How are newly acquired regions (TO, exchange, revolt, etc.) handled, i.e. which duchy will they be assigned to?
How will current imperial regions be assigned to duchies?
Lords can change their region to another duchy and dukes can change their entire duchy to another realm as before. Regardless of diplomatic settings, this is a violation of the oath of fealty and will result in an automatic ban.
What will this do to the secession system, either to form a new realm or defect to a neighboring realm? Or even regions switching from one duchy to another?No changes, really. Duchies will be able to secede and switch allegiance as always, with pretty much the same restrictions as before. Though I believe Tom mentioned the probability that a duchy must have a city/stronghold/townsland region in order to secede.
what's the difference between (vacant) and wildlands?Vacant estates are available for any random noble wandering by to claim as their personal estate.
what is there to do in estates?Nothing at this time. There are future plans to add things for knights to do.
do they still influence region stats?No. Estates only affect the collection of gold.
why would a lord want an estate if he can give it all away and just tax knights by equivalent amount?Perhaps he can't get enough knights to fill all the available land? Perhaps he just wants one? Also, there will be some additional incentives added that may make estates more desirable to have. These are not yet implemented, and may not be implemented for a while.
No. Estates only affect the collection of gold.
New Estate System (http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/New_Estate_System)
So what will influence control then? Just the normal active factors? (high taxes, starvation, looting, courts, courtiers).Yes. Basically you take the things that affect regions now, and remove all the bonuses/penalties caused by estates.
Vacant estates are available for any random noble wandering by to claim as their personal estate.eh... they claim it.. and then you boot them out the same turn/next turn? it doesn't cost a thing to mess around with estates, does it?
Wild lands are lands that are not assigned to any estate, and thus are not available for nobles to claim.
So if a lord does not want additional knights, they can either assign all land to occupied estates, or leave all excess land as wild. Since estates can be arbitrarily created, destroyed, and re-sized at the lord's whim, this is easily done.
eh... they claim it.. and then you boot them out the same turn/next turn? it doesn't cost a thing to mess around with estates, does it?Cost as in money? No. I am not sure if Tom will eventually add an hours cost for the lord resizing/creating/deleting estates. As far as claiming/abandoning estates, you can only do one action per turn. It doesn't "cost" anything.
tax rate... you can't collect more tax from a region with higher tax rates any more?Lords still set the tax rate for the region. This has not changed. But taxes collected from vacant estates or wild lands only give half the normal amount.
ounds as if a region has X peasants and produces Y.. then that's it. you can divy it up how you want.. but won't get more out of it (until estates do something?)No, the income equation is still the same as always: GoldRating X TaxRate X %Production X #ofDays
I'm interested to know if there's going to be a way of hiding things from those higher up. So for example, if my Lord wanted to hide some of his/her gold and keep it for themselves, could they do that?There is currently no "Hide your income" function. But if you don't want to pay realm share, then just make sure there is no Duchy Share. Since the realm share comes out of the Duke's incomes, then make sure the Duke's income is 0. :)
Also, what about trade income? Is it split the same way as it is now? Or will estates play some hand in how that income gets split up?For now, I think it is dumped into the general region tax pool.
"Duchies are their own entities now, meaning the duke does not have to be the lord of the duchy capital. In fact, there is no such thing as a duchy capital. The duke does not even have to be a lord. In addition, duchies can be created and dissolved, with some limitations. "Rulers can create a new duchy from any city or townsland who's lord is not already a duke. The ruler waves his magic wand and *poof* that lord is the duke of a new duchy. The ruler cannot make new duchies out of thin air. There has to be a reasonably wealthy/powerful region from which to create the duchy. To make this easy at the start of the new system, it will be limited to cities/strongholds/townslands. That requirement may change later.
I take it to mean the Ruler can basically create a title of Duke, and let him convince lords to swear to him?
also, Lord of a City/stronghold is not necessarily a Duke?Correct.
If duchies aren't tied to cities anymore...The ruler selects a city/stronghold/townsland who's lord is not already a duke and promotes them to the rank of Duke. This removes that region from its prior duchy, and makes it a new, one-region duchy.
What creates a duke?
Or are they still tied, you just don't need to be lord of the namesake city to be the duke anymore?There is not tie. There is no such thing as a "duchy capital" or "duchy center". If the duke is not the lord of the city, then the city can change to be part of a different duchy. Or the ruler could make the lord of that city the duke of a new duchy.
I think the duke has to be initially a lord of a townsland or stronghold or city.
I dont think so :S A Duchy just needs to contain one of those? Or is that only for succession?
If tax day is coming and no one has claimed the estate I can take that 20% back to my estate and suffer no loss in gold?
Does all this similarly affect food production? If not, why? It would make sense to me that vacant estates and wild lands only produce 50% food...
Lords still set the tax rate for the region. This has not changed. But taxes collected from vacant estates or wild lands only give half the normal amount.
No, the income equation is still the same as always: GoldRating X TaxRate X %Production X #ofDays
But if 25% of the region is vacant/wild, then that 25% will generate half revenue, or 12.5%. Instead of 100% of the gold generated, you get the 75% from the occupied land, plus the 12.5% from the vacant/wild land, for a total of 87.5 %.
The ruler selects a city/stronghold/townsland who's lord is not already a duke and promotes them to the rank of Duke. This removes that region from its prior duchy, and makes it a new, one-region duchy.
what happens if a duchy does not have a city/town any more? let's say a duke+lord+knight of a city in a duchy of 1 city + 1 rural gives up title of lord of city and the new lord flips to different duchy of same realm.I'm actually very curious with this as well.
the duke becomes duke of 1 rural region, lord of nothing and knight of nothing?
what happens if a duchy does not have a city/town any more? let's say a duke+lord+knight of a city in a duchy of 1 city + 1 rural gives up title of lord of city and the new lord flips to different duchy of same realm.
the duke becomes duke of 1 rural region, lord of nothing and knight of nothing?
Question/concern: It seems to me that there are two ways for a lord to control the income of his knights. He can either tweak their estate sizes or adjust their tax rate. Why is the latter still needed? If I want my knights to receive more/less gold, why can't I just increase/decrease their estate sizes? Why go through the extra step of making my knights pay taxes, when I, as lord, pretty much decides what share they get anyway? Is there actually an interesting trade-off between adjusting the estate sizes and changing the regional tax rates?
It seems to me that the regional level tax is just a needless complication, and another feature that needs to be maintained by the devs, and might break (or become buggy) later.
Question/concern: It seems to me that there are two ways for a lord to control the income of his knights. He can either tweak their estate sizes or adjust their tax rate. Why is the latter still needed? If I want my knights to receive more/less gold, why can't I just increase/decrease their estate sizes? Why go through the extra step of making my knights pay taxes, when I, as lord, pretty much decides what share they get anyway? Is there actually an interesting trade-off between adjusting the estate sizes and changing the regional tax rates?
There is currently no "Hide your income" function. But if you don't want to pay realm share, then just make sure there is no Duchy Share. Since the realm share comes out of the Duke's incomes, then make sure the Duke's income is 0. :)
For now, I think it is dumped into the general region tax pool.
Also, how does food fit in this system? Do wild lands also produce 50% food?Food depends only on how high production is. Estates and knights have nothing to do with it.
what happens if a duchy does not have a city/town any more? let's say a duke+lord+knight of a city in a duchy of 1 city + 1 rural gives up title of lord of city and the new lord flips to different duchy of same realm.
the duke becomes duke of 1 rural region, lord of nothing and knight of nothing?
Food depends only on how high production is. Estates and knights have nothing to do with it.
(that was answered in q&a session, I hope I'm not wrong)
The Tax Rate is how much taxes the peasants pay. Adjusting it, you can raise or lower the total gold your region produces, at the risk of making the peasants unhappy.
The Lords Share is how much of the tax collected the knights have to pass on to you. The peasants don't care who takes their gold, and changing this value doesn't change how much gold is collected in the region, only who gets to keep it.
Suppose that I am a knight. Is my income different if I have a 25% estate with no lord's share, rather than a 50% estate with a 50% lord's share? Does it affect the income of my liege?
In other words, if I'm a lord, and I want this vassal of mine to have 25% of my region's total tax income, does it matter whether I give him a 25% estate and set the lord's share to 0, or give him a 50% estate and set the lord's share to 50%?
I'm not sure if you can create a new Duchy out of a Duchy with only one Townsland/City/Stronghold. However if for example such a region is taken by a TO or switches allegiances, the Duchy would just exist with one rural region or no regions at all (He cannot secede now). If the Duchy has no regions, the Ruler can dissolve it, but it doesn't dissolve automatically. If you want to keep a landless Duke around as a Court Pet (I believe that's how Tom called it ;)), you are free to do so.
