Get my heir back to my kingdom

[SerGN]

Hey guys,

After several badluck events, I ended up with a not-of-my-dynasty heir... The handicaps:
1. Primogeniture succesion, so I can't designate another heir.

2. He is landed out of my realm: Earl of an english county (I'm Castille). Can't send him to suicide missions...

3. He is my son, so I can't plot against him.

4. Ironman mode...

I'm thinking on granting him a duchy (higher rank than earl) in my realm, making him coming back to the realm. Then send him to spy tech on Byzantium, hoping he will die...

Will granting him a duchy work? Will he come back 100%?

Any other ideas?

 

[Sunspawn]

Try giving him a duchy. Hint: It will not work because you cannot give titles to people outside your realm.

Plot to kill him. Switch to elective.

 

[SerGN]

You are right, I can't give him any title since he is not in my realm...

But I can't plot against him... He is my son.

So the only way is switching to elective right?

 

[Maeldun]

Hey guys,

After several badluck events, I ended up with a not-of-my-dynasty heir...

You are right, I can't give him any title since he is not in my realm...

But I can't plot against him... He is my son.

So the only way is switching to elective right?

The only way your son could be not of your dynasty is if you failed to marry your ruler correctly, i.e. female ruler in a regular marriage or male ruler in a matrilineal marriage. In this case, elective succession is the only way you can survive.

 

[Kumicho]

Can you go Intrigue and Spy On him? Or does that only work in your own realm?

 

[SerGN]

The only way your son could be not of your dynasty is if you failed to marry your ruler correctly, i.e. female ruler in a regular marriage or male ruler in a matrilineal marriage. In this case, elective succession is the only way you can survive.

I didn't fail... My heir died, and also his son... Then the actual King became heir... H had been previously married matrilineally by his lord, he was my grandson, but not in my court...

Unfortunatelly I'll have to go for elective monarchy....

Any tips on how to handle elective monarchy? I've never played before with this kind of succesion... I'm very noob yet.

 

[Maeldun]

I didn't fail... My heir died, and also his son... Then the actual King became heir... H had been previously married matrilineally by his lord, he was my grandson, but not in my court...

Unfortunatelly I'll have to go for elective monarchy....

Any tips on how to handle elective monarchy? I've never played before with this kind of succesion... I'm very noob yet.

The candidate with the most votes is the heir with the liege (you) breaking any ties. Feudal vassals tend to like elective succession so the only characters who will be angry at the succession law change will be members of your own dynasty (they prefer gavelkind). All landed nobles are eligible candidates for succession, however, so if you don't have a suitable candidate of your dynasty, they won't vote for them and you'll lose your realm. You can control elective succession by controlling who has the votes - typically all landed nobles two ranks down from you have votes (e.g. dukes and counts if you are a king). If your vassals are of a different culture than you or your dynasty members, chances are they will not vote for you if there is a suitable member of their own culture who can be elected instead.

Personally holding too many elector titles will anger your vassals, but sometimes that's what you have to do to control an election. In larger realms, this isn't really an option and you'll want to get out of elective at the earliest opportunity. But you're playing ironman, so you're on your own ('tis a silly thing with this game).

 

[gdj]

You can control elective succession by controlling who has the votes - typically all landed nobles two ranks down from you have votes (e.g. dukes and counts if you are a king).

Sorry, this is not correct.

Counts are electors in elective duchies.
Dukes are electors in elective kingdoms.
Dukes and Kings are electors in elective empires.

Only de-jure rulers of proper rank can vote, unless the title in question is titular (in this case all vassals of proper rank can vote). For example, a vassal king of Hungary cannot vote for the byzantine throne because hungary is not de jure byzantine, but any vassal duke of the kingdom of cyprus can vote because cyprus is a titular kingdom title.

EDIT: one way to control the vote in your kingdom, if you vassal limit allows it, is to revoke and destroy all duchies and have only count vassals. Noone except you will be able to vote. Also note that your vote breaks the tie. If its 4 votes vs 4 votes, your candidate wins.

 

[nanoboy]

Elective is actually pretty nice for small realms. As long as your vassals like you, you get to pick your best dynasty member for an heir. That does mean tyranny avoidance, of course, but it is usually not that hard. Unfortunately, it gets difficult when you have multiple kingdoms and empires. Each one gets separate votes, so they can go every which way. At that point, just about anything but gavelkind or tanistry is better.

 

[gdj]

Elective has advantages too, however.

The "opinion of predecessor" does not exist here, so any tyranny will not affect your heir.

Also, if all elector-vassals are of your dynasty, and you have only 1 elective top title, title loss on sucession is impossible.

 

[La Es]

Why elective? You may easily lose your kindome. Maybe it would be better to change to seniority? Once getting ruler with sons you will switch back to primogeniture and secure dynasty inheiritance.

 

[Strangedane]

Elective is borderline OP for smaller realms.

And if you do manage to blob enough for it to become a problem, you can almost always pick up a one or two duchy kingdom, make it your primary title and destroy any other kingdoms.
100 years of total control.
After which you switch to another kingdom for another 100 years of full control.
Rinse repeat.

You'll never be an emperor.
But you'll never lose control of your titles.

Fair trade.

 

[SerGN]

The candidate with the most votes is the heir with the liege (you) breaking any ties. Feudal vassals tend to like elective succession so the only characters who will be angry at the succession law change will be members of your own dynasty (they prefer gavelkind). All landed nobles are eligible candidates for succession, however, so if you don't have a suitable candidate of your dynasty, they won't vote for them and you'll lose your realm. You can control elective succession by controlling who has the votes - typically all landed nobles two ranks down from you have votes (e.g. dukes and counts if you are a king). If your vassals are of a different culture than you or your dynasty members, chances are they will not vote for you if there is a suitable member of their own culture who can be elected instead.

