Increase Council Power faction = a load of bs

[Asiak]

Did you even click on the link? If you think a realm with 837 holdings is not big enough, then I wonder what you think is a large empire. Also, I suspect you didn't click the link, because no one is coming back for more power. With the powerful vassals on my council, they cannot form factions as long as the council is content. Their ambition or opinion is irrelevant.

I'm sorry I did not see or click the link.

Yes that's an incredibly cool and valid strategy that I'll have to try one day.

But whats the implication because you know that isn't the norm, or the route taken in every game. That would be fun once or even a handful times. But I'm not going to want to resort to just owning 11 provinces, controlling everything else through the council and then burning everybody else. And in those games where I don't want to burn the world as an emperor the frequent and feverish desires of of the democracy league are utterly annoying.

Its to many, its to frequent, and in wider empires it requires to many favors, ducats, betrothals and resources that prevent the player from really doing shit else but stamping it down every five years.

Its an arbitrary ambition injected into the AI that creates an artificial challenge that is just annoying.

 

[War_lord]

You know, all these people are complaining about the AI having "artificial, arbitrary ambition" that gets in the way of the player ruling however he sees fit. But if you look at the actual history of many of the great feudal states was defined by the struggle between the ruling Monarch and his independent minded vassals.

 

[Duuk]

Reading this thread has made me realize how many people play this as a wargame instead of understanding the nuances. Conclave has really revealed some different playstyles.

I swallow duchies whole after careful planning and I marry my daughters to heirs of my vassals to keep family ties. I never have upset councils (except for the 2 years after a change in monarch) and I don't think I've ever hit 10% on threat. I always make sure that the largest, most powerful vassal in my country is my heir and on my council, so he's extremely unlikely to revolt and without his backing most factions will lack the ability to be more than a mild annoyance to me. Of course, every few generations you have to let a good sized revolt happen, crush it mercilessly with hired troops, imprison all of the powerful vassals, and revoke them to pass them out to new sons.

If you're breeding the Kwisatz Haderach (Dune/CK1 term), then you're not using your daughters for what God gave kings daughters to achieve: realm peace.

 

[Robert II]

You know, all these people are complaining about the AI having "artificial, arbitrary ambition" that gets in the way of the player ruling however he sees fit. But if you look at the actual history of many of the great feudal states was defined by the struggle between the ruling Monarch and his independent minded vassals.

But they don't want independence. Vassals wanting to go independent would be a nice change. Instead are willing to die to force me to agree to a vote on banishment. War declaration fair enough but a vote on banishment?

 

[Asiak]

You know, all these people are complaining about the AI having "artificial, arbitrary ambition" that gets in the way of the player ruling however he sees fit. But if you look at the actual history of many of the great feudal states was defined by the struggle between the ruling Monarch and his independent minded vassals.

Yes yes they were.

I fully agree that in many countries(England and the HRE come to mind) during these time periods yes. Vassals did randomly perhaps stupidly band together and go rabble rabble we or someone else needs more power.

But not nearly as frequently as this. And not as universally as this. Yes England rabbled against King John, and the Germans rabbled elective into the HRE. But not every single country and not every 5 or 10 years. Yes it has a historical and realistic basis and I'm not actually calling for its removal. I simply think that the AI's love and lust for the increase council power faction is over programmed in its frequency and usage.

Especially as a Byzantine emperor, emperors who were slightly more autocratic and dictator like then their western counterparts.

An emperor with green +10 opinions having to buy down the same faction every 5 - 6 years over and over again because I didn't give you my daughter or a council seat is a bit much. Once or twice in a reign not four or five times.

Reading this thread has made me realize how many people play this as a wargame instead of understanding the nuances. Conclave has really revealed some different playstyles.

Its true, but Conclave also obsoleted some different play styles. Such as playing skinny and throwing unneeded children into monasteries.

 

[Rubidium]

But whats the implication because you know that isn't the norm, or the route taken in every game. That would be fun once or even a handful times. But I'm not going to want to resort to just owning 11 provinces, controlling everything else through the council and then burning everybody else. And in those games where I don't want to burn the world as an emperor the frequent and feverish desires of of the democracy league are utterly annoying.

