Voting For Who Gets What

Users who are viewing this thread

That term gets thrown around here way too often. That makes no sense if you're talking about the faction "snowballing" *cough puke*. Its merely relevant information on why you might want to vote for someone. Your over complicating the issue.
I referring to those who think if you send the most troops to a siege you should get the castle.

you are applying the general snowballing complaints against what I’m talking about, and that’s not what I’m saying snowballs. If the faction leader just keeps giving keeps and castles to the guys who throws the most at the battle, the same house is just gonna keep getting most of the keeps and castles.

if you are just wanting to have a little more information in the current system of how to tip those scales, I’m okay with that. You are misapplying my comment to broader issues due to the usage of the same word
 
I referring to those who think if you send the most troops to a siege you should get the castle.

you are applying the general snowballing complaints against what I’m talking about, and that’s not what I’m saying snowballs. If the faction leader just keeps giving keeps and castles to the guys who throws the most at the battle, the same house is just gonna keep getting most of the keeps and castles.

if you are just wanting to have a little more information in the current system of how to tip those scales, I’m okay with that. You are misapplying my comment to broader issues due to the usage of the same word

Your thinking in Binary. Never said "the one who captures it must get it" -never do i talk in absolutes. What I AM talking about is yes, getting more info on why Lord X or Y or Z is making a claim for it -as that keeps things interesting rather than just arbitrary. Again -whether a Lord was the exact Lord who started the Siege would be a FACTOR -NOT ABSOLUTE!! As there are plenty of factors to make such game decisions interesting.
 
Your thinking in Binary. Never said "the one who captures it must get it" -never do i talk in absolutes. What I AM talking about is yes, getting more info on why Lord X or Y or Z is making a claim for it -as that keeps things interesting rather than just arbitrary. Again -whether a Lord was the exact Lord who started the Siege would be a FACTOR -NOT ABSOLUTE!! As there are plenty of factors to make such game decisions interesting.

Step back for a second man.

You are replying to a comment that I replied to someone else.

we agree and I don’t think it’s a binary issue.

Others do. And that’s who I responded to
 
We need to be able to spend influence to get our name added to the vote. Then we can spend even more influence to sway the vote in our favor.

This would simulate Medieval politics much better. A powerful and influential lord sees a bit of land he wants and decides to press the issue by calling in old debts and cajoling the other lords into voting in his favor.

It would ultimately be pretty expensive, but it would give the player more agency in choosing what lands they can potentially get and what lands they don't.
 
While the system is somewhat mystified and needs to be explained, another issue is that there is no politicking with fellow vassals, it would be quite fun to engage in some mild intrigue to undermine other ambitious vassals and ensure you might get a better slot in the running in the future, but nothing like this exists at present.

From reading other posts, it seems it has something to do with: 1) whether or not you have a fief, 2) proximity of the captured area to existing fiefs, specifically castles only apparently, 3) whether or not your lord is a greedy mf, 4) participation in the army (not necessarily the fight per se), 5) clan rank is also apparently heavily weighed as well.

The main problem I have with this system is the relations issue with lords and nobles at present, some of it being cheesy (1 denar to get charm up), and others being broken. You should be able to grease the wheels if you will with fellow vassals, including your liege, through 1) your actions, 2) coin, 3) bailing them out of difficult situations, giving significant relations boosts for any of these items. It should not be unusual for an active lord/lady to get great relations with everyone assuming 1) you aren't voting against them constantly and 2) you have been doing things for them, helping them out. Due to the semi-broken relations system, coupled with the arcane mechanics of being in the running, and adding the extra lack of intrigue, it makes the system incredibly random and obnoxious at present.
 
Last edited:
We need to be able to spend influence to get our name added to the vote. Then we can spend even more influence to sway the vote in our favor.

This would simulate Medieval politics much better. A powerful and influential lord sees a bit of land he wants and decides to press the issue by calling in old debts and cajoling the other lords into voting in his favor.

It would ultimately be pretty expensive, but it would give the player more agency in choosing what lands they can potentially get and what lands they don't.

And I’d like the AI to do the same thing. So way you really are plotting and planning and cooperating for everything. Use the current system with these sorts of layers. A Ruler doesn’t want landless clans/houses under them, because if they do, clans will start to bolt
 
Back
Top Bottom