Why can't we create wills?

[napoleon_mayo]

So I was the king of Germany, France, Aquitaine and Lotharingia. I died and the game gave my first son France and Germany and my second son Aquitane and Lotharingia. This seems absurd.

Please let gavelkind rulers choose how their lands are divided amongst there heirs.

Also cadet branches.

Also let us intervene in are vassals war. One game I was Emperor of Rome and I gave my son the kingdom of Anatolia, and I couldn't do anything about his cousin King of Croatia declaring war on him for Anatolia. This is also pretty absurd.

 

[sigeena]

You could declare Realm Peace no?

 

[Robert II]

You could declare Realm Peace no?

Once a decade and only if the 8 random people you selected as councillors agree and only if the council is empowered.

 

[Shebaloso]

So I was the king of Germany, France, Aquitaine and Lotharingia. I died and the game gave my first son France and Germany and my second son Aquitane and Lotharingia. This seems absurd.

Please let gavelkind rulers choose how their lands are divided amongst there heirs.

Also cadet branches.

Also let us intervene in are vassals war. One game I was Emperor of Rome and I gave my son the kingdom of Anatolia, and I couldn't do anything about his cousin King of Croatia declaring war on him for Anatolia. This is also pretty absurd.

Dude, we have to clarify some things, some of which have already been extensively discussed>

1. You mistake "Gavelkind" for a "hey, my firstborn, have this land. Hey my second son, have this land. Hey my third son." It's not like that. Read this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salic_patrimony

The "what goes to whom" was not an unilateral decision from the ruler by any means, and, if the game were to be true to the real salic patrimony, there would be NO gavelkind, ONLY Elective Gavelkind. You CANNOT and SHOULDN't be able to choose "what goes to whom".
Besides, unless your demesne is REALLY fractured, gavelkind is kind of predictable, so you should be able to divide the land however you wish between your second, third, a so forth sons. In your specific case, why do you think the result is absurd? You have four kingdoms and two sons. That each gains two titles is only fair. And you have to take into account the extent and power of each kingdom, gavelkind does not divide titles equally only in name. If i'm not mistaken and you wrote in that order for some reason, France must have been your primary title, which is invariably inherited by your firstborn and whose capital duchy is preserved whole unless you do not posess land outside your de jure capital duchy. If you had two duchies before dying as one would expect, then your firstborn got France (your primary title) and your capital duchy, your second Son got Aquitaine (your second most powerful kingdom) and your other duchy. Then, in the next round of inheritance, your firstborn got another kingdom and your second son finally got the least powerful kingdom.

2. I don't know about cadet branches. It drastically alters the way the game is played. Imagine, for example, your dynasty had thousands of landed members, but you yourself only had two sons. If you had primogeniture and gave land to your second son (making him change dynasty to a cadet branch), and your firstborn died in an accident, your second son would invariably inherit, which would effectively mean game over even though you still have thousands of landed dynastic relatives. I don't know, i would love cadet branches, by i don't think there's a good way to introduce it into the game with the current mechanics.

3. Dude, you have a way to intervene in wars between vassals. Enforce realm peace, or get to medium crown authority to end wars between vassals. Besides, a claim is no simple thing, specially a strong claim. It means a legal right to that title. That your son's cousing declared war for his claim is nothing absurd. If you don't want shit from your vassals, you have the means to deter aggression, even if that means imprisoning someone and getting tyranny (or kidnapping and getting none). And remember that now you are the emperor. But what would you think if your liege suddenly started fucking up all your wars just because? I remember alright how many of the people complaining that you have no way to completely stop wars with Conclave, but became super frustrated once their lieges got Medium Crown Authority pre-Conclave.

 

[Gans]

3. Dude, you have a way to intervene in wars between vassals. Enforce realm peace, or get to medium crown authority to end wars between vassals. Besides, a claim is no simple thing, specially a strong claim. It means a legal right to that title. That your son's cousing declared war for his claim is nothing absurd. If you don't want shit from your vassals, you have the means to deter aggression, even if that means imprisoning someone and getting tyranny (or kidnapping and getting none). And remember that now you are the emperor. But what would you think if your liege suddenly started fucking up all your wars just because? I remember alright how many of the people complaining that you have no way to completely stop wars with Conclave, but became super frustrated once their lieges got Medium Crown Authority pre-Conclave.

To your number 3: medium crown ability only ever helps you with de jure vassals. Non de jure vassals will sh*t on it and dow as they see fit.

 

[Griff Lancer]

Once a decade and only if the 8 random people you selected as councillors and only if the council is empowered.

>and only if the 8 random people you selected as councillors
>and only if the 8 random people you selected as councillors
>and only if the 8 random people you selected as councillors
>and only if the 8 random people you selected as councillors
>only if the 8 random people you selected
>only if the 8 random people you selected
>the 8 random people you selected
>the 8 random people you selected
>8 random people
>8 random people

Wow...

 

[Robert II]

>and only if the 8 random people you selected as councillors
>and only if the 8 random people you selected as councillors
>and only if the 8 random people you selected as councillors
>and only if the 8 random people you selected as councillors
>only if the 8 random people you selected
>only if the 8 random people you selected
>the 8 random people you selected
>the 8 random people you selected
>8 random people
>8 random people

Wow...

