The voting system is broken

[Jack Niggleson]

I thought it was fixed since I've been able to win three fiefs so far, but apparently % and rep with faction lords along with influence expenditure are still completely meaningless. For context I took Balgard and was in the running to get the fief. After spending 100 influence, my share of the vote was 34% to 33 for both the other candidates. Didn't get the fief of course.

Now you could say, sure, Monchug overruled me in favor of himself or a lord with better rep with him than me, except that clearly isn't the case. I have 100 rep with him and the lord who got the fief is some southern empire turncoat nobody who definitely does not have anything near that.

Adding insult to injury, I know that after losing 400 men and two companions I've had since day 30 (it's now day 811) to take the city, this loser is just going to lose it in a few months because he'll either be incapable of defending it with his tiny tier 3 babby clan army or it'll just rebel because AI lords are dumb as a sack of bricks and never do anything to raise settlement loyalty to prevent rebellions.

[Stoic Honour]

I believe that before anything else is considered, your faction leader will check if anyone else in the faction doesn't own a fief.

Most of the faction leaders will grant one fief to all who serve under them, that's why you got your own fief when you first joined as a nobody yourself. So if your faction has a LOT of lords, or a lot of changing-hands, it'll be really hard to get a new fief.

[Jack Niggleson]

Messaggio originale di AntiAce:

I believe that before anything else is considered, your faction leader will check if anyone else in the faction doesn't own a fief.

Most of the faction leaders will grant one fief to all who serve under them, that's why you got your own fief when you first joined as a nobody yourself. So if your faction has a LOT of lords, or a lot of changing-hands, it'll be really hard to get a new fief.

I'm aware of this. The lord who got Balgard already had a castle. The khuzaits also don't have many clans, just the ones they started with, plus two imperials (including this guy) who both had fiefs at the time of the vote.

It also said that the "council was split" despite the fact that my vote % was higher.

[Stoic Honour]

Hmm. Only thing left to do is assassinate the king I'm afraid. :/

[Dixon Cider]

If the lords of old had the internet, this is the kind of stuff they would post.

[Stoic Honour]

Messaggio originale di Dixon Cider:

If the lords of old had the internet, this is the kind of stuff they would post.

Thank you sir, I was going for that. :)

[Morkonan]

Messaggio originale di Jack Niggleson:

I thought it was fixed since I've been able to win three fiefs so far, but apparently % and rep with faction lords along with influence expenditure are still completely meaningless. For context I took Balgard and was in the running to get the fief. After spending 100 influence, my share of the vote was 34% to 33 for both the other candidates. Didn't get the fief of course.

Now you could say, sure, Monchug overruled me in favor of himself or a lord with better rep with him than me, except that clearly isn't the case. I have 100 rep with him and the lord who got the fief is some southern empire turncoat nobody who definitely does not have anything near that.

Adding insult to injury, I know that after losing 400 men and two companions I've had since day 30 (it's now day 811) to take the city, this loser is just going to lose it in a few months because he'll either be incapable of defending it with his tiny tier 3 babby clan army or it'll just rebel because AI lords are dumb as a sack of bricks and never do anything to raise settlement loyalty to prevent rebellions.

Just for reference, these are the Fief Candidacy mechanics at the version of the date of the posting:

https://steamcommunity.com/app/261550/discussions/0/4910566145636720439/?tscn=1597597559

Now, once candidates are chosen, as far as my experience goes if you are really a great candidate, you'll likely get the fief unless you already have several and another candidate has good strength, but no fiefs or, relative to other Lords, has fewer fiefs than they should for their Strength.

AFAIK, and in my experience, not one darn thing to do with "relationships" has anything to do with fief voting mechanics. It's never had anything to do with Candidacy, either. My own father-in-law, who loves me since I was the only nearsighted fool dumb enough to marry his spawn, who presents a countenance capable of scaring paint off any wall within thirty yards that isn't fast enough to move out of the way, has never once voted in favor of his son-in-law getting so much as a outhouse.

Anyway... :)

Considering candidacy mechanics, I'd think several factors may carry over that effect Lord decisions. For my own experience, "Strength" isn't necessarily one of them nor is personal (inventory) Wealth. (I generally end up powerful and rich, when the game's Campaign AI isn't busted...) Distance is, IMO, still A Big Deal ™ as far as how the vote swings. There's some "sense" in that, at least.

BUT, Clan Tier seems to matter as well, even for nonsensical awards. (Some ditz, who was lucky enough to be born into a high tier Clan, gets a fief that he has to charter a bus just to visit it on the other side of the map??) As long as the candidate doesn't have some form of overwhelming "score" derived from Candidacy mechanics, I think Clan Tier has a huge influence among powerful candidates. A poor, but decently strong, Lord may still have an advantage, but maybe not an overwhelming one. It's still, IMO, pretty strong, though.

I think the process after candidacy is... unfinished. At that point, I think some magic beans are thrown into the air and Lords just randomly pic a candidate if they have positive amounts of Influence unless the Candidacy mechanics have some sort of overwhelming result, like a strong Lord with a Clan Tier that practically demands he receive a fief and who could be experiencing money problems. (TW loves them some "economicks balances.")

And, my father-in-law's actions, may he rot in that bubbling pool of a cesspit he calls a castle surrounded by the rest of his muckraking brood, make as much sense there as any other Lord's.

Note: On your specific situation, losing that "Strength" could have carried over into the Vote. In the Candidacy mechanics it's a meaningful number. It means you can likely hold and may even deserve a fief. That, coupled with low personal finances "might" be something the Vote mechanic would still consider. It'd make sense to do that, gamewise, to keep Lords from becoming impoverished just because they were effective Lords. (The mechanics for AI Lords and the Player are the same, mostly. TW tends to not like "special" mechanics for players.)

