Choosing your Heir to the Throne

[NexusSix]

I love the idea of the different factions having a "favourite"

The peasents might love thier Champion of the Tourney where as the Clergy support either the Religious or Crusading 3rd son.

With each trying to via for favour or power from the aging ruler.
In a larger kingdom it would be cool to , regardless of ruler choice, the sons carve up the domain and fight for the kingship.
A bit like what happend after Henry II Curtmantle's death.
You (the player ) would take control of your kings or your prefered inheritant and fight for that faction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_II_of_England


That said on inheritence I think there should be the set of "regents" or "co-rulers" in the case of infant kings or counts.
Even allow the wife / queen to rule until the king comes of age.

 

[Raczynski]

Part of CK uniqueness was getting retarded/crazy king and enduring that, often with hilarity ensuing. I don't think it's a good idea to abandon these.

 

[NexusSix]

Mayeb what the game needs rather than changing Heirs is infact more interaction between families and siblings ??

I for one hate it when Oswald the Retarded is heading toward kingship when his younger brother or even nephew is looking like real King material.

Couldnt there be more events to trigger in game following a kings death ?

Ie : 1st event : King Oswald dies leaving 500 gold to his successor
2nd event : All hail King Oswald II, who aged 13 inherits the Titles : God from his father Oswald I.
3rd event : You are not my King ! Cecil the Worthy, King Oswalds 3rd born son prenounces himself Title : God and has splintered away from your kingdom Taking Norfolk as his Capital. His cousin The Irish Duke, Davey has supported his claim as has the Bishop of Salisbury.

or
1st event : King Oswald dies leaving 500 gold to his successor
2nd event : All hail King Oswald II, who aged 13 inherits the Titles : God from his father Oswald I.
3rd event : My son is not worthy ? King Oswald's widow Jamima of Wales has proclaimed her son Jimbob the Ruthless rightfull heir to Oswalds I throne ! Current King Oswald II is Oswalds son from King Oswald I first marriage to Helga of Ugly. In response to the claim the Welsh barron Gyrthhhhhhyshhhhthh the Unpronouncable has issued a call to arms

or

1st event : King Oswald dies leaving 500 gold to his successor
2nd event : All hail King Oswald II, who aged 13 inherits the Titles : God from his father Oswald I.
3rd even : Insert many many many many other cool options !!


Come on Dev's .... .Crusader Kings.... KINGS.

What event is possibly more tumultuous or Kingdom breaking than the death of a monarch ??!

Or yeh and add an option to add a title name to your players or they can gain them via events.
eg : The Bold, The Supid, The Peacefull etc etc

 

[ComradeOm]

Player's actions should not be restricted; they should have consequences

These inheritance laws are in place to force a choice on the player and provide another element to the gameplay. Each law has its own advantages and disadvantages but the player must choose between one - he/she should not be able to avoid the consequences of adopting this policy but then suddenly ignoring it and gifting the throne to a new Alexander

In this way these laws are much like the economic policies of Vicky or HOI's tech trees. You pick one and you live with the consequences - you can't decide 'Well, I'll go laissez faire so my capis can build more cheaply... but then I'll also diectly build a few factories as well'

The other factor to consider of course is the AI. Does anyone here for a minute believe that the AI will be as capable to exploiting such a mechanism as the human player? Of course not

 

[TempestDK]

These inheritance laws are in place to force a choice on the player and provide another element to the gameplay. Each law has its own advantages and disadvantages but the player must choose between one - he/she should not be able to avoid the consequences of adopting this policy but then suddenly ignoring it and gifting the throne to a new Alexander

This!

Also the player has the choice to switch to another inheritance law if he wants to (once every 20 years I believe it is). But we can't have the player switch inheritance laws every year, depending on which of the two underaged sons are the best material this year.

I guess you could make it possible to change laws before the 20 years are up ... but that should have massive consequences.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

I was thinking about this some more and I do think I would have a balanced way to allow the player to try and pick their heir, but at a cost. Basically every character has their own set of ideas who they want to be the ruler and certain ones get weighted votes depending on circumstances.

