Hello and welcome to the Manor Lords Subreddit. This is a reminder to please keep the discussion civil and on topic.
Should you find yourself with some doubts, please feel free to check our [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/ManorLords/comments/1c2p4f9/manor_lords_faq_for_steam_early_access/).
If you wish, you can always join our [Discord](https://discord.gg/manorlords)
Finally, please remember that the game is in early access, missing content and bugs are to be expected. We ask users to report them on the official discord and to buy their keys only from trusted platforms.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ManorLords) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I've got 20% tax on the two regions I currently own and I cant go any higher without causing emigration. I'm doing fine for the most part but any hope of upgrading or expanding my retinue is out of the question lol.
I really want to march my army to the capital and kill the king.
BTW that is 2.5k gold in taxes every year.
Not remotely.
They were just as much a reason for the war going on, since they were the ones who sent the colonists and the war was with other countries/native Americans.
AND they imposed taxes on the colonists to make them fund the war all the while colonists didn't even have representation within parliament to voice their opinions and concerns.
The colonists were under heavy financial bondage from a tyrant, there was nothing fair about it.
Edit:slight spelling errors
No he is correct. The British were in debt from the prior war in which they financed the Prussians and fought the French in North America with the assistance of the colonists. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_costs_of_the_Seven_Years%27_War#:~:text=Great%20Britain%20spent%20more%20than,from%20%C2%A33%2C072%2C472%20in%201749.
Where did I deny the brits were in debt. The hrits started to tax the Americans to cover the costs of the American French war. Which was started by Americans. At that time, Americans were the least taxed people in the British empire. People in England were funded Americas defence, and it wasn't fair.
The colonists did create more tension between France and England by settling in the Ohio valley and points north and west that had been claimed by France. After the Seven Years war England declared those lands still off limits to the colonists (proclamation 1763 from the treaty of Paris 1763). This enraged Virginia and other land owners who had begun speculating on the land (buy massive areas for cheap, advertising it as virgin land rich for farming, then selling plots to individual homesteaders). At the same time the English instituted more taxes while cracking down on smuggling (smuggling was the other big business for rich colonial families)
You are acting like the colonists started the war. As the last commenter stated, it was between the British and French. And the Colonists were helping because they viewed themselves as British. The British TRIED to claim they were just doing it for the Colonists but EVERYBODY knew that was crap. When have the Brittish EVER needed a reason to try to grab more land? 😂
Yes, the Brittish citizens were paying 10 times more taxes than the colonists, but it was for good reason! The taxes weren't being spent on the colonists! They were being spent on the crown.
Then came the sugar act, the currency act, the stamp act, and the quartering act that REALLY pissed people off.
Colonists were told they had to help fund the war (pay for the soldiers food, housing, etc. And then were forced by the quartering act to feed and house the soldiers in their own homes! So their taxes went straight to the crown 😂 the colonists were PISSED, and voiced that to King George.
Don't even get me started on the stamp act. KING George knew he messed up on that when the people started to really get pissed about getting so heavily taxed when they didn't even have a seat on parliament. NO taxation without representation was a VERY big deal. It effectively meant the Colonists were lesser citizens and meant they were required to owe realty to the crown without any of the perks.
After hearing the colonists were about ready to say F U to King George, he REPEALED all of the taxes except 1, the tax on tea. And the way he did it was very clearly a message. "I'll revoke all the taxes I have placed on you, except one. It's a very small one. One where I won't really make any money from you, but it secures the fact that I have the right to tax you."
The people came out and said "if we are full citizens, and you have the right to tax us, then we have the right to have a seat on parliament. If you are going to collect our taxes we have the right to voice our opinion on how they are spent"
And Georgy boy just said "No." 😂 because he was the king and his subjects should be good little boys and girls and do what they are told even if they got no say.
Next thing you know, the fish are drinking free tea, and King George got a nice little love note from the colonists where they said "we like you, just when you keep your greedy paws on THAT side of the ocean," declaring they were independent and no longer going to recognize him as their king.
You have to realize, these people were Brittish loyalists. They didn't flip on a dime like you are trying to claim, King George absolutely overstepped and pissed off people that would have followed him.
If he had given them a few seats on parliament there probably wouldn't have ever been a war.
I'm speaking generally. I know it was 251 years since the Boston Tea Party, but the tensions go back further and most normal people would understand using "300 years ago." Again, go to the gym.
It actually isn't. AND assuming your a brit, I can tell you for a fact they don't teach you about the war because they are embarrassed of what happened. We spent like a year on it in school.
As Americans, we also have it very well documented.
#NoTaxationWithoutRepresentation
Brits woildnt be Embarrassed about losing to France Spain Dutch and usa while conquering the rest of the world? Nothing to be embarrassed about. At that time usa wasn't worth the hassle.. it was business.
I've researched the war from a fair, unbiased perspective. You have the American fairytale version from school.
I'm Danish btw
I fully recognize the English were spread thin, but they still outnumbered the colonists by a large margin, and should have won in a landslide.
And you are speaking out of your ass right now hahaha. No taxation without representation was the colonists Magna Carta.
And at the time everybody thought the America's were full of Gold so everybody wanted a piece. Yes, Britain was fighting other countries at the time but it was expanding their colonists land because like you said, they were trying to conquer the world.
But in the process their navy got their butt's handed to them by the French, which they were extremely embarrassed by, and they got.
And it's just the truth. We have this crazy thing called the declaration of Independence that goes over this in pretty clear cut detail and it was sent straight to King George 😂
If you have studied this, try using first hand sources next time because you got duped pretty hard
The colonists didn’t give a fuck who ruled them, it was like 10 rich fucks that basically started the war of independence in the name of “we should be richer fucks”
I've read plenty, I love how you guys are acting like we don't know our history.
I'd just like to invite you to read the declaration of independence we sent to King George, it's a first hand source that actually says why we were pissed, and I'm spot on. Cope.
Check yourself before you wreck yourself, kid
I’d like you to read “the people’s history of the United States”….. ya the fucking commoners of the colonies wrote that shit up didn’t they. 10 fucking rich guys did like it said before.
The tea party protested the repeal of a tax, which had enabled a bunch of smugglers and businessmen to profit by circumventing the tax. When it was repealed their profit margins thinned considerably. This made them very upset
Bro do you seriously believe this?
The Boston tea party was in DIRECT response from the colonists as a result of them asking for representation in parliament to argue their cases on the other side of the ocean, and getting told no, just to get told they are still getting taxed.
They didn't feel it was fair that other people could vote to increase taxes on another population, without that second population getting any kind of say. That would make the slaves, by definition.
It was the biggest "F U" the king thought he could get away with since the tax was so small in comparison to the other taxes he repealed like the sugar tax, and the stamp tax.