So... what are rulers making into duchies/dukes? If dukes don't need to be lords, and there are no duchy centre, doesn't that allow for infinite duchies?I answered that in the post immediately before yours.
Edit: not infinite duchies, but still more duchies then there are cities+strongholds+townslands.Given enough time, and the creation of enough duchies, you could have everyone in the realm as a duke.
I dont think so :S A Duchy just needs to contain one of those? Or is that only for succession?The duchy is created from a city/stronghold/townsland. (I'm going to start abbreviating that as C/S/T.... ) Once the duchy is formed any region can leave it, and it has no effect on the duchy, other than it has less regions. Possibly even ending as a duchy with no regions at all.
Duchies can only be created from cities, strongholds, and towns. The duke can be any lord from a region in the duchy,Initially, the Duke will be the lord of the C/S/T. The duke can then step down as lord of that region, and then take any region within his duchy, if he wants.
what happens if a duchy does not have a city/town any more?Nothing.
If Rulers can create Duchies, it would (hopefully) follow that they can dissolve them as well.Duchies with no regions can be dissolved by the ruler.
but if the ruler doesn't dissolve them? do they dissolve themselves when it's just a rural region?No. Duchies never dissolve on their own. Even if they have no regions.
if not what's to stop every single region becoming a 1 region duchy (after a lot of tinkering)?Nothing.
duchies can have multiple cities?Yes. Cities no longer occupy any special place in the realm hierarchy. They are just a region with a few more features.
Which doesn't actually answer the question. You're implying the ruler would *want* to remove the title from the (theoretically) loyal Duke in that circumstance. What if the ruler doesn't want to?Then he doesn't.
Would the ruler be able to make another Duke through that townsland/city/stronghold?The ruler can make a duchy out of *any* C/S/T who's lord is not already a duke. That region's lord becomes the new duke.
If the duchy dissolves because the townsland/city/stronghold leaves it...It does not. Duchies do not automatically disappear, ever.
Is there still an overall production stat to region?Yes. The way gold is produced by the region does not change. Your estate size is the percentage of the region's gold production that you get.
Are you certain about this?The region tax is split among all the knights of the region. The lord sets a Lord's Share that comes out of each knight's income.
From what I could understand from Wiki, taxation applies to all incomes of lords/dukes, not only from their share, which makes much sense, otherwise all would be easily obstructed in the way you describe (the way it is currently on).
I'm not sure if you can create a new Duchy out of a Duchy with only one Townsland/City/Stronghold.You do not create a "duchy out of a duchy". The ruler promotes a non-duke lord of a C/S/T to the rank of Duke. His region becomes a new one-region duchy.
Yes. Cities no longer occupy any special place in the realm hierarchy. They are just a region with a few more features.
so what's the criteria for seceding? duchy that include a (or more) city only?That is not yet determined, but that is the most likely criteria. I *think* Tom said he was considering letting townslands secede, which would make the townsland the capital.
That is not yet determined, but that is the most likely criteria. I *think* Tom said he was considering letting townslands secede, which would make the townsland the capital.
That will be awesome for the lulz it shall provide. You uppity townsfolk, thinking you can govern yourselves!
so, in the beginning, knights will be able to pick whatever estate they want but lords cannot kick them out of region, right?Any noble can claim any vacant estate in any region, and become a knight of that region. They will probably need to be in the region to do it. For startup, the location restriction maybe relaxed, or nobles may be assigned estates in their existing regions, in order to jumpstart the system.
can lord change estate size once it is already taken by knight?Yes. Lords can freely resize any estate, at any time, whether it is occupied or not.
I.e Bescanon on EC is wealthier than Slimbar city and almost as wealthy as Krimml city. Not to mention that it produces a lot more food, so they can be more than self-sufficient.The major advantage of a townsland is that it can feed itself.
no such thing as realm capital? where to recruit?Yes, realms will still have a capital, which is where you will recruit. This has not changed.
Yes, realms will still have a capital, which is where you will recruit. This has not changed.what's the criteria for a capital? still city only?
Yes. The way gold is produced by the region does not change. Your estate size is the percentage of the region's gold production that you get.
Given enough time, and the creation of enough duchies, you could have everyone in the realm as a duke.
That is not yet determined, but that is the most likely criteria. I *think* Tom said he was considering letting townslands secede, which would make the townsland the capital.
Nothing.
yeah I was wondering that too. We don't have a duchy capital anymore. Maybe they will be named after the last name of a duke?
what's the criteria for a capital? still city only?There is no change in either of these areas.
what happens to a realm with lots of rural but no city?
So production can be destroyed by looting, can be improved by civil work, but is not affected at all by estates? Similarly for control?Estates have no settings. The only thing you can do with an estate right now is to claim it or abandon it.
Or is there still an idle/authority/production setting to estate which is not mentioned in the new estate page?
Is this desirable?That's up to the realm.
How would secession work? Hell, since there's no duchy centre at all, how do you determine what becomes the capital when you secede if you have multiple C/S/T?
Would this mean that CTOs of townslands would once again be possible?
And how are duchies going to be called? Right now, the name of the duchy is its city or stronghold. But since duchies will be tied to people instead of regions, what will determine the name?The ruler enters the duchy name when it is created. It should be something that goes nicely with "duchy of ... ", as that is how it is referred in-game. Once the duhy is created, the name cannot be changed. (Although I think it would be nice if they could, perhaps within some restrictions.)
Which brings me to another question: how will lords of cities be called? What will their titles be?
And how are duchies going to be called? Right now, the name of the duchy is its city or stronghold. But since duchies will be tied to people instead of regions, what will determine the name?
Which brings me to another question: how will lords of cities be called? What will their titles be?Not yet determined. I suggested that lords of strongholds be called "Commander", like all dukes used to be called. When the system goes live on Testing, they may still be called Dukes.
Estates have no settings. The only thing you can do with an estate right now is to claim it or abandon it.
Estates have no effects on any region stats in any way.
I'm in heaven.
Which brings me to another question: how will lords of cities be called? What will their titles be?If you have any suggestions, let us know.
it also means you can't use it to bump taxes...
If you have any suggestions, let us know.
Let the realm name them? Default to Commander if a name isn't chosen.
Madina uses Governor, which we think fits nicely.
And how are duchies going to be called? Right now, the name of the duchy is its city or stronghold. But since duchies will be tied to people instead of regions, what will determine the name?
If I get it right, the Ruler will only get money by taxing the Dukes. This would encourage having as many duchies as possible?
will duchies (or their names) be shown on some of the maps?
will huge duchies get some sort of inefficiency penalties?
Bigger duchies mean more power for the duke. Which the ruler may want to avoid. But I believe this is still a gray area (undecided/not filled in yet).
Just wondering, but if it's possible to have duchies composed of basically anything, why have a restriction that they can only be created in C/S/T? [...]
But as others asked, where do the other council positions fit in all of this?
The ruler decides to ruin Duke A's duchy and does so by appointing Lords B, C, and D as Dukes of their own right. This would destroy Duke A's duchy and reduce it to a single region (assuming Duke A is also a lord).
If duchies are tied to people, what happens if that person leaves? Can someone else be made the duke? Does that mean you could end up with duchies that have neither regions nor nobles in them?Duchies are not "tied to people". It is a realm office. If the office holder leaves then he loses the position. (Assuming he hasn't left by taking his duchy to another realm. Let's assume he leaves via emigration.) In that case the office is empty, and the ruler can appoint a new Duke.
will duchies (or their names) be shown on some of the maps? at least the current system is anchored... you can just about imagine the duchy of grehk, for example, eventually migrate all the way off to the north west corner of bt.Not on the current maps. Perhaps if the map is ever replaced by a new system, we can do more with various overlays.
will tax still be received in gold when inside duchy?Probably.
will huge duchies get some sort of inefficiency penalties?Maybe, maybe not.
Duchies are not "tied to people". It is a realm office. If the office holder leaves then he loses the position. (Assuming he hasn't left by taking his duchy to another realm. Let's assume he leaves via emigration.) In that case the office is empty, and the ruler can appoint a new Duke.
This will cause that a Duchy with no regions and just a single noble (the Duke), after the Duke's resigns gets no electable candidates. Thus, automatic Duchy death. Right?
Duchies are not "tied to people". It is a realm office. If the office holder leaves then he loses the position. (Assuming he hasn't left by taking his duchy to another realm. Let's assume he leaves via emigration.) In that case the office is empty, and the ruler can appoint a new Duke.
Possible Abuse Worry: Couldn't this system be very heavily abused by a ruler to prevent any regions from being in a duchy of his choice?
