Council Pushing Agenda's is out of control.

[Kinkness]

I really think a DLC focused on Councils or internal struggles is really necessary at this point. The Reapers Due DLC is excellent, but this problem of the game is just sucking so much fun out of everything.

While I really like the conclave DLC for what its supposed to do, it really brings nothing but annoyance, and irritation to playing the game. Every time my king dies, no matter how much my heir is liked, etc. "Sorry Sir or Ma'am but I do believe its time the council slaps you in the face with an iron fist and demand you do this"... <1 week later> "Oh Btw, here's even more demands from the council, have a nice day!" <2 weeks later> "Here's yet MORE demands!"

It's at the point it's not rare to see my council demand 3-4 times during a kings death to enforce whatever it is they want. Regardless of whether or not they failed or succeeded in the last attempt to force their weight around.

To me it's such a shallow un impressive, and all together annoying and illogical system that it really has no place in CK II as it stands.

When I play the game and deal with the council, I should feel like this:

- Was the last king hated? Ignored the Council several times, and upset the people on the council? Then sure, I could see them wanting to enforce more council power, the last King showed they didn't have enough! Makes sense.

- Is my current Heir who just became King, an imbecile, and or all together a joke in stats/power, etc.? Then I could see again with a "Weak" King so to speak that the council would again try to push their weight around.

--------------------------------

It should follow some flow of logic of why they are doing what they're doing. Not just "here's enforcing our power spam whenever possible".

To me it would make much more sense to have the council have many triggered, minor, and major events surrounding it. From everything of county level events, such as farmers, highwaymen, etc. Agreements and disagreements between council members, and over all being able to deal with the diplomacy internally through events.

At the same time a high Intrigue could hold the council by their throats so to speak, or high diplomacy or Intrigue give special options during major Council Events.

You have only about 8ish council power options, and them being able to spam that at you, can take literally 2 Kings to enforce full council power over the faction. Which is absolutely ridiculous.

--------------------------------

A simple suggestion would be to have an internal check/voting system. How much they like your heir, how your past King was, etc. When your heir then comes into power, despite the council being in turmoil, it does the check. How many council members want to push or enforce power due to being under the threshold of opinion? Maybe the majority of the Councilors like your Heir, and liked how your last King was, and therefore don't want to cause trouble for them, and won't push the agenda, if less than half of the Councilors don't want to push, then the council doesn't try to enforce anything.

This coupled with new internal checks of how your past king was, and how your current heir is during this check can make it far more risk/reward while playing. Is it worth ignoring the council and going to war? Maybe you've been a great king for 40 years, and can ignore the council this once? But if your heir is a bit of a dipstick.. they may decide screw it, when he becomes King.

--------------------------------

You could also have a new screen for the council when the Heir becomes King, that takes place after the new Succession Screen (Which I love btw). This screen plays out a bit like an event, but where the council comes together for a "meeting" of how the rule of the land will be. This is where the checks above happen.

If everything goes perfectly good, the council will say "Hey, your father was great, and we have much faith in you. We have nothing we wish to change" and gg, keep going as you're going.

Or maybe there's several distressed, annoyed council members, they want to voice their concerns, and mini events take place where you attempt to deal with this. If unsuccessful they may be a problem down the road with more events, both minor and major.

If things really have gone to the dogs, and your past King was an imbecile, you lost wars, and or ignored the council and pissed them off, and your current heir is a dipstick, the majority may decide with the new internel checks on opinion for council, "look, you're an idiot, and dso was your father, things need to change, here are our demands, you either accept, or we go to civil war" and that's that.

-----------------------------------

This system above I described would still do what the original Conclave was supposed to do, as you grow larger, it becomes harder to keep the council in check, but now it has much more depth, mechanic, and ways to enforce your control one way or another, whether it be diplomacy, intrigue, or military might.

At first you may be able to get away with nothing but military might, or diplomacy, but as you grow and your faction prospers and you become larger and larger you'll have much more council members, who are far more powerful, and you may then need to really plan and weigh options in those events, and how you win wars and or when where you ignore the council. It would make heirs more important as well past the usual reasons, and give more RP value too grooming an heir and having them meet the council, etc. and your vassals.

