getting heirs...sick. new method of dynasty control?

[Abacus]

They said they will start to punish disinheritance, etc.

So will the new thing be "here despised son, eat this spoiled bowl of slop."

[Dizzy Ladybug]

Maybe you can force an heir to lead an army and leave your army sitting in a diseased county, getting your heir sick

[Siamese55]

Honestly, I think it will just bring murder back to the table with the new penalties, since the further down the line of succession the lower the starting legitimacy regardless.

Sadistic rulers can take care of the bad heirs themselves. Others can still disinherit, or just take care of their siblings (aside from the preferred) within an interim reign. Add that being able to give all the good territory to the favorite son (that is not the direct heir) before your death and matrilinealy marry any heir you do not consider good enough to further your dynastic line, and I imagine succession with still be plenty manageable.

[Emperor2000]

Originally posted by Siamese55:

Honestly, I think it will just bring murder back to the table with the new penalties, since the further down the line of succession the lower the starting legitimacy regardless.

Sadistic rulers can take care of the bad heirs themselves. Others can still disinherit, or just take care of their siblings (aside from the preferred) within an interim reign. Add that being able to give all the good territory to the favorite son (that is not the direct heir) before your death and matrilinealy marry any heir you do not consider good enough to further your dynastic line, and I imagine succession with still be plenty manageable.

All Rulers can execute their own Childs,

And matri-marry your own Sons, is always a bad Idea, because they can still inherit your Throne, but their Childs will be of a different Dynasty, so Game-Over for you.
(There is at least 1 Travel Event, which can kill your entire Entourage).

[Siamese55]

Originally posted by Emperor2000:

Originally posted by Siamese55:

Honestly, I think it will just bring murder back to the table with the new penalties, since the further down the line of succession the lower the starting legitimacy regardless.

Sadistic rulers can take care of the bad heirs themselves. Others can still disinherit, or just take care of their siblings (aside from the preferred) within an interim reign. Add that being able to give all the good territory to the favorite son (that is not the direct heir) before your death and matrilinealy marry any heir you do not consider good enough to further your dynastic line, and I imagine succession with still be plenty manageable.

All Rulers can execute their own Childs,

And matri-marry your own Sons, is always a bad Idea, because they can still inherit your Throne, but their Childs will be of a different Dynasty, so Game-Over for you.
(There is at least 1 Travel Event, which can kill your entire Entourage).

What form of execution are you talking about? (I'm guessing you mean a fired event or something, but I am thinking more in the realm of actions not dependent on rolling RNG.) You cannot start hostile schemes, such as murder, against your children. The sadistic trait explicitly (in the trait text) allows you to do so.

As for matri-marriage, their kids not inheriting is the point. You want it to go to the preferred sibling or sibling's heirs after railroading the original. You can just look at the Karlings to see at the start the younger two have no qualifying heirs so the surviving brother would inherit.

[Dizzy Ladybug]

^ they probably meant execution from prison

[Intoxicated Pianist]

Originally posted by Simply B:

They said they will start to punish disinheritance, etc.

So will the new thing be "here despised son, eat this spoiled bowl of slop."

I used to throw mine in a dungeon at birth and theyll eventually die after a good amount of years. Only problem is the negative modifier for throwing them in initially.

[JC]

But part of the new system giving you minus's because of the plagues/disease running rampant. Seams like if you have heir's dying of it, that shouldn't look good on your legitimacy.

There should be a hit on the legitimacy reputation for every heir that dies of it.

Originally posted by Dizzy Ladybug:

Maybe you can force an heir to lead an army and leave your army sitting in a diseased county, getting your heir sick

That should take another hit.. reduced moral forcing your troops into that situation. Commanders gaining stress perhaps, the public moral lowered, chance of uprising increased ext

[jordop]

Originally posted by Siamese55:

As for matri-marriage, their kids not inheriting is the point. You want it to go to the preferred sibling or sibling's heirs after railroading the original. You can just look at the Karlings to see at the start the younger two have no qualifying heirs so the surviving brother would inherit.

They will still inherit the land when you die, and their kids will inherit it as well.

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by Dizzy Ladybug:

Maybe you can force an heir to lead an army and leave your army sitting in a diseased county, getting your heir sick

Better yet, just separate him from the army & leave him there alone.

Originally posted by JC:

Seams like if you have heir's dying of it, that shouldn't look good on your legitimacy.

There should be a hit on the legitimacy reputation for every heir that dies of it.

Even in medieval times people understood that Plague made no distinctions between Class, Race, Gender, or Religious affiliation. Gotta disagree with you there, JC.

At any rate, it wont be The Black Death that afflicts many; the time frame is wrong. Beginning in 1347 & abating in 1353. Ive only been there once, maybe twice, in 1000's of hrs of play & that was only to get End of an Era. CK3 endgame needs a bit of work imo.