Personally holding too many elector titles will anger your vassals, but sometimes that's what you have to do to control an election. In larger realms, this isn't really an option and you'll want to get out of elective at the earliest opportunity. But you're playing ironman, so you're on your own ('tis a silly thing with this game).

Sorry, this is not correct.

Counts are electors in elective duchies.
Dukes are electors in elective kingdoms.
Dukes and Kings are electors in elective empires.

Only de-jure rulers of proper rank can vote, unless the title in question is titular (in this case all vassals of proper rank can vote). For example, a vassal king of Hungary cannot vote for the byzantine throne because hungary is not de jure byzantine, but any vassal duke of the kingdom of cyprus can vote because cyprus is a titular kingdom title.

EDIT: one way to control the vote in your kingdom, if you vassal limit allows it, is to revoke and destroy all duchies and have only count vassals. Noone except you will be able to vote. Also note that your vote breaks the tie. If its 4 votes vs 4 votes, your candidate wins.

Elective is actually pretty nice for small realms. As long as your vassals like you, you get to pick your best dynasty member for an heir. That does mean tyranny avoidance, of course, but it is usually not that hard. Unfortunately, it gets difficult when you have multiple kingdoms and empires. Each one gets separate votes, so they can go every which way. At that point, just about anything but gavelkind or tanistry is better.

Elective has advantages too, however.

The "opinion of predecessor" does not exist here, so any tyranny will not affect your heir.

Also, if all elector-vassals are of your dynasty, and you have only 1 elective top title, title loss on sucession is impossible.

Why elective? You may easily lose your kindome. Maybe it would be better to change to seniority? Once getting ruler with sons you will switch back to primogeniture and secure dynasty inheiritance.

Elective is borderline OP for smaller realms.

And if you do manage to blob enough for it to become a problem, you can almost always pick up a one or two duchy kingdom, make it your primary title and destroy any other kingdoms.
100 years of total control.
After which you switch to another kingdom for another 100 years of full control.
Rinse repeat.

You'll never be an emperor.
But you'll never lose control of your titles.

Fair trade.

Hi guys,

Thank you all for your answers.

Strangedane tip has resulted very very useful. Thank you dude!:

I revoked all king titles except one, leaving only the King of Aragon as the only king-rank title. I took Duchy of Barcelona.

So now, I'm the only one who votes here hahaha. I hope all other vassals will come with this title anyway when my ruler dies.

 

[La Es]

I revoked all king titles except one, leaving only the King of Aragon as the only king-rank title. I took Duchy of Barcelona.

So now, I'm the only one who votes here hahaha. I hope all other vassals will come with this title anyway when my ruler dies.

Pretty nice decision if you are not afraid of independence factions and kingdom liberation revolt events. And prestige loss.

 

[Thrake]

Why elective? You may easily lose your kindome.

Transition beetween kingship and emperorship is the only problem but you can delay formation of several king titles until you're close of being emperor, or you can mix succession laws (like primary title primo or even gavelkind for what you care and second, third,...elective). Once done, at worse a vassal gets a king title that you can revoke later on. Once it gets to several empire title though then it starts becoming a mess.

I didn't play elective recently but I never use to have much trouble to have vassals follow my vote unless they really hate me, and as long as you keep a claim through inheritance, you're at worse a war away from reforming your old borders.

Any tips on how to handle elective monarchy? I've never played before with this kind of succesion... I'm very noob yet.

At worse, you loose your top title but keep your demesne, so all it takes to get back to the top is a claim war (if you're lucky you can form a faction and get help from fellow vassals). A king under an Emperor for exemple has quite an easy time doing this as long as you keep the juicy lands for yourself.

 

[SerGN]

Pretty nice decision if you are not afraid of independence factions and kingdom liberation revolt events. And prestige loss.

You are right dude...

Losing game vs losing prestige.

 

[La Es]

You are right dude...

Losing game vs losing prestige.

I told that seniority succession is better in this particular case in my opinion. Seniority succession = lost game, mate?
Btw, destroying titles hurts de jure vassal opinions. That means more participants in plots and factions. What may cause for example title loss by installing claimant civil war. Or loss territories in independence civil war.

 

[SerGN]

I told that seniority succession is better in this particular case in my opinion. Seniority succession = lost game, mate?
Btw, destroying titles hurts de jure vassal opinions. That means more participants in plots and factions. What may cause for example title loss by installing claimant civil war. Or loss territories in independence civil war.

Sorry, I was agree with u, not pretending to be sarcastic.

I didn't want seniority cause older members of my faction are also shit rulers... But yeah, it would have been another way.

I never played with seniority succesion, but arent u going to be in s constant succesion events? Since the oldest guy is inheriting, he will die soon.

 

[La Es]

Sorry, I was agree with u, not pretending to be sarcastic.

I didn't want seniority cause older members of my faction are also shit rulers... But yeah, it would have been another way.

I never played with seniority succesion, but arent u going to be in s constant succesion events? Since the oldest guy is inheriting, he will die soon.

Well, sorry for rude answer.
Yep, 10 years of riegn might be a problem for succesion law change for even several rulers. Sure, old dynansty members are shitty rulers almost everytime, especially if they were not landed. Tho' it has some benefits, for example, then there are a lot of dynasty members with land or/and good claims. Or it might be a lesser evil in such situations as topic starter had.

 

[Stolen Rutters]

10 years of reign might be a problem for succesion law change for even several rulers.

Biggest downside of seniority, even bigger than poor quality of rulers, is getting stuck with it for decades. I found it can be annoyingly time consuming to get an old ruler that can make it to 10 yr reign... On the other hand, regencies (due to incapable seniors) are always short lived.