No man is an island, not even a noble man

[Buffalkill]

Title: Optimal number of nobles per region

Summary: A lord cannot effectively govern a region all by himself. Regions should have a preset optimal number of nobles in order to maintain good order, and achieve maximum production. The specific requirement would depend on the size and type of region. Let's say min. 4 nobles per city, 5 for large cities, 3 for townslands, 3 for rurals, and 1 for badlands.

Details: A region cannot achieve maximum production if it doesn't have enough nobles to manage it properly. (Note that I'm talking about implied management, it doesn't require the nobles to actually do anything differently) If a region drops below the minimum, law & order, production, & morale drop proportionally. For example, if the optimal number of nobles is 3 but the region has only 1 (a lord) then the maximum achievable production, loyalty, morale would be, let's say 50 or 60%. With a lord and 1 knight, the maximum rises to 75-80%, and with a lord and 2 knights (the optimal number) you can finally achieve 100%.


Optional feature: If a region goes rogue due to neglect, the same nobles are not immediately allowed back in, which means the duke needs to appoint somebody new. (I got this idea while reading about Tostig Godwinson, Earl of Northumbria who mismanaged his region so badly that the population revolted and refused to let him back in.)

Benefits:

• Increased density;
• Increased RP;
• Fealty, bargaining, and rewarding loyalty become much more important. If I need another knight to stabilise my region, I need to woo him and make it worth his while; I might also have to negotiate his release from his current liege by offering compensation or promises that I may (or may not) intend to keep; dukes and rulers can induce nobles to manage undesirable (but strategically important) regions by promising them a promotion, and if they fail to keep their promises, cheated nobles will have a good RP pretext to abandon the region and laugh an evil laugh while it descends into roguedom;
• Higher-ups will need to engage more with their vassals, which makes it more interesting for the knights, especially newbies who might be shy at first about initiating interactions with other players; dukes and lords can no longer just be drones.
• It's consistent with Tom's credo that every decision has a consequence. Realms can still choose to take as many regions as they are capable of, but there is a cost that goes along with spreading themselves too thinly. So Realm A with 30 nobles and 30 regions may look impressive on the map, but Realm B with 30 nobles and 15 regions will likely have more wealth and a stronger army.
• It fixes the anomaly in the current game in which it's actually better for lords if they have no knights, because knights cut into their tax revenue. This shouldn't be the case. It should be in the lord's interest to attract knights to his region. (I know even Anaris agrees with me about that)

Possible Downsides/Exploits: Nothing we can't handle. Shifting loyalties, hard-bargaining, back-stabbing, managed abandonment of regions

[Zakilevo]

Welcome to pre 2011 or 2012?

It used to be pretty hard to govern a region without knights.

[Buffalkill]

Welcome to pre 2011 or 2012?

It used to be pretty hard to govern a region without knights.

That's a little before my time, but I think whatever the situation was then, in the present land owners are too comfortable. They can essentially sit on a region by themselves and collect all the gold while doing nothing.

[Zakilevo]

This is a game... you don't want to make people feel like they are doing work. That is what the old system pretty much made you feel.

[trying]

Oh man the switching between production and authority whatnot. That would just tank the game.

[Stabbity]

Yeah, under the old system, things became "Region maintenance master"

[Deytheur]

I doubt this would lead to a higher noble density, just more rogue regions.

It would also lead to less fun for lords who just need to sit in their region the whole time trying to stop it from revolting and less war and whatnot in general if there are whole realms that need to do that.
 
I imagine that improving the knights' estate mechanic (maybe coming at some point in the future when Delvin has time^TM)) will give extra benefits for having more knights rather than disadvantages for having less and that seems a fairer way to go.

[vonGenf]

Another disadvantage of the old system was that many realms had no possibility of expansion. If you already have the maximum number of regions your realm can handle there is no possible benefit of going to war, only risks. The new system made it so that all realms could always keep expanding; you can even have Lordless regions which are almost stable if they have enough stockpiled food.

The new region maintenance system really opened the floor for more wars.

[Buffalkill]

Guys, I'm not advocating for the "old system".

[Anaris]

Guys, I'm not advocating for the "old system".

You say that, but I don't really see a great deal of difference.

[Buffalkill]

If anyone has been around long enough to remember the "old system", how how could this feature be implemented while avoiding the undesirable consequences with the old system?

[vonGenf]

If anyone has been around long enough to remember the "old system", how how could this feature be implemented while avoiding the undesirable consequences with the old system?

