Councillors should be present at liege's court

[FortressofRain]

I always felt like armies should just be able to have characters attached to them. Want to swap between 2 commanders? Simply have one be commander and the other being attached to the army so you can swap freely. Would also open up new options like deciding whether you bring you family/court with you on campaign or leave them in court. Though even just commanders travel and commanders can be attached to an army they aren't leading would be a huge improvement in my eyes. Means you can still have travel dude, siege dude and combat dude available. But you can't have all 3 available for all armies at all times. But I feel like maybe I'm getting off topic from councilors. I just in general want people to exist on map more and that manifests both in commanders and councilors to the point where design philosophy changes I agree with for one would very easily impact the other.

Well aside stated before, if we are going to attach multiple character to an army why burden the player with pointless swapping? Why not have it so that any traits related to warfare like fording or hill fighting expert or speed just automatically be applied to the entire army. They don't have to stack just have the highest modifier for each type apply to the entire army or commander. Like if you have a trait that gives bonus to fighting in forest +5 and another general that gives trait bonus to fighting in forest +10 jist take the highest modifier and add to commander or army...so you get the benefit of having the skilled experts in your army like officers but you don't have to burder the player with pointless micro swapping and switching commanders.

 

[Empocariam]

My eyes are peeled! :eyes:

If councilors are present at the leige's court, I hope this comes with an expansion to who can be recruited, specifically, family members of powerful vassals (who if they are on the council, fulfill the "wants council position" malus. The duke should be happy to have his son on the council if he would rather stay home and run his demesne.

 

[Lt. Ungustl]

Well aside stated before, if we are going to attach multiple character to an army why burden the player with pointless swapping? Why not have it so that any traits related to warfare like fording or hill fighting expert or speed just automatically be applied to the entire army. They don't have to stack just have the highest modifier for each type apply to the entire army or commander. Like if you have a trait that gives bonus to fighting in forest +5 and another general that gives trait bonus to fighting in forest +10 jist take the highest modifier and add to commander or army...so you get the benefit of having the skilled experts in your army like officers but you don't have to burder the player with pointless micro swapping and switching commanders.

Except these are not automatons who can be switched around at will, these are nobles with usually prickly egos. Removing a commander from an army should really have the same kind of relationship penalties as removing a councillor.

With commanders beeing auto-assigned that kind of penalty may not be practical, but I don't think switching commanders around willy-nilly should be encouraged by the game.

 

[SolarChallenger]

Well aside stated before, if we are going to attach multiple character to an army why burden the player with pointless swapping? Why not have it so that any traits related to warfare like fording or hill fighting expert or speed just automatically be applied to the entire army. They don't have to stack just have the highest modifier for each type apply to the entire army or commander. Like if you have a trait that gives bonus to fighting in forest +5 and another general that gives trait bonus to fighting in forest +10 jist take the highest modifier and add to commander or army...so you get the benefit of having the skilled experts in your army like officers but you don't have to burder the player with pointless micro swapping and switching commanders.

There are some possible fringe cases I'd want to watch out for but this seems like good QoL overall. Just make sure that two generals aren't contributing to an army at the same time if that makes sense. Like you don't get reduced upkeep cost from logistics man while you are sieging somewhere with siege man. Unless the system is expanded to have, like, quartermasters or something.

Except these are not automatons who can be switched around at will, these are nobles with usually prickly egos. Removing a commander from an army should really have the same kind of relationship penalties as removing a councillor.

With commanders beeing auto-assigned that kind of penalty may not be practical, but I don't think switching commanders around willy-nilly should be encouraged by the game.

This is replied to at the same time because all of what I said above only applies to how things currently are but I overall agree this might be better. I could see there being some fun play around you giving command of an army to someone and them expecting to remain in command until the end of the conflict. However I think this has to be a part of a bigger change where the above QoL works with something as simple as I stated before. Allow "camp followers" and make commanders travel. Though a delay/cd could be a bandage until a more complex system is implemented.

That being said a more complex system would be nice. Like a few different slots to fill (not sure how relevant this is to medieval times though, so potentially ignore), generals gaining opinion malus when replaced and a more complex muster system. The latter is important because you would need to be able to create specific armies for specific people to command. Otherwise you end up punishing the player with opinion malus because the game decided your armies had to form in certain ways. Also I just hate how the current muster system works. At least make units have to travel the same speed as characters to muster points instead of *not quite* teleporting. Even weirder now that retinue have home bases which would lend to the idea of them existing on the map. But than they travel your entire country in a week. So, like, why even exist on the map?

