Increase Council Power faction = a load of bs

[Silver Wizard]

Interesting. Most people here seem to go with having a few vassals, putting them on the council and trying to rule as an autocrat.

I, on the other hand, take a completely opposite approach: give the council all possible powers, then appoint landless yes-men. As for vassals, that the five slightly more powerful ones (out of sixty) are somewhat annoyed doesn't really harm me.

 

[Legionary Guard]

So I'm reading the thread, and it seems that the most common form of keeping the council happy is either imprison everyone and rule as a North Korea-style despot, or keep a few superking vassals around and give them enough power that they can't faction if they're content; or else risk democracy.

I, for one, want to be able to rule a monarchy without either going North Korea or consolidating my 20-30 vassals into six superkings. I also want to be able to have some kind of meritocracy in the empire, because those 'powerful vassals' who act more like entitled five-year-olds than seasoned men usually have stats that look more like binary; I am thus forced to put 'unpowerful' vassals on my council simply because their intrigue scores are higher than four and I refuse to compromise on the quality of my spymaster.

In short: I want to run a monarchy with a half-decent number of vassals and have council members who have something approaching competence. I suppose that's too much to ask.

 

[Mike Louis]

I had to in mod in 20 custom Peer / Senator / Elder minor titles with voting power (applicable for kingdom and empire tier realms) just so I can appease my direct vassals (mostly dukes / grand mayors) while at the same time making sure my inner council (chancellor, marshal, steward, spymaster, and chaplain) are filled with qualified people.

 

[Yeekim]

In my current (and first) Conclave playthrough I started as duke of Essex and slowly worked my way into creating Empire of Britannia, with a house rule that every county & duchy title has to be held by a dynast. Had about 8 civil wars for council power in total (which I won) before forming an empire title and handing out all kingdoms to viceroys.
I'm on my 5th or 6th emperor now, have conquered Brittany, Norway and half of Spain and have encountered no more civil wars whatsoever.
Mostly it seems my viceroys are too busy with their own vassals to even think about joining factions against me, plus I try to appoint guys competent enough to serve on council. And obviously having a large personal powerbase helps...

 

[EphemeralJun]

I had to in mod in 20 custom Peer / Senator / Elder minor titles with voting power (applicable for kingdom and empire tier realms) just so I can appease my direct vassals (mostly dukes / grand mayors) while at the same time making sure my inner council (chancellor, marshal, steward, spymaster, and chaplain) are filled with qualified people.

And here I am, watching all those feudals from the steppes, during a break of a session of my always-fully-powered-and-not-in-any-way-disempowerable council, while my vassal khan starts a faction, even though he is on my council, which is content.

Seriously though, I am not judging anyone; I just find it interesting what kinds of playing styles there are. And I also agree that there should be some kind of cooldown on these Increase Council Power factions.

 

[Secret Master]

I, for one, want to be able to rule a monarchy without either going North Korea or consolidating my 20-30 vassals into six superkings. I also want to be able to have some kind of meritocracy in the empire, because those 'powerful vassals' who act more like entitled five-year-olds than seasoned men usually have stats that look more like binary; I am thus forced to put 'unpowerful' vassals on my council simply because their intrigue scores are higher than four and I refuse to compromise on the quality of my spymaster.

Or, as I call it, Imperial government.

With kingdom and duchy viceroys, you can have both. You grant those viceroys to deserving vassals and then put them on the council.

Although I always reserve one to two spots for non-powerful vassals. Spymaster is almost always a very loyal person regardless of titles (although a good loyal spymaster might get some titles later). I sometimes also just throw the most qualified person into the chaplain slot; half the time, no powerful vassal is qualified anyway.

Reserving those spots for non-powerful vassals still give me plenty of room for magnates to be on the council.

 

[Arsonik]

Upfront I admit I only read the first four or five posts. I would just like to add some quick feelings about the way the risk/rewards are tied to the system. Having "Empowered Council" (effectively level zero council) immediately is a -2 penalty to demesne size. Now people keep arguing that you have to be a powerful ruler to have that kind of power over the council, or lack there-of. But it makes no sense to hold that point of view when the very first faction war you lose effectively cuts your tax income and power by 20%. That is probably a minimum, assuming your demesne limit is 10 with no council. If it was 8, you just lost 25%. If it was 7, 28%. This is a slippery slope. Once your council becomes empowered you are pretty darn screwed.

Now, to a large part I am just trying to see the other side of the argument. I have more or less figured out how to work around the council and keep them in check even as an Emperor. But I have had more trouble in some games then others and definitely think the -2 penalty is the biggest problem. Move that demesne penalty somewhere else. Or change it to some other penalty entirely.

