Authority and OpinionOfLiege observation thread

**CountMRVHS** · January 20, 2016, 03:01 PM

I figured it might be good to have a place for discussions regarding these related mechanics. The proposed faction-wide rebellion would involve these two items to some degree, so it would be good to see how players find these features.

Here are some notes from my current Dunland campaign, FO 366, Winter (so around 20 turns in). Note that I have *not* allowed governors to set their own tax rate. It's... a control thing. The points listed below for FMs all impact the OpinionOfLiege (OoL) rating; there may be others that I've forgotten. I have not listed all the factors relating to FL Authority, but in general, my campaign has seen steady expansion, good income, and upgrades to various aspects of my settlements (not just military). This FL is also my first, so the length of his reign may be impacting his Authority score. My generals have captured 4 settlements, nearly doubling Dunland's initial holdings, and have suffered no sieges of homelands (though Rohan and RK have sieged Hornburg and the Thoronburg fort, respectively). Wars are with rebels, Rohan, and RK. My only ally is Adunabar. Currently Neutral and trading with Tharbad.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

So, a fair range of OoL here. Earlier in my game, I had seen "Faithless" and "Insolent", but a recent boost to FL Authority seems to have driven these upward.

The highest OoL here is Supportive, seen in 2 of my 7 FMs, one of whom is the heir, and both of which are governing settlements with Low taxes. They are also both Hillfolk, though one (Bedla) is from a different subfaction (minor house) than my FL.

The most common OoL is Dubious, seen in 3 FMs. One of these (Beald) is Dubious despite sharing subculture, subfaction, and alignment with the king, and being closely related. His lack of title may play a role. Another Dubious FM (Meoc) shares subculture, but not subfaction, and has Normal taxes. The third (Cugga) also has Normal taxes, but is of a different subculture altogether from the FL. Perhaps he is Dubious rather than Discourteous because of similar personality traits to the FL (something I did not take note of).

The lowest OoL is Discourteous, seen in 2 FMs. Both of these FMs are from a different subculture and subfaction, and both have Normal taxes. I am a bit surprised at Bidda; I expected his OoL to be a bit higher, since he is married to my FL's daughter. But personality differences or other factors could play a role.

After noting the above, I dropped taxes in Anghal and Dunfada (governed by Cugga and Meoc, both Dubious) to see if a change would manifest itself over the next turn or so. We'll see if this pans out. Note that there is no "neutral" OoL - FMs will either have an OoL with positive effects, or one with negative effects. So 'switching' an FM from Dubious to Supportive is a bigger change than transitioning from, say, Discourteous to Dubious.

I'll track OoL and Authority through the campaign and see how it feels. At this stage, things seem fairly reasonable, if perhaps a little harsh for an 8-Authority FL. But I admit I don't know the exact values for each factor. For example, it could be the case that allowing FMs to set their own tax rate has a large impact; if that's the case, by refusing to allow my FMs that freedom, I'm driving down their OoL for the sake of a tighter grip on my economy. Still, 8 Authority is pretty close to the maximum of 10, which I think is difficult to achieve. I came into this campaign with the general feeling that FL Authority might play too small a role in OoL. I'm not convinced yet that that is, or is not, the case.

Curious to see what others find in their campaigns.

**webba84** · January 20, 2016, 07:47 PM

Appreciate you setting the standard for the level of detail here, Count. I'll jot down some information from my own campaign soonish and we can compare.

**CountMRVHS** · January 22, 2016, 06:47 PM

So I've tracked the Authority of my FL and OoL of my FMs every turn this campaign. Before I post the info, some stuff from the wiki:

Ruler Authority

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

Another system has been introduced in DoM, in order to ensure that the fortunes of a faction during the campaign are intimately tied to and directly affect its ruler's authority. For the faction-leader the role of the Influence attribute is to measure and determine his Authority, that directly and significantly effects the effectiveness of his rule. A ruler's Authority generally mirrors how well his faction is doing and is affected by four different factors.

Firstly, the length of his reign: the longer he sits on the throne, the more his rule will be accepted.

Secondly, the status of his faction with regards to provinces: expanding his lands and controlling his faction's core settlements or other major settlements across the map boosts Authority, while losing territory and core settlements or having settlements under siege diminishes it.

Another factor is the faction's finances: implementing low taxation, having a full treasury, and wise spending on infrastructure and military development are beneficial to Authority, while heavy taxation, empty coffers and spending only for army maintenance are harmful.

The fourth factor is the diplomatic status of the faction: the more allies and the fewer enemies a faction has, the better for the ruler and vice versa, while relations that are viewed as inappropriate by the people (e.g. RK being at war wiith the Elves) will also damage Authority. Finally, rulers of factions with special relations will suffer Authority penalties if their ally/protectorate is long under siege, has lost core provinces or is destroyed during their reign. [NOTE: unsure if this applies to all allies, or just to those with near-permanent alliances]

As with Succession Priority, different factions assign varying significance to each of those factors, meaning that attacking every neighbour in order to expand will boost the Chieftain of Rhûn's Authority, whereas it the same tactic will have the opposite effects for the Elven King, whose subjects care more about diplomatic relations than expansion.

Liege Opinion

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

So my first FL died in Summer 371. Authority = 8 for most of that time, with a couple of dips to 7 for just a single turn each, perhaps as a result of losing money on a particular turn. Still, other turns I took a loss and suffered no Authority hit.

