Grand Council

[UluEgo]

What do you think of a "Grand Council" (of the faction you are in) where we can vote?

I get that idea after reading a similar discussion ("Declaration of War" - http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,47187.0.html)...

Let's say your king wants to declare war or peace or something important, and so he asks your vote...

You vote... Other lords vote... And then, we see the result...

"Voting" is already coded in the game... Then, it can be expanded in this way easily, imo...

Discuss please (because it is a kind of new gameplay, your relations with the other lords will be very important here)...

 

[danimusrex1]

That would only really work in Rhodoks, everyone else seems to  be a strict monarchy.  Kings historically did not like their opinions to be questioned.

 

[Cloud Breaker]

The weight of a vote must be proportional to the renown of the voter.

The vote of a lord with 1000 renown will weigh more than the vote of a lord with 200 renown.

 

[UluEgo]

The weight of a vote must be proportional to the renown of the voter.

The vote of a lord with 1000 renown will weigh more than the vote of a lord with 200 renown.

Agreed... And by this way, renown has more meaning... Maybe +1 vote power per 100 renown...

 

[Archonsod]

I suspect even attempting a vote would see you strung up in a gibbet in most factions Although that said, it would be a nice way to differentiate the Rhodocks from the other factions a little further if they were operating under a republic or democracy (guess you'd need to change the title of their leader though). Although if you're going that route, why not a different government for each faction? Monarchy for the Swadians, dictatorship for the Khanate, feudalism for the Nords and fundamentalism for the Vaegir. Would make one's choice of faction (or rebellion) a little more interesting.

 

[Cloud Breaker]

fundamentalism for the Vaegir.

Explain what the **** this is going to mean.

 

[italiano]

Although if you're going that route, why not a different government for each faction?

Just my opinion, but I don't like the idea of making factions different just for the sake of it. There should be logical reasoning to back it up.

 

[Zilberfrid]

Good, I like differentiation, it would make the change between rhodoks and swadians more distinct, and add to depth. A religiously based faction would be fun as well, though I am hesitant to make the vaegir's one.

 

[Constantinus]

I suspect even attempting a vote would see you strung up in a gibbet in most factions

Yeah. Though if the voting vould be officially called a council and voters counsellors. So they just tell their opinion to the Monarch/Khan only if and when he asks them ... influencing the monarchs opinion might as well work without anyone strung up...

 

[UluEgo]

I think, we forget something important: IT IS JUST A GAME...

I mean, we don't need to think of historical truths or somethings (Who cares king should be the only ruler..?). As I've mentioned before, voting has been already coded in the game... Therefore, the only thing I am suggesting is to expand its borders and effectiveness...

In addition, different government for each faction is a good idea but quite complicated code, imo... We shouldn't be so perfectionist (for now)...

 

[thaimodz]

If the theme is intent on strict monarchy, then voting could be done only in a few circumstances that the king asks for voting, or it might not completely decide the outcome (only the influence on the king's opinion)

 

[Constantinus]

If the theme is intent on strict monarchy, then voting could be done only in a few circumstances that the king asks for voting, or it might not completely decide the outcome (only the influence on the king's opinion)

I agree with the point. The fact medieval kings and Khans practically were not a strong dictators (even though their title did give them formal monarch power) should also be taken into consideration. That is why feudalism did exist at all. Also King or Khan will have a number of loyal councellors, who he will listen to when taking decisions. It is possible to do the voting a semi-closed one. So only lords who have the good rating ( relationships with the monarch X renown ) will be invited for the "vote" or "Councell" or something that fits the faction. 

 

[UluEgo]

I agree with the point. The fact medieval kings and Khans practically were not a strong dictators (even though their title did give them formal monarch power) should also be taken into consideration. That is why feudalism did exist at all. Also King or Khan will have a number of loyal councellors, who he will listen to when taking decisions. It is possible to do the voting a semi-closed one. So only lords who have the good rating ( relationships with the monarch X renown ) will be invited for the "vote" or "Councell" or something that fits the faction. 

Yesss...... That is certainly what I meant....

Shortly, a "Grand Council" (or something like this) is definitely suits the atmosphere of the game... Then, many things (like renown, relationships... etc.) can be more meaningful...

As a more important point: IF THE PLAYER CAN VOTE FOR THE DECISIONS, THEN HE/SHE CAN AFFECT THE GAMEPLAY DIRECTLY.

Vote for this idea please...

 

[FrisianDude]

Only with the Rhodoks, I think. Other kings might ask for advice, though. (Also, gibbeting goes a bit far considering how nice the kings are in M&B)