Will feudal kingdoms going elective be changed?

[Njolnin]

I'm wondering if anyone here knows if the Devs are aware of the strong tendency of feudal kingdoms to go elective. Across 3 games and maybe 400 years, virtually every kingdom goes elective eventually, and doesn't turn back. It's seems silly, and it's not as interesting to play when every country has the same succession type.

I started my current game in 1081 as Byzantium. Since then the countries turned elective are: Byzantium, Scotland, England, France, Aquitaine, Hungary, Galicia, Ruthenia, Russia, Norway, Sweden. I think only little Castile is not elective, and that probably won't last.

I'm not sure what can be done about it, but I'd think the faction decision that allows the overthrow and institution of elective is almost certainly what's causing it. Why can't that decision just be removed? There'd still be the opportunity for factions to impose elective, or to install someone else on the throne.

Any thoughts?

 

[napoleon_mayo]

Paradox cares more about game balance than they do about historical accuracy.

It's frustrating I know.

 

[kmh42]

I all my game with 2.5 I also see a tendency with elective succession. But when I look at the title history on some Kingdoms after a few decades into a game I see that many rulers manage to get back to Primo. Yeah many stick with elective or have it as the common succession law.
I think one thing causing this is the new 'Oust Ruler' faction. When the Rebellion succeeds it installs elective succession.
I would suggest that the AI is only using the elective succession faction when there is not direct (child) heir or this person is weak or is disliked or what ever.
My basic understanding from history is that elective was some sort of fallback succession. When there was no obvious/good/capable heir, the vassals choose one from them.

Edit: I think I add this to the CCIL

 

[kmh42]

I just checked into India and was surprised how well they doing. They don't have this elective succession problem at all, despite the fact they are very likely to Christian realm in contrast to Pagan (elective Gavelkind) and Muslim (Open) realms. How is that?

Forget that! Indian religions have no elective succession available.

 

[User29]

I just checked into India and was surprised how well they doing. They don't have this elective succession problem at all, despite the fact they are very likely to Christian realm in contrast to Pagan (elective Gavelkind) and Muslim (Open) realms. How is that?

Forget that! Indian religions have no elective succession available.

actually they just need the council fully in control to go elective, I think something similar should be added for christians when they use "oust ruler" CB, it should check if council laws are 100% in control and then switch out the CB with the beefier "kick you out AND install elective"

 

[kmh42]

actually they just need the council fully in control to go elective, I think something similar should be added for christians when they use "oust ruler" CB, it should check if council laws are 100% in control and then switch out the CB with the beefier "kick you out AND install elective"

The Oust Ruler faction works the same for all feudal/Iqta realms. The elective part is always in.

 

[User29]

The Oust Ruler faction works the same for all feudal/Iqta realms. The elective part is always in.

I understand this, I was proposing it should be changed, two CB's of the same name but you have access to the one that changes to elective only if all the council laws are implemented

 

[kmh42]

I understand this, I was proposing it should be changed, two CB's of the same name but you have access to the one that changes to elective only if all the council laws are implemented

Sorry I don't understand you completely. Do you mean the elective faction should only be available when council authority is is fully enact?

 

[User29]

Sorry I don't understand you completely. Do you mean the elective faction should only be available when council authority is is fully enact?

no i'm saying the CB "oust ruler" should be copied, and set aside as only usable when every council law is enacted and the current "oust ruler" CB should be changed so that it doesn't install elective succession.

the elective succession should only be a part of oust ruler if the council is fully in charge of the country, as it basically means the nobility already rules the country and have tired of the current dynasty, why bother installing the same when they can choose amongst themselves?

 

[SigurdStormhand]

I wonder, is this the same using Conclave and without?

Without Conclave certain Factions are dissallowed with higher CA levels.

 

[User29]

I wonder, is this the same using Conclave and without?

