Conclave DLC is the worst thing Paradox ever made.

[ponasozis]

i only wish that what kind of councillors somebody is would have some logic behind it

i mean a guy who is my friend has 100 opinion for some reason happens to be malcontent with me and if i ask him a favor he just says different opinions

whatever the hell that means

 

[RoverGrover]

I will admit,when I first got conclave I hated it. It seemed really restrictive and really messed with my brain (am I not ruling in my own kingdom?)

But as time has gone by I've embraced it. I think if I we're to play the game again without the features it would seem a lot duller and frankly a bit too easy. It's interesting to run into characters with contrary interests.

For the complaint that he has 100 opinion of you but constantly disagrees, we'll I'd argue that I feel the same way about some of my friends. I've got "100 opinion" of my buddy Eric, but if we were both in the government? I'd definitely be malcontent. We get along,have similar interests and are great friends... but that does not mean we'd govern the same way.

Think of it as a tragedy. These guys are great friends but keep being driven apart by opposing interests.

Just my two cents.

 

[aono]

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.

Sorry, how it's stupid? They don't want this laws; they didn't want it before, and just because you gave him money, they don't want it. You by your own hands gave them money or other benefit AND option to make (return) things such they like; well, if I'm such councilor, I'd name "stupid" such liege.

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.

Glory Hounds, who can fight themselves for their own glory, should support laws that give them less army?! I never look to such statistics, but if Glory Hounds really prefer give their liege more money and retain more levies for themselves, it's wonderful.

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...

Well, it happens I know why my councilours votes one way or another. I don't know, maybe it's because I used to read tooltips, wiki and code logic. Yeah, Paradoxes really should put more info into game, now I have datamine it, but when I did, it all looked reasonable.
Also it's possible he loves something better that his best friend brother. It's hard imagine, but... it's 30 point loyalist, can be beaten with cynical+craven+just+paranoid, it's nearly granted pragmatist (and then he will defend his dull brother from wrong decisions, for example). Or maybe he is humble and zealous crusader in duration of active crusade which you're not part of (he will have 5+ piety with such traits for sure), it's 65-point zealot, just impossible to beat.
Or you mean elective monarchies? Well, maybe you aren't his only best friend brother?

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...

Well, you answered - because Council doesn't want it!
Why Council doesn't want it?
Everybody hate being arrested themselves (selfish clause), everybody hate non-rival councilman voters be arrested (selfish clause), everybody hate non-rival kin be arrested (family clause), Glory Hounds don't like royal dynasty, powerful vassals and childrens be arrested, malcontents just don't like king enough, everybody don't like their friends arrested. King's welfare stays as a priority after themselves and own family only for Loyalists (that's why they are called "loyalists").
That's look logically enough for me.

i mean a guy who is my friend has 100 opinion for some reason happens to be malcontent with me and if i ask him a favor he just says different opinions

It's weighted system. A lot of traits gives a char "points" for some positions, which position gives max points wins.
Really, literal "friend-100" should be loyalist (it's 20 points for, so at least he shouldn't be malcontent), and personally I never saw them malcontent (and never saw such screens, to be honest, if you can show me I'll be grateful, I need such info). But if it's 100 but not a friend (I should remind it's different things), he isn't relative, lover, content or trusting, you have 10 points only. So if he had Envious and Ambitious, it's +15 to Malcontent, and it beats +10 Loyalist for 95+ relationship. If he is a rival (and yeah, it's possible to have rival with +100 opinion), it's +20 more, so you don't want your rivals in the council.
Quite logical - I really expected such personality from an ambitious envious man. He step through even his buddy, if it gives him more. Think about him as about Shark from "Roads We Take". Yeah, he can like you!

To be honest I think this Council mechanic is the best Paradox done in DLCs, and it is something should be implemented to EVERY political simulator. Especially feudal political simulator. The ridiculus thing (really, really ridiculus) is that you can just reshuffle your council any time you want for voting, and nobody gives a fuuu. I believe it should be possible only with "abolished power", and every other shuffle should give -5 relations with all vassals, not just a man thrown out. I really believe Paradox should do it, at least as a rule. I'll use it.

 

[Chunakun]

I liked many features of the Conclave DLC. It was the accompanying patch features which I really hated.

 

[JohnKR]

No, It's not. Nor the Patch or Conclave.

 

[cmpunker]

Well, you answered - because Council doesn't want it!
Why Council doesn't want it?
Everybody hate being arrested themselves (selfish clause), everybody hate non-rival councilman voters be arrested (selfish clause), everybody hate non-rival kin be arrested (family clause), Glory Hounds don't like royal dynasty, powerful vassals and childrens be arrested, malcontents just don't like king enough, everybody don't like their friends arrested. King's welfare stays as a priority before themselves and own family only for Loyalists (that's why they are called "loyalists").
That's look logically enough for me.

So you are saying that it's logical that a traitor to the Crown must be allowed to walk free after he tried to kill the king... Well I guess we live in a different world then!

