Conclave DLC is the worst thing Paradox ever made.

[Iron Chariots]

Brother, best friend, +100 opinion decides he is not a loyalist and never supports me.
No one ever supports me to changes laws, even with high opinion, even loyalist.

Incorrect, unless the loyalist owes a favor to somebody, which you can see. If you need to get rid of somebody with a lot of favors, that's part of feudal politics.

Bribe council to help me revoke title, owner refuses and declares war, win war and imprison the guy, needs to bribe council again because they dont want to revoke title anymore.

So you can't finish off a single rebelling vassal in the space of three years? Even a faction rebellion shouldn't typically take that long.

Random dude is trying to murder the emperor/king/heir, council dont support imprison because they dont want "powerfull vassal" to lose land.
Favors are just hardwork, no real requirements for asking, anyone can ask for them, everyone accepts it, the only favor a guy ask me to repay was to conquer 1 county in Norway that had 500 troops, Im the emperor of UK.
For no reason a duke of whatever (not even powerful vassal) decides he is going to ask favors of 3 members of the council to vote against me, +70 opinion, no claims no nothing.
I know why people join especific factions of warrior, priests and whatever but this cant mean they will never support something out of the contest of their faction, only if they are bribe for it

This whole DLC just introduced hardwork for the player and gives absolutely nothing for it, things that happen are completely random, its bad balanced, its bad explained, its bad design

Im salty with this DLC, first and only game I will play with it, to bad its ironman

Yeah, it sucks that your vassals have their own ideas about how things should be run. It's so ahistorical that you aren't an absolute monarch, as was common in the middle ages.

 

[Kapitalisti]

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?)

I've seen this reasoning coming up all the time, usually when people criticize the Conclave. Now I'm not a Medieval historian but isn't that whole absolute ruler thing more of an EUIV thing? And even then very few monarchs actually managed to rule uncontested.

 

[sreckom92]

One of my favorite expansions actually.

 

[Iron Chariots]

I've seen this reasoning coming up all the time, usually when people criticize the Conclave. Now I'm not a Medieval historian but isn't that whole absolute ruler thing more of an EUIV thing? And even then very few monarchs actually managed to rule uncontested.

You are correct. Most people are very uneducated about the reality of medieval rule and assume that "king" means "absolute ruler." They're like Joffrey whining that "the king can do as he likes!"

 

[Kapitalisti]

You are correct. Most people are very uneducated about the reality of medieval rule and assume that "king" means "absolute ruler." They're like Joffrey whining that "the king can do as he likes!"

In all fairness it worked out for him about as well as doing the same in CK2.

 

[andersonm]

It was way too easy to be a King or Emperor before Conclave... made the game interesting again.

 

[Helios Panoptes]

The only person in CK2's timeframe with the power players think kings should have was the Roman Emperor.

And as we all know, the Emperor never had trouble with senators/strategoi/exarchs/priests not doing as he commanded.

 

[deadhand13]

I'm guessing the OP has never played some of the older titles before they got the patch/expansion treatment? Ah, the days of Indians assimilating to British in V2...

 

[PK_AZ]

It was way too easy to be a King or Emperor before Conclave... made the game interesting again.

Well, arguably Conclave made being king even easier (a.k.a. OP obligation laws). I mean, unless you are OPM with Mongols as neighbours and imprisonment comitee.

 

[Kapitalisti]

The only person in CK2's timeframe with the power players think kings should have was the Roman Emperor.

And as we all know, the Emperor never had trouble with senators/strategoi/exarchs/priests not doing as he commanded.

Or bodyguards/brothers/sons/wives/cooks.

 

[RoverGrover]

I've seen this reasoning coming up all the time, usually when people criticize the Conclave. Now I'm not a Medieval historian but isn't that whole absolute ruler thing more of an EUIV thing? And even then very few monarchs actually managed to rule uncontested.

Well I did follow it up with an entire paragraph devoted to how I learned to like it.... but I meant it more as an annoyance factor than historically anyways. I'm well aware of the historical reality behind the situation. I think for a lot of people it may be historical misunderstandings, but you also have to consider the shock of it from a gameplay standpoint. It was quite jarring since (even though historically inaccurate) before conclave you pretty much WERE an absolute ruler in your own kingdom. Even if you know that historically that wasn't correct, it takes a bit coming to terms with it when you completely had ridiculous power before conclave.

I think that the difficulty is getting people to see it as a new different challenge rather than just something that gets in their way

 

[Helios Panoptes]

Or bodyguards/brothers/sons/wives/cooks.

Drinking buddies/the populace/mom...

 

[aono]

I think that the difficulty is getting people to see it as a new different challenge rather than just something that gets in their way

As I used to say, Paradoxes REALLY SHOULD explain an idea when Conclave gone wild. They should explain their mechanics, they should say "hey, guys, we're playing great medieval realms, look, it works how, how, how and how, we believe it's cool because this, this and this." I even think it should be good just to write dev discussions when they designed this system and thought about it - not just "we implemented this, this, this and this, your world just changed because it did."

 

[andersonm]

Well, arguably Conclave made being king even easier (a.k.a. OP obligation laws). I mean, unless you are OPM with Mongols as neighbours and imprisonment comitee.

Of course, having a larger realm is still easier but now I actually have to manage my vassals more thoroughly and I appreciate having to put some thought in whether to put an important vassal on my council or the best person... which is how it was historically. Not being able to revoke titles has certainly caused me some consternation at times and also maintaining multiple Primogeniture King titles as an Emperor seems tougher at least in the early game, I'm getting a lot of wars to institute Elective on the Kingdom level, sometimes at the same time.

