No option to change faction heir

**Orda Khan** · 02-09-2007, 16:56

As you could in RTW. I realise it would be easy to pass this title to the most appropriate character, trait wise. However I am in a situation now where the title has passed to an adopted son and all the leaders of my faction have stemmed from these descendants. At last there are only female family members in this branch and the heir is now a 'true' descendant. Have I missed something?
It's no big deal but a little unbelievable IMO

.......Orda

**Quillan** · 02-09-2007, 17:23

I don't know how many times heirs were dispossessed and the position passed to one who wasn't the next in line during medieval times, so I can't say if it's correct or not to leave it out. What upsets me about it is that the game system is only correct to a point. Generally when a king took the throne, if he had no male children, the oldest of his brothers stood to inherit. However, once the king had a son the king's brother ceased to be the heir, and this doesn't happen in game. If the king dies and his oldest son becomes faction leader, and has no adult male children at that point in time, the next oldest son becomes the heir. Even when the leader has adult male children they aren't in the immediate line of succession.

**DensterNY** · 02-09-2007, 18:18

Its a shame you can't select your heirs yourself because otherwise you're forced to kill off family members who would otherwise be an asset in their own ways. There have been more than one time when I've charged an unwanted heir or even king into the midst of my enemies to be impaled on the end of a spear.

I forgot which one but I remember one of the other TW games where you could use an assassin against your own members and agents. It made things nice and tidy.

**IsItStillThere** · 02-09-2007, 18:21

I thought there was something screwy about the way the line of succession worked. Course, you can always send undersireable heirs on suicide missions against bandits to get rid of them.

**diotavelli** · 02-09-2007, 18:36

Originally Posted by Quillan

I don't know how many times heirs were dispossessed and the position passed to one who wasn't the next in line during medieval times, so I can't say if it's correct or not to leave it out. What upsets me about it is that the game system is only correct to a point. Generally when a king took the throne, if he had no male children, the oldest of his brothers stood to inherit. However, once the king had a son the king's brother ceased to be the heir, and this doesn't happen in game. If the king dies and his oldest son becomes faction leader, and has no adult male children at that point in time, the next oldest son becomes the heir. Even when the leader has adult male children they aren't in the immediate line of succession.

Exactly how the succession worked in medieval times varied widely over time and between countries. In the Merovingian dynasty in France (before the M2TW era but still medieval) all males of age were considered 'kings of the Franks', although some had seniority over others. The English throne was considered elective (in theory, at least) for many years and in the HRE, of course, this continued to be the case throughout the period (hence senior nobles were Electors).

Looking back now, many assume that primogeniture was a feature of medieval kingship but that didn't become the case for several centuries and, even then, it wasn't universal. The Venetians enacted laws specifically to prevent it. Henry II of England considered disinheriting his rebellious elder sons in favour of John, the youngest; Richard Oc e No (later Coeur de Lion) was made heir to his mother's County of Aquitaine whilst his elder brother was still alive.

The point was that the nobility's highest priority was undisputed successions. A weak leader or child on the throne was preferable to a civil war. Primogeniture was adopted because it was one of the easiest ways to ensure this. Once the concept of Divine Right was formulated, the nature of primogeniture changed but that wasn't until after the medieval period.

As for being able to chose/change heirs, I think that be a let-down - it's something I certainly never used in RTW. Historically, new kings were always greeted with a mix of hope and fear - hope they'd be good rulers; fear that they wouldn't. I like that element in the game.

My new king might appear to be a bit rubbish - drinking, sleeping around, lazy and foolish - but a bit of careful management might turn him into a successful warrior monarch. Which pretty much describes the career of Henry V of England, when you think about it.

**Laconic** · 02-09-2007, 19:24

Originally Posted by Quillan

Generally when a king took the throne, if he had no male children, the oldest of his brothers stood to inherit. However, once the king had a son the king's brother ceased to be the heir, and this doesn't happen in game.

Edward V found out how well that rule works.

I just make sure my idiot Hapsburg kings always get the grand notion to try to conquor the Holy Lands by themselves.

**Foz** · 02-09-2007, 19:40

Originally Posted by IsItStillThere

I thought there was something screwy about the way the line of succession worked. Course, you can always send undersireable heirs on suicide missions against bandits to get rid of them.

I suppose you could, but I have problems enough trying to keep cities stocked with governors and armies stocked with generals without intentionally getting them killed.

**Lord Fluffy** · 02-09-2007, 19:52

Well I have this problem now, not enough that my good King died and the new King is mad. The new prince has a boat load of bad traits. Problem is, I've sent him on 2 suicide missions and he always ran away at the very last instant.

**Carl** · 02-10-2007, 01:32

My advise, take a settelment with enemies near who will attack you then lave him as the only garrission, that way he'll stick. Also, rotate the unit so he is on the flank they charge into, or use click behind to get him in the midle of a mass of men so he fights to the death.

**ChaosLord** · 02-10-2007, 02:01

The problem is that as far as the game is concerned, sons don't exist until they mature. This was fixed in MTW with the title of heir passing to the true heir when he came of age. In the situation with having the current King's brothers holding the title of heir while the Kings owns sons grew up. What it should do is track the true heir reguardless of age and have a "Regent" position of temporary heir/king. Until the true heir matures then it switches to him with the proper title.

That aside, I did have an interesting encounter with this. I had a German marry one of my Danish Princesses(got seduced). This German ruled as King for a little bit because I had gotten my only heir of age killed in battle. But he died before his sons could mature so the Kingship passed back to true line. At least, all Danish rather then half German/Danish.

Really, royal politics and questions of succession is something CA could have expanded on in M2TW rather then giving us a pretty picture to look at.

**Lord Fluffy** · 02-10-2007, 02:12

Ah, thanks Carl...I'll try the formation thing tonight. That fatty prince will die tonight!!!

**Horatius** · 02-10-2007, 05:14

You guys also seem to see the Middle Ages as clear cut rules, however there was no internationally recognized let alone enforced law of succession.

Merchant Republics in Italy did exist (one Dodge of Venice lost his head for trying to make himself king of Venice), the Byzantine Empire was in theory at least not a hereditary monarchy, and the English System believe it or not sometimes had WOMEN inherit (I.E Queen Matilda).

When there was something like King's Daughter vs King's brother you could have a reasonable expectation that a civil war would come, you could also have a civil war if the king had more then one brother and died childless, sometimes there would be civil war with a clearly legitimate hier to the throne and a person without any inheritence claim (I.E in the Byzantine Empire John Contacuzenus took the throne without any claim to have it through inheritence).

There is Medieval history backing the idea that you should chose who inherits the throne, and medieval history suggesting you should have no say in it.

From a gameplay perspective though I like the way CA did the inheritence. Sometimes kingdoms got cursed with the worst possible leaders imaginable, and the will of the people, or even of the king doomed to be succeeded by these jerks had no authority to change it, and sometimes like in the game kings might not notice that they had bad sons as hiers, for example Michael Paleologus simply didn't notice that his son Andronicus II had no governing skills.

**Orda Khan** · 02-10-2007, 12:54

Well I am campaigning as the Mongols and with the Khan's death came a Quriltai to decide the next ruler. The Khan would name his heir, unless he died before this but the Quriltai would debate and ultimately decide the progression.
OK, that's the Mongol situation and I am sure there are many cases of younger siblings gaining favour in most cultures but my line of progression shifted to an adopted son, through marriage (son-in-law) while direct descendants were overlooked. I find that hard to believe and the option to change faction heir would at least reflect a decision of council or some such contest

........Orda