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.

[Markus Reese]

Originalmente postado por Skill Less:

Yes, you need several small titles to form the larger one. But don't get several titles on your highest rank. The smaller titles will be divided between all children, but having just 1 larger title will result in your heir get's the large one.

I apologize for my pure noobness. I will proudly say that CK3 is my first CK ever. I am not sure I understand what you mean.

So if we go to Ireland tutorial play, I was a duchie. I had one duchie title before I figured out I needed two to claim Ireland. So had I died, there would have only been the one title and as such, my primary heir would have gotten it all?

Second scenario: I create titles as I conquer. I have now three titles but lack the gold for kingdom and die. My primary heir would gain the capital, and other son duchies?

Third scenario: I did get enough gold to get the title for all of Ireland. I die. Heir gets that king title while other son gets lesser duchies?

Fourth scenario: My five daughters from queen are also sons instead. As above, primary heir becomes king, those four lesser titles get split amongst sons based on line of succession?

[Messsucher]

Originalmente postado por EM Tactics:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=go7arcWvwKY Here's a video on it

Is that some sort of cry baby video or real informational video?

[Ogami]

I like it. Its now historical accurate. There really was no other succession laws then Gavelkind till around 1200 or so.
There were some cultureal exceptions and special laws but overall how its now in the game is correct.

Also Paradox always said they want to get CK away from being just a map painting simulator and focus more on the dynasty rolepay aspect.
Sooner or later your big kingdom will be split up due to succession rules.

If you dont like it, wait for the inevitable mod that will let you change the succession rules much sooner.

[Messsucher]

Originalmente postado por EM Tactics:

Why are so many people defending a discision to make the game more restrictive and on rails

Because it is more challenging that way and successions are core feature in CK2. If you take successions away you have bad medieval EU4.

Anyway, devs must address this issue by making a game rule "designated heir", in which a player can just click one of his dynasty member to inherit all titles.

[GepardenK]

It's much better this way than it was in 2. It makes the game more focused on courtly drama and less focused on cheesy blobbing.

[Aaron]

LOL STOP CRYING THIS IS BEST GAME EVER IM ONLY ON TUTORIAL IM ADDICTED HELP LMAO

[Aaron]

THIS GAME PRETTY MUCH IS CRUSADER KINGS 2 BUT MORE CLEANED UP AND ADDED STUFF your not looking for a button for 6 hours

[Aaron]

I SWEAR TO GOD I LOVE THIS GAME im already thinking to become ruthless and murder english courts pplz lol

[Aaron]

Originalmente postado por Messsucher:

Originalmente postado por EM Tactics:

Why are so many people defending a discision to make the game more restrictive and on rails

Because it is more challenging that way and successions are core feature in CK2. If you take successions away you have bad medieval EU4.

Anyway, devs must address this issue by making a game rule "designated heir", in which a player can just click one of his dynasty member to inherit all titles.

game ISENT ON RAILS learn to play

[Aaron]

Originalmente postado por Messsucher:

Originalmente postado por EM Tactics:

Why are so many people defending a discision to make the game more restrictive and on rails

Because it is more challenging that way and successions are core feature in CK2. If you take successions away you have bad medieval EU4.

Anyway, devs must address this issue by making a game rule "designated heir", in which a player can just click one of his dynasty member to inherit all titles.

na i dont want this because it gives game more challenge I LVOE WHAT THEY DONE STOP RUINING IT

[Aaron]

just play the game make sure confederate never happens easy enough

[Athmet]

Originalmente postado por weasel batches:

Originalmente postado por Lost and Damned:

booo hooo no more easy mode

Yea and remember when we got all the uproar about "Deus Vult" because of history accuracy. But try and make it more accurate with something like the succession and suddenly, to hell with historical accuracy :)

[Harris]

Originalmente postado por EM Tactics:

devalues the play style of making a large dynasty

I'm new to CK but this is something I don't get as well.

From what I can see, there are 3 reasons that drive the gameplay: map painting, character progression and storytelling.

My last game I started as Bukovina and got the kingdoms of Moldavia and Galicia-Volhynia. On death, the latter got away to another son and I spent the better part of the schemer heir's reign to murder 5 his relatives to get the kingdom back. Only to have it split again later on..

What I can conclude from this - we are indeed discouraged from investing into dynasties, bothering with their education, breeding for best traits etc. If it's best to only have one heir and noone else eligible all the time until late game - the whole dynasty aspect becomes irrelevant.

With how we're stuck with gavelkind it's also discouraged to expand at all - just get a small plot of land and stick to it, if you bother expanding you'll end up losing it in succession anyway.

So if I'm discouraged from building an empire as well as building a dynasty, what is there left to play for, storytelling aside?

[Plinto]

I think the best solution here would be to include "unlock gavelkind" (and probably every other kind of succession law) as an option at the start of each game

by default the game would be historically correct, and then players who wanted to toy with other succession laws at different times in history could do so

theres literally no consequence to including this as an OPTION, it just allows people to play how they want and have fun

[WeirdWizardDave]

Never got into CK2, jumped into CK3 on gamepass and was enjoying it but not so much I'd have been happy if I'd bought it. The moment it really clicked for me was when after several aborted starts as various folk I reached a point with a Welsh character, starting in 867, where he was coming to the end of his life and he had a bunch of sons, the heir was an evil lunatic who I'd been trying to get killed in battles for ages, the next in line was okay except he had a martial of 2, then various younger brothers who were okay.


Trying to manage that succession was the most fun I've had yet, I disinherited the lunatic and resigned myself to the coward only to have several of my other children murdered. Experiencing a nervous breakdown I denounced and imprisoned the cowered before releasing and exiling him. Which sadly did not clear him from the succession (I mean it really should do). So I ended up having to invite him back just so I could then disinherit him too. Burned pretty much all my prestige and renown. But the last surviving (though wounded) son I hadn't disinherited held on and soon after the mighty king of Welsh finally succumbed to age leaving the entire Kingdom to the him.

Yeah, the game has me now.