Discussion and ideas for expansion of council mechanics in CK3

[The Lights]

I have seen a few posts and mentions (on this forum and elsewhere) regarding various forms of extra council mechanics that could be added. I have written my own in the suggestions forum, I certainly don't want to copy the whole thing, but I'll just summarize it here for convenience:

I believe Council Mechanics are the single most-needed mechanic to be introduced to CK3 in some form or another for 3 main reasons:
1- In a character focused game, they make key characters of the realm stand out from the sea of others, making them more memorable,
2- Realm Politics are amped up to a level not currently possible in CK3, a game where we roleplay (historical) political figures. In other words, it adds a layer of social gameplay to the rest of the mechanics in the game (or has the potential to do so at least).
3- It's a set of mechanics that would both deepen every playthrough (since everyone has a council and some even are councillors) AND provide an extra (powerful) avenue for adding variety to regions. All while keeping in line with CK3's design philosophy.

Whether you think these mechanics are a necessary additions to the game or not is not the purpose of this thread, you can check the other post I wrote and upvote it if you want the Devs to see it... or not if you disagree, obviously.

No, here I mostly want to discuss ideas that said council mechanics could use if they ever get implemented.

-Are there features/ideas you think COULD or SHOULD be considered for such a set of mechanics?

I think Conclave's mechanics are overall great but here are some extra ideas (personal ideal guidelines) to start,​

• Bargaining for votes/laws - I feel like it would be cool to have a voting system (if there is one) that can, at least sometimes, go beyond a simple pass/fail result. "The council agrees to the proposal, BUT they want X in exchange", I personally think it could be an interesting way to balance inheritance laws actually (and other future laws).
• getting “quests” from the council (like asking for a war you might not want, or building construction, designating an heir they chose, etc.) - I feel like giving temporary goals for the player based on the Council's interest (with varying consequences on failure) could lead to some interesting twists to a playthrough.
• Convincing Councillors - I don't think voting considerations should rely on opinion TOO much, I obviously think it should play a role though. But skill challenges, hooks and other (possibly new) avenues could be used to convince councillors... again, leaning into character interactions to fuel gameplay.
• interactions with feasts or Royal Court events - Or rather, I'd like these mechanics to spread to the rest of CK3's existing systems and mechanics... Maybe a councillor will vote your way if you go with his recommendation during a "Hold Court" event, maybe your council wants you to lead your army personally during a Crusade, etc.
• Varied/evolving mechanics - I feel the council, its make-up, power and other characteristics should vary based on cultural traditions, religious tenets, tech (helps differentiate early and late game), rank title, etc. This is what I mean by the #3 reason btw.
• Being a councilor should be fun - Currently, being a councillor gives a strong but static buff depending on your position, which offers no real new gameplay. Having voting rights, ability to bargain... just generally having a say in the realm you're a part of would be fun.

-Are there features you would rather NOT see in such a set of mechanics?

We'll switch it up here, less individual points but more explanation​

• Not Event focused - I hope such a mechanic is not carried/supported mainly by events. I never was a big fan of events overall so that's obviously a personal preference. That being said, events in general come with a very early expiration date and eventually get skipped/ignored. I'd prefer specific windows with ongoing situations and possible interactions clearly readable... I don't need to read that.. idk, for the 6th time in a playthrough, my cat ripped my chancellor's cape so he voted agaisnt me. At the very least, I'd want to avoid the unfortunate (but fixable) dissapointment which are the "Hold Court" events. It would have been nice to get dynamically generated events where powerful vassals or foreign envoys come to make an offer or demand that could leave a noticeable impact on the realm/player's situation, an extra place to do politics essentially... it's funny because the player can make some decently interesting demands to the AI but not the other way around. ANYWAY, you get the point: less style, more substance.
• Not just a spoke in the player's wheels - With all of this, I believe one of the reasons the Conclave DLC didn't land with everyone is because it was seen as "making the council annoying". Ok, now I personally loved that extra struggle, for the many reasons I listed above and in my previous post. That being said, it would be wise to analyse what "went wrong" with Conclave... I suppose some of you could elaborate on that. Perfecting council mechanics would be rather complex: it has to offer interesting challenges to the moment-to-moment gameplay but also tools to deal with them. I suppose game rules could always account for personal preference in the end.

