Estate landholding

[theJalden]

The central matter of economics at this time was essentially "who owns a certain piece of land". During this era boundaries were a complex mess of overlapping claims, causing a lot of confusion, and I wouldn't really want to model that whole system in the game. But I would argue that the EU4 system of crown and estate owned land worked rather well at representing some of this dynamic. Land meant wealth, rental income, control of production. But one matter that is not at all represented in EU4's system is the matter of the commons.

Land in this time was generally divided up into estates or manors, some part of which was sectioned off as "commons" to support the lives of the peasants of the manor who were obliged to labor on the lord's land in order to support a warrior. The control of lands was massive political issue, monastic orders, for instance, owned a good section of land, but didn't provide warriors to the defense of the realm. So I'm a little split on this in my mind, the peasants/commoners did have rights associated with the commons that were a kind of "property" even though it was all a part of a noble's or clergyman's manor/parish. On the subject of land ownership, the yeoman and landed gentry were important categories at the time, I wonder how they might be distinguished from tenant farmer/peasant.

I didn't see mention of estate landholding in the dev diary, and while the design may not be finished, I'm worried that such a mechanic isn't in the game at all. It absolutely mattered what the distribution of landholding was. I did see that there was a "wealth level" for each estate, but I've taken that to mean taxable wealth, something that you, as king can have them give you.

And of course different styles of land ownership varried from country to country. Spain had it's encomienda system, China, I'm sure, arranged things differently.

 

[Linbot#6018]

The central matter of economics at this time was essentially "who owns a certain piece of land". During this era boundaries were a complex mess of overlapping claims, causing a lot of confusion, and I wouldn't really want to model that whole system in the game. But I would argue that the EU4 system of crown and estate owned land worked rather well at representing some of this dynamic. Land meant wealth, rental income, control of production. But one matter that is not at all represented in EU4's system is the matter of the commons.

Land in this time was generally divided up into estates or manors, some part of which was sectioned off as "commons" to support the lives of the peasants of the manor who were obliged to labor on the lord's land in order to support a warrior. The control of lands was massive political issue, monastic orders, for instance, owned a good section of land, but didn't provide warriors to the defense of the realm. So I'm a little split on this in my mind, the peasants/commoners did have rights associated with the commons that were a kind of "property" even though it was all a part of a noble's or clergyman's manor/parish. On the subject of land ownership, the yeoman and landed gentry were important categories at the time, I wonder how they might be distinguished from tenant farmer/peasant.

I didn't see mention of estate landholding in the dev diary, and while the design may not be finished, I'm worried that such a mechanic isn't in the game at all. It absolutely mattered what the distribution of landholding was. I did see that there was a "wealth level" for each estate, but I've taken that to mean taxable wealth, something that you, as king can have them give you.

And of course different styles of land ownership varried from country to country. Spain had it's encomienda system, China, I'm sure, arranged things differently.

I think a system for representing land ownership in Europe would pretty much apply for China as well. East Asian countries actually also have a history of "commons" land too.

I can't help but share the opinion of OP that landownership should be the basic value for estate power. A good system for tracking estate land ownership should be a core part of this game, but it seems as though no such system exists, and therefore the pop mechanics, state revenue, etc. will be even more detached from reality and there is a greater risk we will drift into the silly modifier fest abstract board game gameplay that eu4 has, even though the devs have said they are aiming for simulationism.

 

[greywulfos]

Considering that they mentioned that estates can hold certain amounts of wealth in certain regions, I actually think that not only will there be a similar system to crownland, it'll actually be better. Not only can nobles hold land, you can actually see what regions they hold the most land in. When you grant nobles land, you can make sure to grant them land that isn't the wealthiest in the entire empire. (This will help a lot for modelling things like, say, the Oprichnina)

That said crownland never made sense for factions like the Burghers or, especially severely, the Chinese Eunuchs or Ottoman Janissaries. Having independent wealth outside of held land is definitely better than simple landholding systems.

 

[theJalden]

Considering that they mentioned that estates can hold certain amounts of wealth in certain regions, I actually think that not only will there be a similar system to crownland, it'll actually be better. Not only can nobles hold land, you can actually see what regions they hold the most land in. When you grant nobles land, you can make sure to grant them land that isn't the wealthiest in the entire empire. (This will help a lot for modelling things like, say, the Oprichnina)

That said crownland never made sense for factions like the Burghers or, especially severely, the Chinese Eunuchs or Ottoman Janissaries. Having independent wealth outside of held land is definitely better than simple landholding systems.

Power is hard to model. Maybe Johan's right and population is a decent proxy (don't let him read this).

I've been watching Shogun, and the influence of the Portuguese missionaries in Japan is interesting. They weren't especially numerous, but they had outside influence with their ability to convert, and the wealth they controlled. The web of international connections, and their literacy also boosted their power. There's something to be said about mysticism too, especially in an age where modern rationality isn't assumed.

If I'm a ruler what do I want from my various estates. Money and warriors from my nobles, money and moral authority from the clergy, money from the burghers, and maybe their ships. Peasants have the least power, but they can still revolt and cause damage, may want them for the army though, they are in the odd position where the more of them they are the less powerful they are as a block. The go to example is how the Black Death raised wages for the peasants who survived. Obviously the common denominator here is money, but to each individual estate I'd also add a second, unique factor. Land was important for nobles, followers for clergy, the level of wealth the comes from trade for the burghers.

 

[endersaim]

Power is hard to model. Maybe Johan's right and population is a decent proxy (don't let him read this).