I do think that you already having three fiefs factored into it as well. IF the fief you led the Siege for isn't nestled in among your already owned fiefs, the desirable distance mechanic could have been applied and/or there was just a Lord that was more needy than you.


Candidacy Mechanics are "known" inasmuch as what they were at the time of that posting. The "intent" there should be plainly carried over in any patches as long as the mechanic still works. IMO, it still works/worked just fine to keep Lords financed, so I don't see any reason why TW would make significant changes there.

[Jack Niggleson]

Messaggio originale di Morkonan:

Messaggio originale di Jack Niggleson:

I thought it was fixed since I've been able to win three fiefs so far, but apparently % and rep with faction lords along with influence expenditure are still completely meaningless. For context I took Balgard and was in the running to get the fief. After spending 100 influence, my share of the vote was 34% to 33 for both the other candidates. Didn't get the fief of course.

Now you could say, sure, Monchug overruled me in favor of himself or a lord with better rep with him than me, except that clearly isn't the case. I have 100 rep with him and the lord who got the fief is some southern empire turncoat nobody who definitely does not have anything near that.

Adding insult to injury, I know that after losing 400 men and two companions I've had since day 30 (it's now day 811) to take the city, this loser is just going to lose it in a few months because he'll either be incapable of defending it with his tiny tier 3 babby clan army or it'll just rebel because AI lords are dumb as a sack of bricks and never do anything to raise settlement loyalty to prevent rebellions.

Just for reference, these are the Fief Candidacy mechanics at the version of the date of the posting:

https://steamcommunity.com/app/261550/discussions/0/4910566145636720439/?tscn=1597597559

Now, once candidates are chosen, as far as my experience goes if you are really a great candidate, you'll likely get the fief unless you already have several and another candidate has good strength, but no fiefs or, relative to other Lords, has fewer fiefs than they should for their Strength.

AFAIK, and in my experience, not one darn thing to do with "relationships" has anything to do with fief voting mechanics. It's never had anything to do with Candidacy, either. My own father-in-law, who loves me since I was the only nearsighted fool dumb enough to marry his spawn, who presents a countenance capable of scaring paint off any wall within thirty yards that isn't fast enough to move out of the way, has never once voted in favor of his son-in-law getting so much as a outhouse.

Anyway... :)

Considering candidacy mechanics, I'd think several factors may carry over that effect Lord decisions. For my own experience, "Strength" isn't necessarily one of them nor is personal (inventory) Wealth. (I generally end up powerful and rich, when the game's Campaign AI isn't busted...) Distance is, IMO, still A Big Deal ™ as far as how the vote swings. There's some "sense" in that, at least.

BUT, Clan Tier seems to matter as well, even for nonsensical awards. (Some ditz, who was lucky enough to be born into a high tier Clan, gets a fief that he has to charter a bus just to visit it on the other side of the map??) As long as the candidate doesn't have some form of overwhelming "score" derived from Candidacy mechanics, I think Clan Tier has a huge influence among powerful candidates. A poor, but decently strong, Lord may still have an advantage, but maybe not an overwhelming one. It's still, IMO, pretty strong, though.

I think the process after candidacy is... unfinished. At that point, I think some magic beans are thrown into the air and Lords just randomly pic a candidate if they have positive amounts of Influence unless the Candidacy mechanics have some sort of overwhelming result, like a strong Lord with a Clan Tier that practically demands he receive a fief and who could be experiencing money problems. (TW loves them some "economicks balances.")

And, my father-in-law's actions, may he rot in that bubbling pool of a cesspit he calls a castle surrounded by the rest of his muckraking brood, make as much sense there as any other Lord's.

Note: On your specific situation, losing that "Strength" could have carried over into the Vote. In the Candidacy mechanics it's a meaningful number. It means you can likely hold and may even deserve a fief. That, coupled with low personal finances "might" be something the Vote mechanic would still consider. It'd make sense to do that, gamewise, to keep Lords from becoming impoverished just because they were effective Lords. (The mechanics for AI Lords and the Player are the same, mostly. TW tends to not like "special" mechanics for players.)

I do think that you already having three fiefs factored into it as well. IF the fief you led the Siege for isn't nestled in among your already owned fiefs, the desirable distance mechanic could have been applied and/or there was just a Lord that was more needy than you.


Candidacy Mechanics are "known" inasmuch as what they were at the time of that posting. The "intent" there should be plainly carried over in any patches as long as the mechanic still works. IMO, it still works/worked just fine to keep Lords financed, so I don't see any reason why TW would make significant changes there.

I'm clan tier five and yeah, I have the three fiefs, but there is one other clan ahead of me with four. I agree that it's the most likely explanation, but it's still annoying.

[Gummiel]

Messaggio originale di Jack Niggleson:

Messaggio originale di AntiAce:

I believe that before anything else is considered, your faction leader will check if anyone else in the faction doesn't own a fief.

Most of the faction leaders will grant one fief to all who serve under them, that's why you got your own fief when you first joined as a nobody yourself. So if your faction has a LOT of lords, or a lot of changing-hands, it'll be really hard to get a new fief.

I'm aware of this. The lord who got Balgard already had a castle. The khuzaits also don't have many clans, just the ones they started with, plus two imperials (including this guy) who both had fiefs at the time of the vote.

It also said that the "council was split" despite the fact that my vote % was higher.

Ehmm yeah 34/33/33 is as split as the vote can be, considering the game doesn't show decimals for it, and for that reason honeslty that might just be how it end up with a perfect split (~33.3333...%(aka. 1/3) for each candidate). Which is honeslty very likely when we consider the fact you did state later that your faction had few lords only, the less lords to vote, the more likely a complete split becomes