Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

Estates Feedback

kokankokan Junior MemberRegistered Users Posts: 22
First, I haven't yet tried the patch but reading the list of changes I would like to propose something concerning Estates.

Other than reducing player income late game because we need to give away estates to keep loyalty in check, the current solution doesn't make much sense (logically wise: I mean, the other guy would be paying taxes on that land no? Why am I the one paying it?). It might work as a band aid for the moment, but I don't feel like it will be any sort of enjoyable solution.

I would propose the following:

- Estates held by the King or Heir pay upkeep/maintenance;
- Estates held by other nobles give money to the King (nobles still need to pay their taxes).

Then create different type of Estates with specific bonuses and different upkeep/tax return value.
For example:
1) Farms: generate food and small amounts of gold from food sales and give access to levy units.

If the farm is held by the King or Heir, the resources and income are collected in full generating faction wide bonus to replenishment, but they pay upkeep. Increases influence and loyalty by a small amount.

If held by a noble, only a part of the resources are given to the King in form of Taxes. The rest of the food is used to feed either the garrison of the city they govern or the army they sustain. Increases influence and loyalty by a small amount.

2) Villas: generate happiness, higher upkeep and more impact on influence and loyalty than farms. Give access to retinue units. When held by nobles, generate more money in form of taxes, held by the king pays more upkeep.

3) Other type of estates with different pros and cons maybe?

I think that a system like this would encourage the player to think and engage better with the lands he controls and how they are distributed. If he needs the gold he might feel tempted to give the Villas away but in return he would risk that those nobles would be more influencial than him.


Then, if you were to tie the Estates that a general/character owns to what he can do:

A general that owns farms gets access to its own pool of levies, that are fed by the lands he owns. These units would get to full force faster since they would be mustered from his lands.
Owning Villas, give access to a pool of retinues, owning stables access to horses...

The level of those estates would dictate the quantity of units available on their private pool (upgrading should be the responsability of the owner maybe?). Lacking food, the rest of the units could be supplied from the King's Pool.

The King's Pool would in turn be fuelled by the number and size of the cities and estates he owns with food coming from the various sources that already exist.

Governors would already receive influence and loyalty bonus from the post they occupy. Owning estates could maybe allow the governor to supply more garrison or patrols to its province?
Tagged:

Comments

  • ThePoshBarbarianThePoshBarbarian Registered Users Posts: 26
    Liking the idea, and sounds great!
  • holodocholodoc Registered Users Posts: 1
    like it , I totally agree that paying 100 gold for not owning a province its a cheap fix makes no sense , this proposal by kokan is more immersive, maybe not all can be implemented but you get the idea IMMERSSION ! and by the way I'm in love with thrones we need to make it shine...
  • kokankokan Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 22
    Yes, I guess not everything could be done as I say on my post, but hopefully CA gets the drift and maybe some ideias of what could be done.

    Thanks for the support guys!
  • Southern_HunterSouthern_Hunter Registered Users Posts: 134
    The Estates mechanic right now is a bit lacklustre. I agree that a more complex mechanic like you suggest would be more interesting.

    What it needs is:

    - The choice of estate you give to a general having an effect on him (i.e not all estates are identical)
    - Estates having an impact on economy (yes, they do have a simple affect now)
  • Jack_Lusted_CAJack_Lusted_CA Creative Assembly Brighton, UKRegistered Users, CA Staff Mods, CA Staff Posts: 1,250
    So to help with people discussing ideas for Estates there are a few aspects of how the game works to take into consideration.
    • Estates are generic, there is no concept of different types of Estates
    • Unit recruitment is from faction pool, characters can't have different unit pools available or get access to certain unit types more quickly
    For me, looking at the feedback people have on Estates, I think the key aspect that's off with them at the moment is the ease with which faction leader influence can be kept high, and the fact that loyalty issues for characters tend to be rare.

    Estates are meant to be a key part of character management and the politics system, giving tough choices of keeping for king to give much needed influence or handing out to raise character loyalty and keep characters happy, but now with it impacting income and also as they give an influence bonus being less useful in keeping high influence characters in line.