I've been watching Shogun, and the influence of the Portuguese missionaries in Japan is interesting. They weren't especially numerous, but they had outside influence with their ability to convert, and the wealth they controlled. The web of international connections, and their literacy also boosted their power. There's something to be said about mysticism too, especially in an age where modern rationality isn't assumed.

The advantage of counting population and approximating relative wealth (ie 1 Noble = 1000 peasants from the Tinto talk) is that you don't have to keep track of every population's wealth, which is pretty irrelevant aside from this calculation for political power.

 

[Johan]

The advantage of counting population and approximating relative wealth (ie 1 Noble = 1000 peasants from the Tinto talk) is that you don't have to keep track of every population's wealth, which is pretty irrelevant aside from this calculation for political power.

Yes.

Its decisions and abstractions like this that allows for a good performance .

 

[theJalden]

Yes.

Its decisions and abstractions like this that allows for a good performance .

Now hold on, didn't you say that estates track wealth and use it to invest in building?

 

[Johan]

Now hold on, didn't you say that estates track wealth and use it to invest in building?

yes, but he said you don't have to keep track of every population's wealth.

The estates have pooled wealth, not every individual of the 88 million peasants in Yuan

 

[AHumpierRogue]

I worry how this situation will interact with more diverse empires. If I'm Ottomans and I conquer Hungary, will Hungarian nobles just not have wealth because they aren't part of my estates?

I do think land ownership is important. IDK I feel the system won't be able to represent proper land and wealth imbalance, even if the nobles, clergy etc. individually count for more.

 

[Eruth]

yes, but he said you don't have to keep track of every population's wealth.

The estates have pooled wealth, not every individual of the 88 million peasants in Yuan

Echoing the comment above, how exactly pooled is the wealth? Each country's estate has a national wealth? Each location's estate has wealth?

 

[Abnormalmind]

Have you ever delved into the depths of the M&T3 mod? It's like this mysterious game has been raiding the treasure trove of that mod's estate system! Props to the amazing mod team for their creativity. Why not give it a whirl and let us know what you think? It's like stumbling upon a hidden gem in the gaming world!

 

[Johan]

Echoing the comment above, how exactly pooled is the wealth? Each country's estate has a national wealth? Each location's estate has wealth?

each estate in a country

 

[StenKilla]

Is there some sort of interaction with estates to grant lands in a newly conquered province?

 

[honkajoki]

each estate in a country

Suppose in country A peasants have 90% of wealth and nobles have 10%. It gets annexed by country B of similar size, where nobles have 90% and peasants 10%. How will the percentages be in the resulting double sized country B?

Assuming someone loses wealth in the annexation, will it be modeled as the whole estate being unhappy country wide, or by regional unrest in former country A's territory? Can an estate be unhappy in just one part of a country, or can regional unrest lead to rebels only from some estates while others are happy?

 

[Miroku20X6]

I worry how this situation will interact with more diverse empires. If I'm Ottomans and I conquer Hungary, will Hungarian nobles just not have wealth because they aren't part of my estates?

I do think land ownership is important. IDK I feel the system won't be able to represent proper land and wealth imbalance, even if the nobles, clergy etc. individually count for more.

I would assume that they would become part of your nobility estate. But now your nobility class comes from a more mixed variety of pops, which could have some problems for you.

 

[Johan]

Suppose in country A peasants have 90% of wealth and nobles have 10%. It gets annexed by country B of similar size, where nobles have 90% and peasants 10%. How will the percentages be in the resulting double sized country B?

Assuming someone loses wealth in the annexation, will it be modeled as the whole estate being unhappy country wide, or by regional unrest in former country A's territory? Can an estate be unhappy in just one part of a country, or can regional unrest lead to rebels only from some estates while others are happy?

money is lost in annexation

 

[honkajoki]

money is lost in annexation

Thanks for the reply.

So, the resulting country will have the wealth distribution of country B (which annexed A), all of that owned by former residents of country B, all the former residents of A lose what they had, regardless of estate. The loss of money by former A's people is modeled by giving those regions unrest that has nothing to do with estates?

I think that after annexation those estates who lost more should be angrier. While estate wealth is only tracked on the country level, can their unrest be tracked on a location, province, or some other level or is that also only on country level?

 

[ero_sk]

money is lost in annexation

It would be great to make it part of the annexation "process", when the winner gets to choose from a number of options, each with their pros and cons. Even if just through post-anexation event.

 

[theJalden]

How I learned to stop worrying and love estates.

Yes, maybe it’s not realistic to assume that number of a certain kind of pop equates to power, but the population itself is also a kind of abstract value. So what matters is the incentives and historical forces. Burgers want more trading outposts and to grow cities, clergy want to expand the faith, nobles want to control more land, if the factors that lead to increasing the numbers of these pops align with factors that increase their power then the mechanic is good enough.

And with gameplay considerations, because we need to remember they’re building a game and not a definitive explanation of how history works, “make number go up” to increase power works at a basic enough level. I’ll need to play it myself to know for sure that it walks the line of historical immersion and fun, but we shouldn’t forget the end purpose is to make a game.

 

[GrandEurypterid]

I know people have mentioned the Black Death increasing peasant power by depopulating them, and that being hard to measure; perhaps that's represented by situationally-induced modifiers on the Estates, rather than on the pops directly? Like how in EU4 the Burghers have more influence with large cities and high trade. Say, the Peasant Estate has an influence modifier based on how much spare land or limited food there is (however that's measured), which just sticks a calculation on the end of the process, instead of having to measure the power of each peasant individually. Or you have a similar 'wealth modifier' for the Nobility if you try to run an Absolutist court by handing out tax privileges for immediate gold; I could see that sort of thing being a strategy you might use if nobles or their resources are in demand.