-If you played Conclave and did not like it, why not?

I will not answer this one because I really liked the DLC. I obviously believe it could be improved but no major flaw really stood out to me. I am obivously focusing on the question asked in Not just a spoke in the player's wheels. I'm hoping it could maybe provide some guidance if the devs want to reconsider the mechanic, or at the very least, educate me.​

Well, that's about it... those are my three basic questions, feel free to share your thoughts on them, offer new ideas or even new questions, why not? And if a dev is reading this, hi, please check the previous post which I believe makes at least a half decent case to consider bringing the mechanic back.

 

[gigau]

This is a duplicate of a thread in the Suggestions subforum : https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/1551553/

Remember that formalised idea should be posted in the Suggestions forum thread for more visibility by the devs.

 

[The Lights]

This is a duplicate of a thread in the Suggestions subforum : (gotta delete the link again)

Remember that formalised idea should be posted in the Suggestions forum thread for more visibility by the devs.

Well, I respectfully agree to disagree on that one.
Yes it's on the same subject matter (Council mechanics), but both posts have different focuses. One makes the case for why they would be a good idea (hence why I put it in the Suggestions forum), and the other being a general discussion thread about those mechanics (though I will agree that I built on some ideas in the old thread). The summary of the old thread was included due to not being able to add a hyperlink to my old post. It was a defence against spam which is fair enough. Though considering the time and effort I put into writing both posts, it would be terribly inneficient spam.

Although I disagree with the duplicate thread, I appreciate finally having a link to the old post.

 

[Dlin369]

I’d argue a crucial aspect of council mechanics should be power sharing - and it will be solving the dilemma involved with it that will determine if CK3 can improve upon CK2s council or not. On principle, medieval societies should see Kings share power with their subordinates - with the Chancellor having significant control over diplomacy of the realm, the Marshall over military matters - etc. This serves to the benefit of the vassal (and especially for players playing as vassals), but also as a game “arc” where as you go on as a ruler if you do well you can start to centralize power organically around your authority.

The problem of course is Ck3 is not just a simulator, it’s a game. And games need to be fun. Sharing power with the Ai is super frustrating - consider how annoying it can be when the Ai makes stupid decisions with factions or with wars. Then imagine if they have input in the players decisions/power.

Basically CK3 should have a system where being a vassal and council member gives a direct amount of power and decision making besides voting on random laws with enough complexity to make vassal play fun, but not too complex the Ai can’t play with the system in a fun way and ruins Liege gameplay

 

[The Lights]

I’d argue a crucial aspect of council mechanics should be power sharing - and it will be solving the dilemma involved with it that will determine if CK3 can improve upon CK2s council or not. On principle, medieval societies should see Kings share power with their subordinates - with the Chancellor having significant control over diplomacy of the realm, the Marshall over military matters - etc. This serves to the benefit of the vassal (and especially for players playing as vassals), but also as a game “arc” where as you go on as a ruler if you do well you can start to centralize power organically around your authority.

The problem of course is Ck3 is not just a simulator, it’s a game. And games need to be fun. Sharing power with the Ai is super frustrating - consider how annoying it can be when the Ai makes stupid decisions with factions or with wars. Then imagine if they have input in the players decisions/power.

Basically CK3 should have a system where being a vassal and council member gives a direct amount of power and decision making besides voting on random laws with enough complexity to make vassal play fun, but not too complex the Ai can’t play with the system in a fun way and ruins Liege gameplay

Wow, definitely an avenue I never really considered. Plenty of ideas can come from this, with varying degrees of ambitiousness. It could be “simple” things such as the possibility of the AI councilor choosing their councilor task (which would need tweaking in that case). They’d choose tasks that benefit them more or less depending on their loyalty and personality, unless forced somehow. It could also be bigger mechanics like your Steward having access to a pool of money to invest in the realm, generated from part of your income. I also saw someone on a different post mention the idea of having automated armies if you don’t lead them personally, perhaps the marshal could influence the automation somehow.
Obviously, I’m just brainstorming here but it quickly shows that there are a lot of possibilities that just adding council voting doesn’t bring as easily. The fun part is, there’s not only a good variety of possible mechanics they could consider, but also variety in how they are applied in-game at any time through available laws. Quick example would be: taking the Steward example, the amount taken from your income could be dictated by some “Steward council power” law.

