Hello everyone!

I'm Tobias Bodlund, Scripter on the Crusader Kings II team, and I bid you all welcome to this week's dev diary for Crusader kings II: Charlemagne.

Autumn is coming in Sweden but the birds are still singing, though sometimes out of tune.

Today we'll be discussing some new changes that affect how you rule your realm. Some of these things are obviously patch content, while some are locked to having the Charlemagne expansion.

The first thing we've done is to add a vassal limit. This is exactly what it sounds like - a limit to how many vassals a ruler can have without receiving penalties. Every vassal of count tier or above will count against this limit. The vassal limit will be higher for rulers of higher tiers, and for rulers with higher diplomacy skill. Another factor that increases the limit is your dynasty's prestige. You can also affect your vassal limit by changing your Centralization Law (this touches on an important new law mechanic - more on this later in this dev diary).

So what are the penalties of going over your vassal limit? Well, you will immediately get a penalty to the taxes and levies for all your vassals. This penalty increases exponentially, and if you go far enough over the limit you will get no vassal taxes or levies at all.

The second danger of being over the limit is that when your ruler dies, there is a chance of any vassal simply becoming independent instead of swearing fealty to your heir. The risk of this happening increases the higher over the limit you are. Vassals who are geographically more distant from your capital are the ones who are most likely to declare independence.



We've also made a very important change to how laws depend on technology. Many laws are now unlocked by advancing your Legalism technology. Higher levels in this tech are needed to unlock higher levels of Centralization, Crown Authority, Levy and Taxation laws and Viceroy laws (again, just keep reading to find out more about this). This means that you will see a big difference in the tools available to organize your realm early game vs late game.

With these changes, Legalism no longer directly increases your demesne size limit, this modifier has been removed. Also, the short reign penalty modifier has been moved to the Majesty tech.

So, what does the Centralization Law do now? Well, firstly, it's a demesne law and so applies to your entire realm. Secondly, it has five tiers, going from fully decentralized to fully centralized. Lower centralization grants you a bonus to Vassal Limit, while high Centralization grants a bonus to Demesne Size Limit and a penalty to Vassal Limit. This presents the player with an interesting choice - do you want to focus on a larger, less centralized realm or on a stronger personal demesne but having a harder time of organizing your many vassals?

How legalism unlocks laws will be moddable to a large extent.

Now, to viceroys... With the Charlemagne DLC, it will be possible for a non-tribal emperor tier character to appoint viceroys to rule any kingdom or duchy titles that the emperor himself holds. This is effectively a lifetime governorship, where the viceroy becomes a vassal of the empire. Any landed vassal of count tier or above can be granted a viceroyalty. However, the viceroy does not own the title, but rather rules in his liege's name. When he dies, the title goes back to the liege. For all other purposes, the viceroy functions as a normal vassal. One character can hold several viceroyalties.



The ability to appoint viceroys is unlocked by the Legalism tech, and kingdom viceroyalties are unlocked much earlier than duchy viceroyalties.

Viceroys will gain an opinion bonus to the liege who grants the title, so should usually be quite loyal. However, should a viceroy mount a successful rebellion or otherwise become independent he will gain the granted kingdom or duchy as a permanent title.

We have also made some changes to regencies. The essence of it is that a character's regent is now more of a conscious actor, and will not automatically act in the liege's interest. A regent who dislikes you will be somewhat likely to make things difficult for you, and certain types of personality traits will also be likely to cause problems. Diplomatic actions may be blocked if the regent does not approve, for example. A friendly regent is your best bet for getting things done your way, but there are also other considerations. Any regent is likely to prefer seeing you married to someone of their own religion and culture, for example.



Since choosing your regent has now become much more important, you will be able to name a regent beforehand, via "Award Honorary Title" in a character's diplomacy interface. Your Designated Regent is officially recognized as the one chosen to take the reins if a regency is required.

In addition to the things mentioned, there are a number of smaller changes intended to make ruling your realm more interesting, and some intended to just make it easier. One example of this is the possibility for a councilmember to help you assign recently acquired titles for you if you have a lot of them.

In the final dev diary next week we will be talking about the new tribal mechanics. See you then!

 

[Mathrafalovich]

Please change this. It won't be fun to have some random dude go independant on me for no particular reason, without declaring war or at least giving me the CB.

Hello, and welcome to the feudal system. Please enjoy your pre-Wesphalian chaos.

