Tanistry issues

[Myll]

Starting a new thread for Tanistry succession, to try and figure out what went wrong in the development of this, and why it is so bugged and/or not currently edited to WAI in whatever manner the Dev's really intended it to. Two things to consider up front: Real History, and In-Game text/information as presented to the player. Paradox has failed on both of these, to account for both the history of Tanistry, but even if they use "artistic license" - they've failed to accurately portray it in game, compared to pop-up texts that describe this form of Succession.
Two other parameters: I'm on the free, base game only currently (although was contemplating buying Imperial Edition in total, so I'm probably here long term and not just mooching on the freebie). Second, I'm playing Wales at the earliest free game start point.

So, here's what the in-game pop-up text says, when a player hovers the cursor over the default form of Tanistry normally available at the start of the game, once enacted, it says:
- Hovering cursor over Agnatic-Cognatic Tanistry: "The ruler and all vassals at one and two ranks below can nominate an heir - The Tanist - from among the members of the ruler's dynasty. Vassals will tend to favor older members from other branches of the family, especially claimants. Women can inherit, but only if there are no eligible males."

So here's where this goes wrong in the game, and also bear in mind - it's a huge Strategic decision right up front to start the game as Welch whether to take this, as it is the only special capability you get for playing a Welch petty king (your entire game play branches off this single decision if you take it, for a Welch play through, so it's huge). There are "bugs" or errors in the game in contrast to the text:

- Not all Vassals at 1-2 ranks below are voting members. I have a Vassal Count, and that Count's Bishopric, and neither are voting for a Successor.
- Women are showing up as eligible to be voted upon, which goes against the last sentence of the pop-up quote previously stated, verbatim from in-game. Based on that specific language, women should not be voted upon nor inherit when even just one eligible male is present (and to put in perspective, i'm 3x generations into the game and I have >20 eligible males to choose from).

Now, the "Real History" aspect that Paradox failed to design into the game. Tanistry is a Gaelic concept used among tribes in Ireland, Scotland, and the Isle of Mann, but it was not a Welch concept, so it is inaccurately portrayed in CK2 by making it part of a Wales play through. Second, it was male-only, never an Agnatic-Cognatic brew to enable females even under duress of no males available. I realize this is too far past for CK2 but it begs the question whether they got this wrong again in CK3, that a true "Tanistry" option should be a special Succession type that disallows females from any form of voting or succession, and - puts that risk into the game as such.

My more important point to make in all this - the game is not WAI in terms of text vs gameplay on the two items that I described above. I'm not interested in Paradox CK2 Wiki information, this is about what Paradox officially intended the game to be - did the Dev's change the Base Game for Tanistry succession over time and did not update the pop-up text that I quoted verbatim above, and/or did the Dev's patch the game within a DLC and it has resulted in incorrect pop-up text in contrast to how it functions in the Base Game?

[seanpremierleague]

Tanistry is an elective type succession law, you can nominate a woman under Agnatic-Cognatic Tanistry or for any other Agnatic-Cognatic elective type (Imperial Elective or Feudal Elective, Princely Elective is Agnatic to begin with) even if there is an eligible male, its just that the electors will prefer to elect a man because Agnatic-Cognatic is male-preference.

[bri]

I'm pretty sure that only de jure vassals get to vote just as only de jure are affected by crown laws and so on.

[Myll]

Originally posted by seanpremierleague:

Tanistry is an elective type succession law, you can nominate a woman under Agnatic-Cognatic Tanistry or for any other Agnatic-Cognatic elective type (Imperial Elective or Feudal Elective, Princely Elective is Agnatic to begin with) even if there is an eligible male, its just that the electors will prefer to elect a man because Agnatic-Cognatic is male-preference.

You may be missing my point - first, that the Pop-up text when hovering over the description of this Succession, brings confusion in because it reads as if females are only eligible if no males are available, which would imply during the voting process also. Also, Tanistry, if accurately portrayed, would be exclusively "Agnatic" only by default, with a disallowance for any Cognatic/Female eligibility. It's not nor ever was Agnatic-Cognatic nor any ounce of Cognatic/Female in its real life application as a Succession system, so to portray it as such, as just another Elective Succession that gives the choice of Cognatic at all, is just ludicrous.
I also get it that it is Elective/by-choice, but that choice should have come with consequences/risk, that it then moves one into an Agnatic-only framework. Frankly, it makes the game easier to give options for female succession, and the Dev's would have been wise to hard-code this as Agnatic only (unless overridden by Achievement-denying choices in the Rules selection to set up the game).

This application of Tanistry shows that the Dev's failed to do their homework and build Tanistry as it operated in the real world, which - would have actually been a good challenge for that region of the world.

