Conclave DLC is the worst thing Paradox ever made.

[thevmag]

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?

He might not care that it's your second cousin. Whenever you want to make a council vote decision and it showed you the columns of supporters and opposers, hover over them: it'll tell you why they're supporting or opposing it. Could be he doesn't want someone getting too powerful or vassals becoming too weak, or doesn't care either way and just goes with which side has more diplomacy, or owes a favour to another.

The game is very open about why your council votes the way it does. All my success just comes from paying attention to the game and listening to it.

 

[NakedBeast]

I like conclave but I play without shattered retreat and without defensive pacts because I do not like those mechanics very much.
Those mechanics were a menace but I was turning them off with mods. And maybe the controversy about those mechanics made Paradox do that BEST THING EVER - different game settings screen - which makes game better and more replayable many times more then it was.

 

[ponasozis]

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.


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.


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?


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.


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.

yeah if only
it was possible to know how exactly this weighted system works without using wiki

that would be great


also now that you mention it it might have been my rival with +100

 

[aono]

yeah if only
it was possible to know how exactly this weighted system works without using wiki
that would be great

Absolutly so, and I always says so.
And now it's on wiki; when Conclave just started, such things were found by trial and looking into code.

also now that you mention it it might have been my rival with +100

Sure. Rivalry just give you -100. Earn +200 relations not so easy, but possible - at least I managed to. It won't stay long though, but it's quite possible you give your brother a crusaded kingdom with duchies (let's say England), forgot about your childhood rivalry. And then you're looking into your counsil screen and saw a powerful (England, dammit!) vassal with +100.
Sure, you recrut him...

 

[HREmperor]

He might not care that it's your second cousin. Whenever you want to make a council vote decision and it showed you the columns of supporters and opposers, hover over them: it'll tell you why they're supporting or opposing it. Could be he doesn't want someone getting too powerful or vassals becoming too weak, or doesn't care either way and just goes with which side has more diplomacy, or owes a favour to another.

The game is very open about why your council votes the way it does. All my success just comes from paying attention to the game and listening to it.

No, the reason given is literally "Don't want you to weaken your dynasty". That's it, no explanation as to why they care about you killing a traitor.

 

[thevmag]

No, the reason given is literally "Don't want you to weaken your dynasty". That's it, no explanation as to why they care about you killing a traitor.

What's his affinity? Is he loyalist? Pragmatist? They might consider the strength of your dynasty, traitor or no, to be better for the good of the realm than upholding legal justice.

 

[aono]

No, the reason given is literally "Don't want you to weaken your dynasty". That's it, no explanation as to why they care about you killing a traitor.

Because they are not seing him as a traitor. For them, he/she is just a part of royal bloodline, allowing to make a chose between him and you and not changing a line.
Also why at all they should worry about him betraying you? What are you, Mother Homeland?

What's his affinity? Is he loyalist? Pragmatist? They might consider the strength of your dynasty, traitor or no, to be better for the good of the realm than upholding legal justice.

I'm bet he is Glory Seeker. It's their opinion.

 

[Neoptolemos]

I agree with Silversweeper earlier in the thread. The Conclave DLC is mostly fine, although its UI is deplorably ugly and unreadable, but the "favors" mechanic is weak, fussy, and encourages gaming by the player. I understand that it attempts to systematize a reason for character cooperation other than high opinion, but it fails because favors are too easily gained, extremely situational, and bothersome to expend. As far as I can tell, the useful things that a favor with one's liege can bring are A) press your external claim, B) prevent or force a realm peace, C) start a law vote, or D) ask for pardon. Notably, all except for the realm peace require some level of player action just to make the favor usable in the first place, which is not the hallmark of a good resource in game design. I don't have to search high and low for places to spend gold in CK2, for example, although I did at launch.

Meanwhile, if you're unlucky enough to get stuck with a favor from a fellow vassal who's not on the council, if you're a vassal yourself, or from a count- or duke-tier independent, if you're independent, you're going to die with that favor unpaid, because there's nothing to spend it on. That feels ridiculous, almost as much as not really caring about a favor from one's liege because you're happy with the state of the realm and your holdings within it. Favors will continue to feel like worthless busywork so long as the game doesn't present you with two or more immediately helpful uses for them (and, I'd argue, I don't think the game ever will, because it's already designed so tightly around opinion that all favors can be are situational trump cards).