But as you said, it indeed has some repercussions worth looking out for. Obviously handing down particularly challenging tasks to AI that can’t handle them would indeed be a pain but I think there’s a simpler problem I’m worried about, sharing power gives the player less things to do. Now, dealing with the council itself would probably bring a great deal of gameplay by itself. Council voting only was purely additive in terms of gameplay interactions, whereas the “power sharing” you mention is a bit of a tradeoff that wasn’t there before. There’s also the issue of how popular such mechanics would be… and how realistic to implement successfully. Things I certainly TRIED to keep in mind while thinking of the examples above… despite that, I think that marshal idea is dead on arrival based on popularity alone.

At the very least, a key element that I like is making the different councilors different. They always had different tasks of course but when it came to Conclave, there weren’t any features tied to it. It would be cool to see that be considered next time, even if it’s something as simple as weighted voting based on issues/councilor.
Either way, thanks for the response.

 

[Ebrelian]

I’d argue a crucial aspect of council mechanics should be power sharing - and it will be solving the dilemma involved with it that will determine if CK3 can improve upon CK2s council or not. On principle, medieval societies should see Kings share power with their subordinates - with the Chancellor having significant control over diplomacy of the realm, the Marshall over military matters - etc. This serves to the benefit of the vassal (and especially for players playing as vassals), but also as a game “arc” where as you go on as a ruler if you do well you can start to centralize power organically around your authority.

The problem of course is Ck3 is not just a simulator, it’s a game. And games need to be fun. Sharing power with the Ai is super frustrating - consider how annoying it can be when the Ai makes stupid decisions with factions or with wars. Then imagine if they have input in the players decisions/power.

Basically CK3 should have a system where being a vassal and council member gives a direct amount of power and decision making besides voting on random laws with enough complexity to make vassal play fun, but not too complex the Ai can’t play with the system in a fun way and ruins Liege gameplay

That is indeed a good point, the game both needs deeper council AND councilors.
While I disagree that power sharing is a problem, even if yes, it's annoying sometime, is something the game needs more.
Both for increasing the value of playing the vassal and to give a goal for the monarch, to remove the power sharing from those selfish vassals.

Council mechanics :
Like with Conclave, the council should start with a say in many things. Which matter would depend on the culutre/religion.
A side compensation could be to remove gavelkind for place with powerful council. Less power versus more stability.

• Bargaining for votes/laws & Convincing Councillors
  • An easy way to implement this would be to know in advance how the vote would go or a time window afterward. With that knowledge you go and try to convince and bargain the opponent with favors, gold, marriage and more for their individual favor
• getting “quests” from the council
  • Maybe adding a hold council interaction, though that might be too flow breaking with hold court.
  • Passively and yearly, the council initiate a vote for what the most powerful councilor wants : change of law, war, etc. You can try to make it fail or accept it and gain favor for it.
    • With a delay of 5 years for a specific councilor, making theorically cycle everyone each 5 years
• interactions with feasts or Royal Court events
  • Some events somewhat involves some member of your council, like sending the steward to do a survey. Some more similar event could be created for the others and be made more involved on their part. Being more involved, it becomes more risk/reward option than an other safer option you have and give the vassal, espically nice if the vassal is a player, more choices.
• Varied/evolving mechanics
  • That's a given, region, culture and religion should have different council customs, powers and make-up
• Being a councilor should be fun
  • Having a say in the realm and be given task by the monarch greatly improves the things a vassal can do, would improve the fun of playing a vassal

Councilors mechanics :
Aside from the previously mentionned addition in a vote in the council and royal task, the councilor should indeed have more leeway in their actions.
I wouldn't give the power to the A.I. to select their own task, having your spymaster randomly switching from scheme detection to power would be bothersome.
I would give the the A.I. the power to select how they do their task. It would let the A.I. choose how the task is executed, either actively or passively.

• Passive
  • As current, a +X% to something of you choice based on the councilor attribute
• Active (They do the work as they see fit)
  • Would a lower base effect,+1/2X%
  • In addition, this would create situations for the councilor. They could succeed or fail, ask for money, etc. This would bring extra bonus or malus that you don't control.

