Two questions about wages and vassalage.

[MrMackey]

Question #1.
Why is it that your knights' wages increases non-linearly in relation to the amount of knights of a specific type?

1 knight (let's say marshal) costs 10 gold in wages
2 marshals costs 30 gold
3 marshals costs 50 gold
4 marshals costs 100 gold
etc.

Is it because of a difficulty factor? o_O

Question #2.
When you start out as a vassal (Lothargina (or however it's spelled), Muscovy etc) and claim independence from your overlords, your kingdom power plummets. What's up with that? Shouldn't your kingdom power increase for daring to stand up against your superiors and lead your people towards freedom?

Is that too also because of a difficulty factor?

[Baghera]

Knights wages:
Thats just the way it is. I also think it was a bit of a strange call on the game designers' part. It can of course be modded.
I can't think of a "real" reason for that to be the case except possibly invoking the law if diminishing returns. It makes a little sense for gameplay reasons so you don't dominate the map with all marshalls I guess. I think that it might help the AI to decide to hire a balanced slection of knights.

Declaring yourself free from vassalage:
This is like breaking any other agreement. All the other provinces see that you are untrustworthy.

[MrMackey]

So the wages are just a WAD, as I suspected.

Well, technically I didn't agree to become Golden Horde's vassal if I start out as Muscovy in High or Late medieval, but I understand your reasoning. But still, breaking alliances and trade agreeements, I can understand, affect your KP negatively - but that's agreements made on equal grounds whilst vassalage is not. So in my point of view, there shouldn't be a penalty for breaking an unjust agreement that only benefits one party.

[Da Bomb]

Yea I agree about the vassalage. I don't think declaring independence should lose kingdom power because you are standing up for yourself. I see both points of view but you should go at war with them but not lose kingdom power.

[MrMackey]

Of course, war is inevitable.

[Ldvs]

When you become a vassal you swear fealty to a lord. No wonder you lose kingdom power if you break your oath, so I think it's a good feature in the game.
As for the marshals' wages, it's rather to prevent the player from hiring too many than anything particularly logical. The mods charge them even more in order to prevent you from being able to deal with several countries at the same time.

[Elvain]

1) wages. Imagine.
a) You have one marshal - he is kept mainly for protection of your lands - so he is cheap as he uses not many armies
b) you have 2 marshals, one to defend your lands, one to expand. Expansive war normally costs more than defensive (supply, you must motivate your men much more, sometimes you need to buy food in foreign markets etc.)
c) you have 4+ marshals so you are very militaristic state, it means military policy is very important part of kingdom finances, so you spend huge sum of money on army.
This is how you can itrerpret it. Also it is of course for some ballance (the real reason) If 9 marshalls would cost 90 gold, almost everybody will have 9 marshals.
In mods the cost is mostly even more growing, in some of mods even to astronomic costs of 3000g per 3 marshalls!

2) vasalage was one of basic laws of middle ages. Alongside with Alliance and royal marriage it should be most highly rated.
When some kingdom feels strong enough that it can break vassalage, it must really be strong. Kingdom power doesn't reflect power as much as reputation among other kings. When you break base of feudal system you show 2 things: you are powerfull enough to do it. You broke basic law of feudal system, you don't have respect to it. It has 2 sides.
However the penalty should be lower.
Also I found ridiculous when overlord grants independency to his vasal and his KP decreases. I made it right the oposite: it is act of honour so it should be rated by that.

[MrMackey]

When you become a vassal you swear fealty to a lord.

Otherwise he'll steamroll me with his army of peasants and spearmen. :go: But seriously, fealty or not - in this game it's still not an agreement made on equal grounds, therefore I value this type of exthortion with about as much honor as a random act of robbery. :nono:

Vassalage was one of basic laws of middle ages.

I'd say it was more like one of the "base" laws. :wink: But that was vassalage within the kingdoms themselves, the king lent tracts of land to his knights depending on their performance in war. Here we have alien kingdoms dominating other kingdoms and demanding vassalage from them due to unjust and unequal agreements. And if the subordinated kingdom won't have it; its kingdom power drops and its own people subsequently starts rebellions. :scratch: In reality, me breaking from vassalage to another kingdom is like a loyalist rebel on a larger scale who's sick and tired of subordinating himself to another kingdom. I understand the act of war that follows and that I'm dropping in reputation with other kingdoms, but I'm still not convinced about the dive in KP. Would the loyalist rebels in territories I just conquered get low moral and start fighting within their own group because they don't like my reign?

[Angryminer]

You, as a vasall, break away from your overlord, who was set in as your lord by god himself, and you expect the people to be happy that you break god's right rules? You just said "I don't give a damn on god's rules. I want the money for myself!".

No, the medieval times weren't exactly logic.

Angryminer

[MrMackey]

You, as a vasall, break away from your overlord, who was set in as your lord by god himself, and you expect the people to be happy that you break god's right rules? You just said "I don't give a damn on god's rules. I want the money for myself!".

