Are initial relations between nobles and notables set yet?

[Apocal]

and as @scarface52 mentioned they can get troops from 2 slots ahead for now (means that if normally they can get 1st slot only they can get from slots 1-2-3, its like they are playing at easiest recruiting mode. It will be removed when initial lord-notable relations are set).

This is from a long time back and I tried to see what if it was ever implemented but I'm not that good. Does anyone have any idea?

@mexxico
@Duh_TaleWorlds
@Dejan

quickedit: Also something else I've been trying to prove/disprove for awhile:

5. They do a lot of raidings and are not affected by negative relation

5. this is not true, they also get negatif relation.

While mexxico says there are negative relations for AI raids, I swear I've seen them recruit fat stacks (10+) from villages that they repeatedly burned to the ground. I don't habitually record my gameplay though, so I might have been in error, in any number of ways: wrong lord, wrong village, seeing a quickly passing number and reading it wrong, new village notables spawned, etc.

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

This has been bothering me too. I would think that over time clans would be racking up too much negative relations to recruit from most surrounding neutral fiefs, but it doesn't seem to be so. Perhaps the +2 recruitment just ignores the relation? I have no solid info and it's a hard kind of thing for me too.

 

[Spinozart1]

Maybe @Callum could help as well?

 

[mujadaddy]

Throw this into the related problem pile: even if *I* have bad relations with a village, my clan parties in my army can still recruit whatever they like!

 

[Bannerman Man]

Yep, initial relations have been implemented, at least to some extent. You can see how it's coded in the SetInitialRelationsBetweenNotablesAndLords method. Unless I'm missing something elsewhere, the game only sets initial relations for notables and lords within the same faction; all others should start at 0, I believe.

So, the initial relations between lords and notables is mostly based on randomness, but there are a couple of factors that can influence their relations to start off better or worse. If a clan has a settlement nearby to the settlement the notable is in, they will be more likely to have a positive relationship with that notable (though not guaranteed). The closer the two settlements are to each other, the better the chance they will have to have positive relations, and the higher those relations will tend to be. The settlement owner will tend to have the best chances to have good relations with a notable in that fief.

It also factors in "personality clashes" between the lord and notable for a chance to have a negative relationship. If certain personality traits (e.g. honor) are mismatched between the lord and notable, there is a chance that they will have negative relations with each other. The more personality conflicts, the higher the chance that they will start with negative relations, and the worse those relations will tend to be. You can see how personality clashes are determined in the method NPCPersonalityClashWithNPC.

Initial relations can range from -100 to 100. However, since they are heavily based on chance, many lords and notables will still have 0 relations with each other, regardless of proximity of fiefs or personality clashes. I can't really give you a good idea of the distribution of positive, neutral, and negative relations that you can expect on a given campaign start though.

---

Also, yes, lords are affected by the relationship hit from raiding villages. However, they will only suffer at most a -3 hit to relations with notables per completed raid, so it can take a lot of raids to bring their relations down if they started within the same faction and rolled high initial relations.

Another reason you might see lords who have raided a settlement still recruit fat stacks of troops from a notable is because there is a form of relations "drift" that was recently implemented for non-player clans. If a notable has a relation that is > 0 (positive) with a lord, there is a small chance each day that they will randomly suffer a -20 relations hit with the lord. The higher the current relations, the greater the chance this happens, with a max chance of 0.1% per day to trigger for a given lord/notable pair. Similarly, if a notable has a relation that is < 0 (negative) with a lord, there is a small chance each day that they will randomly gain +20 relations with the lord. The lower the current relations, the greater the chance this happens, with a max chance of 0.1% per day to trigger for a given lord/notable pair. This mechanic can be seen in the UpdateNotableRelations method.

So, for example, if a lord has 0 relations with a notable, raids them once for -3 relations, then hits a 0.003% dice roll for +20 relations, they will end up with a net +17 relations. **I want to stress though that the chance of this "drift" happening like that is very very small for any given lord/notable pair, so it's not going to be something that you see happen frequently.**

In the same patch that the drift mechanic was implemented, 1 of the 2 bonus slots that AI lords had access to was removed. They still have +1 slot with all notables, but the other extra +1 slot that they got for notables within their own faction was removed. Essentially they are now playing on "Easy" recruiting difficulty, where before they were playing on "Easiest."