I don't want to put words in the poster's mouth, but I believe the point was that if you can reign peacefully despite going out of your way to make your vassals angry as possible, you can certainly do likewise in a game where you aren't randomly imprisoning and executing people right and left. just to try and see how high the tyranny modifier goes.

Give them War Declaration powers, and the top X vassals (where X is how many council slots you fill with powerful vassals) are generally unable to faction. If your realm is such that the top X vassals are the ones that matter (e.g. vassal kings), then you are good to go right off the bat; no one else can hope to form a faction large enough to matter against you and the Big X.

If you have enough powerful vassals that this won't be enough to prevent factions from getting strong enough on your own, then you can marry off excess siblings/children/aunts/uncles/nephews/nieces to get Nonaggression Pacts with a few more. If you pick individuals reasonably low down in the succession order for your diplomatic marriage, you can even use matrilineal marriages to increase your dynasty. Anyone with a NAP will drop out of factions. Just note that you will have to renegotiate NAPs after you or your vassal dies, even if the marriage/blood tie still exists.

Between these, you can generally avoid factions getting large enough to fire, even with huge empires. The spymaster is just gravy, mainly for vassals that hate you so much they won't agree to a NAP. The AI has trouble managing it (which is a valid point), but ironically Conclave means the player can basically shut down factions to a greater degree than any time since they were introduced. The only reason you might have trouble is if your council goes discontent (either on succession or because you ignored the council, e.g. by declaring a war they were opposed to), and even then, your extensive network of NAPs with your vassals should allow you to weather the storm

And of course, since so many of the council power factions are for meaningless demands, you can safely give in to ones you don't care about, while the focus on those factions prevents them from forming factions about things like succession that actually matter ("Have I even banished anyone once this game? Sure, you can have that power").

 

[Secret Master]

You know, all these people are complaining about the AI having "artificial, arbitrary ambition" that gets in the way of the player ruling however he sees fit. But if you look at the actual history of many of the great feudal states was defined by the struggle between the ruling Monarch and his independent minded vassals.

I don't really see it as even artificial ambition or even historical behavior (although it is historical in many respects). I see the AI trying to play the way a player might. The AI just has ambition in general. It may want to become independent, or just grab enough power to have more influence in realm affairs. This is not unusual.

The council voting personalities, while not comprehensive, at least provide a semblance of human behavior to the vassals on the council. How many of would love our liege to go to war over one of our claims? (Doing so for a council member ensures their vote and support in such a conflict) How many human players are pragmatists who don't want to see any other vassal getting more powerful?

In fact, with the new way certain laws function, and the new way realm peace functions, it gives vassal humans more input in real affairs. If you don't want realm peace, vote against it on the council or grab a favor on your liege to kill it before it passes. If you want realm peace to protect yourself, grab favors on your liege and force a vote. This is far better than the old system of "Well, I guess we're at medium crown authority. No more taking land from other vassals until we get it back down."

I also love how regencies work now. They make much more sense and are more historical.

 

[Red Earth]

You know, all these people are complaining about the AI having "artificial, arbitrary ambition" that gets in the way of the player ruling however he sees fit. But if you look at the actual history of many of the great feudal states was defined by the struggle between the ruling Monarch and his independent minded vassals.

The AI's arbitrary ambition is getting in the way of MY arbitrary ambition!

 

[Red Earth]

IMHO, it doesn't even make any sense that random vassals would start factions to increase council power. Unless they hate their liege, they should technically prefer there only being one person they have to suck up to to get their claims pressed.

So here's a suggestion for modders/devs: Make it so only members of a discontent council can start a faction to increase council power, but make it so the council is automatically discontent for a few years if their power gets lowered. That way we'd see a realistic backlash against taking away the council's power, while avoiding faction spam from people who really shouldn't even care about the outcome.

It would be an odd inconsistency if the council were discontent about the lowering of their authority considering they are the ones that vote on lowering their own authority.
Changing council power should be voted on by all the vassals. That way there is a clear question of who the vassals want to have more power since either way it isn't themselves.

