Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
In essence, you can completely avoid Tribal inheritance trouble by "offing" your 1st born when he's popped up a single heir...
Oh well, not a big deal...
It's just that once you play your grandson, his heirs will be his siblings before his uncles.
TBH a nonsense decision just to make Partition artifically much harder than Gavelkind (and people really really hated that already in CK2). Gavelkind would simply remove grandchildren from the succession, since they can't inherit what their father didn't possess in the first place.
Only primogeniture is supposed to assume dead people as alive when determining the heir, which is also not a problem since you only have 1 heir.
Just to add to what everybody else already replied, this behaviour is consistent with modern day real life monarchies too. In example of the UK Monarchy, the next in line for the UK throne is Prince Charles. However if Prince Charles were to die before the Queen, then the next in line would become Prince William (his son) and not Prince Andrew (his brother).
Some people try to rationalise this with how modern monarchic succession works but this completely neglects the fact that those are a product of renaissance and early modern age, not the medieval period.
Indeed, primogeniture is lineage-based (the direct firstborn bloodline takes precedence), while partition is based on sharing the wealth and possessions equally among all sons.
That's why Gavelkind in CK2 was doing it right, and Partition in CK3 is wrong.
While I can't say that I liked Gavelkind in CK2 at least it made effin sense to me. I could look at my realm and in my head already knew pretty well how it would be divided. In CK3 it was horrible especially in the beginning, second and third heirs would inherit duchies including multiple counties and your firstborn would get the kingdom and one lousy county. Your 2nd and 3rd heirs would gain a lot land than the firstborn which was just bs.
They get multiple counties because those counties are in the duchies they inherit. Don't own any counties outside your primary title and they only get their duchy titles (I think the game also gives them the closest to the duchy capital that's in their new realm but they may just revoke a title).
@ Scyth
In those times they were less concerned about fairness than about keeping the house in power. Gavelkind worked on the premise, that the lesser sons demanded a heritage and would rally an army otherwise, thus the people of those times came up with various laws to keep those succession wars at a minimum as every succession war opened a realm up for the ambitions of foreign rulers.
Edit: Are you saying though that if I had created a duchy where that one random county belongs to he would have only gotten that duchy + the one county? That seems weird.
Yes. None of your additional sons will inherit any of your:
1) counties in your capital duchy
2) counties outside of your capital where the duchy title does not exist
>IF< you personally hold 1 duchy title for all of them at the time of succession.
Example with 3 sons, you only need to create / usurp 2 extra duchy titles. Succession secure.
You do not need to hold any of the counties under these titles, instead the duchy capital will be assigned to its respective heir, and the original owner becomes landless.
Partition does generally prohibit holding 2 duchy titles for yourself because of this system, since the second duchy would always be inherited by secondary heirs, no matter how many other duchies you create.
Thus you need to actually destroy unnecessary duchies, keep them available for future succession.
All of this only changes once there are Kingdom titles to inherit. In that case, Kingdom-rank titles will replace duchies in the distribution order.
Important to know: Same like Duchies, all titles in the hierarchy below each inherited Kingdom title are exclusive to its respective heir.
Thus it is not possible to e.g. have your 2nd son inherit the Kingdom of Scotland, the 3rd son Moray, and the 4th getting Lothian. Instead, your second would get Scotland with all the duchies below it.
Which means that if you cannot prevent Scotland from getting inherited due to Confederate Partition, you must give all the duchies away beforehand, otherwise the secondborn becomes super-powerful while your firstborn has to share your primary realm down to 1 county.
While under regular Partition, you would simply destroy the Kingdom of Scotland title, which will open all its duchies for succession once again.
Confederate partition:
Your Guy dies. The game pretends you hold all titles that you could have created. It then continues as if this was normal partition. Any of those pretended title that wasn't handed out does not get created.
(Regular) Partition:
Succession is resolved by giving your primary heir the primary title, the capital and any higher de jure title it belongs to. Now all other titles of the same rank are are handed out to other heirs by age and number of titles they already hold. Whoever got an equal rank title is considered independent. If the game now continues handing out titles in turns until it either runs out of titles or of heirs.
Thus in an effort to distribute everything, it will also try to hand out the counties you hold. Unfortunately, this seems to bug out quite consistently, resulting in that behaviour you described, where a heir that already got something will still inherit counties, effectively removing those from your realm.
Granting them titles that they do not stand to inherit will apparently not affect their inheritance too much, so there usually is no reason to hand any heir of yours a title. You also may want to marry all your unimportant sons to old hags that come with nice alliances.
You can cheese this, by giving counties you would like to get back to very old hags or chaste/impotent/sterile old guys. They usually kick it a short time after (or unexpectedly die in war). And you as their liege will act as the heir of that noble lowborn war hero who went alone against a peasant revolt!
That is a complete misunderstanding of Confederate Partition. The game will only creates titles which are of equal rank to your primary title, and only if you already could create them.
It will never create any lower ranking titles on its own. Thus you need to actively control the succession by creating or destroying Duchies as needed. And on later empire-level, the same goes for Kingdoms.
Ideally, the succession tab under "lost titles" should only show each son beyond the firstborn getting exactly 1 duchy or kingdom, then you did everything optimally.
As mentioned in my post above, the de jure hierarchy of titles is also exclusive to individual heirs. So you cannot expect that one heir becomes the vassal of another heir under any circumstances.
You also cannot "cheat" your way around this by granting them these titles in such a structure while you're still alive, then they still receive land they stand to inherit within your primary kingdom. So you're just screwing yourself by giving land to heirs manually.