Why we still need Crown Authority and some form of Assembly in CKII with Conclave

[SigurdStormhand]

Why we still need Crown Authority and some form of Assembly in CKII with Conclave.​

As my title suggests I’m going to make an argument for reintroducing Crown Authority and the pre-Conclave legislative assembly of vassals alongside Conclave’s Council Authority and enhanced Council politics. I’m going to advance an argument that, I hope, balances historical accuracy with enhancing game play. I apologise in advance for the long post, I’ve tried to be as concise and logical as possible. I’m posting this in the main forum rather than the suggestions forum because I’m hoping to provoke a discussion, although I do have a sketch for how things might work when combining pre-Conclave and Conclave-style government.

To begin with, let me just try to sketch the difference between running the game with Conclave and without.

Without Conclave you have “Crown Authority” (henceforth “CA”) which can be increased or decreased at the instigation of the liege or his vassals. Vassals will frequently form factions to try to lower CA whilst the liege will try to raise it, and this is a major source of conflict within the realm. As Crown Authority increases the liege gradually gains more and more control of his vassals, the ability to demand a larger levy, appoint military commanders, revoke titles, change succession laws etc. The higher CA the more powerful the liege is, the lower CA the more powerful his vassals are. In order to raise CA the liege needs a majority vote from his vassals, votes are not equal but rather by title, vassals with more titles have more votes. The same system is used to pass all other laws, except in Muslim realms.

With Conclave CA is removed, the various powers folded into CA are instead split up into separate laws that can be passed or repealed individually. Instead of conflict between liege and vassals over CA the conflict is over “Council Authority”, vassals will always try to increase this, which the liege will probably resist. Instead of legislation being voted on by all vassals it is voted on by the liege’s Council instead. With the removal of CA a number of powers a couple of powers are removed completely, most notably the ability to enforce the “Kings Peace” (the name given in the game files) with medium CA. Additionally, the Council performs both legislative and executive functions, as “Council Authority” factions aim to give the Council powers over title grants, war declaration and more or less every decision the Crown makes.

In essence Council Authority stands in for Crown Authority and the Council votes in place of the wider assembly of vassals. The differences may not seem that big but I think they’re actually quite profound and they alter the way the game plays a great deal, arguably making it easier.

Firstly, the Council is much smaller than an assembly of all vassals, it is certainly easier to track who is voting for what, it is also possible to “stitch up” the Council using favours so that they always vote with you and, crucially, the liege gets to choose who sits on the Council and therefore who gets a vote in the first place. There are certainly some downsides, especially if one of your vassals manages to get a hold over the Council with favours before you can manage it yourself. This can be especially damaging if you aren’t in a position to fire your Councillors and they have managed to wrest important executive functions from your exclusive control.

These differences mean the tug of war over CA between Liege and Vassals is very different to the tussle between Liege and Council over Council Authority. An increase in CA clearly benefits the liege; a decrease clearly benefits all vassals. By contrast, an increase in Council Authority benefits the Council members, who may or may not be vassals. Indeed, by appointing unlanded courtiers who can be cheaply bought with favours a liege can probably afford to “surrender” most of his executive powers to his Council whilst still maintaining effective control over all decisions. It’s possible for vassals to fight a civil war to “Increase Council Authority” only to find that nothing actually changes after the war is won, they gain no extra rights and they’re still completely shut out of decision making. On the other hand, if they win a civil war to lower CA the liege’s power is reduced and vassals gain new freedoms, like the ability to wage war for claims within the realm.

It seems to me that Conclave adds a lot of liege-vassal relations, but it also takes a lot away that was in the base game. One example that sticks in the mind is the event where one of your Burgher vassals would present a petition to lower taxes that could lead to your vassals voting on whether to lower them or not.