Ex: Say the Ruler dislikes Duke A, and Duke A has lords B, C, and D who are all very loyal to Duke A, more so than they are to the Ruler. The ruler decides to ruin Duke A's duchy and does so by appointing Lords B, C, and D as Dukes of their own right. This would destroy Duke A's duchy and reduce it to a single region (assuming Duke A is also a lord).
1. Would this prevent Lords B,C, and D from leaving their new duchies and once again joining Duke A's duchy since they now have the title of "Duke?"
2. If 1 is NOT true, then couldn't this lead to just a dumb see-saw where the lords choose to rejoin Duchy A, only to have the Ruler immeadiately kick them out of the duchy?
This seems like a horrible situation to be in, and I think has a lot of balance issues with regards to what Rulers will now be capable of. Perhaps a capability to choose: "refuse to become Duke" option could be available for lords to be secure in their current duchies without interference from the ruler? (I know there is a similar system currently in place, but I didn't know if this would have some problems since the meaning of duke is changing completely)
Not quite, as he can only create duchies out of cities, strongholds and townslands. But he could take all of those away from a duchy by promotion, yes. That is not an abuse, that's a power-struggle. And I want to encourage power-struggles.
Honestly? What sort of idiot rulers are getting appointed in this game where this would even be a possibility?
Honestly? What sort of idiot rulers are getting appointed in this game where this would even be a possibility?
Could you please illustrate this? A power struggle implies there is actually a struggle, not just the duke taking a gigantic penis to the face with no option for retribution. What options can a duke pursue to fight against something like this.
What if the scenario Silverfire mentioned were to come true and the duke was left with one region. What could he about it?
Well we usually don't intend to elect rulers that would do such a thing. Most rulers are elected when they are doing good for the realm or seem convincing or have a large following. However, as the saying goes: Power Corrupts, and absolute power....well you know the rest.
Anyway, I could definitely see where this may have been done against me in my personal past if it were an option. If a Ruler dislikes a Duke enough they'll go to any means possible to get them out of their office or to lose their support.
Could you please illustrate this? A power struggle implies there is actually a struggle, not just the duke taking a gigantic penis to the face with no option for retribution. What options can a duke pursue to fight against something like this.
What if the scenario Silverfire mentioned were to come true and the duke was left with one region. What could he about it?
How is stupid? I think it's a very good idea if you know the duke is going to secede.
The Duke and the Ruler are not in a vacum here. So he might not PERSONALLY be able to do something, the game is all about connections and oaths, so the Duke if he has been setting things up properly should be able to call on support against the ruler in this case. If he can't manage that, then he probably doesn't deserve the privileges he just lost. This is pretty much how things worked, rulers would run all over week Barons Dukes and Lords, while taking a much more measured approach against powerful figures or coalitions of nobles.
If I had understood things right, there will be no more Claims,Correct.
but only Knights of a given Region will be able to be promoted to Lord of it, after the Lord position is vacant, same for Lords of a Duchy to be promoted to Duke.Not correct.
I think it's also pretty likely that people will pretty much accept what changes the ruler makes since he has the mechanic to do so.Then they deserve what they get.
Then they deserve what they get.
You can only do so much to protect people. There comes a point when people need to stand up for themselves. If they are not willing to do that, then too bad.
And in this case, where the ruler has created a duchy, what's the big problem here? The ruler has created a new duchy that people in the realm don't like? Big deal. It's not like that's going to kill the realm. (And even if it did, it wouldn't be the first time a ruler killed their own realm.) And maybe it will cause some inner conflict in the realm, and make something happen. Because the last thing we need in the game is a system where people can just ignore their problems and they will go away all on their own. Which is what you proposed.
If King Kepler makes a duchy that can't even attract one lord why should the time be wasted and the mess be created.Because he's the King, and it is his right to do so.
but I can at least say that I can imagine (using my bm experience) an instance where a ruler would use this feature semi-abusively and the realm would not be able to stop him as according to game mechanics he has technically made a legitimate action.If the player is abusing the game, then report him, and let the Magistrates/Titans take care of it. If it is not an abusive issue, then deal with it IC.
I will re-iterate what I say quite a lot these days. BM should be a lightweight game. To this end the game mechanics must be set to appropriate parameters for people to play without too much stress. Greating a game mechanical mess for the players to sort out is not really doing this.Nobody is stopping anyone from playing BattleMaster as Lightweight. These changes to estates will definitely help out a lot. Especially lords who have been struggling to find knights for their regions. It will reduce the maintenance and buro load significantly.
I think there should be some kind of mechanic to officialize the realms support for the creation for a new duchy. For example when a new duchy is created, at least one new region must join it (within 3 days?) for it to be considered legitimate. Thoughts?
What I proposed was that the ruler can't just wank all over the control panel.
It would simply be a way for confirming that the ruler knows what he is doing. If King Kepler makes a duchy that can't even attract one lord why should the time be wasted and the mess be created.
... just protest the king out?
I think there should be some kind of mechanic to officialize the realms support for the creation for a new duchy. For example when a new duchy is created, at least one new region must join it (within 3 days?) for it to be considered legitimate. Thoughts?
since duchies no longer has to be a continual patch of land.
I have two questions:
since there are going to be no more oaths, will be tournaments still be a good place where to snatch foreign knights with promise of gold? Certainly Lords will still be able to advertise but 1) potential knights won't be able to see if he's lying 2) maybe they will no longer be able to join him directly at the tournament.
Also, right now one can swear an oath to a Lord of a foreign realm when in the same region, but there are no informations on how much you would earn from it to prevent (I guess) nosing into enemy's finance too much. Would this be still the case, or can knights claim an estate even in foreign realm without any limitation to the informations they can access while evaluating whether or not to do the claim?
Suggestion:
I heard Tom say there will be custom titles for duchies, i believe it would be interesting to be able to have custom titles for dukes as well.
Example:
Kepler Nosferatus
Duke of Kepler City(region lord title), Governor(duke title) of the Duchy of Keplery(duchy name)
I heard Tom say there will be custom titles for duchies, i believe it would be interesting to be able to have custom titles for dukes as well.
You mis-heard. I said there will be custom names for duchies. Dukes will still be called dukes. But since the lord of a city is not automatically a duke anymore, he will get a different title for his lordship. Of course, if he also is the duke, he still is the duke.
he would have meant Land Owner of blah city, governor of duchy of blah (governor = duke in madina)
A shame though, i'd like to see the duke title customized as realms might vary in how they would deal with this (new) position.
The problem with customized titles is that it means nothing to everyone outside your realm. Or in other words: You would have to learn what a hundred or so (number of positions times number of realms) words mean. Not my idea of fun. Who liked the vocabulary part of learning a foreign language?
The problem with customized titles is that it means nothing to everyone outside your realm. Or in other words: You would have to learn what a hundred or so (number of positions times number of realms) words mean. Not my idea of fun. Who liked the vocabulary part of learning a foreign language?
How much gold does a guild pay actually? From the example it is around 77. Like does this directly come from the local treasury?
oh man people are going to avoid storing gold in their treasury from now on.
Well, in the sane world (kidding, kidding...), duchies are ruled by Dukes. Hence the prefix. I was suggesting that the lord of a city be called "Governor".
I am no history expert, but here in England we still retain some of the historical titles. Like the currently elected 'Lord Mayor' of London, as well as similar offices in other major cities.
Regional income and expenses
|
My Duchess is taking half me income? Time to go to WAR ;) :DThat's exactly the kind of internal strife I was hoping to create. :-)
Tom: The new diagram you uploaded was a duplicate of the previous one. I think you re-uploaded the old version.reload the page.
There should now be a branch, out of the lord's share, going to the duke.
I have a great concern that the new system will leave all the realms deficient in knights to be able to efficiently utilize the existing regions. I am sure that in my present realm, that there are only sufficient knights to have only one per region. How can we expand without sufficient knights (2) to occupy the regions properly? Without an influx of knights, wouldn't all the realms become become fixed in size? What happens to the incentive to expand or defeat the enemy?
I would appreciate any response on the theory.
Bruce Newmyer
Bruce,
Under the current system, you need at least one and often two or more to run a region without stats deteriorating. Under the new system, all that will happen if you don't have enough knights is that you get less gold. Region stats will still be fine, and you will get full food production.
Frankly, if your realm has less than 2-3 characters per region, it is trying to hold more land than it can and should get rid of a region or two.
Isn't that exactly the problem that we tried to fix with the new system? There are many realms which cannot expand even though they have land in which they can expand. Telling them they should get rid of a region or two won't incite them to go to war.
