Preventing Succession Crises

[Day Man]

After my dreams and hopes of restoring the Roman Empire got shattered about 10 hours in by the second pretender I decided that something went wrong

I had about five male children each with a duchy of their own ( For some reason I thought that having most of my dukes being blood relatives was a good idea)

Everything went fine until my heir with diplomacy level 1 ascended to the throne, and you can guess what happens next

The question is what is the best way to prevent this from happening?

 

[Enravota]

Don't directly land all your heirs, you can keep them around or marry them to titled women (so they cannot directly attack your heir on ascension). When a title is passed on, the heir gets a negative relation modifier for short reign, so pause and check out your vassals. Try to give them land, money or honorary titles to improve your relationship with at least some of them (so they stay loyal if it comes to civil war). Do not let your other children concentrate a lot of power, if they are your direct vassals they will start to plot against you if the new char is poor. If the heir is very miserable, you might actually want to let them win and replace him with a better char (after his death and loosing all titles you switch to your closest landed relative of your dynasty).

 

[Day Man]

Thank you, are there any drawbacks to not giving your heirs any land?

 

[Lorehead]

Thank you, are there any drawbacks to not giving your heirs any land?

There’s a prestige penalty for it, unless you have Gavelkind. Also, your heir will have less prestige and fewer children.

What you really want to do is ensure that each individual vassal is weak, compared to you.

 

[Lorehead]

Oh, and if you are able to fit your whole empire under one title and make all the Dukes and above your own dynasty, you might switch to Elective. All the candidates will be your dynasty, and you can pick one who’ll be strong enough and popular enough to keep it all together; plus, your vassals will like their ruler better.

 

[Day Man]

would it be too risky to marry extra heirs off matrilineally? or just assassinate them assuming i got the gold?

 

[falloutboy14]

They'd still get the title claim. If you have an ambitious 2nd or later son, you could give them a bishopric to remove them from the succession line. Giving non-heir sons the content trait would help too.

 

[Lorehead]

would it be too risky to marry extra heirs off matrilineally? or just assassinate them assuming i got the gold?

You’d better be very sure your primary heir survives. I don’t see how a matrilineal marriage would help; your children would still get claims, only now victory would mean another family taking over. Really, though, if you lose to another branch of your own family, that’s not game over. You can surrender!

 

[Day Man]

You’d better be very sure your primary heir survives. I don’t see how a matrilineal marriage would help; your children would still get claims, only now victory would mean another family taking over. Really, though, if you lose to another branch of your own family, that’s not game over. You can surrender!

Thats true, but it definitely puts a wrench in my plans to restore the roman empire since I will need to spend years trying to taken the throne back

Might as well just start the game over

Thank you for your suggestions

 

[yezhanquan]

Oh, and if you are able to fit your whole empire under one title and make all the Dukes and above your own dynasty, you might switch to Elective. All the candidates will be your dynasty, and you can pick one who’ll be strong enough and popular enough to keep it all together; plus, your vassals will like their ruler better.

On empires, you might want to create king vassals to help you babysit the problematic dukes which are dormant under the previous ruler.

 

[Lorehead]

Thats true, but it definitely puts a wrench in my plans to restore the roman empire since I will need to spend years trying to taken the throne back

Might as well just start the game over

You could switch to another claimant, if that’s more fun. It’s no different than continuing a game of EU3 or V2 after losing a revolution. You could play the tag instead of the deposed emperor. Hell, role-play it as handing over your remaining holdings to someone who stayed loyal and retiring to become a monk. Plenty of precedent.

 

[Day Man]

You could switch to another claimant, if that’s more fun. It’s no different than continuing a game of EU3 or V2 after losing a revolution. You could play the tag instead of the deposed emperor. Hell, role-play it as handing over your remaining holdings to someone who stayed loyal and retiring to become a monk. Plenty of precedent.

How exactly do I switch to the claimant without making him my heir?

 

[Lorehead]

How exactly do I switch to the claimant without making him my heir?

Without cheating: save the game. Reload, and select a different character. I personally feel a little better about switching before he’s won, but this is also a good way, if you feel there are no worlds left to conquer, to pick a different country and see if you can survive against the behemoth you’ve created.

 

[yezhanquan]

Without cheating: save the game. Reload, and select a different character. I personally feel a little better about switching before he’s won, but this is also a good way, if you feel there are no worlds left to conquer, to pick a different country and see if you can survive against the behemoth you’ve created.

Heh. In CK2, you can play two games: expanding the enclosure that is your realm, and switching to one of the vassals to play around inside said enclosure.

 

[Sir Tornado]

Don't let your heirs have 1 Diplomacy in the first place... if they do then make him a bishop or kill him.