I hope that Persian viceroys will localize to "Satraps" for the duke level, and "Grand Satraps" for the king level.

 

[blackchoas]

Hold on can we combine Viceroys and Custom Kingdoms to make up our very own Vice royalties?

Like if I control say half of Andalusia but can't usurp the title or don't want to could I make a custom kingdom down there, name a viceroy to control that land and basically make a new kingdom using my viceroys?

 

[Secret Master]

I didn't see this mentioned specifically, so I might as well ask.

If you have elective law for your empire, will de jure Viceroys be electors?

If yes, then should I presume that there is now no way to abuse elective in huge empires by just not having duchies or kingdoms? (vassal limit + viceroys acting as electors = must have real elections now)

If no, then am I right in assuming that vassals and Viceroys will be very angry at you for hoarding elector titles, so you can't hide from the elector title held penalty anymore?

 

[clockworkBabbag]

If yes, then should I presume that there is now no way to abuse elective in huge empires by just not having duchies or kingdoms? (vassal limit + viceroys acting as electors = must have real elections now)

If no, then am I right in assuming that vassals and Viceroys will be very angry at you for hoarding elector titles, so you can't hide from the elector title held penalty anymore?

Well, it's not like you ever needed to "abuse" elective succession by hoarding titles in the first place. As long as you only have one elective title, it's essentially succession by appointment even if all the other elector titles are owned by others unless you've been acting like a tyrant or are trying to put some inbred, 5-year-old girl as your heir.

 

[Secret Master]

Well, it's not like you ever needed to "abuse" elective succession by hoarding titles in the first place. As long as you only have one elective title, it's essentially succession by appointment even if all the other elector titles are owned by others unless you've been acting like a tyrant or are trying to put some inbred, 5-year-old girl as your heir.

No, you misunderstand.

Under the current system, you simply have no elector titles in existence. No elector titles (or one) mean you can appoint your heir.

Under the new system, it appears that the vassal limit will make this difficult in large realms because you can't run a 400 holding empire with just counts.

But, without knowing how viceroys work in relation to elective succession, I'm not sure how the new viceroy mechanic will work with this old exploit.

It looks like you must have vassals who would be valid electors in an empire once you get to a certain size under the new rules. My question, then, is whether or not viceroys will count as electors, which eliminates the exploit one way, or whether they will be angry at you for just holding on to the elector titles yourself (you must create the titles to before you can grant viceroys).

If the answer is, "Viceroys cannot act as electors, and no one gets mad if you hoard valid electors titles to yourself and only issue them as viceroyalties," then the abuse will continue under different terms.

 

[NewbieOne]

The second danger of being over the limit is that when your ruler dies, there is a chance of any vassal simply becoming independent instead of swearing fealty to your heir. The risk of this happening increases the higher over the limit you are. Vassals who are geographically more distant from your capital are the ones who are most likely to declare independence.

Might there be a chance to include some other factors? For example the Autonomous Vassals crown authority law. My reasoning here is that AV is the closest thing (apart from tribal vassalage perhaps) to independence, where vassals are barely considered part of your realm, they do paint the map in your colour and can't be called into wars by independents or foreign vassals, but otherwise they're practically independent, like little kings in their duchies and counties, as the description says. So it would make sense for that particular law (as opposed to even 'Limited' but still some measure of 'Crown Authority') to be somewhat conducive to independent upon the death of a ruler — actually either the liege or the vassal's death.

For tribals, I guess vassalage is a personal relationship anyway, an unequal alliance as the mechanics make it look like, so all the more should a ruler change at least result in a decision whether to continue the vassalage, nope?

With these changes, Legalism no longer directly increases your demesne size limit, this modifier has been removed. Also, the short reign penalty modifier has been moved to the Majesty tech.

Good idea making Short Reign depend on Majesty. This said, I do think the level Legalism should influence the smoothness of successions because legalism was all about the privileges and rights of the secular ruler. It was even a factor to put forward the 'divine right of kings' through sheer heredity (roughly similar to more modern legitimism) without even needing official coronations (the 'le roi est mort, vive le roi!' kind of thing).

... So... how about making it so that both techs reduce Short Reign? Perhaps one would reduce the size of the penalty and the other the length of the period?

