Change How Nobles Vote for Fiefs!

Should voting for fiefs be changed?

  • 1) Let me nominate a candidate (myself if I want!); this might cost me some influence.

    Votes: 13 86.7%
  • 2) Give every noble in the kingdom a basic vote and let them nominate, also at cost of influence

    Votes: 8 53.3%
  • 3) Supply data on current holdings for all nominees.

    Votes: 8 53.3%
  • 4) Randomize my voting position.

    Votes: 5 33.3%
  • 5) Permit spending influence after the basic vote is in to "move the needle".

    Votes: 6 40.0%
  • 6) Permit me to spend influence to prevent loss of Relations with nominees I didn't support.

    Votes: 7 46.7%

  • Total voters
    15

TechnoSarge

Recruit
Best answers
0
Please consider a different arrangement for voting.
As it is, it seems my vote is always last. The only thing that happens after I vote is that the ruler gets his chance to uphold the majority vote, or, as I understand it, consume his influence capital by overriding the vote.

While that's expeditious - it generally leaves me without a real choice! If we're voting on the new owner of a castle just taken, I'll see 72% support for candidate #1, 28% for candidate #2, and 0% for candidate #3. My choice is to vote a minimum amount on #1 - and piss off the two losers - vote maybe a large amount for #2 in hopes (why would I care?) of giving this guy the nod - and piss off the other 2, whether I'm successful or not, vote for #3 and assuredly lose my influence - and piss off the other 2 guys, OR ABSTAIN - which I do nearly 100% of the time. So effectively, I'm not a voting noble in this kingdom.

FAR better to let me go FIRST in the voting, choose MY OWN nominee... and then watch as nobles weigh in behind me. It would be instructive to see if I get any support if I nominate myself for a fief. Or, randomize my place in the voting. Maybe the leader of the army that took the fief gets first vote.

Item the Second: Very few nobles actually vote! Why? Because it costs them influence, which they may not have or not wish to burn when it's the currency that buys army cohesion. I object to this. When my liege's kingdom is boasting 20-30 nobles, I think they should ALL have their preferences noted in votes. After everyone got their basic vote in, they could then burn influence to bend the outcome. And here's another thought: make a nomination cost influence, rather than the basic vote!

As a player, I can't talk to nobles to see why they support who they do. I can't understand why the three clans nominated for a fief were chosen. (Along with everyone else - I get pissed off when I'm not even considered for ownership of a fief I just successfully sieged. Harrumph.) I DO see idiots who made not the first move to protect a newly-awarded fief lose it quickly and then get nominated again! If the AI aim is to levelize the ownership around the kingdom I can see why that clan might get nominated again, but why would the kingdom keep entrusting hard-won fiefs to incompetents??

Also as a player, I know really little about nominated nobles. It's not like I memorized all the kingdom's holdings in advance of a vote. I don't why I should choose Lord Clydesdale over anyone else. Did he just defect from Southern Empire and has no fief yet? I don't know. If I did, I might support him.

This business of automatically losing Relation with lords you didn't support doesn't work for me. I can't spend influence to keep up my Relations. I have a noble in my game who has made himself my everlasting enemy, just because he has been a candidate in 2/3 of my kingdom's fief awards and I haven't voted for him. I don't think that's reasonable.

So, could we please change the voting for fiefs to make them relevant? I think my suggestions would provide interesting choices for the player. Right now, I feel disenfranchised.
 

Liffy

Recruit
Best answers
0
I'm occasionally at a loss to how the 3 candidates are chosen. There are some factors that do come into play.
1. Clan has no fief
2. Clan owns an adjacent fief.

If you have no fief or currently have the adjacent one you are in with a good shout of getting nominated. In 3 recentish play throughs I got 3 batannian towns in close proximity to each other. I got the first by not voting for myself when being offered castles and dumped 100 influence on taking the first town. The second adjacent town I dont even think I had to contribute influence to secure it. The third though I again needed to max influence use to get it. In all these games I had the 3 towns by day 200ish but wasn't able to get another after. Mainly due to a stream of new nobles joining the faction.

Once you have a fief look to introduce policy that firstly gains you influence from your holdings and clan rank, and also policy that makes it harder for the ruling clan to accrue too much power and influence. Up until now I've had no problems getting these policies voted in. They will mean that the ruling clan will have to pick and choose when to over ride the vote because they will only have the influence to do it sparingly.

My current play through has been more challenging. I decided to Introduce a new mod that allows you to start wars with other factions and break up the sometimes predictable campaign pattern. I was hoping to secure an empire town as my first fief and work from there.

I kept getting awarded frontier castles on the sturgian border which I was given despite me not voting for myself. I just let them get re captured and in extreme cases stripped the garrisons and donated them to other settlements to speed up the process.i think I was awarded and lost 5 or 6 castles I didn't fancy taking on. Once I had a decent amount of influence I started a war with the western empire and formed an army to take legata.
Despite securing 65% of the vote the ruler clan over rode the decision and I turned to a mod to give me a hand. 'Keep own fief' allows you to take any settlement your kingdom captures for a configurable amount of influence. You dont even have to be present at the seige. The drawback is you make the decision to take it before you can move the army inside to populate a starter garrison. So in this case while I finally got legata I had to park all my troops inside while I ran around frantically recruiting.
It's not something I'd make a habit of using but it's a useful tool to have.

Once you have got a stream of influence from fiefs I find I vote on every capture decision to farm relations with the clans. I usually drop the minimum amount with the clan I have the lowest relations with, unless I'm not too bothered about raising it.

As for not many voting I think only one votes from each clan? Its usually only a few who vote those with influence to burn or butt kissing the ruler clan.
 
Best answers
0
I myself have recruited some lords who usually do okay for themselves, but now when I take a town I cannot for myself to have the fief despite my having taking the fief.
 

TechnoSarge

Recruit
Best answers
0
Keep own fief mod allows you to do this.
I, personally, am not interested in a mod. I wish TaleWorlds to hear their players and fix the issues themselves.

As I said in my original post - voting for fiefs makes little sense because the winner is really chosen before the options are presented to the player. TW has an opportunity to improve their product, and I hope they do it.
 

Liffy

Recruit
Best answers
0
I think in warband the mechanism for determining who got a fief was less complex and therefore more easy to determine. I think also many feel aggrieved at the current system and there have been more than a few occasions I've felt that on some occasions the fief you covet will not be yours no matter what you do.

Its definitely something that needs to be addressed and is in a very long queue. I personally prefer to play a near vanilla version of the game but found that particularly difficult once you break free from whatever faction you have tied yourself to and create your own kingdom.

If it wasn't for the mods available for this game I would have stopped playing until the vanilla version is more playable. The issues with relations and deflection at present make it tedious to the point where I'd rather do something else with my free time.
 

Apocal

Squire
Best answers
0
I think in warband the mechanism for determining who got a fief was less complex and therefore more easy to determine. I think also many feel aggrieved at the current system and there have been more than a few occasions I've felt that on some occasions the fief you covet will not be yours no matter what you do.
Warband's method for assigning fiefs was not only was much more complicated, it was also completely opaque to the player.

R = renown.
t = number of towns.
c = number of castles.
V = number of villages.
? = random number from 50-99.
Bonus = 1.5 (for leader of party that took the fief).
K = relationship with king (just for player)

Also as a player, I know really little about nominated nobles. It's not like I memorized all the kingdom's holdings in advance of a vote. I don't why I should choose Lord Clydesdale over anyone else. Did he just defect from Southern Empire and has no fief yet? I don't know. If I did, I might support him.
If you hover over their picture on the voting screen, it will show their owned fiefs.