-------------------

Having something more personal, more RPG value, more logical, and more in depth I think is extremely needed with the Council.

 

[ssorgatem]

Why wouldn't the council try to push their agenda if they can?

If you don't like your council having toomuch power, limit its power. It's all about vassal management.
I haven't experiencied any demands spam like what you explain.

 

[Kinkness]

Why wouldn't the council try to push their agenda if they can?

If you don't like your council having toomuch power, limit its power. It's all about vassal management.
I haven't experiencied any demands spam like what you explain.

Because back then governments like we have now isn't what they had. Republics, and Democracies weren't known well, and Merchant Republics and such were seen as not a proper way to go, but Kingdoms, under a strong King. Back in those days supporting a strong King and being able too give the most support out of all of your Kings subjects was a prestigious and very noble thing, something to look up too. Everyone wasn't out to Ax the King, or strip him of all his power.

Now while saying that, that doesn't mean there weren't people who wanted it. Or people who weren't out to watch the King fall, but that's where these Intrigue, and events can come in, finding those council members plotting to bring the council to power, and make you lose it. Adds more depth, and adds more to it, than just enforcing council demands a bunch of times at the Kings death.

I fail believe Every single subject, or Kings personal councils were all out to strip the King of all his power 24/7 like you're suggesting, or we wouldn't have seen thousands of years of the Feudal System in history.

Not everyone is out to watch the world burn. I believe if I lived in that time era, and I was on a Kings Council, if that King was strong, and over all good, and his Heir was as well, I'd do everything I could to support them, even if I could technically Enforce a demand.. Why cause trouble to a good strong King, and good Heir?

Not only that, but who says all the other council members would be ok with me enforcing those demands? Which where my suggestion above comes in. Makes it far more realistic, playable, immersive, logical, etc.

 

[RykaS]

I think you underestimate the amount of insubordination that "Kings" put up with it to keep their lands together.

 

[ssorgatem]

Maybe it's your playstyle that is not realistic. I haven't faced this problem.

And kings faced lots of internal opposition, rebellions and power struggle. And some didn't have much direct power, like the kings of the Crown of Aragon, which needed the approval of the Catalan courts (similar to CK2 council) for any law change in Catalonia since 1283,then then there were equivalent institutions in each of their realms (Aragon, Valencia, Majorca...) and they could also push laws against the king. They even chose the king's successor in some instances.

So these kinds of power struggles did happen during the game's timeframe. I haven't had them in my games, so maybe it's your precise realm laws and council compositions that enables it to happen. I don't see it as unrealistic.

 

[Averrences]

Because back then governments like we have now isn't what they had. Republics, and Democracies weren't known well, and Merchant Republics and such were seen as not a proper way to go, but Kingdoms, under a strong King. Back in those days supporting a strong King and being able too give the most support out of all of your Kings subjects was a prestigious and very noble thing, something to look up too. Everyone wasn't out to Ax the King, or strip him of all his power.

Now while saying that, that doesn't mean there weren't people who wanted it. Or people who weren't out to watch the King fall, but that's where these Intrigue, and events can come in, finding those council members plotting to bring the council to power, and make you lose it. Adds more depth, and adds more to it, than just enforcing council demands a bunch of times at the Kings death.

I fail believe Every single subject, or Kings personal councils were all out to strip the King of all his power 24/7 like you're suggesting, or we wouldn't have seen thousands of years of the Feudal System in history.

Not everyone is out to watch the world burn. I believe if I lived in that time era, and I was on a Kings Council, if that King was strong, and over all good, and his Heir was as well, I'd do everything I could to support them, even if I could technically Enforce a demand.. Why cause trouble to a good strong King, and good Heir?

Not only that, but who says all the other council members would be ok with me enforcing those demands? Which where my suggestion above comes in. Makes it far more realistic, playable, immersive, logical, etc.

