Combined dynasty, internal policy proposition.

[crusaderknight]

...With primogenitur established foreign influence would not matter that much...

But what about when a dynasty ends. If a certain house dies out (this happened often in British history) sometimes there is a clear heir to take over, and sometimes not. If the country is unstable, and the current dynasty dies out, then what Quift is talking about would be a very historically accurate thing. Now you are right in the case of "King Dan III's son, Bill, is clearly the heir". In that case, foreign influence would not matter much, except in a few instances like "King Dan III stole the throne from his baby nephew, Joe, so Bill should not inherit, but rather Joe". This could be a cause for foreign influence. If Joe being in power benefited, say France, more than Bill being in power, then France would exert their influence over Dan's country to try and make Joe the new king instead of Bill. Also, if Bill and Joe are dead before Dan dies, then foreign influence is big, because there is no one left to continue Dan's dynasty. Hope this clarifies things a bit.

- Crusaderknight

 

[Duuk]

I don't care for this idea, and I'll tell you why.


It makes EU3 more "character based" than "country based". That's not what I'd like to see in EU3.

Actually, I'd prefer to have DP sliders, but not have them modifyable by humans. I'd much prefer that the Situational Events Engine have events to move DP sliders based on your current situation in game.

ie: We have colonies overseas. We should get an event offering to move us 1 closer to naval for a price.

 

[Registered]

Actually, I'd prefer to have DP sliders, but not have them modifyable by humans. I'd much prefer that the Situational Events Engine have events to move DP sliders based on your current situation in game.

ie: We have colonies overseas. We should get an event offering to move us 1 closer to naval for a price.

I would actually take that a bit further. If you're investing heavily in your navy (compared to the army, not in absolute numbers) you should automatically be moved toward naval. Increasing your efficiency in that department, but, somewhat, at the cost of the army.
Not entirely unlike HOI2's gearing bonus, just with a much wider scope.
(yes i can see that there are things logically and historically wrong with it, but we're talking gamaplay balance here)

 

[Smirfy]

Actually, I'd prefer to have DP sliders, but not have them modifyable by humans. .

Surely the player must be able to set policy. I believe the player should be constrained by parameters like country size, DP relation and religion but I still think it should be up to the player to set policy.

I'd much prefer that the Situational Events Engine have events to move DP sliders based on your current situation in game..

So the amorphous blob generator is in?

 

[Smirfy]

I would actually take that a bit further. If you're investing heavily in your navy (compared to the army, not in absolute numbers) you should automatically be moved toward naval. Increasing your efficiency in that department, but, somewhat, at the cost of the army.
Not entirely unlike HOI2's gearing bonus, just with a much wider scope.
(yes i can see that there are things logically and historically wrong with it, but we're talking gamaplay balance here)

Louis XIV had a larger navy than England and Holland combined and the largest army going. Yet within in a couple of years his fleet was laid up.

Investment dont really mean anything it take 3 years to build a ship it takes 300 to build a tradition or ten years and one click.

Simple is sometimes the best

 

[Registered]

Louis XIV had a larger navy than England and Holland combined and the largest army going. Yet within in a couple of years his fleet was laid up.

Investment dont really mean anything it take 3 years to build a ship it takes 300 to build a tradition or ten years and one click.

Simple is sometimes the best

The effect certailnly should not be immediate no. But if you consistently favour your navy over your army (building a tradition if you like) there should be an effect. If you invest in "bureaocracy" (just making this up as i go along) the effect should be centralisation. etc. etc.
Don't see how it could be simpler

But what about when a dynasty ends. If a certain house dies out (this happened often in British history) sometimes there is a clear heir to take over, and sometimes not. If the country is unstable, and the current dynasty dies out, then what Quift is talking about would be a very historically accurate thing. Now you are right in the case of "King Dan III's son, Bill, is clearly the heir". In that case, foreign influence would not matter much, except in a few instances like "King Dan III stole the throne from his baby nephew, Joe, so Bill should not inherit, but rather Joe". This could be a cause for foreign influence. If Joe being in power benefited, say France, more than Bill being in power, then France would exert their influence over Dan's country to dry and make Joe the new king instead of Bill. Also, if Bill and Joe are dead before Dan dies, then foreign influence is big, because there is no one left to continue Dan's dynasty. Hope this clarifies things a bit.

Quite so, in those cases it would not make for a bad history simulator. I just think it would fit bettter with the "spirit" of CK then with the "spirit" of EU (where has that thread gone?). It would play havoc with the historical events even with a situational engine.

 

[crusaderknight]

...Quite so, in those cases it would not make for a bad history simulator. I just think it would fit bettter with the "spirit" of CK then with the "spirit" of EU (where has that thread gone?). It would play havoc with the historical events even with a situational engine.

Granted. I was simply correcting the claim that "with primogeniture firmly established these kinds of things didn't happen". I will admit that this may be a very complex idea, but it is still good idea. If it is too much for EU III, then maybe it can be added to EU IV .