Frankly, if your realm has less than 2-3 characters per region, it is trying to hold more land than it can and should get rid of a region or two.
Heh..that statement implies about half the realms on Atamara should give up some regions.
Isn't that exactly the problem that we tried to fix with the new system? There are many realms which cannot expand even though they have land in which they can expand. Telling them they should get rid of a region or two won't incite them to go to war.
And that 90% of realms of Dwilight and BT do as well, and I imagine a high percentage on most other continents as well.
My thoughts exactly. Say we got 10 nobles and 5 regions. In the old regions, we possible could not hold onto any more regions, as it would cause them to revolt due to lack of estates, meaning many realms had very little reason to go to war (other than because TMP ordered them to). If with the new system we'd gain more gold with 10 nobles in 5 regions than with 10 nobles in 10 regions (because realm size penalties, lack of knight tax tolerance penalties, and 50% tax loss penalties for wildlands), then we really aren't improving anything at all.
I really deeply believe that a realm should grow richer every time it expands. The benefits should be smaller as you grow larger and larger, but acquiring a region should never, ever be a net loss for the realm. Otherwise, all the complaints about the old system will apply to the new one, and people won't be going to war for IC reasons and ambitions, but will mostly get into lame wars because of TMP.
My thoughts exactly. Say we got 10 nobles and 5 regions. In the old regions, we possible could not hold onto any more regions, as it would cause them to revolt due to lack of estates, meaning many realms had very little reason to go to war (other than because TMP ordered them to). If with the new system we'd gain more gold with 10 nobles in 5 regions than with 10 nobles in 10 regions (because realm size penalties, lack of knight tax tolerance penalties, and 50% tax loss penalties for wildlands), then we really aren't improving anything at all.
Don't be absurd.
There's an enormous difference between "if we expand, we will lose the regions we already have, and won't be able to support the new ones" and "if we expand, we won't make quite as much gold from the regions we already have, but we'll add another region that also doesn't produce its full potential".
BattleMaster is never going back to the days when you could have a half-dozen people running a 15-region realm, and I can't see any rational argument for why it should.
How can 6 people run 15 regions? Doesnt make sense...
But 6 people running 5 regions? Would be incredibly beneficial for the War aspect...
I mean the New Estates are to try and fix the problems we all have with the current set up and to force us (when combined with TMP) to do more wars correct?
I fully agree. You should gain more gold with 20 nobles in 5 regions than with 10 nobles; but whatever the noble count, there should always be an incentive to gain more regions.
Don't be absurd.
There's an enormous difference between "if we expand, we will lose the regions we already have, and won't be able to support the new ones" and "if we expand, we won't make quite as much gold from the regions we already have, but we'll add another region that also doesn't produce its full potential".
I can't say with certainty that there will never be a situation where taking one more region would cause your total income to dip (slightly), but in the vast majority of cases, it should not happen.
BattleMaster is never going back to the days when you could have a half-dozen people running a 15-region realm, and I can't see any rational argument for why it should.
If with the new system we'd gain more gold with 10 nobles in 5 regions than with 10 nobles in 10 regions (because realm size penalties, lack of knight tax tolerance penalties, and 50% tax loss penalties for wildlands), then we really aren't improving anything at all.
BattleMaster is never going back to the days when you could have a half-dozen people running a 15-region realm, and I can't see any rational argument for why it should.
That's alright. As long as nobles think their income is likely too increase, expansion will occur. You can expect a reasonable rate of failure.....
you get more food though.
food is dirt cheap, because people rely on a few odd ducks at the top handing gold out manually. or via realm share.
obviously this won't change anything, because the few odd ducks will try to hoard everything and hand gold out manually.
do d'hara and riombara count as only 1% of all the realms around?
come to think of it, does a region even need a lord? or is it one of those no lord around and you get unrest?
I can't say with certainty that there will never be a situation where taking one more region would cause your total income to dip (slightly), but in the vast majority of cases, it should not happen.
...but you are mentioning two new penalties, lack of knights on tax tolerance and wildlands on tax collection, in a manner that seems rather harsh.
No, Chénier, these are not "new penalties": these are replacing the penalties for lack of estates.
Furthermore, there is no increase in the penalties for running higher tax rates if you have fewer knights. Tom just meant (unless he's changed something dramatic without telling us) that you'd need at least a lord and a knight to be able to run what you would consider an acceptable rate when averaged over the whole region.
So the only thing you lose by having just a lord in the region with his estate, rather than 2-4 knights with estates, is the extra income that they could generate from their estates.
As opposed to now, where having insufficient estate coverage means your region slides slowly (or, depending on just how insufficient it is, quickly) into ruin.
Let's also not forget the (in my mind) most important difference.
Right now, if you want to do some serious expansion or a colony, you have to gather all the nobles first with promises of future benefits if you are successful, which is extraordinarily difficult.
Under the new system, you can seriously expand or colonize and then send word out that people who join will get benefits right away. Being able to expand and then fill your noble numbers will help a lot, I think.
New penalties that replace the old ones. You are arguing that it won't be worse than what we currently have, that it will be basically equivalent,
I thought the consensus was that what we currently have is bad, because people already hold out on expansion. What's the difference if that's because of lowered income instead of increased unrest, if as you seem to say the end result is the same?
We are currently hammering people with harsh TMP mechanics *because* we have taken away their incentives to go to war with the old estate system.
The new estate system doesn't seem like it will change the fundamental problem the old one had. It'll be much more possible to expand now, but this changes little if its not any more desirable to do so.
While this is true, most wars aren't for the creation of colonies.
You take five regions, put a Lord on each one, and have no problem keeping all 15 of your regions under control. Sure, you don't get full gold out of all of them, but you're still taking in some more gold than you were before you took them, plus the extra food.
Does this mean that a realm would always have an incentive to take additional regions, with diminishing returns, or does there reach a point where taking additional regions would actually harm your realm, as it does in some cases under the current system? If so, at what nobles:region ratio does taking additional regions start doing damage, overall?
New system:
You take five regions, put a Lord on each one, and have no problem keeping all 15 of your regions under control. Sure, you don't get full gold out of all of them, but you're still taking in some more gold than you were before you took them, plus the extra food. Over the next few weeks, you attract a few more nobles. When each of them joins, he gets to take an estate on one of the 10 short-staffed regions, which gives him an instant decent income, and increases the overall income of your realm. The general upward trend in the realm makes the old and new nobles alike feel good about its future, and new players who join are more likely to stick around, thus increasing its population and income further.
Does this mean that a realm would always have an incentive to take additional regions, with diminishing returns, or does there reach a point where taking additional regions would actually harm your realm, as it does in some cases under the current system? If so, at what nobles:region ratio does taking additional regions start doing damage, overall?
Example for the new system:
10 regions with 20 nobles: 100% coverage, 100 gold each region, 50 gold for each noble:1000 gold total for the realm
expand by 5 regions:15 regions with 20 nobles:
5 regions with 100% coverage, 100 gold each region, 50 gold for each noble:500 gold
10 regions with 50% coverage, 65 gold each (remember, additional penalties), 65 gold for each noble:650 gold
total for realm: 1150 gold
See? a 50% increase in regions should lead to a 15% increase in gold income. That number could be anywhere between 5% and 25%, of course, but it would be hard to find a scenario where expanding leads to less gold.
Actually, I can think of one--city/townsland/stronghold estate coverage. But you can probably free up one noble from each of those region types.
You ignore the fact that a larger realms has to run a lower tax rate, which pretty much eats away the gold benefit.Even then, you get more gold in this system since estates aren't tied to efficiency any more, which means you can just sell the surplus food and you'll come out ahead regardless.
You ignore the fact that a larger realms has to run a lower tax rate, which pretty much eats away the gold benefit.
That's a pretty big assumption. I wouldn't think that the tax rate decrease required by taking an additional region would come close to offsetting the amount of gold you gain from taking it.
In fact, I'm nearly positive (haven't run the numbers, but don't feel like it's necessary) that under either the old or the new system, it wouldn't come close at all.
Not really a big assumption. If the region forces a 1% drop in tax rate all around, that can easily add up to eating away any gain the region provides. Especially true if you have big cities(1% drop is easily 100 gold lost in such cases, add the other regions and you quickly eat away any gain from a normal rural region).
What I do expect to see with this new system is that realms will suddenly be more interested in rural regions. Currently, you're much better off taking cities or townslands because the way estates work favours them. But, under the new system, you can take a few rural regions for their food and see a major benefit with only a lord, where you need full knights for a city to see the true benefit of the gold, and you have to feed the whole populace regardless of your inefficiency numbers.
Seriously?
