Ck3 Succession is restrictive and bad

[EM Tactics]

Good luck playing in 867 when it takes 200 years to get senority and 400 to get primogeniture,
enjoy gavelkind.

[Enzo Gorlami]

Originalmente postado por GoldenTalon:

Not being able to manage excess children with church position was a basic strategy in CK2. Why was this removed?

It's a bit weirder now, but I think you can still cloister kids if they're imprisoned.
Otherwise who knows, clearly not as good here in that aspect.

[Retro]

Originalmente postado por GoldenTalon:

Not being able to manage excess children with church position was a basic strategy in CK2. Why was this removed?

no you ask them to take vows, once you get a holy order of your own you can send them to holy order.

[Ace490]

There is some stuff with the succession laws that is simply not thought through very well. For example, why do I need the approval of the most powerful lords in the HRE (if I'm the emperor) to change inheritance laws that only affect my personal counties, but I can change the respective laws of the duchies I hold at will? That makes no sense.
Why do I need the special duchy laws if I almost always want them to be inherited by my main heir? There might be some very specific conditions in which it might make sense to have a different law on your secondary duchy, but that is way too rare to implement a whole independent mechanic for it.
Why can't we just use the old mechanic of CK2 where your duchies and counties had the same inheritance mechanism under an elective kingdom/empire? Under that system you also had a differentiation between elective primo/ultra and elective Gavelkind. I don't see why this system could not be adapted for this game.
The current system is just convoluted, misleading and unhelpful. I have no problem with going through 250 with partition/Gavelkind, but once I have discovered primo/ultramogeniture I want some more control over who gets to inherit my stuff, at least in an elective kingdom/empire.

[Heraclius Caesar]

the succession laws are definitely ridiculous.
as i've said before in this discussion forum, some form of primogeniture (even if it wasn't explicitly called this) was prevalent throughout europe during the time periods of this game. for examples, when "partition" occurred during this time, it wasn't due to any law but to ancient family tradition (i.e. the karlings) or to parental affection and generosity (i.e. henry II of england who sought to divide his realm between his oldest living sons, or the later french kings who would create appanages for younger sons). the point is, it was completely the rulers choice, not some arbitrary "law" that rulers were enforced to obey. in fact, rulers would be the ones historically who issued the "law" of their succession, declaring so-and-so their heir.
also, why of all things to tinker with, would they change france's 1066 start? it is widely known and accepted throughout the historical community that when the first capetian king became king of france, primogeniture was formally introduced and became a keystone of the royal tradition there. from 987 to 1316 the kingdom of france was passed from father to eldest son, purposely with primogeniture in mind, never a thought of partition so wtf? here we literally have 1 perfect example of where in history this kingdom was absolutely known to practice primogeniture inheritance yet i guess paradox devs were like nahhh lets switch that up this time? not ok

[Ace490]

Yeah, I read your point and have to agree. That is basically what Friedrich Engels pointed out in "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State" (irrespective of how disputable the consequences were he drew from these observations). The institution of monogamic marriage with centralised inheritance under the principles of Catholic law was meant to clarify inheritance and prevent other potential heirs from raising claims with comparative legitimacy as it was the case under older clan rules.

[jfoytek]

Originalmente postado por Darkie:

No my point is that this game is based on the historical onset and that realistic things that makes sense gameplay wise are in. But obviously, there will be gameplay aspects that trumpf historical aspects. It makes in most cases little sense for a little count to rush "yes rush" murder 50 influential people, go against his/her nature and usurp countless titles, then to murder 5 of his children to only have one heir or to suddenly claim "my heir is solo heir to all" that would nto be accepted by the local power players or even his vassals.

