• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

CK2 Dev Diary #106 - New Succession Laws Extravaganza

Greetings, everyone.

Well then, this is going to be a long one...

The old elective succession system has been succeeded


So your cousin the Duke of Burgundy always seem to nominate the Steve ‘the drunkard’ as the next Emperor of the realm rather than your favorite quick and attractive son. This has been a common theme for a bunch of our playthroughs while having the elective succession laws active for our main titles. One of the biggest problems about this is that the other electors reasonings for their nomination decisions has been hidden away in an opaque box so you never know which electors can be influenced to see things more in your way.


This was one of the first problems we wanted to address when we decided to rework the elective succession system. So instead of just giving you a list of names in the tooltips for whom casted votes on a given candidate we made a specific interface to enable us to give you a more detailed view into the minds of the powerful electors of the realm.

Succession Laws0.PNG


After it was possible to get a better look at why the electors made their decisions we wanted to make it easier to further edit the underlying factors which governs the AI. Therefor we decided to replicate the old logic from hardcoded conditions to instead be based on a scripted system which decides various rules of how the elective succession works.

This not only enables modding of the elective succession law, we now also allow you to create any number of your own elective rules to fill the world with different electorates that play by their own criterias. Maybe you always wanted to create your own technocratic republic that is governed only by the most learned people of the realm. The party realm might only allow drunkards and hedonists to have a say in whom should be this years party host.

For the people that are more interested in exactly how this is modifiable there’s a brief rundown of the syntax used to define the elective rules here:

Code:
### Condensed syntax layout:

#<elective_law_type> = {

#    candidate_vote_score = {

#        <Weight Modifiers>

#    }

#    elector_selection = {

#        max_amount = <int>

#        <Weight Modifiers> - if max_amount is set it will pick the X amount of top scorers.

#                Negative scores are considered invalid electors - Ruler is always an elector

#    }

#    elector_vote_strength = {

#        <Weight Modifiers>

#    }

#    elector_stances = { - Intended for the elder council positions

#        <stance_name> = {

#            icon = <int>

#            <Weight Modifiers>

#        }

#    }

#    candidate_trigger = {

#        <trigger>

#    }

#}


# <Weight Modifiers> - denotes a field of an arbitrary amount of triggered value modifiers eg.

#    additive_modifier = {

#        value = -4

#        is_tribal = yes

#    }

#

# <trigger> - denotes a field of conditions that needs to be evaluate true for the trigger to be fulfilled

#

# The elector will vote for the candidate with the highest score given by candidate_vote_score

# The electors are selected from the pool of characters which get a non-negative elector_selection score until we reach the max_amount

# elector_vote_strength will determine how much weight the vote of a single elector carries

# The elector will use the elector_stance with the highest score if any are scripted

# The stances are thought to be some kind of common thought process or allegiance for a subgroup of the electors - This system is used to create the different states for how the Elders will behave in the Eldership succession law explained in detail below

In addition to these underlying code changes of the elective succession forms we also added another usage of the Conclave favors so that you now can force electors to vote in compliance with your vote for the succession of a title.

Revamped Elective Laws


The unhardcoding of Elective successions allowed us to completely rewrite the AI behavior for the existing Elective laws accessible through the base game (Feudal Elective, Elective Gavelkind, Tanistry). The various conditions to be eligible as a successor or elector under these laws have remained unchanged (although now they have been translated into moddable script), while the AI electoral behavior has been rewritten into a long list of nuanced modifiers. You can now expect Electors to take into account how much they like a candidate, how legitimate they think his claim his to the title, and how much they trust the ruler that is voting for said candidate. Age, titles, character traits, culture, religion, dynastic ties and much more are now all taken into consideration by the AI and visible to the player when using the new Electors’ Tab. The sum of all these modifiers will result in a voting score, and the potential candidate who has the highest voting score will be the one selected by the Elector in question (and since each Elector has a different personality/status/etc. different kinds of Electors will prefer different kinds of candidates).

Succession Laws1.jpg



The Electors Tab shows to the player the complete list of Electors casting their vote, who they are voting for, the reasons why they are voting for said characters as well as a comparison with the candidate score of the ruler’s preferred candidate and the reasons why they are not voting for him.

