Issue with "Voting for (Castle) decision"

[Cracktober]

When I take a castle, and I go to the kingdom screen to vote on it, I get three options:

Vassal 1 - Ruler - Vassal 2 (me)

Vassal 1 has 100% of the support
Ruler 1 has 0% of the support
Vassal 2 has 0% of the support

Vote on Vassal 1, click 50, 100, or 300 (doesnt really matter), but the voting goes to the Ruler, and the Ruler recieves the castle.

Now, I want to point out that there is NO policy active that gives the ruler any specific advantages, as in he can't overrule it or just take it if he wants to, this isnt exlusively a ruler issue but it tends to happen MORE with the Ruler.

Other examples I've come acrpss:

Ruler - Vassal 1 - Vassal 2 (me)

Ruler has 100% of the support
Vassal 1 has 0% of the support
Vassal 2 has 0% of the support

I vote on Ruler - castle goes to Vassal 1.

Vassal 1 - Ruler - Vassal 2 (me)

Vassal 1 has 100% of the support
Ruler has 0% of the support
Vassal 2 has 0% of the support

I vote on Vassal 2 (myself) - castle goes to me

When I vote it doesnt matter if whoever I vote for has 100% or 0% no matter if I pick 50, 100 or 300 influence - it seems to be random who gets it

So I did some experiments:
I save the game right after I take the castle, and right before the voting is going to happen.
I vote the same every time (whoever I want it go to) and if it doesnt go the way I want - I load the save, and retry the voting again, but this time it goes in my favor.
However, I have to re-roll this several times until I get the results I want, sometimes I only load 1 save and it works, sometimes its 10 saves and it works.
Thankfully by doing this I managed to get 3 castles for myself, where I either had 100% of the supportive vote (and still lost) or had 0% of the votes (and won)

[Xuulis]

As I understand it, the voting system works as the Ruler has the final say in every decision. It's two staged, so when everyone makes their pick, they can use the judgements of the majority to make their decision. I think they take relation hits whenever they go against what the council says but regardless they get the final say in all decisions I think.

[Glottis]

I just use the mod that gives it to whoever sieges it down. Only way you're ever going to build up any sort of power base with the apathetic AI allies getting the territory you fought for for no reason.

[Bloodysod]

Weird. I have -3 relation with Battanian king. Usually abstain and so far he's given me two castles and the city of Charas,lol.I lost the first castle to the Aserai, which was fine with me as I didn't care for the location anyway.

[✪︎DΞ︎AD_iwnw]

The ruler has the final say in all decisions. Policies cannot revoke this right, just make it more expensive to do. But the first instance, he overruled it and gave it to himself for obvious reasons. The second, the guy he gave it to was probably his friend. And in the last, maybe the king likes you or you didn't have a fief.

[Glottis]

relation penalties are easy to beat, just vote for him once and you get a massive bonus.

Relation bugs on the other hand... while just spending time in settlement "your thing has changed from 3 to -97"

[✪︎DΞ︎AD_iwnw]

Originally posted by Cracktober:

It just seems to be very random, and should be using more logic to the system. I mean if one has 100% of the support, and the Ruler has 0% - why would he take it for himself? AFAIK there is no "overthrow ruler" or "civil war" mechanic, but theres just no consequence for the ruler just taking whatever he wants.

My very first castle i was given to me after a voting I didnt take part of, I didnt even know I had it until several days later when it said something along the lines of "Your settlement/castle is under seige!" So the notifications needs to be fixed as well, too many times have I recieved a notification about something important at a location, and it goes away before I can even look up where it is in the Encyclopedia.

There is a consequence, albeit not major. They lose a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ of influence when they overrule a vote

[BeefStew]

The rulers gets the final say, which makes sense, he's the ruler. When you play a ruler you'll get the same advantages.....Also, this voting system is the best way to build up relations with other lords. If you give him 300 influence you'll get pretty close to 100 relation gain.

My big gripe is that CURRENTLY their is no way for non-rulers to dial back the rulers power.

[BeefStew]

Originally posted by Cracktober:

But getting influence as a ruler isnt hard to come by, Im just a vassal - and I have over 3k influence, with barely anything to spend it on so it just stacks up quickly.

Having a lot of influence affects some things, but having little doesnt do a whole lot. Like I said, it would make sense if the vassals decided to start a civil war once their relation reach -100 (and he can ask to invite other vassals to this civil war as well).

That would be a very welcome feature. The AI lords are too accepting of the rulers power gains

[Glottis]

Originally posted by ✪︎DΞ︎AD_iwnw:

There is a consequence, albeit not major. They lose a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ of influence when they overrule a vote

In my playthrough the king has tens of thousands of influence somehow, so it doesn't make even a little difference :)

[Glottis]

Originally posted by StewVader:

That would be a very welcome feature. The AI lords are too accepting of the rulers power gains

I think that settlements should go to the lords without getting a major hit, but I wouldn't mind the king 'securing the borders' by taking the castles for himself. Sort of makes sense since they make a lot less money and you can't directly recruit troops from them, it's a sort of power balance.

[Elendil]

Now I understand why Rhodoks rebeled and formed elective monarchy lul

[Swiftbear]

I want an option to decline a castle offer. Ive had 2 campaigns I restarted because they would continue to vote me a castle on the front lines that got sieged every 2 or 3 days and I had no influence to raise armies to defend it or could not defend with my own small army, the end result everytime you lose a castle you lose relation with the faction leader. In a matter of a few weeks i was down to -70 relations etc.

[Glottis]

Originally posted by Swiftbear:

I want an option to decline a castle offer. Ive had 2 campaigns I restarted because they would continue to vote me a castle on the front lines that got sieged every 2 or 3 days and I had no influence to raise armies to defend it or could not defend with my own small army, the end result everytime you lose a castle you lose relation with the faction leader. In a matter of a few weeks i was down to -70 relations etc.

That's called being a scapegoat :) The others really didn't like you lol

[Glottis]

Originally posted by Cracktober:

Found this mod:

https://www.nexusmods.com/mountandblade2bannerlord/mods/223

Essentially it gives ownership to whoever seiged the castle. Not a perfect fix, but good enough for now.

That's the one I was talking about, when you install it you have to go to Steam\steamapps\common\Mount & Blade II Bannerlord\Modules\RightfulOwnership\bin\Win64_Shipping_Client and edit the config file to activate. For me it still has voting for non player captures too though.

[Swiftbear]

thats what it feels like "hey this new vassal swiftbear is a jerk, lets keep giving him the crap castle on the front line that the 500 stack army attacks twice a week and keep giving the castle to him" ....i mean its funny IRL but sucks for gameplay