 

[aono]

Well, arguably Conclave made being king even easier (a.k.a. OP obligation laws). I mean, unless you are OPM with Mongols as neighbours and imprisonment comitee.

You know, I always playing with imprison and banish comitee. I take only grant and revoke titles as royal. I never needed to imprison a couple of people without council allowance.
What am I doing wrong?

 

[cmpunker]

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.

Yes, I know the "except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land."
So you tell me what the law of the land say about a vassal trying to kill another vassal.

However I guess we're mixing too much rl and ck. As I said before, when players have to use metagamey tricks to keep vassals down, historical reasoning goes out of the window.

 

[Narr666]

As I used to say, Paradoxes REALLY SHOULD explain an idea when Conclave gone wild. They should explain their mechanics, they should say "hey, guys, we're playing great medieval realms, look, it works how, how, how and how, we believe it's cool because this, this and this." I even think it should be good just to write dev discussions when they designed this system and thought about it - not just "we implemented this, this, this and this, your world just changed because it did."

I am really impressed about your optimistic viewpoint, and that´s not sarcasm.

The main reason I´m posting here is that I was baffled by the hate Conclave got and recently I followed the discussions revolving around Reaper´s Due. Looking at the threats, I am confused on how different it is perceived. I mean, every one his own, can understand that one don´t like it (myself i.e. don´t like Sunset invasion and even turned it off), but the gap between my perception and the reports are absolutely stunning. Concerning RD, in the reports you read about non-plague holocaust wiping out all adults, masses of gays, cancer and homosexuals. Cannot confirm that at all.

Conclave and RD are "completely broken", no one votes for me, don´t buy anything before it´s "fixed" etc. That gave me the feeling I should voice what I like. Not against criticism, but the sheer extremes behind it felt undeserved.

My pessimistic mind got the impression that it´s mostly the mechanics that make things harder and I would love to share your optimism that it´s a communication problem.

Sorry about being rude to people here and my own judgement maybe clouded, because it is really my favorite game so far, but that´s what I am feeling about that.

 

[aono]

So you tell me what the law of the land say about a vassal trying to kill another vassal.

Where and when? But essentially there was nothing very serious here in game timeframe. If you take classical romanzes, written that time, you'll see mortal threatening and trying to kill all over the place. Take La Chanson de Roland, it's 12th century. Take classical Vulgata. They're builded around royal vassals trying to kill each other. That's essentially was a method to fix an attempts to kill you - kill another guy first.
Also the law of the land demands to PROVE such claim to jury. And Magna Carta directly forbade the king's officials be only witnesses, for example. How do your character knows that somebody tried to kill him?

Also think about the fact that the council is not a jury, and tell me about the sense of a jury that ignore attempting murders against the leaders of the strongest factions in the realm.

If you're trying to say that council should be complemented by noble conclaves, I'd agree wholeheartly. I'm just afraid it will be too complicated system (but wonderful). It was simplicited into royal council, and such councils also isn't something unfamiliar in timeframe. I believe options of nobles to interfere with ruling should be much bigger. But ok, I can live with a royal council.
Also a leader of the strongest factions in the realm who can't enforce imprisoment for somebody who he want imprisoned, isn't strongest. If it's king, well, it means king isn't strongest.

I am really impressed about your optimistic viewpoint, and that´s not sarcasm.

Simple - everything that makes a game more a simulator of feudal ruler, not a simulator of whitewasher who color the map, is good. There are reasons why it wasn't so simple to whitewash a map in real Medieval Europe, one of them was feudal fragmentation and constant noble squabble. It killed feudal Russia. It killed anglo-saxon England. Every implementing that shows noble squabble and feudal fragmentation is good; it's possible to do better, but it will be more complex system. I'd take something about CK2++ big factions and made them special screen.
But, well, I'm not working in Paradox, I can't demand any game studio to do a game from mine concepts, so I'm glad to see that they going away from a simulator of whitewasher even as slowly and obliquely as they do.

 

[HREmperor]

Conclave is usually fine, but sometimes I get the really annoying issue where even a guy with 100 opinion of me is discontent for no reason and will block any vote for any reason. The council also loves to block any move that would weaken one of my dynasty members, which makes no sense. Why should my duke of another dynasty care that I'm killing my rebellious 2nd cousin?

 

[aono]

I get the really annoying issue where even a guy with 100 opinion of me is discontent for no reason and will block any vote for any reason.

Sorry for repeating myself, but it's make me pain.
There is nothing happens "for no reason". There is a code that used to set political agendas, so it can be bug or WAD.
The best non-bug variant - this guy is ambitious and envious OR (AND) he is your rival. If you have a save where it isn't an issue AND he is malcontent (not just blocking votes), sent me a save please, or give me two screens (council and charsheet) at least for such month being in council malcontent. I want to autopsy such bugs highly, I need it for modding.

Why should my duke of another dynasty care that I'm killing my rebellious 2nd cousin?

Because if they became pissed with you this cousin can be used. Also because the main reason feudal states and kings existed at all was "well, nobody in this room don't want to start REAL fight for power, it's bad for health and business".
Also Glory Hounds, who is against weaken royal dynasty, prefering stable centralized realm, not a ruler who imprisoning his own family to empower his rule.