While looking at Short Reign, perhaps to some extent loyalties should transfer from father to son (some guy who grew up in the court of his dad who was your king's biggest fan in the realm shouldn't really start with a penalty; a small bonus could be more appropriate, actually) and vassals of elective monarchies should be more rebellious when they opposed their current ruler in the elections (although they might also think that their own candidate 'owes them' to counterbalance that).

do you want to focus on a larger, less centralized realm or on a stronger personal demesne but having a harder time of organizing your many vassals?

... Or are you a 'national king' who has no plans of expansion but consolidates power inside his realm of 10-12 counties (where he can go NK) or even 20 (demesne + two dukes will suffice).

Also, using the centralization law to give you higher vassal limit will force you as the liege to say no to those precious demense size modifiers, which can also be weakening.

Good old pros and cons, enabling different styles to be played (hopefully also by the AI, based on traits etc.) for more variety.

Obviously, maxing your demesne limit with techs and laws will be more advantageous in power terms to the ruler of something like Georgia, Denmark, or Scotland, possibly Naples or Aragon, as it might basically allow NK mode, at least on the county level, right? How far above 10 counties will kings with decent Stewardship and Steward counsellor be able to get (max/average)?

Since viceroys are given through an interaction, the player must actually hold the kingdom title in order to give it as a viceroy. So pressing the claim of a vassal on a kingdom outside your realm will give you a vassal king and not a viceroy.

On the other hand, will viceroys be more efficient, better received by their vassals or otherwise different when they have a claim on the title, are descended from the royal family as opposed to being mere counts etc.? This is a little similar to the roleplaying side of having your ruler's brother or uncle as the steward of the realm, where it seems like a little more than just an appointed magistracy is at play because it ties into the relationship between the ruling family and the subjects when a kinsman helps govern the realm. It's kinda like being a manager in a family business, too. As in suppose your family owns a pub or petrol station or grocery store and you are named the manager. You might not be the owner, sure, but it's different from being a random hired manager/exec, if you catch my drift.

Factions against a viceroy work in the same manner as factions against a king. However, vassals to a viceroy can not overthrow this vassal.

It could be cool if they could plot to 'see the viceroyalty of X granted to a different ruler' and somewhat constricting if they couldn't. I'm thinking about rivals at this point, especially someone who is equally as powerful or more powerful than the viceroy (if you compare that rival magnate to the viceroy's hereditary holdings or even the entire power commanded by the viceroyalty).

Duchy viceroyalties are due to the technology requirement available in late game only. By that time you will probably have a lot of vassals already with regular duchies.

I fear they could mess up the feudal landscape a bit and be a little bit redundant under ACA, where the high nobility is chafing under your Lowborn administration. There'd be little difference between a viceroy and a non-hereditary duke. Also, I feel that viceroys should be somewhat more culturally foreign to Western Europe than BYZ, Persia, Slavs, even standard Muslim realms. Vassal limit and demesne shouldn't be as easy to work around as appointing grey-haired viceroys for anything above the limit. On the other hand, that ability makes it worthwhile to rise to the imperial tier and combines well with the post-Roman imperial legacy and its differences from the usual feudal kingship.

Also, will viceroy-held duchies still count against your duchy limit?

- A viceroy is not prohibited in any way, and can create duchies.

I do think there is one very significant limitation: he can't interact with himself, so he can't just grant himself an hereditary title, right? Although he can grant any number and rank of titles to his relatives.

... Which gets me to this point: If a viceroy is seen as dumping titles on his relatives, I think the liege should be pretty upset and have grounds to punish and/or remove the viceroy. I only presume non-greedy AI won't go too far in doing that.

One more question: Will viceroys be immune to the 'unlanded sons' penalty and relatives asking for titles? My fear is that a primogeniture count elevated to viceroy will hit the Unlanded Sons penalty and start handing out the kingdom's vassal titles rather than his own hereditary titles to his relatives because the game will not 'know' the difference between 'owned' and vicariously held titles. Will you do something to prevent this?

Historically speaking, in Europe holding a viceroyalty as a hereditary count wouldn't be seen as entitling you to make sure every able-bodied male in your family becomes a duke. I suppose even in Muslim realms that'd have been a no-no.

- A viceroy can create title as a regular vassal can.