 

[FortressofRain]

Except these are not automatons who can be switched around at will, these are nobles with usually prickly egos. Removing a commander from an army should really have the same kind of relationship penalties as removing a councillor.

With commanders beeing auto-assigned that kind of penalty may not be practical, but I don't think switching commanders around willy-nilly should be encouraged by the game.

But you kinda just made my point and supported my statement.

The idea being you can assign said commander...and NOT have to switch them. This would actually open the door for the rp and relationship factors and penalties to be aged out as you suggest, becuase you can thereby attach other minor nobles and character to the army without changing the commander and still get the benefit of their specialty experience in your army.

Just to play devil's advocate, It's not like a noble in the army is going to sit by and sulk becuase he wasn't picked as a commander and therefore watch the entire army, his men, and himself be obliterated, captured, or killed becuase he didn't want to share his knowledge of how to properly cross a river. =/

 

[FortressofRain]

There are some possible fringe cases I'd want to watch out for but this seems like good QoL overall. Just make sure that two generals aren't contributing to an army at the same time if that makes sense.

This is easy to solve by updating traits to not stack with each other. I dont currently know if this is locked behind a "hard code" that we cant affect or if its possible to just put an exlusion trigger such as:

Trait_1 Lvl 1:
If: not Trait_1 Lvl 2 and / or not Trait_1 Lvl 3
and if army = seiging
then -15% upkeep_cost ;while seiging
Else: Pass

As an example...the idea being that the bonus only applies if a character with Trait_1 Lvl 2 or Trait_1 Lvl 3 (being greater bonuses like -25% or -35% respectively, aren't already in the army. If they are this trait won't add anything / any bonus. So you won't get stacking modifiers.

Like you don't get reduced upkeep cost from logistics man while you are sieging somewhere with siege man. Unless the system is expanded to have, like, quartermasters or something.

I think things like quartermaster can be gamed using our imagination and doesn't even really need to be added but could be nice eventually. I just think going this route of assigning positions instead of auto applying bonuses will gimp the AI army as one more thing it can't do well and further make the game even easier for the player.

I could see there being some fun play around you giving command of an army to someone and them expecting to remain in command until the end of the conflict. However I think this has to be a part of a bigger change where the above QoL works with something as simple as I stated before.

QoL and AI effectiveness of using said system is my priorities imho.

Allow "camp followers" and make commanders travel. Though a delay/cd could be a bandage until a more complex system is implemented.

Well there already is a rough system in place to add camp followers when traveling, like guards, and knights to train on the road and a caravan master. I suppose it wouldn't be that hard to add the same for the army but I do think it isn't entirely neccessary. I think character development with traits like Quartermaster would be fine as long as the traits apply to army they are in regardless of being commander. Then we can just pretend or assume they were assigned that position becuase they are the most qualified for the job. I don't think every army position needs to be fleshed out, but representation even abstractly would be nice without tedious "switching" commanders.

That being said a more complex system would be nice. Like a few different slots to fill (not sure how relevant this is to medieval times though, so potentially ignore), generals gaining opinion malus when replaced and a more complex muster system. The latter is important because you would need to be able to create specific armies for specific people to command. Otherwise you end up punishing the player with opinion malus because the game decided your armies had to form in certain ways. Also I just hate how the current muster system works. At least make units have to travel the same speed as characters to muster points instead of *not quite* teleporting.

Well at least it assigns a time to muster to abstractly represented your army marching to the muster point.

Even weirder now that retinue have home bases which would lend to the idea of them existing on the map. But than they travel your entire country in a week. So, like, why even exist on the map?

In my mind the stationing of men at arms I've kinda adopted the mindset of just developing a training program specifically for that infantry type at that location and that every man in the regiment "rotates" in and out for periodic training...at least that's currently how I'm rationalizing like...only all your archers stationing in a single castle. =/

 

[Lt. Ungustl]

But you kinda just made my point and supported my statement.

The idea being you can assign said commander...and NOT have to switch them. This would actually open the door for the rp and relationship factors and penalties to be aged out as you suggest, becuase you can thereby attach other minor nobles and character to the army without changing the commander and still get the benefit of their specialty experience in your army.