Without Conclave certain Factions are dissallowed with higher CA levels.

crown authority isn't even a thing exactly in conclave

 

[Njolnin]

I like User 29's approach, although perhaps it should be brought down to simply requiring a fully empowered council, which is a less strict requirement, but still difficult enough to make it less likely. That way, like he/she said, going elective success seems to make sense, as it reflects that the nobility are already very powerful and would rather choose their own ruler from among themselves.

I hope we can agree that seeing nearly all Christian kingdoms turn elective feels neither historical nor very interesting. Elective monarchies tend to be too stable, and they make playing the marriage game to get claims less fun.

 

[SigurdStormhand]

crown authority isn't even a thing exactly in conclave

Which was my point - removing CA allows vasslas to press for Elective at any time.

 

[User29]

I like User 29's approach, although perhaps it should be brought down to simply requiring a fully empowered council, which is a less strict requirement, but still difficult enough to make it less likely. That way, like he/she said, going elective success seems to make sense, as it reflects that the nobility are already very powerful and would rather choose their own ruler from among themselves.

I hope we can agree that seeing nearly all Christian kingdoms turn elective feels neither historical nor very interesting. Elective monarchies tend to be too stable, and they make playing the marriage game to get claims less fun.

I only said it so strictly cause there's already a "free elective succession" faction nobles can choose to join, and seeing oust ruler be so easily taken, it's sad to see europe embrace oligarchic democracy so early

 

[kmh42]

Just to be clear. When you saying CB you mean a faction, right?

no i'm saying the CB "oust ruler" should be copied, and set aside as only usable when every council law is enacted

One Faction to oust the ruler only available when the council has full authority, but with elective succussion.

the current "oust ruler" CB should be changed so that it doesn't install elective succession.

And another oust ruler faction with no requirements but without elective succussion but it enacts full council authority.

My suggestion to the hole elective problem would be much simpler. Just lower the requirements for changing to another succession law. For AI rulers it's way to hard to please every vassal for the purpose of succession law change.

it's sad to see europe embrace oligarchic democracy so early

elective succession has nothing to do with democracy. Democracy is more then just an election. It means government by the people, democracy has something to do with Separation of powers, free press, freedom of speech,... .Feudal vassals choosing the next King is no Democracy! Please understand and except that. This is a very important in modern times. Too many countries call them self Democracies just because they have an election.
Sorry for the real world speech, let's focus on the topic again.

 

[SigurdStormhand]

Ousting the ruler and instituting an election is actually something that happened historically. The problem is that the historical direction of travel has been reversed in Conclave. Historically monarchs in this period consolidated their power and gradually moved from an elective Kingship by consent to a more absolutist government based on primogeniture.

In fairness, pre-Conclave we had the opposite problem where everybody went Primo by 1150, including the HRE.

The old problem was caused by weak factions firing and making it too easy to raise CA, the current problem is caused by the new Oust Ruler Faction and the lack of CA, meaning vassals can push for Elective as a Faction at any point (where it was previously blocked by CA).

 

[Greybeard0815]

Imho the best way to solve this would be giving cultures a preferrance on which succession they use. It could even be easily implemented through the cultures.txt with a prefersucc = successiontype.

Celtics would prefer Tanistry. Germanics would prefer Elective Monarchy (except for Norse who would prefer Elective Gavelkind, which would then change to Elective Succession as the Norse feudalize and split into Norwegian, Swedish and Danish).
Russians would prefer Primogeniture.
Arabs prefer Agnatic Open (defaulting to Agnatic Seniority when not Muslim),
Etc. giving cultures the preferred succession type that seems most historically appropiate.

The worst offender of this whole Elective Monarchy thing is, that you can no longer play the marriage game on a King or Emperor level, because all princes and brides give ony weak claims under elective monarchy. And .. yeah.. try to find a use for weak claims when the other Kingdom will never have a child ruler, regency or female ruler due to having elective. Which also kinda eliminates one of the biggest points of the game (gaining claims through marriage and pressing them).
Originally this only affected the HRE (which it should), but a few decades into a game will turn most of the Christian realms into mini-HRE's.