If a viceroy creates a kingdom or duchy, will it be a 'vice' title and owned to his liege, or will the viceroy gain that title as a hereditary, normally owned title? For example the HRE appoints the Duke of Saxony as Viceroy of k_Germany, and he wins a crusade for k_Greece: will Greece become a viceroyalty under the HRE or a normal hereditary kingdom for the viceroy? Suppose it's not a a duke, but, let's say, he's count of something, e.g. Count of Padua promoted to Viceroy of Italy. He uses the resources of k_Italy to win the crusade, and the Kaiser is still the King of Italy. It would seem improper to make that count a normal hereditary king, don't you think?

Another problem: Some viceroys under empires may legitimately inherit normal kingdoms. For example the HRE appoints the Duke of Saxony as Viceroy of k_Germany. And then he inherits Galicia or Scotland or whatever or gets elected in Denmark or some rebels somewhere win a claimant faction war for his claim, so he becomes king. He shouldn't be reduced to non-hereditary status just because he happens to hold a viceroyalty on top of his regular duke title.

Or: Viceroy has a bunch of counties as his hereditary holdings. He creates the corresponding duchies while being the viceroy. Those ducal titles shouldn't accrue to his liege, I think, at least as long as the viceroy was a duke before and didn't use his viceroyalty to up himself one tier from count to duke.

- Only emperors can have viceroy-laws

Can that be changed before release? My driving concern here is the Ban of Croatia, who basically defines 'viceroy' for mediaeval Europe. His liege was the King of Hungary, though, no imperial title there (although the power and size of real-life Hungary was often enough to create CK2's e_Carpathia).

- Opinion will have an effect, but some interactions will be difficult - for instance to convince your regent to marry someone of another religion and culture.

Regarding your own character's marriage to someone of a different religion and culture from the regent's, though, I'm not sure it really would have been automatic like that. Your mother or stepmother might care (e.g. a BYZ princess regent-ing in HRE), but I don't think a random counsellor from a different part of the world likely would. For example I really don't think a Frisian chaplain ending up as the regent of Hungary really would block marriages to non-Frisians. A Jewish regent outside of Beta Israel or Khazaria probably wouldn't think like that, either. A Muslim regent in a non-Muslim country would still not want your ruler to marry a Muslim woman because to his mind a Muslim woman must not marry a non-Muslim, though a Muslim might want to marry a non-Muslim woman.


***

Okay, one more thing: Now that there are viceroys in the game, and that you're encourage to make them, how about making the Kaiser actually hold created k_Italy and k_Burgundy, as he historically did (and as in CK1, although there wasn't an imperial tier back there, so he was just a regular three-king)?

And one more: How about forcing the Byzzie AI and 'strongly encouraging' a human-controlled Byzantine Emperor to appoint lifetime viceroys instead of hereditary dukes and kings?

It would be quite Byzzie-style to make you a big-time despots (territorial despots were more viceroys than kings anyway) and caesar of the empire on account of your ability, merit and influence, even though your dad was a small-fry local aristocrat, and put your son back to that same level when you die. Families ('dynasties') with plenty of past viceroys would still get dynastic prestige to lift their status up a bit.

The Mongols used a similar system with regard to Russian princes — the yarlyk. That's how some of them became more prominent than the rest, effectively viceroys for the Golden Horde.

***

Oh, and I'd almost forget. Slavs didn't really have huge feudal nobles on the count and duke level. They relied on lifetime magistrates (palatines/voivodes, castellans/comites, starosts etc.), even from a very early, low-tech period. It was not just a lack of heredity, those guys really were appointed magistrates, governors and not proper vassal rulers. Would it be possible to swap things around and make it so that Slavs start with viceroys and actually to research tech in order to get normal hereditary vassals?

***

Edit: Well, and perhaps with viceroys on the one hand, it could make sense — not now, of course, but maybe in a later DLC — to include allods on the other side of the spectrum? Where viceroyalties are typically non-hereditary kingdoms, allods would typically be super-hereditary baronies that are the family estate in the strictest sense, i.e. not even really fiefs? Thus much harder to revoke or even tax (say, taxed half the rate for normal feudal vassals)?

Outside rulers bending the knee through diplovassalization could be automatically given allodial status as a duct-tape solution in order to reflect the different treatment of dependent rulers versus normal feudatories to whom you outsourced the governance of your own stuff, raising them 'from dirt'. Perhaps the same approach would make sense in regard to formerly tribal vassals who go feudal on account of their greater (past) independence. (Think about the 'tribal' stem duchies of Germany as opposed to a late-period non-royal English or French duke.)

