how is succesion mechanism works?

I ve been playing MTW2 and i noticed that succesion laws are not quite following real patterns.
For example if the king's son is underage and u adopt someone he is next in line for the throne despite the fact that there is a natural son.
A second example is when the oldest son proves himself completely stupid and therefore he is not suited for kingship. What do u do? Stuck with a moron for a king?
There is a historical precedense for that when William I of England named his heir his second son William Rufus while his first-born son Robert was granted just the Duchy of Normandy.
Shouldnt this be fixed soon?

in my game as the scots i had a similar issue with adopted sons being heirs after most of my lineage were killed by the backstabbiing english scum (in game that is, no offence meant, my missus is english as are my kids)
i simply waited until a true scot of canmore blood came of age then sent my adopted sons on suicide missions against the english
my dynasty is now secure again

My king had his son as heir. Everything fine, only he dies and his eldest son's son is only 11. I would assume that eldest son becomes king and 2nd son heir. Yet instead of 2nd son it is his eldest nephew-in-law. The King's cousins husband, instead of his brother.

This sounds extremely complicated but thats the whole point. Why is it?

Isnt there a console command that can sort this out? I really dont want to have to suicide a whole branch of the family tree (4 sons) just to make sure the right guy is next in line.

I'll guarantee it's not primogeniture!! :laugh4:

Yes this is an annoying little thing that seems to have been reintroduced, you could select whoever you wanted to be heir in Rome its a small step back though and if we are lucky it might get fixed in a patch if enough people put their hands up.

The game doesn't seem to allow for regents. When the king or the heir dies, a new heir is chosen. The method of choosing is correct, but it doesn't take temporary situations into account. If the King's firstborn son was 9 years old, the King's brother might act as regent until the boy turned 16, but would then have to step aside. The game doesn't do that. There should really be a third designation behind Faction Leader and Heir Apparent: Regent Designate. If the faction leader doesn't have an adult male descendant to be heir apparent, then the closest should be titled Regent Designate. When the real heir comes of age, the Regent probably would remain Regent Designate until the new faction leader gets an heir of his own, or someone closer becomes the new Regent Designate. When that happens you could give the former regent the title of Ex-Regent, with perhaps some minor benefits to go with it, like the Ex-Quaestor and such titles from RTW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quillan

The game doesn't seem to allow for regents.

---

That's a good idea. It would be even cooler if sometimes the regent didn't want to give up power. So he has the young prince murdered before he comes of age, or starts a civil war with the prince once he does come of age.

Out of curiosity, how does succession work for the Turk faction? In real life, as a matter of Ottoman law succession always involved civil war or at least fratricide. Most sultans, due to having harems, had many sons, and the rule was that they should kill each other with the last one standing becoming sultan. All was fair--pre-emptive murder as well as battle--the idea being that God obviously favored whoever won the contest :).

Actually that was Islamic succession tradition. That by default royal sucession was through all the sons of the late ruler. So if my father was an Emir/Sultan when he died the title would pass to me then when I snuffed it to my brother. Then our children, whom evers were older.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

Actually that was Islamic succession tradition. That by default royal sucession was through all the sons of the late ruler. So if my father was an Emir/Sultan when he died the title would pass to me then when I snuffed it to my brother. Then our children, whom evers were older.

---

The Ottomans did it differently. They had no guaranteed succession AT ALL, as a matter of statutory law written by one of the early sultans. When a sultan died, officially there was no new sultan as long as more than 1 son still lived. It was the duty of every prince to kill all the others (and their sons) as quickly as possible, and once that happened, the sole survivor became the new sultan. When he died in turn, his sons would kill each other.

The logic of the system was based on religion. Whoever survived was obviously God's favorite prince, or else he wouldn't have won, so the empire got the best man for the job this way. And this wasn't for man to decide beforehand, so the reigning sultan usually didn't try to stack the deck or try to save his empire from civil war on his death. Instead, he usually kept his sons separated by much of the empire so they couldn't kill each other ahead of time, and gave them each an important command so they'd have the means to fight at more or less even odds when the time came.

At the end of a reign, this system could play out in several different ways. Sometimes a prince succeeded in murdering all the others early. Sometimes rival princes each declared themselves sultan and fought battles in a real civil war until only 1 was left. But the most common outcome seems to have been that the janisaries decided the issue. Each prince would promise riches and power to the janisaries, and they sided with the one whose offers they liked best. So when the old sultan died, the janisaries took control of the palace, brought in their boy, and offed all the others they could catch. Then the new sultan would have to launch a campaign for plunder to pay off the janisaries.

The lack of succession also applied to Ottoman nobles. Very few of them were actually Turks. Most were slaves from conquered territories (like the janisaries themselves) or ex-Christian defectors who were trained in the Ottoman court until they graduated to become generals and governors. They held their posts at the pleasure of the sultan, and when they died or fell from favor, they were replaced by other Ottoman-trained non-Turks.

Seems were both wrong. The Ottomans practiced the Steppe tradition of whom ever is best gets it (Mongol succession was appearantly based on a similar system). Rather than European primogeniture or Islamic seniority. The best were usually from among the former Sultans myriad sons and brothers. But all had equal claim to the throne. So that each new Sultan had to preform a mass execution of all his brothers, uncles, and newphews if he won the throne. And when you consider a Sultan was entitled to 5 wifes and 8 concubines, all of whom would be producing legitimate male heirs. That's a lot of killings. :skull: In fact the aritcel I just googled says that when they stopped killing all their male relatives it and just imprisoned them, started the decay of the sublime porte. You try ruling a vast and diverse empire well when you've lived most of your life in a dungeon. :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

That's a lot of killings. :skull: In fact the aritcel I just googled says that when they stopped killing all their male relatives it and just imprisoned them, started the decay of the sublime porte. You try ruling a vast and diverse empire well when you've lived most of your life in a dungeon. :dizzy2:

---

Well, however and for whatever reason they did it, Turkish succession was a very blood affair and definintely not at all like of Western Europe. In a Turkish campaign, the family tree should always show only the sultan alive of his generation, and only his own descendants alive below him. All his uncles and cousins were killed by his father, and he killed all his own brothers.

For generals, the only family members the Turks should have are descendants of the current sultan. Thus, if the current sultan is a young man like in his 20s, there'd be no of-age family member generals available. These would only start appearing once the sultan reached middle age. Other generals are all basically adopted (the non-Turk slaves), and NONE of them are in the line of succession at all, ever. It would probably be best to allow the Turks to recruit general units like we could in BI.

When the sultan dies, all family members on the tree except for 1 prince and his kids should also die. Some non-family generals should also die for backing a losing prince in the bloodbath, but they'd be replaced quickly from the training school.

I understand the Byzantines were sorta the same way. Quite often when a new prince took over, he had all his rivals eliminated. Mostly this involved blinding and castrating them, and locking them in a monastery instead of killing them, however.