 

[RafaMonteiro]

A LOT OF STUFF

If its necessary for a player to datamine the game to understand its logic that is just bad design..

How should I know that the factions have "points", how should I know craven/cynical/just gives +x points and other traits gives -x points

Its completely reasonable that some people want to minmax the game and be the best of the best but it shouldnt be required that all the players to the same, you need to present the info to everyone without the knowledge of programming and modding and stuff

 

[aono]

So you are saying that it's logical that a traitor to the Crown must be allowed to walk free after he tried to kill the king... Well I guess we live in a different world then!

Why the hell high nobles in feudal kingdom or empire should give a penny for the Crown?
You see, if you're really believe that high nobles in feudal states of 10th, 12th, 14th centuries in their majority looked at King (or a law) as a holy cow, worlds are really different. Crown won't cost a head wearing it if this head can't explain why everybody should make as he said.
If a kind have a power to pass his will, hell, he can just arrest that guy, and hell with discontent council! Yeah, it will be tyranny - because nobility don't like when king messing with their rights. If you're intrested, right about "traitor to the Crown allowed to walk free after he tried to kill the king" called "judgement of his peers", and pressed into Magna Carta as a right of every freeman. Yes, by law english king after 1215 (later timeframe of game, by the way) couldn't arrest anybody until a jury allow him. Yes. Anybody, not just a high-level noble. In practice, of course, nobody protected low-class yomens, but barons... oh yeah.
Divine right of kings (and obligation for every subject to pass every his whim) was implemented into feudal states (England, for example) in 16th century. All other times it's "first between equals".

If its necessary for a player to datamine the game to understand its logic that is just bad design..

Primary, of course,I agree, it should be better to give a player such info. Just because hiding it is non-needed complication. Show it as a tooltip when you hovering his stance.
But secondary, really, basic guidelines are kinda obvious. The dishonest thing developers did there - they changed a system where there was one total stat to discuss when speaking about vassal-liege relationship (said relationship) and added agendas based primarily on traits. I mean, it's quite understandable that envious ambitious man isn't reliable and will push his own agenda, not yours, even if he likes you.
But once again. I'm completly agree that such info should be visible in-game for a player. I wrote about it when Conclave was hot, but everybody was so, ahm, fond of shattered retreat and coalitions...

 

[Narr666]

.[QUOTE/]Primary, of course,I agree, it should be better to give a player such info. Just because hiding it is non-needed complication. Show it as a tooltip when you hovering his stance.
But secondary, really, basic guidelines are kinda obvious. The dishonest thing developers did there - they changed a system where there was one total stat to discuss when speaking about vassal-liege relationship (said relationship) and added agendas based primarily on traits. I mean, it's quite understandable that envious ambitious man isn't reliable and will push his own agenda, not yours, even if he likes you.
But once again. I'm completly agree that such info should be visible in-game for a player. I wrote about it when Conclave was hot, but everybody was so, ahm, fond of shattered retreat and coalitions...[/QUOTE]

Let me add that the rules are so transparent like people are to you in general. Maybe it´s a kind to much Simulator-player-stance, but in Conclave, I have to guess why someone is for or against me like I have to guess myself in the real world, i.e. in the workplace.
So I don´t agree that you have to datamine to manage it. You have to assess, analyze and guess. It´s politics. I don´t think it has to be 100% transparent.

And sometimes, you simply have to deal with not getting an agreement. Then the bribing, murdering and scheming starts.

 

[aono]

Let me add that the rules are so transparent like people are to you in general.

Well, a lot more! I know that somebody in game is envious and ambitions! I can say how he will vote before initiating such vote! It's quite impossible in real world.
But problem is... the game is a model. Real world a lot of more complex, there are a lot factors, so I want to have rules of model - because they are kinda arbitrary there, it's not real world.
That was sudden and non-explained change of the rules in the model - and I belive it's right to explain such things. Such as it's right to show a player that relationship number.

 

[Narr666]

Well, a lot more! I know that somebody in game is envious and ambitions! I can say how he will vote before initiating such vote! It's quite impossible in real world.
But problem is... the game is a model. Real world a lot of more complex, there are a lot factors, so I want to have rules of model - because they are kinda arbitrary there, it's not real world.
That was sudden and non-explained change of the rules in the model - and I belive it's right to explain such things. Such as it's right to show a player that relationship number.

Qkay, I think you have a point here. I don´t need the transparency, but you are possibly right that they should add it.

 

[PK_AZ]

Everything that gives me more to think about and less reason to expand like crazy is a welcomed addition.

I agree so much that I feel that simply clicking "agree" is not enough.

Why someone trying to murder the King cant be imprison because the council doesnt want it?

Why should councli care more about king that about their particular interests? Its kinda against the reason you wanted to be in council in the first place.
Also. Council voting for imprisonment? Playing as OPM neighbouring Mongols is not hard enough, or something?

cant have 1 title revoke because "he is powerful"

Council voting for giving or taking titles? But... why? These three laws are exactly the only three you want for yourself.