As I said in some circumstances, you should culturally be allowed to have more options than the "simplistic" partition forms or even the late game rules such as primo/ulti etc. My point however still is, that asked for a tiny count to be able to make a huge kingdom 20 years after gamestart and then also gain primo would not just be utterly boring, but also pretty unrealistic (from a historical onset)

I also think that AI is far to passive lategame, infact there should be many more plots towards you as a higher tier ruler, along with much later rebellions with "legitimacy" from siblings in terms if having the primo and many kids.. We could go on and on.. I like options, but I don´t want options that screw balance or make little sense historically..

If you give this game a year or so, I reckon we will have more options across the map for other systems (such as voting) but again.. people seem to dislike it because they think about the game, not as a character/dynasty simulator, but as a country/kingdom focus game....... silly when you understand the strong points of the game..



With all that being said, the game is dreadful easy if you want it to be and it is super easy to keep control, even with partition or atleast control in a sense that you can expand your dynasty far and wide and still gain massive lands for yourself late game and secure them with easy mode primo laws... But I RP... I don´t care about "blobbing land" to paint the map or to make some vast empire with exploits (murdering, waring, etc) constantly... if I wanted that, I would play EU4. But as I said.. I respect everybody and each person plays differently..


Partition is great in my eyes, gives a more realistic, yes realistic view if you play in central Europe.


The reason you don´t see Gavelkind used anymore, is because it was a term primarily used on the British isles. I am not saying the current system is perfect, but it is alot better than the stupid power rush for primogeniture we saw in CK2 from gamey players and even some semi RP´s. Plenty of system existed, we had Agnatic seniority, gavelkind, rota system, tanish, the scandinavian etc etc (many of these are in the game!!! you can click them on btw) If I remember correctly the Tatar´s even had patrinilineal ultimogeniture.

Widespread and accepted agnatic primogeniture, happened after 1200.. again I am not saying the current system is perfect, but it makes much more sense than in CK2... I would preferable have liked even more options, again I am sure we will see that in the future.. But going about like every place on the map in 1066 should have or have access to agnatic primogeniture, would be silly in my opinion.... it would also be a mess, to generate the "uprise" againts rulers that tried to change old system...



Instead a balance have been made, to make gameplay fun and a challange, along with still being somewhat realistic historically !!


I fully agree with you that heirs went to war against eachother all the time, obviously because they wanted more.. well in some cases all were content and happy as well, thus the pretty easy claim title function when partition happens ingame! Again... I seriously think we see way to little struggle in terms of plots, wars, rebellions when high tier rulers have more heirs and or do silly things that should upset most people.

I agree with nothing in this wall of text and feel I waisted a moment of my lifetime reading this!

Get rid or "Your silly preconcieved notions of history"

Because my Flying Spagetti Monster Religion and Empire of the Pink Three Legged Chickens could care less about your "Notions of History"

My Youngest Child MUST rule my empire because I decree it.....

Oh wait the game Takes away my Agency to play the game the way I want too???

But you get to play the way you want and then tell all the rest of us we play wrong!!!
Classic.....

[Carthago Delenda Est]

Originalmente postado por Harris:

Originalmente postado por Shad:

The Rurikids tore them themselves apart into eventually several dozen principalities that constantly fought each other, including frequent kinslaying (google "Boris and Gleb", for example).

Exactly! It was a prominent feature of Kievan Rus and was indeed common across the Europe. Indeed it wasn't until Russian Empire when they adopted primo.

And the argument about Romans makes no sense because they did not even adopt their sanitation and baths, what to say of succession. That was also largely a mess btw, with barbarian emperors, emperors installed by the legions / praetorians and the like.

So in many cases it is very rich and cheese to talk about primo even in 1200 when it's theoretically available. It is in fact as historical as "wash hands" medic perk in 867.

Normans brought primogeniture to England in 1066

Normans had this idea even earlier than 1066, but please go on about how it is historically inaccurate.

Also, if we want to harp on historical accuracy, muslims and catholics should have homosexuality illegal, Helgi (Oleg) should not be of the Rurikid dynasty (let alone his son), the succession for the byzantines should be overhauled, and there should be no female bishops for catholics and yet at the 1066 start date there is one.

