Conclave DLC is the worst thing Paradox ever made.

[PK_AZ]

I truly hate it. Everything in it needs to be redone.

Well, I do agree that there's no CK2 feature that doesn't need massive redesign, reprogramming and probably reGUIng, but it's still good game.

 

[aono]

Shouldn't my own son and heir who I've given a duchy to vote for his ol' dad on the council???

Oh no. Well, he CAN, it's one of the patterns - if he is loyalist. Of course it matters what exactly his dad trying to pass - there are DIFFERENT voting mechanisms for different things, laws are one matter, arresting another, declaring wars third. Logic is different.
But if he isn't loyalist (read, don't get his father as his only light in the window), he can think about it other way.
For example, he can say - ok, I like daddy and I'm grateful. But I'm cynical, craven and paranoid. I don't really believe about all of that "eternal loyality" bullshit, of course everything could change. Let's say daddy will die, and I'd get his title with current laws - it will be my own responsibility to placate feudals then! Or let's say I'll die before, and my son will not be daddy's heir - then he will have all the problems without benefits. And (I'm just as well), I believe daddy should take his obligations as well as his vassals do. It's Pragmatist agenda. And there are some things pragmatists don't like - they don't like, for example, canceling liege ability to revoke titles, so even if a king offer so, they will refuse to vote for.
Or he can say - ok, I like daddy and I'm grateful. But I'm brave, honest and proud. I believe we should take all our glory in the battlefield; my honor is prime before my love to daddy. I'm kinda of Roland from "Song of Roland" - Roland really love Carl (and vise versa), Carl was his uncle (and Roland had issues with stepfather), but he opposed Carl on the council, because he believed it's for better. It's Glory Hound agenda.
Or he can say - ok, I like daddy and I'm grateful. But I'm zealous, humble crusader. Will all my love to daddy I put God before him. It's Zealot agenda.
Of course, they don't think like that in game, it's, well, a game. But by adding weight to TRAITS that can overpower the OPINION they gave councilor personalities. It's, well, simple and primitive enough for me to want more, but it should be just quantity, not quality.

If it was more like 50% I WANT POWER and 50% traits influenced it'd be perfect.

Sorry, what traits but Content (that gives a lot of weight into Loyalist stance) should destroy wish for power?
Also honestly - are you looking into councilor traits fequently? Not to a stat number, not to an opinion, but to his traits?
After all it's Conclave that gave me a situation once. I played Wales. Crusades happens, and I happen to win Jerusalem kingdom, with my older son as a leader and marchal. He takes his Crusader trait, and after the war he gains duchy of Jerusalem itself. Nice, he was loyalist in my council, I knew I can lean on him. But in the Holy Land my son had an event that gave him Zealous. And he changed his stance - every war declaration in Britain he opposed, because he prefered to kill saracens on Middle East, not fellow christians in Home Islands. Such things was impossible before Conclave, and for me they alone beats coalitions and shattered retreats.
Especially today, when coalitions and shattered retreat can be turned off.

 

[thevmag]

Accidentally skipped a line, ended up reading it as

And he changed his stance - every war declaration in Britain he opposed, because he prefered to kill saracens on Middle East, not fellow christians in Home Islands. Such things was ... Especially today, when coalitions...

and thought this was going to get political

 

[Tom013]

That's a very cliche point and I was expecting someone to pull the "its user reviews so disregard" response.
Not many play CKII in comparison to big games, so I trust those reviews are more valid than most games.
Also, some of those reviews have well founded points.

And again, I have seen that same response a thousand times in every single game forum and it's getting quite old. Maybe bad reviews are bad. Maybe they are good? It cannot be ignored though that it has the greatest amount of negative reviews out of all the CKII DLC, and again its most likely from people who actually play and enjoy the game.

You actually effectively defend my skepticism on aggregation -- some of the reviews make points that are valid, others don't. Some would help an individual, others wouldn't. The aggregation is not always helpful where individual discussion indeed can be.

You seem to have read whatever you thought someone was going to say about user reviews and not what I actually wrote about review aggregation. Speaking of internet cliches, isn't responding to something someone didn't say one of the premier amongst them?