Council always getting in the way, makes no sense

[ninoallen]

My council consists of my family, 3 sons and my wife, and 2 other vassals, a priest and a duke who is sorta neutral with me, even though we dont really see eye to eye.

anyways, the problem is my family, they seem to constantly oppose me on decisions, even though im making these decisions to better improve our power in the realm and to ensure we stay in power (playing poland elective monarchy im king)

yet my wife and sons will oppose my decisions to revoke a vassals title or to change a law, which will clearly impower me and thus them too
its as if the AI is too stupid to realize YOU ARE MY FAMILY AND NEXT IN LINE AND WILL BENEFIT !!

as a king am i suppose to bribe my own sons to vote the way i do? am i suppose to beg that my wife agrees to my decisions?
i purposely put them on the council thinking they would automatically agree to my decisions
yet they dont.

seems pretty stupid.

i have no problem with other vassals being stubborn with votes, but when its my own children who stand to benefit from the decisions i make but for some reason choose to oppose me and hurt our chances of holding power, well it kinda breaks the flow of the game and the ability to roleplay.


I recently posted a thread about how i was emperor of Byz and couldnt join my own sons war against a vassal, which usurped his title.
and once again i find myself complaining again on the subject of my direct family and the games wonky mechanics.
it seems paradox has really dropped the ball on the inner workings of the realm and family interactions.

i really encourage the Dev's to take a look at the AGOT mod and try to implement some of their ideas.

 

[Silver Wizard]

I think your problem is putting vassals on the council. Try again with unlanded relatives, and get yourself a bit popular with then. That way you should have no problem getting 8-0 votes.

 

[Louis XIV .]

I got your point

 

[ninoallen]

I think your problem is putting vassals on the council. Try again with unlanded relatives, and get yourself a bit popular with then. That way you should have no problem getting 8-0 votes.

my family is not landed, i never land my family unless they are distant kin, or bastards i plan to put on a foreign throne.

 

[ninoallen]

UPDATE:

Got tired of the stupid council and just imprisoned my vassal's and forced them to revolt, my sons seem to hate me for my tyrannical ways, but whatever, they know not what i do for them.

however i find it hilarious because my character is called King Wlost, the cruel

 

[Helios Panoptes]

Honestly, it's probably a gameplay mechanic to prevent you from stuffing the council with your close family and doing whatever you want.

 

[Rationalsanity]

Glory Hounds are one step up from Malcontents I find. I'm trying to reunite de jure Scotland in 1066, I take one of the counties and 10 years later I'm set to take another, steal the duchy of the Isles and break up and vassalize most of the Scottish counts. But they wouldn't let me do it because now the Norwegian prick is considered "too weak" and they see "no glory" in reclaiming their rightful kingdom. Its stupid as all hell.

 

[Greybeard0815]

The more I read stuff like this, the more I am convinced that not getting Conclave was a good idea.

 

[Iron Chariots]

Honestly I rarely have too much trouble getting my council to back me. Occasionally I need to bribe somebody who has a favor owed them by another councilor, but given that you only need two supporters to pass anything (as you get a vote yourself and win ties) it's not too difficult.

 

[Naughtius Maximus]

Glory Hounds are one step up from Malcontents I find. I'm trying to reunite de jure Scotland in 1066, I take one of the counties and 10 years later I'm set to take another, steal the duchy of the Isles and break up and vassalize most of the Scottish counts. But they wouldn't let me do it because now the Norwegian prick is considered "too weak" and they see "no glory" in reclaiming their rightful kingdom. Its stupid as all hell.

They are a godsend once you get big enough to operate at 100% threat.

Pragmatists are the annoying as **** ones for me. It took maybe 40% of the world map before they started agreeing to my war attempts because "omg they too strong."

 

[Sergeant Flutter]

Relatives on the council is a bad idea, even Pre-Conclave.

They're always scheming to get Elective, it gets them a chance to get on the throne.

THEY WANT TO MURDER YOU SO THEY CAN GET POWER. Your other two sons will be angry they're not heir. Your wife will want her child on the throne, not you.

 

[ninoallen]

Its already elective, and no they werent scheming my ruler lived a full life And my Heir was my wifes son, they all were. its just AI being stupid.

Relatives on the council is a bad idea, even Pre-Conclave.

They're always scheming to get Elective, it gets them a chance to get on the throne.

THEY WANT TO MURDER YOU SO THEY CAN GET POWER. Your other two sons will be angry they're not heir. Your wife will want her child on the throne, not you.

s already

 

[CaptainPolyp]

One thing tho, a close relative has a bonus towards being a loyalist. So if you have relatives with >80% opinion, it can be a good call to put them in the council. You have to take care they don't have too much traits which will make them shift toward pragmatists, zealots or glory hounds (if they got more points toward P, Z or GH than loward loyalist, they will not be loyalists even if at 100% opinion).

