PLEASE fix Umayyad succession

[1RepMax]

I know this issue has been raised before (here, for instance, and probably many other times too), but it's been really messing with my ability to enjoy the new DLC. Umayyads ought to have regular partition (or high partition, or maybe even primogeniture), not confederate partition, at the 867 start.

I find it sadly ironic that the devs have made it this far into Fate of Iberia hotfixes without addressing the ahistoricity of the Umayyads being stuck with a succession type that all but guarantees they cease to exist as such. Like, given the addition of the game rule about delayed dissolution factions, the devs clearly care about accommodating players who'd like to have the Umayyads be a formidable presence, whether as friend or foe, for something close to their real historical time span. Yet, unless you start as Muhammad I and burn through renown to disinherit all but one of your many sons, or start as someone else and go on an extremely implausible murder spree, you're going to have nearly as much fragmentation as if there'd been a successful dissolution war from the beginning.

What's more is that we just shouldn't have to be forced by questionable game mechanics to behave in deeply ahistorical ways in order to do historical roleplay. For example: I think 'Abd ar-Rahman III is a fascinating figure and really wanted to roleplay as him (reclaim the title of caliph, religious tolerance, artistic patronage, lots of gay sex.... okay the historical evidence for the last one is contested but it's my headcanon, okay?). To get this guy to happen in game, I've been trying to start as his predecessor and grandfather, 'Abdullah (holder of Alarcos in 867), rather than as Muhammad I, so that I can have the agency to assassinate his older twin brother al-Mundir (as may have actually happened IRL, though in game it's safer to assassinate him much earlier) and assert my place in the succession. Now, murdering your brother in order to become the heir is one thing. And I can even imagine the roleplay plausibility of murdering other brothers if they seem likely to cause problems and claim the throne for themselves. But having to murder every one of your brothers (and their children!) because otherwise everyone else will recognize their right to have sole independent dominion over one third of the realm (and will not recognize your right to try to reunify - remember, the primary heir in confederate partition never gets claims on the realms they lose), just because that third of the realm contains most of a pre-existing "de jure kingdom" (which, in this context, may never have really been thought of as such before by anyone involved) is ludicrous.

And, although I'm admittedly not a trained historian or expert on medieval Islam, it just seems completely wrong. Like, did any large early medieval Muslim state break up upon its leader's death because every son was taken to have the right to their own independent piece of the pie? Nothing comes to mind for me; plenty of succession issues, famously, but never the kinds of splits like with the Carolingians. And it's not what happened in Andalusia, either; even before the proclamation of the caliphate in 929, the Umayyads had had single-heir succession for about a century prior to the 867 start date. Sure, realms can and did break up because the subjects in a region want to be independent, but rebelling in order to not pay taxes to your overlord's family is very much not the same as wanting to be independently ruled by one of the younger sons of your overlord.

I'm not saying Paradox games should always be 100% historically accurate in every way, because that wouldn't necessarily be fun even if it were possible. But Paradox games are fun in the first place because they're detailed and well-constructed enough to simulate how history did go or could have gone. And if the way history actually went isn't even POSSIBLE without tricksy gamey strategies that require a skilled player's intervention, then something is wrong. Trust me, I'm an experienced Paradox gamer; I'm quite good at avoiding succession losses in CK3 when I want to, and I find it fun in campaigns where it's reasonable. I could probably make it work with the 'Abdullah start, somehow. But if I have to murder my whole family just to game a mechanic that shouldn't be there in the first place, it's immersion-breaking to say the least.

 

[gamerk2]

My stance is this: There needs to be a Cultural Pillar that grants access to other forms of succession. And of course, certain cultures should should with those forms of succession (Greek being the most obvious). This solves a *lot* of problems in regards to certain unique entities (Byzantine, the Golden Horde) starting with special succession types even if they lack the necessary Innovation.

 

[X_FloW]

I agree that "Clan" government type (or more like Iqta) should not start with conf partition

 

[Toleora]

In CK2 we had "Open Succession" as muslim exclusive law. It picked the most powerful( that means with the most land) son to be main and player heir.