And again - Wales was never in the Tanistry system, and should have been left out of this option in the game. Given that Paradox's employees are predominantly Swedish/Scandinavian, I'm not surprised that UK related history is botched by them in the game, but this is just to put it out there that - this Tanistry in-game isn't accurate, and the Dev's should have changed it long ago in one of their 60 DLCs.

[Caligula]

Tanistry is available to all Celtic cultures iirc,even Breton/Brittany. If your vassals arnt voting/cant vote that's actually a GOOD thing, as it means you more or less directly decide who your heir is. the Agnatic-Cognatic-enatic stuff can be altered via laws; if you dont wanna see women rule due to "historical accuracy!" stuff then turn women's rights onto historical in game options (iirc its an option in vanilla,but ive never played "true" vanilla). Tanistry in-game is essentially meant to give Celtic cultures an actual chance of not having a million Succession wars, as iirc its just Elective but "only" with dynasty members (i.e you're guranteed to inherit the throne,but you're not guranteed with which character); you could easily swap in 10 years to Gavelkind,Elective Monarchy,Prime,or god forbid Elective Gavelkind.

[bri]

Also, something you may or may not be aware of (particularly in regards to the whole "never was anything but agnatic" argument) is that Paradox developers have said on more than a few occasions that if the history collides with gameplay they will almost always make a decision that favors gameplay to resolve it because at the end of the day they are making games not history simulators.

[Myll]

Originally posted by bri:

Also, something you may or may not be aware of (particularly in regards to the whole "never was anything but agnatic" argument) is that Paradox developers have said on more than a few occasions that if the history collides with gameplay they will almost always make a decision that favors gameplay to resolve it because at the end of the day they are making games not history simulators.

I don't see how an optional Succession system has to be agnatic-cognatic by default to start with. Again, logic - a player is actually given a choice what to start with, for first game day, and the risk of a purely Agnatic system would be known up front, and from there - one could take the optional Vote-for-Law changes over time if you wanted to deviate toward a Cognatic system.

It's easy to set up, and it's easy to see how it would be additive to the game (and not just for history's sake). There's incest allowed in this game, right? Seems like the Dev's conveniently left some aspects of real history that were quite uncomfortable for the audience, and in other cases they don't. This is why I consider it a bit of laziness on their part, in terms of doing their homework on Tanistry. The fact that Tanistry isn't isolated to only Ireland, Scotland, and Isle of Man -- is further evidence that their research was lacking.

By the way, if you play Tanistry - you see how powerful a system it can be, but just the initial risks if there are few or no male heirs yet born into the system. However, once you're into the 2nd generation and beyond, it's brilliant, because - it's always the "most capable" male that takes the lead in the voting process, so you rarely end up with duds as the Tanist. You also get cross-generational and switchback successions, and what I mean by that - could be the older brother takes it next, and then the son of the prior Tanist, then a cousin, then an uncle - it bounces around across families in favor of power, not in favor of which son was first or second.

[Caligula]

Originally posted by Myll:

Originally posted by bri:

Also, something you may or may not be aware of (particularly in regards to the whole "never was anything but agnatic" argument) is that Paradox developers have said on more than a few occasions that if the history collides with gameplay they will almost always make a decision that favors gameplay to resolve it because at the end of the day they are making games not history simulators.

I don't see how an optional Succession system has to be agnatic-cognatic by default to start with. Again, logic - a player is actually given a choice what to start with, for first game day, and the risk of a purely Agnatic system would be known up front, and from there - one could take the optional Vote-for-Law changes over time if you wanted to deviate toward a Cognatic system.

It's easy to set up, and it's easy to see how it would be additive to the game (and not just for history's sake). There's incest allowed in this game, right? Seems like the Dev's conveniently left some aspects of real history that were quite uncomfortable for the audience, and in other cases they don't. This is why I consider it a bit of laziness on their part, in terms of doing their homework on Tanistry. The fact that Tanistry isn't isolated to only Ireland, Scotland, and Isle of Man -- is further evidence that their research was lacking.

By the way, if you play Tanistry - you see how powerful a system it can be, but just the initial risks if there are few or no male heirs yet born into the system. However, once you're into the 2nd generation and beyond, it's brilliant, because - it's always the "most capable" male that takes the lead in the voting process, so you rarely end up with duds as the Tanist. You also get cross-generational and switchback successions, and what I mean by that - could be the older brother takes it next, and then the son of the prior Tanist, then a cousin, then an uncle - it bounces around across families in favor of power, not in favor of which son was first or second.

so...you're mad about Paradox making a succession system that makes it so the Celtic cultures dont suffer the same inheriteince crap that England goes through?

and again,Bretons/Brittany can use Tannistry to my knowledge. unless it was suddenly patched out the last time i played without AtEff. And again,if you're mad about the succession laws allowing women to inherit, simply change the law to Agnatic, or just set women's rights to historical as opposed to "full" or "enabled"?