If that's what you think I've been saying, then you have not been listening. At all. For months.
The new penalties should be massively less severe than the current ones. They will not make it impossible to hold a region with insufficient estate support without legions of courtiers stationed in the region.
No, they will not make a region with no knights equivalent to a region with 8. That would be stupid.
You managed to fixate on the least important part of his post by far.
It's not about colonies, Dominic. It's about all kinds of expansion. Colonies are just one kind of expansion.
Let me illustrate this for you with a brief example, because you seem unable to grasp it:
Current system:
Your realm has exactly enough nobles to provide 100% estate support to all 10 of its regions. You want to take five more regions, so you try to attract more nobles to be able to staff them. By the time you get half of these nobles, however, two other realms have already taken all five of the regions you wanted. Your realm is frustrated by the stagnation and inability to do anything, and half the new nobles leave.
OR
You take the five regions, and install a Lord in each one. You now have ~60% estate support in 2/3 of your regions, and your region stats start to slip. You try to attract more nobles to staff these regions, and get a few, but the rest are still in trouble. A month and a half later, two of the regions you took have gone rogue, along with two that you held before, and you're only four nobles up from where you were before. The new nobles are frustrated that they came here, to a realm that was just expanding, and they can't actually do anything but maintenance. Two of them, and three of your longtime nobles, leave.
New system:
You take five regions, put a Lord on each one, and have no problem keeping all 15 of your regions under control. Sure, you don't get full gold out of all of them, but you're still taking in some more gold than you were before you took them, plus the extra food. Over the next few weeks, you attract a few more nobles. When each of them joins, he gets to take an estate on one of the 10 short-staffed regions, which gives him an instant decent income, and increases the overall income of your realm. The general upward trend in the realm makes the old and new nobles alike feel good about its future, and new players who join are more likely to stick around, thus increasing its population and income further.
Are these contrived examples, meant to prove my point? Sure.
But I think that the gist of them is pretty accurate.
So instead of insisting that everything is doomed, the dev team is a bunch of morons who couldn't code their way out of a wet paper sack, and the only way to save BattleMaster from total imminent destruction is to let every realm control all the regions they want with no effort at all, why don't you shut the hell up and try out the changes when they arrive, and make your judgement then?
You ignore the fact that a larger realms has to run a lower tax rate, which pretty much eats away the gold benefit.
Even then, you get more gold in this system since estates aren't tied to efficiency any more, which means you can just sell the surplus food and you'll come out ahead regardless.
That's a pretty big assumption. I wouldn't think that the tax rate decrease required by taking an additional region would come close to offsetting the amount of gold you gain from taking it.
In fact, I'm nearly positive (haven't run the numbers, but don't feel like it's necessary) that under either the old or the new system, it wouldn't come close at all.
You say I complain without having seen the new system, but honestly, you are arguing while admitting that you don't know it any better. You are assuming just as much as we are.
Takeovers having become considerably more difficult since pre-estates system is one example, and measures to help ease that have only been taken quite recently.
seriously..
do you even need a lord? or does a lordless region descend into chaos? (nevermind the smarties going around claiming empty regions, that doesn't count)
Not really a big assumption. If the region forces a 1% drop in tax rate all around, that can easily add up to eating away any gain the region provides. Especially true if you have big cities(1% drop is easily 100 gold lost in such cases, add the other regions and you quickly eat away any gain from a normal rural region).
Will the system be worse than the current one? I seriously doubt it. But after all this time, and after all that was said about the new system prior to these last few days, I expected it to be considerably better. Estates have been a burden to gameplay for years, I was hoping the new system would solve the problems of the former, mainly that it killed motivation for most wars of expansion. And notably, that it fix this problem for the vast majority of realms, and not just for certain realm that for specific reasons while most would not.
Do you see that happening now?
Because the tax penalties to large realms aren't getting changed. So if you don't see that happening now, you're not likely to see it happening under the new estate system, either.
I do. Most recently in Thalmarkin, though the regions we took were so rich it didn't actually hurt overall, but had the regions been rural regions, the story might have been different all together. Certainly made the duke of Unger a bit unhappy since he lost hundreds of gold in income personally :P
I do. Most recently in Thalmarkin, though the regions we took were so rich it didn't actually hurt overall, but had the regions been rural regions, the story might have been different all together. Certainly made the duke of Unger a bit unhappy since he lost hundreds of gold in income personally :P
You sure that didn't have anything to do with Dominic's secession?
Well, it was a combination of less estate coverage and realm growth but it did result in having to drop the tax rate 5%, which meant 500 gold less indeed.Gaining a region or two will not change your acceptable tax rate by 5%. Not by any means. If you had to drop your taxes by 5%, then something else caused. Probably a combination of effects. But it was not all from gaining a region or 2.
So.... around when is this thing gonna be implemented? :P :PI believe they said in the 1-9 weeks range.. About 2 weeks ago, ish? So any day now, I'm guessing.
Gaining a region or two will not change your acceptable tax rate by 5%. Not by any means. If you had to drop your taxes by 5%, then something else caused. Probably a combination of effects. But it was not all from gaining a region or 2.
Isn't that exactly the problem that we tried to fix with the new system?
Heh..that statement implies about half the realms on Atamara should give up some regions.
Maybe Dwilight was a mistake.Oh god no.
Oh god no.
Oh yes. From what I've seen from the distance, it has sucked the spirit out of every other island in the game, and it's the main reason everything is spread thin.
Oh yes. From what I've seen from the distance, it has sucked the spirit out of every other island in the game, and it's the main reason everything is spread thin.
I agree with Lorgan, I just don't see this. AT is finally having the war people have been wanting for years, EC's having some great conflicts, FEI has been in turmoil for a while and it's just going to get better, BT has picked up from what I've heard and the implications of the last Invasion are rippling outward, Dwilight's awesome...I don't know anything about the Colonies, but I don't think the game is going half-badly at the moment.
Maybe Dwilight was a mistake. I'm not above admitting and fixing mistakes.
Oh yes. From what I've seen from the distance, it has sucked the spirit out of every other island in the game, and it's the main reason everything is spread thin.
Find me 500 new players and I'll eat my words, but right now, I do think that Dwilight was a mistake.
Did Dwilight suck the spirit out of the other continents, or just offer a compelling game experience that highlighted the dissatisfaction with the other continents.
Pretty much. I would never touch EC or Atamara.
At this point I play to play on dwilight and cause I have some character history on FEI. otherwise. . yea. Dwilight kept and keeps me playing.
I love East Continent. I love Beluaterra. I detested Dwilight and FEI. Never really got into Atmara and I've never tried the Colonies. If BT and EC were closed, I know a lot of players would leave the game.
If you consider it a "problem" that 5 players can't rule 20 regions, you're playing the wrong game.
When a realm wins wars, it takes regions. When it takes over regions, its noble base spread thin. Then it can't take regions anymore. It has won, and it can't expand anymore.
The game has became a bit too complicated for people looking for a light text based game?
I don't consider it a problem; you do. When a realm wins wars, it takes regions. When it takes over regions, its noble base spread thin. Then it can't take regions anymore. It has won, and it can't expand anymore, yet TMP kicks in.
We fought for loot, we fought because we liked fighting, and sometimes we fought simply to kick someone's ass and teach them who's boss.
It has bugged me for a long time that people think expansion is the only reason for war. Several realms I ruled had plenty of war and very little expansion. We fought for loot, we fought because we liked fighting, and sometimes we fought simply to kick someone's ass and teach them who's boss.
There are many reasons to fight wars, but expansion is the only one that is situation-independent.
I disagree. Expansion is situation-dependent, too - the situation is a need or desire to expand. Historically, very few realms have expanded just because they could. There was always some kind of pressure - overpopulation, politics, need to secure access to resources, etc.
We've tried adding resources before. Maybe we should have another go at that. Without the whole trading thing. That's another aspect of the game I'm no longer sure about. Maybe adding trade was an overcomplication that doesn't really add to the game?
I was thinking more in terms of gameplay. Historically, many realms would have peace for long stretches of time until such pressure occurred; that's also the kind of thing that makes for poor gameplay.
We can play with timelines more easily than in reality. We can make sure pressures appear in quicker succession than decades and centuries.
We've tried adding resources before. Maybe we should have another go at that. Without the whole trading thing. That's another aspect of the game I'm no longer sure about. Maybe adding trade was an overcomplication that doesn't really add to the game?You mean having regions generate resources, and the realms only being able to use those resources if they own the region? That would surely drive realms toward taking strategic regions due to the resources they provide.
Everyone talks of wanting constant war... I dare say that occupationally a few realms just want to have a bit of peace so that they can rebuild everything before going at it again...