I wonder, is this the same using Conclave and without?

I'm probably one of the few players remaining who refuse to play Conclave. Anyway yes it is the same without Conclave. They use the faction for Elective Succession instead and you'll see many A.I. rulers folding to faction pressure sooner or later and never going back.

 

[KaiserNoncehelmIII]

I believe the most realistic solution should be that the 'oust ruler' faction makes the ruler abdicate to their heir. If there is no clear heir, then there should be a round of voting in the same way that elective monarchies work where the only candidates are people with strong claims. If nobody has a strong claim, there should be an election for a weak claimant.

If a ruler dies without an heir or a single claimant, the election should take place with the candidates being the vassals of the king. After a new ruler is chosen, the old succession law should be reinstated.

 

[Njolnin]

One thing

Just to be clear. When you saying CB you mean a faction, right?

One Faction to oust the ruler only available when the council has full authority, but with elective succussion.

And another oust ruler faction with no requirements but without elective succussion but it enacts full council authority.

My suggestion to the hole elective problem would be much simpler. Just lower the requirements for changing to another succession law. For AI rulers it's way to hard to please every vassal for the purpose of succession law change.


elective succession has nothing to do with democracy. Democracy is more then just an election. It means government by the people, democracy has something to do with Separation of powers, free press, freedom of speech,... .Feudal vassals choosing the next King is no Democracy! Please understand and except that. This is a very important in modern times. Too many countries call them self Democracies just because they have an election.
Sorry for the real world speech, let's focus on the topic again.

He said "oligarchic" democracy, and I think your righteous response ignored the oligarchic part. It may have been a bit of a contradiction of terms, but I think you should get off that high horse. I think it's pretty clear that what the poster meant was a description of elective succession, and I don't see how anyone could think that he was actually saying it was like a modern democracy. He wasn't saying it was like a modern election, just that the country's oligarchy (that is, its dukes) had an election amongst themselves to choose the next ruler.


Back on topic: I ran into a bug in my last game where myself and the AI could change succession type almost at will because the requirement to have all vassals like you was getting checked automatically. Could this be affecting some of the succession problems people were talking about?

 

[SigurdStormhand]

Imho the best way to solve this would be giving cultures a preferrance on which succession they use. It could even be easily implemented through the cultures.txt with a prefersucc = successiontype.

Celtics would prefer Tanistry. Germanics would prefer Elective Monarchy (except for Norse who would prefer Elective Gavelkind, which would then change to Elective Succession as the Norse feudalize and split into Norwegian, Swedish and Danish).
Russians would prefer Primogeniture.
Arabs prefer Agnatic Open (defaulting to Agnatic Seniority when not Muslim),
Etc. giving cultures the preferred succession type that seems most historically appropiate.

The worst offender of this whole Elective Monarchy thing is, that you can no longer play the marriage game on a King or Emperor level, because all princes and brides give ony weak claims under elective monarchy. And .. yeah.. try to find a use for weak claims when the other Kingdom will never have a child ruler, regency or female ruler due to having elective. Which also kinda eliminates one of the biggest points of the game (gaining claims through marriage and pressing them).
Originally this only affected the HRE (which it should), but a few decades into a game will turn most of the Christian realms into mini-HRE's.



I'm probably one of the few players remaining who refuse to play Conclave. Anyway yes it is the same without Conclave. They use the faction for Elective Succession instead and you'll see many A.I. rulers folding to faction pressure sooner or later and never going back.

Well, Conclave came out and after a weak I started a 2.0.4 game (pre-JoI) so that should tell you something. I plan to take another punt when the new DLC comes out but likely without Conclave, as the only bit I really like are favours.

One thing the Conclave-patch did was reduce opinion bonus/malus from traits etc. Given how high the threshdold is for joining and leaving factions that's likely resulting in factions firing too often for rulers to get anything done, even without Conclave.

I like your idea about preferred succession types, I would add that Italians and Greeks should also prefer Agnatic Seniority or Elective.