[Myll]

Originally posted by Caligula:

so...you're mad about Paradox making a succession system that makes it so the Celtic cultures dont suffer the same inheriteince crap that England goes through?

and again,Bretons/Brittany can use Tannistry to my knowledge. unless it was suddenly patched out the last time i played without AtEff. And again,if you're mad about the succession laws allowing women to inherit, simply change the law to Agnatic, or just set women's rights to historical as opposed to "full" or "enabled"?

England has nothing to do with this. Tanistry isn't an English concept - and in fact, when the English do bump into it later on during King James I reign, he proceeded to deny it from being allowed to continue. Tanistry was only in Ireland, Scotland, and Isle of Man (none of which are "English" historically, as England was separate from those other cultures until a more united kingdom came later).

Now, as for making Tanistry an Agnatic system - sure, you can do that, 10 years after initially voted in, because you can't vote in Tanistry and Agnatic in the same initial Day 1 decision in the game. This is part of my primary point - there should be the challenge of a default Tanistry (that is Agnatic) from Day 1 of the game, not a false presentation of Tanistry that you can optionally select on Day 1, then wait 10 game years to correct into true form. So much for "Grand Strategy" here...

[al_x_ator2411]

Apart from Republican and Open/Muslim succession (that are always agnatic) all other succession types have no default form. It's just Tanistry. The gender laws (agnatic etc) are a complete separate issue/law. The text about women refers to that law.

The decision to have it like that instead of hard-coding Tanistry into agnatic gender laws is surely a gameplay decision and I'm sure was not intended to falsify/destroy historical accuracy by pushing a feminist/leftist/libertarian agenda. I for one applaud them for that decision and find it makes the game much more of a "Grand Strategy."

[Borsch]

Originally posted by Myll:

Originally posted by Caligula:

so...you're mad about Paradox making a succession system that makes it so the Celtic cultures dont suffer the same inheriteince crap that England goes through?

and again,Bretons/Brittany can use Tannistry to my knowledge. unless it was suddenly patched out the last time i played without AtEff. And again,if you're mad about the succession laws allowing women to inherit, simply change the law to Agnatic, or just set women's rights to historical as opposed to "full" or "enabled"?

England has nothing to do with this. Tanistry isn't an English concept - and in fact, when the English do bump into it later on during King James I reign, he proceeded to deny it from being allowed to continue. Tanistry was only in Ireland, Scotland, and Isle of Man (none of which are "English" historically, as England was separate from those other cultures until a more united kingdom came later).

Now, as for making Tanistry an Agnatic system - sure, you can do that, 10 years after initially voted in, because you can't vote in Tanistry and Agnatic in the same initial Day 1 decision in the game. This is part of my primary point - there should be the challenge of a default Tanistry (that is Agnatic) from Day 1 of the game, not a false presentation of Tanistry that you can optionally select on Day 1, then wait 10 game years to correct into true form. So much for "Grand Strategy" here...

its a game. tanistry is defined by in game rules, not your knowledge of tanistry, historically.

you can either learn to play the game, or complain. if you choose to complain, you should do so where the devs actually see it, paradox forums, not steam.

i hope i have enlghtened you on how to properly form a complaint to the correct people.

also, btw, paradox invented (or atleast perfected) 'grand strategy' games

[Myll]

Originally posted by Borsch:

Originally posted by Myll:

England has nothing to do with this. Tanistry isn't an English concept - and in fact, when the English do bump into it later on during King James I reign, he proceeded to deny it from being allowed to continue. Tanistry was only in Ireland, Scotland, and Isle of Man (none of which are "English" historically, as England was separate from those other cultures until a more united kingdom came later).

Now, as for making Tanistry an Agnatic system - sure, you can do that, 10 years after initially voted in, because you can't vote in Tanistry and Agnatic in the same initial Day 1 decision in the game. This is part of my primary point - there should be the challenge of a default Tanistry (that is Agnatic) from Day 1 of the game, not a false presentation of Tanistry that you can optionally select on Day 1, then wait 10 game years to correct into true form. So much for "Grand Strategy" here...

its a game. tanistry is defined by in game rules, not your knowledge of tanistry, historically.

you can either learn to play the game, or complain. if you choose to complain, you should do so where the devs actually see it, paradox forums, not steam.

i hope i have enlghtened you on how to properly form a complaint to the correct people.

also, btw, paradox invented (or atleast perfected) 'grand strategy' games

Paradox can't hold a candle to classic Grand Strategy games, such as those made by Avalon Hill. Video Game attempts at Grand Strategy, to this point, have actually not come close to what classic board games were capable of 40+ years ago, and those AH games could span from Tactical to Grand Strategy. You have horse blinders on.