This uses CKV traits (as I don't know what CK2 will use). This means by default the bastard and excommunicated traits won't be in the line of succession. If they are the Pope, they are also removed from the line (or should be).

Each character will go down a hierarchy of choices as follows:

1. Am I a possible heir?
   If yes, then am I humble? If yes then goto #3; if no, then choose myself.
   If no, then goto #2
2. Is a relative of mine a possible heir?
   If no, or I've exhausted all my relatives, got #3; if yes, then asks for the one closest to the top of the pecking order (under whatever law there is) if any of these conditions apply:
   • old (50+)
   • Celibate
   • has a major illness (intestinal worms, pneumonia, plague, schizophrenia and/or maniac)
   • are my rival
   • a different religion and I am zealous
   • a heretic of the same religion and I am zealous non-heretic
   • a non-heretic of the same religion and I am a zealous heretic
   • crusader and I am not a christian
   • crusader and I am a catholic heretic
   If any of these are true, then it goes to the next one down; If none of these are true, then I choose that person.
3. Is a friend on the list?
   If no, goto #4; if yes, then asks for the one closest to the top of the pecking order (under whatever law there is) if any of these conditions apply:
   • has a major illness (intestinal worms, pneumonia, plague, schizophrenia and/or maniac)
   • crusader and I am not a christian
   • crusader and I am a catholic heretic
   If any of these are true, then it goes to the next one down; If none of these are true, then I choose that person.
4. Does my liege (or liege-lord) favor someone outside our customary inheritence law?
   If no, then goto #5. If yes, goto #6.
5. Is the heir-apparent my rival?
   If no, then did I previously disqualify them (except for being humble)? If no to both, chose to honor your realm's inheritance law. !
   If yes to either, are you a count who is a vassal to a duke and deciding the next king?
   If no, support the next person down the line who is not your rival and has not already been disqualified.
   If yes, then ask if your relation to the duke is any of these:
   • rivals
   • < 50% loyalty
   If no, support their choice; if yes, support the next person down the line who is not your rival and has not already been disqualified.
   If no one remains, abstain. !!
6. Is the liege (or liege-lord) my rival?
   If no, then is their choice my rival?
   If no, then did I previously disqualify them (except for being humble)? If no to all 3, choose to honor your king's wishes. !
   If yes to any, are you a count who is a vassal to a duke and deciding the next king?
   If no, support the heir-apparent if he is not your rival and has not already been disqualified. If he is, cupport the next person down the line who is not your rival and has not already been disqualified. !
   If no one remains, abstain. !!
   If yes, then ask if your relation to the duke is any of these:
   • rivals
   • < 50% loyalty
   • greedy and levying enough taxes that I'm losing money
   If no, support their choice; if yes, support the next person down the line who is not your rival and has not already been disqualified. !
   If no one remains, abstain. !!

! - Can be bribed
!! - will not count by default. Can be bribed and then their results count.

Weighted votes go by the following:

King: 4
Dukes/Court advisers (steward, etc): 3
Other family members of age/Those outside the realm with ties to the throne: 2
Counts: 1

Special:
+1 if supporting the realm's default heir apparent,if any. This refelcts the extra legitimacy your support gets from being able to cite the realm's law is on your side.
+1/1000 piety/prestige, if character spends it. Represents sway of those who are respected have if they chose to use it.
-1 if the character is a bastard. This reflects the historic disdain for bastards during this era.
-2 if the character being supported is a female. This reflects the historic unease of female rulers during this era.
/2 (round up) if the character is from a different religion than the current ruler. Realms during this era liked the stability of religion.

This is just a crude example and I'm sure things have changed for CK2, but the idea holds: its realitvely simple (it doesn't check if character X supports Y and thus you want to support Z, except for cases of following your liege or not (which was common when there wasn't any major dispute). It grants weight based on placement and gives the player, assuming they are the king, a leg up with extra votes, but he can still be overruled. Furthermore, it also gives ways to jocky votes around, either through political capital (prestige and piety) or bribing those undecided members.

In addition, Tambourmajor's idea for legitimacy would fit nicely into here with each member getting support that boosts their legitimacy claims to the throne while those without support either slip down or have to find other ways (FE: papal endorsement).

