Conclave DLC is the worst thing Paradox ever made.
- Thread starter RafaMonteiro
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
i was also a bit disapointed at first but the pilgrimage was something i did with literally every ruler almost immediatly. Takes maybe two months and gives you chances for good traits and instant opinion boost.
Seems a bit more realistic now and the characters are really developing with conclave if you change the foci according to the situation they are in. Without defensive pacts i really like conclave, although i do not know the Council game very well
- 4
I like Conclave. At least now your ruler won't have an unchallenged rule. There are some weird situations, as always, it's game it can't be anything close to perfect, but overall it's pretty good. Sometimes my council is blocked by one guy who has favors from every other members of my council, and in these times, I start to worry about my rule.
But guess what ? Unless you are really bad and can't prevent your council from enforcing its full powers, you can change your council members, whenever you want. You'll have some maluses with your vassals, of course, but hey, it's just plain logic. But you still can do it.
But guess what ? Unless you are really bad and can't prevent your council from enforcing its full powers, you can change your council members, whenever you want. You'll have some maluses with your vassals, of course, but hey, it's just plain logic. But you still can do it.
- 2
Maybe it's more realistic, I might agree on that. But that doesn't mean Conclave restricted content from previous DLC.i was also a bit disapointed at first but the pilgrimage was something i did with literally every ruler almost immediatly. Takes maybe two months and gives you chances for good traits and instant opinion boost.
Seems a bit more realistic now and the characters are really developing with conclave if you change the foci according to the situation they are in. Without defensive pacts i really like conclave, although i do not know the Council game very well
That's a thing Conclave does pretty well. In medieval rule most threats came from within the realm, not from outside.
- 3
Reaper's due is generally considered as the Path of Light it seems.
- 2
- 1
Crazy. I actually think Conclave is really good. Then again it seems from the checks and downvotes i am not the only one.
- 10
Conclave basically made it a LOT harder for big realms and for map painters, which as far as I am concerned is a VERY GOOD THING (TM). I generally like playing the hardest starts that I can (and usually failing), one thing I have noticed is that when you play as a OPM your council is basically a rubber stamp. The bigger you get the harder it gets to keep your vassals in line, which again seems absolutely perfect to me - by the time you get to King or Emperor tier your biggest fights will be in trying to keep it all together.
WAI/WAD in my book
WAI/WAD in my book
- 7
- 1
Yeah, Conclave highlights once again the line between the two CK2 player groups, the Simulators and the Conquerors.
I must say I was immediately very fond of Conclave and see it as one of my favorites, maybe in the Top 5. I was very baffled as I read in the forum how different it is perceived.
So, if this threat is started again anyway, I will take the opportunity to voice why I like it.
First off, the thing I like about CK2 the most is the sense of realism, at most in the expansion of the realms. Great Empires rise and fall, but it´s not the tedious "conquer the world with Sparta" kind of game. My only criticism would be, that the realms are still to stable in my opinion.
Conclave was good to give me a sense of politics, that was lacking before. My Council is never optimal, because I have to consider more than their stats when I promote them, before you were only interested in the opinion of the Spymaster, and I was a bit bored by that.
Now I have to think about so much stuff: powerful vassals, that are getting to strong are promoted only to keep them out of factions, others to let them like me or at least stop hating me, because I need their money and troops. Than maybe you need really good stats but have to leave someone out and prepare for revolt.
When talking about revolts, it is very challenging to think about when to say "No" and when to give in, when the Council wants more power. Can I control them? And/Or can I get strong enough to take it back from then? Do I risk a war for 1 or 2 things the Council votes for?
The whole process to change the vote is great and rewarding when you learn to game it. You pinpoint the right one in the "No" column, bribe him and he pulls 1-2 Councillors over. Good stories, good politics. And to get i.e. THAT war declaration it can be worth murdering someone over. That´s fun.
I don´t really care that I can´t do "that", I enjoy very much the process getting there.
I like generally the "depth" expansions more than the "wides", speaking of Way of Life, Conclave and Reaper´s Due (though my favorite is maybe Old Gods).
Everything that gives me more to think about and less reason to expand like crazy is a welcomed addition.
Only my 2 Cents. We´ll have to agree to disagree. The rough outlined two player factions will maybe always be the curse of Crusader Kings, but maybe it is only a proof how versatile this game is.
Keep on gaming,
Dennis
I must say I was immediately very fond of Conclave and see it as one of my favorites, maybe in the Top 5. I was very baffled as I read in the forum how different it is perceived.
So, if this threat is started again anyway, I will take the opportunity to voice why I like it.
First off, the thing I like about CK2 the most is the sense of realism, at most in the expansion of the realms. Great Empires rise and fall, but it´s not the tedious "conquer the world with Sparta" kind of game. My only criticism would be, that the realms are still to stable in my opinion.
Conclave was good to give me a sense of politics, that was lacking before. My Council is never optimal, because I have to consider more than their stats when I promote them, before you were only interested in the opinion of the Spymaster, and I was a bit bored by that.
