Byzantine holdings strategy

[aprogressivist]

So I'm contemplating a new strategy for Byzantine holdings.

For any duchy I can't hold as Emperor in my personal demense:

1) Land any unlanded males of my dynasty in spare baronies.
2) Land a Bishop (preferably of my dynasty)
3) Land all the other counties Lord Mayors.
4) Give the ducal title to promote the Bishop to keep the Lord Mayor in check.

With high church taxes I can actually get a decent proportion of the city taxes that my Archbishop gets, and it'll be my Archbishops who have to deal with the angry vassal modifier from the Lord Mayors. (I'd rather not have to deal with Doges.)

Has anyone tried something like this? I'm wondering how stable it is.

 

[Ols]

I can imagine it's very stable, since you can just revoke the Ducal title if things go wrong and give it to someone else. If it's not viable across the whole Empire, I tried giving far flung kingdoms out to vassals and that worked well too. The only problem is the risk that they'll intermarry, though that risk is indeed lessened by having Republics and Theocracies under them. I think it'd be wise to keep a few feudal titles dotted around under your dynasty's control though, and maybe a few loyalist houses on the fringe of the empire so they can expand the empire for you and do the work Lord Mayors and Prince-Bishops wont.

 

[unmerged(26764)]

This actually sounds pretty smart. I might try this sometime.

The only concern about a realm that's completely organized this way is your baronies will have no income and stagnate. You'll end up with far fewer levies over time, and your holdings will be easily seiged. It's a trade-off you might be willing to make.

You might consider giving more churches to the P-AB directly. With high church taxes, you'll probably still get more out of him with more direct holdings that way than getting a cut of his cut of city taxes.

 

[aprogressivist]

The only concern about a realm that's completely organized this way is your baronies will have no income and stagnate. You'll end up with far fewer levies over time, and your holdings will be easily seiged. It's a trade-off you might be willing to make.

Would that be so? Are you sure? A baron with a Lord-Mayor liege would pay feudal tax to the Lord-Mayor, no?

 

[aprogressivist]

I tested this out as William the Conqueror just to do a basic viability test and it went very well; although as a Catholic, it's dangerous when you get a king that's less popular than the Pope -- suddenly your finances take a massive hit.

 

[icon41gimp]

Would that be so? Are you sure? A baron with a Lord-Mayor liege would pay feudal tax to the Lord-Mayor, no?

Yes but developing a castle without taxes from a supporting city and bishopric takes a long time for the owner of said castle.

 

[unmerged(26764)]

Would that be so? Are you sure? A baron with a Lord-Mayor liege would pay feudal tax to the Lord-Mayor, no?

No. The AI doesn't tax feudal vassals. It's not that the mayor taxes the baron. It's that the baron has to upgrade his castle on his own very small castle income, which he can hardly afford to do. Castles don't produce much money. A normal count gets income from city and church taxes, which he spend on castle upgrades. A solo baron gets nothing except what his own castle produces, which isn't much. Which is why castles owned by solo barons are almost always worse than cities or churches. They have no walls, produce no troops, and earn no income.

This is also why I try to always grant extra baronies in a county to it's count. If you don't, the baron can't afford any more upgrades while the count could. It irritates me when the count then turns around and grants it to some random vassal. His son is fine -- that will eventually merge back into the county. But some no-name is horrible -- it means that castle is now going to be mostly useless until the baron dies without an heir.

For the same reason, I'm starting to wonder whether it's good that I always hike up harsh city taxes in the early game. I'm wondering whether it would be better to tax cities lightly until they get going with a lot of economic upgrades, and only then turn up the tax rate.

 

[aprogressivist]

Good points. Indeed in practice, this strategy does seem significantly weak on manpower; but then that's what personal levies & retinues, and mercenaries are for!

On the other hand, it is very stable. When I was playing as the Conqueror, Richard inherited and despite all the bishops hating him, the realm remained civil-war free and just ticked along nicely. Combine this with elective monarchy and it's essentially easy-mode for handling succession crises.

