Removing estates worth it? benefits?

[Taweret]

does removing estates from your provinces gives you any benefits other than reduces their influence/territory and making them less loyal? should i ever remove them with force if they control all of my provinces?

[tonypa]

This really depends on your situation. Land controlled by Estates have 25% minimum autonomy, so you could get 25% more from the province by kicking the Estate off.

But each Estate also has 0% effect on one of the province stats. In general you want each of these control only specific province. For example 1-1-10 would be great for Noblity, while 10-1-1 would be good for Clergy.

However, there are even more modifiers. Land controlled by Clergy for example has reduced unrest and improved missionary strength. Burghers improve Trade.

There is also country-wide bonuses for high loyalty. Having them all at at 60+ loyalty is best but you do not have to reach that with controlled land only.

Also if you want to milk estates for useful points, advisors and generals, you need to be careful not to push their Infulence up to 100% (disaster).

Also notice that while most countries start with high % of land controlled by Nobility, when you expand your country and conquer new lands, their % starts to go down without the need to remove provinces by force.

[Stormy Waters]

In a last ditch effort in a losing war, you can remove estates to make land mines of rebels pretty much for bad guys armies to run into. Unless they patched that, it can seriously turn a war you were losing to at least a white peace if not a win.

[JDouglasBarson]

I didn't think anybody has a good rule for when to revoke estates. I do it if I play certain nations like France, then I revoke clergy near capital and grant clergy the new conquer areas in HRE or Italy after I make them states of course. I want to get full control of the big areas where I have the culture. The HRE lands are real pain and later the religion problems. France probably needs to do that with clergy estates.

Small nations are hard to not have estates control all provinces. You should revoke them to avoid disasters. Estates loyalty usually ends up around 40-50 over time, so don't worry if you get loyal below 50. You just don't want loyalty below 30.

[Schraube]

If they hit 100% influence, you should always remove them from provinces until you go below 100. The disasters aren't worth dealing with; the downsides of them being illoyal or spawning a stack of rebels will never be as crippling as the disaster.

Aside from that... kinda. Estated provinces have 25% minimum autonomy in everything except the value they specialize in; f.e a province owned by the clergy will have 25% minimum autonomy on manpower and tradevalue, but 0 where tax is concerned. So you get slightly* more money and manpower from each unestated province.
It's generally not worth it to do so, though; the benefits happy estates give are pretty immense. Being able to farm 150 monarch points every 20 years or generate a couple hundred ducats for free outweigh the minimum autonomy easily, and there is also the passive bonuses they give.


* really slightly since most provinces aren't developed much, and because the estates remove autonomy for the stat they specialize in.

[Taweret]

ok, thanks guys that explain a lot, i normally thought that having estates reduces your income like in ck2 vassals, so i normally would remove them with force. but now i realised is all about carefully planning the balance, to reap the benefits and at the same time don't give them too much influence or don't make them too upset. i got also the part where developed provinces give less or more depending on the estate type.