 

[Zsrai]

Upfront I admit I only read the first four or five posts. I would just like to add some quick feelings about the way the risk/rewards are tied to the system. Having "Empowered Council" (effectively level zero council) immediately is a -2 penalty to demesne size. Now people keep arguing that you have to be a powerful ruler to have that kind of power over the council, or lack there-of. But it makes no sense to hold that point of view when the very first faction war you lose effectively cuts your tax income and power by 20%. That is probably a minimum, assuming your demesne limit is 10 with no council. If it was 8, you just lost 25%. If it was 7, 28%. This is a slippery slope. Once your council becomes empowered you are pretty darn screwed.

Now, to a large part I am just trying to see the other side of the argument. I have more or less figured out how to work around the council and keep them in check even as an Emperor. But I have had more trouble in some games then others and definitely think the -2 penalty is the biggest problem. Move that demesne penalty somewhere else. Or change it to some other penalty entirely.

Just so you know, you gain Vassal Limit from every action you allow the Council to vote on. There is a short term malus for a long term bonus, especially since you can keep pushing Centralization higher anyways.

 

[Arsonik]

Just so you know, you gain Vassal Limit from every action you allow the Council to vote on. There is a short term malus for a long term bonus, especially since you can keep pushing Centralization higher anyways.

I know that. That doesn't address the fact that your demesne limit is lowered for empowering the council level 0 by -2. That means you have to give away territory you control, or you take an opinion penalty, tax penalty, army penalty, etc. Basically negating any chance you had of dis-empowering the council again unless you are being scummy and skipping the wait to call a vote on the changed law by changing your primary title and then changing the law under that title. Which, btw, works like a charm for me although I feel I shouldn't need to.

If you believe that a powerful Emperor or King with many vassals shouldn't be able to have a dis-empowered council, fine. But don't harsh my mellow. If my vassals don't want to be a part of the war I declare, they should simply be able to say 'Hey, thats cool. I'm not giving you my levy for this one'". I like the idea of the council but it seems to be limiting in an arbitrary way.

 

[Iron Chariots]

I know that. That doesn't address the fact that your demesne limit is lowered for empowering the council level 0 by -2. That means you have to give away territory you control, or you take an opinion penalty, tax penalty, army penalty, etc. Basically negating any chance you had of dis-empowering the council again unless you are being scummy and skipping the wait to call a vote on the changed law by changing your primary title and then changing the law under that title. Which, btw, works like a charm for me although I feel I shouldn't need to.

If you believe that a powerful Emperor or King with many vassals shouldn't be able to have a dis-empowered council, fine. But don't harsh my mellow. If my vassals don't want to be a part of the war I declare, they should simply be able to say 'Hey, thats cool. I'm not giving you my levy for this one'". I like the idea of the council but it seems to be limiting in an arbitrary way.

Honestly, losing 2 demesne limit isn't that crippling. Does it suck? Yeah. But getting rid of your two worst castles (to some old childless chaste guy, perhaps) isn't going to kill you. You can gain that power back, it just takes a bit of work... because maintaining absolute power should require a lot of effort.

 

[Zsrai]

If my vassals don't want to be a part of the war I declare, they should simply be able to say 'Hey, thats cool. I'm not giving you my levy for this one'".

That's... not at all how the feudal contract works. That would probably be represented in game with less than Autonomous Crown Authority. Basically just by Tributary status (or Tribal vassals on the lowest setting).

 

[Arsonik]

That's... not at all how the feudal contract works. That would probably be represented in game with less than Autonomous Crown Authority. Basically just by Tributary status (or Tribal vassals on the lowest setting).

Tribal players are restricted to fully empowered council as a restriction of game mechanics. Your lack of understanding of how these game mechanics work is showing a bit. That whole bit about feudal contracts was cute but this is still a game and we are talking about a game balance point. I actually just checked and I am wrong here. But I still have to disagree with that point of view. The benefit of the empowered council is an increase to vassal limit. While the point of raising tribal organization is to raise centralization, which in turn lowers vassal limit. And for the sake of driving the point, you can't dis-empower the council without having absolute tribal organization.

Honestly, losing 2 demesne limit isn't that crippling. Does it suck? Yeah. But getting rid of your two worst castles (to some old childless chaste guy, perhaps) isn't going to kill you. You can gain that power back, it just takes a bit of work... because maintaining absolute power should require a lot of effort.

I absolutely agree its not a huge deal. But I think it is to severe of a punishment for level 0 empowered council. Again, I'm playing just fine enjoying conclave. But when I'm asked to look at how the system works from a balance perspective? I think is sucks.

 

[Secret Master]

The benefit of the empowered council is an increase to vassal limit.

No, that is not the only benefit.

The other benefit to empowering your council with voting on laws and war declaration is that council members cannot join factions if the council is content.