The choice would also had a choice between loyalty and competency (on top of powerful vassal).
It should also be a law : Councilor autonomy; which would force the councilor to be passive

 

[The Lights]

While I disagree that power sharing is a problem, even if yes, it's annoying sometime, is something the game needs more.
Both for increasing the value of playing the vassal and to give a goal for the monarch, to remove the power sharing from those selfish vassals.

This is another reason I feel such an update should come sooner rather than later, and indeed as a part of a free update. The game, I hope, certainly has more and more content coming... which would mean more possibilities to have said content interact with the council, as in more possibilites to grant them different powers. Similar to how future content will probably interact with the cultural rework that came out.

A side compensation could be to remove gavelkind for place with powerful council. Less power versus more stability.

Yup, this is what I meant by council power being a way to balance inheritance laws. The game could loosen its late-game grip on things like primogeniture and other laws by strengthening the power the council has, or at least the council's ambition.

Maybe adding a hold council interaction, though that might be too flow breaking with hold court.

(...)

interactions with feasts or Royal Court events
Some events somewhat involves some member of your council, like sending the steward to do a survey. Some more similar event could be created for the others and be made more involved on their part. Being more involved, it becomes more risk/reward option than an other safer option you have and give the vassal, espically nice if the vassal is a player, more choices.

I both love and hate the idea of a Hold Council interaction. I'm all in for more active choices for players but they have to be so much more structured and impactful than the random Hold Court events... and I'm not talking event chains.
I feel like they have to be relevant and tied to the existing systems. Don't bring in new threats and random no-name npcs to deal with.
Instead, use existing powerful vassals, neighboring kingdoms, factions, plots, laws, councilor tasks, wars... something the player is actually dealing with IN GAME. Allow the players an opportunity to influence said element (and keep the event text brief), and I believe you got yourself a system that encourages the player to use it. You could even give some amount of choice as to what issue the player wants to bring up at the meeting. Honestly, they add events like this to "Hold Court" and I belive that would be also much better.

I wouldn't give the power to the A.I. to select their own task, having your spymaster randomly switching from scheme detection to power would be bothersome.

Of course, but like I said, it was only the result of a brainstorm session to illustrate how varied the possibilities can be and I did assume the council tasks would have to be reworked to handle such a mechanic. But no, it's not really my favourite idea either.

 

[Ebrelian]

This is another reason I feel such an update should come sooner rather than later, and indeed as a part of a free update. The game, I hope, certainly has more and more content coming... which would mean more possibilities to have said content interact with the council, as in more possibilites to grant them different powers. Similar to how future content will probably interact with the cultural rework that came out.

I both love and hate the idea of a Hold Council interaction. I'm all in for more active choices for players but they have to be so much more structured and impactful than the random Hold Court events... and I'm not talking event chains.
I feel like they have to be relevant and tied to the existing systems. Don't bring in new threats and random no-name npcs to deal with.
Instead, use existing powerful vassals, neighboring kingdoms, factions, plots, laws, councilor tasks, wars... something the player is actually dealing with IN GAME. Allow the players an opportunity to influence said element (and keep the event text brief), and I believe you got yourself a system that encourages the player to use it. You could even give some amount of choice as to what issue the player wants to bring up at the meeting. Honestly, they add events like this to "Hold Court" and I belive that would be also much better.

Hopefully, the next dlc, focused on RP and reinforcing the relation between map and characters, will include some improvement to the council, an intermediate between character and the realm, thus the character and the map.

True, Hold Council does have pro and con as an idea, so it depends on how it would be done. Hold Court is an active choice from the player, but it breaks the flow from the map. Hold Court purpose is to hear petitioners from peasants to lords, so having random npc there makes sense and would keep it from having them in Hold Council.
Target scope is a recurring problem in events, but I have faith from the dev team that it was learned in Friends & Foes, which had the most egregious examples.