- Crusaderknight

 

[Smirfy]

The effect certailnly should not be immediate no. But if you consistently favour your navy over your army (building a tradition if you like) there should be an effect. If you invest in "bureaocracy" (just making this up as i go along) the effect should be centralisation. etc. etc.
Don't see how it could be simpler

Louis invested in both what do you do there?

 

[Registered]

Granted. I was simply correcting the claim that "with primogeniture firmly established these kinds of things didn't happen". I will admit that this may be a very complex idea, but it is still good idea. If it is too much for EU III, then maybe it can be added to EU IV .

- Crusaderknight

I did say there were exceptions...

Louis invested in both what do you do there?

Assuming he invested equally for a significant amount of time (decades)? Either no change (leaving naval/land slider in the middle) or give a reduced bonus to both.

 

[George LeS]

Louis XIV had a larger navy than England and Holland combined and the largest army going. Yet within in a couple of years his fleet was laid up.

Investment dont really mean anything it take 3 years to build a ship it takes 300 to build a tradition or ten years and one click.

Simple is sometimes the best

Apologies due to ABC

 

[unmerged(2456)]

And still diploannex is a feature in EU2, and it isn't like annexation by inheritance is foreign either. Austria, poland, brabant, the list is quite long.

Diplomatic annexation and annexation by inheritance are two entirely different ways of inheriting. As different as annexation by war and annexation by diplomatic option in eu2.

And of course as too choosing your heir, it did happen alot that the heir was not evident, or heavily opposed. And during internal turmoil (low stab), I don't see why some influence cuoldn't be exerted. The polish where heavily subjected to external influence, in the early and late game period the swedes were aswell. And other countries aswell.

Yea its not entirely bad, but nor is it entirely good. I mean, you might want your 3rd youngest 2nd cousin twice removed to inherit, but certainly your sons would be seen as more legitimate contestants.

So yes, there needs to be some restriction on who you can. Plus it can become cpu intensive to keep track of 50 heirs for 200 countries and the varying chances they have of succeeding over time.

In such cases where heir was disputed it generally was only two people, sometimes three that had a shot at the throne.

True, sorry if this is unclear in my posts.[/QUOTE]

 

[unmerged(11600)]

The annexation of countries by inheritance is largely gone from EU2 time period. In fact its almost unheard of in EU2 time period.

Sorry, Jinnai, I have to disagree with you on this one. I give you:
1) Aragon and Castile
2) Spain and Burgundy
3) Austria and Bohemia/(what's left of) Hungary
4) Brandenburg and Prussia
5) Spain and Portugal
6) Scotland and England.

That's off the top of my head, without cracking open an encyclopedia.

-Pat

 

[unmerged(2456)]

Sorry, Jinnai, I have to disagree with you on this one. I give you:
1) Aragon and Castile
2) Spain and Burgundy
3) Austria and Bohemia/(what's left of) Hungary
4) Brandenburg and Prussia
5) Spain and Portugal
6) Scotland and England.

That's off the top of my head, without cracking open an encyclopedia.

-Pat

All of those by events. and what 6 in 400 years? Not enough to be worthy of the cheesy exploits humans will pull with this.

 

[KaRei]

3) Austria and Bohemia

Here wasn't inheritance. We was scullionly annexed by Austria!!! (After defeat in battle on White mountain near Prague)

 

[Duuk]

Sorry, Jinnai, I have to disagree with you on this one. I give you:
1) Aragon and Castile
2) Spain and Burgundy
3) Austria and Bohemia/(what's left of) Hungary
4) Brandenburg and Prussia
5) Spain and Portugal
6) Scotland and England.

That's off the top of my head, without cracking open an encyclopedia.

-Pat

1) Aragon and Castile - A marriage contract of unification specifically to form Spain.

2) Spain and Burgundy - This one is legitimate.

3) Austria and Bohemia/(what's left of) Hungary - Hapsburgs abusing the system. There was some military maneuvering involved, including the use of Turkish forces to make the point to Hungary.

4) Brandenburg and Prussia - Special case due to the whole "King in Prussia" chain of events.

5) Spain and Portugal - Were maintained seperately and eventually released in a very limited time.

6) Scotland and England. - Even following "inheritance" they were "seperate" until 1707.

 

[Quift]

Diplomatic annexation and annexation by inheritance are two entirely different ways of inheriting. As different as annexation by war and annexation by diplomatic option in eu2.
Yea its not entirely bad, but nor is it entirely good. I mean, you might want your 3rd youngest 2nd cousin twice removed to inherit, but certainly your sons would be seen as more legitimate contestants.

So yes, there needs to be some restriction on who you can. Plus it can become cpu intensive to keep track of 50 heirs for 200 countries and the varying chances they have of succeeding over time.

In such cases where heir was disputed it generally was only two people, sometimes three that had a shot at the throne.