As mentioned, it's somewhat problematic as a Catholic power -- unless you go Elective and always pick a heir that your bishops will adore, eventually there'll be a popular Pope and your finances will take a serious hit. This strategy however truly benefits the Byzantines because of their free duchy revoke and the fact that the Emperor always gets his dues from Archbishop.

 

[Aardvark Bellay]

For the same reason, I'm starting to wonder whether it's good that I always hike up harsh city taxes in the early game. I'm wondering whether it would be better to tax cities lightly until they get going with a lot of economic upgrades, and only then turn up the tax rate.

You still can upgrade direct vassal holdings yourself. Thats what i do, i pay their income buildings and university, after that they are fine and i get all the money.

 

[unmerged(26764)]

You still can upgrade direct vassal holdings yourself. Thats what i do, i pay their income buildings and university, after that they are fine and i get all the money.

But only direct vassals. If you're organizing your realm where every castle is held by a baron vassal to a bishop / mayor vassal to a bishop -- you can't pay to upgrade. Not to mention, upgrading every castle in the realm would get quite spendy. Not to mention, a micro management nightmare.

 

[Sweynforkbeard]

But only direct vassals. If you're organizing your realm where every castle is held by a baron vassal to a bishop / mayor vassal to a bishop -- you can't pay to upgrade. Not to mention, upgrading every castle in the realm would get quite spendy. Not to mention, a micro management nightmare.

Harsh city tax only affect your direct vassals anyway. So unless you are concerned with the opinion of yours mayors, then it is always more efficient to have harsh city tax and use the funds you gain from that to build the income/tech structures in the cities.

 

[unmerged(26764)]

Harsh city tax only affect your direct vassals anyway. So unless you are concerned with the opinion of yours mayors, then it is always more efficient to have harsh city tax and use the funds you gain from that to build the income/tech structures in the cities.

Ah, I see your point. I thought you were referring to the other part of the thread.

That's probably true. I'll spend their money on harbors and fairs while they'll spend it on militia squares. Actually, I'll spend it on other things that seem more pressing and neglect them but in theory that's not what I should do at all.

 

[Lwantssugar]

you know if you have a large pile of gold and youre bored you can upgrade your vassals holdings for them? its how I made 30 gold a month just with de jure Scotland. now that Im Emperor of Britania the only reason I dont make more than 70 per month is because Ireland was poorly developed in comparison, Id imagine as the Byzzies such a strategy works wonders in Constantinople with all the holding spaces availible and the high tech.

 

[unmerged(26764)]

you know if you have a large pile of gold and youre bored you can upgrade your vassals holdings for them? its how I made 30 gold a month just with de jure Scotland. now that Im Emperor of Britania the only reason I dont make more than 70 per month is because Ireland was poorly developed in comparison, Id imagine as the Byzzies such a strategy works wonders in Constantinople with all the holding spaces availible and the high tech.

The real way to make cash in big empires is feudal vassal taxes.

Really. It's worth it.

Not at the beginning of your reign. First thing you do when you take the throne is cut feudal taxes to nothing. But once you have a nice long reign bonus, I've been hiking them up to the max. In my current game, I have an empire of about 800 holdings. My income with 12 demense, all with cities, and max city and church tax -- with a few PABs -- is about 80 per month. When I turned on max feudal vassal taxes, it was nearly 200 per month. And it's only 1200, so holdings aren't that developed yet.

Nobody revolted. No factions formed. Everyone went from loving me to liking me a lot. Very worth it.

Frankly, I think it's a lot better than making doges. When you get a new king, you can't make the doges and their penalty just go away. But you can make the feudal taxes and their penalty go away.

 

[Sweynforkbeard]

The real way to make cash in big empires is feudal vassal taxes.

Really. It's worth it.