 

[.Spartan]

I was thinking about this some more and I do think I would have a balanced way to allow the player to try and pick their heir, but at a cost. Basically every character has their own set of ideas who they want to be the ruler and certain ones get weighted votes depending on circumstances.

This uses CKV traits (as I don't know what CK2 will use). This means by default the bastard and excommunicated traits won't be in the line of succession. If they are the Pope, they are also removed from the line (or should be).

This is just a crude example and I'm sure things have changed for CK2, but the idea holds: its realitvely simple (it doesn't check if character X supports Y and thus you want to support Z, except for cases of following your liege or not (which was common when there wasn't any major dispute). It grants weight based on placement and gives the player, assuming they are the king, a leg up with extra votes, but he can still be overruled. Furthermore, it also gives ways to jocky votes around, either through political capital (prestige and piety) or bribing those undecided members.

In addition, Tambourmajor's idea for legitimacy would fit nicely into here with each member getting support that boosts their legitimacy claims to the throne while those without support either slip down or have to find other ways (FE: papal endorsement).

Very , very nice indeed. I would love to see a system of this nature implemented. I think it would bode well for the AI to boot. I also concur on the idea for legitimacy aspect as well.

 

[Negru Voda]

Maybe on really rare ocassions?

like a deathbed wish event or something.

1 - Say you are dying
2 - Rivalry with eldest son (whose waged war on you and god knows how many assassins he's sent)
3 - You're all honey bunnied up with your young puppy eyed boy, whose and idiot, but loved you and fought his evil older bro.

The event fires up. You disown your oldest son. Declare him a bastard. Pretty much tarnishing his rep and hitting his prestige and maybe piety. You also have to spend prestige that you might have in your dying day.

So this would be a rare occorence, but would probably add unexpected twists.

It wouldn't have to power to completely over rule succession law, but it would definitely make succession a bumpy road, and potentially tear the realm apart.

 

[SaberHRE]

Absolutely not. There are reasons why laws are laws. They're made so that even the King isn't a tyrannical ruler.

Unless you have an elective monarchy(which didnt really exist, the only instances were when a monarch died, and a diet or some governing/advising body appointed a legitimate successor.)

Besides why would you take the easy way. Elevate your bastard to importance and start a civil war against your unruly lords. Thats the flavour of CK :rofl:

 

[magritte2]

In fact that's not correct. Translated to the game engine would be, William the Conqueror - ruler of a certain dynasty, chooses to go elective and gives his younger son the higher title. You can perfectly do this in the game, but that's not "chosen by the ruler". If the younger son loses his title during some kind of war and gets killed during the action (war), the game is not over. Then the chance is very likely that the older son of the same dynasty will continue the game as duke of Normandy and eventually can reclaim the lost kingship title.

Again you choose an elective law, it's not "formula one" were you put some one on pole position, then a second one on the first line, then choose for 3 and 4.

An elective law or really would imply that William Rufus was chosen over Robert Curthose by William the Conqueror's vassals. That was not the case--he was designated as heir. According to some sources, Robert was actually the preference of many vassals. These have to be taken with a grain of salt because the church chroniclers were hostile to William in general, but certainly there was a rebellion against William almost immediately. William the Conqueror himself was also the designated heir of his father, despite being a bastard.

I'm not saying the designated heir should be automatically confirmed (see Matilda). In fact, I like the idea of a contested succession, if you choose to go against realm law.

 

[Raczynski]

Unless you have an elective monarchy(which didnt really exist, the only instances were when a monarch died, and a diet or some governing/advising body appointed a legitimate successor.)

Negative.
Most monarchies started out as elective, with rulers being at first tribal war leaders. The strong elective elements endured for centuries, particularly on the fringes of feudal Europe.

 

[SaberHRE]

Negative.
Most monarchies started out as elective, with rulers being at first tribal war leaders. The strong elective elements endured for centuries, particularly on the fringes of feudal Europe.

Can you name a few? Your mixing up ideas, here, while "elections" were indeed common among certain germanic, slavic and nomadic tribes, they were far from what we understand elections and democracy as. Elections were like you said used primarily to appoint a military chieftain, while civil duties were relegated to tribal elders. These titles were not however given for life.