The default amount of recruiting slots a lord gets for a neutral notable (player included), is 1. If a lord has any amount of negative relations with a notable, they get -1 slot. With the +1 slot all AI lords get with all notables, this means that even with -100 relations, an AI lord will still have access to the first slot of a neutral notable (because 1 + 1 - 1 = 1), unless they are at war. With certain perks, they may get access to even more slots despite negative relations (Combat Tips being one of them). You can see how the number of recruitment slots a lord gets works in the MaximumIndexHeroCanRecruitFromHero method.

The extra slot that AI lords get also works for the player's clan parties (since they are AI), which explains why your clan parties can recruit from notables that you yourself cannot. Them having certain recruiting perks that you do not can also affect this.

I think that about covers all your questions.

 

[Apocal]

I think that about covers all your questions.

Yep, that just about covers everything! I really appreciate it.

 

[Bannerman Man]

I really appreciate it.

No problem. It's something I was meaning to bring up anyway, because I wanted to make a point about the "Supporter" mechanic for notables, which is:

In my latest playthrough, I've been awarded 3 Vlandian towns as a Battanian vassal that I've owned for multiple years and properly managed. However, every single notable in my fiefs still supports their original Vlandian lords, even after years of being enemies/neutral with them. With the way the supporter system works, there is nothing I can do to dislodge their support of their old owners other than wait, which in turn means I can't get them to support me instead. In theory, the relations drift mechanic that has been implemented will cause them to eventually stop supporting their old lords over time, but in practice it seems to take a really long time for that to happen; likely longer than the length of a typical campaign.

Counterintuitively, by doing a good job protecting my subjects from Vlandian hostilities, I'm only making it harder for me to gain my notables' support, since they are not taking the needed relations hits with their old lords that happens with raiding and killing villagers/caravans. In order for them to stop supporting their old lords they need to at least fall below 50 relations with them, and as far as I can tell, my only course of action is to wait for the drift mechanic to slowly chip away at their relations.

I think something else is needed to speed this process up or give players more options to affect the process. Some suggestions might be:

• Give players a way to "oust" or kill notables, so that new ones can spawn over time for a fresh start. This would also be useful for notables that the player already has significant negative relations with. Penalties could also be attached to the action such as a malus to loyalty, relations hits with other notables or lords, negative trait xp (such as to mercy), prosperity hits, etc.
• Add a chance for notables to stop supporting lords who are neutral or hostile to their faction, regardless of relations.
• Add other ways for relations to go down for lords who are not part of their owning clan's faction.
• Allow notables to switch support to another lord who has a higher relation with them, even if the relations with their currently supported lord isn't below 50.

@SadShogun I think you might be the guy to talk to about this.

 

[Spinozart1]

?No problem. It's something I was meaning to bring up anyway, because I wanted to make a point about the "Supporter" mechanic for notables, which is:

In my latest playthrough, I've been awarded 3 Vlandian towns as a Battanian vassal that I've owned for multiple years and properly managed. However, every single notable in my fiefs still supports their original Vlandian lords, even after years of being enemies/neutral with them. With the way the supporter system works, there is nothing I can do to dislodge their support of their old owners other than wait, which in turn means I can't get them to support me instead. In theory, the relations drift mechanic that has been implemented will cause them to eventually stop supporting their old lords over time, but in practice it seems to take a really long time for that to happen; likely longer than the length of a typical campaign.

Counterintuitively, by doing a good job protecting my subjects from Vlandian hostilities, I'm only making it harder for me to gain my notables' support, since they are not taking the needed relations hits with their old lords that happens with raiding and killing villagers/caravans. In order for them to stop supporting their old lords they need to at least fall below 50 relations with them, and as far as I can tell, my only course of action is to wait for the drift mechanic to slowly chip away at their relations.

I think something else is needed to speed this process up or give players more options to affect the process. Some suggestions might be:

• Give players a way to "oust" or kill notables, so that new ones can spawn over time for a fresh start. This would also be useful for notables that the player already has significant negative relations with. Penalties could also be attached to the action such as a malus to loyalty, relations hits with other notables or lords, negative trait xp (such as to mercy), prosperity hits, etc.
• Add a chance for notables to stop supporting lords who are neutral or hostile to their faction, regardless of relations.
• Add other ways for relations to go down for lords who are not part of their owning clan's faction.
• Allow notables to switch support to another lord who has a higher relation with them, even if the relations with their currently supported lord isn't below 50.

@SadShogun I think you might be the guy to talk to about this.

Thanks for the great explanation in the above post and thx for bringing up this issue Bannerman Man ?