Historically arguments were had over all these issues, how much power the Crown (as an institution) had over its vassals, whether the Liege could make decisions on their own or whether they had to consult, and especially over who got to decide what laws governed the Realm. What’s more, institutions varied quite in time and place. For example, Anglo-Saxon England was ruled by a King who had fairly strong executive power and a centralised administration (High CA) but who had to consult with the Witan, an assembly of his vassals, on major decisions and needed their approval to change the law (High Council Authority). Norman Kings had much looser control of the state (Low CA) but were more autocratic (Low Council Authority). Then, towards the end of the medieval period the state began to centralise again (CA was raised), the King remained fairly autocratic (Low Council Authority) but Parliament was established (much more like pre-Conclave voting). Crucially, the power of the King as an individual in Medieval England was different to the powers of the “Crown” as an institution.

The modern United Kingdom has a government directly descended from a medieval model. We have a Parliament, a Privy Council, a Crown and an actual monarch wearing the Crown. You might say, in CKII terms, that the UK has achieved Absolute CA alongside a fully empowered Council with a legislature, composed of all the Crown’s vassals, like the pre-Conclave game.

Other realms had other arrangements, Merchant Republics usually had Senates and some form of executive Council where the Doge’s power depended to a great extent on his personal ability, wealth and other resources. The Norse had fairly democratic form of government prior to Christianisation in the early medieval period but their Kings consolidated power as the period progressed and legislative power gradually passed out of the hands of a “general” assembly to a Privy Council, as generally happened throughout Europe between the medieval and early modern periods. Then you have the Byzantine Empire and the Muslim realms where arrangements were different again, or the various India States which I confess I know very little about.

In the context of ruling a nation in CKII it should be possible to play the various interests off against each other and balance an increase in Crown Authority with an increase in Council Authority, trading one for the other to keep your vassals happy. Likewise, it should be possible to hand law-making powers from a Council to a Parliament to pacify your vassals when you want to lower Council Authority.

 

[Sergeant Flutter]

I agree.

However, I think this should only happen when Elective Succession is Enabled. The Council will the deciding on issues otherwise.

 

[Humanoid Typhoon]

A well presented argument but I think you should save it for the release of the next DLC when the ability to turn on or off certain elements from 2.5.2 becomes available.

In my opinion having a mixture between Crown and Council authority and allowing all vassals to vote on some things but not others or under certain conditions is a little overboard. It needs to be a uniform system not a complicated, tiered parliament-like system with fine print after every full stop.

I like the post-Conclave system as it is but if I had to choose between the pre-Conclave system and what you are proposing I would go back to the old system simply because, again, it is a more uniform and straight forward system.

 

[Evan05]

I think there should be some limits on who can be on the council or not. Whenever I want to get something passed (such as getting the council to vote it's self into basically a de jure organization that has no practical power), I just remove the council members that won't take my buy favor request and fill it with high-opinion, very low ranked people that will basically accept an old piece of bread off the ground for a favor.

Like you said, this leads to the issue that even if the council is empowered, it can still effectively be a puppet the master. And it makes the game easier, since more vassals will be happy you increased council powers while you pretty much still hold all the real power.

How to fix this, I don't know besides putting limits so only the stronger vassals of your realm who are less likely to accept a bribe/buy favor.

 

[SigurdStormhand]

I agree.

However, I think this should only happen when Elective Succession is Enabled. The Council will the deciding on issues otherwise.

I can see your thinking here but against that I would have to refer you to England and the Magna Carta. Magna Carta stipulated that the King could raise neither "aid nor scutage" without convening Parliament. In this context "aid" means taxes and "scutage" means vassal obligations, either in kind or as a money payment. At the same time the fact that John became King instead of Arthur of Brittany or another of Richard I's relatives shows England had moved away from anything like an "elective" monarchy and towards primogeniture.

This is the thing that really did disappoint me about Conclave - that it tends towards replacing mechanics rather than adding to them. If you want to re-enact something like the Baron's War and Magna Carta you have to turn Conclave off, because to have that kind of scenario you need to be able to lower CA, but at the same time turning off Conclave you lose the ability for Council members to instigate a vote and to call in favours.