Not at the beginning of your reign. First thing you do when you take the throne is cut feudal taxes to nothing. But once you have a nice long reign bonus, I've been hiking them up to the max. In my current game, I have an empire of about 800 holdings. My income with 12 demense, all with cities, and max city and church tax -- with a few PABs -- is about 80 per month. When I turned on max feudal vassal taxes, it was nearly 200 per month. And it's only 1200, so holdings aren't that developed yet.

Nobody revolted. No factions formed. Everyone went from loving me to liking me a lot. Very worth it.

Frankly, I think it's a lot better than making doges. When you get a new king, you can't make the doges and their penalty just go away. But you can make the feudal taxes and their penalty go away.

It is just.. impossible for me to agree with this.

Assume that all holdings in your realm are perfectly evenly upgraded (level 3 income buildings across the board), that all countries have precisely 1 city, 1 castle and 1 church, and that tech is universally 2 across the board.

If you make one doge who for instance holds two countries but a total of 5 cities (maximum safe number for legalism level 2) and have harsh city tax he will generate roughly 133 tax revenues per year, not considering any stewardship bonuses.

A single count holding 1 castle (personally) and having 1 city vassal and 1 church vassal would produce roughly 3 tax revenues per year, again not considering stewardship bonuses and assuming he get the full tax from his city and church, if you tax him with 10%.

Hence, it takes roughly 45 single country counts to make up for 1 doge in terms of tax revenues. In that equation I would honestly prefer to deal with a few problematic vassals rather gain a malus with such a huge number of vassals. Especially considering that the malus from a 10% tax increase is equal to increasing crown law by one level.

Sorry, I miss read your post slightly Valinn. With a 30% feudal tax the tradeoff should be 15 counts vs. 1 doge instead, but with such a huge malus (-30) you have effectively turned every single noble into a doge anyway.

 

[Sweynforkbeard]

High crown law + max feudal levies + max feudal tax = 55 malus
High crown law + min city levies + max city tax = 40 malus

limited crown law + max feudal levies + max feudal tax = 35 malus

In both cases you can improve your relationship to the respective groups by 30 by decreasing taxes to minimum. I think the strategy that you propose is really really counterproductive unless you normally operate with limited or lower crown law.

 

[Tijean]

There was a strategy with Normandy/England. I think it got fixed but it is simillar. The main ideas was to conquer every county in the Normand Invasion of England. Then you turn every county you don't own by yourself into republik. You gain mutch more gold from your vassal. Mayor would revolt more often but never to steal your title. Since they are mayor and you are probably you juste have to buy mercenary and kill them.

 

[Sweynforkbeard]

There was a strategy with Normandy/England. I think it got fixed but it is simillar. The main ideas was to conquer every county in the Normand Invasion of England. Then you turn every county you don't own by yourself into republik. You gain mutch more gold from your vassal. Mayor would revolt more often but never to steal your title. Since they are mayor and you are probably you juste have to buy mercenary and kill them.

That isnt a good idea either. Faction power is simply based on the number of troops that a lord control. So, for anyone NOT playing in such a way that you are always sure to have every vassal in your realm at 80+ opinion, then you need to keep on good terms with one group at the expense of another. (which you cant do if you only have one type of vassals)

Individually, nobles have the most troops so the best strategy is to always keep on good terms with them.
On the other hand, lordmayors/doges are rich but do not have (should not be allowed to have) alot of troops. Tax them into the ground, let them whine, let them plot, let them hate you (though not so much that they stop paying you ofcourse). It does not matter because they have relatively weak faction power.

The only time using doges will ever be a problem is if you have too many of them or if you dont keep on good terms with your nobles. A good strategy to further weaken your lord mayor/doge faction is to give them cross-holdings so they will also hate each other.

 

[unmerged(26764)]

In both cases you can improve your relationship to the respective groups by 30 by decreasing taxes to minimum. I think the strategy that you propose is really really counterproductive unless you normally operate with limited or lower crown law.