Also, everyone coming up with fan-fictiony reasons why this or that mechanic should work counterintuitively needs to stop watching so much HBO. Medieval rulership was the art of compromise and consensus, true, but kings and emperors were still able to make incredibly sweeping acts of judgment that CK2 has no way of recreating. In the wake of his defeat by the Lombard League, Frederick Barbarossa pinned the blame for his defeat on the non-involvement of his most powerful vassal, Henry the Lion, and stripped him of all his titles, leaving him an outlaw. Frederick was then able to spend the next eight years settling accounts and preparing for crusade, rather than putting down a tyranny revolt. Philip Augustus ordered that Prince John, his nominal vassal, appear in court for the murder of Arthur of Brittany but denied him safe conduct. John didn't come, perhaps wisely, and was accordingly dispossessed of his lands, although Philip only managed to take control of Normandy, Maine, Anjou, and the Touraine by the time of the 1206 truce. These two men were powerful rulers, sure, but a vassal imposing restrictions on a weak liege's justice was typically rare enough to be condemned outright, as with the Magna Carta and the pope, and there's scant evidence that the vassals-versus-liege mentality described by some CK2 players existed in any consistent or meaningful form.

 

[Iron Chariots]

l, if you're a vassal yourself, or from a count- or duke-tier independent, if you're independent, you're going to die with that favor unpaid, because there's nothing to spend it on.

If I'm not mistaken, you can spend it on forcing a marriage, right? Yeah, you might not be able to get the heir with this, but you can get, say, the daughter who's close to the line of succession. A few well-placed knives later, you're expanding within the realm.

 

[aono]

These two men were powerful rulers, sure, but a vassal imposing restrictions on a weak liege's justice was typically rare enough to be condemned outright, as with the Magna Carta and the pope, and there's scant evidence that the vassals-versus-liege mentality described by some CK2 players existed in any consistent or meaningful form.

Nobody said game haven't ban on vassal voice in such actions as imprisoment, banishment or execution. And you always can say "and I'm tyrant, what are you going to do?"
...well. Barbarossa met high-power vassal faction going to overthrown him. Also I believe it should be noticed - Henry was stripped and banished BY COURT, not by Barbarossa souveregn will.
But really, I always said that feudal vassals should be called to war as tribal. It's good mechanic.

 

[HREmperor]

Because they are not seing him as a traitor. For them, he/she is just a part of royal bloodline, allowing to make a chose between him and you and not changing a line.
Also why at all they should worry about him betraying you? What are you, Mother Homeland?


I'm bet he is Glory Seeker. It's their opinion.

Except they do see him as a traitor. If said vassal wasn't on the council and I executed the traitor, they'd get no opinion malus at all due to the traitor having acted dishonorably against me.

 

[aono]

Except they do see him as a traitor. If said vassal wasn't on the council and I executed the traitor, they'd get no opinion malus at all due to the traitor having acted dishonorably against me.

Yeah. Nobody will count you as tyrant for executing your personal enemy but his closest kins. It's normal, everybody do. But why they have to help you?
Because no, they don't see him as a traitor. They see YOU have a reason to finish him, that it's not just "hey, I'm a king and I can kill everybody I want!"

After all, he isn't traitor to the state, he even don't give Roland to moors! (because there isn't such option in game; pity!)

 

[HREmperor]

Yeah. Nobody will count you as tyrant for executing your personal enemy but his closest kins. It's normal, everybody do. But why they have to help you?
Because no, they don't see him as a traitor. They see YOU have a reason to finish him, that it's not just "hey, I'm a king and I can kill everybody I want!"

After all, he isn't traitor to the state, he even don't give Roland to moors! (because there isn't such option in game; pity!)

I'm not asking me councillor to "help" me, I'm asking him to allow me to do an action that normally he'd be perfectly ok with. Even if he was against it but I managed to get it past using other councillors, he still wouldn't have an opinion malus and he'd be completely ok with it.

It just makes no sense that he'd block an action that normally he wouldn't care about and in no way decreases his power. Even if the dynasty member is unlanded and has no claims, they don't want me to kill them even though it doesn't strengthen me at all.