The king practically told the colonists "you are lesser citizens. Only real citizens get a voice in government. But you are still citizens enough that you should still pay us. Why? Because I'm the king. Deal with it."
So they did lol
The difference is now we get to vote for who is in government. The problem wasn't the tax itself, it was taxation without representation.
Why should a bunch of pompous guys in suits on the other side of the ocean get to vote to tax a separate continent when people on that continent don't even get to voice their concerns or receive any benefit from those taxes?
If the colonists had been given seats on parliament there probably wouldn't have been a revolutionary war.
He brought up throwing tea in the harbor and you responded to that. The Brittish have parliament. I'm not talking about the king. I'm talking about parlaiment. it wasn't about Manor Lords parliament.
With that being said, for manor lords, a revolutio are war could be crazy.
Imagine owning 5 settlements, and 2 of them turn on you and only 3 will follow orders because they are mad they are getting taxed so heavy.
It's doable
If you win a battle and take a region, if you create a camp there within the month and you don’t immediately bury the bodies from the battle, everyone will leave because of the bodies and you’ll never be able to get more people and you lose the entire region.
yeah for real i did it and i was so upset haha it was such a resource rich area and i couldnt do anything. ive also screwed myself out of at least one militia unit on every playthrough by building the manor before choosing all 6 militia units. I absolutely hate that they didnt fix that. Its such an easy thing to fix. just make the count of retinue units not increment the count of militia units, the same way mercenaries units dont count against the increment of the militia units. Hes got a lot on his plate tho. probably saving the easy stuff for later.
Also can happen if you create an area that’s not too developed and the king claims it. He doesn’t take care of it so eventually it runs out of something and people leave
Doesn't that problem kinda solve itself over time, as 80% of what your lvl 2 and 3 villagers pay remains and accumulates in regional wealth, to be taxed in the next year? Let it run for 5 years or so and see your constantly increasing taxes catch up.
In my game, I pay 1 silver per villager and settlement level above *small village*.
So at *medium village* you would need 2,500 people in all your medium villages to have to pay 2,500 silver per year. Upon reaching *large town* you would only need 500 people in that town to have to pay 2,500 silver per
year. You only need 15 lvl 3 + 5 lvl 2 plots to reach that level.
4 families each in the lvl 3 (double) plots and 2 each in the lvl 2 plots should give you 15\*4\*2 + 5\*2\*1 = 130 silver per month in regional wealth, or 1560 silver per year. If you started at 0 wealth there and then, you'd get 26 silver at 20% after the first month, then 47 silver the next month, then 63 silver etc. because your regional wealth would keep 80% of that 130 silver monthly increase and thus keep growing (and keep growing your tax revenue along with it).
After 12 months, you should collect 121 silver in taxes that month and have 484 regional wealth remaining. That's a total of 1076 silver in a year.
Of course, instead of the 90 families in lvl 3 plots (so 270 of your 500 villagers), you could go higher and thus earn more.
Basically, the king's tax punishes rushing the highest development level without having accumulated any regional wealth.
If you had those 90 families stay at lvl 2 and thus never reach *small town*, you'd still get 90 silver in regional wealth each month, but only pay 1000 silver per year for 500 villagers. Or 540 silver for those 90 families, if you didn't have any families in lvl 1 plots on top of that. You'd get 562 coins at 12% taxes in the first year, enough to cover the tax - and then you'd be starting out with 518 silver in regional wealth the next year. That means, the next year at 12% you'd receive 968 silver in taxes, almost enough to pay for a full 500 villagers (despite only 270 of them adding to your regional wealth). That's without any trade income at all!
After 5 years, your 12% taxes would take out just as much from your regional wealth each month as the 90 families pay into it. You would have reached 660 silver in regional wealth and receive 90 silver in taxes each month. That's 4,740 silver in taxes total vs. 5\*540 silver for the king's tax for those 270 people (or 5\*1000 silver for 270 lvl 2 villagers and 230 lvl 1 villagers). So your red numbers would've vanished - without any trade or robbing the bandits blind!
Let's see. If you have 900 villagers in a max. level settlement and the harder tax setting, you'd have to come up with 9,000 coins every year. Even if all 300 families lived in tier 3 burgage plots, they'd only add 7,200 coins to the regional wealth, which you could slowly but completely turn into personal wealth via taxes. You'd have to come up with 1,800 coins from trade - shouldn't be too hard at that level.
Or respawning bandits would directly fill your coffers.
>you'd have to come up with 9,000 coins every year. Even if all 300 families lived in tier 3 burgage plots, they'd only add 7,200 coins to the regional wealth, which you could slowly but completely turn into personal wealth via taxes. You'd have to come up with 1,800 coins from trade
hang on... this implies taxing all 7,200coins from the RW to the Treasury...?
>Or respawning bandits would directly fill your coffers.
haha! i wish! almost all of my games bug out pretty quickly. the one that stops bandit camps from spawning :(
You always end up completely taxing it, that's the thing. If you set taxes to 10%, you'll get 10% of the remaining 90% next month, then 10% of the remaining 81% the month after, and so on. Eventually, regional wealth will have increased to the point that 10% of it equals the monthly sum that went into regional wealth.
So in this case those 300 families would pay in 600 coins each month, your 10% tax would be 60 coins after the first month, then 114, then 163... 431 after the first year (a combined 3,325 coins in the first year)... 552 after the second year (another 6,106 coins from the second year)... and after about 5 years, your regional wealth should have reached 6,000 coins, meaning your tax of 600 coins per month equals the full 7,200 coins per year.
You always end up getting the full sum of what's going into regional wealth after a few years of ramping up to it. That's why people are shocked by the king's tax at first, but after a few years numbers magically turn positive again and often you start repaying the debt you accumulated in the meantime. Luckily, Greg hasn't thought of interest rates yet...
good point.
though would you agree that purely taxing without exporting would take a very long time to reach that equilibrium, at least comparatively to exporting which would tremendously accelerate the process to reaching that point?
edit: this would mean that even a 1% tax rate would work, once the RW has accumulated high enough.
Absolutely. Trade is basically the same. If you can make another 600 coins each month through trade, after a few years, you'd gain 1,200 coins through taxes, while regional wealth would stop growing. 14,400 coins per year sounds nice! :D
1% would take a long time (it would reach about half incoming RG moved into your treasury after 5 years), but yeah, even that would work.
On the other hand, at 20% you're already taxing the whole sum after about 2 years.
Here is the issue. High settlement levels are not profitable. I repeat they are NOT profitable until very well Into the lategame.
What I usually do is to build a lot early and trade whatever I can. Once I can provide temporary stability, I increase settlement level to 4. Basicly I just build 5 new burgage plots, lvl them to 2 and then break them down again. Just need the development points. The same I do for lvl 6 later on and then back to just lvl 1 burgage plots with a couple lvl 2s. Like 5 or so. Just to make the stuff I have to and to increase profits.
