Assigning new heirs?

**Werner** · 11-19-2006, 08:24

Two things, first how the hell do I change heir to the throne? In all other TW games it was just a button in the family tree menu, now I cant find it anywhere. Also, how do you get more princesses? The one you start the campaign with (romans) is already married, havent "gotten" any new ones. Do they just come with age?

Thanks!

**sapi** · 11-19-2006, 09:17

iirc there's a bug with the princesses and you can't change the heir (but i'm not 100% sure)

**knoddy** · 11-19-2006, 11:24

there is no bug to my knowledge with princesses. Heirs cannot be changed, the pc automatically assigns a new heir when needed, it cannot be altered, if u realy want to change the heir ur best bet is to suicide him in a crazy battle, and hope for better luck next time.

In order to get a princess u MUST turn down any marriage proposals for ur daughters hand. When the game came out most people were complainging about not getting princesses without realising that they had to not accept marriage proposals. Also u will not get a notice that a princess is "of age". just turn down any marriage proposals u get for ur daughters, go to ur family tree, look for a princess of age, and then find them on ur camp map, they will be in the city with their fathers, under the agents tab.

Cheers Knoddy

**BigTex** · 11-19-2006, 11:30

Originally Posted by sapi

iirc there's a bug with the princesses and you can't change the heir (but i'm not 100% sure)

There's no bug with the princesses. You just need to not agree to marriage proposal's. Also I believe only the kings duaghters are princesses.

**Werner** · 11-19-2006, 11:39

Originally Posted by knoddy

Heirs cannot be changed, the pc automatically assigns a new heir when needed, it cannot be altered.

Your joking right?

**King Noob the Stupid** · 11-19-2006, 11:51

I thing it's a realism thingy as in medieval times AFAIK the oldest (legitimate)son would automatically inherit the throne (

Primogeniture), if you don't like him you have to get rid of him by sending him to a suicide mission or assasinating him or getting him burnt by an inquisitor, much like it was in the original MTW.

**sapi** · 11-19-2006, 11:52

Originally Posted by Werner

Your joking right?

Certainly makes things more interesting :P

@ the princesses 'bug' - i misread something. Oops :)

**BigTex** · 11-19-2006, 11:53

Originally Posted by Werner

Your joking right?

Nope no joke. The throne passes to the first born son, if he die's then to the second and so on. If there are no sons then it goes to the next in line after the previous king, the kings brother usually. If the kings brothers are dead it passes to the kings uncles. If there's none of them alive then it would pass to the eldest nephew.

If you don't like your current heir to the throne then do what they used to do. Send him on a near suicidal mission. If he dies, you've got a good replacement. If he lives, well he will be a darn solid leader then.

**melvinio** · 11-19-2006, 12:49

Oooh, 'realism'? Don't think so. Primogeniture, which is a lovely word, wasn't really introduced until at least the end of the telfth century. Up 'til then it was whoever had the biggest sword/whoever could gain and hold on to power. This would sometimes mean a son/brother succeeded, but this was coincidence.

This is just intended as an historical footnote, not CA- or anyone else-bashing. I realise they have to play to popular culture, etc. So there.

**justme** · 11-19-2006, 18:10

Nope no joke. The throne passes to the first born son, if he die's then to the second and so on. If there are no sons then it goes to the next in line after the previous king, the kings brother usually. If the kings brothers are dead it passes to the kings uncles. If there's none of them alive then it would pass to the eldest nephew.

Nope, not exactly...

Actually in my Byzantine campaign the game chose to nominate as heir the first adopted son I got (I make it a rule to decline adoptions, but this one was promoted as "man of the hour" - I accept this as more in line with the "role playing" element - and placed as "first-born" of my next-to-be-emperor family member!)

Plus strict primogeniture was not always observed and certainly not in all cultures. Manuel Komnenos for example was a 2nd or 3rd son (can't remember) but he was chosen over his elder siblings, supposedly by his father John when he was already on his deathbed.

Either way, the game does not respect the rule of "blood", ie choosing heirs from the dynasty - and the term "adoption" is just absurd in a medieval context.

This must be changed one way or another...

**Werner** · 11-19-2006, 22:54

Originally Posted by justme

The game does not respect the rule of "blood", ie choosing heirs from the dynasty - and the term "adoption" is just absurd in a medieval context.

This must be changed one way or another...

I agree, I'm on turn 50 of my first campaign for the germans and my original kaiser still hasnt died, yet the heir to the throne, Prince Henry turns out to be the best general we have. Does the game tend to choose what it thinks would be the best leader or does it have to do with blood? Also, I don't know about you guys, but I like to be very picky when adopting people into the family. If you receive someone with bad traits those traits will carrying into their children and will eventually spread throughout the family - had this happen once in Rome:TW. Now that we can't even choose our heirs, I will be extreamly careful...

**Wizzie** · 11-19-2006, 23:07

I've stopped accepting adoptions or men of the hour on principal unless my current king has one or two sons who are of age, as otherwise some randomer who you just adopted becomes next in line for the throne! I got caught out by it badly on my current English campaign when I wasn't aware of the mechanics used with adopted son, so now I have a string of two or three adoptees in line for the throne as my King's first-born was as-then not of age

**Sardo** · 11-20-2006, 00:57

I too had an adoptee of King Robert's as the heir apparent, and a disloyal one at that too, but he got killed in the Middle East (sort of on purpose - I'd reluctantly accepted him by now, as he was improving too, but still...). The real annoying thingy here is the fact that after his demise, the title of Crown Prince went not to Henry, third son of William and brother of the King, but to a guy he had adopted some time before!
So, instead of the crown passing to the King's brother in the absence of any royal offspring, it will pass to the brother's eldest son, who isn't even related to them. He showed some promise too, so it's a pity he'll have to go...