While that solution wasn't perfect, because it prevented you to give out much land to dynasty members, it was still more historical accurate than the copy paste confederate partition we got from the christians/feudals now

 

[andersonm]

My stance is this: There needs to be a Cultural Pillar that grants access to other forms of succession. And of course, certain cultures should should with those forms of succession (Greek being the most obvious). This solves a *lot* of problems in regards to certain unique entities (Byzantine, the Golden Horde) starting with special succession types even if they lack the necessary Innovation.

Aragonese, Basque, and Catalan all have the "Visigothic Codes" cultural pillar which allows them to switch to High Partition immediately on game start. Very convenient and it certainly would be appropriate for certain other cultures to get something similar.

 

[gamerk2]

Aragonese, Basque, and Catalan all have the "Visigothic Codes" cultural pillar which allows them to switch to High Partition immediately on game start. Very convenient and it certainly would be appropriate for certain other cultures to get something similar.

Exactly. And allowing earlier access to forms of Primogeniture would be nice as well (although I recommend at a *very* high Prestige cost of like 20k to actually adopt it).

 

[Naughtius Maximus]

What are you even talking about? All males (in Agnatic only succession,) including the Primary heir, gets claims in all titles lost to siblings that they haven't vassalized upon succession. This means all equal tier titles.

You can have your succession struggle retaking lost, equal tier titles via warfare or assassination. That alone retakes the entirety of your father's realm and represents the struggle between brothers.

If you're referring to vassalized lower tier titles you lost, you're the liege. Revoke them for whatever reason you please, whether it be justified or not.

Please stop whining about needing an easier mode when the game's easy enough as it is. As the primary heir in any Partition, you also inherit the entirety of your father's treasury, artifacts, and MAA for a massive advantage in the upcoming succession conflict should you choose to pursue reunification of the realm.

 

[newtlord]

Please stop whining about needing an easier mode when the game's easy enough as it is. As the primary heir in any Parition, you also inherit the entirety of your father's treasury, artifacts, and MAA for a massive advantage in the upcoming succession conflict should you choose to pursue reunification of the realm.

The current setup is "easy mode". As you yourself mention, while partition is annoying, it is perfectly easy to deal with it and still maintain strong personal holdings over the generations. However, the AI is effectively incapable of doing so, and, therefore, after a few generations, the player's realm becomes far more powerful than any of those that surround it, and the game's difficulty vanishes. If AI opponents were capable of consolidating their power over generations, the player might struggle against them; as it is, partition (and the AI's inability to deal with it) prevents them from doing so.

 

[Naughtius Maximus]

The current setup is "easy mode". As you yourself mention, while partition is annoying, it is perfectly easy to deal with it and still maintain strong personal holdings over the generations. However, the AI is effectively incapable of doing so, and, therefore, after a few generations, the player's realm becomes far more powerful than any of those that surround it, and the game's difficulty vanishes. If AI opponents were capable of consolidating their power over generations, the player might struggle against them; as it is, partition (and the AI's inability to deal with it) prevents them from doing so.

So you're asking to make the succession or factions harder, which I entirely agree with. Building up the AI to be a stepping stone 200 years in, and then back to nothing? Big no.

If even the player has issues keeping the realm intact, player wouldn't have nearly the time nor opportunity to look for external expansion. Then it wouldn't matter how de jure the AI shrinks the realm, the player would be too engaged with internal struggles to even think about being bored.

Unlike external struggles, internal ones scale with the realm. Rather than asking Paradox to build the AI up when we've seen over every single one of their games that this doesn't work, it's more effective to ask Paradox to increase the mechanics of internal maintenance and the subsequent threats.

 

[Nitrate55]

What are you even talking about? All males (in Agnatic only succession,) including the Primary heir, gets claims in all titles lost to siblings that they haven't vassalized upon succession. This means all equal tier titles.

You can have your succession struggle retaking lost, equal tier titles via warfare or assassination. That alone retakes the entirety of your father's realm and represents the struggle between brothers.

If you're referring to vassalized lower tier titles you lost, you're the liege. Revoke them for whatever reason you please, whether it be justified or not.

