Voting System - It needs an overhaul.

[ButtonSmasherr]

I'm currently on my singleplay gameplay file where I currently conquered some cities (I'm a King). Now that I have more than 2 vassals, I never show up in the voting system again. I have the most influence of them all 2000+. I conquered all the cities with my own army, but still cant keep them.
We need a voting system that makes it possible to vote on more Vassals or as King you can override any voting with of course the cost of more influence than normal to keep those cities.
It's now just a bit broken imo and ruins the experience for me as I don't feel like taking cities since my Vassals will lose them anyway due to low Loyalty.

 

[Lesbosisles]

I'm currently on my singleplay gameplay file where I currently conquered some cities (I'm a King). Now that I have more than 2 vassals, I never show up in the voting system again. I have the most influence of them all 2000+. I conquered all the cities with my own army, but still cant keep them.
We need a voting system that makes it possible to vote on more Vassals or as King you can override any voting with of course the cost of more influence than normal to keep those cities.
It's now just a bit broken imo and ruins the experience for me as I don't feel like taking cities since my Vassals will lose them anyway due to low Loyalty.

I remember, some of the devs mentioned here that voting system has no logic now, vassals pick some random policy and propose it without taking the effects into consideration. I'm not sure if it is still a thing. @Duh_TaleWorlds , maybe you could unveil it for us? I'm really interested if something's been done on that part 2 years after the EA started.

Also, the ability to keep a fief for yourself as a ruler should be implemented. I want my greedy-tyrant-ruler roleplay!

 

[Death2Tyrants]

Warband had a simple but elegant approach to fief allocation. The king has the power to grant it to whomever. Some nobles will like it, some nobles will hate it and this is reflected by relations.

If you allow relations to deteriorate by too much, nobles leave.

It made a lot of sense and it worked.

Not sure why they decided it was a good thing to mess around with that winning formula. Perhaps it's because they didn't know how to implement a relations table with ever changing agents. I'm assuming that's also the reason why relations are clan based and not individualised.

It's a good thing a modder was able to implement individualised relations so at least there's hope that it would be fixed once the game is released.

 

[Bjorn The Dead]

Warband had a simple but elegant approach to fief allocation. The king has the power to grant it to whomever. Some nobles will like it, some nobles will hate it and this is reflected by relations.

If you allow relations to deteriorate by too much, nobles leave.

It made a lot of sense and it worked.

They had to enhance this old system somehow but instead they implemented the braindead currency aka influence system into the game.
I am really just so salty about this system, maybe, because how could TW thought this was good thing to implement or I was thinking this would be a good system before EA. Oh man, how fool I was.

 

[five bucks]

I'm currently on my singleplay gameplay file where I currently conquered some cities (I'm a King). Now that I have more than 2 vassals, I never show up in the voting system again. I have the most influence of them all 2000+. I conquered all the cities with my own army, but still cant keep them.
We need a voting system that makes it possible to vote on more Vassals or as King you can override any voting with of course the cost of more influence than normal to keep those cities.
It's now just a bit broken imo and ruins the experience for me as I don't feel like taking cities since my Vassals will lose them anyway due to low Loyalty.

To me, the simplest solution which I have heard someone else say before, is that the leader of the army that captures a fief should always be a candidate on the vote for receiving that fief.

 

[Lesbosisles]

To me, the simplest solution which I have heard someone else say before, is that the leader of the army that captures a fief should always be a candidate on the vote for receiving that fief.

That's a good one. Though, the system should also prioritize some more points:

1) The one who's taken the fief, should always be a first candidate.
2) A noble with a fief, closest to the captured one should also be a candidate (makes it easier for them to manage fiefs which are located close to each other)
3) A noble with no fiefs should always be a candidate.

And I'd also rather expand the number of candidates somehow. Just three is a bit strange to me.

 

[MostBlunted]

Why also not more candidates?

 

[svelok]

Warband had a simple but elegant approach to fief allocation. The king has the power to grant it to whomever. Some nobles will like it, some nobles will hate it and this is reflected by relations.

Not sure why they decided it was a good thing to mess around with that winning formula

They just made the player operate on the same rules as the AI. The underlying system isn't actually that different for NPC kings.

 

[Death2Tyrants]

They just made the player operate on the same rules as the AI. The underlying system isn't actually that different for NPC kings.

Yes that's what they said. I just don't buy it.