Tanistry requires Late Feudal administration

[FifthMonarchy]

Playing first game as a Celt since the patch and noticed that changing succession to tanistry requires Late Feudal administration. That doesn't seem right, it was one of the oldest types of inheritance scheme about, admittedly for the Irish rather than the Welsh as I am in this game. Change it in the next patch please!

 

[Mackus]

WAD. Tanistry is quite powerful, that's why they changed it. If it was historical, it would be available to feudal and tribal Irish, not just late feudal ones. Balance.

 

[mudcrabmerchant]

WAD. Tanistry is quite powerful, that's why they changed it. If it was historical, it would be available to feudal and tribal Irish, not just late feudal ones. Balance.

What the hell does balance even mean in this game?

It's already restricted to marginal cultures, what the hell is the problem if you get it early on when you're playing at the ass-end of the map? And it's not like the AI is ever going to use it to blob so much that it ruins the game for the player.

 

[Mackus]

What the hell does balance even mean in this game?

It's already restricted to marginal cultures, what the hell is the problem if you get it early on when you're playing at the ass-end of the map? And it's not like the AI is ever going to use it to blob so much that it ruins the game for the player.

Who are you "what the helling"? Me or devs? This was original reasoning behind the change. Tanistry is better than either Seniority or Elective, so it would make Celts too strong by giving it to them when most other cultures cannot yet have primogeniture.

 

[mudcrabmerchant]

Who are you "what the helling"? Me or devs? This was original reasoning behind the change. Tanistry is better than either Seniority or Elective, so it would make Celts too strong by giving it to them when most other cultures cannot yet have primogeniture.

Anyone who thinks tanistry needed to be balanced compared to other governments, really.

To me, this game isn't like EUIV, where things feel competitive to the point that there should be concern over min-maxing government strats. I just don't see how anyone could look at CKII in that kind of competitive light, and so killing off something that provides a more historical RP experience (and which doesn't normally affect anyone outside of one irrelevant corner of the map) for the sake of balance seems absurd.

So tanistry is better than seniority or elective. So what? What's the big deal if the Irish and Welsh get a really good government type? These cultures cover 1/100 of the map. If the concern is people culture shifting to Irish or Welsh to cheese tanistry for achievements... I mean, why should the design of the game orient itself around that kind of gamer?

 

[StarSword]

I agree. As the historical succession style of pre-Christian Celts that was used from antiquity into the 16th century, tanistry ought to be available to Celts regardless of administration law, and selectable in place of gavelkind at the tribal stage.

As for it being "unbalanced"? The only other things the Celts have going for them is Irish, Scottish, and Welsh retinues. Most of their counties are pretty sparse in holdings and they're easy prey for the Norse.

 

[Finnway]

I agree. As the historical succession style of pre-Christian Celts that was used from antiquity into the 16th century, tanistry ought to be available to Celts regardless of administration law, and selectable in place of gavelkind at the tribal stage.

Agreed. It's no different from how Basques and Cathars have unrestricted Gender Laws.

 

[Mackus]

Anyone who thinks tanistry needed to be balanced compared to other governments, really.

Well, I modded my game so tanistry is allowed to both feudal and tribal Celts regardless of other laws, so you bark at wrong tree.

 

[riadach]

There are various ways to "balance" Tanistry and make it historical. Allow it to create rivals between dynastic branches as well as gravely increase the likelihood of claimant adventurers as well as factions to install rival candidates.

 

[gdj]

I haven´t played with tanistry (or indeed, any irish character) yet. Why is Tanistry better than elective etc., what is so special about it?

 

[vandevere]

I haven´t played with tanistry (or indeed, any irish character) yet. Why is Tanistry better than elective etc., what is so special about it?

It's Elective, but only your dynasty members can be elected, so no danger of game over...

 

[FifthMonarchy]

I haven´t played with tanistry (or indeed, any irish character) yet. Why is Tanistry better than elective etc., what is so special about it?