In his last year (Authority 8), my first FL (forget his name!) ruled over 11 settlements, more than doubling Dunland's initial holdings. These included the 5 starting settlements as well as Dunfada and Limfalas in the west, Erindol, Thoronburg Keep, and Caew-en-Druin in the south, and Hornburg in the east. Income was steady, at around 5-7k per turn. The treasury held usually 20-30k. Hornburg and Thoronburg Keep were often under siege. Allies were just Adunabar; enemies included RK, Rohan, and rebels. I had 8 FMs, with the following OoL:

Sceld (son & heir): Supportive
Beald (son): Dubious
Bidda: Dubious
Waca: Dubious
Bedla: Supportive
Cugga: Dubious
Meoc: Dubious
Byddi: Dubious

That's 2 Supportive FMs, and 6 Dubious. Not terrible, but not great. Of the 2 Supportive FMs, one (Sceld) shares subculture, subfaction, and alignment with the FL; the other (Bedla) shares only subculture and alignment.

Some of these OoLs increased in a predictable way: for example, putting Dunfreca's taxes to "low" brought Waca from Discourteous to Dubious.

Meoc was an interesting case. He bumped up to "Supportive" for 4 turns while I took him out of his titled settlement (Dunfada) and sent him off to conquer Limfalas. When I brought him back to his own town, he promptly dropped back to "Dubious". I suppose this could have been coincidence. I don't see anything in the documentation to suggest OoL is affected other than negatively by a character being outside of his titled settlement.

Sceld took over as FL when his father died. As predicted, his Authority as a new ruler suffered - in fact, currently (Summer 385) I have yet to see it match his father's.

In Winter 371, Sceld's Authority as a brand-new High Chieftain was exactly zero. The following turn, his Authority was 6 (I assume it takes a turn for the calculations to be made). OoL among the FMs mostly dropped for the following few years, which saw no new expansion but many defensive sieges, and plenty of development. By Summer 373, for example, I had the following bunch of malcontents:

FL Authority = 6
Beald (heir; Sceld's brother): Discourteous (this actually increased from Faithless; it dropped back down again after he was returned to his titled settlement - see Meoc above)
Bidda: Dubious
Waca: Discourteous
Bedla: Dubious
Cugga: Dubious
Meoc: Dubious
Byddi: Discourteous
Beca: Discourteous (Cugga's son: Enedwaith subculture; Fox subfaction; Darkness alignment)
Cibba: Discourteous (Bidda's son-in-law: Enedwaith; Fox; Darkness)

Here we have 9 FMs: 4 Dubious, 5 Discourteous. No Supportive FMs at all. Beald's disloyalty was a bit of a surprise, since according to the wiki "Royal princes like their brothers" - but then again, it also says "sons of ex-leaders dislike current leaders". The trend of an FL's younger brothers having a low OoL would continue when another brother came of age later.

Things got even worse in Summer 375, when Sceld's Authority dropped to 3(!!). I scratched my head about this for a while. What could have driven it down so far? The 4 factors in FL Authority are:

1. Length of Reign. Not a factor here, since Authority should be gradually increasing, not decreasing.
2. Provinces: expanding, controlling core provinces and "major settlements", and not being under siege are all good for Authority, while the opposite is bad. Dunland's holdings had stagnated somewhat, and I was under siege fairly regularly in 2 settlements, so perhaps this is part of it.
3. Finances. You want low taxes, "wise spending" (implying a balanced build of military and other developments), and a full treasury. My armies at this point were not substantially larger than previously, and anyway Dunland's troops are dirt cheap. I had been building in what I take to be a balanced way, as well. Taxes were low, and I had tens of thousands of mirian in the treasury. That year, I had spent more than was coming in, so that could have played a role.
4. Diplomacy. I suspect this may be the culprit. My only ally, Adunabar, had been steadily losing ground in the north (to Tharbad) and the south (to RK/Rohan). Around this time, Adunabar lost Emyn Arnen; MI had already fallen. They also lost Dagorlad and Udun. This could be evidence that your ally's fortunes - even if you don't have a 'special' alliance, like RK/Rohan or Dale/Dwarves - can impact your FL's Authority.

Next turn, Sceld's Authority bumped up to 4. I fast-tracked plans to move decisively against Rohan, and watched finances carefully. Authority remained at 4 for 6 turns, during which time I took Edoras and made a second ally, Harad. Authority dropped down to 3 again in Winter 378, however, and remained at 3 for 6 more turns, bumping up to 4 in Summer 382 and then to 5 the next turn. During that time, I made 2 more allies (North Rhun and Rhun) and took 2 more settlements (Entwade and Aldburg).

Five turns later( Summer 385), Sceld's Authority remains at 5. OoL for FMs is as follows:

Beald (heir; FL's brother): Faithless
Bidda: Dubious
Waca: Discourteous
Cugga: Dubious
Byddi: Dubious
Beca: Discourteous
Cibba: Dubious
Weoca: Insolent (this is Sceld's other brother. He shares subculture, subfaction, and alignment, but just hates his big brother. Making him governor of Dunhold brought him up to Faithless for a few turns, but his OoL dropped again soon after.)
Throca: Dubious (Throca actually died in battle 2 years ago; this was his most recent OoL. Had he survived, he would have been governor of Aldburg (which his army took the turn after his death), which likely would have helped his OoL)
Hoc: Discourteous (Waca's son: Isenmarcher, House of Throca, Shadow alignment)
Baeddi: Supportive (Baeddi is Cugga's son-in-law: Hillfolk subculture, Craban subfaction, Darkness alignment. That means he 'matches' the FL in those areas. When I saw that Weoca wouldn't get over his disloyalty, I gave Baeddi his title, which bumped him up to Supportive from Dubious.)

