How does a baron become a "powerful vassal" over vassal kings or dukes? The calculation is way off.
"Powerful Vassals" want a place on the useless Council?
- Thread starter Enriador
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
How does a baron become a "powerful vassal" over vassal kings or dukes? The calculation is way off.
The kings and dukes just lost most of their men doing somethign stupid while barons generally never do anything.
I'm guessing the Baron has some ridiculously high Martial which lets him have more levies than a small King or duke.
It the King/duke lost levies in a war. So the Baron will lose his powerful vassal position relatively soon
And then, if you appeased the baron by firing the king/duke, you can't put the higher ranked one back on the council. There's got to be a better way.
I've also noticed that minors can't be "powerful vassals". There may also be modifiers for ambitious/content, having the become a council member ambition, and so on. I can easily see a case where older, powerful, Duke X just doesn't care for the hassle or political wrangling and would rather hunt on their estate while young, ambitious, baron Y will be all up in arms to get a council seat.
It makes no sense that 50/70 of your vassals have a permanent -30 opinion penalty because they want to be on the council. There are a limited amount of titles, so they should care only when I fire a councillor or when one dies. It shouldn't be a constant modifier, because it just pushes you to want to disband the council to get rid of it.
- 4
- 1
Why care if the baron thinks he is powerful and demands a position? Whats he gonna do gov, start a faction?
I say that, but I think I saw a vassal favor a baron into a faction the other day..? Okay let me correct myself: your baron and which army?
I say that, but I think I saw a vassal favor a baron into a faction the other day..? Okay let me correct myself: your baron and which army?
Why would a powerful vassal care that you have to deal with too many other vassals who also want a seat? That's like saying other title claimants should only decide they want your throne after you die. That powerful vassal is upset because he wants you to fire somebody, anybody, and put him on the council instead, because he's extra-special and important, and he knows this with every fiber of his being. These people are, to one degree or another, egomaniacs. Your powerful vassals are in competition with each other for those limited spots, and they strongly disagree with your decision to accommodate someone else at their expense. "Oh, he put the Duke of Somewhere Else on the council instead of me, that's fine, now I'm not upset anymore." I don't think so, that doesn't make any sense. To limit negative opinion modifiers would defeat the purpose of Conclave (making vassal management harder) and would be less realistic.
This does not mean that people who are ineligible should be upset though, such as children and unrelated women. They might seethe at the injustices of the world, but they shouldn't really blame you for them (although maybe there should be a negative modifier for powerful related female vassals when you have a low status of women). But if somebody is eligible to sit on the council, and that somebody believes they have a right to it, they can and should be upset with you. If that's a dozen of your vassals, so be it. You can't make everybody happy all the time, that's the reality of being in charge, and juggling those competing interests is one of the challenges of leadership.
- 4
I understand that everyone wants to be on the council, but fifty dukes and counts hating you because they aren't on the council when you have only three places for them makes no sense. They should only gain that modifier if they have asked to be on the council and been rejected, or taken the specific ambition to become a councillor.
- 3
- 3
You shouldn't have 50 direct vassals to have that issue. If you choose to have an excessive number of direct vassals then you'll have to deal with almost all of them hating you for being left out of the inner circle... Also, anyone large enough to have that many vassals will have at least 6 or 7 spots available. In fact you never have only 3 available, even the most restrictive case has 4 slots open to any male court member.
I propose three possible solutions to the problem:
1) These powerful vassals would not want to join useless Councils at all
2) Advisor posts would be perpetual, even after the Council loses its powers
3) Keep just the five Council positions, but forbid them of joining factions
What do you think?
1) These powerful vassals would not want to join useless Councils at all
2) Advisor posts would be perpetual, even after the Council loses its powers
3) Keep just the five Council positions, but forbid them of joining factions
What do you think?
If you can't sit on the council you can't show up as powerful vassal I think, except if you are in hiding. Maybe women rights will make women more 'ambitious'?
This reminds me of the launch week threads about Conclave. People who got a DLC aimed at making late game more difficult and complaining that late game is more difficult.