The council would always have an active demand. It represents something the council wants from you and would always be visible. Those possible demands would include the like of increasing the realm's power (number of troops, court prestige, improving holdings, development, etc.), reducing the monarch's power (titles, tyranny, council powers, etc.), or a vassal's issues (too powerful vassal, vassal's claim, factions, etc.) The demand itself doesn't do anything if you don't summon the council.
The councilors would each have a hidden demand and one amongst them would be elected as the council demand. This way, a player vassal has improved reason to become a councilor, to be able to set a demand that can become the council's demand.
When Hold Council is pressed, you select your demand. For example: war support, gold, faction disbanding, etc. You immediately get what you asked for, but the council now expect you to implement their demand in a reasonable time.
Failing to do something you didn't have to do, yet that you chose and even promised to, will anger the whole realm. The lord's anger gives a blanket opinion malus on all current vassal that last for a long time and Magna Carta council demand until your death. Magna Carta would be a law that must be repelled before you can increase your power or decrease the council's power. Failing the Magna Carta demand would create a rebellion and losing would enforce the Magna Carta law and give a powerful hook to each councilor.

 

[The Lights]

Hopefully, the next dlc, focused on RP and reinforcing the relation between map and characters, will include some improvement to the council, an intermediate between character and the realm, thus the character and the map.

True, Hold Council does have pro and con as an idea, so it depends on how it would be done. Hold Court is an active choice from the player, but it breaks the flow from the map. Hold Court purpose is to hear petitioners from peasants to lords, so having random npc there makes sense and would keep it from having them in Hold Council.
Target scope is a recurring problem in events, but I have faith from the dev team that it was learned in Friends & Foes, which had the most egregious examples.

I would obviously love for the next update or dlc to expand on the council but it doesn’t seem to be the case. The DD from a few weeks ago mentioned that it’s exploring something not seen in a previous ck2 expansion… which would include Conclave. Now, doesn’t exclude the possibility of council mechanics being deepened in the accompanying update, or the free update they are aiming to release before the end of the year. I’m excited for whatever is coming, but I’m not holding my breath for council mechanics.

I certainly see the point made for Hold Court events. We can all picture a bored king on a throne listening to some plea he doesn’t care about. It’s just that there are only so few active interactions related to the court that it’s a shame they went with one that most characters should barely care about… making it hard for the player to also care. Whether a positive or a negative modifier is applied to a single barony out of dozens or hundreds in my realm (at the cost of a year’s income) is a choice that seems to be begging the player to not bother with the mechanic.

I’m not too sure I’m 100% on board with the idea you have for what a Hold Council interaction could be, at least with some of the details. But I very much appreciate it, an idea that tries to explore possibilities that are different from “here’s a bunch of events”.

 

[Ebrelian]

... mentioned that it’s exploring something not seen in a previous ck2 expansion…

Alas, I must have missed that part, only remembered map/character and rp part

Indeed, Hold Court makes sense and while it might not have been the most needed feature, being a new set of stand alone events also make it an easier implementation. More events, variants for the same event, better scoping and cost/reward should fix the staleness of using it 120 times in a single game and a single place/vassal in an empire of realm size 300+

I actually spent a good hour trying to make an interesting idea, as well as being different than hold court and being optional. To make it different from Hold Court, ruling from the monarch's seat, why not make it from the council point of view ? What does the council, as a group, want and why would you, the monarch, gain from it ?
Based on Conclave, the council should be a check on your power, so a trade off was my conclusion. To represent being the united council doing, it should be a single harsh demand, instead of a personal demand from each councilor.

This then reminded me of John of England and the Magna Carta. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta
A king in need of gold (not really possible currently) and his vassals asking for less arbitrary decision. The king got the gold, but then refused to enact his promise, so ensued rebellion and the vassal forcing the king to proclaim it.

The end idea is that you get something you want/need right now to save yourself, but at the price of having less power (or vassal having more power). Being a choice to seek the council and also gaining from it, make it suitable to weaken you. Losing a title or having more check can also be reversed, so it's not permanent. At the same time, being a promise make it more historical and gives you the possibility to not be actually weakened at all.

 

[The Lights]

Alas, I must have missed that part, only remembered map/character and rp part

Indeed, Hold Court makes sense and while it might not have been the most needed feature, being a new set of stand alone events also make it an easier implementation. More events, variants for the same event, better scoping and cost/reward should fix the staleness of using it 120 times in a single game and a single place/vassal in an empire of realm size 300+

I actually spent a good hour trying to make an interesting idea, as well as being different than hold court and being optional. To make it different from Hold Court, ruling from the monarch's seat, why not make it from the council point of view ? What does the council, as a group, want and why would you, the monarch, gain from it ?
Based on Conclave, the council should be a check on your power, so a trade off was my conclusion. To represent being the united council doing, it should be a single harsh demand, instead of a personal demand from each councilor.