To this end TMP should be much less present in general.
As I have said before, the versions of TMP currently under discussion amongst the devs resemble what you think of as TMP very, very little.
You mean having regions generate resources, and the realms only being able to use those resources if they own the region? That would surely drive realms toward taking strategic regions due to the resources they provide.
While it sounds fun and realistic, I doubt it would be. It would be yet another layer of complexity on the game that could go wrong since balancing such a system would be a nightmare.Yeah, it would be hard. I'm not going to disagree on that. It would take some work to set up.
You've pushed responsibilities on people who generally don't seem to want to deal with them(food being a major one with regard to lords).I agree with this. I'm a big proponent of lords being able to turn food responsibilities back over to the banker, if they want to do so.
You've pushed the responsibility of getting an income on the new players instead of it being automatic like it used to be. The new estate system won't fix that issue as far as I can see though it might mitigate it..maybe.I think it will definitely help. Getting an estate and an income is much, much simpler under the new system.
The push for duchies to be prominent seems to be pretty much a failure to me. They're too small units and just about anyone will choose their realm over the duchy because it is the realm that provides all the fun and atmosphere in 99% of the cases. Start pushing for the realm as a team again since that actually has a chance of working.I agree with this wholeheartedly. I've always been a supporter of realm-as-team. This concept is supported by several game mechanics, including diplomacy and the messaging system itself. Trying to force the game down tot he duchy-as-team level is fighting a losing fight. That doesn't mean that I don't like some of the newer duchy-centric features. However, trying to force the duchy to be the team just doesn't fit.
I agree with this wholeheartedly. I've always been a supporter of realm-as-team. This concept is supported by several game mechanics, including diplomacy and the messaging system itself. Trying to force the game down tot he duchy-as-team level is fighting a losing fight. That doesn't mean that I don't like some of the newer duchy-centric features. However, trying to force the duchy to be the team just doesn't fit.
You mean having regions generate resources, and the realms only being able to use those resources if they own the region? That would surely drive realms toward taking strategic regions due to the resources they provide.
I guess the question is how much would this add to the game in attracting/keeping players vs. how many players would we lose due to dropping trading? I have tried the trader game myself, and decided it really wasn't for me.
The concern, of course, is that if nobody else cares, then they could have resource shortages, especially for wood/metal.And will those shortages make the game more fun for the majority of players, or less fun? That's really the key to adding more resources, and the possibility of shortages. IMO if it doesn't pass the Fun Test, it's probably not worth adding.
Will Lord characters need to be in their own realms to change estates? I had expected it would take a few more weeks, I'm far.....
So the buttons to manage estates and set taxes have moved from 'Command' to 'Politics'. Should we ignore the 'Manage Estate...' in 'Command'?
By the way, 'Change Allegiance...' is broken.
Is there a difference between having wild lands, and a vacant estate that covers it, besides a nobles being able to take the estate? Pretty much will having a vacant estate cause harm compared to it being wild lands?
'Religion' button is also broken.
Please do not just say "X is broken."
In order to fix what's broken, we need specific information. Please tell us what you tried to do, and what actually happened.
95% of the time "X is broken" is both worthless and frustrating.
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en">
<head>
<title>BattleMaster</title>
<meta name="description" content="BattleMaster is a team-oriented browsergame merging strategy and roleplaying in a (low-) fantasy world." />
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" />
<script type="text/javascript" src="/common/jquery.js"></script>
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/common/battlemaster.css?lastchange=2011081001" />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/common/core/navbar.css" />
<script language="javascript" type="text/javascript" src="/common/json2.js"></script>
<script language="javascript" type="text/javascript" src="/common/bm.js?change=1246555268"></script>
<script type="text/javascript">
$(document).ready(function() {
});
</script>
</head>
<body>
<div id="corenav">
<ul class="wood">
<li><a href="http://battlemaster.org/login.php">BattleMaster</a></li>
<li><a href="http://war-islands.org">War Islands</a></li>
<li><a href="http://lemuria.org/SM3">SpellMaster</a></li>
<li><a href="http://wiki.battlemaster.org">Wiki</a></li>
<li><a href="http://forum.battlemaster.org">Forum</a></li>
<li><a href="http://bugs.battlemaster.org">Bugtracker</a></li>
</ul>
<div id="coreinfo"></div>
<br class="clearit" />
</div><div class="hide"><a href="#Status" title="Skip navigation." accesskey="2">Skip navigation</a>.</div>
<div class="Navigation night">
<ul id="nav-char">
<li><a href="/testing/message-send.php" title="Read and write messages">Messages</a></li>
<li><a href="/testing/play-info.php" title="Check information">Information</a></li>
<li><a href="/testing/play-politics.php" title="Political activities">Politics</a></li>
<li><a href="/testing/play-travel2.php" title="Travelling">Travel</a></li>
<li><a href="/testing/play-actions2.php" title="Actions">Actions</a></li>
<li><a href="/testing/play-religion.php" title="Religious activities">Religion</a></li>
<li><a href="/testing/command.php" title="Command options">Command</a></li>
<li id="globe"><a href="/userdata.php" title="Back to your family page">Family</a></li></ul>
</div>
<div id="Content"><div class="pagetitle pt_short"><h1>Actions</h1></div>
Also, I'm not really a fan of those hard limits. Like, is there some rebellious peasant union telling me more than 25% tax is just too cruel to take from poor peasants? Or some cocky administrator who forces me to tax my lords 5%? And why can't my knights just rebel against me if I want to tax them more than 50%? Or which arrogant city planner dares tell his noble lord that his estate can't be larger than 30%?
Regarding religion:
When I click on religion (Koli Bedwyr, Dwilight, Dantooine) all I get on the page is this text.
"There are ca. 1960 believers in your faith The Manifest Path in this region. That's about 99% of the population."
Currently knights cannot see how much the lord's share is, nor lords can see the duke's share. I suppose dukes cannot see the realm share either. Is that intentional, or as I think more likely something that will change?
Also, I'm not really a fan of those hard limits.
So, one of my characters is on Dwilight, and is the Banker of a realm. As far as I can tell from the advent of the New Estate System, I am officially out of a job. I don't actually do anything anymore. I don't have access to any actual ability to change anything related to taxes, as usually suits what a banker is supposed to do. This is on top of the fact, that we already have reduced duties for the banker because their involvement in the food process right now is minimal right now anyway. A banker's access to food data isn't anymore than a Duke already has, and since banker's can't actually move food around any more I'm essentially a scapegoat which people can blame when things go bad, but I can't actually do anything at all.
What is the point of even having a banker any more right now? Unless, we create like a realm bank system where all of the "ruler's share" goes into a bank vault that a banker can distribute and use in place of the ruler or something, there is no point in having a banker. Or if lords are given the option to let the banker have control once again of their food stores directly, I don't see why we have this council position.
A few things seem to have been bugged. For example, police work no longer uses up your hours and has no impacts. You also don't see the information bar at the bottom after performing it.(appears to have been fixed)
By the way, has anyone answered the question about the other council positions yet? I remember the question having been asked, but I don't remember an answer. Where do generals, bankers, and judges get their extra income from, if any?
Herle: Lack of knights reduces region control. The people here do not like being ruled by us. Production is being restored through regular repairs. Production rises 10%. Morale falls 2%.Does this mean knights still influence control, or is it just a reminiscent message from the old code but of no effect? I am also curious as how the Production, Morale, Loyalty and Control changes will be handled (totally random/only based in king's presence, tax rate and population and lord's faith?).
So, one of my characters is on Dwilight, and is the Banker of a realm. As far as I can tell from the advent of the New Estate System, I am officially out of a job.
The old estate options do appear to still be there.
where? please don't post generic sentences like that, it really doesn't help me, and it's rather frustrating to have to ask for details all th time.
Who has powers to appoint new Lords?
We TO'd a region this turn - but as the Ruler I don't see options to appoint the new Lord anywhere.
Is it now the Duke's ?
Maf: Lack of knights reduces region control.
Today we received a report for a region that because of the lack of knights, region control was reduced. Personally I was under the impression that a region could be kept under control, just with lower tax income by only a lord. Is my impression wrong of the new system or is this event still something from the old system?
An estate is a part of a region, currently defined abstractly as a percentage part of the region (e.g. 20% of the region of Keplerville). Everyone can have at most one estate, and the size of estates is limited. There are minimum and maximum sizes that depend on the region type and size. The minimum sizes go from 5% to 20% while the maximum sizes go from 30% to 50%. So every region will need 2-4 knights (of which the lord can be one) to cover it entirely.
yes, but apparently the duchy-assignement is broken.
