• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Almost all of the perks are useless, so yes I am going to spend 150 renown to disinherit my heir.

Also if you land your dynasty, 100 years after the start of the game you literally have a renown-related diarrhea. I think I was shitting about 50 per month without a lot of effort.
 
  • 4
  • 2
Reactions:
People here just defend Gavelkind which is super ahistorical. SORRY GUYS a King or even an Emperor with only 1 COUNTY is ahistorical as fuck.
Paradox just failed. Only use Primo until they fix this. They need to implement Crown Land which only goes to the primary heir.
 
  • 11
  • 1
Reactions:
They gotta make it so you can't lose counties in your primary duchy, but a problem with that might be that some duchies have 3 counties, some have 8... so I guess it can just be a limit of counties based on your rank?

As a count you keep 1, as a duke you keep 2, as a king you keep 3 and as an emperor 5 for example?

The rest of your demesne you can just keep as barony-level castles, as those you can easily revoke.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
People here just defend Gavelkind which is super ahistorical. SORRY GUYS a King or even an Emperor with only 1 COUNTY is ahistorical as fuck.
Paradox just failed. Only use Primo until they fix this. They need to implement Crown Land which only goes to the primary heir.
Wrong.

Gavelkind is a niche practice, and therefore not represented in the game. Primogeniture is ahistorical for most of the game's timeframe.
 
  • 6
Reactions:
There were a diverse array of partible inheritance schemes in Europe. (It was actually a big deal that the Golden Bull of 1356 stipulated that the secular Electors' estates would be indivisible.)

The term "gavelkind" referred originally to the partible inheritance model used by the Jutes in pre-1066 Kent; the Normans later applied the name to the somewhat similar brehon law practices of the Irish.

This is why CK3 doesn't call it Gavelkind.
 
  • 5
  • 3
Reactions:
Oh it came from the Jutes originally, good to know.

And yeah, it's been annoying me since CK2 came out that it's player base came to believe that gavelkind means any kind of inheritance law where things get split among all eligible children across Europe and beyond, when it was just a baffling and arbitrary choice by Paradox to generalise such a specific term. I'm really glad they fixed that with CK3.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
People here just defend Gavelkind which is super ahistorical. SORRY GUYS a King or even an Emperor with only 1 COUNTY is ahistorical as fuck.

No.

Not only this perfectly historical and represents the weakness of central rulers in Medieval polities, but it's also clear that you're trying to feign historical arguments when your actual argument is that you're not good enough at the game to play around gavelkind and want it changed.

Gavelkind is historical, even if it wasn't it's still a good way to stop player snowballing and force you to play the actual game of intrigue, family conflict and vassal management, and you should just get good at the game before complaining with ridiculous argument. End of story.
 
  • 13
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I think partitioning logic just takes a while to wrap your head around. I have learned a lot from the various threads on the forum plus some YT vids.

Basically you need to give all your children titles of at least duchy rank to stop them taking your counties away. The logic of "if not able to make king, then make powerful duke" is perfectly sound, in that the system tries to make all heirs equal in power if not in title. I think the game is simply misjudging how powerful a king is compared to a count/duke. It should compare the levies from each title up for succession, so that small kingdoms are ranked as less powerful than multiple well developed counties. That way the result will be heirs which are equal in power post succession, instead of a weak king with powerful count/duke brothers.
 
Isn't there just a mod to make the game easier and have early access to the op inheritance laws. Rather than making it easy mode for everyone?

The inheritance laws are challenging and also mean you often have a fun consolidation stage when you come to power. Where you have to take back lands you think you should have and fight your siblings. You know like they did in medieval times.

If you don't like this aspect there has to be a mod to just keep all the land for map painting mode. Anyone link it for the op and others?
 
  • 3
  • 2
Reactions:
Isn't there just a mod to make the game easier and have early access to the op inheritance laws. Rather than making it easy mode for everyone?

The inheritance laws are challenging and also mean you often have a fun consolidation stage when you come to power. Where you have to take back lands you think you should have and fight your siblings. You know like they did in medieval times.

If you don't like this aspect there has to be a mod to just keep all the land for map painting mode. Anyone link it for the op and others?