In my experience it was "worse" than elective (where worse means not getting the heir with best attributes) because the default was to pick more distant branches of the dynasty (their turn to rule) so the most popular candidate was often not that impressive. In my current game i was actually intending to pick it as a challenge, as elective in the three-duchy kingdom of Wales where I hold all the land in two bar one county is obviously easy to manage as I want. It does mean that like seniority if there's a male of your dynasty alive, you won't lose the title on succession.
ETA Though less chance of a succession of short reigns by old kings as with seniority is a plus.

 

[mudcrabmerchant]

In my experience it was "worse" than elective (where worse means not getting the heir with best attributes) because the default was to pick more distant branches of the dynasty (their turn to rule) so the most popular candidate was often not that impressive. In my current game i was actually intending to pick it as a challenge, as elective in the three-duchy kingdom of Wales where I hold all the land in two bar one county is obviously easy to manage as I want. It does mean that like seniority if there's a male of your dynasty alive, you won't lose the title on succession.
ETA Though less chance of a succession of short reigns by old kings as with seniority is a plus.

My one long campaign with tanistry actually saw my longest string of highly capable rulers outside of merchant republic runs. The guys with high diplomacy and good traits naturally get better opinion modifiers with the electors, and along with my own limited ability to influence the election, that meant I almost always had rulers with 15+ dip.

 

[gdj]

I tentatively agree with OP, it does not really fit to late feudal administration. Generally speaking, balancing is not that good of an argument because tying succession laws alone to late feudal adm. (with conclave) or CA (without conclave) is bad balancing by definition. I´d rather have more complex prerequisites for succession laws, for example making elective and tanistry available without any special laws, but requiring you to have a certain number of counties/electors to ensure that you can´t simply control the vote, or making primogeniture (which i never use) only available with a certain minimum of dynastic prestige etc.

 

[Ambigore]

Since tanistry requires late feudalism, can other cultures choose this type of government, or only Celts?

 

[vandevere]

Since tanistry requires late feudalism, can other cultures choose this type of government, or only Celts?

Only Celts...

 

[Strangedane]

It's Elective, but only your dynasty members can be elected, so no danger of game over...

Let me clarify that a bit.
No danger of game over from succesion.

But try ruling a full Brittania where you've spent a few generations making EVERY damn count and duke irish.
And then having your catholic electors put your greek orthodox, inbred, slow, cruel 5th cousin on the throne because it was that branch's turn to rule.
That's effectively game over.

 

[Zsrai]

But try ruling a full Brittania where you've spent a few generations making EVERY damn count and duke irish.
And then having your catholic electors put your greek orthodox, inbred, slow, cruel 5th cousin on the throne because it was that branch's turn to rule.
That's effectively game over.

The worst part of that scenario is that your succession law changes to GAVELKIND

 

[SchwarzKatze]

The worst part of that scenario is that your succession law changes to GAVELKIND

IMO normal succession really shouldn't result in succession law change.

 

[Dragatus]

I think Tanistry should've been available to Celts from the start, it should be available to both tribal and feudal characters, and Irish rulers should probably even start with it in place of Gavelkind.

I haven´t played with tanistry (or indeed, any irish character) yet. Why is Tanistry better than elective etc., what is so special about it?

Tanistry is essentially a better Seniority (instead of the oldest dynasty member you get a distant cousin with decent Diplomacy), but whether it's better than Elective Monarchy depends on how well you can control the vote and whether or not you're running an eugenics program and on what attribute you're focusing.

For example in my last game I set up myself with a size 12 Demesne and made sure my heirs were all Midas Touched Geniuses with enough Stewardship to maintain said demesne. Tanistry would've wrecked havoc on that particular setup. (The succession I was running was Elective Monarchy with myself as the only voter.)

Likewise if you set yourself up with a 6 castle capital and high Martial Education to get the maximum personal levy, you would again get screwed over by Tanistry when you get an elected heir with low Martial skill.

However, if you have a demesne of 7 or less (depending on centralization laws), are not running any sort of eugenics program, and use vassal levies or mercs or retinues for most of your fighting, then Tanistry is probably the best succession law available.