    So I'm going to be looking at how we can make managing faction leader influence more interesting, and doing more with other character influence and loyalty.
    Game Director - Thrones of Britannia

    Disclaimer: Any views or opinions expressed here are those of the poster and do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of Creative Assembly or SEGA.
  • JacklessJackless Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 274

    So to help with people discussing ideas for Estates there are a few aspects of how the game works to take into consideration.

    • Estates are generic, there is no concept of different types of Estates
    • Unit recruitment is from faction pool, characters can't have different unit pools available or get access to certain unit types more quickly
    For me, looking at the feedback people have on Estates, I think the key aspect that's off with them at the moment is the ease with which faction leader influence can be kept high, and the fact that loyalty issues for characters tend to be rare.

    Estates are meant to be a key part of character management and the politics system, giving tough choices of keeping for king to give much needed influence or handing out to raise character loyalty and keep characters happy, but now with it impacting income and also as they give an influence bonus being less useful in keeping high influence characters in line.

    So I'm going to be looking at how we can make managing faction leader influence more interesting, and doing more with other character influence and loyalty.
    Hello Jack,

    I remember in Attila, Nobles would get unhappy if a less influentual or a lower level character would receive an office and they didnt.
    Maybe the existing code for that could be used to create a system where higher level characters would become angry if their efforts arent rewarded with estates and instead lower level characters receive them.

    This could lead to some interesting decisions where you may need to give out estates to a low level but unloyal character and your high ranking generals may take that as an offence.
    Maybe this could be further developed by giving some characters bad traits that make them very jealous or easily offended if the player makes a decision that isnt to their benefit.
    This would provide a need for more deliberate political actions by the player and would encourage the use of political actions other than "Secure Loyalty".
    Taking away estates or offices should also affect more than just the character they belong to but also other nobles that feel like the king overstepped his privileges.

    Now that estates not in the hands of the king cost money was a step in the right direction although the fixed value of 100 gold may only be impactful during the early game. If it is possible, a percantage of the settlements or provinces tax income would probably be a bit more impactful even later on in the game.


    The loyalty bonuses I got in my Gwyned campaign for the kingdom victory also gave a huge +2 Loyalty for all characters. Maybe instead of increasing the loyalty it should be decreased when your kingdom grows so large because other nobles would become jealous.
    At least I would recommend taking this loyalty bonus out of the game because during the endgame or at least half way into the campaign is the exact point where internal conflicts should be more of a problem to prevent the player from steamrolling.

    Thanks for taking your time and listening to feedback!
  • ExarchExarch Registered Users Posts: 132
    I like Jackless' loyalty suggestion if it is not too complex to implement (and would need to be clear in the UI!).

    And I think he makes a very good point with the extra bonuses to influence and loyalty that factions get through mechanics and victory conditions. These take away the need for your king to earn his own influence, and control individual noble's loyalties, making everything a lot easier.

    Maybe there could be a gradual penalty to the kings influence that builds up as you expand due to 'decentralisation', which needs to be combated by legitimacy, tech and estates, as well as by political actions. It will be another factor to balance, but done right would mean influence and loyalty would become greater issues later game.
  • JacklessJackless Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 274
    @Exarch

    Just found this mod: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1386757892

    It makes things harder and more dynamic. This could be a good base for further updates.
  • kokankokan Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 22
    Jackless said:

    @Exarch

    Just found this mod: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1386757892

    It makes things harder and more dynamic. This could be a good base for further updates.


    That mod looks interesting. Thanks for sharing!
  • kokankokan Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 22
    edited May 16

    So to help with people discussing ideas for Estates there are a few aspects of how the game works to take into consideration.

    • Estates are generic, there is no concept of different types of Estates
    • Unit recruitment is from faction pool, characters can't have different unit pools available or get access to certain unit types more quickly
    For me, looking at the feedback people have on Estates, I think the key aspect that's off with them at the moment is the ease with which faction leader influence can be kept high, and the fact that loyalty issues for characters tend to be rare.

    Estates are meant to be a key part of character management and the politics system, giving tough choices of keeping for king to give much needed influence or handing out to raise character loyalty and keep characters happy, but now with it impacting income and also as they give an influence bonus being less useful in keeping high influence characters in line.

    So I'm going to be looking at how we can make managing faction leader influence more interesting, and doing more with other character influence and loyalty.
    Hi @Jack_Lusted_CA ,

    Thanks for dropping by.

