Malcontent needs a nerfing.

[Colonel Martyr]

For generations now, the Republics of Andalusia, France and Italy are perpetually malcontents for no reason and I'm tired of it. I hold none of their lands, I don't insult them and mess with them, there's literally zero logical reason for these places to be indefinitely malcontent when I've done nothing wrong to them. It just makes them an artificial 'enemy' on the council. : /

Edit: To clarify, this has been going on with each generation of Prince Mayor/King. A new one is elected and they're guaranteed to be malcontents and I have zero idea why. I do absolutely nothing to provoke them and I do nothing to hamper their respective Republics. There's zero grounds for them to be 5 straight generations of pissed off vassal.

[Rowley]

According to the wiki, it is influenced by the traits Ambitious and Envious, having a negative opinion, and being a rival. I usually get it from people with negative opinion of me--because often I shove annoying powerful vassals on the council to keep them out of factions.

That said, I agree--while the wiki has a short list, I'm often given the impression that there are way more things at work, or the things already impacting it have too strong of an influence on determining Malcontent status--which is pretty significant for something that is an auto vote against you and will frequently turn the entire council against you with favors because why the **** not.

[Colonel Martyr]

That's why it bugs me. The absolutely only thing I can think of is that the AI internally wants independence or something, which will never happen as long as I can help it. But I have them at very high opinions of me. Hell, one of those malcontents is at 100 and my friend and STILL he's a malcontent! So -something- is going on behind the curtain beyond what opinion modifiers show me.

[Varainger]

As someone who doesn't have Conclave, may i ask what being malcontent despite a 100 opinion as you say implies/causes ?

Do they alawys say no to whatever you want to do or change ?
I just want to understand the frustartion you express and the reason for the nerf demand.
Thanks

edit: Is it possible this is caused by spys similar to factions who coerce lords into factions despite them being 100 with the target ? Just a clueless guess on my part.

Maybe its indeed only the traits.
That would more or less work the same way then as without Conclave. Hmm..

[Rowley]

What being a Malcontent effectively means is that the counselor will always vote no/against everything you start. Every single committee, every single law change. They will purchase favors from your other counselors and stonewall you in every possible way--unless you are doing something that directly benefits them.

It is not something that can be caused by coercion/spying. The A.I selects a counselor's 'stance' when appointed to the council--ranging from Glory Hound to Zealous, Loyalist, Pragmatic--or Malcontent, and can change it every six months or so.

[Varainger]

Originally posted by Cloaked Destiny:

What being a Malcontent effectively means is that the counselor will always vote no/against everything you start....It is not something that can be caused by coercion/spying...

Ah okay. Thanks for clarification.

I should have looked on the Wiki, but you did it better and shorter. :)
http://www.ckiiwiki.com/Council_vote
Seems one has to do the maths..

By the way, from the 2.6 patch log (the 'Balance' part which got released today):

- Even Malcontent voters will now vote for additional council power laws, as it means they'll have more to say 'no' about

[Colonel Martyr]

Yeah, Cloaked basically said it all. That's why I hate this. The new Republic heads just pop up and they can't be bribed due to undefined 'conflicting interests' and they love love loooove buying up favours. I can understand malcontents if I were holding land de jure to them or picking on them, but the game just auto-deferring to malcontent is just artificial inflation of the difficulty.

[Random]

absolute rule ftw :P

fire all of your council regardless of vassal power

generate 6-8 holy men for 5 piety and each will start with +30 or so opinion

place these fresh untainted individuals on your council

request council support from 4/6 of them and then change your law.

they will then use their favors on junk like obligations, however the other 3 people you have a favor with will automatically vote against it for you during the 36month window.

Also because none of them are landed, they will not start factions as they have no troops to actually enforce it. thus defeating the ingame logic of conclave.

problem solved.

[Colonel Martyr]

Originally posted by Random:

absolute rule ftw :P

fire all of your council regardless of vassal power

generate 6-8 holy men for 5 piety and each will start with +30 or so opinion

place these fresh untainted individuals on your council

request council support from 4/6 of them and then change your law.

they will then use their favors on junk like obligations, however the other 3 people you have a favor with will automatically vote against it for you during the 36month window.

problem solved.

I don't really like meta-gaming though. I try to generally work within the structure of the council system. 'gaming the game' so to speak kind of ruins the fun.

[Random]

if you goto the council window you can see the malcontent and if they have favors on others.

1 malcontent isnt a problem if your loyalists or people you have favors with outnumber them.

it's not cheating to fire someone who has it in for you and forces your other chancellors into their irrational voting system.

[Colonel Martyr]

Originally posted by Random:

if you goto the council window you can see the malcontent and if they have favors on others.

1 malcontent isnt a problem if your loyalists or people you have favors with outnumber them.

it's not cheating to fire someone who has it in for you and forces your other chancellors into their irrational voting system.