 

[aono]

I'm not asking me councillor to "help" me, I'm asking him to allow me to do an action that normally he'd be perfectly ok with.

Wait. You asking him to do exactly this - you asking him to allow state power to fix YOUR personal agenda. By his idea it's not a goal for the state.

It just makes no sense that he'd block an action that normally he wouldn't care about and in no way decreases his power.

Don't you see you contradict yourself? Normally he is care, you're telling it yourself - "Even if the dynasty member is unlanded and has no claims, they don't want me to kill them even though it doesn't strengthen me at all.". So you gave him nothing to NOT care. At least if he is Glory Seeker.
By default he don't want royal dynasty be imprisoned, banished or killed. He believe it's working against his agenda (to bring glory for himself and for realm - where glory isn't power). He wants not a inner scrabble between royal family members, but glorious war on the borders. He don't just want you to be weak, it's malcontent. He believed that state matters shouldn't mess with your personal vendettas within your family. So he blocks every your attempt to do so.
Until he dislikes such a member, sure. Positive factors to vote generally overweight negative.
Yes, that's a system with scripted behaviour. It's simple, when you get it.

 

[HREmperor]

Wait. You asking him to do exactly this - you asking him to allow state power to fix YOUR personal agenda. By his idea it's not a goal for the state.

Asking for permission to use my God-given right as the king to dish out justice is not asking for help. He's not helping me kill the guy by voting yes, he's just helping me not make people mad about it. Also, it's not my "personal agenda" to kill a rebel. That's state agenda.

Don't you see you contradict yourself? Normally he is care, you're telling it yourself - "Even if the dynasty member is unlanded and has no claims, they don't want me to kill them even though it doesn't strengthen me at all.". So you gave him nothing to NOT care. At least if he is Glory Seeker.
By default he don't want royal dynasty be imprisoned, banished or killed. He believe it's working against his agenda (to bring glory for himself and for realm - where glory isn't power). He wants not a inner scrabble between royal family members, but glorious war on the borders. He don't just want you to be weak, it's malcontent. He believed that state matters shouldn't mess with your personal vendettas within your family. So he blocks every your attempt to do so.
Until he dislikes such a member, sure. Positive factors to vote generally overweight negative.
Yes, that's a system with scripted behaviour. It's simple, when you get it.

No, normally he doesn't care. If he was a huge fucking issue with me killing traitors, he'd get an opinion malus, yet he doesn't as long as I can get the majority of the council to vote yes to it.

How does executing a traitor prevent me from making "glorious war on the borders"? And how is it just a personal vendetta?

 

[Darkhymn]

I was really excited for this DLC, and I've wanted it since it came out. I finally got it this weekend, and I want to like it... but the fact is the implementation is bad. There's no rhyme or reason to the council behavior, except "council needs more power, will betray everything they hold dear to have it." The only thing that matters to anyone on the council is power for the council. Blood, loyalty, friendship, literally being required by game mechanics to not join factions - none of these things will stop the constant stream of rebellions to give the council more power.
If I have 4 councilors who owe me favors, and all six have 90+ opinion of me, there should be no question that when the one I owe a favor instead calls in a favor to start a vote for more council power and loses, everything goes back to normal. The council loves the king, owed him favors for being a great king and didn't support the vote and that's that. What happens instead is the vote fails, and immediately the whole council joins a faction and declares war. This occurs repeatedly. What in the world is the point of a council that won't uphold its own decisions? Why even have the council if it's going to work this way? Wouldn't an automatic rebellion every few years and an automatic tyranny penalty for every action the king takes be simpler?

 

[aono]

Asking for permission to use my God-given right as the king to dish out justice is not asking for help. He's not helping me kill the guy by voting yes, he's just helping me not make people mad about it.

Forget about "God-given right". You haven't absolute God-given rights. It's Roman idea (so you should be Byzantine and they hadn't such problems - council abolished!) or you're just first between equals. It's not just words - it's really two DIFFERENT ideas what is king power.
Divine right of kings came to feudal states of Europe in 16 century. Really, there was some basic ideas, but it's really Jean Bodin, and it's 1530-1536. Before... well. "He replied, "Go tell that fox, 'I will keep on driving out demons and healing people today and tomorrow, and on the third day I will reach my goal.'" Luke, 13:36.
It was intresting issue with EMPEROR title, but by european political thought there can be only one Emperor on the West (or even only one emperor at all).
The basic idea for western kingdoms (and tribal states, by the way, such as Rus - because it's basic idea, western kings was military leaders, not high priests) was "Primus inter pares", "first between equals". That means a king is nothing SO SPECIAL.
If you want to play a game where you are essentially divine ruler, you just abolish council rights.