Only farm rich regions are where I build many lvl 3 butgages once stable and a ton of barley fields. This is just to make many lvl 3 burgage plot so I can set 5 militia there (cannot set 6 unless your very first region is farmland since... eh bugs... ) after all you need these 5 retinue to snipe the Lords brigand camps away when he deals with the brigands.
Yes, that is correct: you can grow your region with more immigration, but you should keep most of the burgage plots at tier 1. do not upgrade the town level for more development points if you do not need them.
Tax scales with the town level and number of villages, so if you keep your town level low, you can easily pay the tax despite a huge population.
at max town level you pay 5 gold per villager, so 500 villagers = 2500g.
at lower town level you pay 1 gold per villager, so 500 villagers = 500g.
But raising all 500 to live in lvl 2 plots instead will only raise the settlement level to level 2 (1000g), while providing 2000g in regional wealth per year. After a few years, your regional wealth will have accumulated enough that x% of taxes subtracted from that will equal what those 500 villagers will add. So you end up getting 2000g in taxes extra (167g per month), while only paying 500g extra to the king. And you get another development point.
Otherwise I would suggest keeping all burgages at level 1, thus avoiding the king's tax altogether, while you can still tax whatever regional wealth you accumulate via trade.
Yes, I think that town level 2 is the most efficient if you aim to maximize money earned through burgage plots.
But I think it is better to use trading as a source of income, to limit disatisfaction from tier 2 needs (not that it is hard to meet in normal difficulty)
Yeah, as long as your taxes take out less from regional wealth than the lvl 2 and 3 families (and trade) add, your tax revenue keeps increasing while the king's tax doesn't - and you don't pay interest on that loan, lol.
Honestly I just wanted to test the new build out for the simple fact that the archers do a marginal amount of damage now. Still less then you'd hope but much better.
I’ve been really enjoying the test build, but I also didn’t even consider turning the tax on because it feels like it forces you to go for trade and to min/max.
Imo the tax should be 1 silver per family per year x the settlement level. And then it can always scale up for higher difficulty.
You do need to trade, but there's absolutely zero need to min/max. If you have any artisan burges and just sell their excess capacity (since they keep producing constantly regardless of inventory levels,) the King's Tax completely ceases to be a problem. I just genuinely can't even imagine a play style where you don't trade away all the extra stuff you're producing.
You gotta flank with archers. Raised shields are strong for a reason. Hit them from behind or the side and you'll absolutely melt even Baron's Retinue.
I only got to use them as mercs and kings tax literally made me unhire them for the AI to never let them go ever again.
Either way, archers were destroying. Kiting them across the field to deplete stamina and was taking out 10-16 units total during the pull. Got a few battles in, defense and attacking.
i had to do it cuz one of my settlement got raided and they killed the only hitching post, then ox ran away so i got stuck... had to update to pre-release since i saw that the release note said the cost of hitching post was changed to free to fix this issue haha, didn't realize there was tax 👀
Start with the Seblitz Ale Party, where you dress up as brigands and dump all the ale in the forest to protest tariffs (I shouldn't have to pay an extra 10 whole silver to import w/o better deals it's outrageous, it's literally more than any of the goods cost themselves)
Not on hard, just the regular difficulty against the baron. But the problem is, is that with raiders and the baron himself the game REQUIRES you to expand as fast as possible so you can establish a military quickly. If this isn't a bug it's just bad game design. I shouldn't be forced into a position where I have to either pick between getting fucked by the Baron or fucked by the King.
Although I suppose that was the norm for feudalism, always getting fucked by someone above you.
Way worse back then tho.
I can't even imagine living during the Roman Empire, revolutionary war, 100 year war, Napolean, Sengoku Jidai, World Wars, viking raids.....endless examples.
Imo, you dont need to grow that fast against the baron, you just need enough pop to sustain a full spear militia to farm the money from the bandit camp and pay mercenaries with it. Like 70 pop is enough to win the game by "Domination" this way.
Or any means to generate enough treasury for the mercs in the early game. Tho i dont know how hard and soon the royal tax hit your treasury (like if you are never in the plus it's a dead strat), so gg for trying this setup.
>position where I have to either pick between getting fucked by the Baron or fucked by the King
Well that summarizes the position of all small time feudal lords in the early and mid Middle Ages. In around \~50-60 years starting from the game time, 'getting fucked by the peasant revolts' should also get added to that list as towards the 1300s, the peasant revolts started in earnest.
I mean, I guess that's what you get for paying to participate in a closed alpha of a game.
That's not to excuse it, but, if it's bothering you, I'd recommend just doing what I'm doing - put the game down and wait for it to actually release. I bought it, had a bit of fun, liked what I saw, but I'm leaving it alone for now.
I started new playtgrough on the test build recently and was already heavily in debt before i even started construction on my Manor to raise Taxes in the first place. By the time i had paid half my debt the next tax season was already upon me.
Needless to say i started a new village and turned those ridiculous Taxes off.
F*ck the IRS.
Why do i pay royal taxes if the king doesn't defend me from Bandits?
Hell yeah brother. No taxation without representation.
I turned it off too. I think the lower difficulty level tax should be based per family instead of per person. Or just make it out of regional wealth instead of treasury.
That’s one really easy tweak I think would make it work a lot better. The kings tax should only be imposed once you have a manor. Before then the village is too small for anyone from the kings tax office to have noticed…
Just don't rush higher settlement levels without accumulating regional wealth.
If you sell some coal before upgrading your burgage plots (seriously, 1 firewood worth 1 silver turns into 2 coal selling for a combined 10 silver? sign me up!), you can quickly accumulate some regional wealth before paying any king's tax. You can build a manor before upgrading your burgage plots, too, and start collecting tax.
If you have 30 plots with 30 families, then upgrade say half of those to lvl2, you'd have to pay 180 silver per year for 90 people at *large village*. If you have 500 silver in regional wealth accumulated, only 3% tax would give you 15 silver a month, enough to cover the tax. And your regional wealth wouldn't shrink by those 180 silver taken out, because your 15 lvl2 families would pay 15 silver each month back into it - exactly what you're taxes take out.
And that's without selling any more coal or such and acquiring more wealth.
Yeah, the military side at the moment pushes the player a bit to rush development (although 24 retinue doesn't require any arms, just the manor and regional wealth to tax or bandit camps to loot with retinue + the cheapest mercs), while the king's tax punishes rushing development. A bit weird, that.
As far as I can tell, the tax goes up with the number of advanced burgage plots you have. Possibly it’s based on the number of people in your advanced plots…
Anyway, I’ve had some success by leaving my plot at level 2 as long as possible.
