Council voting/politics would be the one feature which would add the most to the gameplay loop and be the most impactful.

[Arcvalons]

The devs have repeteadly commented, about many things didn't make it from CK2, that they didn't like the implementation and wanted to do it better eventually on CK3.

However, I believe Conclave was one of the best realized CK2 DLCs, despite initial backlash from some among the player-base who considered the Council politics "too hard". I think PDOX knows this at some level because they have added several features from that DLC to CK3 — favours are very similar to hooks, the education system has received a glow-up since W&Ws, and Regents have been re-implemented and expanded a bit with Diarchs.

However, Council politics have been conspiciously absent so far, arguably the main selling point of Conclave back then, and probably the one feature which would add the most to the gameplay loop and be the most impactful. It would add some of that strategic depth that a lot of the player-base are interested in and tie-in to the roleplaying aspect, especially if it's expanded to include things like the council voting over succession.

 

[Cyhort]

, especially if it's expanded to include things like the council voting over succession.

If you mean "under elective succession types the council has more/preferential voting power" then sure. If you mean "the council needs to vote on every heir, thereby de facto forcing elective onto every title" then hell no. I hate elective succession in this game. It's so tedious and annoying to deal with. It's already bad enough that half the regular succession types are locked out until the last 25% of the game, we don't need to go ruining succession even more.

 

[Kimlin1004]

If you mean "under elective succession types the council has more/preferential voting power" then sure. If you mean "the council needs to vote on every heir, thereby de facto forcing elective onto every title" then hell no. I hate elective succession in this game. It's so tedious and annoying to deal with. It's already bad enough that half the regular succession types are locked out until the last 25% of the game, we don't need to go ruining succession even more.

In CK2 you’re actual council voted on different decisions such as going to war, changing laws, taking titles, imprisonment, and even giving titles. Depending on their type IE loyalist or Glory Hound you had to appease them to get different things done. You could eventually take power from them to the point you would abolish their authority all together.

I liked the council and the law system in CK2 and would be happy to see something similar return to CK3

 

[Lord Asgar]

For it, so long as there's interesting stuff for the council to actually vote on.

CK3 doesn't exactly have an abundance of laws yet. Part of the reason modular governments would be nice.

 

[TL_]

I didn't feel like the council voting was hard, I felt like it was just a wealth tax. When I wanted to pass something, I would just buy favors on two councilors (remember ties used to go to the ruler). I think some aspects of conclave were good, but this one didn't add a ton of depth. Sure, you can get hooks too, but how often do you get hooks on the same character repeatedly?

To sell me on this you'd have to explain why council politics are going to consist of more than just vote buying.

 

[Kimlin1004]

I didn't feel like the council voting was hard, I felt like it was just a wealth tax. When I wanted to pass something, I would just buy favors on two councilors (remember ties used to go to the ruler). I think some aspects of conclave were good, but this one didn't add a ton of depth. Sure, you can get hooks too, but how often do you get hooks on the same character repeatedly?

To sell me on this you'd have to explain why council politics are going to consist of more than just vote buying.

One way this could be done is to have the councilors opinion be separate or only part of what forms their decision. On top of opinion could be a councilor type.

1. Warmongering: This councilor always agreed to go to war, imprisonment or revoking titles. Basically all aggressive actions but will be against any action that makes your realm weak or appear weak.

2. Pacifist: basically the opposite of Warmonger.

3. Loyalist: you can do no wrong. Would be children and friends.

3. Rival: basically your realm runs like the US government with this guy on your council.

4. Greedy: If there’s profit in it he’s all for it. If it cost money you better think again.

5. Religious : He wants to spread knowledge and religion. Favors actions such as conversion and Holy Wars. Doesn’t like wars or imprisonment against same religion

6. Pragmatic: What’s to be gained from the actions?

Could be many more.

If you can sway your councilor by doing actions they agree with, such as going to war. Each action they agree with provides a period of time where they are appeased. You can also take a debate action every __ months to appease a councilor that relies on a skill challenge. Hooks would also work for 1 vote. You could probably add in a mechanic for hostages and wards.

That’s high level brain storming.

 

[Kvesir]

Commenting here so that hopefully this thread gets more traction.

I 100% agree.
Even if the implementation of council voting was disliked back in CK2 (by whom, btw? I loved it), the idea is crucial. It adds fundamental challenge to a king's position, more variation between different kingdoms (as there are many more laws dictating the different powers of the council) and generally more things to do.
It added an extra layer of strategy on picking your councilors beyond just choosing the highest stats or powerful vassals.
In CK3 it would also make hooks much more valuable.

Given how the next DLC is Coronations, which will supposedly add a single activity that is accessible to everyone, maybe it's on-theme to also add this functionality to the council while they're at it.