Influence gives you cities and cities give you influence.

[pixartist]

This concepts is super ****ty because it means that every single kingdom will end with the king having a runaway influence explosion by giving himself every single city. Overruling political decisions should cost this king MUCH more, especially against a strong opposition it should be so expensive that it can cost the king his head. Currently it's so cheap that there is not reason for the king not to do it for every single decision since the returns are usually MUCH better.

 

[BattanianDruid]

Ideally there should be a bigger focus on relations with lords. A king giving himself a fief while he already has more fiefs than any other lord should cause a negative relations penalty that is bigger the less well off each individual lord is.

For example if Boyar Harish has three fiefs and Boyar Bogaru has two and the king gives himself a fourth fief Boyar Harish gets a -1 relations and Boyar Bogaru gets a -2. Then Boyar Kumipa over there who has no fiefs at all might get a -9. -4 for each fief the king has over him and an extra -5 because he's still landless and the king is withholding lands from him.

Meanwhile giving fiefs to other lords wouldn't give any minuses and would instead give something like a +5 bonus to the lord being given the fief.

A king who hordes all the castles will indeed end up with immense influence and could use that to give himself more castles. But lords who have a strong dislike of their king have a much higher chance to turn traitor.

Hopefully in addition to this there'd be some court intrigue mechanic worked in. Lords could form conspiracies to usurp the throne or have the king disposed of. Lords who dislike the king enough will trigger these conspiracies and lords who dislike the king will be proportionally easier to influence into joining the conspiracy and, upon gaining enough strength, can trigger a civil war.

Maybe make it possible to hire an assassin if you have a very high roguery skill and have the king assassinated in the same way. You still need a backing of a lot of lords to pull it off but you get to skip the costly civil war, kill the thing, and usurp the throne in the same way Caladog did.

 

[D0c1]

there is a policy that makes king overruling cost double influence, i think.

 

[Bramborough]

Yeh, Dethert gives out castles like candy (in my current playthrough, anyway). I've got four, despite having abstained or even voted against myself on the last couple. But he keeps all the damn towns for himself (and that's even with the double-cost overrule policy in effect).

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

king having a runaway influence explosion by giving himself every single city

Doesn't seem to play out like that, Khan gave me 5 town I asked for (I'm greedy) so far and other stuff to other Clans I voted for, friends help out friends.
I always have more influence then him because I'm more proactive and skilled at warfare so my dungeon is always full of enemy lords.
If he did hate everyone and keep all the land it still wouldn't worse then warband's ultra late 'you waited too long' endgame where all the lords leave the realm and the AI kings own everything but gots no lords.

 

[Niomedes]

Ideally there should be a bigger focus on relations with lords. A king giving himself a fief while he already has more fiefs than any other lord should cause a negative relations penalty that is bigger the less well off each individual lord is.

For example if Boyar Harish has three fiefs and Boyar Bogaru has two and the king gives himself a fourth fief Boyar Harish gets a -1 relations and Boyar Bogaru gets a -2. Then Boyar Kumipa over there who has no fiefs at all might get a -9. -4 for each fief the king has over him and an extra -5 because he's still landless and the king is withholding lands from him.

Meanwhile giving fiefs to other lords wouldn't give any minuses and would instead give something like a +5 bonus to the lord being given the fief.

A king who hordes all the castles will indeed end up with immense influence and could use that to give himself more castles. But lords who have a strong dislike of their king have a much higher chance to turn traitor.

Hopefully in addition to this there'd be some court intrigue mechanic worked in. Lords could form conspiracies to usurp the throne or have the king disposed of. Lords who dislike the king enough will trigger these conspiracies and lords who dislike the king will be proportionally easier to influence into joining the conspiracy and, upon gaining enough strength, can trigger a civil war.

Maybe make it possible to hire an assassin if you have a very high roguery skill and have the king assassinated in the same way. You still need a backing of a lot of lords to pull it off but you get to skip the costly civil war, kill the thing, and usurp the throne in the same way Caladog did.

Civil wars and rebellions, anyone ?

 

[Yyrkroon]

Yes, I recommend the devs read The Dictator's Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics

Or at least watch the CCP Gray short version: Rules for Rulers.

 

[KaelusVonSestiaf]

Doesn't seem to play out like that, Khan gave me 5 town I asked for (I'm greedy) so far and other stuff to other Clans I voted for, friends help out friends.
I always have more influence then him because I'm more proactive and skilled at warfare so my dungeon is always full of enemy lords.
If he did hate everyone and keep all the land it still wouldn't worse then warband's ultra late 'you waited too long' endgame where all the lords leave the realm and the AI kings own everything but gots no lords.

My king, Caladog, keeps giving himself every single fief. He has 15k influence. Relations do not matter, I conquered 3 cities in a row, voted for him in 2 to get my relations with his clan to 100, and then voted for myself in the last one, the king gave it to himself.

Quite simply, the king has so much influence that he can override every single kingdom decision.

My clan is tier 3 and only has 1 castle. Nothing else. I've been spending the past 2 days conquering cities and voting for myself with 300 influence to try and get a single one, and he always took them. All for himself.

It's definitely playing out like OP says.

I think part of the reason my king has so much influence is that he keeps recruiting every single mercenary band he can get his hands on, and the influence they get goes directly to him. Between that, and a couple of policies that give influence to fief owners, he's just.. snowballing influence like crazy.

there is a policy that makes king overruling cost double influence, i think.

You gave me hope earlier today; I tried this. Policy went active without issue.

Caladog still gave himself 2 cities and a castle afterwards. He didn't care. I kept an eye on his influence, he seemed to lose around 200 influence each time he overrided a vote, WITH the policy active. He has 15k influence.

 

[karijus]

At first Sturgian king was taking everything, but now I often get cities or castles even if I dont want them, and sometimes king isn't one of the vote options, then someone else gets it, but I'm not sure why or when that happens.

 

[durbal]

Yep, there is too much passive influence gain. Some policies are absurd. Council of the Commons is especially egregious -- every notable gives +1 influence per day, and since a single town will often have 3 or so notables in in village and 5 or more in the town itself you're looking at 15ish influence per day per town. I have two towns and two castles right now and it's giving me +35/day. Maybe it should be 3.5? Did they forget a decimal somewhere?