You may not have any idea on just how powerful that is, especially when paired with elective law, but take a look.

With the right set up, the real benefit to an empowered council is this:

 

[Zsrai]

Tribal players are restricted to fully empowered council as a restriction of game mechanics. Your lack of understanding of how these game mechanics work is showing a bit. That whole bit about feudal contracts was cute but this is still a game and we are talking about a game balance point. I actually just checked and I am wrong here. But I still have to disagree with that point of view. The benefit of the empowered council is an increase to vassal limit. While the point of raising tribal organization is to raise centralization, which in turn lowers vassal limit. And for the sake of driving the point, you can't dis-empower the council without having absolute tribal organization.

What are you talking about? Read the part I quoted and my response. I wasn't talking about the Council, I was talking about Tribal Organization and Crown Laws (which are more or less defunct now).

There is a reason I only quoted part of your message.

 

[es333]

Reading the first page of this thread I can't understand how people are so gullible. I usually buy new DLCs about 1 year after they are released, because:

1. They are not worth the full price
2. They are buggy as hell for a minimum of 4-6 months.

CK2 with shattered retreat and coalitions is a bit retarded, but playable. Using conclave is out of the question looking how severely it affects the quality of CK2.

 

[Keizer Harm]

Reading the first page of this thread I can't understand how people are so gullible. I usually buy new DLCs about 1 year after they are released, because:

1. They are not worth the full price
2. They are buggy as hell for a minimum of 4-6 months.

CK2 with shattered retreat and coalitions is a bit retarded, but playable. Using conclave is out of the question looking how severely it affects the quality of CK2.

If you have not bought it, how can you tell to what extend it affects the quality of CK2? It's a very subjective matter.

 

[Zarine]

CK2 with shattered retreat and coalitions is a bit retarded, but playable. Using conclave is out of the question looking how severely it affects the quality of CK2.

I have to agree with it even if the shattered retreat isn't that much an issue for me except for rebels or any landless army.
The coalition only has this issue that at some point doing very small things cause a huge burst in threat.

What seems to be broken is all the council things and the poor amont of leverage available.
In my case, the council allowed me to go on a holy war but then refuse that I grant title to anyone. Have fun being a tyran when all you want to do is to give land to anyone after your kingdom got it back or suffer the over the limit effect...

I really thing that there should also be some group proposal for the council : I do this, this and that, do you accept.
Like in my case, I have 3 titles to give, I give one to 3 different council member relatives. And at that point I would expect the 3 council members to say that they agree. It's only logical.



And also, I was under the impression that the middle age was more directed in the opposite way : high council power fading away to a more centralized state.
But currently we have the opposite : the king decide everything until the vassals force more rights to the council and more and more...

 

[es333]

If you have not bought it, how can you tell to what extend it affects the quality of CK2? It's a very subjective matter.

I read the forum, looking at all the dislike for Conclave and the "mixed" result of Conclave in Steam. There is no f***ing way this is subjective. I think it is the only CK2 DLC in history to get such a low result in Steam.

 

[Rationalsanity]

I read the forum, looking at all the dislike for Conclave and the "mixed" result of Conclave in Steam. There is no f***ing way this is subjective. I think it is the only CK2 DLC in history to get such a low result in Steam.

While the reviews are not really representative of the playerbase; the huge gap between Conclave and the other major DLCs probably indicates some level of distaste for the DLC/the 2.5 patch.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

I have to agree with it even if the shattered retreat isn't that much an issue for me except for rebels or any landless army.
The coalition only has this issue that at some point doing very small things cause a huge burst in threat.

What seems to be broken is all the council things and the poor amont of leverage available.
In my case, the council allowed me to go on a holy war but then refuse that I grant title to anyone. Have fun being a tyran when all you want to do is to give land to anyone after your kingdom got it back or suffer the over the limit effect...

I really thing that there should also be some group proposal for the council : I do this, this and that, do you accept.
Like in my case, I have 3 titles to give, I give one to 3 different council member relatives. And at that point I would expect the 3 council members to say that they agree. It's only logical.



And also, I was under the impression that the middle age was more directed in the opposite way : high council power fading away to a more centralized state.
But currently we have the opposite : the king decide everything until the vassals force more rights to the council and more and more...

Well, in *some* countries they went from council run to centralised. France was particularly bad at it, and went the other way quite hard, to the point where their duchies were quasi-independent. Absolutism is more a late early-modern thing, when you get into EUIV territory.

That said, my William the conqueror game is sat basically one vote off of essentially abolishing the council. I think it's the very early 1200s. It's fairly doable to remove the council's power if you play around with it.

But yes, title granting is a vital power to get back. Can you bribe some councillors to get it, or at least let you dump the excess titles?