 

[Siggerad]

I begin a Asturia campaing, council is not a problem, a lot of revolts but crush easy. I have half of hispania. Ok the fammily tree is still broken, but is a fun campaing. With a little state i see not issue with treat, so maybe a lot of people see the complains about Conclave-free patch a little overreaction, but if you play Bizantium in 769 just conquer 2-3 duchys and is another history. I get burn and quit. why is in other post. Just try to play Bizantium, for me is not a blop, Abssanid that is a blop.

 

[pillullis]

Let's hope Paradox gets to fix this issue soon

 

[Narvait]

I have my first playthrough with Conclave. They got almost all powers (went feudal from tribal) but I still manage to fullfill my ingame goals.
I have not got to Empire title yet in this game, so cant comment on that, but I know pre-Conclave map painting was absurdly simple, and as Emperor level guy I had no challenges except Abbasids and maybe if I am lucky enough - Hordes. So, it became dull and boring after first few centuries.

 

[Guancyto]

The thing I mostly find objectionable about the Increase Council Power faction is...

Well, let's say my empowered Council is six superkings (and the seer), and then the rest of my realm is a bunch of plebian jarls who don't get a say in anything.

I go to my Council and say "guys, we've got a good thing going here but it would really help everyone out if I didn't have to call you in every time I hand out land after a war, and I will pay you delicious moneys to agree with me" and they go "well I do love delicious moneys, so sure."

The 200% power Increase Council Power faction that results from this is the rest of my realm, the dudes who don't benefit at all from this, who are willing to fight, die and/or spend the rest of their lives in jail for the sake of giving more power to a Council they will never sit on and that they probably don't even like.

It would make a ton more sense if an Increase Council Power faction could only be led by a discontented councillor (but then anyone could join it) - piss off your council and they will respond by attempting to neuter the monarchy. Be a weak successor and find your power reduced compared to what your father had. You could also let it be led by someone with the Recently Fired modifier, maybe? Fire someone for disagreeing with you and be prepared to weather a storm of their displeasure?

 

[Secret Master]

The 200% power Increase Council Power faction that results from this is the rest of my realm, the dudes who don't benefit at all from this, who are willing to fight, die and/or spend the rest of their lives in jail for the sake of giving more power to a Council they will never sit on and that they probably don't even like.

This is more of a problem with not consolidating power into the hands of a few vassals.

The issue works like this:

If you consolidate power into the hands of fewer vassals, when you put them on the council, there are literally not enough vassals with enough faction power to make a 70%+ faction anymore. As long as the council is content, the remaining vassals simply aren't strong enough to be a threat.

The other side of the coin is if you have a lot of vassals that are not so powerful. Then, no matter who you put on the council, the factions will have enough potential members that they can generate tons of power. In a situation where there are enough non-council vassals with enough power to create factions at 100% power or more, then they have a reasonable feeling that they may one day be on the council.

I think that there could be some adjustments made to the logic of the AI, but I think the system works well overall. You just have to decide how to manage your realm. Maybe consolidating power into the hands of few vassals might let you avoid idiot-managed internal wars, at the cost of empowering a bunch of other idiots who will make running the realm difficult from the council angle.

 

[Redwulf_Storm]

Currently I have a realm size of about 500 and my ruler of 4 years old has been ruling for 3 years. I haven't had a council war in my empire for about 100 years and I have an absolute empire, giving no power to the council. I agree with people the council power faction should not be able to reform for at least five years after a war and quite frankly I'd say more like 10 or the lifetime of the current ruler if they (the ruler) won that war.
Now how is it I can avoid faction wars in my largish empire? If you wish to do it, this is how it is done:
1. Find a capital with many castle holdings, become ruler of those holdings.
2. Build up your personal military might, the more strength you have the less the factions power will be relative to yours.
3. Have mainly king vassals, the smaller amount of vassals you have the better.
4. Find the best spymaster you can 20+ stat and I like diligent as a trait too. Make sure they like you give them gifts and minor titles.
5. Send your spy master to your largest vassals (by troop count) have him discourage them from forming/joining factions. I find I usually can discourage at least one vassal a year this way and that last for a good ten years.

