Tanistry goes wrong

[BBBD316]

Well I tend to go elective till I can get to primo.

Elective means that you actively want to give your family land so that regardless of who wins the election you simply take over that person.

 

[Surimi]

Elective means that you actively want to give your family land so that regardless of who wins the election you simply take over that person.

The great thing about tanistry is that it works a lot like elective, but only members of your dynasty are actually eligible to be elected. No need to spend time rigging the elections to ensure you won't be booted off into a random county somewhere. Tanistry even gives a small vassal opinion modifier like elective.

The problem is that with tanistry everyone gets a vote regardless of the size or rank of your realm, which means that after a while it becomes impossible to meaningfully influence the outcome of the election.

It's pretty much the ideal early game succession though, and the fact that it can be picked even by tribal celts is the icing on the cake.

 

[antihero_929]

I'm to lazy to link to any sources, but it's not uncommon for the children or weak rulers, to owe their rise to power; to the nobility. That would rather a less diligent or chaffing liege.

 

[Dragatus]

Welcome to the main downside of tanistry.

On one hand, it combines the advantages of elected and seniority successions (also, it makes tribal government less horrible). On the other hand, better start praying to RNGsus because from now on kingship is decided by the dice roll!

Seniority has advantages? Sure, it stops gavelkind realm splitting, but I don't see it having any significant benefits compared to the other succession types.

Despite hundreds of hours in the game, I've never actually used Tanistry or Elective (closest that I've gotten was Merchant Republic and Tribal, I've definitely played Venice more than any other Catholic title). If not-your-preferred heir gets picked, which character do you play?

With Tansitry you get to play as whoever got the most votes. With Elective Monarchy it depends whether the person who got the votes is of your dynasty. If they are, then you play as that person. If the chosen heir is of a different dynasty, then you lose the elective title but you lower titles default to Primogeniture.

The great thing about tanistry is that it works a lot like elective, but only members of your dynasty are actually eligible to be elected. No need to spend time rigging the elections to ensure you won't be booted off into a random county somewhere. Tanistry even gives a small vassal opinion modifier like elective.

The problem is that with tanistry everyone gets a vote regardless of the size or rank of your realm, which means that after a while it becomes impossible to meaningfully influence the outcome of the election.

It's pretty much the ideal early game succession though, and the fact that it can be picked even by tribal celts is the icing on the cake.

Slight correction, vassals of two ranks below the liege get to vote. So for a duke that's everybody, for a king that's counts and dukes, and for empires it's dukes and kings.

I personally prefer to use Elective Monarchy and simply rig my realm so only members of my dynasty can vote. Then you have the benefits of Tansitry, but your Strong/Genius son that you've personally groomed to have all the best traits actually has a chance to inherit.

 

[kmh42]

I have a question. How the heck are you playing Irish in Capua?

I am playing this.

Well I tend to go elective till I can get to primo.

Me too, first time I tried out tanistry.

 

[DPS]

Seniority has advantages? Sure, it stops gavelkind realm splitting, but I don't see it having any significant benefits compared to the other succession types.

Yes, it does. At least in theory, it allows you to eventually reunite all of your family's lands without revoking any titles or going to war with any members of your dynasty.

Granted, in most circumstances, I don't think that slight advantage is a good enough reason to pick seniority. I'd certainly not use it if I have access to primogeniture or tanistry (except maybe for role-playing purposes), but I might choose it over elective under some conditions, and I'd certainly use it to get out of gavelkind if I had no other choices available.

 

[VoodooEconomist]

Given how much information we can get from the council voting on laws - their reasoning behind it and what would make them change their minds - I'd absolutely love to see a UI redo for all elective succession laws, where I'd be told what each elector:

• Values most about their chosen candidate
• Doesn't like about your candidate

That'd make elective more of a courtly game of intrigue and negotiation... Including favours (for Conclave owners) in the mix for candidate support would go a long way to make things interesting.

 

[Surimi]

Slight correction, vassals of two ranks below the liege get to vote.

I checked and this is correct. I'm pretty sure it used to be everyone, so I'd consider this a buff!

Seniority has advantages? Sure, it stops gavelkind realm splitting, but I don't see it having any significant benefits compared to the other succession types..

Seniority, as mentioned, tends to consolidate all titles held by your dynasty. Tanistry does the same thing, because electors will tend to pick tanists from distant branches and who might have titles already if you've been playing the marriage game.

The other thing is that short ruler lifespans are not always a bad thing. If you want to quickly change a lot of laws or (if you have way of life and are feeling gamey) overtech yourself by repeatedly using the scholarship focus, seniority can be good. Again, this is less of a consistent benefit with tanistry, but can happen.

 

[Dragatus]

Right, as expected. I don't count any of those as significant benefits. At least not compared to running an eugenics program and making sure all my rulers have amazing stats.

 

[Jia Xu]

I have enough experience with CKII that rules are not absolute but a 4 year old with absolutely no traits, claims or what ever is rather strange.

The AI often looks at a lot of things when deciding how AI characters interact with each other. For example, maybe they simply dislike the other candidates. It makes perfect sense to vote for a child you have no strong feelings toward, over some excommunicated senior citizen who has all of your opposite traits. Also, keep in mind that voting in a child means a regency, which could allow the council to get into all kinds of mischief. Don't assume everyone votes with the realm's best interest at heart. I never do.

Another thing to remember about Tanistry is that it creates lots of opportunities to get lieges who have claims on different titles belonging to different vassals. Voting in a liege who has a claim on your title is always a bad idea, because he can revoke it without any opinion penalty.

 

[kmh42]

The AI often looks at a lot of things when deciding how AI characters interact with each other. For example, maybe they simply dislike the other candidates. It makes perfect sense to vote for a child you have no strong feelings toward, over some excommunicated senior citizen who has all of your opposite traits. Also, keep in mind that voting in a child means a regency, which could allow the council to get into all kinds of mischief. Don't assume everyone votes with the realm's best interest at heart. I never do.

Another thing to remember about Tanistry is that it creates lots of opportunities to get lieges who have claims on different titles belonging to different vassals. Voting in a liege who has a claim on your title is always a bad idea, because he can revoke it without any opinion penalty.

Didn't knew that Tanistry is such a gamble. I think I will never touch it again.

 

[Dr Gonzo]

I generally find I can pretty much always get my preferred candidate under elective monarchy. But I do tend to give everything I can to my dynasty. The throne tends to go to either my best stats son or the best of my vassal kings/dukes, the majority of whom are of my dynasty