I remember seeing a thread someone did a couple months back - maybe someone can fish it up - about distributing power to 5 vassals, putting them all on the council with war declaration rights for the council, and then being an ultratyrant - killing and imprisoning as he pleased. Funny enough he never had trouble because those five vassals were forbidden from joining factions and since no one else was a direct vassal except baron-level rulers, he could rule as a mad king without punishment. It's that easy.
The natural order is to be absolutist when you're small and can control your vassals with ease (because they'll be mostly baron tier, maybe a few counts) - but to slowly give up some powers to the council and powerful vassals as you grow in size to keep the realm stable. That's why you get faction-banning, realm peace, and adviser slots when you relinquish some authority - to represent the stability gained by delegating power. Making the malus go away when you abolish voting rights doesn't incentize delegating power at all - it incentivizes staying absolutist the whole game.
So a powerful emperor is "supposed" to give the council some rights in exchange for getting off his back. But if you want to deal with the factions and opinion malus - you can do that because it's a sandbox.
I remember seeing a thread someone did a couple months back - maybe someone can fish it up - about distributing power to 5 vassals, putting them all on the council with war declaration rights for the council, and then being an ultratyrant - killing and imprisoning as he pleased. Funny enough he never had trouble because those five vassals were forbidden from joining factions and since no one else was a direct vassal except baron-level rulers, he could rule as a mad king without punishment. It's that easy.
The natural order is to be absolutist when you're small and can control your vassals with ease (because they'll be mostly baron tier, maybe a few counts) - but to slowly give up some powers to the council and powerful vassals as you grow in size to keep the realm stable. That's why you get faction-banning, realm peace, and adviser slots when you relinquish some authority - to represent the stability gained by delegating power. Making the malus go away when you abolish voting rights doesn't incentize delegating power at all - it incentivizes staying absolutist the whole game.
So a powerful emperor is "supposed" to give the council some rights in exchange for getting off his back. But if you want to deal with the factions and opinion malus - you can do that because it's a sandbox.
- 3
I wonder, why they hate the ruler so much? I mean even worse as for being tyrannical, homosexual or possessed. There should be a negative opinion towards the holder of the office and plot against him to make him retire or disappear. This is nasty enough as the ruler now need his spymaster elsewhere than constantinople. The ruler should receive a temporarily neg. modifier like "disaapointed with choice of councillors", but it should not be more than -10 and this can dwindle over time unless they are ambitious and then they could get -20 for christ's sake pemanently. But -40 is harsh if you take into account that you need ALL vassals content when changing some laws.
Changing some laws is supposed to take effort. You need to decide if the long-term benefit of changing the law outweighs the short term loss of giving the powerful vassal a council slot they aren't qualified for. I don't see a problem with it personally.
I think you're putting forth solutions in search of a problem. Taking your suggestions in order:
1) Even without an empowered council, the positions still have prestige. Powerful people will want that prestige.
2) All that does is make it easier for rulers of large realms to keep more of their vassals content, when the idea is to make it more of a challenge.
3) People who hold council positions already can't form or join factions, unless the council is in disarray. (It's also possible that they might be forced to join a faction because of a favor, but I'm not sure about that.
A couple of other points:
First, female vassals can show up as powerful. I'm not sure if they have to be eligible for a council seat in order to be considered powerful (basically all of my gameplay since Conclave came out has been as pagans or Buhddists, and those faiths mostly allow women to be spymasters even without otherwise giving rights to women).
However, minors and incapable rulers don't show up a powerful. Nor do imprisoned rulers. I've pretty much stopped letting any of my direct vassals ever ransom themselves out of my prison unless I have a very specific reason to make an exception, because they're pretty much neutralized as a threat as long as they are prisoners. Often, I'll even move them to house arrest so that they live longer as prisoners. One thing that I think maybe should be changed is that the malus for wanting a seat on the council is greater than the malus for being in prison, so when you do release or ransom vassal, if they're powerful, they'll actually hate you more for letting them out of prison than for keeping them there.
With all that said, I don't worry too much about appointing the most powerful vassals to council seats, except for advisor slots. For the 5 "regular" council positions, I appoint the eligible person with the best relevant stat who is reasonably loyal to me (except for the Marshal position, where I will sometimes appoint a person with lesser skill to stay in my capital training troops or researching tech while the really good generals lead my armies).
