SP - General 1.5.7 BETA: Serfdom Policy causing negative prosperity

[Kyias]

So in my current campaign, Vlandia passed the Sergdom Kingdom policy. It gives some OK bonuses but it yields a -1 prosperity change.

The has caused nearly every castle (and 1-2 towns) to have a negative prosperity growth. This has resulted in 4 castles officially at 0 prosperity and nearly all others at 500 or much less...many are under 300.

The negative prosperity, paired with the new Pillaging mechanic has destroyed the border territories due to this -1 from the policy.

I believe it needs to be much lower, or base prosperity of castles needs to be increased. With this policy in place there is a constant -.30 to -.70 for most castles, and most cities (lacking the prosperity improvement in city or from a governor) is only at +.5 prosperity growth.

Since it is nearly impossible to reverse a Kingdom policy once enacted, it is proving to be a very unbalanced Policy in the current form.

Thanks!

 

[Zorion_no]

I want to toss in my hat on this that the the serfdome penalty is too high -1 prosperity is much too high.

While I never struggle with it as the player, I notice that "all" the castles in the kingdome is either at 0 prosperity or moveing down down.
Towns have alot of prosperity going on so they dont get hit as hard.

Either dial it down to from what I can see too 0,5 or 0,7 at most that way the castles would have in general enough to stay at a positive number and not at 0.

I get that liveing in a type of slavery isnt attractive, but its too harsh a penalty that the AI cant cope with it even(even castles owned by their own starting faction is now on the trend of going down).

--
Edit

So looking more at it, its cause the kingdomes dont have enough governors to place in those castles.
Should they have a governor typically that one would give +1 to prosperity, and thus mitigate the negative from serfdome.

But since the distribution of castles and cities for that matter often isnt "fair" or dont get redistributed later on when more lords join(from defections etc) you end up with many castles with 0 prosperity.

So to counter this you either need to make the lords abit more keen on redistributing fiefs than what it is today.
In my long game there is 1 unpopular lord, and his fiefs (1 city + 1 castle) is 20% intrest in giveing it to others.
The problem though is if I propose it and spend all my influence - I loose tons of relations with that lord, and yet it dont flip over.
(note I'm not king).
Even now at 2k days there is one clan with 3 members and 8fiefs they control, besides the 2 towns they have all the castles have 0 prosperity.

Imo there should be a mechanics in play where if a castle have negative prosperity so that it ends up at 0 -> that castle should be offered up after some time to other lords "automagically" cause the owner "arent fit to govern it"(or lack of governor in this case).
I've never seen a castle revolt ever, but maybe thats some mechanics you need to put into play, if prosperity hits 0, that should cause as much a chance of revolt as loyalty perhaps?

Something needs to be done, I still think the -1 is too harsh overall though.