Capital

[76561199069605909]

Some folks recommend having a city for capital, but that isn't that important, right?

I think it's better to keep a stockpile of tools and velvet with us all times as they're rather hard to come by (especially velvet). It's good to set up capital near the lords we most eagerly want at our feats.

Also, I had to send out some of my own lords by suggesting them to guard a nearby castle so that the ones I was most keen on buttering up (the less friendly ones) could come in and stay until the end of the feast.

[Tuidjy]

Both you and they are right.

It is essential that you have a city for a capital.

It is also a very good strategy to move your capital to where the action is, so that you can go from feast to campaign easily. If you are at peace, moving it so you can attract specific lords? Haven't done it, but it may be advantageous.

[76561199069605909]

I think the primary bonus of a city is the tournaments that accompany feasts?

1. Once you're married, there's no dedication benefit - and tournaments are also held without feasts.
2. Money is of little concern once you've become king.
3. Relation with city can also be "bought", if there's some reason we want that.
4. The low-risk renown is useful, but again tournaments are held here and there even if you don't hold trigger it with a feast.

Coming to getting a specific bunch of lords, there are more castles, and some castle's likely closer to your lord's place than a city. This is for feasts / peace time.
---

Coming to war time, castles are more easily available at the kingdoms' peripheries, and that'll help you change marshall, etc., very easily. And yes, the feast in between a war is easier to hold as well.

[Tuidjy]

A few more considerations:

I dislike owning castles. They increase your tax inefficiency in return for very little income, and usually do not even pay for their own garrison. I usually own only cities, so that's where I hold my court. So, I usually do not have castles from which to launch my campaigns.

Also, cities eventually get a ransom broker, so you can sell all the prisoners dropped by the guests. If you are like me, rotating constantly between feasts and campaigns, these prisoners' ransom quickly adds up. Cash is never a problem, but it's fun to bribe аssноlе lords with the money from their own prisoners - remember they have no walled fief to jail them.

It also seems that most cities have larger halls than most castles. This may not be the case, but it feels that way. This is good in mods where the lords are not rotated or at least randomized on reentering the hall, which may make some of them inaccessible.

And finally, I consider being able to hold tournaments at will very important. I guess in Native, tournaments are only giving you a bit of renown, cash and very little experience. In many mods, they can do more - funnel experience to companions, get relationship with lords, etc. But even when you cannot, a good tournament breaks up the monotony of polling lords, assigning fiefs and feasting.

--------

Yes, a lot of these end up just helping your bottom line, and money's cheap. But that's it - when it's cheap, you don't feel bad spending it, and you can throw it at problems, so they go away.

[76561199069605909]

I really like to hear from an expert like you that money's never a problem. It's reassuring that I'm not going far wrong.

I also play some other games like the Impressions Games series where experts run out of money faster than I do -- turns out they build their city much faster, finishing missions in fewer years.

[Tuidjy]

In Native Warband, there really aren't many money sinks, as careful vassal selection reduces the need for bribes, and lordly equipment is frankly not necessary. So, it's easy to have a lot of cash.

Some mods are not like this. In Phantasy, for example, equipping a companion mage can run you nearly a million. Pendor has a ton of money sinks, Perisno offers amazingly powerful, amazingly expensive custom troops, etc.