Flipping to an endgame Republic lets you go mad with your RT because it's endgame; you don't need to conserve it. This greatly increases the average MP.
Late Game Republics
- Thread starter Eviota
- Start date
-
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.
Flipping to an endgame Republic lets you go mad with your RT because it's endgame; you don't need to conserve it. This greatly increases the average MP.
The other thing you get a feel for with disinheriting is that you'll start to get larger age gaps between your ruler and your heir than you would without disinheriting. This means your excellent heirs will rule for longer, and you'll have longer to arrange for your next excellent heir. So while I'd seriously consider disinheriting a 4/4/4 if my ruler is only 16 (and most likely end up doing it) I'd get more and more likely to keep an okayish heir as my ruler gets older. Of course then you also have to consider whether it would actually be beneficial to die heirless in order to get a reverse dynasty swap and a new ruler with random stats.
From memory heirs have a slightly higher death chance for a given age than rulers. I've come to dislike having my heirs be at all close in age to my rulers unless they have better stats than the current ruler in which case I'll just abdicate when the button lights up. But having that heir be old means there is a greater chance they just die before your ruler leaving you limited time to arrange a replacement or they simply come to power old themselves which also leaves little time to arrange a replacement. So the age of my current ruler is a very important consideration for a variety of reasons and not just the obvious one.
From memory heirs have a slightly higher death chance for a given age than rulers. I've come to dislike having my heirs be at all close in age to my rulers unless they have better stats than the current ruler in which case I'll just abdicate when the button lights up. But having that heir be old means there is a greater chance they just die before your ruler leaving you limited time to arrange a replacement or they simply come to power old themselves which also leaves little time to arrange a replacement. So the age of my current ruler is a very important consideration for a variety of reasons and not just the obvious one.
If you play like a opm on very hard that royal marriage diplo boost is just invaluable. Losing that alone would make my playthroughs alot harder, who cares about extra mp or unions when you are dead.
According to the wiki, heirs have considerably lower death rates than rulers if you don't make either of them into a general, whereas their life expectancies as generals are very similar.
On the other hand, there are several random events that kill your heir; probably this is the leading cause of death for young heirs who are not generals. Apparently there's one where your monarch has a 33% chance of death, but the circumstances in which it can be triggered are pretty rare. Other than that, you're never forced to risk your monarch's life by random event as far as I know (although a few of them give you the option to kill your monarch).
or your ruler may decide to die before an heir come to take his place and now you need to defeat your old ally france to become independent country agaiiiiin
Just go to war until you get an heir. You can't be PUed if you're at war. I'd rather tank WE from Call for Peace than fall in a PU under France.
or your ruler may decide to die before an heir come to take his place and now you need to defeat your old ally france to become independent country agaiiiiin
You can avoid falling into union by either having one yourself or being at war. Still a worthy consideration, though. I guess all I can offer to that is to say that I've never fallen into a PU myself.
Yeah, that sounds about right. Maybe you are thinking of 'beloved heir falls ill'? I think that particular event only happens to heirs over a certain threshold of quality.
Regardless, I like a 30 year plus age gap between heirs and rulers if possible.
And even better, I'm pretty sure the tier where you can be PUed without already sharing a dynasty only lasts 5 years. I believe call for peace occurs after... 5 years. But anyway you can always chain wars if you have to and ideally have a PU of your own ASAP.
Not sure about heir quality, but 'Beloved Heir Dies' can only kill heirs with a strong claim. There's also the infamous Hunting Accident.
The one that can kill your monarch (without an option to make sure he survives) is kind of interesting. If you have +3 stab, no regency and 100 ducats, and someone else of your dynasty has -3 stab, you get an event where you can try to kill the struggling dynasty member (33% chance of success) at the cost of a moderate opinion hit. (It's phrased as 'failing to help them in their time of need', but if you look at the mechanics, you're the cause of death, not the -3 stab and so on.) If you're very lucky, it could be a great way to get a claim on their throne!
I did once.... it was quite easy to get rid of but ruined my alliance chain
Absolutism simply should be "slider" with scaling benefits and drawbacks. -3 National unrest at one end, current bonuses at other end. -1.5 NU and half the bonuses at 50% absolutism.