Why can't I pick the faction heir myself?

[Kekkonen]

My faction leader just died, and the 46-year-old faction heir became the new leader. As always, the computer picked a faction heir right then and there, and he was the faction leader's youngest brother, also over 40. I had a 19-year-old that I wanted to make the faction heir, but if I set him to be the heir, the ex-heir gets the -1 influence "disinherited" trait, even if I pick the new faction heir on the same turn as the old leader dies. I think this is a bit annoying; yes, the computer should pick the heir if I press the "end turn" button without hand-picking a heir, but why can't the faction heir status be freely transferable for that one turn?

BTW, what's the real benefit of being a faction leader/heir (besides getting more horsies to your guard and a small boost to ratings)? My only senate officer is neither the faction leader nor the heir (or the guy the computer wanted to pick as heir); he is a 10-star general, but he's not the family member with the highest influence rating.

[Colovion]

Well if you were an heir and got your Heir Status taken away from you I'm sure that you'd lose some Influence with your peers as you are no longer the Heir to throne and if you aren't the Heir then there must be something wrong with you, or you aren't as good as the new Heir. Basically, your social status would go down.

If you wanted him to be the Heir why didn't you change it ahead of time? But yes, I agree you should be given the last minute decision because it doesn't happen all that often.

[Bob the Insane]

There is always someone who is the traditional choice for faction heir (don't know what rules apply in RTW yet though). So once the old leader dies and the present Heir becomes the leader there will be someone every one expected to be the heir...

Or I could just be rationalizing!!!

[Sinner]

I agree that it is a little unfair, I presume the game simply follows the family tree to pick the heir for a new leader, chosing a son if old enough as first choice, then a brother, then I have no idea how it'd chose next: age, influence, random?

It would be nice to be given the choice to chose the new heir, or at least be given a turn or two of grace where the AI-chosen heir doesn't get disinherited as a trait if the player makes their own preferred choice.

Personally, I'd just bite the bullet & accept the influence hit, it's not that bad and at least I'd get the heir I wanted.
I hesitate to suggest this, but because the game engine doesn't allow you to set the heir for your heir - in effect what you wanted to do before your original leader died - this could be an acceptable situation to use the command console and remove the disinherited trait from the 40yo.

As far as the benefits of being leader or heir: both are unbribable, both get a bonus to personal security, the leader gets +2 influence and +1 command, and the heir gets +1 influence.

[Kekkonen]

If you wanted him to be the Heir why didn't you change it ahead of time? But yes, I agree you should be given the last minute decision because it doesn't happen all that often.

I didn't want him to be the next faction leader. I wanted him to be the next *heir*; the 3rd in line when the now-deceased leader (the first in the campaign) was still alive. I had no problems with the originally chosen heir, he's a fine fellow.

[Sinner]

Well if you were an heir and got your Heir Status taken away from you I'm sure that you'd lose some Influence with your peers as you are no longer the Heir to throne and if you aren't the Heir then there must be something wrong with you, or you aren't as good as the new Heir. Basically, your social status would go down.

If you wanted him to be the Heir why didn't you change it ahead of time? But yes, I agree you should be given the last minute decision because it doesn't happen all that often.

Kekkonen couldn't pick the 19yo ahead of time without what is a somewhat unfair penalty, because the game doesn't allow you to set the heir to the heir. His original situation was a leader with a 46yo heir, a 40yo brother of the heir, a 19yo family member plus presumably others. Before the leader died, Kekkonen could have picked the 19yo as heir, but his 46yo would have then been disinherited. The leader then dies, the 46yo replaces him and the game automatically choses the 40yo as heir based on unknown criteria, without the player having any say over the choice. Kekkonen of course has another opportunity to set the 19yo as heir, but again he'll end up with a disinherited ex-heir, this time the 40yo.

[ulyanov]

Wheras I'd leave things where they stand - the 46Yo leader will probably outlast the new heir, though with 6 years you never know.

When he does shuffle off this mortal virtual coil, your preferred heir will probably be 40 himself - that's 20 years to pick up bad traits. I wouldn't change the heir until the leader was well into his 50's and a good chance od carking in the next 10 or 15 years, not the next 30 or 35... You might get lucky with a 25yo leader with a long time to sit at the top of the senate or whatever...

[Servius]

Yeah, I see. So when a leader dies, the person YOU choose becomes faction leader but the comp chooses the new heir for you. And it always chooses the oldest male relative of the former leader (often a similarly-old brother). I agree that the default heir should be the elder SON of the heir you choose pre-death. That would make more sense (passing to son rather than brother).