(I did observe the "random event with liege" trait, when I brought Beca over to the FL's army and kept them in town for a while. Beca gained the "Cordial" trait, which bumped his OoL from Faithless to Discourteous for 3 turns, before "wearing off" (as the memory of the event faded) and returning him to Faithless again.)

So, this shows 11 FMs: 1 Supportive, 5 Dubious, 3 Discourteous, 1 Faithless, 1 Insolent. Of course I'd like to see more Supportive FMs, but then my FL's Authority is at 5 - considering the scale goes from 0 to 10, I guess it makes sense that OoL is mostly in the 'adequate' range.

My biggest concern now is to raise my FL's Authority to drive those Dubious characters into the Supportive category. I've been trying to increase it by various methods (financial, diplomatic, military expansion), but I've had a fairly slow, defensive game until recently. I would guess that Dunland is set up to prioritize aggressive expansion when calculating FL Authority.

I do admit I expected to see a bigger bump for taking Edoras (surely a 'major settlement') and other settlements in Rohan. And if, as I suspect, I am taking an Authority hit because my ally has lost territory, we may want to see if that factor can be downplayed.

**Mersechal** · January 23, 2016, 01:50 PM

I can't hope to match Count MRVHS' detail, but in my in-progress Dorwinion campaign I found myself reasonably satisfied with the Authority and Opinion of Liege.

The first few turns, OoL was largely irrelevant, seeing as Dorwinion begins with two of-age Family Members.

Nevertheless, the heir, Tind remained Supportive of his father Vinithryia. When the second son, Beregond, came of age, he was Supportive as well, and became as Dutiful as his Gondorian namesake when given the governorship of Tol Rhun.

Turn 7 or so.
Vinithryia (FL): 8 Authority
Tind (Heir): Supportive
Beregond: Dutiful.

Things become much messier, and more complicated by around Turn 20 or so. I've allied with Rohivian, Rohan, North Rhun and Beornings(seems to set back Dale's nigh-inevitable attack a few turns) and have bought Gaurgaul from North Rhun, and taken Hithe on Tol Rhun. A turn after I buy Gaurgaul I marry my unwed daughter off to a Man of Dale named Bodmod (Adept Governor & Adept Commander?! Eru, yes!) and begin building a field army for him, with the intent of attacking Narig Zigil. However, plans change. On Turn 23, Dale declares war on Rohivian, and North Rhun. Seeing as I've taken Gaurgaul, Dale has no way to get to North Rhun other than marching through my territory. This, as well as declaring war on my ally Rhovian, is unacceptable. Tind's son Sigthorn comes of age, and I begin to attach full stacks to both Sigthorn and Bodmod for an invasion of Dale.

Turn 25ish~

Vinithryia: 8 Authority
Tind: Supportive
Beregond: Dutiful (I like you, younger son. XD)
Bodmod: Supportive
Sigthorn: Supportive.

Dale attempts to cross through Gaurgaul's province to get at North Rhun, and takes my ally's city of Ereb Gobel. Using Bodmod's army, I chase them out of the province, kill two of their FMs, and take the Fort of Carnen. (To counter Dale's Longbowmen swarms as Dorwinion, attach 6-8 Rohivion Scouts/Rider Mercenaries to each army. Works wonders.) Using Sigthorn's army, I take Ereb Gobel after a five turn siege (and uh... kinda... keep it. Sorry Rhovioan!). After Ereb Gobel is "liberated", and Bodmod's army is ready, I move both armies to attack Dale's homeland.

Turn 33

Vinithryia: Authority 6 (Does Dorwinion not like being at war with Dale?)
Tind: Supportive
Beregond: Dutiful (Loyal chap...)
Bodmod: Dubious (This may be because he's a Man of Dale. Do adoptees not like warring with their homeland? Also, he's titled governor of Gaurgaul, but I've been using him as a Captain, so that may have an impact.
Sigthorn: Supportive.

**CountMRVHS** · January 23, 2016, 03:29 PM

Great post, thanks!

So, a 2-point drop in Authority. Hmm. It could be diplomatic - perhaps, as you say, there is a penalty associated with fighting with Dale, or other Northmen in general. Also, war with Dale means war with the Dwarves, which means you have 2 factions on your enemies list. But if the war started around 10 turns earlier, I would expect to have seen the drop sooner.

You're expanding territory, and still have the same FL, so that would only be helping your Authority. That just leaves finances - are you spending a lot of cash, i.e. more than is coming in each turn? Building upgrades on both military and 'domestic' buildings?

Bodmod's 'Dubious' rating probably does stem from his subfaction affiliation. I don't think it's necessarily that he's an adoptee warring with his homeland, but he comes from a different tribe/house than the FL (who, if I remember, is a "Tower-man"). The other FMs likely have the same subfaction as the FL, explaining their higher OoL.

So, mostly Supportive FMs overall, with one Dutiful and one Dubious. I guess that seems pretty reasonable for 6 Authority - quite good, in fact. But there are a couple ranks of OoL above 'Dutiful' as well - it must take a lot of luck and a tip-top Authority to see those!

I envy you your 'Dutiful' son - apparently Dunlending barbarian types tend toward disloyalty!

