When kingdom leader: fief distribution is awful

[Generaljoebear]

As a kingdom leader, why does the game only select 3 of the 30 clans I have in my faction to distribute all of the fiefs? Probably over 50 have been taken since I was voted in as kingdom leader, and I have 30 clans in my faction, yet every single vote is between the same 3 clans.

At this point, these clans hold 15+ fiefs while some of the original clans have less than 5. The constant votes are annoying as is, but to stop gameplay every 3 mins to have to vote on the same 3 clans getting all of the new territory when the army leaders are diverse and a variety of clans are participating... seems like a pretty big oversight.

 

[SanyaBeli]

As a kingdom leader, why does the game only select 3 of the 30 clans I have in my faction to distribute all of the fiefs? Probably over 50 have been taken since I was voted in as kingdom leader, and I have 30 clans in my faction, yet every single vote is between the same 3 clans.

At this point, these clans hold 15+ fiefs while some of the original clans have less than 5. The constant votes are annoying as is, but to stop gameplay every 3 mins to have to vote on the same 3 clans getting all of the new territory when the army leaders are diverse and a variety of clans are participating... seems like a pretty big oversight.

There is an equation that determines who should be on the vote and it over values the distance to a clan’s other fiefs. Thus, only border clans get fiefs. The fact that they have more fiefs already doesn’t outweigh the fact that other clans have fiefs far away. It is broken and needs fixed.

In the meantime, I have found two workarounds.

First, constantly recruit. New clans with no fiefs will always be in the vote. Clans don’t really need more than 1 or 2 fiefs to field their max party size of troops and then more fiefs don’t really give them anything but a bank account. So once everyone has a few fiefs, recruit more clans and give them the new territory. Bonus points if you can recruit the right culture clans to match the fiefs you are about to take.

The other solution is what I call the hobo king. You are king of all the fiefs and don’t need to be lord of any of them. If you constantly give away all of your fiefs to other clans, you will win the vote for new fiefs. Then you give those away. And you can give them away in such a way to get equity among your clans and also match fief cultures to owners. But on the other hand, you are a hobo.

 

[Generaljoebear]

There is an equation that determines who should be on the vote and it over values the distance to a clan’s other fiefs. Thus, only border clans get fiefs. The fact that they have more fiefs already doesn’t outweigh the fact that other clans have fiefs far away. It is broken and needs fixed.

In the meantime, I have found two workarounds.

First, constantly recruit. New clans with no fiefs will always be in the vote. Clans don’t really need more than 1 or 2 fiefs to field their max party size of troops and then more fiefs don’t really give them anything but a bank account. So once everyone has a few fiefs, recruit more clans and give them the new territory. Bonus points if you can recruit the right culture clans to match the fiefs you are about to take.

The other solution is what I call the hobo king. You are king of all the fiefs and don’t need to be lord of any of them. If you constantly give away all of your fiefs to other clans, you will win the vote for new fiefs. Then you give those away. And you can give them away in such a way to get equity among your clans and also match fief cultures to owners. But on the other hand, you are a hobo.

I appreciate the temporary fixes. I like the idea of option 2, but the big drawback for me is not having that sweet sweet unlimited storage space by not having a stash.

I might rather have a system that will only merit votes when a clan has received x less fiefs (let's say 5) than the clan with the most fiefs. There are way too many votes on trivial decisions when the game only gives you 3 real choices (one more than a real democracy!). Another interesting idea to pair with that would be the ability to redistribute fiefs as a diplomatic option by spending influence, sort of like a kingdom decision or policy that allows you to shuffle the map to balance the clans in your kingdom with more cohesive territory. Finally, give us the ability to demolish buildings! I don't necessarily want the militia building upgrade!

And for the cherry on top, an additional map view that highlights fiefs of your faction by clan color/name by clicking a button. Make it easier for players to see who owns what on the campaign map in order to assign those fiefs in a way that makes sense.

I think most players want a balanced kingdom and could probably do a better job than the formulas we've had so far.

 

[SanyaBeli]

I appreciate the temporary fixes. I like the idea of option 2, but the big drawback for me is not having that sweet sweet unlimited storage space by not having a stash.

