"Support my heir and i will owe you.."

[gdj]

Isn´t it a bit strange that you can use favours for all kinds of interactions, but not for securing a vote for you heir in elective monarchies?

The way i see it, elective monarchies were neither as volatile nor as arbitrary in their voting behaviour as in the game, elective monarchy meant primarily that the ruler had to make concessions (including bribes) to secure the nobles´ support for their heir.

Shouldn´t the favour-system take this into account as well? Currently there is no "safe" way to secure a majority for your heir, no matter what you do.

(It also should be possible to decline a crown if someone elects YOU, after all we can decline commander assignments and council positions, why not elective titles?)

EDIT: typos

 

[DiscpleOfAkbaa]

Using favors to "buy" votes in an election would make sense, but I'm guessing it might be a balancing issue.

Declining a crown is more difficult though; if the electors decide you're now their king, telling them "no" would be just as difficult as demanding the crown when they elected someone else.
There really should be an option to abdicate to your heir though (who probably won't immediately be re-elected for the elective titles), costing a bunch of dynastic prestige and only available if your character isn't proud or ambitious.

 

[gdj]

Using favors to "buy" votes in an election would make sense, but I'm guessing it might be a balancing issue.

Sure, i didn´t say that the favours shouldn´t be harsh like being forced to give up demesne titles, or having to press claims against extremely powerful enemies even if a coalition exists and the like. Surely the emperor of the HRE wouldn´t be able to secure a vote from every elector. But leaving everything to teh roll of a dice isn´t quite plausible too.

 

[RhaegarTelcontarTargaryen]

I am 100% for this. Maybe a limit that you can not ask for more than one or two vassals to vote for your heir using favors (they can on their own, just not more than one or two WITH favours) if you need balance.

 

[Bernard95]

Completely agreed, and honestly we do need more uses for favors (plots would also be high on my list). Personally I've played quite a few games since Conclave and outside of the games where I was leveraging my Council, I think once I forced a marriage and once or twice I asked my liege to start law change.

Coincidentally I saw a mod on the Steam Workshop that added Elective Leagues, which I believe was favor-driven.

 

[Vishaing]

It should also automatically give the Supporter a favor on either the Heir or the one doing the buying. These Supporters should then be able to use their favor to stop an attempt at changing the Succession Type of the title. Alternatively, just make it so everyone who voted for the Elected Ruler gets a favor automatically. That would probably be the simplest way to implement this.

This would go a long way towards preventing the HRE from changing to Primogeniture, especially if the AI were actually aggressive in securing votes via this method, because a reigning Emperor would only be able to secure the throne for his son by also selling favors as well. It would also help make it so Elective Monarchies did not get easily tied down by a single dynasty, because while 'Prospective Emperors' could focus on buying votes with Favors, Reigning Emperors would have to also apply their Favors towards doing other things in the Realm, passing laws, securing Realm Peace, etc.

This provides a nice strategic choice in itself, you can be a more effective Emperor, possibly risking your claim to the Crown, or you can focus on your own personal lands for your power, leave the Princes to themselves, and just use Favors to ensure your dynasty keeps the throne.

 

[gdj]

It should also automatically give the Supporter a favor on either the Heir or the one doing the buying. These Supporters should then be able to use their favor to stop an attempt at changing the Succession Type of the title. Alternatively, just make it so everyone who voted for the Elected Ruler gets a favor automatically. That would probably be the simplest way to implement this.

Interesting ideas.

I especially like your 1st idea: "OK, i´ll support your inbred little moron, but you owe me favour - and i won´t forget. And by the way, don´t even think about trying to change the succession law..." (being loyal doesn´t mean you have to be polite )

I´m a bit skeptical about your 2nd proposal though. In my experience, dukes love to use their favours to force their liege into a claim war. I always see this when an emperor gets overthrown via faction, and owes a favour to all former faction members. This causes the larger empires (HRE, ERE) to blob out worse than ever, ignoring all pacts, coalitions and all. I guess owing a favour to all electors who voted for your candidate (regardless of your actions) could have the same consequences. On the other hand, it is both plausible and simple.

 

[name_here]

I think it would be kind of weird to have the favors be usable for something that only happens after dying, though characters using favors to get themselves elected would definitely make sense. Elective monarchies didn't tend to be terribly reliable about giving people the heir they wanted precisely because the election happens after the ruler's death; generally it happened in one of two cases:

1) The designated heir is of age and fairly powerful already, such that they'd be a serious contender if no one was selected.
2) The designated heir is a minor who will have a long regency.

I do like the sound of incorporating favors into the process, but I think they should be between electors and candidates rather than electors and the current ruler. Possibly with an additional caveat that the bigger the gap in rank between the primary title of the character and the elective title, the more the character has to offer. Then the current ruler can manipulate the succession by land grants and by the various methods of packing the electorate with supporters, possibly using favors in the process to get grant/revoke permission.

Ultimately, though, an elective monarchy is a throw of the dice; the ruler can make any deals they want but at the moment of truth they're too dead to enforce them. The historical pattern that's worked is pretty much putting the heir in a position of power before the ruler dies. And then praying that the heir outlives the ruler; more than one Roman/Byzantine Emperor had trouble with that. In terms of game balance, that's the price you pay for opinion bonuses and not being at the mercy of the whims of birth order.

 

[smellymummy]

But it's kind of easy to raise the money needed to buy favors, not to mention the RNG events that will give you favors from potential electors

 

[Sam L]

Isn´t it a bit strange that you can use favours for all kinds of interactions, but not for securing a vote for you heir in elective monarchies?

