Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?

[OFaolain]

Right now, a lord with no knights can collect more gold on tax day than a lord with knights. In other words, increased density is penalized, and decreased density is rewarded.

Not true, actually.  Because all portions of the region that are not part of the lord's estate operate at 50% efficiency (and the lord's estate operates at best at 100% efficiency but likely lower than that if he has no knights), a lord with knights who has 50% lord's share tax settings will receive the same gold in income as a lord without knights, and likely more because he can reduce the size of his own estate to increase its efficiency (and also harbor more knights).

That also ignores the other benefits of having knights, which is an increase in your own personal power; there's nothing quite like being the lord of a city and having five other people answer directly to you.  It gives you a lot of sway; if in a realm of thirty people you alone control 1/5th of it, the government is going to respect the heck out of your opinion (and that of your knights if you stick up for them, which will in turn make them like you more).

[Buffalkill]

a lord with knights who has 50% lord's share tax settings will receive the same gold in income as a lord without knights, and likely more because he can reduce the size of his own estate to increase its efficiency (and also harbor more knights).

Is this realistic though? I've never seen a region with 50% lord's share and knights who are willing to stay there. It's usually closer to 10-15%.

That also ignores the other benefits of having knights, which is an increase in your own personal power; there's nothing quite like being the lord of a city and having five other people answer directly to you.  It gives you a lot of sway; if in a realm of thirty people you alone control 1/5th of it, the government is going to respect the heck out of your opinion (and that of your knights if you stick up for them, which will in turn make them like you more).

That's not realistic either. A region with 6 nobles is extremely rare, a region with 1-2 nobles is the norm.

[Zakilevo]

Is this realistic though? I've never seen a region with 50% lord's share and knights who are willing to stay there. It's usually closer to 10-15%.
That's not realistic either. A region with 6 nobles is extremely rare, a region with 1-2 nobles is the norm.

I always put 50% lord's share on my knights. If they don't like it, they can get the f out! I usually award those who dedicate more to the region. Sending them more gold or increase their estate size.

A region with 6 nobles is indeed rare. That is why we are shrinking regions to have more knights per regions.

[Dishman]

I always put 50% lord's share on my knights. If they don't like it, they can get the f out! I usually award those who dedicate more to the region. Sending them more gold or increase their estate size.

A region with 6 nobles is indeed rare. That is why we are shrinking regions to have more knights per regions.

This is why regions with 4 or 5 knights is rare. Why the hell would you tax at 50%? Use the estate system to distribute gold. If you have to hand all that gold back, skip the bank and look at how your estates are setup. You can change the estate sizes however you'd like.

You not fond of the paper trail? 

[Zakilevo]

This is why regions with 4 or 5 knights is rare. Why the hell would you tax at 50%? Use the estate system to distribute gold. If you have to hand all that gold back, skip the bank and look at how your estates are setup. You can change the estate sizes however you'd like.

You not fond of the paper trail? 

I don't distribute gold all the time. If they work, sure. They didn't do any work this week, nope all mine! Why would I want my knights to have more gold when I can keep all of it myself to build more RCs?

[Buffalkill]

I would disagree. There may be a slight return on gold, but if you spread too thin you cannot project power. If realm B is heavily invested in a profitable city and surrounding rurals, it has a defensive edge and can focus effort. Not to say there isn't an edge on gaining as many gold/food producing regions, but if you have to fight tooth and nail to keep an extra 30 gold per week...it isn't worth it. I'll avoid going into more detail, don't want to derail this into a BM military theory thread, but there is power in focused effort.

You're describing how the game should work, but I don't think it does work that way in reality, at least based on what I've seen. I think most regions have 1 noble, and only a handful have more than 2.

I always put 50% lord's share on my knights. If they don't like it, they can get the f out! I usually award those who dedicate more to the region. Sending them more gold or increase their estate size.

A region with 6 nobles is indeed rare. That is why we are shrinking regions to have more knights per regions.

But the reason you can afford to have that attitude ("If they don't like it, they can get the f out!") is that you can maintain the same level of income with or without them. My argument is that there should be meaningful consequences when knights vacate the region.

[Penchant]

But the reason you can afford to have that attitude ("If they don't like it, they can get the f out!") is that you can maintain the same level of income with or without them. My argument is that there should be meaningful consequences when knights vacate the region.

There is. The region makes less gold when its just the lord in command. That means the realm is hurting because its region's aren't making as much gold as they can. And if you look at cities, there are plenty with 5 or 6 nobles. Townslands will tend to have at least 1 or 2 knights. The rest previously I will admit it wasn't overly common to have more than 1 knight, and it wasn't exactly rare for it to be just a lord. The Ice Age and Monster Invasion are changing it from it being normal to have just the lord.