Sorry - Don't want this to sound rude, but you don't really know about IRL the amount of insubordination kings/rulers had to put up with.. Certainly in the time period that this game covers - your ideas of kingship sounds more in line with the absolutist monarchies much later in European history.

Whilst there certainly would have been loyalists to the king in this time period, certainly in terms of what conclave is trying to depict (power of the council and feudal lords), absolutely they would be taking every opportunity they could get to increase their own power base, and collude with each other to do so.

Just look at Magna Carta, even look at the early years of WIlliam the Bastard when he had to fend off rebellious Norman Nobles who tried to increase their power base during his regency

Look at the years the Norwegian kings tried to restore control and a measure of streamlined succession after elective kingship

etc. etc.

I get many people don't like conclave because it introduced more checks on expansionist gameplay, but it absolutely adheres to the fact and better represents internal politics at the time.

 

[Kinkness]

Maybe it's your playstyle that is not realistic. I haven't faced this problem.

And kings faced lots of internal opposition, rebellions and power struggle. And some didn't have much direct power, like the kings of the Crown of Aragon, which needed the approval of the Catalan courts (similar to CK2 council) for any law change in Catalonia since 1283,then then there were equivalent institutions in each of their realms (Aragon, Valencia, Majorca...) and they could also push laws against the king. They even chose the king's successor in some instances.

So these kinds of power struggles did happen during the game's timeframe. I haven't had them in my games, so maybe it's your precise realm laws and council compositions that enables it to happen. I don't see it as unrealistic.

Sorry - Don't want this to sound rude, but you don't really know about IRL the amount of insubordination kings/rulers had to put up with.. Certainly in the time period that this game covers - your ideas of kingship sounds more in line with the absolutist monarchies much later in European history.

Whilst there certainly would have been loyalists to the king in this time period, certainly in terms of what conclave is trying to depict (power of the council and feudal lords), absolutely they would be taking every opportunity they could get to increase their own power base, and collude with each other to do so.

Just look at Magna Carta, even look at the early years of WIlliam the Bastard when he had to fend off rebellious Norman Nobles who tried to increase their power base during his regency

Look at the years the Norwegian kings tried to restore control and a measure of streamlined succession after elective kingship

etc. etc.

I get many people don't like conclave because it introduced more checks on expansionist gameplay, but it absolutely adheres to the fact and better represents internal politics at the time.

Ok, look. I don't mean to sound rude, but I'm going to come out swinging.

1) Hardly anything in CK II is historically accurate, and while yes I know Kings suffered alot at the hands of unsubordination under them, there were loyal ones as well, which was my point. I really don't give a shit either way if my playstyle isn't correct, or what history was 100%.

2) The only arguments I've heard so far is really, well.. nothing. At least nothing useful or meaningful. Saying "why wouldn't they throw shit at the fan, and make your life living hell 100% to push their agenda any moment of every second of the day to gain more power" is not a damn argument, and I'm not going to sit here and piss around with such an ignorant comment as is. Sorry to be blunt.

3) The topic of the OP is the council and my suggestion, or another one that brings more depth to it. If you think the council doesn't need more depth, explain why, logically, thoroughly, and with reason that has some form of logical intelligence behind it.

4) If you actually read the OP as well, btw. You'll have learned that my suggestion does still allow for them to push their agenda, etc. if you have a weak King, or heir, or other possible outcomes by the end of the death.

@ Avverences

Did you even read the OP? Or are you coming in making yourself look like a fool with your response?

Never once did I say it didn't happen.

Never once did I say it couldn't happen.

Never once did I say there was a problem with the conclave, infact I said I loved the whole point of conclave, just that it doesn't do it well, which it doesn't.

If you seriously think getting spammed ultimatums a bunch of time on kings deaths is good enough to resemble the "Internal COnflicts" Good for you, but I'm not that shallow.

I don't understand how it's so damn hard to understand the point of my OP, but it seems many people need to be lead through it line by line and it explained like they're in preschool, so let me re iterate the point of the OP, since peoples reading comprehension these days is at an all time low.