Now I have to think about so much stuff: powerful vassals, that are getting to strong are promoted only to keep them out of factions, others to let them like me or at least stop hating me, because I need their money and troops. Than maybe you need really good stats but have to leave someone out and prepare for revolt.
When talking about revolts, it is very challenging to think about when to say "No" and when to give in, when the Council wants more power. Can I control them? And/Or can I get strong enough to take it back from then? Do I risk a war for 1 or 2 things the Council votes for?
The whole process to change the vote is great and rewarding when you learn to game it. You pinpoint the right one in the "No" column, bribe him and he pulls 1-2 Councillors over. Good stories, good politics. And to get i.e. THAT war declaration it can be worth murdering someone over. That´s fun.
I don´t really care that I can´t do "that", I enjoy very much the process getting there.
I like generally the "depth" expansions more than the "wides", speaking of Way of Life, Conclave and Reaper´s Due (though my favorite is maybe Old Gods).
Everything that gives me more to think about and less reason to expand like crazy is a welcomed addition.
Only my 2 Cents. We´ll have to agree to disagree. The rough outlined two player factions will maybe always be the curse of Crusader Kings, but maybe it is only a proof how versatile this game is.
Keep on gaming,
Dennis
Last edited:
- 8
- 2
- 1
Don't forget about "childhood focus" bullshit. Very fast it becomes annoying boring clickfest, they just added more boring micromanagement in already micro heavy game. Why should EMPEROR care about education of every niece and even random kinsman kid that wanders in court? Isn't that something their PARENTS should care about?
Conclave is example of good idea that is ruined by small development time and resources.
For that they should should improve "decadence" mechanism and add it other religions, not only Muslims. After all its the Romans who are best knows for "decadence". I dont understand why does decadence is muslim only. Conclave as it is now is just annoying.
Conclave is example of good idea that is ruined by small development time and resources.
For that they should should improve "decadence" mechanism and add it other religions, not only Muslims. After all its the Romans who are best knows for "decadence". I dont understand why does decadence is muslim only. Conclave as it is now is just annoying.
Last edited:
- 12
- 3
Conclave was good. Most of its problems were things from the free patch (coalitions and shattered retreat), and that some people don't like their "undisputed power" challenged, as if there were absolute monarchies in the Middle Ages.
Last edited:
- 4
I agree that you decide the focus/education of too many children in your court. I'd like either a button to let the parents make the decisions or reduce it to just your dynasty.
Christians were known to be more chaste and temperate than members of other religions. Also the christian church has a big role in this, in excommunicating sinful rulers. Excommunication is way too rare at this point, I hope the AI becomes more trigger happy (both from the pope and from nobles asking the pope for excommunications).
Also there are no romans in this game. It's a dead culture. Pagan rulers don't have decadence because apparantly it doesn't have as much of a negative stigma in those religions.
- 2
- 1
It's quite intresting, but emperors actually did this. There was no "random kinsman kids" - if there was a kinsman kid on emperor court, he was his responsibility as a host, his responsibility as a head of the family and, let's face it, his responsibility as hostage taker. I should notice that "hostage" part is very, very underpowered in CK2 (as I recalling it was better in first game).
Oh yeah. Popes from 904 to 964 especially known for their chaste and temperate lives - all that period was named "pornocracy". Popes, antipopes, going for secular power, bribes, all kinds of sin... that kind of christian church gave us protestantism, and customs of catholic priests was the main arguement for luterans (and earlier antipapacy heresies as well, such as hussites).
So no, christians were not known to be more chaste and temperate than members of, let's say, islam in game timeframe. Quite the opposite - even in Luter time muslims (turks specifically) was shown as an example of disciplined and virtued (but, sadly, heaten) life style. Very fequent character of romanze was saracin, who take Cross - but even before he was a knight without peers.
- 6
- 1
Popes selling indulgences left and right were "chaste"?
Empire "Decadance" as it was in history has nothing to do with muslim or christian religion. Quing dynasty China for example, China was worlds largest economy in 16th century, ended up as semi colony of western powers 400 years later. Communist Russia, covered 1/6 of world's surface, put first man in space, ended us as country with less GDP than Netherlands in 90ties. Modern western civilization as another example.
Last edited:
.png){kind=avatar}
Was that post in support of conclave?
Seems more like you just highlighted how fundamentally flawed it is.
I like the idea behind conclave, but the system as a whole is opaque, and the interface is poor.
- 9
- 2
It's funny, because I rather disagreed with OP, but you actually showed very well how bad Conclave is, since you basically need to trick (not to say exploit) the game in order to play.
You won't prove that a feature is good by showing that you are doing all that you can to not use it.
Personally, I'm roleplaying Conclave, and well, it's better than nothing. Sometimes it has crap results (especially all the votes about laws : you ask for favors to pass laws, and in exchange your concillors use their favors to revote the same laws, that's stupid), but sometimes it has good results. Everything could be fixed if coucil factions actually voted for what they should vote for. For example, the Glory Hounds should be in favour of everything that goes in the sense of more armies (I'm tired of seeing them vote for tax shifted), more wars. They should ask me more often to declare wars. Religious councillors in a catholic realm should ask me to change to Papal Investiture, and find a way to grant more power to the clergy. Loyalists should try to convince everyone to support the head of the state.