This then reminded me of John of England and the Magna Carta. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta
A king in need of gold (not really possible currently) and his vassals asking for less arbitrary decision. The king got the gold, but then refused to enact his promise, so ensued rebellion and the vassal forcing the king to proclaim it.

The end idea is that you get something you want/need right now to save yourself, but at the price of having less power (or vassal having more power). Being a choice to seek the council and also gaining from it, make it suitable to weaken you. Losing a title or having more check can also be reversed, so it's not permanent. At the same time, being a promise make it more historical and gives you the possibility to not be actually weakened at all.

I appreciate seeing the process, it actually makes me think about the fact that this particular version of the interaction would give players who were of the “council becomes annoying” mindset a tool to bypass their council. They would obviously suffer the consequences but that could give them an extra goal to recover from whatever the costs were.
So it’s not just a tool for players with an urgent need. I like the flexibility of that mechanic.

 

[The Lights]

I think another interesting avenue to look into that I’m surprised I forgot about is interactions with other councils. Whether that be the council of your vassals or the council of a foreign realm. I don’t even think it would be necessary to go very deep with the idea before it starts to open some very interesting diplomatic plays for the player… or some interesting challenges.
Using hooks or gold to make an otherwise loyal vassal into an aggressive reformer, etc.

 

[Ebrelian]

I appreciate seeing the process, it actually makes me think about the fact that this particular version of the interaction would give players who were of the “council becomes annoying” mindset a tool to bypass their council. They would obviously suffer the consequences but that could give them an extra goal to recover from whatever the costs were.
So it’s not just a tool for players with an urgent need. I like the flexibility of that mechanic.

Exactly, the player should have limits at the start and work to get rid of them, a progression of in-realm powers as well as expanding the realm.
You remove the player's ability of having everyone always doing what you want but give in return multiple paths of achieving success and added dynamism.

I might have promised something but might makes right. Like with tyranny, none will oppose you, but they will remember and dislike you for it.

I think another interesting avenue to look into that I’m surprised I forgot about is interactions with other councils. Whether that be the council of your vassals or the council of a foreign realm. I don’t even think it would be necessary to go very deep with the idea before it starts to open some very interesting diplomatic plays for the player… or some interesting challenges.
Using hooks or gold to make an otherwise loyal vassal into an aggressive reformer, etc.

Influencing other councils might be interesting, I think you can already see who the councilors are for each lord but making a clear view would help.
If sway, bribes and hooks don't work on your powerful vassal councilor, it could be used on his council to encourage a change in the councilor's position.
It might work, do nothing or backfire, all depending on the character traits, honor and loyalty.

 

[ZéMalta]

I'm liking all the above ideas in the thread.

Yeah, I'm one of the people that was a bit bothered by the Councilors being petty bastards in CK2, but I think it was just a matter of preference and balancing. I think there are two things that would be jumping or supporting points on a Councilor dlc or content: a pack on personal ambitions and wants, or a patch that makes us capable of finding what npcs want, something that goes beyond their Personality (which already is a very solid base); and also the law expansion that has already been very much confirmed as something we will see some way or another.

The struggle for power in your own realm isn't that hard, and while factions can be fun they are too itchy sometimes; they might have LOVED your dad/mother, but as much as they might have tried to prepare you, they can't help it, everybody hates you. And they already want to put your uncle on the throne. Like, geez, so much for order and law in the realm, or oaths. I think it would make more sense for them to take the opportunity of a week king to smash their authority, or guarantee some power for themselves. Trying to topple the king so gratuitously is a bit too frequent. For me anyway... Councilors would sure as hell try to pass laws, take the decisions against the kings wishes... etc.

I think Councilors opinion should matter, like, you still order them around, but if they hate you and have a petty personality, they will either do a shitty job or sabotage you. And if they can pass laws like "guaranteed powerful vassal council seat" and "council seat for life" we would be ruined, and it would take a lot of wits and politicking to get out of that one. To me, it makes more sense to cripple the king than taking him down. And having Laws to fight for would help it a bunch.


I agree with a Hold Council decision, and have the Councilors get really mad when you let years go by without doing it. I think the Family and Councilors of the Rulers need to have more life breathed into them. No one in my family ever asked to get in my court, or to have a position, nor to give them a holding, or change my faith or culture. Of course, events like Way of Life wouldn't be bad either.