Yes, but it's not 1. If it was one, I could combat that. It's 3 malcontents every single ruler of their respective republics with each successive ruler of mine. So that's why it's a problem. They are 3 votes and powerful vassals. My council is exclusively the powerful, barring the Court Chaplain.

[Neshamah]

Originally posted by Random:

absolute rule ftw :P

fire all of your council regardless of vassal power

generate 6-8 holy men for 5 piety and each will start with +30 or so opinion

place these fresh untainted individuals on your council

request council support from 4/6 of them and then change your law.

they will then use their favors on junk like obligations, however the other 3 people you have a favor with will automatically vote against it for you during the 36month window.

Also because none of them are landed, they will not start factions as they have no troops to actually enforce it. thus defeating the ingame logic of conclave.

problem solved.

Yeah. That's a little to 'gamey' for me, as well. I do find some of the Council mechanics infuriating sometimes (just like everyone else), but I tend to work within the system to accomplish what I need or want. Sometimes I do fire Council members, but only if I have an 'in-game' reason to do so (I tend toward RPG-dynastic play, rather than the 'conquest and dominate' style.

[Random]

each to their own i guess, but absolute rule gives you +2 demense size as well as locks your council out of the vote system... thats end game and honestly running an empire with a large number of kingdom vassals without absolute rule sounds ridiculous.

the base structure of the game or flow if you will, is tribal building laws to max tribal control and full council power to then converting to fuedal, and then working your way through the 8 council systems to eventually end up back at square 1 with absolute rule and generally an empire title, and non gravelkind/elective succession laws.

thats the "goal" of the council system.

[Neshamah]

" ...thats end game and honestly running an empire with a large number of kingdom vassals without absolute rule sounds ridiculous."

That is the 'ridiculous' way I play. I don't seem to have any problems with it. As you said, 'each to their own'.

The 'goal' of the Council system is to make the mid and late game more interesting and challenging. It has succeeded in doing that, IMHO.

I usually start as a count somewhere (or a Petty King) and begin building my dynasty and my holdings. As I do so, I place my own dynastic family members as land-holders, meaning that when I become King, most of my vassals are of my dynasty. Make my inheritance laws elective, and since everyone is a relative, it really doesn't matter who they pick. I do educate every member of my dynasty (over which I have educational authority) that I can to ensure that my vassal-relatives aren't worthless. And, I do oversee the marriages of every single member of my family under my direct influence.

I micromanage. That is how I play.

[Grant]

I had a similar experience when I played my friend's CK2 to personally see how Conclave works, since I didn't have it for my CK2.
I played as French on the 1106 start date. For 90 or so years in-game, I had fun mircomanaging my council than suddenly everything became bizzare and unrealistic. I had passed laws to increase feudal taxes and levies to high, which angried many of my vassals. After I achieved my goals of establishing myself economically and weakening the HRE greatly, I decided to lower the feudal taxes and levies. However, all of my councilmen (who were powerful Dukes that demanded to be on the council) refused to vote for them despite the fact that they hate me for having to provide such high taxes and levies.
Moreover, as I give in to my Council demands to give them the right to vote on war delcaration, three of my Councilmen who are zealots competely refused to allow me to join a series of Holy Wars against the Islamic kingdoms in Hispanic and in the Near East.
I tried bribing them with money, lands, titles, and etc. but nothing would change their mind. The game also doesn't provide a reason why they do this despite loving me.
Therefore, although I like the idea of Conclave, I will suggest turning off conclave and keep complaining until Paradox get off their butts and fix the broken mechanics.

[Neshamah]

Originally posted by Li_Shin:

I had a similar experience when I played my friend's CK2 to personally see how Conclave works, since I didn't have it for my CK2.
I played as French on the 1106 start date. For 90 or so years in-game, I had fun mircomanaging my council than suddenly everything became bizzare and unrealistic. I had passed laws to increase feudal taxes and levies to high, which angried many of my vassals. After I achieved my goals of establishing myself economically and weakening the HRE greatly, I decided to lower the feudal taxes and levies. However, all of my councilmen (who were powerful Dukes that demanded to be on the council) refused to vote for them despite the fact that they hate me for having to provide such high taxes and levies.
Moreover, as I give in to my Council demands to give them the right to vote on war delcaration, three of my Councilmen who are zealots competely refused to allow me to join a series of Holy Wars against the Islamic kingdoms in Hispanic and in the Near East.
I tried bribing them with money, lands, titles, and etc. but nothing would change their mind. The game also doesn't provide a reason why they do this despite loving me.
Therefore, although I like the idea of Conclave, I will suggest turning off conclave and keep complaining until Paradox get off their butts and fix the broken mechanics.

There's really nothing wrong with Conclave. It doesn't break the game; it doesn't make it unplayable; and it doesn't make it impossible to win.
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=653482678
Conclave makes the mid to late game more interesting / challenging. And, that is a good thing for many around here.