[JC]

Originally posted by Sheik Yerbouti:

Originally posted by JC:

Seams like if you have heir's dying of it, that shouldn't look good on your legitimacy.

There should be a hit on the legitimacy reputation for every heir that dies of it.

Even in medieval times people understood that Plague made no distinctions between Class, Race, Gender, or Religious affiliation. Gotta disagree with you there, JC.

At any rate, it wont be The Black Death that afflicts many; the time frame is wrong. Beginning in 1347 & abating in 1353. Ive only been there once, maybe twice, in 1000's of hrs of play & that was only to get End of an Era. CK3 endgame needs a bit of work imo.

Well i was just using 'plague' as a generic term, verse the actual Black Plague.. Like today when people are really sick they will say, "i have the plauge" when they don't, they are just really i'll. The point about the game play, is they are using disease as a counter to legendary. They said right in the Dev diary, that your area being effected by the plague is bad for your rep, so why wouldn't your family dying of it be even worse? I mean if people are just trying to game the system, the game has to game back or it's just a exploit/loophole.

I think the other aspect, they could also adjust troop moral, and over all Troop numbers and retinue refills. For example if you spend X amount of time in a plagued county, then your troops die at an increased rate, they could also refill at a slower rate for many years. Think of it as the peasants not taking up arms because the leader is a bafoon that will just send them into an area to die.

You would have to have lots of troops die, just to hopefully have your target die, so that would be just a very bad look for any leader.

[titanopteryx]

Would asking them to take vows work? As clergy they can only inherit theocracies. Once I asked a son to take vows and then I pinned him so I could see what he was up to. He had left my court when I asked him to take vows. Later I checked on him and he had become someone's realm priest, or a theocratic vassal. This makes me think he was also eligible to become Pope however that didn't end up happening to him.

[The Former]

Meanwhile, here's me, the roleplayer, thinking how monstrous it is that so many kings would deliberately give their sons a deadly illness just so their favorite boy gets all the inheritance.

[Abacus]

Originally posted by Ärlig, Paradoxriddaren:

Meanwhile, here's me, the roleplayer, thinking how monstrous it is that so many kings would deliberately give their sons a deadly illness just so their favorite boy gets all the inheritance.

well, in this specific instance of roleplay that is not the path in context. I wouldn't do this in most playthroughs. I typically start as more temperate ruler. But I do like options when I have to play a less kind heir.

But you are right, if someone just leans into the board game method, like it's CK 2. They will miss out on a lot this game has to offer.

Which is why I think a lot of CK 2 vets think so much is missing when they just need to play it less like a board game and focus on letting things go wrong, and not save scum every slight inconveniences toward "max builds"

[The Former]

Originally posted by Simply B:

Originally posted by Ärlig, Paradoxriddaren:

Meanwhile, here's me, the roleplayer, thinking how monstrous it is that so many kings would deliberately give their sons a deadly illness just so their favorite boy gets all the inheritance.

well, in this specific instance of roleplay that is not the path in context. I wouldn't do this in most playthroughs. I typically start as more temperate ruler. But I do like options when I have to play a less kind heir.

But you are right, if someone just leans into the board game method, like it's CK 2. They will miss out on a lot this game has to offer.

Which is why I think a lot of CK 2 vets think so much is missing when they just need to play it less like a board game and focus on letting things go wrong, and not save scum every slight inconveniences toward "max builds"

Yeah, it does seem to be that way. Personally, forced partition is actually one of the things I've embraced to the degree that primogeniture is usually not the thing I rush research on if I have the say. I actually really enjoy seeing the interplay between my dynasty as they spread their wings over the generations.

[Emperor2000]

Originally posted by Simply B:

Originally posted by Ärlig, Paradoxriddaren:

Meanwhile, here's me, the roleplayer, thinking how monstrous it is that so many kings would deliberately give their sons a deadly illness just so their favorite boy gets all the inheritance.

well, in this specific instance of roleplay that is not the path in context. I wouldn't do this in most playthroughs. I typically start as more temperate ruler. But I do like options when I have to play a less kind heir.

But you are right, if someone just leans into the board game method, like it's CK 2. They will miss out on a lot this game has to offer.

Which is why I think a lot of CK 2 vets think so much is missing when they just need to play it less like a board game and focus on letting things go wrong, and not save scum every slight inconveniences toward "max builds"

You know, that CK3 is still the same Game has CK2.

Characters have nothing to say in any CK Game, only their Stats are important.
(The Devs even do not respect the Personality of any Character in CK3 with their sometimes stupid Events, because currently every Spouse will cheat on you, regardless if they are your Soulmate or they have the chaste Trait),
I even got an heterosexual male Character, who has cheated on his Wife, in my Prison with another male Prisoner.

If you want to play a Game, where Characters are more important, you should try Stellaris with Galactic Paragons or Victoria 3