I might rather have a system that will only merit votes when a clan has received x less fiefs (let's say 5) than the clan with the most fiefs. There are way too many votes on trivial decisions when the game only gives you 3 real choices (one more than a real democracy!). Another interesting idea to pair with that would be the ability to redistribute fiefs as a diplomatic option by spending influence, sort of like a kingdom decision or policy that allows you to shuffle the map to balance the clans in your kingdom with more cohesive territory. Finally, give us the ability to demolish buildings! I don't necessarily want the militia building upgrade!

And for the cherry on top, an additional map view that highlights fiefs of your faction by clan color/name by clicking a button. Make it easier for players to see who owns what on the campaign map in order to assign those fiefs in a way that makes sense.

I think most players want a balanced kingdom and could probably do a better job than the formulas we've had so far.

Why don’t you want the militia building?

 

[JunKeteer]

I might rather have a system that will only merit votes when a clan has received x less fiefs (let's say 5) than the clan with the most fiefs. There are way too many votes on trivial decisions when the game only gives you 3 real choices (one more than a real democracy!). Another interesting idea to pair with that would be the ability to redistribute fiefs as a diplomatic option by spending influence, sort of like a kingdom decision or policy that allows you to shuffle the map to balance the clans in your kingdom with more cohesive territory. Finally, give us the ability to demolish buildings! I don't necessarily want the militia building upgrade!

Once you get to that tail-end of the late game (ie ~5 to 10+ clans in kingdom), you'll start to see that a lot of the systems/features don't really work well with 'large' kingdoms/fiefs. As the other person suggested, playing the hobo king is really the only feasible way to compensate for those inadequacies with the programmed NPCs.

And for the cherry on top, an additional map view that highlights fiefs of your faction by clan color/name by clicking a button. Make it easier for players to see who owns what on the campaign map in order to assign those fiefs in a way that makes sense.

GL getting this level of attention from TW to implement, but this is also closer to CK3/Total War features, which, as much as we wish BL had, doesn't nor ever will come close to on that end of the genres.

I think most players want a balanced kingdom and could probably do a better job than the formulas we've had so far.

The issue is that they don't know how to get themselves out of bankruptcy, how to manage fiefs, how to retain influence, how to target objectives, etc...so you end up needing to play as the second 'AI cheat' for them, on top of the ones TW already coded in place for the same reasons.
Donating your excess money to get them out of 'very poor', donating excess influence, excess fiefs, having to always be the army lead, etc...

 

[Generaljoebear]

Why don’t you want the militia building?

I do want them eventually. Specifically with towns (the only fiefs I keep) you often have to stabilize the security and loyalty for in-game months or years before it sort of "auto fixes" itself with the drift (ie never falls very far below 50 loyalty/security because of the drift factor), and if the militia is larger than the garrison and you forget to manage the town, are caught up in wars, etc., it is more likely to rebel. Always good to build it eventually, but sometimes it's more harmful than helpful if the town is de-stabilized.

 

[Generaljoebear]

Once you get to that tail-end of the late game (ie ~5 to 10+ clans in kingdom), you'll start to see that a lot of the systems/features don't really work well with 'large' kingdoms/fiefs. As the other person suggested, playing the hobo king is really the only feasible way to compensate for those inadequacies with the programmed NPCs.

I've noticed. The voting system for fiefs is pretty booboo. Diplomacy in general is kind of a skeleton compared to the other games you mentioned, you can't even keep your main in your party when you pass on your clan, AI armies went from being seemingly useful in 1.6 to pretty bad in 2.+, AI aren't very good at defending their own territory and you can't select specific behaviors (aggressive, defensive, balanced) for specific clans, etc. So many half-baked campaign mechanics, but they have good bones. And considering they only recently added warehouses to the game, I'm hopeful they at least listen to the community and may work on this side of the game in the future

GL getting this level of attention from TW to implement, but this is also closer to CK3/Total War features, which, as much as we wish BL had, doesn't nor ever will come close to on that end of the genres.

No harm in suggesting something useful :p

The issue is that they don't know how to get themselves out of bankruptcy, how to manage fiefs, how to retain influence, how to target objectives, etc...so you end up needing to play as the second 'AI cheat' for them, on top of the ones TW already coded in place for the same reasons.
Donating your excess money to get them out of 'very poor', donating excess influence, excess fiefs, having to always be the army lead, etc...

I have only chosen to lead a kingdom once but haven't really had to do these things for my clans. The one part I had to actively be involved in, even just as a vassal, was recruiting clans into the kingdom because the leader was not recruiting quickly enough to manage wars on all fronts. But other than that it's been fairly smooth sailing for me (at least in this run, have never made it this far and am playing as my main's daughter who is now 32ish).

