Are villages worth it in a rebellion?

I am playing Mount & Blade: Warband on easy difficulty, forced saving when exiting and have no mods installed. Currently I am the marshal of Swadia, I am on good terms with the king (approx. 60), I have some 25 000 denars and the kingdom of Rhodoks has fallen, mostly by my doing. I aspire to become king, and from what I have read, one should seek to control at least a couple towns and a small handful of castles. However, due to different re-conquerings back and forth, even though I took most of Rhodoks, I do not control it. I control only two castles and about a dozen villages. Does one keep villages in a rebellion even though the associated town or castle belongs to the enemy? And are they an acceptable substitute to towns? Advice is much appreciated.

mount-and-blade-warband

Best Answer

Are villages an acceptable substitute to towns?

No. No number of villages substitute for a town. If you rebel against Harlaus, you're looking at constant attacks and raids from your former mates until one faction is basically destroyed. Owning a town gives you:

Strong position for siege defense
Place to garrison troops
Marketplace to buy and sell
Tavern to recruit mercenaries and sell prisoners
More income from taxes
Enterprise opportunities

It's safe to say most of your villages will constantly be looted or in the process of being looted until you really do damage to Swadia. Towns and castles can dissuade attacks with a big enough garrison and you can get an easy win if you personally defend them.

The only catch is that castle and town income depends on surrounding villages and trade caravans, which probably will all end up getting looted by Harlaus and his boys. So don't expect to maintain the same town and castle income.

As the other poster mentioned, villages follow the allegiance of the associated castle or town. So in your example, you would lose Jelbegi as well as any other villages that aren't owned by your two castles.