Also, it's not my "personal agenda" to kill a rebel. That's state agenda.

How he is a rebel to state? What did he even done to state? Even idea of a state came to western government not earlier that 14th century (and romans in Constantinopole calls westerns barbarians). In classical feudal system nobody can be rebel against the state, it's just relationship between liege and vassal.

If he was a huge fucking issue with me killing traitors, he'd get an opinion malus, yet he doesn't as long as I can get the majority of the council to vote yes to it.

And once more. He don't thought about your cousin as a traitor. Why it's a traitor for him? Yeah, it's traitor for you, everybody get it, nobody will despite you if you do something bad for him. But... well, what did he did?

How does executing a traitor prevent me from making "glorious war on the borders"?

Are you asking your council to start a war? Or to arrest your cousin?

Blood, loyalty, friendship, literally being required by game mechanics to not join factions - none of these things will stop the constant stream of rebellions to give the council more power.

That's exactly not true. Blood matters, friendship matters, loyality matters - it's just not ONLY that matters. And it shouldn't be.

The council loves the king, owed him favors for being a great king and didn't support the vote and that's that. What happens instead is the vote fails, and immediately the whole council joins a faction and declares war.

I can't rid myself from an idea that you believe that noble councils were such things existed as supplement to his majesty holy king, to make his work easer. It's quite the opposite, noble councils were earlier, and every right feudal king have he have because high nobles allowed him.

Why even have the council if it's going to work this way? Wouldn't an automatic rebellion every few years and an automatic tyranny penalty for every action the king takes be simpler?

Great question. A lot of real life rulers (with understanding that council represents highest nobles) prefered to limit council ability to have a word. Sometimes it ends with council favor, sometimes with kings power. And some nobles really decided that they don't need king at all. Why even have a king if he always wants to limit nobles?

 

[Madae]

I find Conclave to be pretty good for controlling empires. Partition it with kingdom viceroys, enable council and war declartion, and always make sure your handpicked viceroys are on the council... bam, most stable empire ever. Have a healthy bank (like any smart player should) and you'll almost never have to worry.

 

[Darkhymn]

That's exactly not true. Blood matters, friendship matters, loyality matters - it's just not ONLY that matters. And it shouldn't be.


I can't rid myself from an idea that you believe that noble councils were such things existed as supplement to his majesty holy king, to make his work easer. It's quite the opposite, noble councils were earlier, and every right feudal king have he have because high nobles allowed him.


Great question. A lot of real life rulers (with understanding that council represents highest nobles) prefered to limit council ability to have a word. Sometimes it ends with council favor, sometimes with kings power. And some nobles really decided that they don't need king at all. Why even have a king if he always wants to limit nobles?

Those things may be intended to matter, but they don't. A blood brother best friend +100 opinion councilor will still vote against the kind unless a favor is involved. Thankfully favors are easy to manipulate and the king can and will always win the vote with ease if he's willing to game the mechanics.

I didn't say that the council was in place to help the king somehow. I said that the council can't get out of its own way. If it votes against something, from a gameplay and a realistic standpoint that should be that. However, in the current state of this game, if the council votes against the implementation of increased council power, it will then immediately declare war to increase council power. Every time. Without fail, unless the king's personal military is stronger than the council's.

As such, from a gameplay standpoint, the council has literally no effect on how the game plays out, except that once every year or two the player has to put down a rebellion consisting of every landed councilor, guaranteed, regardless of the councilor's opinion of the player, "personality," or relation to the player.

 

[PK_AZ]

No, normally he doesn't care. If he was a huge fucking issue with me killing traitors, he'd get an opinion malus, yet he doesn't as long as I can get the majority of the council to vote yes to it.

It's compromise. People are generally more willing to accept the will of collective body they belong to than the will of some guy thinking he is playing godgame.

"council needs more power, will betray everything they hold dear to have it."

You want to tell me that Conclave sucks, because it makes NPCs behaving exactly like player?