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

Give players a way to "oust" or kill notables, so that new ones can spawn over time for a fresh start. This would also be useful for notables that the player already has significant negative relations with. Penalties could also be attached to the action such as a malus to loyalty, relations hits with other notables or lords, negative trait xp (such as to mercy), prosperity hits, etc.

Yeah I second this. Maybe an expensive "Good guy" option to repair the relations or a punishing "bad guy" kick em out by fore or kill em type thing.

Thank you so much for looking into this and explaining it!

 

[SadShogun]

No problem. It's something I was meaning to bring up anyway, because I wanted to make a point about the "Supporter" mechanic for notables, which is:

In my latest playthrough, I've been awarded 3 Vlandian towns as a Battanian vassal that I've owned for multiple years and properly managed. However, every single notable in my fiefs still supports their original Vlandian lords, even after years of being enemies/neutral with them. With the way the supporter system works, there is nothing I can do to dislodge their support of their old owners other than wait, which in turn means I can't get them to support me instead. In theory, the relations drift mechanic that has been implemented will cause them to eventually stop supporting their old lords over time, but in practice it seems to take a really long time for that to happen; likely longer than the length of a typical campaign.

Counterintuitively, by doing a good job protecting my subjects from Vlandian hostilities, I'm only making it harder for me to gain my notables' support, since they are not taking the needed relations hits with their old lords that happens with raiding and killing villagers/caravans. In order for them to stop supporting their old lords they need to at least fall below 50 relations with them, and as far as I can tell, my only course of action is to wait for the drift mechanic to slowly chip away at their relations.

I think something else is needed to speed this process up or give players more options to affect the process. Some suggestions might be:

• Give players a way to "oust" or kill notables, so that new ones can spawn over time for a fresh start. This would also be useful for notables that the player already has significant negative relations with. Penalties could also be attached to the action such as a malus to loyalty, relations hits with other notables or lords, negative trait xp (such as to mercy), prosperity hits, etc.
• Add a chance for notables to stop supporting lords who are neutral or hostile to their faction, regardless of relations.
• Add other ways for relations to go down for lords who are not part of their owning clan's faction.
• Allow notables to switch support to another lord who has a higher relation with them, even if the relations with their currently supported lord isn't below 50.

@SadShogun I think you might be the guy to talk to about this.

Hi, sorry I was on a vacation for quite a while.

I think most of the suggestions you made are good.
The first one is a bit heavy on the micro-management side and introduces a lot of extra mechanics (and UI) so I am a bit wary of it.
An alternative to this one (which is micro-management free) is that the notables who do not support you passively lose power (so they get replaced by ones that support you.)

Continuing on we have the 3rd and 4th suggestions which have a similar theme about relationship and support;
Actually, we considered a system which you highlighted as your 4th suggestion

• Allow notables to switch support to another lord who has a higher relation with them, even if the relations with their currently supported lord isn't below 50.

The problem with this suggestion applied on its own is that if implemented as is each notable has to check their relationship with all of the clans in the game which is not ideal performance-wise. So we decided against it.

One approach is that the notables can only check their owner for such a change (e.g. if a Vlandian supporter notable is under control of Banu Hulyan Clan (Aserai) it would only check whether his current relationship with the Vlandian clan and Banu Hulyan instead of all of the clans.

This however introduces an additional check which currently does not exist. While mechanics adding depth are welcome, we in general dislike rule exceptions.
Another possible "downside" of this additional rule is that, if a notable support the clan which owns the city, it becomes impossible for them to defect. This is of course might not be of importance.

I believe this is a nice solution that does not require any new saveable fields. However, we still need a consistent way of dropping the relation with the old owner.
A simple relation decay (to 0) for the notable looks and works nice but still introduces a rule exception (all relations stay the same, for some reason notable relations decay)

The ideas you mentioned make the notable support mechanic more meaningful and I personally support these however, like all ideas they might bear additional costs which are not apparent immediately.

So the two ideas which I think would improve the situation are;
1. The notables who do not support your clan lose power and are replaced by ones who support you.
2. The notables defect to you if the controlling clan's relation is higher than their current supported clan's relation. Also relations decay.

What do you think about these ideas?

Hope I was able to communicate my concerns regarding the suggestions.
As always thank you for your feedback!

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

Hi, sorry I was on a vacation for quite a while.

I think most of the suggestions you made are good.
The first one is a bit heavy on the micro-management side and introduces a lot of extra mechanics (and UI) so I am a bit wary of it.
An alternative to this one (which is micro-management free) is that the notables who do not support you passively lose power (so they get replaced by ones that support you.)