Succession Laws2.jpg


Eldership

Somewhat similar to Tanistry, Eldership prevents your title from ever falling outside a ruler’s family, restricting the choice of potential candidates to members of the ruler’s dynasty. Under Eldership, only the six oldest and most learned characters in the realm will be allowed to pick the ruler’s successor. Each Elder can hold one of three possible stances at any given time, depending on how he feels about the ruler: Displeased, Pleased, or Ecstatic.

Making sure that your Elders have a high opinion of you, giving them their preferred Council positions (Chancellor, Steward, Chaplain), or fulfilling the occasional request from them, will push them further to become Ecstatic.

20180824080508_1.jpg


An Ecstatic Elder will almost always vote for the ruler’s chosen candidate, almost never make demands, and even give the occasional piece of advice to make you a better person.

20180824080639_1.jpg


Pleased Elders will try to vote for what they consider to be good and capable candidates amongst the members of your dynasty, favoring older characters with high stewardship. They might occasionally make some demands, such as asking a ruler to give some land to a family member that they really like, but they will, for the most part, be reasonable people to deal with.

Displeased Elders on the other hand, will be much harder to deal with. Not only will they purposefully select bad candidates, they will occasionally grant claims on your title to people that they like, openly questioning their liege’s right to rule.

20180824080819_1.jpg


Holy Fury will allow the Baltic and African realms to start with Eldership as default succession law, rather than Elective Gavelkind. Additionally, other pagans can unlock this succession by picking the right Doctrine when they Reform their faith.

Princely Elective
This new variation on elective has been scripted to replace Feudal Elective for the Holy Roman Empire. This succession limits the electors to a maximum of seven (plus the ruling Emperor) and makes it so the historical titles held by the Prince-Electors are prioritized when determining the valid electors in the Empire, these titles being the Bishoprics of Mainz, Koln and Trier, and the Duchies of Bohemia, Franconia, Saxony, and Brandenburg. If an elector title does not exist or his held by the Emperor, another valid Duke will replace it (prioritizing dejure vassals of the same religion as the ruling Emperor).

20180824081547_1.jpg


Electors under Princely Elective are overall much less likely to pick candidates that are either impious or of a different religion, and Theocratic Catholic Electors have twice as much voter strength than secular Electors whenever the Empire is under Papal Investiture.

While rulers of the Holy Roman Empire can still change the realm’s succession law as usual, the faction for Elective has been made much more easily accessible and palatable for vassals of the HRE and requirements to switch away from this succession have been made more restrictive (the ruler must have Max Centralization and either Absolute Crown Authority or Abolished Council Power).

Imperial Elective
And finally, a completely new succession law has been scripted for the Byzantine (and Roman) Empire, to better represent the peculiar politics of this realm. This succession has been tied to the two titles and is now also the *only* succession law that they have available. There are several features that are unique to this succession law, so I will explain it in sections:

20180824081910_1.jpg


Successors: Potential candidates under Imperial Elective include the Emperor’s children and close family members (spouse included), any claimants to the title, the current Marshal, and any Commander under the Emperor, with mutilated characters being excluded. This is to represent the influence of the military over Byzantium and allow more historical instances of influential commanders becoming Emperors.

Imperial Court: The Emperor, all of his Councilors, and all of his Commanders are valid electors. As Byzantium was a centralized power, the Emperor will need to curry the favor of the most powerful members of his court to ensure that his dynasty continues to maintain the throne, rather than his vassals, like a Feudal ruler would.

Scaled Voting Power: And this is where things get really interesting. Imperial Elective uses to its full extent the new voter_power function of scripted elective, making sure that every elector has a different amount of influence, entirely dependent on his status in the court and his attributes. The Emperor’s vote starts out with a strength of 200 voting power, which can be further boosted by good diplomacy and martial scores, making it so that a powerful and influential Emperor will be able to push the candidate that he wants on the throne even if most of the Court is against it. Conversely, if the Emperor is not Born in the Purple, deformed or crippled, or if he has made a reputation of appointing sycophants in his court (more on that below), he will see his voting power plummet. The other Electors have their own variable voting power, tied to prestige, rank and attributes (a Steward with high stewardship is more influential than an incompetent one). As such, appointing competent people to be your councilors and commanders will not only mean that your favorite son will have to compete with more competent and palatable candidates, but also that the electors will have a greater influence over the succession. Finally, minor titles can also affect a character’s voting power, so you might want to think a bit more before giving out your Caesar and Sebastokrator spots.