A well presented argument but I think you should save it for the release of the next DLC when the ability to turn on or off certain elements from 2.5.2 becomes available.

In my opinion having a mixture between Crown and Council authority and allowing all vassals to vote on some things but not others or under certain conditions is a little overboard. It needs to be a uniform system not a complicated, tiered parliament-like system with fine print after every full stop.

I like the post-Conclave system as it is but if I had to choose between the pre-Conclave system and what you are proposing I would go back to the old system simply because, again, it is a more uniform and straight forward system.

First of all, thank you for the compliment. As far as waiting until the release of the DLC, I'm not suggesting any of this go in that DLC, but rather it might be consider for the next one, or the one after. I don't believe that the new switches system is likely to affect politics in the way I'm describing, either.

Secondly, I take your point that we don't want a system that becomes endlessly complex. I was thinking of three levels of CA (instead of five) which would be "Low", "Medium" and "High".

Low: More or less as Conclave is by default, +15 Opinion, prevents passing of Late Feudal Administration, prevents switching to Primogeniture, laws voted on by call vassals, Viceroyalties cannot be revoked for free.

Medium: Allows enacting of Late Feudal, +15% Levy minimum contribution, allows restricting of voting rights to Council, allows free revocation of titles under certain circumstances (Infidel/Viceroyalty), allows enacting of Primogeniture, disables vassal faction to force Elective Succession. This would also be the law that gives the liege a right to imprison vassals who refuse to stop a war (a new mechanic coming with The Reaper's Due).

High CA: -15 Vassal Opinion, +30% Minimum Levy, allows enacting of Imperial Administration, allows abolition of Council. Disallows all factions related to changing the succession Law - possibly some other stuff.

With voting I was likewise thinking of splitting it into three sections "Crown", " Vassal Obligations" and "Demense".

Crown: Crown laws, including CA and Investiture - first priority for a Faction of vassals NOT on the Council.

Vassals Obligations: Fairly self explanatory, I think. Taxes basically, second Priority for Factions.

Demense: For everything Else, third priority.

Each of these which is voted on by all vassals grants +10 Opinion, so if you have High CA and Everything is voted on by all Vassals then the two balance each other out.

I think that's fairly simple, it certainly adds less complexity to the game then splitting off all the laws from CA like Conclave has (not that I'm suggesting removing that, just a point of comparison).

Where you and I really dissagree, I think, is that I want different realms to play differently. When I'm the Doge of Venice, or the King of England, or the Roman Emperor I want to feel like I'm governing differently. With Conclave having removed CA completely all Feudal realms play pretty much the same if they're the same religious group.

 

[RagingJaws]

Game is improved with the removal of King's Peace.

The only people out there complaining are the power gamers and those who can't get over their pretty inner kingdom borders being mucked about by ambitious vassals. It's sad to see a solution that actually creates more dynamic situations unrelated to the player get so hated on. I've never seen so much activity from the AI in expanding inside kingdoms as I have with Conclave, probably because playing at low crown authority or below before was just dumb. The only thing that rivals Conclave activityis how often Norse Jarls take over new vacation plots in Finland.

In one of my Republic games, I'm watching a duke I landed some time ago slowly eat his way across southern England. Eventually, he's going to be a problem and I'll either have to keep him (or his successors) on my council lest he joins a faction for personal gain or bite the bullet and wrestle with him for control of land. If I was playing without Conclave, I'd simply get to medium crown authority and his growth would have been checked several counties ago.

 

[SigurdStormhand]

Have you been following the Dev Diaries?

When the new DLC drops you will be able to ask your vassals to end their internal wars - if you have Late Feudal Administration the request automatically becomes a demand and they become a criminal if they refuse, making them liable to have their top title stripped or to be thrown in prison.

I think I mentioned the King's Peace once in my OP. For the record, I never had a problem with that mechanic - the problem was how rarely the Lower Crown Authority Faction won. In earlier versions of CKII vassals would quite often be successful in lowering CA from Medium to Low, it's only since factions have been hamstrung that realms have become so internally stable.

