Of Fiefs, and of Lords

[akuthia]

ok, i understand this is likely more of a m&b question, but to be honest, i've read the non PoP forums like once, and i dont want to go back there again, i like you guys (yes, even you Abyss) SO!

We know, in general, that you keep the cities you claim for yourself (highest payout once you have their prosperity up, which leads to a best "you should defend this yourself" situation) and conversely, castles/keeps go to your lords.

However, my question lies in villages: There is no defense of them (really, unless they're getting looted, so you dont need to garrison them) But the micromanaging of them gets tedious after a while, of running all around the conquered world building things to improve them, i've wondered if other lords in your army dont benefit to having more villages to their name? Does int increase the speed at which they will collect/upgrade troops? or do they just get a smattering of X of unit A, y of Unit B, and z og unit C?

 

[Fawzia dokhtar-i-Sanjar]

Most players keep some cities, but give away the castles and their attached villages to their lords.  It is too much work to try to manage a massive number of villages.  (I usually do a few improvements to mine before giving them away to a lord so he gets the troop benefits and extra money to hire more soldiers, since the lords don't seem to be into improvements.)

 

[Ichon]

So do Lords actually use extra money/higher prosperity to recruit more? I've never been able to tell and I thought their overall unit recruitment was relatively random based on renown and position. IE- King, Duke, Marhsall, Earls etc recruit more than mere Lords. So higher prosperity at most would give a small bonus...

 

[Fawzia dokhtar-i-Sanjar]

When I do improvements in the villages, I usually make a Sheriff, if there isn't one, and get another militia going (which is handy if you don't want to rush from village to village defending this and that), and also do some of the repairs to damaged villages.  The lords seem to come up with more men when they receive improved castles and villages.

 

[Griefer]

Props to The Most Sinister Ms. Fawzia, that's what I do too. Generally I like to keep them long enough to make a sheriff and two or three patrols, then give 'em away.

The only plus side is you seem to get more 'random events' if you own more properties. At one point I owned 5 towns, 9 castles and over a dozen villages. It seemed like I was getting a 'quick, return to X as soon as you can!' message every couple of days, which was cool. Those, by the way, are an awesome addition to the game.

Also affects how many nobles you generate a week. If you're playing a culture where nobles don't really matter (Fierdsvain, D'Shar) then keep as few properties as you can. If you're playing, say, Sarleon, who requires a ton of them to field a good army, or Pendorian and you want your knighthood horde, keep a ton of them for a while so you can crank out 10 or 20 nobles per week until you've got a couple of hundred.

 

[Renfray]

Noble recruits. *heavy sigh* Maintaining an army in PoP can be damn costly. Upgrading soldiers, buying horses, weapons, armor, getting supplies, paying weekly wages, hiring mercenaries consumes much of your time and resources.

Personally, I like to keep some villages attached to my towns... not really because of the taxes, but because of the immersion. It´s quite cool to manage your fiefs after you return after some weeks of burnin´and lootin´ in enemy lands, listen to the troubles of your villagers, how they are mobbed by Knights of the Eventide (or was it Dawn?) to build a shrine, need more cattle/wheat/training to keep up to the current situation and such.

Adds a more silent, peaceful element to the neverending war. Except, of course, when one of your villages is infested with bandits or under attack by some greedy enemy lord... but this is just fine, in my opinion. At that point of time, I usually smack any raiders I hunt down in the face without much trouble.

 

[akuthia]

so the consensus to me, seems to be, keep the villages attached to the cities you keep, and let the lords keep the villages attached to the castles you give away? Thats what i do as well, i'm just curious if i shold be giving more villages away as well...

 

[Fawzia dokhtar-i-Sanjar]

To keep your lords happy, it is hard to maintain that delicate balance between pleasing one and totally ticking off another.  In some cases, you may have to give away extra villages - for example, to a lord who joined you but had no fiefs in his previous faction.  You need to check out which lords are disgruntled, which are great friends of yours, etc.  You should also apportion out the castles, villages, even towns based on the lord's honor and renown.  It he was a serious heavy hitter before he joined you, make him one again, if he's your loyal friend.  If it is one of the jerk lords, you can let him leave if you don't give him what he wants.

 

[noosers]

It´s great fun to punish them that way or award them.

You recall that miserable SoB who raped you back then when you crossed his path with your five milita friends and laughed at you who randomly joined your empire after you whacked his old one?

Just fun.
I usually keep the royal towns since they are the ones who have most villages attached, and 1-2 nearby towns myself along with a castle and it´s village. That way i usually keep one quarter or Pendor for private privileges and upgrade it into a buzzing, strong, rich, most loyal royal vicinity.

For freshly taken villages/castles/town to be deployed I usually beef up the steward, build some improvement and handle them out accordingly.
Lord strenght is directly goverend by wealth. Lords who own rich towns get better army replacements than one who owns a lonely flea and pestilence ridden poor village. So keep your villages bandit clean and prevent them from beeing looted and you will have strong lords to support your cause.