The point is that you can turn taxes on and off every five years.

Doges are only a problem when you get a new king, have a short reign penalty, and have factions forming like crazy. For the first decade or two of a new ruler, you really need to make vassals happy. And a few doges can tip you over the corner into a faction revolt. And bribes are often not enough to stop it -- many vassals with max bribes will still revolt.

So while Doges are normally fine, when you really are on the tipping point of a rebellion there's nothing you can do but deal with it.

Feudal taxes, on the other hand, you can turn on only when you have a lot of excess good will built up over a long reign. In this situation, an extra -30 doesn't really matter. Normally at this point, i started revoking a few titles every five years to reorganize my realm or otherwise resorting to a little tyranny. Now I'm just hiking up the taxes. I'm taking a very nice cut from every holding in the realm -- every bishop and city. And when I need to make people happy again, I just turn it off.

With factions, I hate Doges now. They're just too hard to keep happy during the early years of a reign and they make rebellions inevitable. But I'm really liking feudal taxes. I never did it before, and felt the same as everyone else. The conventional wisdom is to never do it. But since you can turn it on and off pretty easily, taxes are actually pretty great. just turn them off when you don't have goodwill to bank, and back on when you do.

Oh, and the other thing about Doges -- they only work in same culture areas. Which means you only have them in your starting realm, or you have to revoke titles later to put them down after a culture shift. So you could never have that many of them anyway. Feudal taxes makes bank across an entire multi-ethnic empire. Feudal vassals stay your culture, while doges take the culture of the county.

For what it's worth -- I'm certainly not saying you should crank up feudal taxes and leave it there all the time. I'm saying it's a great tool during the later half of your reign.

 

[Sweynforkbeard]

The point is that you can turn taxes on and off every five years.

Doges are only a problem when you get a new king, have a short reign penalty, and have factions forming like crazy. For the first decade or two of a new ruler, you really need to make vassals happy. And a few doges can tip you over the corner into a faction revolt. And bribes are often not enough to stop it -- many vassals with max bribes will still revolt.

So while Doges are normally fine, when you really are on the tipping point of a rebellion there's nothing you can do but deal with it.

Feudal taxes, on the other hand, you can turn on only when you have a lot of excess good will built up over a long reign. In this situation, an extra -30 doesn't really matter. Normally at this point, i started revoking a few titles every five years to reorganize my realm or otherwise resorting to a little tyranny. Now I'm just hiking up the taxes. I'm taking a very nice cut from every holding in the realm -- every bishop and city. And when I need to make people happy again, I just turn it off.

With factions, I hate Doges now. They're just too hard to keep happy during the early years of a reign and they make rebellions inevitable. But I'm really liking feudal taxes. I never did it before, and felt the same as everyone else. The conventional wisdom is to never do it. But since you can turn it on and off pretty easily, taxes are actually pretty great. just turn them off when you don't have goodwill to bank, and back on when you do.

Oh, and the other thing about Doges -- they only work in same culture areas. Which means you only have them in your starting realm, or you have to revoke titles later to put them down after a culture shift. So you could never have that many of them anyway. Feudal taxes makes bank across an entire multi-ethnic empire. Feudal vassals stay your culture, while doges take the culture of the county.

For what it's worth -- I'm certainly not saying you should crank up feudal taxes and leave it there all the time. I'm saying it's a great tool during the later half of your reign.

I think you make an excellent argument for the case.

Though I also think the probability of ending up in a situation where doges will tip the balance is theoretical.120g per month, from doges, require so few of them.

If you really bent on avoiding a faction war in such a case, and you do not tax nobles to begin with, you could simply lower the levies required of your nobles for a further 15 relation bonus.
If minimal levies, no taxes, gifts, titles and perhaps even a a few vassal transfers or land grants here or there isnt enough to fix a succession, then you are probably better off to just take a quick show down and clear the air.