Marshal taking automatic lead of army as an option I think isn't a bad idea, even if they might make blunders, I would like to see that.

 

[The Lights]

I'm liking all the above ideas in the thread.

Yeah, I'm one of the people that was a bit bothered by the Councilors being petty bastards in CK2, but I think it was just a matter of preference and balancing. I think there are two things that would be jumping or supporting points on a Councilor dlc or content: a pack on personal ambitions and wants, or a patch that makes us capable of finding what npcs want, something that goes beyond their Personality (which already is a very solid base); and also the law expansion that has already been very much confirmed as something we will see some way or another.

The struggle for power in your own realm isn't that hard, and while factions can be fun they are too itchy sometimes; they might have LOVED your dad/mother, but as much as they might have tried to prepare you, they can't help it, everybody hates you. And they already want to put your uncle on the throne. Like, geez, so much for order and law in the realm, or oaths. I think it would make more sense for them to take the opportunity of a week king to smash their authority, or guarantee some power for themselves. Trying to topple the king so gratuitously is a bit too frequent. For me anyway... Councilors would sure as hell try to pass laws, take the decisions against the kings wishes... etc.

I'm pretty happy to hear an "outside" perspective of sorts. It's clear you aren't completely opposed to the idea. I already love the first idea you brought. Although traits do dictate AI behaviour (check the AI effects column), it can be sometimes difficult to form an accurate picture of a character on traits alone.
Conclave's solution to that problem was having councilor stances: Loyalist, Pragmatist, Glory Hound, Zealot and Malcontent. Each councilor's stance was partly based on their traits, partly based on their situation (read this if you want the details). I think it was a decent idea, at least in theory. It allowed some categories to put each councilor in and gave you at least a vague idea of how they would vote. Considering the reworked traits, I believe that system can be improved a bit.
Side note: reading up on the CK2 voting mechanics is a fun exercise. For example, I am reminded that council mechanics makes regencies more impactful by giving the regent a vote and not being able to overrule the council, I'd say that's an elegant solution.
An ambition system of sorts would be a nice way to replace that, or at least fuel a new stance system. It also has the added benefit that it would also enrich many other social interactions, I imagine. My only hope is that such a system is not too ressource intensive, to compute a sensical goal for each NPC based on his traits and situation.

As for laws, I really think that the more impactful and varied laws the game has to offer, the more the council and the player can argue on issues. So I certainly am excited to see what Paradox wants to explore with their laws. That being said, I do believe Council voting on interactions (dictated by laws) is "non-negotiable" in my eyes, as opposed to just voting on occasional law changes. It forces you to interact with your council much more frequently, which is key. I think Council mechanics can certainly be a source for mechanical variety and depth... but strengthening the core gameplay loop is the main advantage of the mechanic.

I agree with the rest of your reply, don't have much to add to that. Thanks for your reply though.

 

[Ebrelian]

One of the problems with characters is that there is too many of them and what they are matters more than who they are. Dukes and above already have some kind of ambition based on their traits since they declare war, join and create faction and scheme. While limited, is it because of limited things can do or limited ambitions?
Aside from the dukes and above, all the rest don't do anything by themselves. They either are your family or exist to pad the court. Everyone should have ambitions, or at least do things.
I would fathom that it wouldn't be too resource intensive, as it would be something mostly static. Combining personality traits and standing to determine the character's goal from the list of goal is a light task. Personality traits don't change and standing not that often, so no need to do it often.

The player should always make decisions, either proactive or reactive, but something with less efficient or more costly manner than desired. One of the things that's missing is a loyalty axis. You select a councilor either to appease a powerful vassal or for the attributes, adding loyalty to the mix would create more dynamic decisions. Fortunately, stances from CK2 work the part great. As such, bringing them back in an improved version would create a better basis to interact with your powerful vassals and councilors and breath some additional way to work with them.
Councilor actively doing their assigned function, instead of merely be a passive bonus, would also give them more liveliness and leverage. If you're a tyrant and a slavedriver, why should your steward risk his life to collect taxes? He might not oppose you but could make no efforts or even keep some for himself. Or he could also be doing that because he's greedy and lazy.
The council should be omni-present, until abolished. While some part, like Hold Council, can be optional and more extreme to create dilemma, council input on interaction is indeed required. This obliges the player to actually interact with their vassals and realm in a meaningful way.
Added bonus that it makes playing as a vassal more interesting. You can do different things than a top liege can and interact with your lord in other ways than blackmail.