The problem is basically that councillors rarelly works in their advantage - they work against you. Which doesn't mean the same thing.
- 8
- 1
They do this, actually.
I was being frustrated by my council a lot recently until I realized that my son who was recently appointed to the council was a Loyalist who had council support on THREE councillors - guys who wouldn't let me call in their support or buy a favor! Thanks son, you just helped me get a lot done.
It is what I was trying to say in my first post but the salty was so high that it maybe obscure it.
The is no problem with the challenge and the idea of the DLC is good but Paradox failed hard implementing it. As someone already said in this thread it adds more micromanege to an already microheavy game, and its not like I have to 'work' for the council opinion its just open window after window click a bunch of buttons and done, it needed to have a much better design with a much better UI to be worth while.
Plus it has several flaws, I cant accepted that my best friend brother +100 opinion is not voting for me and for what reason? Only God knows...
Why someone trying to murder the King cant be imprison because the council doesnt want it? Even if they love the King and have somewhat neutral opinion of the assassin...
Why a vassal that rebels, alone, got imprison in the and of the war, cant have 1 title revoke because "he is powerful"...
For me its just a bunch of nonsense put togheter to create the ilusion of a challenge but in the end its just a cardboard wall being annoying .
If Paradox want to add this kind of stuff at least they should put a effort for it to have a little bit of logic behind it.
- 8
- 2
There are several things with Conclave that I'm not entirely fond of in their unmodded state (which is true for all DLCs and the base game to some extent), but the only thing that currently keeps me from having Conclave activated and modding it to my liking is the favour system, which I don't like for the reason that you can't refuse favours at all (regardless of the magnitude of the favour, whether the other person has slighted you, or if you are someone whose traits indicates that he should be willing to betray all kinds of promises), which makes the system unfun for me (there are some circumstances where I'd probably rather eat a trucebreaker-size penalty and get tyranny rather than granting a specific favour, both for roleplaying reasons and more pragmatic reasons). Modding favours out created issues with various things to such an extent that I eventually found that it was less annoying for me to disable Conclave than to try to use it without favours or to keep them in and trying to pretend that I'd totally agree to everything from everyone if I owe a favour to.
Don't get me wrong; I like the idea of being able to give people things in exchange for help later on or someone demanding compensation for helping me, but if someone can murder one of my daughters, be discovered, and then force me to marry another to him (because I happened to promise him a favour years before) or if I can force someone out of a faction after I castrated his son and publicly slept with his wife (because I gave him some money just prior to those things) then the system doesn't feel very realistc, and even in the cases where you actually don't have a good reason to refuse the favour it would be nice to have the option to do so (though I feel that there should be some consequences in that case) in order to allow you to pull off opportunistic betrayals.
Tl; dr: Conclave isn't a terrible DLC in my opinion, but I prefer to play without it for the time being as I dislike the implementation of the favour system, which doesn't work to my liking and is too interconnected to the rest of Conclave to remove without breaking stuff (and the relevant parts are unmoddable). If that was to change so that it was closer to my liking (read: favours being refusable (ideally with a cost depending on the circumstances; though I'd settle for always suffering a penalty if necessary)), then I'd use Conclave (with a few modifications here and there).
Don't get me wrong; I like the idea of being able to give people things in exchange for help later on or someone demanding compensation for helping me, but if someone can murder one of my daughters, be discovered, and then force me to marry another to him (because I happened to promise him a favour years before) or if I can force someone out of a faction after I castrated his son and publicly slept with his wife (because I gave him some money just prior to those things) then the system doesn't feel very realistc, and even in the cases where you actually don't have a good reason to refuse the favour it would be nice to have the option to do so (though I feel that there should be some consequences in that case) in order to allow you to pull off opportunistic betrayals.
Tl; dr: Conclave isn't a terrible DLC in my opinion, but I prefer to play without it for the time being as I dislike the implementation of the favour system, which doesn't work to my liking and is too interconnected to the rest of Conclave to remove without breaking stuff (and the relevant parts are unmoddable). If that was to change so that it was closer to my liking (read: favours being refusable (ideally with a cost depending on the circumstances; though I'd settle for always suffering a penalty if necessary)), then I'd use Conclave (with a few modifications here and there).
- 7
.png){kind=avatar}
This.
People go on and say "you don't like conclave becuse you have to change your gameplay, try this" make me smile, as they are actually metagaming, doing ahistorical things (fire that one, he will use the favor to get back in) and then saying that the whole thing is historical.
Also, I'd like to add that the council system is really harsh early game, when you do want good council members but can be forced to use dull strong vassals cause you can't take the heat at the moment.
The only reason why I keep playing with conclave is that I like the education system (and I don't like to throw money away).
Last edited:
- 5