Nice game, but not fun to deal with limitations

[MarinaOfTheSea]

Well, what happens to the vassals after a war, depends of the casus belli used - holy wars, direct claims, ect. - will give you land without requiring to deal with vassals. Invasions do the same. If you're going around 'conquering' in such ways, you should get the lands for yourself. If your wars are for other reasons, you'll have to deal with the leftovers (the vassals). Still, revoking titles isn't too bad - if they're another religion, you're fine, or if you have an actual claim on the vassal's own lands. Otherwise, you've just assumed the role of their previous liege.

I can see why might want to remove the vassals form an RP perspective, but otherwise, you can placate them fairly easily - they weren't declared war on directly, so they won't have any negative modifiers towards you.

If you still really want to revoke all the old vassals, you can fabricate claims, spy on vassals, or simply kill them off - plenty of ways to deal with them, if you can wait. If you can't...just revoke them all, and deal with the opinion penalty (also, if you get imperial administration/ chinese imperial, you can revoke the duchy vassals for free).

 

[sreckom92]

Exactly! Please read above. Each and every lord of my realm has no more than 3% of my power, ever.
How is that for position of power?

Well, that's indeed a whole different matter.
It is something that CK2 lacks: A proper transition from feudalism towards absolutism.
Feudalism has pretty much decayed in most of Europe by the end of the game timeline.
But no, when you finish the game, even after maxing out your technology, laws and economy, you are still a glorified tribal primus inter pares - first among equals.

So, I may disagree with the way you wrote your opening post, but I can understand you now.
We need late game improvements. Separation of powers, abolition of serfdom, tax standards, parliaments...
Even if some of those may be outside the timeframe, they should exist as a goal to strive for.
And yes, if you hold absolute might you should have absolute authority.
(although that doesn't mean everyone should like it)

 

[acsa4]

Ah, now I gotcha. At least I hope so, you just want to consolidate new lands under your rule? At least when it comes to conquest that is?

Yeah and no the CB's in this are quite restrictive on that front unfortunately, especially if the new vassals start doing some secret religious society stuff, I can understand that. Quite frustrating respectively.

But whatcha gonna do? There ain't much of a solution for that. Gonna have to roll with the punches, but it depends entirely on what CB you use I suppose. Some can help you seize there lands entirely, especially christian holy wars, and generic crusades.

Edit: Also don't forget spying and intrigue go hand and hand when finding 'traitors'
Happy hunting

 

[moscal]

I am a King and yet their lands are inherited outside of the kingdom by some bastard mother's-brother-in-law. That's a circus.

You are king, but lands aren't yours. Ownership in feudal world wasn't in soviet style, where whole movable and immovable property was de iure[/u] owned by state and others had only "right of use". Look at HYW - great part of France went to England. This was in history.
Circus would be in situation, where in 1066 player had situation like in Soviet Union in 1925.

Not fun.

Medieval politics wasn't fun. Therefore later Europe had centralization, absolutization and anti-democratism

 

[knppel]

Without to break down the whole post:
The core difference is, as was mentioned above by others, that the game reflects the medieval feudal system (with a focus on western european christianity in design).
That means, unlike the Game of Thrones lore where the right to rule of the top liege is indeed fictional-historically based on conquest (c. Aegon "the Conqueror"), this is simply not the case in the game universe, where a ruler, even the Kaiser, typically holds his land only as fief too (from God the almighty and his worldly prelate).
That god might de facto not exist does not change the basic assumed mindset.
While it's also an apple-peas-matter if we're picky, the people above are damn correct on comparing the fictional game of thrones government a little more with the later french absolutism.

That ruling in game of thrones is not as unrestricted as you paint it here I already evaluated. To clarify the questioned point: I was merely refering to how this whole plan worked out for the King orchestrating it (He died under suspicious circumstances). That a vassal with not even as much men as his liege in the faction might decide to revolt apparently can happen in Game of Thrones just as much as in CK2.
Last but not least regarding this matter, given we're all Joffreys at heart and typically do plan to murder them all and take all their lands, can we really blame them for at least trying to fight back in some cases?

