Duchy/City separation

[Eirikr]

Though I still instinctively think in terms of rank that one has held, I haven't seen any evidence of rank since I returned to BM last January. The royal rank for former rulers looks like newer code than what used to exist and is likely the only existing instance of a rank being held after you lose it. Dukes, lords, knights, and nobles are all based upon currently-held positions.

Such rank is also only held as long as you remain a member of that realm; Ravendon is no longer a "Royal of Coria" in the code.

Of course, he will always be The Last Consul in the players' minds.

[De-Legro]

I am just used to thinking of everyone without a title as a knight. I have always considered nobles to be knights, just not knight of such and such. However Stabbity is right, the game never calls them such.

[Penchant]

I am just used to thinking of everyone without a title as a knight. I have always considered nobles to be knights, just not knight of such and such. However Stabbity is right, the game never calls them such.

Yeah, I mean I always call landless nobles knights too (sometimes Lord depending on the person) but I mean actually being knight of a region, with the title, without having an estate. It doesn't seem like it should be difficult to code, at least not if being able to become a knight of a region by being in the same region of the lord is possible. The main purpose would be for nobles who don't gold (rich people and priests) to be able to be in a knight of a region, without having to take 5% from other people needlessly when they don't have much of a desire for it.

[egamma]

Yeah, I mean I always call landless nobles knights too (sometimes Lord depending on the person) but I mean actually being knight of a region, with the title, without having an estate. It doesn't seem like it should be difficult to code, at least not if being able to become a knight of a region by being in the same region of the lord is possible. The main purpose would be for nobles who don't gold (rich people and priests) to be able to be in a knight of a region, without having to take 5% from other people needlessly when they don't have much of a desire for it.

If they don't want the gold, then they can be a knight of a rural or badlands, and the lord tax the priest 50%. The lord will actually be getting the same amount of gold as he would be getting without the knight, due to the inefficiency of having wild lands. So the priests income would actually be "free gold".

[Jaden]

If they don't want the gold, then they can be a knight of a rural or badlands, and the lord tax the priest 50%. The lord will actually be getting the same amount of gold as he would be getting without the knight, due to the inefficiency of having wild lands. So the priests income would actually be "free gold".

Is this just true for estates at 100% efficiency? As i understand it, You collect tax at 50% effiency for wildlands/vacant estates, while you collect 50% of the tax collected (which may or may not be 100%).

[egamma]

Is this just true for estates at 100% efficiency? As i understand it, You collect tax at 50% effiency for wildlands/vacant estates, while you collect 50% of the tax collected (which may or may not be 100%).

Wildlands collect at 50%. Vacant estates collect at most 50%; estate efficiency is calculated first, then cut in half.

[trying]

So it's better to have wildlands than empty estates?

[Vita`]

Having wildlands means you don't have open estates appear for new characters looking to join a duchy/realm, which means you're less likely to get new realmmates.

[trying]

Eh. With the low player  counts these days the cities have plenty of open estates so the new characters can go there. They'll be better off there too.

[Penchant]

So it's better to have wildlands than empty estates?

No, they are equally good. He is ill-informed on that matter.

[egamma]

No, they are equally good. He is ill-informed on that matter.

You should check your own taxes. Also, Duke Kendal performed his own experiments for quite some time after the New Estate system went into place, and confirmed that he got more taxes with empty estates sized at 10% (100% efficiency), than he did with an empty estate sized at 40% (80% or so efficiency. And wildlands are automatically 100% efficient.

[Penchant]

You should check your own taxes. Also, Duke Kendal performed his own experiments for quite some time after the New Estate system went into place, and confirmed that he got more taxes with empty estates sized at 10% (100% efficiency), than he did with an empty estate sized at 40% (80% or so efficiency. And wildlands are automatically 100% efficient.

Well I can guarantee thats false simply based off math. 10*100%=10, 40*80%=32, 32>10. The % of the regions tax gold received would be 50% of that but that won't change the anything (16>5).

[De-Legro]

Well I can guarantee thats false simply based off math. 10*100%=10, 40*80%=32, 32>10. The % of the regions tax gold received would be 50% of that but that won't change the anything (16>5).

Yes but 4 estates at 10% = 40 which is greater then then the single one at 80%. Regardless, so long as the estate is at 100% efficiency it is the same income as wildlands, but since we are apparently awash with gold that no one can spend, why argue over a handful of gold coins.

[Vita`]

but since we are apparently awash with gold that no one can spend, why argue over a handful of gold coins.

...because we're petty gold-grubbing nobles?

[Jaden]

That's because there's a lot of gold in the system, so you have to squeeze out every ounch of gold from it so that you can have a comparative advantage