Overall it's looking like the new system will be better - from what I read from the Devs I infer you can ask either the Attacker or Defender to give up the war, which will give the liege real control over internal wars.

The problem is that Late Feudal Administration isn't something the AI fights to revoke, and it can't be because that means the AI fighting to Revoke Imperial Administration - which would just cause a horrible mess in the ERE.

What I am suggesting is that CA be re-introduced so that the AI understands the liege is gathering power and opposes it. The fact is that the way it's set up at the moment the AI is not aware that you are amassing power and gerrymandering your Council so that it looks like everything is voted on but you still control the outcome.

 

[RagingJaws]

Sorta been paying attention to the diaries.

The fact is, the AI *doesn't* understand that the player gathers power with CA authority. It simply reacts to a simple system and forces a reversal of the decision, if it gets the support needed, because it's coded that way. The AI currently does the same with council authority, pushing for more of it and therefore more power for the council. Frankly, if someone wants to break the game by firing and hiring new council members every time they don't get enough support for a vote, that's just going to happen. Power gamers will bend the mechanics of whatever system is in place to support how they play, so it's not really useful to point that out as a flaw in any system. Pre or post conclave.

Crown authority is obsolete. There is nothing left of it with Conclave, again for the better. Vassal Obligation realm laws handle levies and tax in a much cleaner and balanced way. Succession laws are now under administration, a simpler system that can cater to several playing styles. Even things like out of realm inheritance and title revocation have their own individual buttons, which again cater to the player and how s/he wants things to proceed.

You do make some good points and it's clear that you care about seeing things changed or improved, but you haven't listed anything concrete, unless I missed it. Which is possible. What is left to add to Crown Authority and bring it back as a system in the game without taking away from what's currently implemented?

As for the Administration issues, it's easy. Have those of Byzantine culture unable to faction against Imperial Administration. That would fix the Byzantine problem you brought up and it's not as though some cultures don't already have special law characteristics to them (Basques!). Have the AI only fight to revoke Late Feudal administration say until the date of 1066. Maybe. Less sure about that idea.

 

[Evan05]

Game is improved with the removal of King's Peace.

The only people out there complaining are the power gamers and those who can't get over their pretty inner kingdom borders being mucked about by ambitious vassals. It's sad to see a solution that actually creates more dynamic situations unrelated to the player get so hated on. I've never seen so much activity from the AI in expanding inside kingdoms as I have with Conclave, probably because playing at low crown authority or below before was just dumb. The only thing that rivals Conclave activityis how often Norse Jarls take over new vacation plots in Finland.

In one of my Republic games, I'm watching a duke I landed some time ago slowly eat his way across southern England. Eventually, he's going to be a problem and I'll either have to keep him (or his successors) on my council lest he joins a faction for personal gain or bite the bullet and wrestle with him for control of land. If I was playing without Conclave, I'd simply get to medium crown authority and his growth would have been checked several counties ago.

It's easy to not let the major vassals be on the council and still keep things relatively stable. All you have to go is gut the council, fill it up with poor yes-men, and buy favors. Also, get the intrigue focus if you have way of life and spy on your pissed off vassals.

Chances are, they'll be doing something fishy, and then you can imprison them. Imprisonment is almost guaranteed to fail against any vassal that is important enough to be watched, but when they uprise they cannot join any factions. And it doesn't matter how powerful a vassal is, a single vassal uprising is of no real threat, and is bound to end in said vassal's defeat and imprisonment. And when they're imprisoned, they also can't join plots or factions. They cannot join any faction to overthrow you or to increase council powers, and cannot plot against you (even then, plots virtually never succeed against the player).

The problem is that the current system is too easy. The biggest difficulty is right when you start a game. It's simply a matter of tightening your hold on the council, playing your cards right to get everything into place, upping levy and tax obligations, and ultimately can keep the council's demands surpressed forever.

 

[SigurdStormhand]

So you know that the internal name for CA was before Charlemagne? "Centralisation Law".

