them up or what they
thought they would gain from them. They were already there when I arrived. I will say that it took me a while, after becoming a lord, to understand the dynamics of the game, so I probably
thought there was some benefit to having knights, and I made a point of inviting new arrivals to my region. Now, if they want to live in my region, fine (everybody has to live
somewhere, and I don't want be the cause for some newbie to stop playing) but I'm not under the illusion that it's a mutually beneficial relationship.