Continuing on we have the 3rd and 4th suggestions which have a similar theme about relationship and support;
Actually, we considered a system which you highlighted as your 4th suggestion

The problem with this suggestion applied on its own is that if implemented as is each notable has to check their relationship with all of the clans in the game which is not ideal performance-wise. So we decided against it.

One approach is that the notables can only check their owner for such a change (e.g. if a Vlandian supporter notable is under control of Banu Hulyan Clan (Aserai) it would only check whether his current relationship with the Vlandian clan and Banu Hulyan instead of all of the clans.

This however introduces an additional check which currently does not exist. While mechanics adding depth are welcome, we in general dislike rule exceptions.
Another possible "downside" of this additional rule is that, if a notable support the clan which owns the city, it becomes impossible for them to defect. This is of course might not be of importance.

I believe this is a nice solution that does not require any new saveable fields. However, we still need a consistent way of dropping the relation with the old owner.
A simple relation decay (to 0) for the notable looks and works nice but still introduces a rule exception (all relations stay the same, for some reason notable relations decay)

The ideas you mentioned make the notable support mechanic more meaningful and I personally support these however, like all ideas they might bear additional costs which are not apparent immediately.

So the two ideas which I think would improve the situation are;
1. The notables who do not support your clan lose power and are replaced by ones who support you.
2. The notables defect to you if the controlling clan's relation is higher than their current supported clan's relation. Also relations decay.

What do you think about these ideas?

Hope I was able to communicate my concerns regarding the suggestions.
As always thank you for your feedback!

Could the player prompt them to check/evaluate thier support when the player owns the fief? Like the player just talks to the notable and askes for support and the notable states why not or agrees. Perhaps giving a quest to increase support? I actually greatly prefer to choose to do something and have a result rather then passive daily number checks and random chances.

 

[Apocal]

So the two ideas which I think would improve the situation are;
1. The notables who do not support your clan lose power and are replaced by ones who support you.
2. The notables defect to you if the controlling clan's relation is higher than their current supported clan's relation. Also relations decay.

What do you think about these ideas?

Number 1 would be better. There would be another advantage to holding fiefs and players would have a reason in the game mechanics to bother defending their fiefs, beyond the tiny amount of money and personal sentiment. Long-term ownership would mean something because you'd have tons of supporters as long as the town's prosperity increased. It would give the player a sort of inherent logic to his holdings that approximately matches the rest of the game world: safe towns are prosperous -> prosperous towns have more notables -> more notables means more recruits -> more recruits mean more power for my clan.

Depending on the way decay is balanced, Number 2 might force players to run around doing quests. Or it would make emissary duty even stronger than it already is (and it is plenty strong, basically the best use of a companion) in comparison to other things relatives/companions do for the player. Alternatively, if it is calibrated to no annoy players, it might be too weak to be meaningful over a typical playthrough.

So I say go with number 1.

 

[Spinozart1]

I'm still confused about a few things here.

So the two ideas which I think would improve the situation are;
1. The notables who do not support your clan lose power and are replaced by ones who support you.

I thought that the supporter mechanic was linked with the relation. How power is supposed to change that?
Will the power loss be progressive or will it change instantly on the moment we take control over the town?

2. The notables defect to you if the controlling clan's relation is higher than their current supported clan's relation. Also relations decay.

What will happen if the relation is lower? Notable will not defect, but will slowly loose relation with former ruler clan?

Though i don't really understand the link between power and relation, I think that option 1 may work the best if it is an instant change.
Main reason is that a slow decay over time may never work properly considering how quick towns are lost.

 

[Medivhtratos]

Yep, number 1 could be a solution but it all depends on the numbers which comes with it.
How much power they(notables who are not supporting you but you have 100 relationship with them) should loose daily? Weekly? What is with the replacement? Will they directly support your clan or do you have to increase relationship again so that they will become supporters?
Power has also influence on the recruitment, I. E. Tier of troops. It can be a backfire for someone who want replenish his party but can only hire recruits because of the loss of power lvl of the none supporters(who should vanish by a specific threshold)

So think this through when you plan to implement it.

 

[black_bulldog]

Hi, sorry I was on a vacation for quite a while.

I think most of the suggestions you made are good.
The first one is a bit heavy on the micro-management side and introduces a lot of extra mechanics (and UI) so I am a bit wary of it.
An alternative to this one (which is micro-management free) is that the notables who do not support you passively lose power (so they get replaced by ones that support you.)

