The "ultimate governing authority" is that they don't derive their power from their vassals. They pay the wages of the troops, they appoint high ranking officials from wherever they so please, and they don't have to abide by any constitution.
If I'm not mistaken, that is the argument. This isn't my view, but I believe that it's being argued that they are in fact deriving their power from the vassals because they have the ability to say no. It's the idea of consent of the governed. According to that theory, no one has any kind of absolute power ever, and it's impossible to do so. Again, we're only looking at definitions, not historical events. This is because the game isn't strictly historical. As soon as you unpause it, it ceases to be historical immediately. One could say that it's loosely based on historical events, but the longer the game goes on, the less historical it becomes.
In feudal monarchies, the monarch may tell vassals what to do, but they are bound by feudal contracts and the like, and ultimately the vassals are the ones who wield all of the power. In constitutional monarchies, the monarch may tell the magistrates and the like what to do, but they're ultimately bound by a constitution and a parliament telling them that they can't do such and such.
Right. That's how that philosophy goes.
Back to the root, matter though: absolute monarchies. The fact is that though they don't derive their authority from agreements with their nobles, they still do have people ruling in their stead. You'll see much more of the less influential upper class and middle class compared to other government forms doing things like governing towns and making deals with other countries, but their still the ones making the deals, and if they strongly object enough, they won't make the deals.
Maybe this is true historically, but when we read the definition of the term, what you said here isn't addressed. In fact, I think the basic theory goes something like this: although they don't derive their authority from the nobles or from anyone else, they are still only ruling because those underneath the absolute monarch allow him or her to do so. By that definition, there is no such thing as absolute anything and certainly there has never been a dictator ever. That is, if you go by that philosophy. One can never govern "absolutely" in that case.
Is it unrealistic that absolute monarchies are bound just as much by relations limit as feudal monarchies? Yes. Completely. Absolute monarchies would have far more leeway than other governments in terms of what they could do contrary to the opinions of the majority of the movers and shakers. Is it worth programming an entirely different system to differentiate diplomacy for absolute monarchies? I'd say no. I'd rather see a lot of other features than the fixing of an occasional annoyance. Is it worth COMPLETELY removing the relations limit? No. That's also unrealistic, because there are government systems where the nobles have enough power to object to those things. Is it worth it to remove the limit for absolute monarchies? I'd say no. That's also unrealistic, because if the entire country said "we don't want an alliance with Spain" and Louis DOES want an alliance with Spain, what's Louis going to do? Walk to Spain himself, tell Izzy that he wants to make smoochies, and just marry himself off?
I would say that a player lacking the ability to control certain parts of the game, even when they are supposed to be totally in control, is really the problem. It's not just about absolute rule. To me, that's really the issue. It says you're an "absolute" monarch, but you aren't even close in this game. Does that need to be fixed? Well, myself and others just want certain parts of the game "fixed" if you will.
I get your last example, and I appreciate the humor there. What's he going to do? He's going to imprison or arrest a few people, make an example of them, and find people who will want an alliance with Spain. That's the usual way to go about these types of things. You just make an offer that they "can't refuse."
It's good that you see this issue from both sides and give a reasonable explanation of why it is the way it is. Even if you had said it was about game balance, I can accept that. Game balance probably makes the most sense to be honest. Using history as a reason is absurd given what can be done in this game anyway.
EDIT: So I mixed this thread up with the one about the relations limit. Whatever. Most of my points still stand.[/QUOTE]