I never look to such statistics, but if Glory Hounds really prefer give their liege more money and retain more levies for themselves, it's wonderful.

Well, actually if Glory Hounds don't want to give you levies, I guess it's because they don't want to go to war for you. Scutage thing, I would say.

So you are saying that it's logical that a traitor to the Crown must be allowed to walk free after he tried to kill the king... Well I guess we live in a different world then!

Well, I guess you live in some utopia where people in power actually do what they should from moral point of view.

Let me add that the rules are so transparent like people are to you in general. Maybe it´s a kind to much Simulator-player-stance, but in Conclave, I have to guess why someone is for or against me like I have to guess myself in the real world, i.e. in the workplace.

Actually, they are more transparent that before Conclave - through still not transparent enough.

 

[aono]

Well, actually if Glory Hounds don't want to give you levies, I guess it's because they don't want to go to war for you.

Glory Hounds can want to go to war for themselves, aren't they? And they need all levies they have.
So it's quite logical for them to say "I'll give you my money, but don't take my warriors, I need them to make MY prestige and lands". They're brave, honest and proud, after all!

 

[thevmag]

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.

TIL that facing a challenge presented is "tricking" the game to play.
"What is wrong with my map? I can only click my own province for building and raising armies, and not anywhere else."
"You need to trick your neighbours, m'lord. You can exploit the system by putting your bigger army on top of their army and unlocking their land as your own."
"lololol you just showed how bad this is, having to use tricks like that."

The problem is basically that councillors rarelly works in their advantage - they work against you. Which doesn't mean the same thing.

That... is the point It's their authority versus yours, a counterbalance to your absolute autocracy. Yes, the point is for them to try to limit your power by empowering themselves. Yes, that means that you will be doing things to weaken them or make them play by their rules. Yes, they'll do things to weaken your power against them and strengthen their own authority over you. That's... that's politics

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.

Councils and kings who push their own ambitions and interests and only give lip service to each other is ahistorical? Playing courtly politics and intrigue is metagaming? Someone tell Thomas Beckett that he's supposed to work in full support of his liege lord. I think four knights should be enough to deliver the missive.

 

[TL_]

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.

That's not that experience I've had at all, unless we have different understandings of early game.

When I'm a count my "strong vassals" are usually barons and bishops who literally can't rebel so what do I care? The only reason to give them council seats is if I'm Catholic and want to beat the Pope opinion for taxes (chaplain is least important if you're not near pagans anyway). It's way more important in the early game (before you have count vassals) to have excellent councilors getting you bolstered troop counts, squeezing out extra taxes, etc. Even as you progress into the early-midgame where you're a small duke with a few vassals, I can easily control a couple of counts when I've got a demense five times the size of their single holding - and I'd rather use those slots on a good spymaster to keep on the cutting edge of technology. I don't feel the need to appease any vassals until I get to three ducal titles/one kingly title (which I consider to e the late midgame) because you start to have TOO MANY tiny vassals who band together or once you elevate to king and you have one duke who basically has to stay on the council.

I'm really genuinely confused. WHY do you care if one mayor is at -30 opinion and upset because he's not on the council? The amount of tax bonus you get from green opinion is much lower than the value you get out of hiring a better councilor in the early game. That's like leaving councilor slots empty so you can save on salary!!

 

[Helios Panoptes]

75% of all the complaining about Conclave is from people thinking that medieval kings held absolute power.

 

[DàbiànLājīdàrén]

The only reason I even play CK2 anymore is because of Sunset Invasion and Conclave.

 

[Narr666]

The only reason I even play CK2 anymore is because of Sunset Invasion and Conclave.

Try Reaper´s Due and/ or Way of Life, if you don´t have them. Especially RD is fantastic!

 

[aono]

That's not that experience I've had at all, unless we have different understandings of early game.

I agree. For me the worst part with council happens when I have two or three kingdoms and later, until I have two de-jure empires.
On end game, where I'm playing for the time until conversion to EU4, they are non-important again.
But in the middle they can became a problem. To my sorry, noble council is VERY WEAK here.

Spoiler: Council weakness bragging

Hah, they forbid to imprison somebody who tried to kill a king without jury! How about:
1. Unconditional freedom of church.
2. Forbidding viceroyalities as idea (every fief became hereditary, even granted for war efforts).
3. Forbidding pressing marriage for every noble woman (but liege approval required), no matter the court.
4. No taking ransoms from own nobles.
5. No royal extra taxes (forbidding first ability of steward, yes).
6. Forbidding a king to change a capital.
7. Forbidding a king to imprison, punish and banish nobles.
9. Highly limited a right to place his own minor titles.
10. Forbidding revoking.
11. Forbidding mercenaries.
12. Forbidding hostages.
13. As a jevel - forbidding defining a council that will allow something from list up there, auto-powerful nobles.

That's essentially Magna Carta by CK2 mechanics.

 

[Kapitalisti]

Reaper's due is generally considered as the Path of Light it seems.

Well yes, it's the light at the end of the tunnel.