Kuchuck I Sultan ?

Yesterday I was playing my HRE-Early-expert-Vanilla campaign and, around 1235, I've seen the Turkish leader in Hungary with the name of Kuchuck I.
How is it ? First 8 names in Default_Hero file are others.
On the hypothesis he was the leader of the current civil war opposite faction, I have 2 question:

1.Could the AI, in civil war, choose the rebels to continue playing ?
2.Could the opposite faction start a civil war with no royal blood generals?

Has anyone previous experiences on this ?

Greetings

I really can't say if the AI is permitted to back the rebels in a civil war, but from your description above it does appear so. This seems to me to be the only way that a so named Sultan could succeed to the throne. The AI must have bribed them, then they must have been part of the low loyalty side in a civil war and ultimately, assuming the AI did back the rebels, this general became Sultan.

That's pretty unusual, Omar. :inquisitive: Can't say I've seen anything like it myself, but that certainly doesn't mean anything. I have to admit that until you brought up the subject, I'd never considered whether the AI even gets a choice in which side to back in a civil war--I'd always automatically assumed it supported the Loyalists. Guess I'll have to rethink that assumption. :blush:

I created a similar topic a while ago - take a look:

unusual king names

Thanks for the link KT. :bow: The following post from that thread is probably the most illuminating:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mouzafphaerre

That happens when a rebel general wins a civil war and ascends the throne. No matter, his sons born afterwards will receive "regular" royal names.

---

I think that answers our question, OmarPacha. Mouza would know, if anyone does. :yes:

Yes, Mouzapherre seems to have got the right conclusion in that topic, that Sultan must be the general leader of the civil war opposite faction .
Therefore, we must note that the AI can choose to back the Rebels;
the only point left not so clear is the possibility that rebel faction has no royal blood leaders when civil war occurs.
This is important since the sole control of low-loyalty heirs is no more a warranty against civil war.

Thank you all
Cheers

If I understand you correctly, then yes, the "Rebel" side in a civil war isn't always led by men of royal blood. They often are led by princes or "royal uncles", but they don't have to be. Is that what you were wondering?

Yes, I must admit I have not focused on this matter for all campaign but it never happened to myself to see a civil war without royal leaders; probably I have met only that kind of civil war that takes place when a king too young dies with no heirs and the game allows you to keep on with the younger uncle, often opposed by other old heirs.

Anyway, If You say it is not so, this is surely a help as, from now on, we must take care of ALL generals put on top of the pile.

Thanks

Yes, beware, ANY powerful low loyalty general could decide to lead a civil war -- this is why you get warning scrolls about having a lot of disloyal generals. High command/low loyalty is a combination to be wary of. Give him a title, an office, or a princess to keep his eyes off the throne :2thumbsup:

Other than that keep him in your king's stack, but that is a waste of his command ability, although you should be able to move him out on his own once your king has gained extra influence or loyalty-boosting virtues ("builder" line etc). And try not to be caught unprepared when your old king dies, as your new one will not have the same loyalty factors (unless you carefully groom your heir apparent, of course :whip:)

I also saw the AI backing a peasant rebel once, I (playing Vikings) was beating up the Northumbrians, led by King Æthelstan the terrible (got his nickname due to his 10 dread) badly when suddenly they erupted into civil war and a guy named Dunstan (IIRC leading a unit of peasants) became their new king (I wasn't notified that his predecessor had died, so I presume he didn't). It didn't help them much, though, 12 years later Northumbria was no more.

A king who originally commanded a peasant unit? :laugh4: I have to admit, that's a new one for me! Although I did have a French game once where the Rebel king (which I backed) was originally a unit of Feudal Seargents, that's still not quite as lowly.