What to do with Princes

[MiniKiller]

Ok, I rarly fight with my King and/or Princes but when a King takes over and his brothers are left...and then the King has a son, the brothers wont take over right? So I might as well use em in battle?

[khurjan]

good point also incase of civil war there will be less competition plus with more battles fought these guys will gain more stars and better attributes

[solypsist]

do your best to get the married off to foreign princesses - your family tree needs to branch. you never know when one of their own offspring may become king.

otherwise, yes, use them in battle if they're any good.

[The_Emperor]

If the younger brother became King and the older ones were bypassed in the line of succession... then they will probably have lower loyalty, making a civil war more likely.

As such I am fond of doing all I can to increase loyalty (no intermarrige of course...) but sometimes those jealous brothers need eliminating. Still they make good practice for Grand Inquisitors and Spies/Assassins.

[frogbeastegg]

Here's a question I've been wondering about since launch day. What decides which heir becomes the new king? Also how can you tell which one it will be? I know its not age or ability.

Its annoying when you have a really cool heir and his younger brother who has the brains of a small pea takes the throne instead. When I kill off the most likely heirs who are crap (e.g. the cowardly older son) my good middle sons are ignored in favour of the not so good younger ones. However if the younger son is better then he gets passed over. Heirs seem to be chosen by incompetence. This is really getting my empires down.

I can't kill off the entire royal line bar one heir so what can I do?

[Rocket_Boy]

I don't think that this is the case. Follow my royal family carefully I have noticed the following:

- At the start of the game the eldest heir will become the next king when the old king dies.
- After this point his younger brothers can still become king if he dies before his son comes of age.
- As soon as his son comes of age he jumps to the top of the heir list.
- As soon as the son becomes king, the royal 'uncles' disappear from the heir list.
- Only the king can have sons, ie. even if a son or brother has been married for many years, he will only produce sons (or daughters) when he takes the throne.

The above is correct to the best of my knowledge. If you know different, let me know.

[Brutal DLX]

Well, most is correct, but if you marry any heirs you have, they'll produce offspring which isn't shown since they are not considered to take the throne unless your king remains heirless.

[frogbeastegg]

This is what happened in my last campaign as the Vikings. I can't remember the real names or exact ages so I'll call all kings Ragnar and give my rough estimates of the ages.

1.The King (Ragnar 1) has 5 sons. The eldest is a drunk coward so I send him to visit Ireland on his own. The other four sons have at least one vice ranging from not too bad to terrible. The youngest is a 3 star alcoholic. The new oldest is an 8 star expert attacker, expert defender, expert risky attacks, mighty warrior and drinker. The two middle sons are average with 4 stars and no vices/virtues apart from drinker. The new eldest is obviously the best choice but when the king dies the youngest takes over. The heirs ages ranged between 36 and 20.

2. When the new king (Ragnar 2) takes the throne all his brothers disappear from the heirs list. Several years later the first son is born, closely followed by two more. Again all are drinkers. The youngest son has 6 stars, the others have 2. The youngest has mighty warrior in addition to this. When Ragnar 2 dies the eldest takes over, again not the best choice. The heirs are aged 33-30

3. Ragnar 3 takes the throne and again the brothers vanish from the list. He has 2 sons, yet again they are drinkers and each has 3 stars. The eldest goes on to become a good general with 6 stars and expert attacker. The youngest picks up alcoholic and often drunk. The youngest takes the throne. Ages 21-16

4.Ragnar 4 has 6 sons and again they are all drinkers. They have between 1 and 4 stars. The 5th son has the mighty warrior virtue, the 6th unhinged loon and the first 3 are all chinless wonders. Game finishes before the succession so which would take the throne is unknown.

All heirs fought many battles, averaging one battle every two turns for most of their lives. They all got many kills. All battles were won. Every heir had a foreign bride as the other factions were sending them over as soon as they were of age to marry. All the kings received the great builder and great steward virtues except Ragnar 1 who only got great builder. There were no rebellions, no lost battles, nothing that could upset the happiness of the Viking kingdom. I couldn't kill all the poor heirs, there were too many of them. I could have engineered a civil war but I don't like doing that. The only advantage to this wacky dynasty was that I got to keep the 8 star marvel as a general for the rest of the game, as his replacements had exactly the same stats etc.

Looking at the heir list just gave the heirs listed by age, not by order of succession so I've really no idea why this bunch of losers took the throne. I also can't predict which son will become king so I can kill off any bad heirs above him in the succession. I was so hoping the 8 star wonder would be king, thats why I killed his older brother. My dynasties have always been weird with no obvious order of succession and many inherited vices but this one takes the cake. I follow the advice I have seen on the org (kill bad heirs, use them in battle, get foreign princesses, build up good virtues like builder)but it doesn't seem to help much. My last three games have had a dynasty of unhinged loons, a dynasty of chinless wonders and a dynasty of drinkers - I hate to think whats next

It's not like this is a major problem or anything, I'd just like to know whats going on.

