Bringing all the lords you can into your kingdom a good thing?

[Zorro]

I have 9 lords in my own kingdom. Of those 5 main lords I give land too. 3 were lords I picked and gave them the bulk of the land as I expanded because I read of rebellions. Two lords I talked too and brought into my kingdom bring in some towns and castles. Of the remaining lords they have a couple villages but thats it.

I have tons of lords waiting at my court wanting to join my kingdom but I have been hesitant. My kingdom is the largest remaining so I could use them to cover all my lands. I'm worried about my relations with them If I allow them to join but don't give them any land it won't cause problems with my main lords will it? I don't want any rebellions. If I just assign lands to my main lords it won't cause too big of problems will it?

 

[unmerged(169164)]

The game does not include ruling features but stubs are already implemented.

Lords have different visions on what makes a good ruler (corresponds with the options a lord asks when being recruited from a place different from the court hall)

Maybe in M&B2, actual ruling decisions might have to be taken.

For the moment, the lords'expectations weigh in how cohesive a faction is. Stacking lords with non compatible personalities warrant they wont work well as a team. If a lord is involved in a battle, a lord hating on him wont join the battle to help him out. Etc...

 

[Zorro]

But nothing bad could happen from getting all the lords I can? If I don't give them land the worst that could happen is that they leave my faction correct?

 

[unmerged(169164)]

After a while, as soon as lords have tried to get land from every faction, they simply leave the kingdom.

Unlanded lords take a relationship hit every week, so they will leave soon.

The risk is that after a while, there is no longer enough lords to properly man a large kingdom, distributing land to a core of lords kept small in number leads to hassle as you have to run north, south, west, east with a smallish force to try to defend the land.

This point depends on the player's tastes as some players only see M&B as a conquest, battle game and are very pleased to ride around fighting battle after battle.

 

[Zorro]

Is a balance best then? I like lords with 200+ watching my back. Is having some powerful lords on the border better then? I don't know if lose weak lords could defend anything.

 

[unmerged(169164)]

I dont see the game this way.

It is a matter of trade offs, pros and cons. If you go for one situation, you've have this, if you go for another situation, you have that.

Personally, I dont like being committed to battle only (my character has a trader background) so I deleguate much when it comes to war: if the war is low scaled, I do not name a marshall, medium scale, I name a marshall, high scale, I name myself as a marshall.

I also paired lords: I gave the castle to the higher renown lord and the attending village to a lesser lord. I make sure both have personalities that go well together. That way, they defend their zone together. It is often enough to thwart small raids.

Landless lords will take more time to replenish their troops but in return, do not have a fief to defend and are always prone to answer a call to arms (in hope they get a bit of land) contrary to landed land lords who might reject the call for other grounds.

It depends on what you want to do and how you want it to be done: my way of doing could be frustrating for people who want to war all the time as lords do not answer all the times.

 

[miloc]

Don't accept lords if you are not willing to give them land. Relations will drop quickly and drastically, and they will leave you soon.

I would recommend to call for a feast, then accept one newcomer, then ask the other lords who should get a fief. In my experience, about 90% will name the newcomer. Then give it to him. Relations increase all around. Repeat.

Personally I like to have as many lords as possible, but managing relations can be tedious.