I take it you disagree with my choice of council?

 

[Shebaloso]

To your number 3: medium crown ability only ever helps you with de jure vassals. Non de jure vassals will sh*t on it and dow as they see fit.

You could wait for them to drift into your de jure realm or create their de jure kingdom title and set whatever laws you want

 

[MichaelStakely]

I take it you disagree with my choice of council?

The human ratio is too high for a proper council.

 

[Le Corsaire]

Elective Monarchy is the best way to deal with the Gavelkind insanity~

 

[iCrusade4Fun]

So I was the king of Germany, France, Aquitaine and Lotharingia. I died and the game gave my first son France and Germany and my second son Aquitane and Lotharingia. This seems absurd.

Please let gavelkind rulers choose how their lands are divided amongst there heirs.

Agreed. This would definitely be a unique feature to add to the gameplay. Or, at least grant all playable characters the option to decide whether or not they want to create a "Last Will and Testament" for their ruler.

 

[Thure]

1. You mistake "Gavelkind" for a "hey, my firstborn, have this land. Hey my second son, have this land. Hey my third son." It's not like that. Read this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salic_patrimony

The "what goes to whom" was not an unilateral decision from the ruler by any means, and, if the game were to be true to the real salic patrimony, there would be NO gavelkind, ONLY Elective Gavelkind. You CANNOT and SHOULDN't be able to choose "what goes to whom".
Besides, unless your demesne is REALLY fractured, gavelkind is kind of predictable, so you should be able to divide the land however you wish between your second, third, a so forth sons. In your specific case, why do you think the result is absurd? You have four kingdoms and two sons. That each gains two titles is only fair. And you have to take into account the extent and power of each kingdom, gavelkind does not divide titles equally only in name. If i'm not mistaken and you wrote in that order for some reason, France must have been your primary title, which is invariably inherited by your firstborn and whose capital duchy is preserved whole unless you do not posess land outside your de jure capital duchy. If you had two duchies before dying as one would expect, then your firstborn got France (your primary title) and your capital duchy, your second Son got Aquitaine (your second most powerful kingdom) and your other duchy. Then, in the next round of inheritance, your firstborn got another kingdom and your second son finally got the least powerful kingdom.

Do you have any source for this? I'm pretty sure Boleslaw III Wrymouth WAS able to choose "what goes to whom" in his testament to just give you one exemple.

 

[napoleon_mayo]

Dude, we have to clarify some things, some of which have already been extensively discussed>

1. You mistake "Gavelkind" for a "hey, my firstborn, have this land. Hey my second son, have this land. Hey my third son." It's not like that. Read this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salic_patrimony

The "what goes to whom" was not an unilateral decision from the ruler by any means, and, if the game were to be true to the real salic patrimony, there would be NO gavelkind, ONLY Elective Gavelkind. You CANNOT and SHOULDN't be able to choose "what goes to whom".
Besides, unless your demesne is REALLY fractured, gavelkind is kind of predictable, so you should be able to divide the land however you wish between your second, third, a so forth sons. In your specific case, why do you think the result is absurd? You have four kingdoms and two sons. That each gains two titles is only fair. And you have to take into account the extent and power of each kingdom, gavelkind does not divide titles equally only in name. If i'm not mistaken and you wrote in that order for some reason, France must have been your primary title, which is invariably inherited by your firstborn and whose capital duchy is preserved whole unless you do not posess land outside your de jure capital duchy. If you had two duchies before dying as one would expect, then your firstborn got France (your primary title) and your capital duchy, your second Son got Aquitaine (your second most powerful kingdom) and your other duchy. Then, in the next round of inheritance, your firstborn got another kingdom and your second son finally got the least powerful kingdom.

Who is the authority on what goes to whom? Can't this be emulated? Isn't it silly the game wants to spllt my kingdoms diagonally?

Can this be modded? Upon ruler death you would be able to go though an event chain to split your titles amongst your sons and also give for immersions sake give some of your gold to wife and daughters.

2. I don't know about cadet branches. It drastically alters the way the game is played. Imagine, for example, your dynasty had thousands of landed members, but you yourself only had two sons. If you had primogeniture and gave land to your second son (making him change dynasty to a cadet branch), and your firstborn died in an accident, your second son would invariably inherit, which would effectively mean game over even though you still have thousands of landed dynastic relatives. I don't know, i would love cadet branches, by i don't think there's a good way to introduce it into the game with the current mechanics.

What were the rules so to speak about cadet branches? If I were some count in some place in western europe and had two counties and two sons couldn't both bear my house name? I mostly want it for when I get that 3rd or 4th born genius son and I want to give him some stratetgic duchy

3. Dude, you have a way to intervene in wars between vassals. Enforce realm peace, or get to medium crown authority to end wars between vassals. Besides, a claim is no simple thing, specially a strong claim. It means a legal right to that title. That your son's cousing declared war for his claim is nothing absurd. If you don't want shit from your vassals, you have the means to deter aggression, even if that means imprisoning someone and getting tyranny (or kidnapping and getting none). And remember that now you are the emperor. But what would you think if your liege suddenly started fucking up all your wars just because? I remember alright how many of the people complaining that you have no way to completely stop wars with Conclave, but became super frustrated once their lieges got Medium Crown Authority pre-Conclave.