Well... To take an example from history, did the Scots go against king Robert the Bruce for breaking his fealty against king Edward I?

[Angryminer]

Most propably some of the scotisch were of the opinion that this was a very bad idea and would only lead to the complete destruction of the scots.

Angryminer

[MrMackey]

Of course, there will always be prophets of woe, although history would prove different. :wink: And most Scots did rally behind king Robert and sir William for the cause of independence. :hello:

[Gabo]

Declaring independcy implies the breaking of an agreement (whatever unfair it would be); this was seen as dishonourable on the overlord side. The country that declares indpendency must rely on its own resources to maintain that independency. It is weaker because it is not "protected" by the superior kingdom. In other words, it is a start from scratch. I think it's fair that the KP decreaces.

[MrMackey]

this was seen as dishonourable on the overlord side.

Well, naturally. They have their own interests to protect...

The country that declares indpendency must rely on its own resources to maintain that independency. It is weaker because it is not "protected" by the superior kingdom.

Well, I would understand it if the "protective" country in this game would actually do something for his vassal once in a while... Just to mention one example to illustrate: I started out as Italy in High Medieval. Being at war with France I quickly ran to my "overlord", Germany, for help. His response: "Cowardly dog! Your problems with France are none of our concern! We dismiss your demands!" As it is now, being a vassal in KoH only means that you have to pay a certain amount of tribute to a "stronger" kingdom that in return won't really lift a finger to help you... Unless you have territories to cede of course.

[Sator]

Actually it would be best if there were 2 types of vassalage:

1 - Honorable: Vassalage such as a crusading marshall being granted a province he just conquered or the papacy being restored. Or even a country breaking agreements with you and attacking you because someone bribed them, and after that you pound them into oblivion and spare their puny lives in exchange for vassalage. Breaking that kind of vassalage should be equal to attacking your ally.

2 - Dishonorable: You start out as a vassal, or you are forced in to it by brute force. Breaking this should be rewarded with a positive KP boost, something like +2 or +3. But also it should mean a tough fight with your overlord! Not his Peasant Legion of Doom :gaga2:

All we could hope for is a new patch that will adress the current issues and after that another patch that will include gameplay changes, such as this.

[MrMackey]

Exactly, Sator!
It is the "second definition" of vassalage that I have opionions about. Gaining KP (quoth the Mel Gibson, "FREEEEEDOOOOOM!!!!") and be granted a tough fight against your greedy, 1 province overlord on the other side of the map should be a more logical consequence...

[Elvain]

try mods.

In some when you grant independence your KP rises. ALso mods solve significantly problem of peasant armies as the AI is much more motivated there to build advanced military structures and so build better armies

[MrMackey]

Hmm, it's worth a try... :)

[CarolusPelegrinus]

Freedom is a XVIIIth century idea (maybe late XVIIth) -- and I'm not 100% sure of Mel Gibson's accuracy in reporting the acts of William Wallace. Back in the Middle ages people cherished security more: and usually an overlord meant that you would get MORE security (from foreign powers). The case of scottish or bohemian or hungarian or catalan oppression under the vassalage of various overlord was usually more complex then just the vassal-overlord relationship: part was economics, national pride, religion etc...

In any event I think that losing Kingdom Points (KP) for declaring independence is warranted: You engage your people in uncertain times -- and in a war with a power most likely stronger, richer, more stable. That's definitely negative KP... Maybe your leader could get a star in recognition of his guts... or some sort of cookie-points, but KP should go down!

As for losing KP for granting independance, I've had to think of this one hard: I too did not expect that KP should be lost, but actualy there even if you are not at war with the former vassal you do end-up creating uncertainty and less security for your kingdom (since a vassal no longer exists to assist you in defense of your kingdom)... So maybe -1 KP, but not the 2-3 points I last lost when granting independance to my last vassal!

[MrMackey]

Freedom is a XVIIIth century idea (maybe late XVIIth)

When people first started pondering about the subject yes but the sheer will to be free has always been there in the hearts and minds of an oppressed people... Go ask Spartacus. :wink:

and I'm not 100% sure of Mel Gibson's accuracy in reporting the acts of William Wallace.

That's for another topic. I was only referring to him loosely while meaning to focus most of my example to King Robert the Bruce who in fact turned his back on King Edward (much to the joy of the Scottish people)...

and usually an overlord meant that you would get MORE security (from foreign powers).

A confidence which KoH manages to shatter to teeny bits with excellence I might add...

The case of scottish or bohemian or hungarian or catalan oppression under the vassalage of various overlord was usually more complex then just the vassal-overlord relationship: part was economics, national pride, religion etc...

True, but would it at least be acceptable to keep the KP when declaring independence while playing as one of these minor powers? And about national pride, don't all nations have it? :wink:

You engage your people in uncertain times -- and in a war with a power most likely stronger, richer, more stable.

Which isn't really the case in KoH either... :wink: