For answer, I'll cite an example I've used in other threads: I had a Danish campaign a couple years ago where I deliberately started a civil war. The reason I did so was that I had an absolutely terrible king--he had almost no influence, piety, dread, command, or acumen. Even worse, he had just ascended to the throne at a young age (I believe he was only 18-19 at the time), which meant that I would have been stuck with him for a
loooong time!
On the other hand, I had three uncles who were all
much better suited to ruling an empire! One of them in particular had good stats--6 piety, 5 dread, 8 command, 7 acumen, etc. In my case, it was a no-brainer to find someone who would help my current king shuffle loose the mortal coil.
Klling my king was a snap; was so worthless, that he was taken out by a rookie 0-star assassin!
(Of course, things didn't go exactly as I'd planned.
When civil war broke out, my two younger uncles opposed my older "super-uncle"--I'd hoped that one of the younger uncles would back the older one, but no such luck. I ended up choosing the "Rebels" led by the two younger uncles, as that way I would still have an heir should my new king be killed. I eventually triumphed over my uber-uncle, and reunited the Danish empire!)
So to sum up: If you have a bad faction leader with no direct heirs, it's sometimes worthwhile to trigger a civil war to get rid of him.
Bookmarks