The involuntary event where I have to marry a woman from a noble house is getting annoying

[Hongkie1697]

I've just realised, after so long since its debut, how strange and arbitrary this event that forces me to marry one of the ghastly harlots of those treacherous noble houses is, for some reason I couldn't choose when and who to marry, I couldn't choose whether I'd have the child of that harlot as my heir, not to mention that I could be forced to have a female heir - even if I were an Islamic king in the Middle East, where such thing never happened save for twice where the consort of the male ruler in Yemen (Asma bint Shihab and her niece Arwa al-Sulayhi) was named co-ruler, thus not only breaking the immersion, spoiling the role-playing experience by possibly forcing a change in dynasty, and is unfairly disadvantageous, as I couldn't kill her off by making her a general if I wanted a better ruler (should she be shite).

Why couldn't I choose a wife (or be celibate even), choose and name the heir myself (which happened a lot in the Islamic World, though not in much of Europe because of primogeniture), and instead have my hands held by this stupid event?

 

[Badesumofu]

You don't play as the ruler of the country in EU4, so 'you' aren't marrying anyone. You have only limited control of dynastic business in this game.

 

[babuchas1]

Anyway it would be nice to get a bit more of CK2 into EU4, like for example if I disinherit this awful heir, who is the next in succession line?

 

[frolix42]

Anyway it would be nice to get a bit more of CK2 into EU4, like for example if I disinherit this awful heir, who is the next in succession line?

"Disinherit Heir" is already ridiculously overpowered. it's pretty silly that a player has perfect knowledge of how skilled of a ruler an infant heir will be in the future.

 

[Zohtun]

Anyway it would be nice to get a bit more of CK2 into EU4, like for example if I disinherit this awful heir, who is the next in succession line?

So you can manure bomb them?

 

[hashinshin]

"Disinherit Heir" is already ridiculously overpowered. it's pretty silly that a player has perfect knowledge of how skilled of a ruler an infant heir will be in the future.

Yeah I kinda of agree with this. It should be more like

"0-3 admin, 3-5 diplo, 4-6 mil."

 

[babuchas1]

"Disinherit Heir" is already ridiculously overpowered. it's pretty silly that a player has perfect knowledge of how skilled of a ruler an infant heir will be in the future.

Sometimes the heir is an adult. But yes, I understand and I agree. What I mean is, for example, the ruler is 70 years old, and I have a 000 heir. I would like to disinherit him but I don't even know if I just have one son or if I have 10. At least we shoul know that.

So you can manure bomb them?

Yes, you got the point

 

[frolix42]

So you can manure bomb them?

CK2 with Way of Life disallowed characters plotting for the death of their immediate children because it became way too common.

Yeah I kinda of agree with this. It should be more like

"0-3 admin, 3-5 diplo, 4-6 mil."

I like that idea. I'm also in favor of putting "Disinherit Heir" behind an Idea Group and not a paywall like it is now.

Sometimes the heir is an adult. But yes, I understand and I agree. What I mean is, for example, the ruler is 70 years old, and I have a 000 heir. I would like to disinherit him but I don't even know if I just have one son or if I have 10. At least we shoul know that.

Sure, that's good.

 

[ahyangyi]

Yeah, and please make this "increased heir chance" stuff really work by showing a list of successors in some way.

 

[Hongkie1697]

My main problem is the event seem to be universal and could randomly create a female heir when it's not supposed to be likely or even possible in most of the world, e.g. Europe where male-preference/Salic/semi-Salic primogeniture are the overwhelming norm, Islamic Middle East where female rulers were non-existent except only twice in Yemen and only through the two Yemeni kings' proclamation of their consorts as co-rulers (Arwa bint Asma and Asma bint Shihab respectively), Confucian world where there was exactly one female emperor regnant (yes emperor) who came to power only through intrigues and a political usurpation, etc. In Europe it would be possibly only through things like pragmatic sanction of 1713, and amongst other countries' changes of succession laws.

Unfortunately, as of yet you're shoved a random harlot as your wife, random bastard as your heir - should he be a crap male heir, no problem you could kill him off by making him a general, should he be a crap female heir however, you're stuck with her until you get lucky or spend 50 prestige, not to mention the fact that if you're trying to role play, your dynasty could very well be gone as a result of this random event.

 

[KaiserWilhelmI]

There's also the case when for example the king is 27 years old and his heir is 25, obviously his brother rather than son, but the game does nothing to replace him with a child of the monarch.

 

[szmik]

disinheriting heir should spawn civil war and/or pretender stack(s) to make any sense

 

[Me_]

I never understood where this myth came from, but there are no hidden family trees in the game. There is just your ruler and their heir. There are no "hidden brothers", "secret children", etc. that the game hides from you. There is only random number generator that may roll to give you an heir or not. Just one heir. If you get a new one right after the previous one's death, that new heir was not hidden from you. That new heir did not exist until the random number generator rolled to give you an heir at the moment of the previous one's death.

There is no hidden dynastic game that the game plays with itself. The system is very simplistic.

As for the event in question, it could be changed for Muslims. That would be the easiest solution.

 

[Badesumofu]

Don't know why anyone would disagree Me_'s post as it is entirely accurate. There are no more facts of the matter about your dynasty than what the game shows you.

You can test it, actually. Get into a position where you can abdicate and then do it. Make a note of whether you immediately have a new heir or not. Then savescum and repeat the process a bunch more times. Sometimes there will be an heir sometimes not. There was no hidden heir waiting, the game decided the moment the old heir became the new ruler.

You'll also note that you will *never* have an heir immediately after disinheriting because the roll to see if there is one doesn't happen when you lose your current heir as a result of using disinherit.

 

[Zohtun]

Don't know why anyone would disagree Me_'s post as it is entirely accurate. There are no more facts of the matter about your dynasty than what the game shows you.

You can test it, actually. Get into a position where you can abdicate and then do it. Make a note of whether you immediately have a new heir or not. Then savescum and repeat the process a bunch more times. Sometimes there will be an heir sometimes not. There was no hidden heir waiting, the game decided the moment the old heir became the new ruler.

You'll also note that you will *never* have an heir immediately after disinheriting because the roll to see if there is one doesn't happen when you lose your current heir as a result of using disinherit.

You sure? I could have sworn I've had it immediately give me a new heir a few times. Sometimes a nice heir which has me go "Hell yeah screw you old heir!" and other times "oh dear <bleeeeep> what the heck is that thing?"