Electoral sucession shouldn't be immediate

[Leivve]

When a Ruler dies, there should be a short time where different candidates can attempt to win over votes with bribes of gold, favors, better feudal contracts, hooks, ect. If there is a tie, each leading candidate can receive an ultimatum to surrender their candidacy, or spark a civil war along the candidate lines.

 

[halbort]

I think this is a nice idea. Maybe the vote in the HRE occurs 6 months after the monarch dies. Then, you can campaign for becoming emperor in the interim.

 

[covya]

While it sounds cool in principle, the majority of players aren't going to want an AI regent to have their hands on the players beautifully crafted empire while waiting 6 months for an election that you were always going to win.

 

[Woifee]

While it sounds cool in principle, the majority of players aren't going to want an AI regent to have their hands on the players beautifully crafted empire while waiting 6 months for an election that you were always going to win.

Maybe the outcome shouldn’t always be clear.

 

[Leyrann]

While it sounds cool in principle, the majority of players aren't going to want an AI regent to have their hands on the players beautifully crafted empire while waiting 6 months for an election that you were always going to win.

It wouldn't be a standard regent, it would be someone with very limited power. Basically only urgent things. Could even say that any potential noble revolts only start at the end of the voting time (narratively because of the vote).

Also I'd like a small grace period for every succession, where for example every claimant is given the opportunity to try to press their claim, even if their claim (like a Weak Claim in CK2) may normally have additional requirements that aren't met. Basically, moar succession wars.

 

[Ten_Tacles]

While it sounds cool in principle, the majority of players aren't going to want an AI regent to have their hands on the players beautifully crafted empire while waiting 6 months for an election that you were always going to win.

Then stop using electoral sucession!

If your empires only last because you abused electoral sucession as heir designation, well...

 

[Metz77]

Yes, I would very much like a delay in elected successions. Historically the sometimes long delay in election was one of its big weaknesses. The delay should be extended if your realm or any of your electors are at war.

 

[similan]

Who would become the top liege in the meant time then? The dynastic heir of the old liege or the strongest vassal?

 

[Pied-Noir]

Who would become the top liege in the meant time then? The dynastic heir of the old liege or the strongest vassal?

The regent, presumably.

 

[Metz77]

Who would become the top liege in the meant time then? The dynastic heir of the old liege or the strongest vassal?

Probably either the designated regent or the Council, and they would ideally have limited powers during the interregnum.

 

[similan]

The regent, presumably.

Probably either the designated regent or the Council, and they would ideally have limited powers during the interregnum.

I'm just asuming titles work the sameway as it did in ck2. So that would mean only one person can get the top title. A designated regent solves a bit of hassle but what if noone was assigned. A random council member gets it then?

 

[Woifee]

Titles should be able to exist without anyone holding it. Exatctly for situations like this.

 

[Metz77]

Yes, what Woifee said. Titles should be able to be vacant without being destroyed.

Hell, if you want to hack it together with spit and glue, have a character called "Interregnum" who is incapable or something and assign him the title.

 

[similan]

Titles should be able to exist without anyone holding it. Exatctly for situations like this.

I agree with you on that but I remember there being a thread about william the conqueror as a vassal of the french king, while ruling an independent england and a dev saying that won't be implemented. This leads me to assume they wont be trying to make landed titles without a ruler exist.

 

[Metz77]

I agree with you on that but I remember there being a thread about william the conqueror as a vassal of the french king, while ruling an independent england and a dev saying that won't be implemented. This leads me to assume they wont be trying to make landed titles without a ruler exist.

These seem like very different scenarios, if I'm honest. I don't see why the one would preclude the other.

 

[similan]

These seem like very different scenarios, if I'm honest. I don't see why the one would preclude the other.

I took at as leaving title interaction as it is in ck2. This would require different rules as to how titles would interact
Having multiple lieges was a much requested feature. If they dont see they need to add such a thing to the game then I thinks its safe to asume a leaderless landed title wouldn't be added aswell

I wouldn't mind to be proven wrong though

 

[Metz77]

I took at as leaving title interaction as it is in ck2. This would require different rules as to how titles would interact
Having multiple lieges was a much requested feature. If they dont see they need to add such a thing to the game then I thinks its safe to asume a leaderless landed title wouldn't be added aswell

I wouldn't mind to be proven wrong though

That's fair. I think a leaderless landed title would be easier to implement than multiple lieges, though.

 

[junassa]

While it sounds cool in principle, the majority of players aren't going to want an AI regent to have their hands on the players beautifully crafted empire while waiting 6 months for an election that you were always going to win.

PDX better have good AI and restrictions for something like this. "Oh Hai, here's the keys to the realm. Btw I started an unwinnable war that will cost you mounds of gold and prestige and changed laws that will have all your vassals revolting in a few years. Good luck!"

 

[Metz77]

PDX better have good AI and restrictions for something like this. "Oh Hai, here's the keys to the realm. Btw I started an unwinnable war that will cost you mounds of gold and prestige and changed laws that will have all your vassals revolting in a few years. Good luck!"

Frankly I think the possibility that the AI might screw up your realm a bit should be present, and one of the major downsides to elective, as it was historically. The AI should also be very limited in what actions it can take — nothing major like law changes, title revocations, or war declarations — but it should be fully in control of what the player normally controls, so if there's an *ongoing* war or if war is declared on your realm, they'll manage operations until the election. I also think things like the laws for vassal wars should be suspended during the interregnum.

 

[covya]

Frankly I think the possibility that the AI might screw up your realm a bit should be present, and one of the major downsides to elective, as it was historically. The AI should also be very limited in what actions it can take — nothing major like law changes, title revocations, or war declarations — but it should be fully in control of what the player normally controls, so if there's an *ongoing* war or if war is declared on your realm, they'll manage operations until the election. I also think things like the laws for vassal wars should be suspended during the interregnum.

are there any examples of an interim regent in any elective system that actually made major decisions? The major downside to elective *should* be the risk of losing the election (with the historical equivalence being electing an incompetent ruler)

Then stop using electoral sucession!

If your empires only last because you abused electoral sucession as heir designation, well...

That's not really what I said, though... If you've kept all of your vassals happy enough that the succession is clear cut, then you shouldn't be punished by having the AI take control of your realm for 6 months. Beyond that, basically stating that "if you can't handle it, you suck" isn't a good argument for this, or any, feature

It wouldn't be a standard regent, it would be someone with very limited power. Basically only urgent things. Could even say that any potential noble revolts only start at the end of the voting time (narratively because of the vote).

Also I'd like a small grace period for every succession, where for example every claimant is given the opportunity to try to press their claim, even if their claim (like a Weak Claim in CK2) may normally have additional requirements that aren't met. Basically, moar succession wars.

I think this sounds like a much better implementation for every succession, elective included. Perhaps, in the case that the election was close, the person who lost the election should be given a weak claim to the title, and during the first 3 years of a monarchs reign (which I believe was the duration for a discontent council in ck2) any claim should be able to be pressed.

In general, I think a messy succession due to a close election should be treated very differently (likely handled via events where each candidate would try to secure the loyalty of all of the powerful vassals & electors, possibly leading to a succession war) to a succession in which one candidate won the election by a landslide. Implementing this 6 month delay to wait for the vote would be a ridiculous nerf to those who maintain happy, loyal vassals.