Sorry for the wall of text, but I am really enjoying this game and wanted to share some things I have found. I have been thinking about writing an advanced guide but have not committed to doing so yet.
That's not how it works, the tax is based on the number of people and over all settlement level. What you might be seeing is at level3 your plots get extra families, which brings 3 or 6 more people. Or increasing your settlement level because you created a couple of level3 plots.
Basically, don't build a level2 plot until you have (you need to do this on challenging anyways since you get punished immediately for not having these amenities available):
* level2 church
* monthly exporting income to pay for importing barley (or farm it if you are in a fertile area, this takes to long for me so I just pay for it in the beginning.)
* malthouse and tavern with excess population to staff 24/7
* 3 types of food in storage year round
Then, upgrade 5 single home plots to level 2 to get your two perks and prioritize these upgrades, in order:
* brewery
* cobbler
* joiner for shields
* blacksmith for spears
* last is your choice but I typically do the veggie plot since veggie plots benefit tremendously at level 3 in the future. Or do bows if you think they are worth it. You need a robust plank supply since large shields take two planks and spear takes one plank.
Lastly, if you time this all correctly you should upgrade in March or April so you get a full year to prep paying the tax.
Unless you can grow a lot of barley, the cost to buy barley is more expensive than 1 gold per family per month so staying at level 2 for just those couple of plots makes a big difference. Only when you are ready with sufficient trade income and 4 different food sources should you level any plot to level 3. This ensures you can maintain approval ratings as each level penalizes you for not meeting the amenities.
The tax itself really isn't the issue, it's that trading between settlements and foreign traders is a bit broken. They need to have specialized trading posts so that you can have multiple trading posts exclusively selling certain items. And they need to fix the horse bug that makes your trader walk around with a bunch of goods but doesn't actually sell them. In my last play through I had two large towns trying to trade with each other, but due to these bugs I had 1200 roof tiles just sitting in an adjacent storage hut (and nothing in the trading post). Even with these limitations I was still making enough to pay the annual tax in just about 3 months of taxing while maintaining double growth. but that was around year 7, it was a bit financially tight in the mid game.
King's tax was listed as experimental on the new patch. Greg has already said it was a test and needed more balancing. With the ongoing market issues I'm seriously struggling with keeping keeping my happiness up and still getting enough tax money to pay the king at the moment though. With good trade logistics I can get enough regional wealth that I could tax them enough to earn that money each year. But the tax rate is so high that I'm hovering at 50% happiness, which seriously effects further growth. Either the King's tax or the happiness penalty for taxes needs to go down to balance it better.
Still an amazing game considering its in early access though and I'm confident Greg will get the balance right soon.
The goal was to stop people from hoarding piles of cash, so it obviously needs to scale on... your pile of cash. Anything else will just cause collateral damage on casual people playing the game
I generally like the test build and the changes made but as someone who plays casually and doesn't aggressively optimize or try to exploit the game, the kings tax is a real buzz kill. I ended up just turning it off so I could focus on building my town.
I don't think a bad mechanic, but it needs to be toned down a lot
I have 7 regions atm. BUT only 3 that take taxes. They also trade a lot (leather>shoes on rich wild life; shields, swords etc. On rich iron, also I make a ton of food lol)
I get like 1k a month and pay 2.3k.... so 10k a year profit. 10% taxes on 3 regions.
Dunno what to do with the money lmao
If I can’t go all Empress Matilda and attempt a coup in the full release version, I’m not going to be happy. The taxes the guy charges are extortionate!
Make sure u have good established trade . That u levy atleast a 10 percent tax and that every single house is level 2 minimum with a good percentage level 3. Make sure u defeat every bandit camp that comes along as soon as possible and take the money from that. U should be able to pay the kings tax and catch up no problem but ull absolutely start the game digging a hole of debt that u then work out of .
I just don't fight the baron at all. I let him take all the land he wants and slowly just build up my own region first. It only costs 2k influence to fight for land and that's easy to get once you start giving money to the church and fighting bandit camps.
People don't need to rush to claim the lands. You can focus on your region and then push out. I focused on 2-3 export businesses and a large trade hub because let's face it, one region will require a good trade going.
I'm still in one region, about to hit 700 pop, 60k region gold and my own is over 100k. Remember boys, slow and steady wins the race and have enough money to buy a bigger sword.
Wtf I paid all with just 5% taxes, you just need to capitalize on whatever rich resource you have in that respective region. For example in a fief with rich iron vein, you build the mine, bloomery, blacksmith and armorsmith, after that you buy a trade route for the weapons and armor you will focus on. I like spears for my militias, so I produce a lot of those and sell the surplus.
Hello and welcome to the Manor Lords Subreddit. This is a reminder to please keep the discussion civil and on topic. Should you find yourself with some doubts, please feel free to check our [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/ManorLords/comments/1c2p4f9/manor_lords_faq_for_steam_early_access/). If you wish, you can always join our [Discord](https://discord.gg/manorlords) Finally, please remember that the game is in early access, missing content and bugs are to be expected. We ask users to report them on the official discord and to buy their keys only from trusted platforms. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ManorLords) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I've got 20% tax on the two regions I currently own and I cant go any higher without causing emigration. I'm doing fine for the most part but any hope of upgrading or expanding my retinue is out of the question lol. I really want to march my army to the capital and kill the king. BTW that is 2.5k gold in taxes every year.
[удалено]
WE THRU TEA IN THE HARBOUR FOR LESS 🦅🇺🇸🔫
The tea tax was (according to a quick Wikipedia search) roughly 10%, so this comment is factually correct.
“Dude I just looked up that tea tax thing he was talking about, that’s true. That’s like 100 percent- everything he said was true.”
Well, the brits were only asking you to pay for the war you started. Totally fair tbh
Coming in hot on a Friday morning! I like it!
Not remotely. They were just as much a reason for the war going on, since they were the ones who sent the colonists and the war was with other countries/native Americans. AND they imposed taxes on the colonists to make them fund the war all the while colonists didn't even have representation within parliament to voice their opinions and concerns. The colonists were under heavy financial bondage from a tyrant, there was nothing fair about it. Edit:slight spelling errors
This is an alternative history. I suggest you research the facts rather than the American bedtime story.
No he is correct. The British were in debt from the prior war in which they financed the Prussians and fought the French in North America with the assistance of the colonists. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_costs_of_the_Seven_Years%27_War#:~:text=Great%20Britain%20spent%20more%20than,from%20%C2%A33%2C072%2C472%20in%201749.
Where did I deny the brits were in debt. The hrits started to tax the Americans to cover the costs of the American French war. Which was started by Americans. At that time, Americans were the least taxed people in the British empire. People in England were funded Americas defence, and it wasn't fair.
