In my current game, I own 3 cities and 7 castles. Each one with a Governor of his nation, with a garrison to keep security at 100 and all social structures at level 3. How many of these well-cared for properties give me profit? Well, none, on the contrary, give me expenses. I'm paying to own property and the most ridiculous thing is that I can't even have 100 loyalty, it's like having a son who says he hates you after you give him money to go out with his friends.
This nonsense is the fault of the drift mechanics, which always seeks to zero your increase or loss of security or loyalty. Therefore punish the owner for being good and reward whoever is bad.
This drift means that you can have 2 properties with the same prosperity, but one requires 200 soldiers and the other 300. Simply because of the level of security it originally had, or simply because you temporarily put a very large garrison on it. Which means, that if I were to abuse that mechanism, I could remove the entire garrison, wait for security to stabilize at zero, create an army and stay in and out of the city every day until I have 100 security. . And so maybe every day this city generates an income of 10 denars a day, whoops!
The drift in loyalty is also unfair, in a city it achieved the support of its 3 notables, thus gaining 1.5 more loyalty thanks to that, but the game quickly began to negatively increase the drift and that support did not even serve to reach a high loyalty value.
Another detail is that the militiamen seem to have no effect on security. Is seriously? Shouldn't a city with 300 militia feel safer?
I understand that one should put a garrison on the property when conquering it to protect the city while the militia recovers. Therefore you could gradually decrease the number of soldiers in the garrison if you want or have them for extra support in sieges or a source of recruits, all that in spite of not having much income from that property.
Loyalty should also change mechanics, or just eliminate drift, I really don't know. It only seems unfair to have a city without high loyalty when you do everything right. It should be directly affected to security, if they loot some of the villages you should lose loyalty for not protecting them, if you do not solve the problems of the area you should lose loyalty for not caring and things like that, even maybe losing loyalty for not being present when the city emerged victorious from a siege. Don't lose extra loyalty gains to the invisible hand of drift mechanics.
Finally and most importantly, the city should reward efforts, the extra you earn daily for maximum security is ridiculous. Well, it's totally ridiculous that you don't have a profit owning these. If I give away all my properties I would possibly have a positive daily income value.
This nonsense is the fault of the drift mechanics, which always seeks to zero your increase or loss of security or loyalty. Therefore punish the owner for being good and reward whoever is bad.
This drift means that you can have 2 properties with the same prosperity, but one requires 200 soldiers and the other 300. Simply because of the level of security it originally had, or simply because you temporarily put a very large garrison on it. Which means, that if I were to abuse that mechanism, I could remove the entire garrison, wait for security to stabilize at zero, create an army and stay in and out of the city every day until I have 100 security. . And so maybe every day this city generates an income of 10 denars a day, whoops!
The drift in loyalty is also unfair, in a city it achieved the support of its 3 notables, thus gaining 1.5 more loyalty thanks to that, but the game quickly began to negatively increase the drift and that support did not even serve to reach a high loyalty value.
Another detail is that the militiamen seem to have no effect on security. Is seriously? Shouldn't a city with 300 militia feel safer?
I understand that one should put a garrison on the property when conquering it to protect the city while the militia recovers. Therefore you could gradually decrease the number of soldiers in the garrison if you want or have them for extra support in sieges or a source of recruits, all that in spite of not having much income from that property.
Loyalty should also change mechanics, or just eliminate drift, I really don't know. It only seems unfair to have a city without high loyalty when you do everything right. It should be directly affected to security, if they loot some of the villages you should lose loyalty for not protecting them, if you do not solve the problems of the area you should lose loyalty for not caring and things like that, even maybe losing loyalty for not being present when the city emerged victorious from a siege. Don't lose extra loyalty gains to the invisible hand of drift mechanics.
Finally and most importantly, the city should reward efforts, the extra you earn daily for maximum security is ridiculous. Well, it's totally ridiculous that you don't have a profit owning these. If I give away all my properties I would possibly have a positive daily income value.