 

[Yoshioki Ouchi]

Eh. The way clans are weighted for fief acquisition is... quirky, but I like the consistency of it since it makes it easy to game in a game where lack of control while going from one crisis to the next makes having something consistent and predictable refreshing.

My amendment to the system would be to return it to however Warband did it because I liked how you could go around, secure votes, and that people's opinions of other people heavily weighted who'd get fiefs as well. Sure, the evil troublemakers tended to get screwed out and hop from one faction to the next, but that provides an organic reason for there to be more drama between clans and a pathway for new factions to emerge from rebelling conquerors who didn't like being passed over and decided to settle matters by force.

 

[SanyaBeli]

I do want them eventually. Specifically with towns (the only fiefs I keep) you often have to stabilize the security and loyalty for in-game months or years before it sort of "auto fixes" itself with the drift (ie never falls very far below 50 loyalty/security because of the drift factor), and if the militia is larger than the garrison and you forget to manage the town, are caught up in wars, etc., it is more likely to rebel. Always good to build it eventually, but sometimes it's more harmful than helpful if the town is de-stabilized.

Frankly, that seems somewhat of a corner case. Fiefs never rebel if loyalty is above 25. While the AI seems to struggle with this, the player really shouldn't.

 

[Yoshioki Ouchi]

Frankly, that seems somewhat of a corner case. Fiefs never rebel if loyalty is above 25. While the AI seems to struggle with this, the player really shouldn't.

My advice on this matter (aimed at Generaljoebear) is to throw cash around and avoid assigning governors against the city's culture. I don't know if Loyalty affects revenues but I wouldn't be surprised if it did, but it'll likely hang around 37 unless your ruler decided to Debase the Currency or some other Loyalty-striker since those policies really hurt. In contrast, there's Policies which make Loyalty management a thing of the past so enacting them is ideal for securing your lands. Either way, it's a good idea to focus on the Fairgrounds and then, probably, stuff that sustains population growth (Food and Prosperity) and finally money.

Castles are great for storing top tier troops since they have a thing that discounts garrison costs (up to 25%? Or was it 50%? Pairs nicely with some perks. Perhaps so nicely you could store them for free?) and the income of their villages is no worse than most cities'.

 

[Generaljoebear]

Frankly, that seems somewhat of a corner case. Fiefs never rebel if loyalty is above 25. While the AI seems to struggle with this, the player really shouldn't.

I never had a fief rebel but I did notice profits disappearing off and on for the first year and found out it was because loyalty (or security?) was under 30, or whatever that number is. The militia building is very low priority for me anyway - I prefer to build development buildings first because I don't struggle with defending fiefs.

 

[Generaljoebear]

My advice on this matter (aimed at Generaljoebear) is to throw cash around and avoid assigning governors against the city's culture. I don't know if Loyalty affects revenues but I wouldn't be surprised if it did, but it'll likely hang around 37 unless your ruler decided to Debase the Currency or some other Loyalty-striker since those policies really hurt. In contrast, there's Policies which make Loyalty management a thing of the past so enacting them is ideal for securing your lands. Either way, it's a good idea to focus on the Fairgrounds and then, probably, stuff that sustains population growth (Food and Prosperity) and finally money.

Castles are great for storing top tier troops since they have a thing that discounts garrison costs (up to 25%? Or was it 50%? Pairs nicely with some perks. Perhaps so nicely you could store them for free?) and the income of their villages is no worse than most cities'.

I don't struggle with developing or defending fiefs - that's not what this topic is about. But thanks.

 

[veronicaaltoids]

Eh. The way clans are weighted for fief acquisition is... quirky, but I like the consistency of it since it makes it easy to game in a game where lack of control while going from one crisis to the next makes having something consistent and predictable refreshing.

My amendment to the system would be to return it to however Warband did it because I liked how you could go around, secure votes, and that people's opinions of other people heavily weighted who'd get fiefs as well. Sure, the evil troublemakers tended to get screwed out and hop from one faction to the next, but that provides an organic reason for there to be more drama between clans and a pathway for new factions to emerge from rebelling conquerors who didn't like being passed over and decided to settle matters by force.

no that's too time consuming, especially for late game palying when you have large kingdoms with many clans.

it;s easier just to let the player to decide