That's all I have to do, I never have to bribe my vassals with gold, or even pay too much attention to how much they like me. If there ever is a council war though I am ready for that too, because I now have 3000 plus gold saved up just in case (and a sizable military of my own). I am curious if my current ruler will still have the absolute power or not since they are in regency for another 12 years, but as long as my spymaster does a good job I should be just fine. I hope this helps you absolute dictators out there. I know I am the unusual one but I love conclave it makes the game much funner for me and more of a challenge then it was, but that is thousands of hours play at work. I would suggest to Paradox that they make factions and coalitions tied to difficulty level. Thereby helping a new or casual player still get lost in the game and have as much fun (or close to) as me.

 

[Guancyto]

This is more of a problem with not consolidating power into the hands of a few vassals.

Not really what I was saying. I mean, mechanically, I know it can be managed or worked around and mitigated. Mechanically it's not terrible. It just... completely defies plausibility. I expect my vassals to be murderous and inclined to undermine me if they're not happy with how things are going. I expect them to be underhanded and self-serving in pursuit of their own interests. I even expect them to be short-sighted or counterproductive sometimes, like pushing for a bad king that they like better or fighting for independence when they're right next to a giant muslim blob that will devour them in a year if they actually do get independence. Like, when I discovered it had been patched that councillors can force a vote on a council power law with a Favor, of course when I owed one a favor they immediately forced a vote on council power that all councillors supported. That makes sense!

The way the faction stacks up, though, if I'm not a very good king, I could be facing literally everyone in my realm in an Increase Council Power civil war except for my Council, who will happily fight tooth and nail to keep themselves from getting more power.

I will freely admit I'm not particularly great at keeping factions under control, but that isn't why this mechanic is unsatisfying.

 

[Secret Master]

The way the faction stacks up, though, if I'm not a very good king, I could be facing literally everyone in my realm in an Increase Council Power civil war except for my Council, who will happily fight tooth and nail to keep themselves from getting more power.

The AI should resign from the council to pursue certain ambitions regarding council power. That would be a bit more rational. (It's also what I do as a human.)

I should also point out that one of the council laws forces the realm into elective with the inability to fire council members. I can see vassals fighting for that even if they are not on the council.

 

[Guancyto]

That would be completely reasonable - if a malcontent could resign, refuse to rejoin the council, and make a faction that way, that would make a lot of sense. (Faction leaders that are a discontented councilor, recently fired, or recently resigned, then.)

The council law you're talking about can't actually be achieved by Increase Council Power factions - it's (part of) the objective of the Oust Ruler faction. (I should mention that I absolutely love the addition of Oust Ruler.)

 

[Secret Master]

The council law you're talking about can't actually be achieved by Increase Council Power factions - it's (part of) the objective of the Oust Ruler faction. (I should mention that I absolutely love the addition of Oust Ruler.)

You are right, but it is still more or less the same kind of deal. I don't think vassals can Oust Ruler unless you have certain laws in place (or have I just not seen it often enough?).

EDIT: The ruler can also call for voting on that particular law itself to forestall an Oust Ruler problem.

 

[PG908]

Factions would be more manageable if, as the Holy Roman Emperor (most of my recent experience with conclave is from a multiplayer with a friend), you weren't faced with a wall of portrait borders in faction view. An advanced factions view of some sort would be nice to see more detail about it's members. Additionally, the mtth for faction discouragement via spymaster sees no difference between the most and least powerful vassals, which is stupid A weak vassal should (generally) be easier to intimidate than a powerful or well-connected one. It forces a realm to want powerful large vassals instead of divided weak ones.

Also worthy of note is that, in reality, the HRE vassal strength and size we see at the start dates allowed for a coherent empire (one with less than 1-5 civil wars for council power per reign). It shouldn't be necessary to consolidate the 35-odd vassals into 10 or 12.