[GoldenTalon]

Originalmente postado por ROA:

Originalmente postado por Harris:

Exactly! It was a prominent feature of Kievan Rus and was indeed common across the Europe. Indeed it wasn't until Russian Empire when they adopted primo.

And the argument about Romans makes no sense because they did not even adopt their sanitation and baths, what to say of succession. That was also largely a mess btw, with barbarian emperors, emperors installed by the legions / praetorians and the like.

So in many cases it is very rich and cheese to talk about primo even in 1200 when it's theoretically available. It is in fact as historical as "wash hands" medic perk in 867.

Normans brought primogeniture to England in 1066

Normans had this idea even earlier than 1066, but please go on about how it is historically inaccurate.

Also, if we want to harp on historical accuracy, muslims and catholics should have homosexuality illegal, Helgi (Oleg) should not be of the Rurikid dynasty (let alone his son), the succession for the byzantines should be overhauled, and there should be no female bishops for catholics and yet at the 1066 start date there is one.

Not true:


There is also evidence that in Schleswig Holstein, leaving the estate to the eldest son and giving only monetary compensation to his siblings was the prevailing practice since around the year 100. Patrilineal primogeniture also prevailed among the Vikings. In Scotland, certain types of property descended exclusively to the eldest son in the Scottish Lowlands even before the Norman conquest in 1066.

Let's face it this is messed up in CK3 as OP stated well.

[Carthago Delenda Est]

Originalmente postado por GoldenTalon:

Originalmente postado por ROA:

Normans brought primogeniture to England in 1066

Normans had this idea even earlier than 1066, but please go on about how it is historically inaccurate.

Also, if we want to harp on historical accuracy, muslims and catholics should have homosexuality illegal, Helgi (Oleg) should not be of the Rurikid dynasty (let alone his son), the succession for the byzantines should be overhauled, and there should be no female bishops for catholics and yet at the 1066 start date there is one.

Not true:


There is also evidence that in Schleswig Holstein, leaving the estate to the eldest son and giving only monetary compensation to his siblings was the prevailing practice since around the year 100. Patrilineal primogeniture also prevailed among the Vikings. In Scotland, certain types of property descended exclusively to the eldest son in the Scottish Lowlands even before the Norman conquest in 1066.

Let's face it this is messed up in CK3 as OP stated well.

I said England lol and I am on the OP's side

[GoldenTalon]

Originalmente postado por ROA:

Originalmente postado por GoldenTalon:

Not true:


There is also evidence that in Schleswig Holstein, leaving the estate to the eldest son and giving only monetary compensation to his siblings was the prevailing practice since around the year 100. Patrilineal primogeniture also prevailed among the Vikings. In Scotland, certain types of property descended exclusively to the eldest son in the Scottish Lowlands even before the Norman conquest in 1066.

Let's face it this is messed up in CK3 as OP stated well.

I said England lol and I am on the OP's side

On England specifically:


Nevertheless, there were no hard and fast rules governing the royal succession in pre-conquest England; the guiding principle was political pragmatism, rather than hereditary right or precedent. The Anglo-Saxon Witan considered the royal succession to be far too important to be decided by the lottery of birth and they introduced a strong (occasionally decisive) element of election into the process.

[Athmet]

Originalmente postado por GoldenTalon:

Originalmente postado por ROA:

I said England lol and I am on the OP's side

On England specifically:


Nevertheless, there were no hard and fast rules governing the royal succession in pre-conquest England; the guiding principle was political pragmatism, rather than hereditary right or precedent. The Anglo-Saxon Witan considered the royal succession to be far too important to be decided by the lottery of birth and they introduced a strong (occasionally decisive) element of election into the process.

Which seems to match what you can enable in game currently. You do have the decision to enable Elective Saxon law.