I will state this, realms with higher density though are almost always better, funner, stronger realms than those with low density. Realm size does take effect, but higher density certainly helps a realm. (Its also generally caused by the realm being fun so things to tend to be a cycle in growth/shrinkage)

[Gustav Kuriga]

There is. The region makes less gold when its just the lord in command. That means the realm is hurting because its region's aren't making as much gold as they can. And if you look at cities, there are plenty with 5 or 6 nobles. Townslands will tend to have at least 1 or 2 knights. The rest previously I will admit it wasn't overly common to have more than 1 knight, and it wasn't exactly rare for it to be just a lord. The Ice Age and Monster Invasion are changing it from it being normal to have just the lord.

I will state this, realms with higher density though are almost always better, funner, stronger realms than those with low density. Realm size does take effect, but higher density certainly helps a realm. (Its also generally caused by the realm being fun so things to tend to be a cycle in growth/shrinkage)

Also, regarding the region making less gold, why should the lord care as long as he makes more gold? While having more knights in a region would benefit the realm, it doesn't benefit a lord directly. Oh, and for those who do tax your knights at 50%, good job scaring new nobles away.

[OFaolain]

Is this realistic though? I've never seen a region with 50% lord's share and knights who are willing to stay there. It's usually closer to 10-15%.
That's not realistic either. A region with 6 nobles is extremely rare, a region with 1-2 nobles is the norm.

A knight in a big city can make 150-200 gold per week, which is more than most rural lords, let alone rural knights.  Lords of large cities can (and, IMO, should) amass 4-5 knights without too much trouble if noble density allows it; this gets very hard when noble density is low because people frequently want titles more than they want more gold.  I'd rather be "Count of Badlandia" than "Knight of Richcity" and just request gold from the realm council constantly whenever they want me to march to war.

Rurals are very rarely going to have knights, it's going to be cities (primarily) and townslands that really attract knights, and that's just fine; it's part of what makes being a Margrave a more prestigious position than being a Count.

[Zakilevo]

Even after taking 50%, my knights are getting 185 gold per week. Why would I let my knights get 300 gold each?

[Buffalkill]

I will state this, realms with higher density though are almost always better, funner, stronger realms than those with low density. Realm size does take effect, but higher density certainly helps a realm. (Its also generally caused by the realm being fun so things to tend to be a cycle in growth/shrinkage)

Yes, I think most people would agree. The problem that I see is the disconnect between what's good for the community, and what's good for the individual. The incentives overwhelmingly favour expansion over density. Consider this hypothetical. You're a regional lord and I'm a knight. My estate yields 100 gold, of which you get 50 and I get 50. Then our realm conquers a new region and I'm appointed as its lord. Now I'm getting 175 gold per week, and you're still getting 50 gold from my vacant estate. So I'm happy because the game is more fun now that my char has a title, plus my income goes up, my duke's income goes up, my ruler's income goes up, and your income stays about the same (maybe 5 gold less than before). As a realm, we gain access to whatever amenities come with the new region, e.g. food, paraphernalia, recruitment centres, strategic advantages. The effect of the reduced density is too negligible to even think about, and in any case we think that more nobles will join our realm as we continue to expand.

[OFaolain]

Buffalkill:

Which is good; it should always be better to be bigger or else there would be very little incentive for realms to expand and try to get bigger (obviously being big will come with its own challenges like distance to capital, etc.).  The problem is that when you get so big that everyone is a lord, you miss out on a lot of what's dynamic about having knights and, unfortunately, that's where a lot of realms were at.

[Zakilevo]

That is why all the realms are so huge these days. People keep crying about single duchy realms but why? When you can be bigger and better?

[Dishman]

Buffalkill:
Which is good; it should always be better to be bigger or else there would be very little incentive for realms to expand and try to get bigger (obviously being big will come with its own challenges like distance to capital, etc.).  The problem is that when you get so big that everyone is a lord, you miss out on a lot of what's dynamic about having knights and, unfortunately, that's where a lot of realms were at.

Getting bigger and bigger makes sense for a boardgame like Risk or some cardgame...but this is Battlemaster. It is a roleplaying game based loosely on medieval Europe. There is a board, pieces, and all that jazz...but there's more. We try to mimic the intricacy of thousands of characters from history, all with motivation and background, condensed for modern sensibilities and fun. The relationships between players mean more than the gold and CS.

[Ketchum]

That is why all the realms are so huge these days. People keep crying about single duchy realms but why? When you can be bigger and better?

I have been thinking of something I experienced previously. Is it not the bigger the realm size, the more disadvantage you have such as lack of control issues in the regions? Or have this situation changes with the implementation of the new estate?