There should be oath, coronation, legitimacy, laws and grooming. Choices to ensure the succession to make it more real than simply being the heir that nothing short of murder can change.
You should be only able to micro the army you lead, while the others should have directives that they execute depending on their loyalty and competency.
Like everything else, more meaningful choices and less godlike decisions.

 

[ZéMalta]

I find myself wanting to have events and investments on marriages, coronations and funerals (having the option to make an event on it at least); a bit like we had in CK2. There were some fun moments at those occasions for me, and they would be nice for the Memories system. Also would be a nice sink for when the treasury is packing.

This would be good to have those passings of the torch and crown go smoother, and not having everyone hating your heir at day one.
And could bring a bit of unique flavor, since we wouldn't see some of these events so often, so when something different happened it would be very nice.
It also is a small enough content that a well made Event Pack could cover it. And you know, Powerful Vassals would surely impart on these events. Maybe they will say that you better marry with the daughter of the King of France and make a big ceremony (or to not have a big ceremony when you marry a lowborn cuz its a disgrace).

And as much as this may become bothersome, I honestly think it could become part of the loop, of the life rituals take part in, and were even more important on those times it seems. I would find it nice to baptize (or other ceremonies for other cultures and religions of course) the children or newly converts, cuz especially the children, it would give me a notice on them, because otherwise I can easily forget about them after birth when there is a lot going on, or I'm having to name a lot of newborns lately.

Thing is, personal life, privacy (or lack thereof) and politics had little to no distinction. So you would have to see the Councilor who you hate, the Powerful Vassal who wants to take your Authority down, the useless Chaplain all take part in your life and family events, cuz you are a public figure. I find it even weird how no Powerful Vassal uses hooks or makes pleads to marry my children or something. They should be vying for power in more ways than just murdering and amounting armies.

 

[Ebrelian]

I find myself wanting to have events and investments on marriages, coronations and funerals (having the option to make an event on it at least); a bit like we had in CK2. There were some fun moments at those occasions for me, and they would be nice for the Memories system. Also would be a nice sink for when the treasury is packing.

This would be good to have those passings of the torch and crown go smoother, and not having everyone hating your heir at day one.
And could bring a bit of unique flavor, since we wouldn't see some of these events so often, so when something different happened it would be very nice.
It also is a small enough content that a well made Event Pack could cover it. And you know, Powerful Vassals would surely impart on these events. Maybe they will say that you better marry with the daughter of the King of France and make a big ceremony (or to not have a big ceremony when you marry a lowborn cuz its a disgrace).

And as much as this may become bothersome, I honestly think it could become part of the loop, of the life rituals take part in, and were even more important on those times it seems. I would find it nice to baptize (or other ceremonies for other cultures and religions of course) the children or newly converts, cuz especially the children, it would give me a notice on them, because otherwise I can easily forget about them after birth when there is a lot going on, or I'm having to name a lot of newborns lately.

Thing is, personal life, privacy (or lack thereof) and politics had little to no distinction. So you would have to see the Councilor who you hate, the Powerful Vassal who wants to take your Authority down, the useless Chaplain all take part in your life and family events, cuz you are a public figure. I find it even weird how no Powerful Vassal uses hooks or makes pleads to marry my children or something. They should be vying for power in more ways than just murdering and amounting armies.

This is true, there is no court and private part for life and politics, only royal ruling. Having a council with teeths and mechanics would solve the court politics, but events and ceremonies of the step of a monarch's life and reign is also needed.

An event pack and/or part of a dlc would help make each ruler more distinct with events for birth, grooming, coming of age, heir officialisation, coronation, marriage, decline and funeral. A legitimicy value could be added, but simply having opinion bonus for grand ceremonies scaled on court grandeur would sink more money and create the missing link between each rulers.

Having more medieval realistic birthrate and child mortality would make us appreciate each of the children more, one is more precious than ten afterall. The events would further enhance the attachment and drama from those children, and with less children also less repetition of events.