[Kekkonen]

Yeah, I see. So when a leader dies, the person YOU choose becomes faction leader but the comp chooses the new heir for you. And it always chooses the oldest male relative of the former leader (often a similarly-old brother). I agree that the default heir should be the elder SON of the heir you choose pre-death. That would make more sense (passing to son rather than brother).

No, when the leader dies the current faction heir becomes the leader, and the computer chooses a new heir. The new heir isn't determined by age; in my case, it was the new leader's youngest brother (he was the oldest son of the ex-leader, the middle son is my 10-star general and current Aedile, the youngest son was the one the comp wanted to put in as the heir).

[Kekkonen]

Wheras I'd leave things where they stand - the 46Yo leader will probably outlast the new heir, though with 6 years you never know.

When he does shuffle off this mortal virtual coil, your preferred heir will probably be 40 himself - that's 20 years to pick up bad traits. I wouldn't change the heir until the leader was well into his 50's and a good chance od carking in the next 10 or 15 years, not the next 30 or 35... You might get lucky with a 25yo leader with a long time to sit at the top of the senate or whatever...

Actually, that makes a lot of sense. That's a very good point; this youngster I chose as the heir has many fine qualities, but he *is* a social drinker, which worries me a bit -- although I don't know whether an alcoholic faction leader would be a detriment to the family in this game.

[TinCow]

FYI, the computer doesn't 'pick' the heir... it uses a hereditary system. It first goes to the eldest son. If no sons, to eldest brother. If no eldest brother, to the eldest son of the eldest daughter (I think). The computer doesn't actually make any quality choices, it just takes whoever is next in line. Keep in mind, heir is determined when the new leader is chosen. Thus, a son born to the faction leader later on would not be the heir because the computer doesn't re-evaluate heirs.

[ToranagaSama]

Quite right, TinCow, thank you.

History is fraught with examples of your last instance. A new (favored) son is born, after the Leader has already chosen a heir. Isn't Shakespere and the Bible, and history itslef full of these circumstances? The *old* heir gets pissed and goes on a killing rampage or something.

The game pretty much has it right.

[Slyspy]

I find the lack of choice very annoying, especially when the loss of influence has knock on effects to public order etc. You should be give the chance to choose and heir when the previous one becomes leader.

After all didn't Julius Caesar choose Octavian over Brutus? Or did Octavian make it up? I forget. Anyway IIRC neither were blood-kin.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Brutus killed Ceasar, so...

[bmolsson]

Well, we can all agree that having a civil war everytime a faction head puts his boots on the shelve would kill the game a bit...

[sapi]

Personally, I'd just bite the bullet & accept the influence hit, it's not that bad and at least I'd get the heir I wanted.

I agree, but i'd like to know how to get rid of the trait :)

[Bob the Insane]

I agree, but i'd like to know how to get rid of the trait :)

Don't know why you would want to do that, I mean the guy has been disinherited!!

Everyone expected him to be next in line but as soon as the new leader got comfy he picked someone else... Naturaly the first guy is going to be a bit pissed....

[Kekkonen]

FYI, the computer doesn't 'pick' the heir... it uses a hereditary system. It first goes to the eldest son. If no sons, to eldest brother. If no eldest brother, to the eldest son of the eldest daughter (I think). The computer doesn't actually make any quality choices, it just takes whoever is next in line. Keep in mind, heir is determined when the new leader is chosen. Thus, a son born to the faction leader later on would not be the heir because the computer doesn't re-evaluate heirs.

In my experience that is not the way it goes. In my case, it could have picked the eldest son of the new leader -- his first-born was a daughter, but he had two sons as well (but no grandkids) -- but didn't. He could have picked the eldest brother of the new leader, but didn't. The new leader was the eldest of the ex-leaders three sons, and the auto-picked heir was the youngest of them. (He was, at the time, the brother with the highest influence rating though; I suppose he's still a good speaker when he's sober, but...)

[TinCow]

Hmmm... that's interesting. My leader is due to kick it any time now. I will pay attention to what happens when he does. At the same time, the penalty for switching heirs is really so minor that it's not that big a deal. -1 influence is a very very slight negative.

[Longasc]

Why so much of a fuss about the tiny penalty of the "disinherited" trait.

The heir is set regarding the family tree, not by ability. If you prefer to set it according to ability, the heir will simply have to step aside and suffer the little penalty.

[SpencerH]

The whole thing only makes sense to worry about if the leader etc have faction wide effects on "something". AFAIK they dont (and no one could give me an answer when I asked it), so why bother to manage it?