**Mersechal** · January 23, 2016, 04:43 PM

I didn't keep very detailed notes, so my timeline/turns might be sketchy. I don't think finances are a big issue. My capital Belegant pulls in 3500~ mirrian without a governor, and with my expert/attuned governor FL Vinithryia makes 7000 easy. my other developed city Rathwin is a military city, but still pulls in about 2000-low3000s. Even developing one outland (Gaurgaul) and two homeland provinces(Hithe/Tol Rhun, Ereb Gobel), I still make a profit of ~5000 a turn. I also manage to get gifts of about 1000 from both Rohan and Rhovion every three turns or so. The Elves even gave me 11000 once when I offered them map information! Long story short, only the Dwarves and maybe developed Tharbad have an easier time making money then my faction.

**CountMRVHS** · January 23, 2016, 05:29 PM

I suspected that would be the case, but you never know

OK, so we can eliminated finances as the issue for the Authority dip.

My guess is it's somehow diplomacy-related, and perhaps you're getting a penalty for being at war with Dale. If that's a thing, it would be unfortunate, and I'd hope plays a relatively small role in the Authority calculations.

Oh, just remembered - the state of your allies could also be an issue. If your allies are losing ground and/or being besieged a lot, that *may* hurt your own Authority (not sure on this point). North Rhun has lost Gaurgaul; Rhovanion has lost Ereb-gobel. I'm guessing the Beornings are doing ok. Not sure how Rohan fares in a typical Dorwinion campaign.

Something to look at, in any case. To my mind there are really 2 issues of concern here:

1. is OoL too difficult to get high enough to avoid a potential rebellion (once that rebellion mechanic is implemented)?
2. is Authority too difficult to raise due to diplomatic factors?

Data like this will help in answering these questions, I think - so thanks again!

**CountMRVHS** · January 26, 2016, 07:03 PM

Final feedback from my Dunland campaign.

Faction Leader Sceld ended up with an Authority of 7. It seemed as though his Authority increased one point every 6-9 turns, which could have to do with the length of his reign. Expansion during his tenure was relatively slow.

Before Sceld died, I assigned his recently-come-of-age son, Daegga, as heir, replacing his younger brother Beald. I thought this would damage Beald's OoL, but he remained Discourteous throughout the remainder of Sceld's reign, and steadily increased his OoL once Daegga took over the throne, becoming a Staunch supporter before his death.

Daegga was my third and final FL before achieving victory. He had the Hillfolk subculture, Craban subfaction (which is likely Dunland's favored ruling house), and WoD alignment. He had a relatively effective reign, which saw the most supportive FMs of any Dunlending High Chieftain.

In the first full season of his reign, 395, Daegga's Authority was 6. He had the following distribution of OoL scores:
1 Insolent
4 Faithless
3 Discourteous
4 Dubious

So, all were negative. Most of these scores were decreases from previous OoL levels, with the exception of two: Beald (the former heir) actually increased his OoL (to Dubious), and Weoca (Sceld's other younger brother) made a fairly dramatic jump from Insolent to Dubious. So, the way things are currently set up, these 'royal uncles' do not tend to have low OoL of their nephew FLs.

A few turns later, after declaring war on Tharbad and taking the town of Pinnath Gelin, Daegga's Authority rose to 7. It decreased to 6 and then 5 in short order, likely for diplomatic reasons (a war between Rhun and Adunabar forced me to drop an alliance), but I also had a big deficit during one of those turns, and was under siege a bit by the RK.

No matter. By 401, Daegga's Authority rose to 7, and it rose to 8 in 405, where it remained until the end of the campaign. I had been getting notifications about being the largest faction pretty regularly between 399 and 403, and was declared Most Advanced in 405. (To shore up the loss of an ally and the acquisition of an enemy in Tharbad, I also finally secured an alliance with the Beornings, bringing my total allies to 4 (Beornings, Rhun, North Rhun, Harad) and my total enemies to 4 (RK, Rohan, Tharbad, rebels)).

And I was expanding a bit more, too.

To take a couple of years' info:

In Summer 402, Daegga's Authority had just reached 7 the previous turn. For OoL, I had:
5 Dubious
6 Supportive
2 Dutiful
1 Staunch

In Winter 408 (the final turn before victory), Daegga's Authority was 8. For OoL, I had:
2 Dubious
6 Supportive
5 Dutiful

Overall, not bad.

I found that managing Authority and OoL is possible, but takes time to see results. It also seems to take an above-average FL Authority to see consistently average OoL across your FMs; just because your king has an Authority of 5 or 6 is no guarantee that many of his subjects will be 'Supportive'.

This has implications for in-game decisions. For example, because it can take many years to raise your FL's Authority, you may want to ensure that you choose an heir who is young enough to have plenty of time to accomplish the tasks set before him, whether these are securing alliances, expanding significantly, raising lots of money, or simply having a long, undisturbed reign. Of course, you'll also generally want to ensure that your heir is from a house or tribe that is normally associated with your faction's royalty, so that OoL does not suffer. And if you are from a faction that can switch alignment (Dunland can go Cultic or Ways of Darkness, as can Adunabar, Harad, and Rhun; Harondor and Rhovanion can choose Ways of Darkness or Ways of the West), you may consider building certain conversion buildings in order to ensure that FMs located in such places are of the appropriate (matching) alignment. In regards to this last point, I found myself weighing the advantages of building a Cultic temple where my FL was located (and thus increasing the speed of a Cultic switch) against the disadvantages of potentially 'turning' my FL to the Cult, when most of his FMs were Men of Darkness and would drop their OoL rating as a result.