CA was about the Centralisation of power in a realm, whilst the new Council authority issue is about who wields that power. the two are certainly connected, but we're still talking about two different questions.

Does the Crown have the prerogative to prevent vassals from fighting each other vs who decides to enforce the Crown's prerogative. I'm British, English specifically, I've spent some time studying the medieval period in England and I have friends who studied the Anglo-Saxon Kingdom specifically. Anglo-Saxon Kings had quite tight control of their vassals, of their treasury and of their coinage. There's some evidence that the system rather fell apart when the Normans took over because the Anglo-Saxons wrote in English whilst the Normans wrote in Latin...

Anyway, the point is that Anglo-Saxon Kings had quite a lot of control over the way things were done down to a very local level, but the Kings were still elected by the Witan and they still had to consult the Witan when they made a decision. By contrast the Norman Kings were quite autocratic in their decision making, and were able to active Primogeniture sooner than many other monarchs - but they didn't really have a strong grip on the administration, things became quite de-centralised, the legal system started to unravel, the coinage debased. Henry I's Law Codes are a study in trying to get a hold of a failing administration.

William's usurption of the Crown damaged the authority of that Crown - I'm pretty sure sure that's the reason CA would drop after a successful game. Indeed, I would say the pre-Conclave government system felt quite Anglo-Centric. By contrast the Conclave system feels like its trying to model Continental Monarchy in the Early Modern Period, which isn't at all appropriate.

I can understand why you'd not be a fan of CA if you came to the game post-Rajas of India, but prior to that CA was actually a major headache for the ruler - and it should be. More to the point, CA is the mechanic that models the conflict between Centralisation and local rule - something Conclave just does away with.

To clarify - gerrymandering the Council isn't something I consider "Power Gaming". Power Gaming is arbitrarily imprisoning all your vassals and banishing them so that you get all their land and money on day one. Stacking the Council with a number of competent courtiers alongside some less competent but powerful vassals is what medieval rulers actually *did*.

 

[RagingJaws]

I bought the game when it was released. Crown Authority was fine, Conclave is better. If I turned off Conclave and played with CA again in addition to the reduced opinion modifiers, my overall opinion wouldn't change but I might find it more enjoyable. The old system only needed the player to get to medium (or high, if you wanted primo) and you'll be all set. Vassals were not strong enough to push faction goals, before or after nerfs against competent players who had time to prepare.

Your paragraphs of what I consider well constructed points have failed to address my original question though. What game mechanics would you attach to a redone Crown Authority system, without touching Conclave's Realm Laws? Please stop making points about Anglo-Saxon England, CKII covers more than England and it would be unfair to focus on that kingdom and particular. We could spend weeks arguing back and forth about how poorly CKII represents aspects of Feudalism in the Middle Ages.

I'll help you too and suggest something. A +demesne limit for the King attached with an increasing opinion malus for all vassals with each step taken higher, which is the closest we can get to "conflict" between King and subjects.

 

[SigurdStormhand]

I actually sketched out a scheme in my second post, though it's only notional.

I dislike laws that increase the demesne limit because it's illogical and it doesn't represent anything more than "moar land" which is best dealt with by legalism. You can't really pass laws to make your demesne easier to manage, you just reform your chancellery.

Anyway, I suggested that as CA rises vassals are restricted in what factions they can form, and as it falls the Monarch is less able to enforce their decisions. So, for example, if you have Imperial Administration but low CA you wont be able to freely revoke Viceroyalties, you need to raise CA first.

You've latched on to one half of my argument though, and not addressed the other half. The lack of any Crown Authority is much less of an issue (and it can be modded back in) than the changes to the way laws are voted on.

As to why I talk mostly about England (not just the Anglo-Saxon), it's what I know the most about and it's also a nation that passed through several distinct administrative phases within the CKII timeframe. Most other nations were in one of those phases for the majority of the game's timeline.

Which is not to say there are no changes - you can point to the erosion of crown authority in the HRE or the gradual marginalisation of the Senate in the ERE as examples.