Coming to the last point, the question and availability of conquest.
Without any more information on your recent playthrough, my guess would be you got stuck up with 100% threat and some powerful vassals waging war on their own, thus leaving you to face a big defensive pact for typically the rest of the game (if you want to keep conquesting), and having to deal with vassals that might not be able to endanger you, but nonetheless would delay your conquest plan at least if you bothered with them.
The solution to emulate the Targaryens in Europe (or Asia) is to start as a horde. For once you do get access to the invasion CB without having to go through endless shenanigans like creating a child of destiny or Alexander, for a second, you will have a standing army early on. Last but not least you can do what Aegon did, and convert to the religion of those people you conquered. Unlike the fictional Aegon, who had to conquer the religion's holy see first, for us spoiled ck landholders literally any concubine does to explain us the deeper details of their respective faith if we wish to convert, it doesn't even require educated clergy.

 

[Naughtius Maximus]

Hey, I am a monarch, right? I would very much like to actually feel like one.
What we have right now is a bad joke of a democratic parliament system where everyone apparently has their say, as if that ever did any good, looking how democracy rolled over our world. Even uninstalled Conclave, the worst DLC to date, simply because favour system breaks the game apart and AI starts doing completely stupid things because "oh, it's a favor".

Just so you're aware, you realize only incompetent players would call one of the best DLCs in the game "the worst DLC?"

Even more amusing is you would prefer the base game over Conclave and then rant about Parliament. Passing laws with the base game is essentially that form of government. Every vassal down to baron has a vote.

 

[Brucesim2003]

You are king, but lands aren't yours. Ownership in feudal world wasn't in soviet style, where whole movable and immovable property was de iure[/u] owned by state and others had only "right of use". Look at HYW - great part of France went to England.

From a purely legal point of view, the land did belong to the king. That is why the King of England had to pay homage to the king of France. The continental holding were property of the French king, under stewardship of the duke of Normandy, who also happened to be the king of England. Now, the title 'Duke of Normandy' was hereditary, and he traditionally had use of the land of the duchy, but he didn't own it as of right.

The problem with the game is that you cannot easily separate the title from the lands.

This small article may be of interest. And this one as well. In the second article it also talks about 'sub-vassals', which, unlike in the game, required the kings permission.

 

[Kapitalisti]

Good. Fear is very, very good motivator.

I think you're mixing fear with hatred. Sure, if you can't be both loved and feared it's better to be feared. But if they hate you it trumps their fear.

 

[Asuzu]

In short, yes, as a Norse Pagan Scandinavian Empire I am stuck with ridiculous threat meter and defensive pacts surrounding me.
Moreso, even if I conquer next bit of land, for some reason I cannot fathom the ex-"King" of these lands turns into a vassal (who obviously hates my guts), and his ex-vassals are turned into my vassals as well (and they also, obviously, hate my guts).
My gripe is having to deal with these remnants of the lands I have just conquered.
Why do I have to deal with them?
The whole point of "conquest" is to replace the previous power with your own.
Why do I have to deal with it after the arrows stop flying and my enemy concedes?
By all means, I would rather throw these lords from the castle walls, click the "Promote commander noble" button a bunch of times, and position lords of my own, as is my right, as a conqueror.

Revoking titles from conquered lords should be free of charge, not limited by any "reasons" and timeframes, and by Gods, not bringing any penalty to my relations with MY CURRENT lords, the ones who serve well and aided me in the war!
The enemy lords I have conquered should be grateful I revoke their titles and not their skin, for that matter.

Imagine Hitler taking Moscow, and then Russians say "Ah allright, whatever dude, you conquered us. Still, you gonna have to deal with Communist party to rule for you on the spots, and Mr. Stalin will be your Duke, Have fun!"
Circus.

That is my biggest gripe with the game.