Is there a reason not to have retinues?

[Kamuflaro]

Really great idea. Retinues would surely become much much more interesting this way

No, because I would use a stupid lowborn and kill any general who suddenly becomes landed.

 

[agustinalarcon]

No, because I would use a stupid lowborn and kill any general who suddenly becomes landed.

Well, if that's the way you play it, obviously, won't be interesting for you. But event this way.. you don't ever succeed when you try to kill someone. Anf the general wouldn't be very happy that you tried to kill him, and he then could rebel.
I never give my troops anyway to a stupid lowborn, but if possible to the/on of the best generals.

 

[barretta]

I checked one of my saves and byzantine had 38k retinue but because of civil war (I hope) cap was only 18. I didn't look long enough to check if there are penalties but it did mean they could put down the revolt. (Had checked the old save to figure out why I got my *** handed to me lol).

 

[Talq]

Well, if that's the way you play it, obviously, won't be interesting for you. But event this way.. you don't ever succeed when you try to kill someone. Anf the general wouldn't be very happy that you tried to kill him, and he then could rebel.
I never give my troops anyway to a stupid lowborn, but if possible to the/on of the best generals.

Landed people shouldn't be commanding your retinue. Its an office.

Still if you get over the non-landed people can't revolt hurdle the idea has some merit. As he said, the Byzantines (among others) had issues with army leaders deciding they would like the crown. This game could benefit from some court intrigue (but not too much).

 

[Muskeato]

I joke that those Varangians who survive when I assault castles get promoted to the Retinue.

Definitely CK2 humour at its best

 

[Alerias]

Definitely CK2 humour at its best

Hahah, thanks Glad someone got it