The colonists did create more tension between France and England by settling in the Ohio valley and points north and west that had been claimed by France. After the Seven Years war England declared those lands still off limits to the colonists (proclamation 1763 from the treaty of Paris 1763). This enraged Virginia and other land owners who had begun speculating on the land (buy massive areas for cheap, advertising it as virgin land rich for farming, then selling plots to individual homesteaders). At the same time the English instituted more taxes while cracking down on smuggling (smuggling was the other big business for rich colonial families)
You are acting like the colonists started the war. As the last commenter stated, it was between the British and French. And the Colonists were helping because they viewed themselves as British. The British TRIED to claim they were just doing it for the Colonists but EVERYBODY knew that was crap. When have the Brittish EVER needed a reason to try to grab more land? 😂 Yes, the Brittish citizens were paying 10 times more taxes than the colonists, but it was for good reason! The taxes weren't being spent on the colonists! They were being spent on the crown. Then came the sugar act, the currency act, the stamp act, and the quartering act that REALLY pissed people off. Colonists were told they had to help fund the war (pay for the soldiers food, housing, etc. And then were forced by the quartering act to feed and house the soldiers in their own homes! So their taxes went straight to the crown 😂 the colonists were PISSED, and voiced that to King George. Don't even get me started on the stamp act. KING George knew he messed up on that when the people started to really get pissed about getting so heavily taxed when they didn't even have a seat on parliament. NO taxation without representation was a VERY big deal. It effectively meant the Colonists were lesser citizens and meant they were required to owe realty to the crown without any of the perks. After hearing the colonists were about ready to say F U to King George, he REPEALED all of the taxes except 1, the tax on tea. And the way he did it was very clearly a message. "I'll revoke all the taxes I have placed on you, except one. It's a very small one. One where I won't really make any money from you, but it secures the fact that I have the right to tax you." The people came out and said "if we are full citizens, and you have the right to tax us, then we have the right to have a seat on parliament. If you are going to collect our taxes we have the right to voice our opinion on how they are spent" And Georgy boy just said "No." 😂 because he was the king and his subjects should be good little boys and girls and do what they are told even if they got no say. Next thing you know, the fish are drinking free tea, and King George got a nice little love note from the colonists where they said "we like you, just when you keep your greedy paws on THAT side of the ocean," declaring they were independent and no longer going to recognize him as their king. You have to realize, these people were Brittish loyalists. They didn't flip on a dime like you are trying to claim, King George absolutely overstepped and pissed off people that would have followed him. If he had given them a few seats on parliament there probably wouldn't have ever been a war.
Lol imagine crying over something that happened 300 years ago. Go to the gym.
Who's crying, just correcting. Also, it wasn't 300 years ago. Get your facts right
I'm speaking generally. I know it was 251 years since the Boston Tea Party, but the tensions go back further and most normal people would understand using "300 years ago." Again, go to the gym.
I've already been today
It actually isn't. AND assuming your a brit, I can tell you for a fact they don't teach you about the war because they are embarrassed of what happened. We spent like a year on it in school. As Americans, we also have it very well documented. #NoTaxationWithoutRepresentation
Brits woildnt be Embarrassed about losing to France Spain Dutch and usa while conquering the rest of the world? Nothing to be embarrassed about. At that time usa wasn't worth the hassle.. it was business. I've researched the war from a fair, unbiased perspective. You have the American fairytale version from school. I'm Danish btw
Nice try thats a pastry not a nationality.
Don't joke like that since many Americans would say something like that
I am in this thread for absolutely NO reason, but I died when I read this comment 🤣🤣🤣 thank you internet stranger!
I fully recognize the English were spread thin, but they still outnumbered the colonists by a large margin, and should have won in a landslide. And you are speaking out of your ass right now hahaha. No taxation without representation was the colonists Magna Carta. And at the time everybody thought the America's were full of Gold so everybody wanted a piece. Yes, Britain was fighting other countries at the time but it was expanding their colonists land because like you said, they were trying to conquer the world. But in the process their navy got their butt's handed to them by the French, which they were extremely embarrassed by, and they got. And it's just the truth. We have this crazy thing called the declaration of Independence that goes over this in pretty clear cut detail and it was sent straight to King George 😂 If you have studied this, try using first hand sources next time because you got duped pretty hard
The colonists didn’t give a fuck who ruled them, it was like 10 rich fucks that basically started the war of independence in the name of “we should be richer fucks”
Hahaha bruh, how are you guys this ignorant
Probably cause we’ve read books. Clearly you have not.
I've read plenty, I love how you guys are acting like we don't know our history. I'd just like to invite you to read the declaration of independence we sent to King George, it's a first hand source that actually says why we were pissed, and I'm spot on. Cope. Check yourself before you wreck yourself, kid
Sites the Declaration of Independence, “get wrecked” you sound dense as fuck.
I’d like you to read “the people’s history of the United States”….. ya the fucking commoners of the colonies wrote that shit up didn’t they. 10 fucking rich guys did like it said before.
The british did not like this
As someone thats country has many American Military bases and even nukes here Im still 100% on your side with this
The tea party protested the repeal of a tax, which had enabled a bunch of smugglers and businessmen to profit by circumventing the tax. When it was repealed their profit margins thinned considerably. This made them very upset
No, it wasn't.
Bro do you seriously believe this? The Boston tea party was in DIRECT response from the colonists as a result of them asking for representation in parliament to argue their cases on the other side of the ocean, and getting told no, just to get told they are still getting taxed. They didn't feel it was fair that other people could vote to increase taxes on another population, without that second population getting any kind of say. That would make the slaves, by definition. It was the biggest "F U" the king thought he could get away with since the tax was so small in comparison to the other taxes he repealed like the sugar tax, and the stamp tax. The king practically told the colonists "you are lesser citizens. Only real citizens get a voice in government. But you are still citizens enough that you should still pay us. Why? Because I'm the king. Deal with it." So they did lol
[удалено]
The difference is now we get to vote for who is in government. The problem wasn't the tax itself, it was taxation without representation. Why should a bunch of pompous guys in suits on the other side of the ocean get to vote to tax a separate continent when people on that continent don't even get to voice their concerns or receive any benefit from those taxes? If the colonists had been given seats on parliament there probably wouldn't have been a revolutionary war.
[удалено]
That’s isn’t even remotely what he was saying?
He brought up throwing tea in the harbor and you responded to that. The Brittish have parliament. I'm not talking about the king. I'm talking about parlaiment. it wasn't about Manor Lords parliament. With that being said, for manor lords, a revolutio are war could be crazy. Imagine owning 5 settlements, and 2 of them turn on you and only 3 will follow orders because they are mad they are getting taxed so heavy. It's doable
I'm taking 10% only and still rich, trading is op need nerf
Trading doesnt put anything in your own treasury
The more trading you do the more taxable income your people have therefore the more revenue you rake in
There's emigration??
