Refusing fief

[DwaejiTokki]

Please implement an option to be able to refuse fief.
In my current campaign i was totally bankrupted because the king gave me 2 castles in the front line with 200+soldiers.
I was not able to refuse or to give it to other noble or back to the king. I had to go there take all soldiers go to next castle/city and donate them. While I did it I lost all my money I had to donate most of my elite soldiers from my party too.
When I finished this both of the castles were attacked and taken from me so I was not able to recover the money from their revenue.
This was a total bankrupt.

PS: This is an awesome game I love it.

 

[Stratigo]

Sounds like a clever way for a king to take down a dangerous vassal to me.

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

In my first game the king gave me a castle so far away that before I could get to it, it got taken back and you lose relation for loosing it too!

 

[Kulgrinda Košmarjus]

Please implement an option to be able to refuse fief.
In my current campaign i was totally bankrupted because the king gave me 2 castles in the front line with 200+soldiers.
I was not able to refuse or to give it to other noble or back to the king. I had to go there take all soldiers go to next castle/city and donate them. While I did it I lost all my money I had to donate most of my elite soldiers from my party too.
When I finished this both of the castles were attacked and taken from me so I was not able to recover the money from their revenue.
This was a total bankrupt.

PS: This is an awesome game I love it.

To be honest, there should not be an option to do so. You're a vassal, your direct ruler may appoint a castle to you both as a gift and as a punishment. Or maybe he thinks nobody but you can handle holding said castle against enemy sieges. If you don't approve your rulers decisions you can break your sacred vow of loyalty and leave the kingdom all together.
But what I do approve however is for AI to stop taking castles far into the enemy territory despite the lack of garrison there and focus on adjacent towns instead.

 

[xdj1nn]

To be honest, there should not be an option to do so. You're a vassal, your direct ruler may appoint a castle to you both as a gift and as a punishment. Or maybe he thinks nobody but you can handle holding said castle against enemy sieges. If you don't approve your rulers decisions you can break your sacred vow of loyalty and leave the kingdom all together.
But what I do approve however is for AI to stop taking castles far into the enemy territory despite the lack of garrison there and focus on adjacent towns instead.

the proper, more strategically sensible, or logical way of doing it would be: Taking castles around a target town, then taking the town.
Prioritizing towns would be like "too meta", and not a convincing strategy, instead a practical one for the weird game meta as it is.

They should base these things more into "reality", and basically send surrounding castle garrisons to reinforce or attack a nearby besieging army. Castles are pretty much a gimmick atm, because their revenue is laughable and they serve absolutely no strategic purpose other than having them with that weird "castle building" policy. They do not even offer storage, it's just ridiculous. They are like gold drains serving the single purpose of giving the nearby town owner more income.

 

[MinhTien]

Yeah, castles are pretty bad atm. Most castles in my game have tiny garrison that never improve, presumably because their lords are too damn poor to pay the troops. At a result, they endlessly change hand back and forth everytime war breaks out, which is all the time..

 

[9yearsago]

This definitely should be an option. I want my fiefs next to each other and would like to receive a new when I think they are improved and defendable.

 

[DwaejiTokki]

To be honest, there should not be an option to do so. You're a vassal, your direct ruler may appoint a castle to you both as a gift and as a punishment. Or maybe he thinks nobody but you can handle holding said castle against enemy sieges. If you don't approve your rulers decisions you can break your sacred vow of loyalty and leave the kingdom all together.
But what I do approve however is for AI to stop taking castles far into the enemy territory despite the lack of garrison there and focus on adjacent towns instead.

Somehow makes sense what you write. But then there should be an option which has cost. Like 100 influence to refuse.

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

To be honest, there should not be an option to do so. You're a vassal, your direct ruler may appoint a castle to you both as a gift and as a punishment. Or maybe he thinks nobody but you can handle holding said castle against enemy sieges. If you don't approve your rulers decisions you can break your sacred vow of loyalty and leave the kingdom all together.
But what I do approve however is for AI to stop taking castles far into the enemy territory despite the lack of garrison there and focus on adjacent towns instead.

The king doesn't think anything though! It's just an automated outcome, clan no fief = propose clan gets fief "you have been awarded lol castle". That'd be great if they had personality and reacted to you and your actions/history! I think that's gonna have to be in Mount and Blade 3 though......

If you hustle you can rack up around 100-150 influence beating lords, then take a town in a good spot (before they pawn a crappy castle on you),and vote for yourself. I don't know the exact rules but it seemed I needed more influence then it would let me actually spend.

 

[Sol_Invictvs]

To be honest, there should not be an option to do so. You're a vassal, your direct ruler may appoint a castle to you both as a gift and as a punishment. Or maybe he thinks nobody but you can handle holding said castle against enemy sieges. If you don't approve your rulers decisions you can break your sacred vow of loyalty and leave the kingdom all together.
But what I do approve however is for AI to stop taking castles far into the enemy territory despite the lack of garrison there and focus on adjacent towns instead.