The way i see it, elective monarchies were neither as volatile nor as arbitrary in their voting behaviour as in the game, elective monarchy meant primarily that the ruler had to make concessions (including bribes) to secure the nobles´ support for their heir.

Shouldn´t the favour-system take this into account as well? Currently there is no "safe" way to secure a majority for your heir, no matter what you do.

(It also should be possible to decline a crown if someone elects YOU, after all we can decline commander assignments and council positions, why not elective titles?)

EDIT: typos

Yes we need this now. I lost a kingdom because I couldn't get one vote from someone that liked me also. It's ridiculous.

 

[Zohtun]

Only allow them to do it if they don't have their own heir with a solid chance of winning although, or another heir with a good chance who'd benefit them more. No amount of "I will owe you" will ever make them go "I'd rather your son than mine on the throne" and if it's a close contest between the two...

 

[gdj]

Ultimately, though, an elective monarchy is a throw of the dice; the ruler can make any deals they want but at the moment of truth they're too dead to enforce them. The historical pattern that's worked is pretty much putting the heir in a position of power before the ruler dies. And then praying that the heir outlives the ruler; more than one Roman/Byzantine Emperor had trouble with that. In terms of game balance, that's the price you pay for opinion bonuses and not being at the mercy of the whims of birth order.

I understand what you mean. Historically you are not necessarily wrong, although this is a far too general approach. According to this logic, any kind of succession law would be throw of the dice.

Ultimately, succession laws in CK2 are loose abstraction of different concepts, partly in their cultural context.

What you describe is more akin to the muslim open succession in-game. It is, from a certain point of view, elective as well, the sultan designates his favourite son, but its is all irrelevant at the moment of his death, becuase his son has to be powerful enough to enforce this, with no kind of law being able to help him there.

I thin there should be a clear difference between elective succesion and open succession, even if it is just an abstraction that only partly matches the historical reality of succession in monarchies.

As a compromise, one can suggest, that the others who received votes as well would be pretenders. Currently, the election tab calls them pretenders, but they don´t have the pretender opinion modifier like in other siccession types. If you want the game to be harder, putting this modifier in place is an option.

 

[name_here]

Biggest difference is that it's not dynastically locked. But I was suggesting making it possible for candidates to boost their odds of winning using their personal resources rather than a simple titles comparison so it's not as easy as just tossing more titles to your favorite.

 

[gdj]

Biggest difference is that it's not dynastically locked. But I was suggesting making it possible for candidates to boost their odds of winning using their personal resources rather than a simple titles comparison so it's not as easy as just tossing more titles to your favorite.

Honestly, i still don´t find this convincing.

Your reasoning is essenatially based on the assumption that the election is held after the rulers death. This may have some historical plusibility, but this is not how the game works. Elections in-game happen before the rulers death - on a daily basis actually. On death, the sucessor is crowned instantly. This is, again, a very rough abstraction of reality, but it is one of the core mechanics of the game. There is no "interregnum" or anything alike in CK2.

Thus using favours as i proposed means only "support my heir as long as both me and you live". On the death of the ruler, the supporting duke will have no further obligation and can start pretender-factions, or even open revolts immediately.

 

[Snake_Squeezins]

Thoughtful OP, I agree.

 

[durbal]

Favors are dumb and should be removed.

There's more complex opinion system in the game that accomplishes the same thing. What's the point of the overly-deterministic favor system? It just feels like an exploit.

 

[gdj]

Favors are dumb and should be removed.

There's more complex opinion system in the game that accomplishes the same thing. What's the point of the overly-deterministic favor system? It just feels like an exploit.

Well, make a suggestion then.

 

[durbal]

Well, make a suggestion then.

Didn't I? Remove favors and use the opinion system.

Edit: at least for most things, favors are really exploitative. They're too easy to get through ways the AI is incapable of using (buying them from heirs and such) and incredibly powerful. Having a flat value for something without a flat purpose is just silly design. It's like a prix fixe menu where you can get a cheese sandwich or filet mignon.

Favors should only be gained when someone actually does something for someone else. Something like supporting a law in the council earns a favor that can in turn be used to push another law.

 

[gdj]

Didn't I? Remove favors and use the opinion system.

Edit: at least for most things, favors are really exploitative. They're too easy to get through ways the AI is incapable of using (buying them from heirs and such) and incredibly powerful. Having a flat value for something without a flat purpose is just silly design. It's like a prix fixe menu where you can get a cheese sandwich or filet mignon.

Favors should only be gained when someone actually does something for someone else. Something like supporting a law in the council earns a favor that can in turn be used to push another law.

Sorry but that´s hardly a suggestion. That is pretty much the system we have in place now. The opinion of you and your heir decides the vote, without any strategic choices taken, neither by the electors, nor by the ruler or his heir.

 

[durbal]

Sorry but that´s hardly a suggestion. That is pretty much the system we have in place now. The opinion of you and your heir decides the vote, without any strategic choices taken, neither by the electors, nor by the ruler or his heir.

Ummm what? The council and laws have nothing to do with elective monarchy.

I wouldn't mind using favors for elective monarchy. But favors as they are are incredibly broken.

My suggestion was a pretty clear suggestion. I don't know how your definition differs, but you might want to elaborate on how a suggestion isn't a suggestion so I can make a proper suggestion. Next time just say 'I disagree.'