    I understand that there is no concept of different estates in the game. Nor there is the different pools between generals which is why I suggested this in the first place since it would help to immerse the player a lot more during the entire campaign and not just bother with the mechanic during the early game.

    I also understand that making this, or any part of it happen might not be trivial or even possible for ToB but hopefully, it could lead you guys to find a better solution than what we have right now and for future titles.


    Because the way I see it from playing the game, having estates simply to influence, well, Influence and Loyalty will always make the mechanic obsolete late game. There are just too many ways to go around it: Feasts, Increase Loyalty, Reduce Influence, game events, traits, wifes… we can even kill off the general if we feel he will become too bothersome or wait to stomp him out if he rebels.

    So, just making it harder for the King to get Influence will never make the estates a good mechanic and will instead make it a chore with which the player will never feel real engagement with. The flow of the game will always be the same.

    By creating different estates, or by just simply giving more effects to an estate such as:
    IF held by King -> costs upkeep but all the effects (food, happiness, research…) are given to the faction
    IF held by Noble -> reduced effects to the faction but we get some tax money in return and we wouldn't be paying upkeep

    Would make it so that deciding to give an estate to improve a noble's loyalty would require a lot more forethought and would make the mechanic more relevant late game since it would impact the economy throughout the entire campaign.

    Hell, this alone could make a good fix for the problems we have right now with how easy the late game is with food and money since this system would prevent the player from having both lots of food or lots of cash.

  • tak22tak22 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,236

    So I'm going to be looking at how we can make managing faction leader influence more interesting, and doing more with other character influence and loyalty.

    I've already commented a bit on this, and I get the impression you are reading what we say pretty closely, so I won't rehash everything here (except maybe in outline). But a few thoughts:
    • I don't think we should need to spend time managing loyalty for low-influence characters. They don't have influence, therefore they are not a threat. (I'm not saying to remove all chance of rebellion, since you do have historical instances of individual minor nobles getting hacked off over this or that and acting stupid about it, but minor revolts should be quite infrequent.

    • The higher the influence a character has, the harder it should be to manage their loyalty. Loyalty traits, governing how reliable an individual is, could modify this. There can be characters with maybe even higher influence than the king, who will never pose a problem. But there would also be characters who'd start making trouble the moment they have any clout.

    • At least since R2, TW seems to have struggled between making internal dynamics either arbitrary or manageable; I think the goal would be a system that's partially manageable; i.e., you can do a good bit to mitigate a situation, and most of the time (between 60% to 90%) you can control it. But there are situations in life & in history that can't be controlled no matter what, or that offer no good choices. That's what's going to add excitement & narrative to a game. (It's also why most combat systems in games use a dice roll modified by stats & player decisions - a balance between control and randomness).

    • The goal, as I've said before, should be that most political situations can be managed, but that when they aren't, it has a significant effect on the game. One region breaking away, or a tiny stack popping up, or one general switching sides after you've moved him to your weakest army, aren't exciting, they're nuisances (although I can't remember the last time I saw even that happen in a TW game - the closest would be in ED, but those were all triggered on my terms). OTOH, having say between 25% and 60% of a kingdom - the player's or the AI's - start a civil war adds excitement and challenge to the game (when it happens to the player) and can break up an otherwise stable map (when it happens to the AI).
  • LESAMALESAMA Member Registered Users Posts: 356
    kokan said:

    So to help with people discussing ideas for Estates there are a few aspects of how the game works to take into consideration.

    • Estates are generic, there is no concept of different types of Estates
    • Unit recruitment is from faction pool, characters can't have different unit pools available or get access to certain unit types more quickly
    For me, looking at the feedback people have on Estates, I think the key aspect that's off with them at the moment is the ease with which faction leader influence can be kept high, and the fact that loyalty issues for characters tend to be rare.

    Estates are meant to be a key part of character management and the politics system, giving tough choices of keeping for king to give much needed influence or handing out to raise character loyalty and keep characters happy, but now with it impacting income and also as they give an influence bonus being less useful in keeping high influence characters in line.