Feudalism evolved exactly from that concept, when the those elected military leaders decided to seize power from the civil elements.

In CK1's time period 1066-1453, there was no formal election of a ruler. The only events nearing to such elections were the appointments of certain rulers (Jadwiga of Poland, her father Louis, Angevin succession in Hungary, "appointment" of Valois dynasty)

And even in those cases those "elections" were nothing more then acts of inheritance.

 

[Raczynski]

Can you name a few?

HRE (duh), pre-norman conquest England, France up to the reign of Philip II, Scandinavian countries, many Russian principalities.

In CK1's time period 1066-1453, there was no formal election of a ruler. The only events nearing to such elections were the appointments of certain rulers (Jadwiga of Poland, her father Louis, Angevin succession in Hungary, "appointment" of Valois dynasty)

And even in those cases those "elections" were nothing more then acts of inheritance.

It's true that in time the concept of electing a monarch was replaced with hereditary rule and in most countries was only used in rare cases such as ruling dynasty dying out. However, it's blatantly false to say that "there were no formal election of rulers" in CK period. There were plenty, thought mostly on fringes of the European civilization. I've given examples above.
Concepts like Polish-Lithuanian elective monarchy didn't appear out of thin air you know.

 

[SaberHRE]

HRE (duh), pre-norman conquest England, France up to the reign of Philip II, Scandinavian countries, many Russian principalities.

How were these elective monarchies? No seriously please do enlighten me. I've honestly never heard of elections of Philip I, Louis the Fat, Louis VII. Which russian prince was elected to the throne?(Your mistaking election to invitation to rule, by a rebelling populace). HRE is a difficult example, no time to discuss.

However, it's blatantly false to say that "there were no formal election of rulers" in CK period. There were plenty, thought mostly on fringes of the European civilization. I've given examples above.
Concepts like Polish-Lithuanian elective monarchy didn't appear out of thin air you know.

First you state France, Germany and England as your examples and then you say elective monarchies existed on fringes of euro civilization.

The commonwealth elective monarchy was a sham. A shameful creation of ruthless barons trying to exploit the country. It was created not because of long standing communal/democratic ideas, but because ever since the death of the native Piast dynasty, no dynasty afterwards managed to curb the nobility that had brought them to the throne in the first place.

But we've drifted enough. This isn't about elective monarchies, this is about choosing heirs. And unless your changing your succession laws(with large consequences to that) your not suppose to appoint anyone.

 

[Raczynski]

How were these elective monarchies? No seriously please do enlighten me. I've honestly never heard of elections of Philip I, Louis the Fat, Louis VII.

Capets started out as elected monarchs. In time this was becoming more and more of a formality, but didn't completely die out for centuries. You might not have heard of these elections because they happened while they fathers were still alive
http://books.google.com/books?id=kL8OAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA27&lpg=PA27&dq=elective+monarchy+in+France&source=bl&ots=3kWvSGApYR&sig=12ET2tuXAEdZMqHjM4edvv7IX3A&hl=en&ei=Ui14TM7PG82Vswa59tyyDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CEIQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=elective%20monarchy%20in%20France&f=false

Which russian prince was elected to the throne?(Your mistaking election to invitation to rule, by a rebelling populace).

You seems to be mistaking democracy with elective monarchy.

First you state France, Germany and England as your examples and then you say elective monarchies existed on fringes of euro civilization.

French example refers to the vestiges of elective monarchy from the pre-CK era and is a nice illustration of the trends I'm talking about. HRE is a special case, you said it yourself. England definetly on the fringes of European civilization until Norman conquest at least.

The commonwealth elective monarchy was a sham. A shameful creation of ruthless barons trying to exploit the country. It was created not because of long standing communal/democratic ideas, but because ever since the death of the native Piast dynasty, no dynasty afterwards managed to curb the nobility that had brought them to the throne in the first place.

I largely agree, but again you seems to be confusing elective monarchy with democracy.