As for the as-yet-not-implemented rebellion mechanic, I imagine that, if rebellions are more likely to occur when many FMs have low OoL, rebellions would be more likely to occur in the earlier phases of a campaign rather than the later ones. In the early years, most FLs tend to have low Authority, and the sometimes awkward transition to a new FL can bring sudden plunges in Authority. In 375, when Sceld's Authority dropped to 3, no FM had an OoL higher than Discourteous - seems a very likely time for a rebellion. In contrast, by the later game players may be wealthy and relatively secure in their military strength, seeing higher Authority and OoL.

Also, a factionwide rebellion could have the effect of driving Authority down even further, since losing core lands has a negative impact on Authority. For some factions/players, this could lead to a 'death spiral' in the early to mid game.

It would be good, then, to know some of the specifics regarding Authority calculations for different factions/cultures, so players can use the information to guide their policies. For example, it would be good to know that (say) Dunland gets a bigger boost in Authority from aggressive expansion than from diplomacy, while Tharbad gets a bigger boost from diplomacy and finances. That way, when OoL and Authority are low, a player can make the right moves to get them back on track.

Still, I love the idea of some uncertainty regarding all this. With a properly frightening rebellion mechanic, the choice of whether to accept a new son-in-law or adoptee - or whether to train a new bodyguard unit - would become much more intriguing. Do I allow my daughter to marry a much-needed Expert Commander, despite the fact that he is from a rival house and may dislike my FL? Do I grant a title to a Poor Governor in the hopes of increasing his loyalty and thus avoiding rebellion? These sorts of choices are meaningful even now - I can't wait to see how it will look with a full-fledged civil war mechanic in place.

**demagogos nicator** · January 29, 2016, 06:27 PM

Here is feedback from my Tharbad campaign.

My starting faction leader was Camlost of Tharbad. He is a man of Gondorian descent, Belonging to the House of Thagon, He personally administered the Lordship of Eastern Cardolan and was known as a Patron of the West. Camlost initial authority was 4, bit later when I entered into the war with Independent Peoples and suffered defeat near Swanfleet his authority dropped to the 3. Despite Tharbad forces won several victories over rebels and captured three rebel settlements I was not able to raise his authority any higher (probably because of the financial dificulties) unitll I made an alliances with Reunited Kingdom and Rohan and recieved from them large sums of money in return (10 000 miriam from Rohan and around 8 000 from RK). After sealng those alliances and recieving money Camlost reputation raised to 6, soon it however dropped down to 5 probably as a concequence of Adunabar declaring war on Tharbad.

I started to monitor situation more closely in summer 371 FA. The Camlost authority was 5 that time, Tharbad controlled 8 provinces in total, Tharbad armies had won six battles and lost single one. Tharbad was allied with RK and Rohan and in war with Adunabar, there were 9 911 miriam in kingdoms treasury.

Family memebers:

Iorlas of Northern Enedwaith (hier, firstborn son of Camlost)
Man of Gondorian descent
House of Thargon
Lord of Northern Enedwaith
Devotee of the West
Supportive

Beleg of Northern Enedwaith (firstborn son of Iorlas)
Man fo Gondorian descent
House of Thargon
Patron of the West
Lord of Western Hollin
Supportive

Beawa (husband of eldest doughter of Camlost)
Man of Gondorian descent
Minor House
Devotee of the West
No fief
Discourteous

Amlaith the Tall (husband of second dougther of Camlost)
Man of Dunlanding descent
House of Wolf
Patron of the West
No fief
Discourteous

Neithan of the House of Hama (husband of the youngest doughter of Camlost)
Man of Eorling descent
House of Hama
Patron of the West
No fief
Faithles (lover OoL in comparation with other fiefless WotW characters is probably caused by his last encounter with the king after which he felt antaghonistic towards him for several turns)

Felenath (husband of Iorlas doughter)
Man of Gondorian descent
Minor House
Shadow-touched
no fief
Faithless

Freca of Lond Daer (starting general, not related to the ruling family)
Man of Dunlending descent
House of Wolf
Follower of Darkness
Lord of Ethir Gwathló
Discourteous

Boda of Lond Daer (elder son of Freca)
Man of Dunlending descent
House of Wolf
Follower of Darkness
Lord of Western Cardolan
Discourteous

Hortha of Ethir Gwathló (younger son of Freca)
Man of Dunlending descent
House of Wolf
Shadow-touched
mo fief, title of Captain
Faithless

As you can see characters related to king by blood (sharing also culture, house and alignment with him) are all suportive (all of them have their own fief), characters with the same alignment as a king but of difrent culture (all fiefless) are discourteous (except faithless Neithan which is influenced by his anthagonistic trait recieved after last encounter with the king), fiefless characters with different alignments regardless of their culture are faithless, character of different alignment (Darkness) with fiefs are discourteous. All characters having fiefs have taxes on automanage usually with growth policy. It seems apparent that main factors influencing OoL is alignment of characters and fact whether they have a fief.

A turn later Camlost authority dropped to 4 probably as a result of the drop of cash in treasury to 8513 (I have noticed that rising the cash above 9000 apparently gives ruler a bonus point to authority). Both Iorlas and Belegs OoL dropped to dubious, Beawa remained disourteous (probably impact of sharing Gondorian culture with the king), Amlaith, Freca and Boda (all of Dunlending descent but of diferent alighments and fief ownership status)) turned Faithless, Neithan (still afected by anthagonistic trait) remained faithless as well, Hortha and Felenath (both shadow-touched and fiefless) turned insolent.