Just to play devil's advocate, It's not like a noble in the army is going to sit by and sulk becuase he wasn't picked as a commander and therefore watch the entire army, his men, and himself be obliterated, captured, or killed becuase he didn't want to share his knowledge of how to properly cross a river. =/

Well that would depend on the personalities of the people involved, their relationship (if a noble hates somenne he probably won't want to help that person to win more glory) and possibly the difference in rank And just because advive is offered, it does not mean that it will be followed, e.g. a Duke may not listen to advice given by a mere Baron or Mayor.

Looking at this from a gameplay perspective this would give an incentive for players to scour their realm for nobles with army bonuses, attach them all to their biggest army and create a doom stack with bonuses for everything.

 

[FortressofRain]

Looking at this from a gameplay perspective this would give an incentive for players to scour their realm for nobles with army bonuses, attach them all to their biggest army and create a doom stack with bonuses for everything.

Yes...sorta like...real life, lol.

Yet, this method has the added advantage of helping out the ai equally as much if not maybe more than the player, as people like the emperor of HRE or Byzantium etc will have a much larger pool of people to recruit than say the player in more remote areas, which will in theory help those larger realms stay around for a bit, at least as far as the ai territories are concerned, while also being somewhat realistic.

 

[Flockingbird]

a noble in the army [Achilles] is going to sit by and sulk becuase he wasn't picked as a commander [his captive, Briseis was taken from him] and therefore watch the entire army, his men, and himself be obliterated, captured, or killed becuase he didn't want to share his knowledge [captive]

FTFY.

It does rather predate CK3, though.

 

[Bisonmask]

I mean, the game doesn't actually model a council though, they are mostly stat modifiers that do things that, mostly, affect the stats and modifiers of the map. They don't "council" the king in any real sense of the word so why do the need to be with the king? I could see an argument for them being in capital if the council, you know, counseled the king but I doubt we'd ever get that in any meaningful sense in the game. There is also the fact that the regency system is kind of garbage and so the vast majority of rulers would have to dealing that all the time. If had to be physically in the capital as a vassal I would never be on the council simply because dealing the regency system is such a hassle. This feels like another solution in search of a problem.

Also, I wouldn't want the council to actually try and advise the ruler in game. Nothing I've seen from the devs makes me think they would be able to pull that off in a way that isn't immediately and intensely tedious and frustrating to deal with.

And we need source of this being the norm in feudal Europe. As far as I can find, "powerful feudal vassals" and "councilors at liege's court" only occasionally overlap, particularly during regencies and interregnum. Otherwise the latter were usually clergy or minor nobles. Note: this doesn't count hereditary offices whose holders were definitely not present in court.

You two are definitely right, in hindsight I was hyperfocusing on the ERE example and even there it's more a situation where representatives of a governor would normally be at court not always the governor themselves

I do think the current system is a half measure that fails at being historical and interesting though. Significant vassals should be too busy managing their territory to be on the council in ordinary circumstances though increasing centralization should pull vassals toward spending more time in the capital

Problem is powerful vassals don't have enough to do outside warring and threatening war to represent their power within the state as the council system is trying to model. They can't withhold taxes or support when they feel like it, they can't undermine the legal authority of the crown, and they can't form factions around succession etc. in order to get concessions. So they sit on the council but also at home which is poor both ways

 

[InsidiousMage]

Problem is powerful vassals don't have enough to do outside warring and threatening war to represent their power within the state as the council system is trying to model. They can't withhold taxes or support when they feel like it, they can't undermine the legal authority of the crown, and they can't form factions around succession etc. in order to get concessions. So they sit on the council but also at home which is poor both ways

I think a big problem with the council is that a) not having at least some powerful vassals is in no way a detriment and b) the council doesn't "want" anything. Starting with b) I think councilors should have agendas bases on their position with drawbacks for no following those agendas. For example, you are a newly crowned king and your father was a war a lot, including on civil wars, so your Steward and Marshal want peace so the realm can recover from those wars but your realm priest and Chancellor want you wage some holy wars against your neighbors and you have to decide between the two. As for a) I think the council needs to be enlarged to like six to eight positions, not counting your spouse and realm priest, and that the council has legitimacy based on its composition. So you can appoint one or two low born but skilled councilors but too many and your council is considered illegitimate thus negating the benefits of having skilled but low born councilors.

 

[Metz]

My eyes are peeled! :eyes:

Maybe keep the councilor at the court and create an ambassador court position for foreign affairs. If you want to have a perfect 2x4 box then you can add heir and spouse at the top. The heir after all has to learn how to take over once the ruler dies. He could have his own assignments as well.