20180824082114_1.jpg


Heroes and Sycophants: Is Belisarius too popular a Commander for your sons to compete with him? Well, you can always discharge him: take away his status as Commander and he will no longer be a potential candidate or an elector, problem solved. Except... when under Imperial Elective, removing a competent Commander or Councilor from his position reduces the Emperor’s voting power of an amount proportional to the competence of the character you are removing. The more competent people the Emperor pushes out of his court, the less his vote will be worth overall. Same applies whenever an Emperor appoints a commander with poor martial score while there are clearly superior choices available: the court will notice that you are appointing mediocre sycophants because you fear competition and you will see your voting power go down. Additionally, Imperial Elective prevents Emperors from appointing landless commanders for as long as potential vassals are available to take the spot. If you wish that high-martial courtier to lead your armies, you will need to give him a proper title first.

Prestige and Ageism: This is not Feudal Elective, the Empire does not care as much about family ties and character traits, it cares about placing a competent and prestigious leader upon the throne. For the Byzantine Empire, this translates to the electors tending to favor skilled high-Intrigue characters, whereas the Roman Empire electors are keener on good orators (high Diplomacy). In both Empires, the electors will always favor people that are competent at their job, that have high prestige and titles (both minor and landed). One of the most visible consequences of this is that hardly anyone under Imperial Elective will ever consider a child to be a valid successor to the throne. If you wish your son to take your place, you will have to groom him first, wait for him to become adult, then push his bid to your Empire, possibly giving him a few honorary and landed titles along the way. While he’s still a toddler, it might be more sensible for you to appoint your younger brother, or your old uncle as preferred heir, just in case something happens before the little Prince comes of age...

20180824082155_1.jpg


Strong Claim Duel
Somewhat related to all these new succession forms, we have also added a new type of duel designed to let players keep their realms together after an Elective Gavelkind succession. This Strong Claim Duel is available regardless of whether you have the War Focus active, or if you are a member of a Warrior Lodge (which is otherwise required for regular dueling). As a tribal character, with a Strong Claim on a title currently held by a tribal ruler, it will be possible to issue a challenge to the current title holder, with the requirement of your target ruler either being independent, or both of you being vassals under the same liege. Bear in mind that the stakes in these duels are high, and losing does not only mean you give up your claims - unless you have a particularly kind opponent, who loves you dearly, death is the common way out of this dispute. Winning, on the other hand, means that you take the title in question and any vassals that come with it, along with any other of their titles on which you have a Strong Claim.

If the target of your Claim Duel happens to be an AI character of your own Dynasty, losing will present players with a choice: accept your fate, or click the option to take over as the character who won the duel, and continue to play the game as the kinsman (or woman) who bested you.

Succession Laws3.jpg
 
I absolutely agree, particularly on this point. Most of the major ERE dynasties had their origins in unlanded military commanders who seized or were given the throne. The Leonid, Justinian, Isaurian, Amorian, and Komnenid dynasties all had their starts with low-born generals (plus a bunch of other one-off emperors who never lived long enough to found a dynasty). The period from 695 until the Isaurian takeover in 717 is essentially a revolving door of emperors placed on the throne by the army. Actually, the list of ERE dynasties who came from landed families is a LOT shorter than the list of those who didn't. Being an incompetent, decadent, or tyrannical emperor was a really good way to get replaced by a competent, popular, and often low-born general.

I'm not 100% sure what your point is here, as gaining the throne doesn't require a landed title, but being a Commander does. Presumably you're arguing that these people were good examples of unlanded military commanders (before becoming emperors)? In which case:

Leo the Thracian - I'm less familiar with him, but he significantly predates the time period and is not very relevant, especially when you consider the depth of change between the state we would typically call the classical ERE and the medieval Byzantium - particularly in this debate, the theme system.
Justinian - Was Co-emperor for some time, but his command of the east is probably better represented by being Marshal, given the primacy of the armies of the east. This allowed him to be an unlanded commander of troops. Plus, this predates the themes, too.
Michael the Amorian - I don't know much about the specific military commands he held, so I can't say one way or another if it violates the Commander = Landed Ruler principle, but it was right at the cusp of the CK2/theme time period, so I'm not too worried if it doesn't fit.
Leo the Isaurian - Appointed Strategos of the Anatolicon as part of rise to power, so was a landed commander.
Isaac Komnenos - He was Domestic of the Scholai/Commander of the East, which is basically the Marshal. Plus, I imagine he inherited his father's estates in Paphlagonia. The Komnenos and other dynasties of the period are shining examples of how the military came to be dominated by the landed magnates of Anatolia by the 10th century at the latest, and this proves the point of Commanders needing to be landed.