Continuing on we have the 3rd and 4th suggestions which have a similar theme about relationship and support;
Actually, we considered a system which you highlighted as your 4th suggestion

The problem with this suggestion applied on its own is that if implemented as is each notable has to check their relationship with all of the clans in the game which is not ideal performance-wise. So we decided against it.

One approach is that the notables can only check their owner for such a change (e.g. if a Vlandian supporter notable is under control of Banu Hulyan Clan (Aserai) it would only check whether his current relationship with the Vlandian clan and Banu Hulyan instead of all of the clans.

This however introduces an additional check which currently does not exist. While mechanics adding depth are welcome, we in general dislike rule exceptions.
Another possible "downside" of this additional rule is that, if a notable support the clan which owns the city, it becomes impossible for them to defect. This is of course might not be of importance.

I believe this is a nice solution that does not require any new saveable fields. However, we still need a consistent way of dropping the relation with the old owner.
A simple relation decay (to 0) for the notable looks and works nice but still introduces a rule exception (all relations stay the same, for some reason notable relations decay)

The ideas you mentioned make the notable support mechanic more meaningful and I personally support these however, like all ideas they might bear additional costs which are not apparent immediately.

So the two ideas which I think would improve the situation are;
1. The notables who do not support your clan lose power and are replaced by ones who support you.
2. The notables defect to you if the controlling clan's relation is higher than their current supported clan's relation. Also relations decay.

What do you think about these ideas?

Hope I was able to communicate my concerns regarding the suggestions.
As always thank you for your feedback!

Why can't we have a system where notables who don't support you lose power over time and are replaced, but the player always has the option to replace the notable if they don't want to wait. It would be faster but it would make it so you can't recruit from that village for a certain amount of time (maybe a week, maybe few days?).
It makes it so the system will correct itself without player intervention but it also makes it so players can micromange if they want. That way it's not overly complicated for new players but if someone wants that complexity it's there.

 

[Medivhtratos]

Why can't we have a system where notables who don't support you lose power over time and are replaced, but the player always has the option to replace the notable if they don't want to wait. It would be faster but it would make it so you can't recruit from that village for a certain amount of time (maybe a week, maybe few days?).
It makes it so the system will correct itself without player intervention but it also makes it so players can micromange if they want. That way it's not overly complicated for new players but if someone wants that complexity it's there.

Replace by execution with a relation hit to the former supported clan... sounds somewhat good.

 

[Bannerman Man]

Hi, sorry I was on a vacation for quite a while.

No worries! Hope you enjoyed your vacation.

I think most of the suggestions you made are good.
The first one is a bit heavy on the micro-management side and introduces a lot of extra mechanics (and UI) so I am a bit wary of it.
An alternative to this one (which is micro-management free) is that the notables who do not support you passively lose power (so they get replaced by ones that support you.)

Continuing on we have the 3rd and 4th suggestions which have a similar theme about relationship and support;
Actually, we considered a system which you highlighted as your 4th suggestion
The problem with this suggestion applied on its own is that if implemented as is each notable has to check their relationship with all of the clans in the game which is not ideal performance-wise. So we decided against it.

One approach is that the notables can only check their owner for such a change (e.g. if a Vlandian supporter notable is under control of Banu Hulyan Clan (Aserai) it would only check whether his current relationship with the Vlandian clan and Banu Hulyan instead of all of the clans.

This however introduces an additional check which currently does not exist. While mechanics adding depth are welcome, we in general dislike rule exceptions.
Another possible "downside" of this additional rule is that, if a notable support the clan which owns the city, it becomes impossible for them to defect. This is of course might not be of importance.

I believe this is a nice solution that does not require any new saveable fields. However, we still need a consistent way of dropping the relation with the old owner.
A simple relation decay (to 0) for the notable looks and works nice but still introduces a rule exception (all relations stay the same, for some reason notable relations decay)

The ideas you mentioned make the notable support mechanic more meaningful and I personally support these however, like all ideas they might bear additional costs which are not apparent immediately.

So let me summarize the criteria you outlined to make sure everyone is on the same page with what is desired of a good solution. Feel free to correct/add anything.

• Excessive micro-management is undesirable.
• Avoid the need to introduce extra mechanics or UI components in order to implement the solution.
• Must not significantly impact performance, such as from checking relations with all lords many extra times.
• Adding rule exceptions is undesirable.
• Avoid needing new saveable fields (by which I think you mean extra variables that need to be saved/loaded to/from your game file).

One approach is that the notables can only check their owner for such a change (e.g. if a Vlandian supporter notable is under control of Banu Hulyan Clan (Aserai) it would only check whether his current relationship with the Vlandian clan and Banu Hulyan instead of all of the clans.