Councilor
- Domestic Affairs
- Integrate Title
- Protect Reputation (this decreases the chances of you hurting your relations between yourself and your liege in return for you councilor taking the blame)
- Find Eligible Debutantes (looks/creates characters noble characters with decent traits to wed for you and your heirs when you can't find any good ones or don't want to marry a commoner)

Ambassador
- Improve Foreign Affairs
- Hurt Relations (target a third party character to do this to)
- Secure Trade Agreement (creates a modifier that gives both parties an extra income)
- Provide Counsel (provides assistance to a foreign court in exchange for hooks, this leads to a decision and its acceptance by the AI depends on the ambassador's skill level)

Heir
- Military Training (improves the heir's martial and prowess)
- Public Engagements (improves the heir's diplomacy and relations with courtiers/vassals)
- Manage Estate (improves the heir's stewardship and gives bonuses to things you do in your estate)
- Study Family History (improves the heir's learning and the heir may pick up one of your ancestor's traits/gain random skill level)
- Represent Ruler (improves the heir's intrigue and visits other courts; effects such as improved opinion are shared between the ruler and the heir)

 

[SolarChallenger]

Maybe keep the councilor at the court and create an ambassador court position for foreign affairs. If you want to have a perfect 2x4 box then you can add heir and spouse at the top. The heir after all has to learn how to take over once the ruler dies. He could have his own assignments as well.

Councilor
- Domestic Affairs
- Integrate Title
- Protect Reputation (this decreases the chances of you hurting your relations between yourself and your liege in return for you councilor taking the blame)
- Find Eligible Debutantes (looks/creates characters noble characters with decent traits to wed for you and your heirs when you can't find any good ones or don't want to marry a commoner)

Ambassador
- Improve Foreign Affairs
- Hurt Relations (target a third party character to do this to)
- Secure Trade Agreement (creates a modifier that gives both parties an extra income)
- Provide Counsel (provides assistance to a foreign court in exchange for hooks, this leads to a decision and its acceptance by the AI depends on the ambassador's skill level)

Heir
- Military Training (improves the heir's martial and prowess)
- Public Engagements (improves the heir's diplomacy and relations with courtiers/vassals)
- Manage Estate (improves the heir's stewardship and gives bonuses to things you do in your estate)
- Study Family History (improves the heir's learning and the heir may pick up one of your ancestor's traits/gain random skill level)
- Represent Ruler (improves the heir's intrigue and visits other courts; effects such as improved opinion are shared between the ruler and the heir)

I feel like eligible debutantes should also add a chance to increase proposal acceptance chance. Like they find a suitable match that's -10 or higher and than try to improve their relations to get that last 10. That way it's a little more than just QoL. Maybe also let them reduce the distance penalty since they would travel to the debutantes themselves as an ambassador of sorts. I also feel like maybe mixing up the heir thing so it's not just 1 assignment per skill type. But that's just a personal thing. For example, represent ruler feels like it should give both diplomacy and intrigue.

Overall I like the idea of more councilors with their own agendas. Though maybe if it gets bloated beyond more than 1 or 2 extras, there should be a mechanic where you only need so many assigned/can only have so many assigned at a time. So you don't end up with some count needing to fill 12 slots or something silly like that. So maybe you have to choose between a councilor or ambassador until you hit some checkmark.

 

[FortressofRain]

I feel like some things should remain abstract in order to not take too much focus away from other things.

Specifically as an example, I don't think the ambassadors on a council is a good idea. I think the idea is when you select the option for improve foreign relations that is already abstracting the idea of your Chancelor or whoever sending oit ambassadors with a specific agenda of strengthening relations or opinions.

I think there is a point where you get scope-creep to a point where you will spend so much time micromanaging every little thing that you won't actually progress in the game.

Also increasing the size of the council for example will certainly lead to the need for more characters (you'd need to put on the council) and therefore more strain on pc hardware due to more tracking and calculations each tick.

Finally I think there isn't anything wrong with the king having whoever he wants on his council, even if is cousins or uncles or family or lowborn. The idea behind powerful vassels not being on council is represented by their displeasure joining independence or disillusion factions, which is fine in theory.

In practice however, problem is they just need to make it harder to keep them happy by rebalancing modifiers, and making it harder to win a war if they do rebel, becuase right now the mechanic feels like it lacks teeth becuase it's too easy to win a war even if dissolution faction is twice (or late game, 10 times) your size.