Wouldn't it be more funny or even better if we were to increase the amount of land that nations can have.

No I don't mean extra counts like that.

I mean increasing the land we can have by 40%.

Let me make a suggestion.

Look at Iceland. It has 5 shires , and it still doesn't ocupy whole of Iceland.

increasing it by 40% they can ocupy 2 more shires. But it can't get counts. Instead the shires have 33%-50% (dunno yet) tax inneficiency. Getting less income. If it's 33% the claimed shire would produce only 2 silver , but adding roads would still make it -3 so that will be an -1 income from that shire , after that upgrading the farming it would yeild 4 silver income and husbandry 7.

But it can't have counts. And the 33%-50% cut of income goes for the fiefdoms aswell.

See the drawbaks and advantage?

Advantage:
Holding more territory
Having more places for fiefdoms

Cons:
less income (and the negative buildings stay negative as they are)
no counts

so what do you think? If you agree with this idea should it be 33% or 50%?

Thank you all for reading.

I like that idea, and I think that 33% will be good

only a small question:
how will there something be built without a count and how the shire accepts its habitants on its own?
good if you have built up a shire and then the count leaves but its not allways like this

Snorre den blodlystne wrote:

QUOTE:
only a small question:
how will there something be built without a count and how the shire accepts its habitants on its own?
good if you have built up a shire and then the count leaves but its not allways like this

I think that a King would have to do what you mentioned

Allen Brzeczyszczykiewicz wrote:

QUOTE:
Snorre den blodlystne wrote:

QUOTE:
only a small question:
how will there something be built without a count and how the shire accepts its habitants on its own?
good if you have built up a shire and then the count leaves but its not allways like this

I think that a King would have to do what you mentioned :)

true the king does that.

Not sure I like this idea. There are two methods in the current coding in which we can implement this. First would be to expand the reaches of the already established shires. Allowing more fiefs on each shire that gain taxation. As that is the only reason there is a real cap on this any way at this time. Why most don't put more than four fiefs per shire.

A countless shire that is run by the king is already established with the castles. So basically what you are suggesting is to add two castles to a nation, or more in some cases. If a place like Iceland would like to fill Iceland up. It is simple there needs to be more members in Iceland. Nations like Poland sure could share some numbers, but that defeats part of another purpose of the game doesn't it?

i would rather think about how to balance different countries so there was not such advantage.. maybe number of knights per nation should be limited, or max experience for nation set? it would be interesting and could create brand new nations, now dead.

The kings won't have second castles , a normal shire as any 1 of them.

Only trying to expand this game a little. No reason to accept this at all.

Just saw the poster from the german version of the game. The whole map is filled with them. Because of lots of players. Well in this game I don't see that happening. That's why i just want to increase the limit of nations borders.

but these "extended shire's" have income reduction , that's why they aren't plan 1 for any nation. But if they're stretched to thin or have their fiefdoms near warring borders , why not simply relocate them to the "extended shire" and lose a bit of income rather than losing an entire fiefdom.

My point of view it this. Increase the ability of Nations to expand , having more realistic gameplay.

If a nation goes to a war with another nation , the borderline is always in danger of being attacked , and much people flee to the provinces that are not in war , as do nobles. So what I'm saying is this.

If a nation A has count shires to the south and are full of fiefdoms and extended shires are to the north , the nation B attacks nation A (nation B is to the south) and some of nation A's knights transfer their fiefdoms away from the war insuring that they get steady income but with some reduction.

Also limit the "extended shire's" for bigger nations

a smaller nation could have more "ex shire's" than a bigger one. A bigger nation already has dozens of counts while a smaller nation want room to expand. Simple as that.

A nation can conquer as many shires as they want. If they want to take the entire map, nobody stops them.
I don't see the proposal here.

A shire without count = - 10 silvers (more if there was buildings constructed in the shire)
Cannot be granted fiefdoms in a shire without a count

It's all about the number of players, RH have the map filled because the server is older than KH and have more dedicated players. Vote the game, recommend it to your friends and the map will start filling here tho.