    So I'm going to be looking at how we can make managing faction leader influence more interesting, and doing more with other character influence and loyalty.
    Hi @Jack_Lusted_CA ,

    Thanks for dropping by.

    I understand that there is no concept of different estates in the game. Nor there is the different pools between generals which is why I suggested this in the first place since it would help to immerse the player a lot more during the entire campaign and not just bother with the mechanic during the early game.

    I also understand that making this, or any part of it happen might not be trivial or even possible for ToB but hopefully, it could lead you guys to find a better solution than what we have right now and for future titles.


    Because the way I see it from playing the game, having estates simply to influence, well, Influence and Loyalty will always make the mechanic obsolete late game. There are just too many ways to go around it: Feasts, Increase Loyalty, Reduce Influence, game events, traits, wifes… we can even kill off the general if we feel he will become too bothersome or wait to stomp him out if he rebels.

    So, just making it harder for the King to get Influence will never make the estates a good mechanic and will instead make it a chore with which the player will never feel real engagement with. The flow of the game will always be the same.

    By creating different estates, or by just simply giving more effects to an estate such as:
    IF held by King -> costs upkeep but all the effects (food, happiness, research…) are given to the faction
    IF held by Noble -> reduced effects to the faction but we get some tax money in return and we wouldn't be paying upkeep

    Would make it so that deciding to give an estate to improve a noble's loyalty would require a lot more forethought and would make the mechanic more relevant late game since it would impact the economy throughout the entire campaign.

    Hell, this alone could make a good fix for the problems we have right now with how easy the late game is with food and money since this system would prevent the player from having both lots of food or lots of cash.

    Fully agree here especially with regard to food and late game.

    I would suggest the following:
    Estates given away reduce income as currently implemented and reduce food reflecting the support of the nobles household + increases loyalty and influence of the nobel
    Estates held by the crown reduces corruption on national level with x% with no food penalty reflecting that the king has the full benefit of the estates held but reduces loyalty and increases influence of the king

    This off course would require some serious balancing with regard to how loyalty works while it currently is to easy to manage.
  • kokankokan Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 22
    LESAMA said:

    kokan said:

    So to help with people discussing ideas for Estates there are a few aspects of how the game works to take into consideration.

    • Estates are generic, there is no concept of different types of Estates
    • Unit recruitment is from faction pool, characters can't have different unit pools available or get access to certain unit types more quickly
    For me, looking at the feedback people have on Estates, I think the key aspect that's off with them at the moment is the ease with which faction leader influence can be kept high, and the fact that loyalty issues for characters tend to be rare.

    Estates are meant to be a key part of character management and the politics system, giving tough choices of keeping for king to give much needed influence or handing out to raise character loyalty and keep characters happy, but now with it impacting income and also as they give an influence bonus being less useful in keeping high influence characters in line.

    So I'm going to be looking at how we can make managing faction leader influence more interesting, and doing more with other character influence and loyalty.
    Hi @Jack_Lusted_CA ,

    Thanks for dropping by.

    I understand that there is no concept of different estates in the game. Nor there is the different pools between generals which is why I suggested this in the first place since it would help to immerse the player a lot more during the entire campaign and not just bother with the mechanic during the early game.

    I also understand that making this, or any part of it happen might not be trivial or even possible for ToB but hopefully, it could lead you guys to find a better solution than what we have right now and for future titles.


    Because the way I see it from playing the game, having estates simply to influence, well, Influence and Loyalty will always make the mechanic obsolete late game. There are just too many ways to go around it: Feasts, Increase Loyalty, Reduce Influence, game events, traits, wifes… we can even kill off the general if we feel he will become too bothersome or wait to stomp him out if he rebels.

    So, just making it harder for the King to get Influence will never make the estates a good mechanic and will instead make it a chore with which the player will never feel real engagement with. The flow of the game will always be the same.

    By creating different estates, or by just simply giving more effects to an estate such as:
    IF held by King -> costs upkeep but all the effects (food, happiness, research…) are given to the faction
    IF held by Noble -> reduced effects to the faction but we get some tax money in return and we wouldn't be paying upkeep

    Would make it so that deciding to give an estate to improve a noble's loyalty would require a lot more forethought and would make the mechanic more relevant late game since it would impact the economy throughout the entire campaign.