In summer 372 Camlost authority dropt even deeper to 3 despite the fact that Threeways was captured season before and the treasury rised to 12187. Reason may be that Threways get besieged by Adunabar force right after I have captured it. Later I found that Adunabar have captured one of the core Rohan provinces (it was either Wold or the province right south of it), it may (and may not) happened this turn. Beawa turned faithless all other characters kept their OoL from the previous turn.

A year later in summer 373 Camlosts authority again raised to 4. Siege of Threeways was relieved and my forces gained two more victories, there were 11 878 miriam in the treasury. Fellenath who was appointed Lord of Northern Cardolan became faithless, Beawas OoL raised to discourteous, Neithan is still faithless despite he does not have anthagonistic trait anymore. Other characters kept their former OoL.

Turn later Camlost gain 5 authority points, treasury raises to 13 046. Iorlas and Beleg started to be supportive again, Beawa is still discourteous, Neithan, Amlaith, Freca and Boda raise their OoL to discourteous, Felenath remains faithles despite having a fief, Hortha my best general and guy responsible for a lot of my victories raised his OoL from insolent to faithless.

A year later (winter 374) Sarnford is captured, treasury raised to 22 045 miriam and Camlosts authority is 6. There is not much change in the OoLs of the characters. Beawa became dubious, Felenath discourteous, rest remained the same ( Neith raised his OoL to dubious two turns later after becoming a Lord of Southern Artheidan).

In winter 375 old Camlost finally died and Iorlas became a new king, Beleg became his hier. In summer 376 Iorals authority is 8, treasury is at 28 152 miriam, no new regions have been conquered recentyl, no battles fought, allies are at stalemate for several turns. Beleg is dutifull (he recieved lordship of Northern Enedwaith), Baewa supportive, Neithan keeps dubious, Freca, Boda and Felenath remained discourteous, Hortha (last fiefless character and active army comander) remains faithless, Amlaith died in the meantime (those youthful grey haired guys dont last that long

).

All in all, I think that system works quite reasonable. I think I would have lost some characters to rebelions if they had been implemented (most probably Hortha and Felenath both shadow touched). I am wondering whether I would have been able to raise the authorithy of the king without allying RK and Rohan if I had been able to raise enough money. Maybe I will try to cancel the alliances later to see whether it is possible to keep authority higher even without having allies.

I am wondering what do you do with fiefs after its lord die and his hier has laready another fief on his own. In my case Freca is getting older, his eldest son Boda however has another lordship, His younger son Horhta is poor governer, shadow-touched with low OoL which does not make him a good candidate for the new lord of anything, beside that as a captian and my best comander he is busy comanding my field army. I am not sure whether I can give Ethir Gwathló to another general not related to Freca without negative impact on the OoL of his sons. Other possibility is to give Ethil Gwathló to Boda and leave his former province to some other guy.

Is it recomended to let a new king to administer his former lordship or should he rather leave the province to another guy and take the lordship in the capital (this I have done with Iorlas), or alternatively should be king free of any lordships in charge of the field armies?

**webba84** · January 29, 2016, 06:54 PM

My rule of thumb is for a young King to take leadership of the armies, then when he hits around age 60, to hand over that role to a young, talented heir and return him to a settlement to manage and live out his days. Without checking the traits files not sure if having him in the capital has an effect or not.

**CountMRVHS** · January 29, 2016, 09:40 PM

Thanks demagogos; very interesting!

My guess is that, for Tharbad, diplomacy and finances probably play a prominent role in FL Authority (as opposed to, say, Rhun, which probably gets greater Authority from straight-out conquest). Not sure which of those 2 - alliances or money - would have the highest impact, but it would be interesting to see your results.

For a rebellion mechanic, I would hope that it would be set up in such a way that the player has some time to try and avoid the rebellion. Dubious and Discourteous OoL could be indicators of trouble from a particular FM in the future, but Faithless and Insolent FMs would need to be carefully watched, for example.

I don't think the FL's position on the campaign map has any effect on his Authority (though I notice the effects line for lordships says "Bonus to Authority" - maybe it shouldn't say that? I don't think titles actually bestow Authority... haven't tracked it).

Good question about the titles inheritance thing. I didn't switch titles around too much - just once, I think, in my Dunland campaign. In your case, if Horhta is a Poor Governor, I dunno... Poor Governors aren't that bad, and they can usually increase to Competent or better, especially if they are also Intelligent. Plus, giving him a lordship will probably increase his low OoL. On the other hand, if he's a great field commander you may have a better use for him. And giving a FM a lordship title and then keeping him away from his settlement for many turns can itself decrease his OoL.

I'm not entirely sure how title inheritance works. Is the younger son considered to be the one who "should" have the title, or should it be the older son, even though he already has a title of his own? In my Dunland campaign, I mostly just left the sons of FMs inside their father's settlement when they came of age; they inherited the title when their father died, and any "extra" sons were shipped off to other settlements or put in charge of armies. I don't think it played a huge role on OoL. Note, though, that it can be difficult to determine exact relationships between all your FMs since the family tree only shows the ruling family.