As for Tanistry, it isn't defined by Paradox or the game rules. Try any basic Encyclopedia and/or Dictionary and look up Tanistry, and you'll see it in plain language as to what it was defined as, and where specifically in the world it existed, and for what time period/era. Paradox doesn't define what Tanistry was or is. And that's my point, it has a set way it operated historically, that doesn't conflict with gameplay, so the Dev's morphed it into something else (and apparently it continues to be misrepresented in CK3).

And further, I realize that Paradox has its own forums, and the Dev's may watch threads more there. That doesn't mean they never stop in here. Low probability, but unless you're their virtual guide, I don't think you speak for wherever they may hang out. Some of us voice things across Steam and PDX forums, so don't assume the voices here are in isolation.

[ambion_iskariot]

I just looked into tanestry succession in 867: Scotland at kingdom tier and Mide at duchy tier. In both tanestry successions it works like intended with dukes and counts voting for succession in Scotland and counts and bishops voting for succession in Mide. Even subvassals do vote.

[Myrmecobius]

1: "Women can inherit, but only if there are no eligible males."

So, yes, I can see how you could reasonably interpret what you read in the way that you have.

Interpret it like this 'though: the ONLY person eligible to be heir is whomever is elected Tanist. Make sense now?
Well, if: "no it still doesn't make sense":
All your relatives are ELIGIBLE TO BE CANDIDATES, but only the winning candidate is ELIGIBLE TO BE HEIR.
So, if you've elected a woman, there's no eligible male heir 'cos the only eligible heir is the woman you just elected.

2: "Not all Vassals at 1-2 ranks below are voting members I have a Vassal Count, and that Count's Bishopric, and neither are voting for a Successor."

Number of possibilities here. First, if you've recently acquired that county, they may still be considering. Second, it's possible that bishopric isn't your vassal. At the end of one war, where various realms contested a county, I ended up with the county title but the original owner retained the bishopric. Third, if you've got an empire, while also being a king of somewhere, that count will get a vote in the king vote but not the empire vote. So, you certain which vote you're looking at? Fourthly, could be a bug and while it should be looking at all vassals maybe it's only looking at direct vassals, like feudal elective does. Fifth, you didn't scroll down the elector list. Sixth, it's just a display problem. They don't appear to be voting but are, save and reload and it may resolve. Finally, in the spirit of historical accuracy, weird things can happen; no matter what we imagine the rules are, or should be, we have to deal with the reality in front of us.

3: "Now, the "Real History" aspect"

More historical accuracy would be nice, don't think you've chosen good examples of inaccuracy 'though.
That the Irish and Scots seemingly practiced agnatic tanistry doesn't mean they did. If they'd run out of suitable males, they may well have picked a woman, they just never ran out. Similarly, that the Welsh and Bretons didn't seemingly practice tanistry doesn't mean they couldn't. If they'd run out of direct heirs at any point, they perhaps would adopt tanistry. The term "tanistry" is an umbrella term, a broad generalisation of what is observed. The nitty-gritty of each historical succession can be unique and is made opaque by time. Yeh, you'll find more historical accuracy in a doctoral thesis but that's a crap game and a huge manual: every succession everywhere would have a unique set of rules.

4: "My more important point to make in all this"

Yeh, I wouldn't call it buggy but: tanistry does have the feeling of a bit of a add-on bodge job, left to a more junior employee at Paradox, to do in a rush. Credit to the junior employee, it does seem to work as intended, i.e. a preference for not your children but for your other relatives. The way this is implemented seems clumsy (how the hell is my son, my vassal, only holding land in my capital duchy, an: "encroaching foreign ruler"?). Plus there's the absence of documentation. Having said that, I paid the same for the game as you did and consider it excellent value for money! But, yeh, makes me wary of paying for a Paradox game. Maybe CK4 will be thoroughly documented and we should thank all the people that paid for it by buying the beta versions they called CK 1, 2 and 3!

Anyway, seems I'm not as chemically handicapped as I was when I started this article, must fix that.

ps You can find fault with Scandinavian developers when they don't know UK history: much of UK history is Scandinavian.

pps Gotta agree with you. The idea that Paradox invented or perfected the grand strategy game is absurd. I dunno, maybe they meant it ironically, let's hope so.

pps Stop calling them Welch before you're punched by a Welsh person.

[roach]

please for the love of god stop necroing

[Myrmecobius]

What kind of freak are you? You're stalking a guy that talks to dead people.