[GoldenTalon]

Originalmente postado por Athmet:

Originalmente postado por GoldenTalon:

On England specifically:


Nevertheless, there were no hard and fast rules governing the royal succession in pre-conquest England; the guiding principle was political pragmatism, rather than hereditary right or precedent. The Anglo-Saxon Witan considered the royal succession to be far too important to be decided by the lottery of birth and they introduced a strong (occasionally decisive) element of election into the process.

Which seems to match what you can enable in game currently. You do have the decision to enable Elective Saxon law.

OK - so let the player select primogeniture and we're all good. That's what OP is saying. The evidence is overwhelming and CK3 is just plain wrong:


Primogeniture was the rural custom of Normandy before the conquest of England. Bede tells us that in his time the eldest son had some preference or birthright in Northambria,and, considering that Northumbria was occupied by Anglians, Frisians, and Norwegians, this is not surprising, for all these instances of rustic primogeniture point to Norway and the Scandian land as one of its homes.

[Harris]

Alright, fresh report. Just got a game over on my Galicia-Volhynia and gonna tell you why.

I started to fancy Orthodoxy rush as Russians as that gives you the ability to make monks out of additional heirs so you get primo effectively. I also got princess of Byzantium as my wife and when she cheated on me requested divorce and married her sister - the great Basilissa of Byzantium herself.

Problem is she had lover's pox so out of three sons we had only Boris was born without flaws, the other two I had to monk as well. So I groomed Boris into an excellent military commander and declared subjugation war on Khazaria which spanned half of the map by then with the help of my allies Byzantium and Bulgaria.

And then the game decided to screw me over with small pox epidemic. Soon after he ascended and right after Boris married the princess of Bulgaria, he died. His sister Sofia became queen - got infected as well and died in a couple of months.

Finally, Sofia's aunt of 60 years old, the last member of my dynasty, became queen. At this point it was useless as there was no chance for her to produce an heir anymore. Fortunately, the game decided to spare me and she died of small pox pretty fast as well.

Yes, it is as absurd as it sounds. And the lesson I can get from this is there is NO workaround gavelkind. None that wouldn't stab you in the back later on anyway.

Let's face it, primo is not only good because it keeps your realm as a whole and lets one person inherit everything. It also keeps all your dynasty members around with no need to disinherit them or anything. Moreover, it also means primogeniture for all the counties and duchies and the like, so you won't eventually end up with more vassals than you gave land to in the first place.

Another note is that I started to rely on tyrant > imprison everyone > strip the titles off everyone too often. This way there is no chance of vassal uprising, but -90% to gold and levies is also crippling.

Theoretically I should just "building tall", as in develop my own duchy to have it strong, but it's not practical as switching from tribal to feudal will remove all those buildings anyway.

This means the game is effectively about gavelkind. If you try to work around it you'll be punished for that one way or another.

[Harris]

Originalmente postado por GoldenTalon:

OK - so let the player select primogeniture and we're all good.

The game is too heavily balanced around gavelkind to allow us to cheese primo. And that is the problem.

With primo we:

1) can have one heir get everything
2) can give out titles the way we want without limit
3) can have primo extend to those vassals as well so we always have exactly the amount of vassals we created
4) don't need to disinherit ppl wasting renown or monk them, risking game over from small pox etc

it is very OP game mechanics-wise, as it effectively eliminates most of the challenges and turns it into map painting game.

[GoldenTalon]

Originalmente postado por Harris:

Originalmente postado por GoldenTalon:

OK - so let the player select primogeniture and we're all good.

The game is too heavily balanced around gavelkind to allow us to cheese primo. And that is the problem.

With primo we:

1) can have one heir get everything
2) can give out titles the way we want without limit
3) can have primo extend to those vassals as well so we always have exactly the amount of vassals we created
4) don't need to disinherit ppl wasting renown or monk them, risking game over from small pox etc

it is very OP game mechanics-wise, as it effectively eliminates most of the challenges and turns it into map painting game.

Not really. CK2 dealt with this well using opinion modifiers and other mechanics.