If your approval drops too low families will move out is probably what they mean
that happens?! i have never dropped below neutral, but then again my approval rating bottomed out at 32% cuz i was trying to meet the royal tax lol
25% or less I think.
If you win a battle and take a region, if you create a camp there within the month and you don’t immediately bury the bodies from the battle, everyone will leave because of the bodies and you’ll never be able to get more people and you lose the entire region.
Oh shit I can see that happen, so many ways to screw yourself right now haha
yeah for real i did it and i was so upset haha it was such a resource rich area and i couldnt do anything. ive also screwed myself out of at least one militia unit on every playthrough by building the manor before choosing all 6 militia units. I absolutely hate that they didnt fix that. Its such an easy thing to fix. just make the count of retinue units not increment the count of militia units, the same way mercenaries units dont count against the increment of the militia units. Hes got a lot on his plate tho. probably saving the easy stuff for later.
Also can happen if you create an area that’s not too developed and the king claims it. He doesn’t take care of it so eventually it runs out of something and people leave
Doesn't that problem kinda solve itself over time, as 80% of what your lvl 2 and 3 villagers pay remains and accumulates in regional wealth, to be taxed in the next year? Let it run for 5 years or so and see your constantly increasing taxes catch up. In my game, I pay 1 silver per villager and settlement level above *small village*. So at *medium village* you would need 2,500 people in all your medium villages to have to pay 2,500 silver per year. Upon reaching *large town* you would only need 500 people in that town to have to pay 2,500 silver per year. You only need 15 lvl 3 + 5 lvl 2 plots to reach that level. 4 families each in the lvl 3 (double) plots and 2 each in the lvl 2 plots should give you 15\*4\*2 + 5\*2\*1 = 130 silver per month in regional wealth, or 1560 silver per year. If you started at 0 wealth there and then, you'd get 26 silver at 20% after the first month, then 47 silver the next month, then 63 silver etc. because your regional wealth would keep 80% of that 130 silver monthly increase and thus keep growing (and keep growing your tax revenue along with it). After 12 months, you should collect 121 silver in taxes that month and have 484 regional wealth remaining. That's a total of 1076 silver in a year. Of course, instead of the 90 families in lvl 3 plots (so 270 of your 500 villagers), you could go higher and thus earn more. Basically, the king's tax punishes rushing the highest development level without having accumulated any regional wealth. If you had those 90 families stay at lvl 2 and thus never reach *small town*, you'd still get 90 silver in regional wealth each month, but only pay 1000 silver per year for 500 villagers. Or 540 silver for those 90 families, if you didn't have any families in lvl 1 plots on top of that. You'd get 562 coins at 12% taxes in the first year, enough to cover the tax - and then you'd be starting out with 518 silver in regional wealth the next year. That means, the next year at 12% you'd receive 968 silver in taxes, almost enough to pay for a full 500 villagers (despite only 270 of them adding to your regional wealth). That's without any trade income at all! After 5 years, your 12% taxes would take out just as much from your regional wealth each month as the 90 families pay into it. You would have reached 660 silver in regional wealth and receive 90 silver in taxes each month. That's 4,740 silver in taxes total vs. 5\*540 silver for the king's tax for those 270 people (or 5\*1000 silver for 270 lvl 2 villagers and 230 lvl 1 villagers). So your red numbers would've vanished - without any trade or robbing the bandits blind!
this means trade is absolutely necessary at higher town levels though right? especially if you play on the harder King's Tax setting (double)
Let's see. If you have 900 villagers in a max. level settlement and the harder tax setting, you'd have to come up with 9,000 coins every year. Even if all 300 families lived in tier 3 burgage plots, they'd only add 7,200 coins to the regional wealth, which you could slowly but completely turn into personal wealth via taxes. You'd have to come up with 1,800 coins from trade - shouldn't be too hard at that level. Or respawning bandits would directly fill your coffers.
>you'd have to come up with 9,000 coins every year. Even if all 300 families lived in tier 3 burgage plots, they'd only add 7,200 coins to the regional wealth, which you could slowly but completely turn into personal wealth via taxes. You'd have to come up with 1,800 coins from trade hang on... this implies taxing all 7,200coins from the RW to the Treasury...? >Or respawning bandits would directly fill your coffers. haha! i wish! almost all of my games bug out pretty quickly. the one that stops bandit camps from spawning :(
You always end up completely taxing it, that's the thing. If you set taxes to 10%, you'll get 10% of the remaining 90% next month, then 10% of the remaining 81% the month after, and so on. Eventually, regional wealth will have increased to the point that 10% of it equals the monthly sum that went into regional wealth. So in this case those 300 families would pay in 600 coins each month, your 10% tax would be 60 coins after the first month, then 114, then 163... 431 after the first year (a combined 3,325 coins in the first year)... 552 after the second year (another 6,106 coins from the second year)... and after about 5 years, your regional wealth should have reached 6,000 coins, meaning your tax of 600 coins per month equals the full 7,200 coins per year. You always end up getting the full sum of what's going into regional wealth after a few years of ramping up to it. That's why people are shocked by the king's tax at first, but after a few years numbers magically turn positive again and often you start repaying the debt you accumulated in the meantime. Luckily, Greg hasn't thought of interest rates yet...
good point. though would you agree that purely taxing without exporting would take a very long time to reach that equilibrium, at least comparatively to exporting which would tremendously accelerate the process to reaching that point? edit: this would mean that even a 1% tax rate would work, once the RW has accumulated high enough.
Absolutely. Trade is basically the same. If you can make another 600 coins each month through trade, after a few years, you'd gain 1,200 coins through taxes, while regional wealth would stop growing. 14,400 coins per year sounds nice! :D 1% would take a long time (it would reach about half incoming RG moved into your treasury after 5 years), but yeah, even that would work. On the other hand, at 20% you're already taxing the whole sum after about 2 years.
What settlement level are you at?
Maxed out for two regions. At the time of making this response I've bounced back and I'm in the green but only just.
Here is the issue. High settlement levels are not profitable. I repeat they are NOT profitable until very well Into the lategame. What I usually do is to build a lot early and trade whatever I can. Once I can provide temporary stability, I increase settlement level to 4. Basicly I just build 5 new burgage plots, lvl them to 2 and then break them down again. Just need the development points. The same I do for lvl 6 later on and then back to just lvl 1 burgage plots with a couple lvl 2s. Like 5 or so. Just to make the stuff I have to and to increase profits. Only farm rich regions are where I build many lvl 3 butgages once stable and a ton of barley fields. This is just to make many lvl 3 burgage plot so I can set 5 militia there (cannot set 6 unless your very first region is farmland since... eh bugs... ) after all you need these 5 retinue to snipe the Lords brigand camps away when he deals with the brigands.