A banker's access to food data isn't anymore than a Duke already hasCorrection: A banker can see a composite of all the information that is available to all the dukes put together. No offense meant here, but as the banker of Pian en Luries, you have the small city of Poryatown and the medium city of Askileon to feed. Not exactly a difficult task, especially when your realm has a 150-160% food supply. In such a case I can see how the banker's job would seem to be a bit... superfluous.
What is the point of even having a banker any more right now? Unless, we create like a realm bank system where all of the "ruler's share" goes into a bank vault that a banker can distribute and use in place of the ruler or something, there is no point in having a banker. Or if lords are given the option to let the banker have control once again of their food stores directly, I don't see why we have this council position.Come on... please have some patience. This is a huge change, and Tom has only just now implemented the first parts of it. He has already stated that the banker's position is not going away. We will find a way to fit him into the hierarchy with some meaningful tasks.
If a duchy loses all its regions (the Duke wasn't a lord), how does it get regions without being named a lord?It doesn't. The ruler can either keep his pet duke around as a court functionary, or dissolve the duchy.
It doesn't. The ruler can either keep his pet duke around as a court functionary, or dissolve the duchy.
Huh... so if you have the title of Duke and you get named Lord, you lose the title of Duke?The only way for a duke to get named as a lord is if he assigns himself as a lord of a region in his own duchy. And no, he will not lose the duchy by naming himself as a a lord. That would be kind of silly.
Does this also apply to RTO and region buying? It would seem in these cases you don't have to swear fealty to anyone but yourself.I don't know how those will work yet. Most likely if a priest does an RTO then the region will become part of whatever duchy to which he belongs. Same with buying the region. This could be a way for a regionless duke to recover his duchy. Provided the ruler doesn't dissolve it first.
The only way for a duke to get named as a lord is if he assigns himself as a lord of a region in his own duchy. And no, he will not lose the duchy by naming himself as a a lord. That would be kind of silly.
The only way for a duke to get named as a lord is if he assigns himself as a lord of a region in his own duchy. And no, he will not lose the duchy by naming himself as a a lord. That would be kind of silly.But if he gets named Lord by another Duke, then he loses the Duke title?
The only way for a duke to get named as a lord is if he assigns himself as a lord of a region in his own duchy.
But if he gets named Lord by another Duke...That is impossible.
Who has powers to appoint new Lords?
We TO'd a region this turn - but as the Ruler I don't see options to appoint the new Lord anywhere.
Is it now the Duke's ?
In the Hierarchy page the region does not show up - not Imperial like it would have been (no more imperial regions right?), but it is also not part of the Duchy it was next too. So can the Duke appoint still (Nosferatus says: No).
Guess this is just brokens till :D Oh well, if we can get that working in the next few turns that'd be awesome.
That is impossible.
Think about it. A duke can only appoint a noble as a region lord if that noble is one of his vassals. A duke cannot be the vassal of another duke.
Correction: A banker can see a composite of all the information that is available to all the dukes put together. No offense meant here, but as the banker of Pian en Luries, you have the small city of Poryatown and the medium city of Askileon to feed. Not exactly a difficult task, especially when your realm has a 150-160% food supply. In such a case I can see how the banker's job would seem to be a bit... superfluous.
However, when your realm grows a bit bigger, you will appreciate the overall view that the banker has. Try feeding a realm of 5 or 6 duchies on a food supply of just over break-even, and you will see how vitally important that banker's overview is.
So if you are a Duke without region and your ruler refuses to dissolve your Duchy, you cannot have an estate or a Lordship, ever?Nope. An estate assumes an oath of service to the lord of the region. You become that lord's vassal, and they become your liege lord. If you are above them in station, then how can you take an oath of service with that lord?
A knight can't have an estate if he wants to become lord. So he needs to abandon his estate first and then he can be chosen.Are you absolutely certain about this? I do not believe it to be true, or at least not intended. When I was testing this on the dev server a few weeks ago, that was not how it worked.
Has it been revealed how the game will decide to which duchy belongs regions that are TOed?
I understand, that, but what I mean is that if the banker's data is just combined data that dukes could get by simply sending messages to each other, then the use of a banker is simply to not make dukes have to talk to each other, but him to just send the exact same messages to them each anyway. The job is thus just a relating of data comparisons to each other, but when the data isn't that hard to relate it is simply a messaging job. I realize that these changes aren't fully implemented yet, but I know before at least banker's had a fit niche to take and I am just hoping we once again reach that situation.Have you ever tried to manage the food situation of 6 duchies, when you can only see the food situation of 1 of them? Or none? The banker's bird's eye view is critical in keeping things organized. Sure, you *could* do it by trying to exchange messages back and forth. But that would be ridiculously cumbersome and error-prone. Especially if one of those dukes is just not interested in dealing with it.
Please understand, I'm not griping or complaining, just making sure that this just wasn't overlooked necessarily in any of the changes just on happenstance. I understand now that it wasn't overlooked and is just continuing to be implemented so will wait, but I look forward to seeing what new roles can be adapted here.Tom is still working on it. Eventually there will be something more for the banker to do. Just not right now. So, take a bit of a vacation. :)
The way it works now makes more sense. If you are above someone in station, or at their level, then you can't take service under them. It makes absolutely no sense at all for the ruler to have an estate in a region, owing allegiance to another lord. The ruler is that lord's ultimate liege. Why the heck would the ruler be swearing an oath as that lord's vassal, and paying them taxes, then taking his own ruler share from that lord's duke?
The old system was horrible in that regard, but it's the best that could be done. Now it should be much simpler, and clearer, once you you discard the way it used to work, and take a fresh look at the system.
Have you ever tried to manage the food situation of 6 duchies, when you can only see the food situation of 1 of them? Or none? The banker's bird's eye view is critical in keeping things organized. Sure, you *could* do it by trying to exchange messages back and forth. But that would be ridiculously cumbersome and error-prone. Especially if one of those dukes is just not interested in dealing with it.
Just one last point to be sure I cover everything. If a Duchy is without region, without nobles and without Duke, can the ruler still appoint a new Duke? Or does it remain an empty shell until dissolved?I believe that as long as the duchy exists, whether it has regions or not, the ruler can still appoint a new duke when the position is vacant.
I understand, that, but what I mean is that if the banker's data is just combined data that dukes could get by simply sending messages to each other, then the use of a banker is simply to not make dukes have to talk to each other, but him to just send the exact same messages to them each anyway. The job is thus just a relating of data comparisons to each other, but when the data isn't that hard to relate it is simply a messaging job. I realize that these changes aren't fully implemented yet, but I know before at least banker's had a fit niche to take and I am just hoping we once again reach that situation.
I think if one of the dukes isn't interested in dealing with it, and a lot of lords are also not interested in dealing with it because they view the food game as simply cumbersome and a responsibility not worth dealing with then you're screwed anyway.Yeah, pretty much. :P
I think the entire situation is just more easily solved if lords were given the "option" to let the banker directly manage their food stores if they don't want to deal with it. Then, the banker can work with those lords that actually want to manage their food, and personally handle the food of those that simply don't want to waste their time that they don't have.I agree. I would love for there to be an *option* for lords to allow the bankers to control the warehouses in their regions.
when's the last time you saw a duke talk to another duke about food. or for that matter a duke talking to a lord about food aside from "send me everything, for free"?
when's the last time you saw a duke talk to another duke about food. or for that matter a duke talking to a lord about food aside from "send me everything, for free"?
when's the last time you saw a duke talk to another duke about food. or for that matter a duke talking to a lord about food aside from "send me everything, for free"?
it looks as if "check taxes" option vanished in new estate system, so we cannot see when taxes are coming.
... is that the exception or the norm though?
Seems to be the Norm in Dwilight - probaby because food producing regions have MUCH lower gold production than on other maps, so its important for Lords to get that income.
But you are right, most other places it's "give me your food". But you can't do that here, Madina has regions that make less than 150gp and need three knights. . .they need that food income and the Lords know it.
So if you are a Duke without region and your ruler refuses to dissolve your Duchy, you cannot have an estate or a Lordship, ever? That's interesting. I had not caught that from the discussion.
Seems to be the Norm in Dwilight - probaby because food producing regions have MUCH lower gold production than on other maps, so its important for Lords to get that income.I think that most of the time in Astrum, food is passed around for free. By default Libidizedd is always buying for 20/100, so anyone that sends me food by caravan gets paid for it. (Higher prices posted for foreign sellers, as needed.) But mostly, we just move it all around whenever it needs to go.
That is precisely why Astrum is doing great. ;)
I think that most of the time in Astrum, food is passed around for free. By default Libidizedd is always buying for 20/100, so anyone that sends me food by caravan gets paid for it. (Higher prices posted for foreign sellers, as needed.) But mostly, we just move it all around whenever it needs to go.