------------------

The point of the OP is not to say or resemble that Kings had it easy, but to reflect another realistic aspect, that strong, or proper Kings and Heirs did and could keep their realm somewhat stable through transition, and what not.

The point of the OP is to help conclave give more depth to the game, which is what CK II is all about, depth to its mechanics.

The point of the OP is to help bring more Intrigue to the game as well, and allow for the conclave members to instead be considered as 1 entity, to have their own personalities show forth. Because to me its downright strange to see 5 loyal conclave members are tearing your gates down to enforce ultimatums or civil war, when they think you're the cream of the crop.

The point of the OP is not to argue over 100% historical accuracy, because nothing in CK II is. It's again to bring more depth to some mechanics that are lacking.

 

[Sunspawn]

I think that the post-succession council being displeased/whatever should be limited to one faction - once they made one demand, they can no longer fire the same faction until next time or until you go tyrant.

 

[War_lord]

Except that there's already a Council stance for loyalists, and loyalists will always back the king unless you're trying to push something that hurts them directly. So loyalists are already represented in game. So your complaint is basically that the council mechanics are making it difficult for you to act like an absolute Monarch, which is what they're designed to do. If you want to be able to ignore the Council, you have to actually put the work in to strip away their power over time.

 

[ssorgatem]

The council is supposed to make your life difficult.

If you appoint ambitious snakes that hate you as your councillors... then don't get surprised if they push for factions whenever they can... and if you are weak, they'll send you ultimatums.

I only see bad planning and bad management as the source of your problems, really.

Since Conclave I've actually had *far less* faction rebellions in my realms, at the price pf choosing wisely the council composition and council laws.

If anything, I think the council messes too little with the realm during regencies and such.

 

[Asiak]

I just think it's ridiculous that anyone can faction while in seclusion.

How does that possibly make sense, how is that possibly realistic or reasonable on the part of anyone?

And it's already happened my father died the council became discontented. And bam the Doge of Genoa, and the Kings of Andalusia and Burgundy from behind locked gates decided rabble rabble we need more democracy.

We won't come out of our castles because the entire map is being ravaged by plague but yea we're totally still able to march for democracy. We can't send out councilors but I guess we'll sneak someone out to say yea we join that faction.

I hope that it is a bug, because the idea that factioning should be enabled when in seclusion is ridiculous.

It makes no sense that they could even get messengers out with the gates closed. You are either in seclusion or you aren't.
It is beyond illogical that even when not in seclusion that if the plague is ravaging the countryside they would faction for something.

Are you really going to program an AI to care more about its political ambitions then it's own well being. Besides the fact that logistically launching a faction war during a plague is going to be a disaster for your levies and treasury.

And then you take the fact that they are secluded in their castles, while the land is being ravaged and what are they factioning for.

Oh right a completely constructed desire for democracy.

 

[thevmag]

There was only one time that I had councilors push a ton of demands and laws on me, and that was the day that I learned to simply not let them do that.

Easiest way to handle the council: Only keep pathetically unimportant people on when it's actually time to make some law changes. A ton of weak nobodies sworn to support your vote, get law, fire all of them and add the people that matter. Once enough of those important vassals die, you can start putting nobodies in again for your next set of law changes. Too easy: the only people who can force law change on you are too weak to ever stay in the council.

If you make sure large vassals with large armies are sitting in council around the time of your death, they'll usually be too plump and happy from having their cake to bother with you. Sometimes you have a few that wish they were on but can't, or you just have a bunch of bitter vassals disrespecting their new liege. Good news is: their most likely faction is to demand increased council authority. Let them: bonus points for giving in to their demands, and the bulk of the low-end obligations are pitiful. Banishment? Imprisonment? Refer to the above, no issue.

You can go full bread and circuses here.

 

[Iron Chariots]

Honestly if you're getting "spammed" with factions, you're probably not very good at the game (no shame in that... this is a difficult game to master. After a thousandish hours I'm merely fairly good). I've just finished up my last Conclave campaign and I only ever had to fight... I think one faction that foolishly fired at around 80%. I was quite pleased at the opportunity to revoke those traitors' titles, something I don't often get the opportunity to do because I prevent factions before they happen as a rule.