Please stop whining about needing an easier mode when the game's easy enough as it is. As the primary heir in any Partition, you also inherit the entirety of your father's treasury, artifacts, and MAA for a massive advantage in the upcoming succession conflict should you choose to pursue reunification of the realm.

You've completely missed the point. It's not about the difficulty of partition succession in general, this post is complaining about the Umayyad succession specifically being unrealistic by being set to confederate partition when there's no historical precedent for it, especially since PDX has already shown a willingness to make certain cultures able to adopt primogeniture or high partition right from the start, as in the Byzantines and the Iberian cultures that have the Visigothic Codes cultural pillar.

It's obvious they're doing this for historical realism, which raises the question as to why they didn't do the same thing for the Umayyads, even after multiple hotfixes. Their actual system of succession had one single heir getting everything, which is functionally the same as primogeniture succession in game. They never fractured into multiple realms each ruled by an individual heir.

You're going on about how easy the game is and how players can just use their claims to take back whatever they lose to succession, but that's not relevant to this post. The issue isn't difficulty, it's about game mechanics making certain realms totally ahistorical.

 

[Naughtius Maximus]

You've completely missed the point. It's not about the difficulty of partition succession in general, this post is complaining about the Umayyad succession specifically being unrealistic by being set to confederate partition when there's no historical precedent for it, especially since PDX has already shown a willingness to make certain cultures able to adopt primogeniture or high partition right from the start, as in the Byzantines and the Iberian cultures that have the Visigithic Codes cultural pillar.

It's obvious they're doing this for historical realism, which raises the question as to why they didn't do the same thing for the Umayyads, even after multiple hotfixes. Their actual system of succession had one single heir getting everything, which is functionally the same as primogeniture succession in game. They never fractured into multiple realms each ruled by an individual heir.

You're going on about how easy the game is and how players can just use their claims to take back whatever they lose to succession, but not that's not relevant to this post. The issue isn't difficulty, it's about game mechanics making certain realms totally ahistorical.

He's complaining about the split from confederate partition as if it were unhistorical, when in reality it's just a succession conflict. Fight your brothers already and reunite the realm.

We do NOT need to artificially glue an aI realm together with even easier mechanics than what already exists. The problem is already evident with easier successions seen with the Byzantines, who only really grow in CK3 despite historically sloughing off pieces of it territory over time. Or the effects seen in CK2. Doing the same just makes people moan more about Asturias having a "hopeless situation," triggering this endless cycle of nonsense all over again.

It is better to universally make realm maintenance harder, so the fracturing of a realm like Umayyads or Byzantines matters less as other realms (especially the player's) would be too busy managing their own affairs to take advantage.

 

[Portable Grump]

Thank you for the feedback, I will pass this on!

 

[Prince Ire]

In CK2 we had "Open Succession" as muslim exclusive law. It picked the most powerful( that means with the most land) son to be main and player heir.

While that solution wasn't perfect, because it prevented you to give out much land to dynasty members, it was still more historical accurate than the copy paste confederate partition we got from the christians/feudals now

And it's not as if all of Christian Europe used something best represented by confederate partition either historically. I have no idea why Paradox felt the need to force it on literally everyone minus the Byzantines

 

[newtlord]

Really, confederate partition is of questionable historicity even for the things it's supposed to represent. It's alleged that it's supposed to model the division of the Carolingean empire, but the empire didn't automatically split into three pieces on succession- after Charlemagne's sole heir Louis the Pious died, Louis's firstborn son Lothair received the empire and overlordship over the younger sons (who received lands in the east and the west), but those younger sons soon rose in rebellion and achieved independence. The CK3 mechanics can model this perfectly well as regular partition followed by a faction revolt.

 

[Naughtius Maximus]

Only problem is that factions aren't strong enough to model this well, as evidenced by multi-generational massive empires players can form.

Until that begins happening regularly, it's not wise to remove the bare minimum of anti-blobbing aspects of the game. Players already abandon campaigns well before the end date, we don't need them abandoning it even earlier because they blobbed out even faster.