    Hell, this alone could make a good fix for the problems we have right now with how easy the late game is with food and money since this system would prevent the player from having both lots of food or lots of cash.

    Fully agree here especially with regard to food and late game.

    I would suggest the following:
    Estates given away reduce income as currently implemented and reduce food reflecting the support of the nobles household + increases loyalty and influence of the nobel
    Estates held by the crown reduces corruption on national level with x% with no food penalty reflecting that the king has the full benefit of the estates held but reduces loyalty and increases influence of the king

    This off course would require some serious balancing with regard to how loyalty works while it currently is to easy to manage.
    The problem with that approach for me is that late in the game I will have no reason to give away lands since I will have plenty of ways to handle loyalty, even if it means me sacrificing a general.

    If I don't give lands, I don't have reduced income or reduced food and it will play as it plays now with even more benefits.


    Let me provide an example:

    My first campaign with Alfred (vanilla, no patch or mods), by the time I achieved the Ultimate Victory my faction held a total of 39 estates, with 13 held by the king alone and then the others distributed between the generals (1 per general except two or three guys that have 3 each) - FYI I don't even have a third of the map as seen below:




    So if I were to go full on conquest, this number would skyrocket.

    Even holding all these estates, there is no general even thinking of rebellion with the lowest loyalty at 4 for a guy that doesn't own estates!

    With the current patch, i.e., the king paying for land given to others I would be loosing a bit of money but at this point it would be irrelevant and I could easily reduce the number of total estates by demolishing the villas. Not to mention that I could use any other tool to control them with money, which I would have plenty if I didn't give them estates.


    I do understand that finding a way to make this mechanic work properly through the entire campaign would require CA to redo some things, but it needs to be done. Not to mention that the Villa building is useless with the current patch.

    Lets look at it:

    The mechanic: Estates are genderless, and exist to generate loyalty and influence.

    Vanilla: If I have lots of estates, nobles get a loyalty penalty. Building the Villa building is an easy way to generate estates (like I did on the game that I described above), and therefore they give A LOT of margin to keep the other guys loyal. No pros or cons late game.

    Patch: If I have lots of estates, nobles get a loyalty penalty. I can give them estates. By giving estates I lose money… so I just won't build the Villa anymore because it serves no other purpose than to generate estates. If I don't build Estate generating buildings, the penalty will never apply until I capture a new one. An effect that I can counter easily with some money.


    If the Estates weren't genderless, i.e. Church, Villas, Farms, Hunting Grounds had each a buff or debuff applied depending on holder and type there would be a clear purpose to them and we would use the system for longer.

    Right now, the easiest way would be to have only farms generate estates and apply the following conditions:

    - Estates held by King: Pay Upkeep (reduced income) but reap full benefits of food.
    - Estates held by Noble: No upkeep for the King but the faction gets reduced food and gets some extra tax money from the lands.

    This way, the player would have more of an incentive during the entire campaign to manage the estates:
    - If he gives out too many estates he risks losing lots of food in exchange of money and loyalty and influence
    - If he keeps too many in order to keep the food, he risks losing money to maintain the lands but will have loyalty issues.

    Not sure if I am being clear at this point xD
  • JacklessJackless Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 274
    @kokan

    It wouldnt make sense if the king would receive more taxes when he gives out estates.

    Rather let estates provide some income when you hold them and when you dont you lose that income.
    If Estates provide a percentage of the tax income of the province (or if they dont hold a reference to the province, a percentage of the global tax income would do aswell) it would make them important throughout the game, especially if the value is high enough.

    Making them essential to your factions income is enough to make them matter and to force the player to only give them out deliberately.

    If they always provide a bonus there isnt much incentive to keep them for yourself.
  • TlaxtlanSoothsayerTlaxtlanSoothsayer Registered Users Posts: 1,169
    edited May 18
    Right now the whole Estate mechanic is underwhelming.

    In the early game it goes like this:
    1. Your king holds more than 3 Estates.
    2. Your generals and governors become disloyal.
    3. Give someone 1 of your Estates.
    4. Rinse and repeat.
    This just feels like unnecessary work, especially when you conquer a lot of territory quickly.
    As others have mentioned before the Villa building is pretty useless, too, there is no reason to ever construct this building.