Sorry son I can't intervene because some people like to play as vassals. Sorry.

 

[TMSaxon]

The game is at best an abstraction. That said, some of those abstractions are very odd. I've not personally got a problem with gavelkind inheritance. It does what it is meant to do. However, I do agree that there should be some modifications to it. At least three kings that I can think of choice which son got which title (William the Conqueror immediately comes to mind). There is also a debate as to which gavelkind we are talking about.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavelkind
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partible_inheritance for a more general discussion. Whilst it is Wikipedia, it gives a general idea of what I'm trying to say.
However, it should also be rare, and only really capable for truly powerful kings.
In regards to cadet branches, it was more of a gradual thing - usually the first generation and the second were viewed as being Capetians for example, but eventually they became distinct enough to become de Valois for example. However, despite that, they were still seen as a continuation of the original dynasty, just a different branch of them. The problem that CK2 has is that cadets branches were only really recognised as a thing later on in the medieval period - the Cerdicings for example had several different lineages which fought for the throne. In France in the Hundred Years War era, they'd be recognised as cadet branches, but to the English at the time, they were simply Cerdicings of different lines.

 

[Tryvenyal]

What is strange is that when giving up power to the council you get a mean to stop internal conflicts but as a supreme ruler you do not!

I didn't like the Medium Crown Authority stopped internal conflicts completely, but instead wanted it to give the top liege a tool he can use.
It´s good tool is proved to to "weak" rulers but there also should be a tool for strong rulers to stop internal wars between his vassals. It would make sense, wouldn't it?

 

[Thrake]

Who is the authority on what goes to whom? Can't this be emulated? Isn't it silly the game wants to spllt my kingdoms diagonally?

You can use gavelkind mechanics in your favor. For exemple as a multi duke, if I want one of my sons to have the duchy of Aquitaine, then I can give him a county in Aquitaine; then it will update gavelking split to give it to him even if he previously would not have it. Also, your primary title goes to your primary heir so if he has lands in Aquitaine and France is your primary then he should get both, or ultimately when you're very old you can actually split for real your realm and give all that you don't want to your other sons and if you've fed them enough then your primary heir will get wathever's left.

It's not exactly very user friendly but in the end I almost always give whatever I want to my main heir.

 

[tywinzo]

1. Historically you could name your heirs, yes. But it was also decided together by the nuclear family, such as passing the title to an uncle if that had a practical advantage (by no means seen as a "loss"), to cite a historical example. Otherwise it could vary depending on region, sometimes it was customary that the children would sort it out or stake a claim far earlier than their parent's death. My only gripe is that making it possible to choose makes the game so much more easier, and gavelkind is one of the few fun things to mess up your realm that exists.

2. There was no such thing as a "dynasty", "house" or a "lineage". All of those are invented by historians and are post-history classifications. This is not to say that there were not different such groupings refered to at the time, indeed most frequently toponyms were used. People would often pick their last-name, sometimes to strengthen their claim (regardless if they actually had any at all). Rarely were there family names as in "name not connected to residence", but those also existed. And like all such topics, it varied by region and time-period. Anyone who says "it worked like this" and refer to the entire Europe for the full time-span of the middle ages is either misinformed or grossly oversimpliyfying (which usually goes for most topics).

The biggest problem is in regards to incentives, where people in that time did not try to "preserve my dynasty", but took completely different aspects into inheritance. At no point did it hppen that people went "oh no, he is not a member of my dynasty". It roughly stays in the near-family, but the dynastic classification is a quite coarse tool. For CKII though, the entirely goal is to preserve your dynasty (or you lose). For that reason I'd rather have a system where incentives align with historicity.

3. Historically, Kings did side with various vassals (against his own vassals), such as his wife, nephew, etc. This was part of how the peace was enforced. I was always a bit disappointed that it doesn't work more like in CKI where those things are modeled, rather than just straight out forbidden like CKII. It would also better reflect the reason you'd want to have good relations with your liege, so his does actually come to your aid when required. So, I'm fully in favour in this ..

 

[Thorkel the Tall]

"2. There was no such thing as a "dynasty", "house" or a "lineage"."

Yes there were. They might not be perfectly modelled by the game, but they definitely existed as concept, both to the people and medieval historians. We have such medieval works as "Knytlinga Saga", which is medieval (13th century), and evolve around a central "Dynasty", and this was not a invention by the historian as only "Knytlings" could be elected Kings of Denmark. Similarly alot of Norwegian pretenders went to a great length to prove they were decendent of Harald Fairhair and thus truly "Ynglinga". Similarly all over Europe.

 

[tywinzo]

Don't think you read the post, or you misunderstood it.

 

[StarSword]

To your number 3: medium crown ability only ever helps you with de jure vassals. Non de jure vassals will sh*t on it and dow as they see fit.

That explains how I was able to keep attacking other vassals of the Abbablob as Sultan of Mesopotamia...