Personally, that's one of the things I really like about Astrum. We are mostly united as a realm-based team, rather than a bunch of people standing asking "What's in it for me?" Gold, food, etc. is all (usually) directed where it needs to go, and not based on how much profit can be gotten out of it. Part of that is, of course, the unifying effect of the common faith, and the shared goals it provides. But even beyond that, most of us just aren't into the whole "me me me me me!" thing.
Personally, that's one of the things I really like about Astrum. We are mostly united as a realm-based team, rather than a bunch of people standing asking "What's in it for me?" Gold, food, etc. is all (usually) directed where it needs to go, and not based on how much profit can be gotten out of it. Part of that is, of course, the unifying effect of the common faith, and the shared goals it provides. But even beyond that, most of us just aren't into the whole "me me me me me!" thing.
1 region produce lots of gold and little food, the other region produce lots of food and little gold. the fair thing to do with be to pay decent gold for food. that's not really about profit. but what happens quite frequently is that the cities don't want to pay for food and then call the food producers greedy when asked to pay a decent sum, thus gets to keep all those shiny gold and get to play generous man going around shouting "i've got gold to hand out, who needs it". whereas if they just pay a decent price, no one will need to ask for gold in the 1st place really.
Yeah that is a good point, indeed. I wonder why food should be shipped around freely while gold is not.Gold isn't handed out freely? Excuse me?
And, honestly, I have never been in a realm where gold wasn't freely available to anyone who needed it, unless the realm was so in such bad shape that no one had gold to give.
Just wanted to say that as a duke, I can't see how much my ruler is taxing me... it's quite anxiety-provoking :P :P
Just wanted to say that as a duke, I can't see how much my ruler is taxing me... it's quite anxiety-provoking :P :P
Gold isn't handed out freely? Excuse me?
I don't know what realm you're playing in, but during war time my character hands out *thousands* of gold a week to anyone who asks. So, yeah, the rural regions hand out food to any region that needs it, without asking for anything back. And when gold is needed, we hand out it to who ever needs it, and don't ask for anything back.
And, honestly, I have never been in a realm where gold wasn't freely available to anyone who needed it, unless the realm was so in such bad shape that no one had gold to give.
There many other knights and lords who have the right requirements to become lord, yet they don't apear on the list.
the rich city lord is not being mr. generous. he gets to act as mr. generous because he doesn't pay his bills and other idiots, the exact same ones who complain about lack of gold, back him up with "for the good of the realm" stuff.
on the other hand, it's no longer a duke thing and when things have settled down. i would imagine dukes on dwi would eventually be mostly ruling townslands.
the rich city lord is not being mr. generous. he gets to act as mr. generous because he doesn't pay his bills and other idiots, the exact same ones who complain about lack of gold, back him up with "for the good of the realm" stuff.And you know how he is going to pay his bills? By taxing the lord. And then maybe he should start handing out invoices for protecting your region from monsters. And refuse to hand out gold when your unit gets wiped out while you try to protect it yourself. (Isn't that why you get paid for your food? So you can handle all your expenses yourself?) And when you don't sell him your food at whatever rate he wants, he'll just raise your taxes so he can buy it from elsewhere.
on the other hand, it's no longer a duke thing and when things have settled down. i would imagine dukes on dwi would eventually be mostly ruling townslands.I can't imagine why you would think that would be the case.
reason? food. towns mostly don't need to buy food. cities do. a city duke can tax a lot, but he won't get food. whereas a townsland duke won't have to think about food. and he get to tax city lords for extras.
a duke sets same tax rate for all his regions. if he's not paying for food and then attempts to up the rate, how many lords will stay?
Hm.. The new system is great :) I didn't lose much gold. Well to be fair I had nothing to lose to begin with :) .
But from reading the new report, knights seem to receive a lot of gold. Lords can adjust that in time I am sure.
Probably all of them. Lets face it if Lords don't kick up a stink about things like being expected to provide free food, they are unlikely to do much about taxes either.
Hmmm... I think we shouldn't underestimate the capacity for lords to get pissed off about their gold. From my experience, lords feel a lot different about gold than they do about food.
Question: How will the new estate system change the way that election of rulers that are currently Dukes work in Republics for instance?
ie. Right now if you are a Duke and you are elected as ruler in a republic, you automatically abdicate your lordship position of the city and become Ruler. Will this change under the new system, or would you still lose your position as Duke and lord?
I'd like this answered too. How does the new estate system effect the rulers ability to appoint himself duke as well?
reason? food. towns mostly don't need to buy food. cities do. a city duke can tax a lot, but he won't get food. whereas a townsland duke won't have to think about food. and he get to tax city lords for extras.That's an interesting idea. We'll have to see how it plays out. I personally don't see it happening, but you never know.
a duke sets same tax rate for all his regions. if he's not paying for food and then attempts to up the rate, how many lords will stay?That depends. I think very few lords care about the food their regions grow. Most would rather not have to be bothered with it at all.
Another weird thing here. . . I thought we got rid of Imperial regions?
There's still a problem with some regions in TO.
I gathered, since it exists.
My question is how do we fix it? Suggestions?
Hm.. The new system is great :) I didn't lose much gold. Well to be fair I had nothing to lose to begin with :).
But from reading the new report, knights seem to receive a lot of gold. Lords can adjust that in time I am sure.
From my experience, the most that a Lord can tax their knight is 50%. So in my case, I have only one Knight with a 50% size estate. So the least that I can give them is 25% percent of the region tax. (half of 50%). Of course, this is the upper end of the scale regarding estate size (from which they derive their gold). Many knights would have smaller estates.
Or you could just resize his estate to 1%
No, you can't. Estates have minimum sizes, too.
No, you can't. Estates have minimum sizes, too.
I see.
I created a 5% estate the other day. Didn't try to create smaller, so I didn't know. 5% is pretty darn small, though.
Point remains, as 50% of 5% is 2.5%, which is perhaps a penny more than 0.5% would have been with the rounding or just about.
Okay, so we have:
5% minimum for cities
10% for townslands
Okay, so we have:
5% minimum for cities
10% for townslands
Nope, it depends on population, not only on type. Giask has max estate size of 30%, while Shinnen of 50%. Efficiency in Shinnen Purlieus for the same estate size is different than in Outer Giask. (All this regions are of Dwilight, first two are cities, second two are townslands)
Nope, it depends on population, not only on type. Giask has max estate size of 30%, while Shinnen of 50%. Efficiency in Shinnen Purlieus for the same estate size is different than in Outer Giask. (All this regions are of Dwilight, first two are cities, second two are townslands)
Why are you comparing max estate size with min estate size? They might not follow the same rules.
If they didnt, i would be surprised.
I wouldn't be surprised if they had additional arbitrary min-max caps that vary according to city/everything else.
It sounds like you have an optimism for pessimism... wouldnt it take far more coding to do that?
I think it would be quite simple to code such caps, actually. And since estate needs varied according to region type (my rural with less peasants and income than my city required more estates), it would appear plausible that the new system also integrate a similar factor.
Hang on... how does that work? Dont cities by virtue of being full of filthy peasants need more estates? o.0
It sounds like you have an optimism for pessimism... wouldnt it take far more coding to do that?
Why are you comparing max estate size with min estate size? They might not follow the same rules.
When Torpius, noble of Luria Nova, goes to see the region of Smokey Hills, the recently TOed Imperial Region, he gets this:
http://battlemaster.org/testing/RegionDetails.php?ID=147
Fatal error: Call to a member function getName() on a non-object in /var/battlemaster/live/testing/RegionDetails.php on line 407
this is probably one of those regions that don't have a duchy, right?
need to fix that... urgently...
oh... actually... most rogue regions will not have a duchy. Doh.
Another note - regions without Duchy don't show up under 'Realm and Regions'.
Noble Joins the Realm (1 day, 21 hours ago)
Wesley A. Cunningham has joined your realm. He used to be a noble of Astrum.
Noble left the realm (1 day, 8 hours ago)
Automatic allegiances fix (Wesley A.)
Noble Joins the Realm (23 hours, 25 minutes ago)
Wesley A. Cunningham has joined your realm. He used to be a noble of Astrum.
Noble left the realm (8 hours, 48 minutes ago)
Automatic allegiances fix (Wesley A.)
Aurvandil didn't receive any taxes today, we had a tax report but zero gold reached any of us. Dunno if this has been reported or not, but thought I'd mention it.
Also, in IVF, a noble has become my knight and has an estate in my region, yet his title still read "Noble".