You can't make the region go rogue if it doesn't have enough knights. You must always make realms crave more regions - that's the basis for war. However you can give more incentive to being a knight than currently - more good, more food, more buildings for example. But it should always be desirable for a realm to gain more regions to make its knights Lords.

You want to increase density, and that's good, but you need a system where the realms are naturally drawn to decreasing their density. Otherwise unless you have a surplus of players eternal peace will become the equilibrium position.

Out of your request, I really like the optional feature though, although this adresses the turnaround problem more than the density problem.

[Stabbity]

If anyone has been around long enough to remember the "old system", how how could this feature be implemented while avoiding the undesirable consequences with the old system?

You can't.

[Indirik]

In any system, it should *always* be desirable for a realm to take more regions. There should never be a negative aspect to expansion, as far as game mechanics are concerned. We want to create reasons for people to declare war, rather than to not declare war.

[Buffalkill]

You say that, but I don't really see a great deal of difference.

Well for starters Dwilight has about half as many regions now as it used to but still a relatively large player base, for now. So concerns about realms being too spread out and not enough nobles to allow realms to expand are unfounded.


It would seem like a good opportunity to re-try some ideas that didn't work out the first time given the change of circumstances. The hard reality is that, with half the regions, many former lords will be reduced to knights anyway. This would give those knights a more critical role in their realms, increased leverage. It may be enough to prevent a few quitters. I know you're expecting a spate of quitters, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to reduce the number of quitters.

You can't make the region go rogue if it doesn't have enough knights. You must always make realms crave more regions - that's the basis for war. However you can give more incentive to being a knight than currently - more good, more food, more buildings for example. But it should always be desirable for a realm to gain more regions to make its knights Lords.

You want to increase density, and that's good, but you need a system where the realms are naturally drawn to decreasing their density. Otherwise unless you have a surplus of players eternal peace will become the equilibrium position.

Out of your request, I really like the optional feature though, although this adresses the turnaround problem more than the density problem.

Excellent points. I think under this feature they still can expand, but they will need to acquire the manpower to do so, which will incentivise players to recruit their friends, and to try to woo nobles away from other realms by offering them a lordship or a lower tax rate.


One perverse feature of the current game is that it's actually better for lords if they have no knights, because knights cut into their tax revenue. This shouldn't be the case. It should be in the lord's interest to attract knights to his region.


Given the feedback on this FR, it can be changed so that low-density regions don't have to go rogue necessarily, but just suffer decreased morale, production. So one or two nobles can keep the region loyal, but it won't reach 100% stats.

Just because I'm brainstorming here, I'm not going to create a separate FR yet, but...

Working off of another idea I think from the new combat package (I skimmed it, so it's probably just a couple random words I remember), what about making each region type have some sort of specialty, unlocking more as more knights take residence? It should be something necessary for typical well-functioning realms, but not something that cripples realms without it. The benefits will accumulate rather than being exclusive per level.

So, for example ("resident" is either a lord or knight):
Region A: Rural, 1 resident - Scouts, 2 residents - Banners, 3 residents - Marketplace
Region B: Large city, 1 resident - Banners, 2 residents - Healers, 3 residents - Forge, 4 residents - Siege Engines, 5 residents - Efficient Academies

For ease of implementation (it'd be a pretty big change anyway), we'd want to look at making the rewards standard across region types, but we also need to develop some level of balance. As such, I've thrown in a little bit of a mixture of ideas just to get the wheels spinning... The reward concepts I just thought of are as follows, with some labels that overlap at the moment:

• Existing Rewards: Providing normally gold-based purchases (already available to the region type) makes it so there's a failsafe for no increase in player density. You can either get another knight or pay X gold. Realms that want to expand can, but should expect it to be more costly if they want the full compliment of a region's benefits. (This also mirrors realistic increases in cost for expanding a nation.)
• Bonus Rewards: Similar to Existing Rewards, but these rewards would not normally be available for purchase in that region type. Think of it like a family brings their own servants that make something new at their estate. Maybe they took up a cotton farm and put their personal bannermakers to work?
• Improvements: Increase the capabilities of an existing building. In my example, Efficient Academies would apply to the region's existing Academy, making it more likely (not by a lot, but something noticeable) that you'll increase a skill. The intended advantage here being that it's clearly an incentive, but it doesn't give larger or smaller realms a real edge. Other improvements could be slightly larger granary capacity or make a forge repair slightly more per hour or gold.

Thinking about it a little more, I'd actually probably have the rewards start at 2+ residents. It's all just an idea right now.

I like this idea. I think it has potential.

You can't.

Not with your attitude.