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2216754325
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
People here just defend Gavelkind which is super ahistorical. SORRY GUYS a King or even an Emperor with only 1 COUNTY is ahistorical as ****.
Paradox just failed. Only use Primo until they fix this. They need to implement Crown Land which only goes to the primary heir.
 
I'm not complaining about very late game primo. I actually like that its a little harder to keep your holdings together. However, the actual confederate succession feels broken. And its kinda sad not to be able to use special succession types like tanistry.

In my current game I have 5 kids. I've already conquered a duchy for each one in trying to keep my holdings together Here's the breakdown for what they're getting when I die according to succession screen:

1st kid: 1 kingdom, 1 duchy, 2 counties
2nd kid: 2 duchies, 8 counties
3rd kid: 1 duchy, 4 counties
4th kid: 1 duchy, 5 counties
5th kid: 1 duchy, 3 counties

The Kingdom/Empire titles should be separate from the duchies and counties in succession. There's no way a 1st son would inherit a quarter of the land that the second son is.

When dividing titles the primary heir is guaranteed the capital and the corresponding duchy, but is considered last in line when handing out other titles. So if you had 9 duchies your primary heir would be the only one to get only one. I'm assuming 2nd kid is getting counties from your second duchy? If the game isn't ironman try adopting Partition instead of Confederate Partition and destroying the second duchy. In theory you should be able to keep more of your lands that way.

Alternately try capturing enough land to give kids 2-5 a second duchy.

Or alternately to the alternative you can force kids 2-5 to be knights and fight some wars to thin their number.
 
because is the Scandinavian elective on all the titles, or just the kingdom title, the lesser titles if they don't have any special succession applied will continue to be dealt with as normal.
Right, that goes back to my question: if I change a primary Kingdom law why doesn't my primary Duchy law change as well? That was how it worked in CK2. Do I now need to change every law in my primary Duchy manually whenever I change it in my primary Kingdom? (This is provided the Duchy is in the Kingdom)
 
I'm not complaining about very late game primo. I actually like that its a little harder to keep your holdings together. However, the actual confederate succession feels broken. And its kinda sad not to be able to use special succession types like tanistry.

In my current game I have 5 kids. I've already conquered a duchy for each one in trying to keep my holdings together Here's the breakdown for what they're getting when I die according to succession screen:

1st kid: 1 kingdom, 1 duchy, 2 counties
2nd kid: 2 duchies, 8 counties
3rd kid: 1 duchy, 4 counties
4th kid: 1 duchy, 5 counties
5th kid: 1 duchy, 3 counties

The Kingdom/Empire titles should be separate from the duchies and counties in succession. There's no way a 1st son would inherit a quarter of the land that the second son is.

What you're asking for is realms to be even more stable than they are already and for succession to be toothless. Having the king and duke title accounts for a lot of power. It might feel like a pain to have to increase your domain after succession, but that just shows that the partition is working properly because your firstborn doesn't get so much.

Pro tip: land your son and give him stuff after he's married and educated but before you keep having more sons.
 
Last edited:
  • 1
Reactions:
I'm going to be a bit nitpicky here.

Gavelkind existed solely in parts of Kent by the time of the game.

Other forms of partition with similar (but not identical) rules existed elsewhere though, but were not gavelkind.
 
The Kingdom/Empire titles should be separate from the duchies and counties in succession. There's no way a 1st son would inherit a quarter of the land that the second son is.

Is the 1st son getting the counties in his Duchy and the 2nd son getting the Counties in his Duchies? IF there are enough Duchies to go around, the system should try to keep Counties with their respective Duchies. It will only start splitting up the Counties within a specific Duchy if there aren't enough Duchies for every son to get one.
 
And thats completely bullshit. A Kingdom is worth nothing without crown land. And crown land are not king or duchy titles, they are counties.
A King without land is weaker than his vasalls with a lot of land. Basically, Land = everything.
Do You mean to say a Count who holds Two Counties will beat a King with 50 Vassals and 1 personal Domain?
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
The count with 2 counties is not a vassal with "a lot of land". And 50 vassals means you're probably an emperor. A vassal who has a lot of land would be more something like an 8 county count/duke and he'd be opposed by a king with perhaps 5 vassals.