Then we'd have a more complete spectrum, ranging from less than feudal tenure (viceroy) to more than feudal tenure (allod), with feudal tenure being the standard.

 

[jakt]

Hold on can we combine Viceroys and Custom Kingdoms to make up our very own Vice royalties?

Like if I control say half of Andalusia but can't usurp the title or don't want to could I make a custom kingdom down there, name a viceroy to control that land and basically make a new kingdom using my viceroys?

Yeah I'd like to know this as well. later in the game I might come up towards the vassal limit on kings and would rather have a viceroyalty of 'spain' instead of one in leon, galicia, aragon etc.

Secondly if the man I chose to be viceroyal is landed in Lisbon only can make him viceroy of all the kingdoms in Iberia?

 

[clockworkBabbag]

No, you misunderstand.

No, I knew exactly what you said. It's just that you're wrong about needing to do that in order to always get the heir you want, because it's already incredibly easy to get vassals to vote for your preferred heir. Elective is a tremendously strong succession law without resorting to abusive, gamey methods.

 

[Aardvark Bellay]

No, I knew exactly what you said. It's just that you're wrong about needing to do that in order to always get the heir you want, because it's already incredibly easy to get vassals to vote for your preferred heir. Elective is a tremendously strong succession law without resorting to abusive, gamey methods.

He did'nt say it.
He said it's an exploit and abuse.

 

[AdamPA1006]

I like this diary, really warming up to this DLC.

 

[clockworkBabbag]

He did'nt say it.
He said it's an exploit and abuse.

Technically, sure. But my point was that it's not like it's an exploit that's really that worthwhile to do, seeing as how you can get exactly the same result 90%+ of the time while making use of the feudal system as intended, without the hassle of having thousands of counts as direct vassals. It's not anything that's actually powerful enough to be that concerned about.

 

[Andrzej I]

Still no answer if viceroys are DLC or patch material? Please magnusjk! And can we make viceroys in the history files?

Now, to viceroys... With the Charlemagne DLC, it will be possible for a non-tribal emperor tier character to appoint viceroys

Emphasis mine

 

[Jokolytic]

*delurks*

It looks like no-one has noticed what is by far the biggest and most important improvement with this DLC, one which more than justifies the price all on its own.

Look again at that third screenshot - "Kaiserin Bertha of the Holy Roman Empire"

Kaiserin Bertha of the Holy Roman Empire.

I've been waiting two years for that leading "the"! I thought this day would never come.

It's still missing on the first screenshot though.

*relurks*

I haven't laughed that hard in a week at least. Thank you so much for helping my depression.

 

[Aardvark Bellay]

Technically, sure. But my point was that it's not like it's an exploit that's really that worthwhile to do, seeing as how you can get exactly the same result 90%+ of the time while making use of the feudal system as intended, without the hassle of having thousands of counts as direct vassals. It's not anything that's actually powerful enough to be that concerned about.

Meh, i'd say 75% or so....
Especially if you don't focus on diplomacy attributes for your characters/kids, but on military or such skills or if the heir has not been brought up by you.

 

[unmerged(766678)]

I hope we at least get an event from the ruler saying "Dear Prince, tales of your misdeeds are told from such and such to so and so, I may have sworn fealty to your father, but I refuse to do so to you. May your rot in the ground, signed your former vassal".

 

[BritNavFan]

I really like the changes described in this dev diary. It allows you to model the Byzantine Empire better in another way too: the new regency rules allow you to give the regency to someone like the Empress Irene the Athenian, which would never happen under the current rules.

One quibble though: I'd rather the decision to use viceroys was balanced by play balance rather than by technology. Machiavelli devotes a chapter to the subject:

Chapter 4: Why The Kingdom Of Darius, Conquered By Alexander, Did Not Rebel Against The Successors Of Alexander At His Death

CONSIDERING the difficulties which men have had to hold a newly acquired state, some might wonder how, seeing that Alexander the Great became the master of Asia in a few years, and died whilst it was yet scarcely settled (whence it might appear reasonable that the whole empire would have rebelled), nevertheless his successors maintained themselves, and had to meet no other difficulty than that which arose among themselves from their own ambitions.