It's a roleplaying game. There definitely SHOULD be an option to refuse.

Also, can't you donate fiefs to lords via barter or force the ownership to a vote via kingdom screen? I swear I remember seeing an option to donate a fief somewhere. Maybe I'm using too many mods...

 

[Badcritter]

You should be able to decline, at the cost of influence and possibly some relationship with the king.

In my current playthrough I've manged to get 2 towns and a castle (all adjacent), and one of the towns was my first fief. I had to spend influence voting for other people to help ensure I DIDN'T get the ones that would not suit me, until the fiefs I wanted came up then I spent more to ensure I would get those. I use the word "ensure" loosely of course, since sometimes kings do as they please. I was probably lucky in addition to my meticulous planning.

imo the influence reward for stocking a garrison should be higher when a castle is first taken to encourage lords (including the player) to kick start its defensibility.

 

[eddiemccandless]

It seems like a no brainer to me that you should be allowed to refuse somehow, removing player choice in matters like this is rarely a good design (and you could refuse in Warband). I suspect they just haven't gotten around implementing that yet.

 

[ileboii]

Refusing should be an option, but there should be consequences too, maybe a relationship loss.
What would your employer think if you refused an important task he gave you?

 

[Rconner]

Geez, just vote for someone else to take it.

 

[DwaejiTokki]

Geez, just vote for someone else to take it.

Yes I can do it once maybe twice. But the king continuously wants to give me the useless castles in the front line. There are no that amount of influence. With that said maybe the refusing with influence is not a good idea only if it is very low (like 10 influence).

 

[Rconner]

Yes I can do it once maybe twice. But the king continuously wants to give me the useless castles in the front line. There are no that amount of influence. With that said maybe the refusing with influence is not a good idea only if it is very low (like 10 influence).

Really?
I don't know what to do with all my influence. Spend it raising Charm mostly.

 

[DwaejiTokki]

Really?
I don't know what to do with all my influence. Spend it raising Charm mostly.

This problem happens only in the beginning of the campaign when you don't have fiefs, money and influence.
In late game you have anything and if you receive a caste you can defend it.
In my other save if I have a new I can pack the garrison full with elite soldiers because I have 1.4 million denars 4000 influence and hundreds of spare soldiers.

 

[GitiUsir]

Actually it's easy to defend a castle.
1.-Buy tanneries in the faction you are planning to join later
2.-Recruit companions with steward skill to lead clan parties
3.-When you join a faction you should be at clan tier 3 which means 3 parties including yours, around 300 army
4.-As soon as you get a castle go there with your clan army. Place 99 garrison and rush buildings for food and militia
5.-Patrol around villages and park the army in the castle if enemy army arrives to take it

The garrison + militia + 300-400 soldiers was enough for me. Enemy armies gave up siege or disbanded before the assault, and the income from villages and castle was not bad once they were maxed

 

[xdj1nn]

Actually it's easy to defend a castle.
1.-Buy tanneries in the faction you are planning to join later
2.-Recruit companions with steward skill to lead clan parties
3.-When you join a faction you should be at clan tier 3 which means 3 parties including yours, around 300 army
4.-As soon as you get a castle go there with your clan army. Place 99 garrison and rush buildings for food and militia
5.-Patrol around villages and park the army in the castle if enemy army arrives to take it

The garrison + militia + 300-400 soldiers was enough for me. Enemy armies gave up siege or disbanded before the assault, and the income from villages and castle was not bad once they were maxed

I wanna see you manage to get a 300 men army being independent and without a TOWN before joining as a vassal in 1.4.1

That's the second most flawed psedo-strategy I've seen someone suggest in the forums. 1.3.1 it'd doable but really grindy, 1.4.1 is straight out impossibile because Mexxico can't control his rage-nerfing of absolutely everything. Now caravans suck, you can't gather influence by donating prisoners or soldiers (it's a laughable value) Making you have 0 income as mercenary 90% of the time, Workshops are giving laughable income, caravans are getting wrecked all the time due to the glitched minor clan hostility, they also give floating income that can be laughable or decent (1500 is the most it gives). The only strategy for making a buck without being a vassal in 1.4.1 is to farm smith and sell the weapons with broken prices, even that is dependent of RNG and boring gameplay. Or you surrender into a endless stream of battles, which is virtually impossible once you reach a certain number of soldiers (everybody outruns you). So the game now is either cheating by smith or owning a town. Everything else is a waste of time.

 

[GitiUsir]

When I played it was easy. I don't know if it's possible now, but I had an army of peasants basically, the veterans infantry and archers were in the garrison, and all cavalry was in my party. I had around 70k when I had the castle with 3 tanneries. With that army I couldn't fight battles one on one but I was able to park in the castle bolstering the number of defenders which caused several armies to give up the siege.