 

[War_lord]

And it's already happened my father died the council became discontented. And bam the Doge of Genoa, and the Kings of Andalusia and Burgundy from behind locked gates decided rabble rabble we need more democracy.

Oh right a completely constructed desire for democracy.

They don't want democracy, they want powerful vassals (themselves) to have more say in how the realm is run, which historically, was a problem Feudal kings had to deal with. The HRE being a good example of what happened when the Dukes and Archbishops got their way.

 

[ssorgatem]

I almost miss the revokefests of yore...

 

[MalfunctionM1Ke]

Yes, Conclave can be a bit annoying at times but that is what councillors are supposed to do.

Allthough! I would like to see a better dynamic behind the Council-Factions.
Not just having them expand their say per Realm-size but by keeping an eye on the King in charge.

 

[Helios Panoptes]

I think it's weird how people always take council empowerment as "democracy" and not...y'know, what happened to the Holy Roman Empire over the game's timeline.

 

[deadhand13]

Keep your vassals busy with each other, maintain a massive demesne, and form some decent outside allies and you should be able to keep Absolute Authority no problem.

 

[DocDesastro]

To add my 2 cents: some of the mentioned points are very valid. I will try to address them one by one:

- Powerful vassal wants a seat in council (-40 or -30 opinion):

Currently, I like playing a count more than a king. Reasons? Well, I have able courtiers at court I like to use and not a mediocre or bad vassal. They already have a title i.e. the legitime mandate to rule their realm without me gobbling them up and my promise to come to their aid in case of war. In turn they have obligations to me. Being a Duke is nothing to sneeze at as it comes with several privileges. But seriously, demanding to be able to countermanding rightful emprisonment and my right to award titles and fiefdoms as ruler stinks - even more, if the old king just died. I can see some reasons why a vassal would like to be on council and the game should depict this. Clearly not only the 'I want more prestige' reason, he gets lots of prestige because of the titles we gave him. If he thinks, he is too powerful to be our vassal he should go for independence then instead.

I liked it, when in elder versions of the game courtiers came up to my throne saying they are better in something than the current so i could swap. The fired person still would be annoyed but a whopping opinion penalty for not being on council is just ridiculous. The game should check for several points like these and build up some numbers to determine the desire whether he/she wants a seat badly and would not like you for not having one:

IF the councilor-to-be happens to have a 4-star profession i.e. masterful in what he does - well, this is a valid reason for him to look out for open positions - add some points
IF the person has the trait 'Ambitious' - add some points
IF the person is proud - add some points
IF the person is content - subtract some points
IF the current seat is vacant or someone with less skill is advisor - add some points otherwise: subtract!
IF the person is humble - subtract some points
IF the person is lazy - remove points
IF the person is not able to become advisor (gender law question/incapable) - ignore at all

and when the advisor is picked he might be a little angry for not being appointed and this can go away with time adding time if proud or ambitious, taking away if kind humble or content.
Instead: he should be mad at the person on the seat ('Was chosen before me'/'I deserved that seat'), even more if proud or worse: envious maybe leading to rivalries between courtiers. I would like to see them doing intrigues against each other to clear the seat instead instead of just being mad at the liege. I just do not want to see every bigger vassal wanting a seat because they can and have no real reason for doing so. Also, if someone is advisor, he is at the liege's court and this should hurt his own realm as he does stuff for the liege instead of ruling his own county/duchy. They could also be more vulnerable to plots while on duty because they are not at home with their own loyal retainers and guards but somewhere else and exposed.

- Council is discontent after death of king (2 years)

I can understand that some feudal lords would try to go for independence or try to dethrone the current ruler if they deem him unworthy (bad stats) and allowing for forming factions is quite ok. However, pressing for more council power just every few months because of no real reason upon succession should be blocked by a capable regent as this damages his regency as well. Remember, the regent is oathbound to reign in the interest of the crown - or at least should act like this. Just saying 'no' to everything just because it happens to be within 2 years after kings death is silly. Also, regent should be able to force realm peace as it is his sworn duty to keep the realm together for his king to be.