But I kind of agree with the OP. For some decisions, a son, heir and maybe an unlanded brother should have a higher chance to agree with the ruler even if they are P, Z or GH (for zealots it could be a little more complicated due to their strong morality tho).

 

[NewbieOne]

It's difficult to teach an old dog new tricks. Paradox are very oldschool, just look at what year Europa Universalis released and then CK1. Much of the conceptual framework goes back to then. Back in the old time it was generally considered acceptable to feature difficulty as simply how hard things are to do for the player. As strategy and roleplaying games developed, though, it became gradually less accepted and players have come to expect realistic, meaningful challenge. And this is the part where Paradox needs to catch up, along with making AI smarter. They have the sandbox aspect pretty well covered, as well as atmosphere and graphics + sound, so this is just the one core area where CK2 fails to deliver.

 

[masteriw]

Honestly, it's probably a gameplay mechanic to prevent you from stuffing the council with your close family and doing whatever you want.

How can someone try to defend this clear oversight?

If they wanted to stop you from "stuffing the council with your close family" they could just add a cumulative negative opinion modifier on the non-family vassals for each family member in your council.
But there is no such opinion modifier and the familiar councillors behave nonsensically, as if they were some regular vassal/courtier completely unrelated to you. This is an oversight, not a mechanic.

 

[cerpintaxt475]

My council consists of my family, 3 sons and my wife, and 2 other vassals, a priest and a duke who is sorta neutral with me, even though we dont really see eye to eye.

anyways, the problem is my family, they seem to constantly oppose me on decisions, even though im making these decisions to better improve our power in the realm and to ensure we stay in power (playing poland elective monarchy im king)

yet my wife and sons will oppose my decisions to revoke a vassals title or to change a law, which will clearly impower me and thus them too
its as if the AI is too stupid to realize YOU ARE MY FAMILY AND NEXT IN LINE AND WILL BENEFIT !!

as a king am i suppose to bribe my own sons to vote the way i do? am i suppose to beg that my wife agrees to my decisions?
i purposely put them on the council thinking they would automatically agree to my decisions
yet they dont.

seems pretty stupid.

i have no problem with other vassals being stubborn with votes, but when its my own children who stand to benefit from the decisions i make but for some reason choose to oppose me and hurt our chances of holding power, well it kinda breaks the flow of the game and the ability to roleplay.


I recently posted a thread about how i was emperor of Byz and couldnt join my own sons war against a vassal, which usurped his title.
and once again i find myself complaining again on the subject of my direct family and the games wonky mechanics.
it seems paradox has really dropped the ball on the inner workings of the realm and family interactions.

i really encourage the Dev's to take a look at the AGOT mod and try to implement some of their ideas.

I agree with you in a general sense, but I feel like we need more information to know what's going on here. What position do each of your family members take (loyalist, malcontent, pragmatist, etc.)? What is their opinion of you? What relevant traits do they have (ambitious/content, etc.)?

Also, if you have three sons on the council, they can't all be next in line...

 

[ninoallen]

I agree with you in a general sense, but I feel like we need more information to know what's going on here. What position do each of your family members take (loyalist, malcontent, pragmatist, etc.)? What is their opinion of you? What relevant traits do they have (ambitious/content, etc.)?

Also, if you have three sons on the council, they can't all be next in line...

it doesnt really matter what trait they have or their positions, ive had a new generation of children and put them on the council and well its the same thing.
they AI just doesnt seem to be able to tell that were family

 

[Iron Chariots]

it doesnt really matter what trait they have or their positions, ive had a new generation of children and put them on the council and well its the same thing.
they AI just doesnt seem to be able to tell that were family

Being family gives them +5 points towards being a loyalist, or +10 if they're close family, and votes are determined purely by voting stance. This page should explain why your council members hold the stances they do.

 

[Hecaton]

It's difficult to teach an old dog new tricks. Paradox are very oldschool, just look at what year Europa Universalis released and then CK1. Much of the conceptual framework goes back to then. Back in the old time it was generally considered acceptable to feature difficulty as simply how hard things are to do for the player. As strategy and roleplaying games developed, though, it became gradually less accepted and players have come to expect realistic, meaningful challenge. And this is the part where Paradox needs to catch up, along with making AI smarter. They have the sandbox aspect pretty well covered, as well as atmosphere and graphics + sound, so this is just the one core area where CK2 fails to deliver.

This. Regencies and the Council were not created to allow for roleplaying intricacies or historical accuracy; they're meant to be punishing in terms of difficulty level, and nothing else.

 

[Iron Chariots]

This. Regencies and the Council were not created to allow for roleplaying intricacies or historical accuracy; they're meant to be punishing in terms of difficulty level, and nothing else.

If so, they did a pretty bad job. The council makes things easier, since non-discontent council members never join factions, and powerful vassals never resign from the council.