As for the king, if he already has a lordship upon becoming king, you could look at that title as a tool you can use - hand it over to a low-OoL FM whose support is important to you (because he might be a good governor or commander). I wouldn't necessarily put the king in charge of field armies unless he has good combat traits (remember that the Command attribute on the campaign map simply tells you that he will command the army if another FM is present). You want to avoid the Lazy, Under the Weather, Inept Commander, etc. traits.

**demagogos nicator** · February 02, 2016, 10:47 AM

I contiue my campaign I am approaching the year 390 FA. Iorlas is still the faction leader and my kingdom is flourishing, I have 13 settlemetns in total and around 60 000 miriam in treasury. I am also winning every battle I am taking part in. Depsite that Iorlas reputation have falled significantly. The reason seem to be the fact that both Rohan and RK started loosing ground to Adunar in the south. In the north RK is still keeping its starting settlements except Amon Sul which was recently taken by Adunabar and in turn recaptured by me. I decided to keep the fortress becuase last ten years RK managed to hold it only thanks to my support, same goes to the Bree. Every time Adunabar besieged one or both above mentioned settlemest the authority of my faction leader dropped significantly, when I came and relieve the siege authority raise back. Currently Iorlas authority is moving in the scale two to six authority points. I must say the system is quite punnishing as it is set now becuse it significantly weaken the authority of your kink for the reasons you pften can not influence. On the other hand, it gives more real meaning to the alliances - you have to support your ally and keep him safe otherwise your faction suffer as well. In fact I am very content that authority does not cease to be an issue later int he game and it something you need to wathc constantly even in the time of prosperity. I really can not wait for working civil war mechanism.

Regarding my future moves in the campaing I am starting seriosly considering braking the alliance with RK and Rohan allying with Dunland (still in peace with me since the begining of the campaign and surviving in the Dunhold and Mysty Mountains Hold) and Adunabar and turning on my former allies. The alliances costs my leader too much authority and beside that both factions hold regions in Enedwaith which I need to fulfill my vicotory conditions. The problem is that Adunabar is stubbornly refusing to make cesfire with me despite the fact it did not directly attacked my forces for more than ten years. The presence of Rohan in Enedwaith is also rather strong so I do not thing I will bring my plan to life anytime soon. Plan B is keep the current loyalities, wait how the situation will develop and eventually attack Umbar when my troops start to be too bored.

**CountMRVHS** · February 02, 2016, 12:19 PM

Yeah, one thing I'm not sure of is the weight given to each of the elements. For example, does the benefit of having an ally outweigh the penalty of that ally's lands being taken by foes? Questions for Aradan when he has the time.

As Far Harad in my current campaign, my FL's Authority ranged between 3 and 6. I had lots of allies - around 6 - but had to drop RK and Rohan when Harondor went to war with them. Only 2 foes (Harad and Khand). And money is very tight; for several turns I was in debt, and only got out of it by going on the offensive and sacking several towns in Khand and one in Harad. I own 7 settlements, but that number has been going up and down as I take towns, plunder them, and then abandon them. I'm not sure how badly such scorched-earth tactics hurt Authority. On the one hand, I'm gaining settlements (expanding); on the other hand, I'm losing settlements when I have to abandon them.

I'd love to see a Tharbad colony in Umbar. (Get screenshots if you pull that off!)

**demagogos nicator** · April 29, 2016, 04:45 AM

I have started new campaing as Kingdom of Dale as my first campaing with the cities of Middle-earth patch. As my all starting characters are followers of the ways of the west I expect to not have much of a porblems with OoL as in my previous Tharbad campaign.

Initial authority of my king was 4. At this point the Hier was supportive and the other barding characeter from Esgaroth (shared subfaction different house) were dubious while characters from different subfactions were discourteous (they rised to dubious after recieving the lordship).

After few turns when I signed the seasfire with N-Rhun, ally with Rhovanion and raised my treasury over 60 000 the authority of the king raised to 6. Now the hier as well as other barding character (IIRC. his name is Galinn of Esgaroth) are dutiful, the woodsmen characters with the lordship (Orm and the guy from Framsburg) are supportive but Vald (rhovanion subfacion) is dubious despite the fact that according to all objective criterions he should be supportive like the woodsmen characters (like them he is from different house and subfaction than king but shares religion with him, he has a lordship and the taxes are set to low in all settlements except Fort Carmen). I am really wondering whether s there any chance that some subfactions (woodsmen) tends to be loyal more to the royal family than others (men of rhovanion descent)? On the other hand, I quite like some level of randomness in OoL. Except thouse I have one more young fiefless character (woodsmen, son of Orm of Heorth) who is discourteous.

As I am getting farther in the campaing I will report if anything interesting appears regaridng the authority and OoL. So far as you can see everything seems quite predictable (expect Valds dubiosity) and managable. It seems that soon I will go into war with Dorwinion as its king disrespected my decison to let the easterling beyond the river Carmen live in peace and launched a massive invasion against them. I am wandering how will this new war recieved by the subject. I am aslo considering taking Greymountain Hold and eventually Gundabad but I am not sure if they are worthy the effort.

**Wambat** · April 29, 2016, 11:21 AM

@demagogos nicator: Have you checked the box for local governance in all your settlements, letting your governors set the taxes? Neglecting to do so will have a deleterious effect on loyalty even if you have taxes on low. Checking local tax management, but setting priority to growth is the same as setting laxes to low yourself, but will please the governor.