 

[Orinsul]

Instead of say the eldest son inherited, the Witengemot elected its choice from all the royal family. Look at Harold Godwinson if you want an example, he was in no way the rightful heir but as the heir was a child with an imminent invasion on the horizon they elected Harold because the needed someone capable of leading the armies even if he wasn't in line for it.
so its not a modern american-style democracy means there wasnt an election? but yes thats not the point.
And the game starts earlier now, the Witengemot still exists as the game starts before the norman victory. And im given that the first Capetian king was chosen by the nobles for the victory of his grandfather and not his claim to the throne, [maybe it was his father] but its been a while since i read that book so i couldnt say for sure.

But look at england, Every succession was divided in support, it didnt nessicarly goto who was the legal hier, but who was the heir with the support of the barons and 'vassals'. this was usually the rightful hier anyway, but everytime it was contested.

Having a preferred hier model is really the only way to do it. all others pale in comparison

then you could choose a heir who was not the lawful hier to succeed you, but it wouldnt nessicarily work, if you didnt manage to convince enough of your court, your vassals and the barons [who are probably an abstraction] to also support your preferred heir and not the one defined by the law.

and it would make it so that when you had a civil war, the vassals would rebel in support of their preferred heir and so they would act as one rather than being individual rebellions for individual causes as there would be a mechanic in place to represent support for another claimaint.

 

[unmerged(59077)]

Alright, I'm of two minds about this:

On one hand, rules are there to make the game more challenging.

On the other hand, rules should NOT make all games the same. So -

If we cannot appoint heirs, at least can we have the options of:

1. Disowning heirs
2. Executing (not assassinating) heirs and other courtiers
3. Setting regents.

 

[unmerged(31881)]

In a world where carpenters get resurrected, everything is possible.

Ah. But you can easily set both your minds at rest by simply making the game more challenging if you choose your heir. A Lion In Winter doesn't have to be a predictable and unchallenging one-act wonder.

"Behold, I am the elderly king of England! Normally the rest of the movie would be about the machinations between my quarrelsome sons, my bitter wife, my loyal mistress, and my rival the sly King of France. But since the realm has Salic Primogeniture then everything is settled and you can go home now. Thank you for buying the overpriced popcorn."

As for Om's HoI analogy; one can abandon doctrines and building industry was a mainstay even for laissez-faire economies (of which none of the combatants were during the extended hostilities).

 

[.Spartan]

Instead of say the eldest son inherited, the Witengemot elected its choice from all the royal family. Look at Harold Godwinson if you want an example, he was in no way the rightful heir but as the heir was a child with an imminent invasion on the horizon they elected Harold because the needed someone capable of leading the armies even if he wasn't in line for it.
so its not a modern American-style democracy means there wasn't an election? but yes that's not the point.
And the game starts earlier now, the Witengemot still exists as the game starts before the Norman victory. And I'm given that the first Capetian king was chosen by the nobles for the victory of his grandfather and not his claim to the throne, [maybe it was his father] but its been a while since i read that book so i couldn't say for sure.

But look at England, Every succession was divided in support, it didn't necessarily go to who was the legal heir, but who was the heir with the support of the barons and 'vassals'. this was usually the rightful heir anyway, but every time it was contested.

Having a preferred heir model is really the only way to do it. all others pale in comparison

then you could choose a heir who was not the lawful heir to succeed you, but it wouldn't necessarily work, if you didn't manage to convince enough of your court, your vassals and the barons [who are probably an abstraction] to also support your preferred heir and not the one defined by the law.

and it would make it so that when you had a civil war, the vassals would rebel in support of their preferred heir and so they would act as one rather than being individual rebellions for individual causes as there would be a mechanic in place to represent support for another claimant.

Slam dunk!!! And Orinsul has left the house!!!

Including the option to select an heir with a proper counter balance mechanism is surely the best way to go with the game.

 

[Spruce]

After reading a little, most people tend to ignore the fact that laws ensure a ranking and not a only a choosen heir (or designated one).

So the point is that there's a heir, and there's also a second in line, a third in line, etc.

The idea that a ruler can make a list about his "designated heirs", and being constantly dynmaic (the choosen one, can easely die) is to say the least silly.

I already gave an example to show that the idea is not open for discussion unless somebody can give an example how to integrate it into the game mechanics.