By the time of 1066 t the latest, Byzantium explicitly operated on a fashion where major military commanders held their military command as a civil governorship; they were one and the same. Earlier than this, the change had already started to happen so I'm personally quite comfortable considering Imperial Elective's handling of the situation as being pretty historically accurate (given abstraction for ease of implementation).

(Apologies for errors - typing on my tablet which is a bit cumbersome for editing and quoting.)

Edit: Case in point, my response to ByzantineCaesar was wiped. In summary though, you're right about Symbasileus, I just forgot my terminology for a second. I think it not bring a sure thing succession in game is a necessary abstraction, though, as the game cannot handle the interregnum resulting from a Symbasileus not gaining the throne due to intrigue. It doesn't sufficiently model the rapid assassinations, though!
 
Alternatively, send your councilors to a high intrigue caliph's court when you tire of their bickering.

Hopefully I can still assassinate councilors. Usually in my games there are only two reasons why I'll remove a councilor; either to replace him with someone better, to give his position to a butthurt vassal so he'll stop plotting against me, or because he got bought favors from all the other councilors and is making them all vote against me. I guess when I play as Byzantine Emperors I can no longer afford to be merciful.
 
I'm super late to the party!

Suggestion for our amazing devs:

A super interesting feauture would be to split the RE, when formed, into its western and eastern part.

Such a big empire was split for exactly the reason of being to difficult to manage from a single capital.

It would be very intriguing as the ruling emperor to take this decision and also getting the choice of which half you would keep ruling. For the other half you could pick a candidate, maybe the holder of the Caesar title.

Both empires would have imperial government. I also like this to symbolise the part of the empire with Latin influence and the one with Greek.

Also should Byzantium have a more suitable CoA? If i got it right, the current one is from the later period of the empire.

Of course i don't expect any of this to be in HF, but maybe it's an idea to think about for a small patch :)
I don't think it would be very difficult to implement either.


The artists do an amazing job:eek:
I love the new event art. Though elder government....
david_gnomo.jpg


I love it !! :D:D
I want to play as the Romuva gnome elder king:D

Edit: eldership is tied at start to baltics and africans. If you convert, do you retain eldership?
 
Last edited:
Shouldn't the Imperial government form not give any opinion penalties when raising vassal levies to reflect the centralized style of government of the Roman empires?
Not necessarily, since the levies represent thematic troops that their local commanders would probably prefer to have on hand for their own purposes (your professional soldiers, the tagma, are represented more by demesne troops, retinues and the Varangians). The malus could maybe be reduced somewhat compared to true feudal levies, though.
 
Can you take another look at tanistry?

- Make it default for Irish characters of all levels
- Have voting penalties for greed, physical imperfection and cowardice (and benefits for generosity, charitable, beautiful and brave)
- Make it so that characters from outside the dynasty may be elected if they have a claim. But should non-dynastic members succeed only the upper title passes on and vassals get an event to become independent.
- make it that non-dynastic electors have a preference for non-dynastic candidates.
- This, as well as giving all provincial kings a claim (or a decision to claim) the Irish high-kingship post 1066 would allow you to represent the instability of the kingdom of Ireland while giving it to its historical holders.
- split the Uí Néill Noígiallaigh in earlier starts (i.e. pre 1066) into Clann Cholmáin (Kildare) Síl nAedo Sláine (Dublin) Cenel Conaill (Tyrconnell), Cenel Eoghain (Tyrone). That way the high kingdom could pass among them since all were claimants but not bring vassals.
-More claimant wars!!!
-Allow independence factions regardless of culture.

This would give a nice representation of the title but not affect others that use Tanistry such as Pictland/Scotland.
 
Last edited:
I'm sure I'll be maimed for saying this, but restricting Byzantine Empire and reformed Roman Empire to an elective succession forever may be one of the most foolish changes you've ever done for CK2. Even powerful tyrant Holy Roman emperors are allowed to change succession laws but Byzantine emperors won't? Having the mechanic at game start before 1100 is just fine since that's how it mostly worked in the Byzantine Empire, but having it after that date AND not being able to change it at all is beyond limiting for these types of playthroughs. It also makes the Civilized trait that comes with Hellenism completely useless. This very much feels like a, "We are purposely crippling this type of playthrough because we know it's powerful." Yet you're making no attempt to address how easy it is for a Mongolian horde to take over the entire world...
 