This however introduces an additional check which currently does not exist. While mechanics adding depth are welcome, we in general dislike rule exceptions.

I can understand not wanting to add rule exceptions, but in this case specifically, the rules themselves are not actually communicated to the player within the game. It isn't clear that your relations must be over 50 to be eligible for support, or that you (or another npc) can only lose support if you fall below 50 relations. You also cannot see the relations value between two npcs (aside from being 'friends') to see how close they are to losing support. For those reasons, I personally don't think a minor exception such as the one above would be much of a concern, since players are already unlikely to know why they gained/lost support under the current system.

I could see it becoming more of an issue if you have plans to make the mechanic more transparent down the line though.

So the two ideas which I think would improve the situation are;
1. The notables who do not support your clan lose power and are replaced by ones who support you.
2. The notables defect to you if the controlling clan's relation is higher than their current supported clan's relation. Also relations decay.

What do you think about these ideas?

As far as number 1 goes, I can see a couple of potential issues. First, the power loss would have to be strong, or at least get progressively stronger, in order to overcome the power growth that they get from other sources in reasonable time frames, which might be difficult to balance. Secondly, in order to disappear and be replaced, they would also need to lose their workshops and caravans, which currently doesn't happen very often. With workshops especially, the only realistic way for notables to lose them is for the player to buy them.

I like both ideas though, and I definitely think they'd be improvements overall. Are you considering only one or the other, or would adding both be an option?

Edit: Also, what kind of time frame would you ideally like for this whole process to take place? One year? A couple years? Etc.

Hope I was able to communicate my concerns regarding the suggestions.

? Crystal clear, and I appreciate you taking the time to lay them all out. I'm glad to hear you guys have already explored potential solutions too.

---

I thought that the supporter mechanic was linked with the relation. How power is supposed to change that?

The link works something like this:

1. The power of a notable who doesn't support their owning clan will continuously decay each day until it is under 100.
2. Notables below 100 power will eventually disappear from the settlement (i.e. become "lost") under certain conditions.
3. Over time, a new notable who doesn't support a clan will spawn, giving an opportunity for the fief owner to earn their support.

When you see the message that a notable has been "lost" in the log, that happened because notables that drop under 100 power that also do not own any property (workshops, caravans, or alleyways) have a daily chance to disappear. Once they disappear, that opens up a space for a fresh notable to eventually spawn, which is when relations come into play.

 

[Spinozart1]

The link works something like this:

1. The power of a notable who doesn't support their owning clan will continuously decay each day until it is under 100.
2. Notables below 100 power will eventually disappear from the settlement (i.e. become "lost") under certain conditions.
3. Over time, a new notable who doesn't support a clan will spawn, giving an opportunity for the fief owner to earn their support.

When you see the message that a notable has been "lost" in the log, that happened because notables that drop under 100 power that also do not own any property (workshops, caravans, or alleyways) have a daily chance to disappear. Once they disappear, that opens up a space for a fresh notable to eventually spawn, which is when relations come into play.

Thanks for taking time to explain this. As usual really instructive.

I must be really dumb but I don't see the difference between what already exists and option 1 suggested by Sad.

1. The notables who do not support your clan lose power and are replaced by ones who support you.

Except if it is an instant power drop.

 

[Apocal]

Thanks for taking time to explain this. As usual really instructive.

I must be really dumb but I don't see the difference between what already exists and option 1 suggested by Sad.

1. The notables who do not support your clan lose power and are replaced by ones who support you.

Except if it is an instant power drop.

Right now, notables who support the controlling clan gain power but there is no penalty for supporting another clan.

+1 and 0
vs
+1 and -1
Edit: just example numbers. The daily power gain was adjusted a long time ago.

 

[Spinozart1]

Right now, notables who support the controlling clan gain power but there is no penalty for supporting another clan.

+1 and 0
vs
+1 and -1
Edit: just example numbers. The daily power gain was adjusted a long time ago.

Thx Apocal ?
I think I misunderstood below explanation from Bannerman, I thought he was describing the existing mechanic.
While actually he was explaining how Sad proposal would work...

The link works something like this:

1. The power of a notable who doesn't support their owning clan will continuously decay each day until it is under 100.
2. Notables below 100 power will eventually disappear from the settlement (i.e. become "lost") under certain conditions.
3. Over time, a new notable who doesn't support a clan will spawn, giving an opportunity for the fief owner to earn their support.