Faction Heir selection

[Yoko Kono]

Is there any way to influence this
In my current Scotland campaign my king had four sons before dieing in 1128
His eldest son, edward, becomes king
1148 and the new king is killed in fighting as york is sacked by backstabbing english
His brother, edmund the 2nd born, is also killed as wales too is taken the same year
this left two sons of which the youngest, david becomes king
1156 and king david is killed leading a successful assault on york with limited resources
the remaining 3rd born (alexander i think) becomes king and within two turns has adopted two sons just one and two years his junior
he then adopts another son (his grandson) to his youngest adopted son
but now edmund (the second born killed in 1148) has a son come of age
also david (king killed in 1156) has a son ready to mature
the thing is the heir is set to be the first adopted son of alexander but i think it really should be a canmore (the original kings family name) of pure blood
i want to keep the canmores legacy going and prevent iit going to some adopted son ( i feel like the english have imposed these sons upon me even tho i needed the generals at the time)
how do i ensure that when alexander dies (he is 40 and his two "sons" are 39 and 38 while his "grandson" is 37) the canmore sons of david or edmund will take the throne?

EDIT: current king has two canmore daughters but only adopted sons

[TinCow]

I completely agree with you and posted about this in another thread.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...9&postcount=55

As far as I can tell, there is absolutely no way to pick the heir, outside of making the undesired heirs have unfortunate accidents until your man of choice gets the nod. For obvious reasons this is not ideal.

I hold out hope that this will be moddable though. The option existed in RTW, so the engine is capable of doing it. Hopefully someone will figure out how and we will simply have a Selectable Heir mod we can all install.

[chunkynut]

I was also annoyed a bit by this, it says something about it being your best general in the manual, but i'd prefer to be able to pick the heir. (I like the dynasty idea, little bit of role playing :) )

Outside of the normal (as we understand it) succession of the throne would surely be a result of civil war etc.

[Akka]

Actually, I'm MUCH MORE annoyed by the "adoption rampage" we see.

That people were commonly adopted in Roman times is fine. It was the norm by then.
But it's NOT the case in medieval time. I like how you worked to preserve your bloodline in MTW, the birth of a new heir was really something to be celebrated.
Now in MTW2 you crumble under the number of adoptions, it just feels ridiculous.

[ZobMan]

Firstly hello all - my first post!

I like the way it's always your eldest son in Medieval. It's as it should be imo, and gives MTW some of its flavour.

Unlike in Roman times there was strong medieval tradition of primogeniture (sp?) in Europe that meant the first son always inherited his father's property. That's why those second sons tended to become priests, go on crusades etc and the first son would take on the crown - even if he was a gibbering lunatic who was clearly unfit to rule.

My royal families in MTW1 (and the few games I've played of MTW2) were often pretty hopeless with most of the real good work gets done by field generals who are miles from the succession. And then every now and again you get a great king and can really appreciate it!

[Rothe]

The reason for the adoptions is that the game is balancing out the situation to give the player enough generals if the number of children of the royal line are fewer than some limit that the game sets for the generals.

As a game mechanic it works out OK, but I think even better would be to have a royal line and then the possibility of acquiring more generals by marriage (marrying women of the royal line to other families within your kingdom).

Adoption is a poor term for the balancing things that should really be just giving command of armies to some other nobles in your faction.

I suppose the need for balancing the amount of generals is because it is possible to play so that you need generals to give orders in cities/castles.

[Akka]

Well, actually in the game there is two different things :
"family", who are the members of your bloodline.
"generals", who are simply, well, generals.

They should replace the "adoption" by "promotion", so that we have more generals (to have units able to command armies and cities), but we still have to cater to our family (and expect heirs and not throw sons into battle recklessly).

[Scipio Africano]

They should replace the "adoption" by "promotion", so that we have more generals (to have units able to command armies and cities), but we still have to cater to our family (and expect heirs and not throw sons into battle recklessly).

Couldn't agree more, those generals you have at the start are the only ones apart from bribed and seduced ones you can promote without them having to be part of the family.

[Drake]

Hopefully a patch (probably a big one) will fix this, giving the option as in Rome to pick an heir. On my current English campaign my next in line is Jasper the Mad, a loony toon with numerous bad vices, and a HRE wife. Great...

[justme]

Is there any way to influence this

Excuse me, but isn't there a way to set your faction heir through the console?

I mean some console command like "set_faction_heir X" or something?


That way we won't need to wait for a patch or a mod to maintain our dynasty


cheers

[Shahed]

Is there ?