    I don't know how much of this mechanic is hard coded, because Jack Lusted already mentioned that Estates are generic. But different strategies to handle Estates w(ith clear benefits or downsides) would be a welcome change.

    The -100 income is maybe a step in the right direction, but it's not enough to make the mechanic interesting.


    "In the beginning the Universe Internet was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
  • kokankokan Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 22
    edited May 18
    Jackless said:

    @kokan

    It wouldnt make sense if the king would receive more taxes when he gives out estates.

    Rather let estates provide some income when you hold them and when you dont you lose that income.
    If Estates provide a percentage of the tax income of the province (or if they dont hold a reference to the province, a percentage of the global tax income would do aswell) it would make them important throughout the game, especially if the value is high enough.

    Making them essential to your factions income is enough to make them matter and to force the player to only give them out deliberately.

    If they always provide a bonus there isnt much incentive to keep them for yourself.

    Yah, I didn't articulate that well.

    Lets say only farms exist as estates with all the current stats (income from farm and food).

    If that estate was held by the king he would pay upkeep (ie, the income from the farm would be reduced) but he would get all the food.

    If it was held by others, the faction gets the full income (ie, no upkeep from that farm) but would get reduced food.

    ---- The logic is:
    - if the kings holds the land, he still needs to pay the workers of the land but the food is available, so overall the income from the farm is reduced.
    - if a noble holds the land, he still needs to pay taxes on the land so the faction gets the full income but he uses part of the food to sell and make money for example.

    I just don't think that its logic that the king pays for someone else to hold the title of the land if that guy would be profiting from it xD and that bugs me way more than it should I will admit.

    -----

    Bottom line: if held by king reduced gdp income but full food, if held by other full gdp income but reduced food.


    This should help to regulate the end game surplus that we have now, if only in part.

    Imagine the game I described above:

    If all those estates were farms and each were giving 1000 gold and 100 food, they would be netting me 39000 gold and 3900 food.

    With the patch, I would be down 2600 gold, which is nothing.

    With my suggestion, lets imagine a 50% debuff to both food and gdp.

    King holds 13 farms:
    - 13 x 100 food = 1300 food
    - 13 x 50% x 1000 gold = 6500 gold

    Nobles hold 26 farms:
    - 26 x 50% x 100 = 650 food
    - 26 x 1000 gold = 26000 gold

    Total: 1950 food and 32500 gold.


    Still lots of both, but I just lost the ability to feed half my armies (if all that food was spent on them).

    If the only estates available are farms, instead of coming from 4 different places, I think it would require the player to put a lot more thought on how he distributes the estates to balance loyalty. I

    The choices would be: should I sacrifice income or food? Instead of: too many estates? Ok. Give 1.


    If there were different types of estates with different buff and debuff depending on holder, it should help make the mechanic feel relevant for the entire game.
    Post edited by kokan on
  • ExarchExarch Registered Users Posts: 132
    I think the -100 is meant to represent the lost income from the king not owning the estate, not him paying them to take it!

    With East Engle I have lots of low loyalty characters accross the board, so the loyalty game is mor engaging- and with that estates are a little bit more important.

    A (more complex) addition to the system I would like is for characters to lose loyalty if you reward less worthy characters estates before them. That way it really would be a tough game to balance all the interests, instead of just firefighting the least loyal all athe time. Could add jealousy traits, personal rivals, or just sort by rank like in Attila
  • kokankokan Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 22
    Exarch said:

    I think the -100 is meant to represent the lost income from the king not owning the estate, not him paying them to take it!

    With East Engle I have lots of low loyalty characters accross the board, so the loyalty game is mor engaging- and with that estates are a little bit more important.

    A (more complex) addition to the system I would like is for characters to lose loyalty if you reward less worthy characters estates before them. That way it really would be a tough game to balance all the interests, instead of just firefighting the least loyal all athe time. Could add jealousy traits, personal rivals, or just sort by rank like in Attila

    Ok, I can live with that reasoning.

    But the solution still only makes things harder early game when your income is small and will have no impact later… still think that there should be more ramifications to the mechanic than only loss of income in exchange of loyalty. Late game you will end up being better off by buying that loyalty than give out estates.
Sign In or Register to comment.