As for mountain holds: you will have to set your capital right next to, if not in the mountain hold for the duration until you can clear out the Orkish element. Something like 30 turns. They do give some income through taxes and trade, but, obviously, nothing like a normal settlement. I have observed that the mountain holds never produce units, so if you can engage and destroy all the Independent troops in a field battle you can leave the hold un-captured and it will not bother you anymore. Without troops it will have no zone of control; this is a particularly handy solution for the pass over the Misty Mountains behind Rivendell; plus you can then use the hold as a training ground for your scouts, or as a bio-weapon's lab to maintain a source of plague.

**demagogos nicator** · April 29, 2016, 11:39 AM

Have you checked the box for local governance in all your settlements, letting your governors set the taxes? Neglecting to do so will have a deleterious effect on loyalty even if you have taxes on low. Checking local tax management, but setting priority to growth is the same as setting laxes to low yourself, but will please the governor.

That is what I do all the time but this time I wanted to keep manual taxes set on low to see whether it makes any difference in OoL of their lords (so far it seems it does not).

As for mountain holds: you will have to set your capital right next to, if not in the mountain hold for the duration until you can clear out the Orkish element. Something like 30 turns. They do give some income through taxes and trade, but, obviously, nothing like a normal settlement. I have observed that the mountain holds never produce units, so if you can engage and destroy all the Independent troops in a field battle you can leave the hold un-captured and it will not bother you anymore. Without troops it will have no zone of control; this is a particularly handy solution for the pass over the Misty Mountains behind Rivendell; plus you can then use the hold as a training ground for your scouts, or as a bio-weapon's lab to maintain a source of plague.

Why moving the capital? Public order issues? I am not that much worried about the orc armies or safe passage trough the mountain at the moment so I am wondering whether it pays up to add independent people on the list of my enemies as we are at peace right now and it may have negative impact on my leaders authority to fight several enemies at a time. What do you mean by maintaining source of plague?

**Wambat** · April 29, 2016, 11:19 PM

Originally Posted by demagogos nicator

That is what I do all the time but this time I wanted to keep manual taxes set on low to see whether it makes any difference in OoL of their lords (so far it seems it does not).

Why moving the capital? Public order issues? I am not that much worried about the orc armies or safe passage trough the mountain at the moment so I am wondering whether it pays up to add independent people on the list of my enemies as we are at peace right now and it may have negative impact on my leaders authority to fight several enemies at a time. What do you mean by maintaining source of plague?

Public order, exactly. You will have a 100% penalty form the cult for something like 20 or 30 turns. Setting Framsburg as your capital would probably be close enough to hold all the mountain caves in your area until they are converted. You might also try gifting the strongholds to the Dwarves; they will convert them much faster than you and will let you trade which can be nice. My Oldford is getting 300/turn in trade from Gladdenhold.

I have only been playing Elves since 3.1 was released and was not aware that the Mannish factions did not start at war with the IPs now. I would check out the map. If all the other IP settlements have been claimed it won’t hurt to grab the ones near you. Once the last one is grabbed the faction should disappear and you will cease being at war with them. Though, maybe that is not how it works with the IP faction? Can someone else confirm?

As for plague: It is not as easy to find plague on the DoM map due to low populations. So, if you are inclined to use plague against your enemies, it can be a good idea to keep plague going at a location under your control. This can be done at a camp, but you will have to keep supplying the camp with troops or agents as they die off from plague. If you use an IP settlement or stronghold for the same purpose you will not be sacrificing your troops or (as many of) your agents to keep the plague alive.

**demagogos nicator** · May 01, 2016, 07:25 AM

Public order, exactly. You will have a 100% penalty form the cult for something like 20 or 30 turns. Setting Framsburg as your capital would probably be close enough to hold all the mountain caves in your area until they are converted. You might also try gifting the strongholds to the Dwarves; they will convert them much faster than you and will let you trade which can be nice. My Oldford is getting 300/turn in trade from Gladdenhold.

Thanks for advice, for now I have destroyed garrisons of Greymountainghold and let it be onocupied, when I am finished with Dorwinion I will probably return conquere all northern Orc holds and gave them to Dwarves to avoid troubles with managing them.

I have only been playing Elves since 3.1 was released and was not aware that the Mannish factions did not start at war with the IPs now. I would check out the map. If all the other IP settlements have been claimed it won’t hurt to grab the ones near you. Once the last one is grabbed the faction should disappear and you will cease being at war with them. Though, maybe that is not how it works with the IP faction? Can someone else confirm?

Well, it is not the same for all manish factions, Dale stated in peace with IP already in open beta. I do not think it works the way you suggest. However, it seems that I do nto suffer any pennalty for declaring war on them neiter in regard to kings authority nor in military sense as they does not seems to be interested in attacking weakly defended Framsburg from Gundabad.

As for plague: It is not as easy to find plague on the DoM map due to low populations. So, if you are inclined to use plague against your enemies, it can be a good idea to keep plague going at a location under your control. This can be done at a camp, but you will have to keep supplying the camp with troops or agents as they die off from plague. If you use an IP settlement or stronghold for the same purpose you will not be sacrificing your troops or (as many of) your agents to keep the plague alive.

Wow, I never thought about using plague that way. Biological warfare is not something which goes well with my chivalrous heart

Regarding taxes, I changed the taxes from low to automanage in the governedd settlements and surprisingly it has had an effect on OoL of few characters (namely Vald which finally turned into supportive and Bram my FH which turned into dutiful, other characters remained unaffected). My FL authority remained at 6 points.