I'm sure I'll be maimed for saying this, but restricting Byzantine Empire and reformed Roman Empire to an elective succession forever may be one of the most foolish changes you've ever done for CK2. Even powerful tyrant Holy Roman emperors are allowed to change succession laws but Byzantine emperors won't? Having the mechanic at game start before 1100 is just fine since that's how it mostly worked in the Byzantine Empire, but having it after that date AND not being able to change it at all is beyond limiting for these types of playthroughs. It also makes the Civilized trait that comes with Hellenism completely useless. This very much feels like a, "We are purposely crippling this type of playthrough because we know it's powerful." Yet you're making no attempt to address how easy it is for a Mongolian horde to take over the entire world...
The Byzantines have always been too powerful and easy to play in CK2, this will simulate their steady decline and instability. Maybe now they might actually fall.
 
The Byzantines have always been too powerful and easy to play in CK2, this will simulate their steady decline and instability. Maybe now they might actually fall.
Actually the new succession will greatly benefit AI Byzantium, no more rebellions to change succession type and the meritocratic favoured election mechanic will result in strong emperors assuming the AI isn't optimised to the new rules and just stocks and dumps it councils, tanking its voting power
 
Actually the new succession will greatly benefit AI Byzantium, no more rebellions to change succession type and the meritocratic favoured election mechanic will result in strong emperors assuming the AI isn't optimised to the new rules and just stocks and dumps it councils, tanking its voting power
I guess we'll see, but I'm willing to bet the AI can't handle it since there will be a large number of low skilled rulers. If anything it should be too preoccupied to expand too much.
 
"Sound the alarm! Paradox is trying to make some things unique!"

I like the uniqueness, I don't like not being able to go off on a different course. The Byzantine Empire might be ruled by Norse Zoroastrians, but its succession law must always be based on an interpretation of 1000 AD Byzantine politics. The HRE electors are locked based on the golden bull of 1356 even if its nowhere near 1356 and none of this history that resulted in those choices has happened.
 
The Byzantines have always been too powerful and easy to play in CK2, this will simulate their steady decline and instability. Maybe now they might actually fall.
How about you let me play the game that I want to? Good grief this community is awful at times. Every game always has a tipping point where it becomes pointless to continue playing after a certain amount of time because you've become too powerful. Paradox's attempts to curtail that issue is always to make the game less fun. It's bad game design.

You know what happens when I get so powerful I can steamroll an entire map? I just start another game, because there's literally hundreds of scenarios I can play out in CK2.

But whatever. First thing I'm doing when this DLC comes out is making it so Byzantine Empire/Roman Empire just have regular old elective succession as default and can be changed by a powerful ruler.
 
Will court pruning size limits be waived for Byzantine/Roman emperors? Given how court-driven the governments are, it would make sense to allow the courts to be much larger, if not unlimited.
This should be more of a concern for the AI. For the player anyone with a title should be immune to pruning
 
I like the uniqueness, I don't like not being able to go off on a different course. The Byzantine Empire might be ruled by Norse Zoroastrians, but its succession law must always be based on an interpretation of 1000 AD Byzantine politics. The HRE electors are locked based on the golden bull of 1356 even if its nowhere near 1356 and none of this history that resulted in those choices has happened.
This has been discussed and debunked in this thread before. The Papal bull merely confirmed the norm that had been for centuries.
 
How about you let me play the game that I want to? Good grief this community is awful at times. Every game always has a tipping point where it becomes pointless to continue playing after a certain amount of time because you've become too powerful. Paradox's attempts to curtail that issue is always to make the game less fun. It's bad game design.

You know what happens when I get so powerful I can steamroll an entire map? I just start another game, because there's literally hundreds of scenarios I can play out in CK2.

But whatever. First thing I'm doing when this DLC comes out is making it so Byzantine Empire/Roman Empire just have regular old elective succession as default and can be changed by a powerful ruler.
Yeah me not wanting to see Byzantine on the steppes makes me the villain. Paradox is giving you something new and you want more of the same? Play a rolebacked version if you want to stay in the generic past without flavour.
 
Yeah me not wanting to see Byzantine on the steppes makes me the villain. Paradox is giving you something new and you want more of the same? Play a rolebacked version if you want to stay in the generic past without flavour.
Don't try to make it look like it's some "All of the flavour or none of it". People may like some changes and not others. "Take it all or rollback" is a bad argument.