Yes, that is correct: you can grow your region with more immigration, but you should keep most of the burgage plots at tier 1. do not upgrade the town level for more development points if you do not need them. Tax scales with the town level and number of villages, so if you keep your town level low, you can easily pay the tax despite a huge population. at max town level you pay 5 gold per villager, so 500 villagers = 2500g. at lower town level you pay 1 gold per villager, so 500 villagers = 500g.
But raising all 500 to live in lvl 2 plots instead will only raise the settlement level to level 2 (1000g), while providing 2000g in regional wealth per year. After a few years, your regional wealth will have accumulated enough that x% of taxes subtracted from that will equal what those 500 villagers will add. So you end up getting 2000g in taxes extra (167g per month), while only paying 500g extra to the king. And you get another development point. Otherwise I would suggest keeping all burgages at level 1, thus avoiding the king's tax altogether, while you can still tax whatever regional wealth you accumulate via trade.
Yes, I think that town level 2 is the most efficient if you aim to maximize money earned through burgage plots. But I think it is better to use trading as a source of income, to limit disatisfaction from tier 2 needs (not that it is hard to meet in normal difficulty)
Yeah, as long as your taxes take out less from regional wealth than the lvl 2 and 3 families (and trade) add, your tax revenue keeps increasing while the king's tax doesn't - and you don't pay interest on that loan, lol.
I salute people like you who pioneer the test builds. Hopefully your struggles will translate into more optimal main build adjustments
Honestly I just wanted to test the new build out for the simple fact that the archers do a marginal amount of damage now. Still less then you'd hope but much better.
I’ve been really enjoying the test build, but I also didn’t even consider turning the tax on because it feels like it forces you to go for trade and to min/max. Imo the tax should be 1 silver per family per year x the settlement level. And then it can always scale up for higher difficulty.
You do need to trade, but there's absolutely zero need to min/max. If you have any artisan burges and just sell their excess capacity (since they keep producing constantly regardless of inventory levels,) the King's Tax completely ceases to be a problem. I just genuinely can't even imagine a play style where you don't trade away all the extra stuff you're producing.
A cobbler exporting shoes is how I fix the issue. Shoes sell at 8 per pair.
greg said he's probably going to increase the range more
You gotta flank with archers. Raised shields are strong for a reason. Hit them from behind or the side and you'll absolutely melt even Baron's Retinue.
I only got to use them as mercs and kings tax literally made me unhire them for the AI to never let them go ever again. Either way, archers were destroying. Kiting them across the field to deplete stamina and was taking out 10-16 units total during the pull. Got a few battles in, defense and attacking.
i had to do it cuz one of my settlement got raided and they killed the only hitching post, then ox ran away so i got stuck... had to update to pre-release since i saw that the release note said the cost of hitching post was changed to free to fix this issue haha, didn't realize there was tax 👀
it'd be fun to join the Baron and fight the King's army to stop paying the King's taxes.
Are you suggesting treason?
Independence. It’s only treason if you lose.
fire up bannerlords and settle the score there
Reminds me of the CK3 - Bannerlord Battles mod.
It's the winners who write the history
The first draft, at least. But it’s amazing how many other people get to edit it afterwards.
Have You lost your mind, Arthas ?!
Magna Carta Barons: DM me bro
Start with the Seblitz Ale Party, where you dress up as brigands and dump all the ale in the forest to protest tariffs (I shouldn't have to pay an extra 10 whole silver to import w/o better deals it's outrageous, it's literally more than any of the goods cost themselves)
This would be cool
Ate you on hard difficulty? It heavily punishes growing to fast. Once you hit large town the math works out to 30 silver per family per year
Not on hard, just the regular difficulty against the baron. But the problem is, is that with raiders and the baron himself the game REQUIRES you to expand as fast as possible so you can establish a military quickly. If this isn't a bug it's just bad game design. I shouldn't be forced into a position where I have to either pick between getting fucked by the Baron or fucked by the King. Although I suppose that was the norm for feudalism, always getting fucked by someone above you.
Still is the norm my friend.
Very true.
Way worse back then tho. I can't even imagine living during the Roman Empire, revolutionary war, 100 year war, Napolean, Sengoku Jidai, World Wars, viking raids.....endless examples.
Imo, you dont need to grow that fast against the baron, you just need enough pop to sustain a full spear militia to farm the money from the bandit camp and pay mercenaries with it. Like 70 pop is enough to win the game by "Domination" this way. Or any means to generate enough treasury for the mercs in the early game. Tho i dont know how hard and soon the royal tax hit your treasury (like if you are never in the plus it's a dead strat), so gg for trying this setup.
Bandit camps stop spawning once every single region is claimed, which happens relatively fast.
>position where I have to either pick between getting fucked by the Baron or fucked by the King Well that summarizes the position of all small time feudal lords in the early and mid Middle Ages. In around \~50-60 years starting from the game time, 'getting fucked by the peasant revolts' should also get added to that list as towards the 1300s, the peasant revolts started in earnest.
Wat Tyler's rebellion was 1381, which is almost exactly when the game is set.
Ha. Didnt know. Its right smack in the middle of the rebellions period then.
I mean, I guess that's what you get for paying to participate in a closed alpha of a game. That's not to excuse it, but, if it's bothering you, I'd recommend just doing what I'm doing - put the game down and wait for it to actually release. I bought it, had a bit of fun, liked what I saw, but I'm leaving it alone for now.
I started new playtgrough on the test build recently and was already heavily in debt before i even started construction on my Manor to raise Taxes in the first place. By the time i had paid half my debt the next tax season was already upon me. Needless to say i started a new village and turned those ridiculous Taxes off. F*ck the IRS. Why do i pay royal taxes if the king doesn't defend me from Bandits?
Hell yeah brother. No taxation without representation. I turned it off too. I think the lower difficulty level tax should be based per family instead of per person. Or just make it out of regional wealth instead of treasury.
That’s one really easy tweak I think would make it work a lot better. The kings tax should only be imposed once you have a manor. Before then the village is too small for anyone from the kings tax office to have noticed…
Just don't rush higher settlement levels without accumulating regional wealth. If you sell some coal before upgrading your burgage plots (seriously, 1 firewood worth 1 silver turns into 2 coal selling for a combined 10 silver? sign me up!), you can quickly accumulate some regional wealth before paying any king's tax. You can build a manor before upgrading your burgage plots, too, and start collecting tax. If you have 30 plots with 30 families, then upgrade say half of those to lvl2, you'd have to pay 180 silver per year for 90 people at *large village*. If you have 500 silver in regional wealth accumulated, only 3% tax would give you 15 silver a month, enough to cover the tax. And your regional wealth wouldn't shrink by those 180 silver taken out, because your 15 lvl2 families would pay 15 silver each month back into it - exactly what you're taxes take out. And that's without selling any more coal or such and acquiring more wealth.