- Negative opinion after succession (will happen often in TRD)

The greatest problem with children are weak stats and no good traits yet to meliorate bad opinion hits on top of the short reign one. Adult characters have more ways to evade this like getting good traits by foci and have better stats than children. I would, however suggest the houses - not the courtier - to collect data on the relationship between the houses and influence whether one likes a child or not.

I will explain this en detail a bit:
Compare the houses of 'Kingston' with the house of 'Minionton' (fantasy names).
Your ruler comes from the house of Kingston as well as the last king. Your vassal is from the house of Minionton. His opinion on you should somewhat be influenced by his houses view on the your - the kings house. Currently, houses have no regards to each other but should have.

Actions in history can deteriorate or better inter-house standings.
Bad stuff could be:
a ruler from Kingston declaring war onto a member of Minionton
Kingston revoking titles from Minionton
Kingston executing member of Minionton
Murder
Good stuff could be:
Marriages (family ties are good)
Kingston gave us a title
And so the houses will add stuff up against each other and NOT forget it over time like the vassals do. Like vassal was happy as hell because i gave him a duchy. He is totally indifferent versus my son instead.

The result is the vassal feeling :
positively towards the house and its members (House Kingston was generally good to us, lets honor them as friends) --> positive opinion boost
indifferent (they did not much good to us but no bad things either) --> no change
unfriendly (they are our bloodsworn enemy) --> even worse opinion, so watch out whose hands you cut.
So basically: Why should they hate a child? Because of bad stats during infancy or because they fear the child will not be better than his dad/ancestors?

Result: it should be possible for your dynasty to develop good terms with other dynasties and houses and this can influence intrigues, politics, marriages and stuff. And this should influence the standing of your courtiers towards the successor.

- Other strange stuff
Last thing I do not understand: Why might the council have a voice in you giving out titles? 'This can lead to absurd situations gamewise:

Imagine your king has a demesne limit of 7 and hold those. You also hold 2 duke titles. Your heir is a duke with 4 holdings. King dies and Duke inherits with demesne limit of 7.
So, basically you get:
opinion penalties for:
- short reign (o.k.)
- too many duke titles (-10 for each ofer 2)
- too many holdings (-10 per holding too much) resulting in a plain -50+ just for inheriting

Now...I WANT to give out titles to amend for that...but the council blocks off my attempts to do so BECAUSE they do not like me...because i have too much, so the dog chases his tail here.

As far as I understand feudalism, the king is still the formal owner of all lands in the kingdom and has a heavenly mandate to do so. Act against the king and you act against gods will and order. In the medieval ages people thought twice before doing so. And it is only HIM, who grants them as fiefdom, benefication or hereditary. So why on earth are vassals able to mettle in the kings right to grant fiefs? In a constitutional monarchy for heavens sake yes, but not in the feudal ages. They can get envious towards the 'fiefed' person or be somewhat disappointed but the council deciding whether to give away titles is stupid. I would also like to see to make titles herititary or having manfall after death without murdering a whole dynasty --> Vicount rank to honor a single person or temporary.
Do not get me wrong: revokation is different and to some extent the vassal to be revoked has to be judged by his peers first. But granting titles should always be in the hand of the souvereign. People can still have a claim on the fief and solve their problems, but do not let the council block off attempts to give away land and titles to better the relation to said council.

 

[Helios Panoptes]

As far as I understand feudalism, the king is still the formal owner of all lands in the kingdom and has a heavenly mandate to do so. Act against the king and you act against gods will and order. In the medieval ages people thought twice before doing so.

You're overstating it. That certainly wasn't the case in the West, and even in Byzantium (the closest Christian equivalent to the ancient god-kings), people revolted all the time.

Vassal option on kingship was far more often "yeah, you're in charge, i'll send you some money now and then, but stay out of my affairs".