[RisingSun]

f this is tru, its pretty bad. I nevernot noticed this, but I never was much in the way of monitoring and killing my family. This is a pretty bi disappointment. The eldest almost ALWAYS took the throne. And if he doesnt, you should at last be able to chooe which of the sons does.

[MiniKiller]

Thats how it was in real life, the eldest always took it. And it was always the kings son (if he had any that is)

[Doug-Thompson]

I wonder if every faction follows the same rules of succession.

For instance, do the Orthodox factions have different rules than the Catholics?

Just curious.

[Vlad Tzepes]

Orthodox, Catholic or Muslim – it seems the same strange succession rule... rulz

My heirs always seem to get bad vices, whatever I do for them, quickly getting a nice foreign wife for the king, working hard till late at night (and saving often), slashing enemies like a real loving papa keen on preparing a better empire for their (hopefully) better sons.

Now I’m playing the Aragonese on hard, it’s 1220 and basically all the heirs (after the first generation) got bad vices, mostly chinless wonder, though they are all married, foreign princesses rushing for them or immediately accepting proposals (btw, what’s with these Aragonese boyz that make MTW girlies crazy?). I’m waiting now to see if there’s any “inbred” vice popping out, the king’s wife is going to get smacked... wohohoho
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
Tzepes

[Hakonarson]

The rule is primogeniture, and it was pretty much universal throughout histtory regardless of race, creed or culture - except in matriarchies lol

However some places instead did a "divy up the inheritence" thing - each sone got a portion of hte estate - this inevitably led to civil wars as the descendants tried to make their small inheritencs into large ones at the expense of their siblings.

Perhaps the largest such division ever recorded was of Charlemagnes sons (who';s names I forget), but IIRC his entire Empire (covering roughly France, Northern Spain, Italy, the low countries, Germany and bits of Austria & the former Yugoslavia, was divided betwen 3 sons, becoming moer or less the modern France, Germany and Italy. (I'm willing to be corrected on this one)

[Erik Blackbeard]

I always keep my king and all heirs except the youngest in the heat of battle. they gain a lot of valour and my kings influence stay high. and if all of them die, I still have one prince to take the throne.

[Ace of Shades]

I usually leave my king out of the way somewhere. But send all his heirs to the frontline to build up their stats and V&Vs. I never work out who will eventually succeed the Kind anyway, so when a new king is announced I just repeat and hopefully with his new V&Vs, the new king as an improvement.

& then repeat for required results http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Oaty]

M

[JohnCee]

Quote[/b] (frogbeastegg @ June 27 2003,05:26)]My last three games have had a dynasty of unhinged loons, a dynasty of chinless wonders and a dynasty of drinkers - I hate to think whats next
Ah, the joys of computer genetics http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

[A.Saturnus]

frogbeastegg, those heirs that disappear when a new king takes the throne are the old kings brothers and uncles to the new one. When the new one has the throne, some of his fathers sons may not be grown up. This means when you get a "heir martures" message, it could be a brother of the king as well. When a new king becomes father to a boy, I always look immeadiatly what`s his name. This way, I`ll know who`ll be the next king even before he`s grown up. It always works.

[frogbeastegg]

Thanks A.Saturnus I was already aware of that http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif The heirs in my example are all sons of the new king as mentioned in the 'you have a son' messages after the new king took over.

As I've said it's no big issue, just a little strange. It's not like it ruins the game, if anything it is mildly amusing. The issue of where a new king would appear used to be similarly strange until CA revealed that he appears in the province with the most buildings. There's probably a similar, simple explanation for my 'looser dynasties'.

I might try keeping a paper family tree for my next game, that may shed some light on the line of succession (or not).

PS.If my next dynasty are all perverts I'm restarting the campaign

[bighairyman]

the eldest heir will be king, BUT if the king dies and the eldest heir is 40. then it goes to the youngest.

the game knoes the 56 bug so it won't it knows to let youngest (have the most time to make kids) if the oldest dones't have time to make babies.

i have noticed it, but not 100% sure so i may be wrong http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[ToranagaSama]

Quote[/b] (MiniKiller @ June 26 2003,20:55)]Ok, I rarly fight with my King and/or Princes but when a King takes over and his brothers are left...and then the King has a son, the brothers wont take over right? So I might as well use em in battle?
Like you, I refrain from using my King as a "war" general. I also attempt to preserve my Princes, as well, but as my best generals, somebody has to lead the fighting.

I play using *my* Hardcore Rules, which only allows Governors to be "Knights". As a result, in the early stages of a campaign, my provinces don't have Govenors. Once the old King's brothers (Princes) become regular Generals, I make them Govenors.

[bighairyman]

Quote[/b] (ToranagaSama @ July 04 2003,01:50)]I play using *my* Hardcore Rules, which only allows Governors to be "Knights". As a result, in the early stages of a campaign, my provinces don't have Govenors. Once the old King's brothers (Princes) become regular Generals, I make them Govenors.
that's what i do too. give a far away remote province to a "uncle" .

but i don't follow ur "Hardcore Rules", i give titles to highest acumen possible. even if he's a peasants.