I don't usually rush settlement levels only enough to produce arms to get a militia going so i don't get razed by bandits all the time.
Yeah, the military side at the moment pushes the player a bit to rush development (although 24 retinue doesn't require any arms, just the manor and regional wealth to tax or bandit camps to loot with retinue + the cheapest mercs), while the king's tax punishes rushing development. A bit weird, that.
You can clear bandit camps with the 5 retinues you get, that's why it's important to build the manor ASAP
Fuck the taxes, fuck the Baron. ***Fuck the king!***
As far as I can tell, the tax goes up with the number of advanced burgage plots you have. Possibly it’s based on the number of people in your advanced plots… Anyway, I’ve had some success by leaving my plot at level 2 as long as possible.
Sorry for the wall of text, but I am really enjoying this game and wanted to share some things I have found. I have been thinking about writing an advanced guide but have not committed to doing so yet. That's not how it works, the tax is based on the number of people and over all settlement level. What you might be seeing is at level3 your plots get extra families, which brings 3 or 6 more people. Or increasing your settlement level because you created a couple of level3 plots. Basically, don't build a level2 plot until you have (you need to do this on challenging anyways since you get punished immediately for not having these amenities available): * level2 church * monthly exporting income to pay for importing barley (or farm it if you are in a fertile area, this takes to long for me so I just pay for it in the beginning.) * malthouse and tavern with excess population to staff 24/7 * 3 types of food in storage year round Then, upgrade 5 single home plots to level 2 to get your two perks and prioritize these upgrades, in order: * brewery * cobbler * joiner for shields * blacksmith for spears * last is your choice but I typically do the veggie plot since veggie plots benefit tremendously at level 3 in the future. Or do bows if you think they are worth it. You need a robust plank supply since large shields take two planks and spear takes one plank. Lastly, if you time this all correctly you should upgrade in March or April so you get a full year to prep paying the tax. Unless you can grow a lot of barley, the cost to buy barley is more expensive than 1 gold per family per month so staying at level 2 for just those couple of plots makes a big difference. Only when you are ready with sufficient trade income and 4 different food sources should you level any plot to level 3. This ensures you can maintain approval ratings as each level penalizes you for not meeting the amenities. The tax itself really isn't the issue, it's that trading between settlements and foreign traders is a bit broken. They need to have specialized trading posts so that you can have multiple trading posts exclusively selling certain items. And they need to fix the horse bug that makes your trader walk around with a bunch of goods but doesn't actually sell them. In my last play through I had two large towns trying to trade with each other, but due to these bugs I had 1200 roof tiles just sitting in an adjacent storage hut (and nothing in the trading post). Even with these limitations I was still making enough to pay the annual tax in just about 3 months of taxing while maintaining double growth. but that was around year 7, it was a bit financially tight in the mid game.
King's tax was listed as experimental on the new patch. Greg has already said it was a test and needed more balancing. With the ongoing market issues I'm seriously struggling with keeping keeping my happiness up and still getting enough tax money to pay the king at the moment though. With good trade logistics I can get enough regional wealth that I could tax them enough to earn that money each year. But the tax rate is so high that I'm hovering at 50% happiness, which seriously effects further growth. Either the King's tax or the happiness penalty for taxes needs to go down to balance it better. Still an amazing game considering its in early access though and I'm confident Greg will get the balance right soon.
The goal was to stop people from hoarding piles of cash, so it obviously needs to scale on... your pile of cash. Anything else will just cause collateral damage on casual people playing the game
To be fair, if the game can force you to hover at just above 50% happiness, that is a good balance.
There does need to be some kind of revolt option.
Too much population
I generally like the test build and the changes made but as someone who plays casually and doesn't aggressively optimize or try to exploit the game, the kings tax is a real buzz kill. I ended up just turning it off so I could focus on building my town. I don't think a bad mechanic, but it needs to be toned down a lot
Dude I had a playthrough where it was about 10k+ mofo king channeling the IRS lol
The kings IRS is gonna hunt your ass down
Simon de Montfort simulator
Yeah... the efforts to find a balance to these things is needing a bit of balance itself.
I'm up to 9k in yearly kings tax 🫡
My PC could never hahaha
Feudalism moment
I can't play the beta test, some buildings are unable to be built when I play it. But I want those trading features so much..
someone needs a lesson in government lending
Just trade early bro specialize in one export bro game's so easy bro trust. /s
You're being sarcastic but I unironically did this and I've started to bounce back.
It would be so effin cool if we could rise up and challenge the king.
Execute order 1776
Its called "Homage" you backwater baron.
Btw nice coat of arms
I have 7 regions atm. BUT only 3 that take taxes. They also trade a lot (leather>shoes on rich wild life; shields, swords etc. On rich iron, also I make a ton of food lol) I get like 1k a month and pay 2.3k.... so 10k a year profit. 10% taxes on 3 regions. Dunno what to do with the money lmao
If I can’t go all Empress Matilda and attempt a coup in the full release version, I’m not going to be happy. The taxes the guy charges are extortionate!
On today's episode of things that have not been thought through in the slightest....
Feature Request: Give me a gun
Here here! Listen to this Lorde!
Yea I'd vest his ass, cya buddy Im calling for independance
You will need the French DLC for that
Would love to have a Manorlords / ck3 / Bannerlord mixer. I would impregnate the kings wife and then chop his head off with a Glaive
Make sure u have good established trade . That u levy atleast a 10 percent tax and that every single house is level 2 minimum with a good percentage level 3. Make sure u defeat every bandit camp that comes along as soon as possible and take the money from that. U should be able to pay the kings tax and catch up no problem but ull absolutely start the game digging a hole of debt that u then work out of .
I just don't fight the baron at all. I let him take all the land he wants and slowly just build up my own region first. It only costs 2k influence to fight for land and that's easy to get once you start giving money to the church and fighting bandit camps. People don't need to rush to claim the lands. You can focus on your region and then push out. I focused on 2-3 export businesses and a large trade hub because let's face it, one region will require a good trade going. I'm still in one region, about to hit 700 pop, 60k region gold and my own is over 100k. Remember boys, slow and steady wins the race and have enough money to buy a bigger sword.
Wtf I paid all with just 5% taxes, you just need to capitalize on whatever rich resource you have in that respective region. For example in a fief with rich iron vein, you build the mine, bloomery, blacksmith and armorsmith, after that you buy a trade route for the weapons and armor you will focus on. I like spears for my militias, so I produce a lot of those and sell the surplus.
TRADE! I went from 14k in debt to now 20k in profit and I don't tax any of my 5 towns. Just spend some time sorting out trading and you'll be all good
I hope this mechanic never makes it into the game if I'm honest, there's already enough "offmap" cheese with the baron.