So apparently there's a lot of people unhappy with the estate system?
I find that intriguing because I have to say that it has been good to me.
I've been duke under all tax systems since 2004 and I have to say that in my opinion this is hands-down the best one. All it demands is the willingness to put up with boring work in exchange for lots and lots of gold.
I am the guy who uses this system to aim for 10 knights as duke of a mediocre city and takes in everyone else who comes along (currently I've got 14 but during the invasion the same city supported 18 knights - which was the whole realm at the time). In another city I used exuberant estate support to make the city's normal income with 1/3 of the population.
My point is, if there are landless nobles in a realm where you're Duke: get started already and reap the heaps of gold and possible political power that come free with every city. If you have too little nobles: do something to attract new ones.
Lords of poor or distant regions however do have too much trouble attracting knights in the first place in my opinion.
And taking new regions could also use some tweaking to benefit realms who are short on nobles.
I kind of like the large patches of wasteland that have arisen on some fronts though. That is war how it should be fought: kill your enemies, burn their lands. On the other hand, before the blight Thalmarkin had to let several of our Northern rebellious, undead-spawning badlands go rogue in order to be able to expand one region South. 3 badlands for a strategically important stronghold is not too bad a trade but not all realms have the possibility of completely shielding a rogue area from other realms _and_ have a strategically important region bordering right next to them.
Therefore there should I believe always remain the possibility to take regions for tactical or even purely expansionist purposes.
Has anyone else had positive or negative experiences with the estate system?