True, sorry if this is unclear in my posts.

[/QUOTE]

I actually had something simpler in mind, just two-three "heirs" created/given. No family ties or trees, but a "dynasty" tag for monarchies. After royal marriages (say, three/ruler are allowed) there is a chance for an heir of the new dynasty to pop up as heir (nr 3 most cases). Then you may install the new dynasty either diplomatically (hard) or by force (costly). But there are advantages of sharing the same dynasty in regards to trade, alliances etc. Inheritance of countries is something different and rare, with loads of restriction etc. Altough diploannexing of countries is easier if you share the dynasty (instead of the generic royal marriage).

This also creates puppet-states in vassals since the vassals are lilkely to be of your dynasty, with whom you'll automaticcaly share alot of intresest in trade, relations etc.

Also. I like the suggestions made by Carmangola. They seem quite close to what I had in mind.

 

[KaRei]

Succession model - extraction for Vote Thread
This is an extraction of ideas from the current discussion thread. These ideas are from various people from the thread. I only merge them into one post.

Each ruler would have several possible heirs, each with his own preferences of DP, foreign relations, etc. Maybe diferent popularity in different sorts of population, different religion settings, ...

DP settings would be influenced by the ruler. Everytime the ruler changes the DP settings move dependent on the ruler's preferences.

Each country could support its favourite heirs in foreign countries. So if heirA doesn't match the country's preferences, the country could support heirB or C and try to get him to the throne in the foreign country, if the heir is better for their preferences.

If some heir that is not 'first-born' has large support and the land is instable, it would be possible that he take the throne.
Maybe if the land is instable, the heirs would be able to fight for the succession.

Monarchic rulers are tied to a dynasty which has certain benefits in regards to other countries that are ruled by the same dynasty. And that royal marriages create a possibility that one of the hiers (not the first one), shares your dynasty and vice versa.

You would be able to make so many new royal marrieges how many successors (or in generic term childern) your ruler have.

 

[Quift]

Succession model - extraction for Vote Thread
This is an extraction of ideas from the current discussion thread. These ideas are from various people from the thread. I only merge them into one post.

Each ruler would have several possible heirs, each with his own preferences of DP, foreign relations, etc. Maybe diferent popularity in different sorts of population, different religion settings, ...

DP would depend on the ruler, and everytime the ruler changes the DP changes too dependent on the ruler's preferences.

or rather, would have an influence on the dp setting. so they are not set wich each ruler, but influenced by them (Ruler A, centralization +4, aristocraci -2 etc). Also, there is no need of a family tree à la CK.

Each country could support its favourite heirs in foreign countries. So if heirA doesn't match the country's preferences, the country could support heirB or C and try to get him to the throne in the foreign country, if the heir is better for their preferences.

The chance of this is related to stability, the less stable the country, the higher chance of influence inheritance.

If some heir that is not 'first-born' has large support, he could fight for the succession or could take the throne and the rightful successor could fight for get the throne back.

This civil-war event is optional, and feels slightly more medieval. But, since it makes for funnier civil war (better than creating generic rebels), sure.

Monarchic rulers are tied to a dynasty which has certain benefits in regards to other countries that are ruled by the same dynasty. And that royal marriages create a possibility that one of the hiers (not the first one), shares your dynasty and vice versa.

Yes, and nr of royal marriages possible should be lessened. SO that you make, say three, four marriages / ruler. So it becomes impossible to make it to a spammingfest.

Thank you for your work, Quift

 

[unmerged(2456)]

I actually had something simpler in mind, just two-three "heirs" created/given. No family ties or trees, but a "dynasty" tag for monarchies. After royal marriages (say, three/ruler are allowed) there is a chance for an heir of the new dynasty to pop up as heir (nr 3 most cases). Then you may install the new dynasty either diplomatically (hard) or by force (costly). But there are advantages of sharing the same dynasty in regards to trade, alliances etc. Inheritance of countries is something different and rare, with loads of restriction etc. Altough diploannexing of countries is easier if you share the dynasty (instead of the generic royal marriage).

This also creates puppet-states in vassals since the vassals are lilkely to be of your dynasty, with whom you'll automaticcaly share alot of intresest in trade, relations etc.

Also. I like the suggestions made by Carmangola. They seem quite close to what I had in mind.

I just think that's too simplistic. I agree a system as complex as CK (attempted and somewhat succeeded in) of dynastical structure is too much, but some depth is imo good.

 

[Quift]

I just think that's too simplistic. I agree a system as complex as CK (attempted and somewhat succeeded in) of dynastical structure is too much, but some depth is imo good.

maybe your right. I just didn't want to turn it into a rpg, nor introduce any micromanagment. aslong as they marry automatiucly, procreate and educate without me, and I don't have to bother about nativity, bastards, family quarrles et such. focus should be on gameplay after all. If you want a nice family tree thats fine, as long as i don't have to meddle with it. And no bloody courtiers around waiting for jobs.