I answer that the principalities of which one has record are found to be governed in two different ways: either by a prince, with a body of servants, who assist him to govern the kingdom as ministers by his favour and permission; or by a prince and barons, who hold that dignity by antiquity of blood and not by the grace of the prince. Such barons have states and their own subjects, who recognize them as lords and hold them in natural affection. Those states that are governed by a prince and his servants hold their prince in more consideration, because in all the country there is no one who is recognized as superior to him, and if they yield obedience to another they do it as to a minister and official, and they do not bear him any particular affection.

The examples of these two governments in our time are the Turk and the King of France. The entire monarchy of the Turk is governed by one lord, the others are his servants; and, dividing his kingdom into sanjaks, he sends there different administrators, and shifts and changes them as he chooses. But the King of France is placed in the midst of an ancient body of lords, acknowledged by their own subjects, and beloved by them; they have their own prerogatives, nor can the king take these away except at his peril. Therefore, he who considers both of these states will recognize great difficulties in seizing the state of the Turk, but, once it is conquered, great ease in holding it. The causes of the difficulties in seizing the kingdom of the Turk are that the usurper cannot be called in by the princes of the kingdom, nor can he hope to be assisted in his designs by the revolt of those whom the lord has around him. This arises from the reasons given above; for his ministers, being all slaves and bondmen, can only be corrupted with great difficulty, and one can expect little advantage from them when they have been corrupted, as they cannot carry the people with them, for the reasons assigned. Hence, he who attacks the Turk must bear in mind that he will find him united, and he will have to rely more on his own strength than on the revolt of others; but, if once the Turk has been conquered, and routed in the field in such a way that he cannot replace his armies, there is nothing to fear but the family of the prince, and, this being exterminated, there remains no one to fear, the others having no credit with the people; and as the conqueror did not rely on them before his victory, so he ought not to fear them after it.

The contrary happens in kingdoms governed like that of France, because one can easily enter there by gaining over some baron of the kingdom, for one always finds malcontents and such as desire a change. Such men, for the reasons given, can open the way into the state and render the victory easy; but if you wish to hold it afterwards, you meet with infinite difficulties, both from those who have assisted you and from those you have crushed. Nor is it enough for you to have exterminated the family of the prince, because the lords that remain make themselves the heads of fresh movements against you, and as you are unable either to satisfy or exterminate them, that state is lost whenever time brings the opportunity.

Now if you will consider what was the nature of the government of Darius, you will find it similar to the kingdom of the Turk, and therefore it was only necessary for Alexander, first to overthrow him in the field, and then to take the country from him. After which victory, Darius being killed, the state remained secure to Alexander, for the above reasons...

(translation by W.K. Marriott link)

So you can see that Machiavelli considers the system that is being called "viceroys" in CK2 to be an ancient technology: one used by the Persians before they were conquered by Alexander. But on the other hand, it has pluses and minuses.

 

[Secret Master]

Technically, sure. But my point was that it's not like it's an exploit that's really that worthwhile to do, seeing as how you can get exactly the same result 90%+ of the time while making use of the feudal system as intended, without the hassle of having thousands of counts as direct vassals. It's not anything that's actually powerful enough to be that concerned about.

90% is not 100%. 75% is not 100%.

With both male and female elective possibilities (not possible for certain religions), the ability to designate your heir with 100% success is incredibly powerful. It gets even more powerful if you have a religion that allows polygamy or concubines, because you can roll the dice on kids over and over again. At least with a significant number of electors, players facing untimely deaths or really hated rulers have trouble getting what they want.

Even I get bad successions sometimes. Untimely deaths are a fact of gameplay. 75% and 90% just aren't good enough if you are trying to run a perfect game.

 

[DerOstkonig]

I really like what you guys are doing with Charlemagne.

If the relelase goes smoothly, I will probably pick it up, contrary to my previous plans.

Here's hoping we can expect a finalization of the game sometime soon, cheers.

 

[Orctavius]

One example of this is the possibility for a councilmember to help you assign recently acquired titles for you if you have a lot of them.

Just noticed this line. Please make any automation mechanics optional. We don't want a repeat of the game automatically assigning tutors for child dynasty members outside of the succession, which caused enormous of problems for Muslim rulers whose daughters are outside the succession, but whose tutorship does affect relations.

 

[TheChronoMaster]

Just noticed this line. Please make any automation mechanics optional. We don't want a repeat of the game automatically assigning tutors for child dynasty members outside of the succession, which caused enormous of problems for Muslim rulers whose daughters are outside the succession, but whose tutorship does affect relations.

It's probably either a decision, or a diplomatic action.