Succession rules for Tribes in Paradox Games (a short debate). Goal: Help Paradox think through future Succession rules, and de Jure ownership vs Tribal Loyalty in the future design of Paradox Games. If this is better placed elsewhere in the Paradox Forum, by all means let me know where, but this is not intended to be a "Suggestion" for CK2, it's a more macro discussion on the way Paradox builds Succession rules for Tribes, and a bit of a debate about "de Jure" for Tribes in the first place, along with any shifting of ownership of a Capital Province in a Tribal game play-through (for any Paradox game with Tribes). I also think that Paradox games that portray Tribes should build in some system of "Tribal Loyalty" based on a combination of several metrics that could include: Loyalty, Time, Battles won vs lost, Lands won vs lost, as a short list.
Paradox Devs/Project Leads (if this travels that high to Johan himself), this is not a CK2 specific recommendation, it is a broader/macro recommendation for consideration in all of your games now and into the future, for Succession planning/rules related to Tribes (Migratory or Settled or any other Status you make up for "Tribes"). First, an assumption should be - "Tribes Move" even when "settled" per game rules. They may not normally migrate when Settled, as if a cyclical business seeking opportunity at booms and busts, but even a Settled tribe could migrate. The Lombards were a great example - settled in Northern Germany (those people in the Forest fighting in the first battle of the first Gladiator movie - a depiction of Lombards btw), until the Roman Empire inspired them to drift Southward in hopes of seeking long-term retribution, which they did when helping to crush the Roman Empire in Rome and surrounding areas as the Empire was falling apart. However, if Tribes are "Settled" per game rules, and do not move, that does not mean their Loyalties shift with the (Feudal) tides, if their Tribal Chief is still alive - they'd still be Loyal to the Chief, right?
For the meat of my discussion, and context - I'm in CK2 playing the "Got Land" achievement, started in Gotland and sprawling counter-clockwise from Riga and the Kingdom of Estonia to its North, since that small Estonian Kingdom is an isolated piece of the Scandinavian Empire that I eventually need to win. Since I'm still a Tribal government system, plus I haven't yet reformed Germanic religion (2 of 3 sites held, close to accomplishing that next goal), and I had a powerful set of brothers who actually weren't at each other's throats (no Ambition or Envious traits between them), and the more powerful/older brother took over his tribe when he was 6, with the younger 1 year old brother remaining in the older brother's court to prepare him, plus to not put that younger brother into tribal leadership until after 12 years old and fully in control of his career destiny (he was a Steward type which also lent to brothers working with each other, a Warrior/older brother and Steward/younger).
So the 6 year old King/main character is who I played for 19 years of his game life, to the age of 25. The younger brother is in my screenshots and is 20 years old at time of Succession from his older brother who died attempting to kill Death (rather than play Chess, because he lacked Learning skill).
Titles held by the older brother who was killed by Death: King of Estonia (primary), King of Lithuania, King of Finland (he was quite prolific and taking kingships quickly, aside from being "Possessed" which made his Duel skills even more deadly). The Kingdom capital in Riga (which is part of Lithuania), because I had a goal of simultaneously using this play-through to take not only Empire of Scandinavia but also Empire of Saxony as a non-Saxon (that other achievement), by growing into the Wendish Empire, so I was sprawling in both directions, North counterclockwise to gain Norway/Sweden last, except isolated Germanic holy sites if I could convince Claimants to join me and give them land then fight for them. I thought I had set everything up well for Succession, because the younger brother was High Chief over the Jarldom of Austerbotn, inside the Kingdom of Finland.
And then the game went haywire on the oldest brother's death, to Death. The Succession simply made no sense, no logical sense, nor would this seem "reasonable" to any basic view of Tribal practice or lore.
The game gave away the Jarldom of Austerbotn to the claimant on the Kingdom of Finland, and gave away the Capital of Riga to the Claimant of the Kingdom of Lithuania.
Bear in mind, I fully expected the Kingdom of Finland and the Kingdom of Lithuania to be lost to other claimants, and then fight for both to be returned under the new King of Estonia. However, this younger brother had his own tribe - for 8 years, that had been his older brother's tribe since his father won the Jarldom of Austerbotn at age 5, taking over that Jarldom at age 6 upon his father's death.
So that's a lot to unpack so let me simplify where I see a breakdown in logic.
The Tribe was under the older Brother (King of Estonia/Finland/Lithuania) for 11 years, then given to the younger brother at age 12 (geared for Stewardship) who then led the tribe to the age of 20. That was 20 total years for that tribe to assimilate under this Dynasty, and within this specific family line within the Dynasty. 20 years. That means - the tribe builds Loyalty along with tribal lore and a reliance on this particular family within the Dynasty, for 20 years - and that tribe would (virtually) see the growth of this specific family to gain 2 additional Kingdoms to its name. Why would this tribal area within the Jarldom of Austerbotn then follow some other person suddenly, when the 20-year old younger brother assumes the throne? Makes no sense. The new King of Estonia has HIS tribe to take care of, his people - in Austerbotn. He wouldn't just walk away. It's not Feudal era/conditions, it's Tribal. To me, this one instance in my 1700 hours of playing CK2, really stunned me as to how little the Tribal system - acts like a Tribe would. The Jarldom of Austerbotn should have remained under this new King of Estonia, as a non-integrated Jarldom in Finland's de Jure area (although even that - "de Jure" actually never applied the same in Tribal areas as it did with Fuedal areas, as reminder - the de Jure system has always been an over-simplification of ownership and Succession in Paradox games with Tribes vs Feudal systems).
And the Capital - why did Riga shift to ownership by the King of Lithuania, who is outside the control of this family's powerful brothers? The brothers held lots of troops, tribal support (or at least should hold more - if the Jarldom of Austerbotn hadn't just been handed off like a mere baton). I do the typical "spy on Constantinople" to pull in Tech in nearly every CK2 game (doesn't everybody?), so right after Riga was won after shifting from Gotland only, the capital shifted from Gotland to Riga right away as a better placed capital to carry out this 2-pronged expansion plan. In a Tribal game, the Capital should NEVER shift, never. ever. ever. Especially if the Tribal power is centered into a family within the Dynasty. Perhaps you need some specificity and nuance for Dynasties(?) where Loyalty forms for Tribes, that is a counter-weight to the Succession planning you design into the game, as a small suggestion. However, even if we're talking normal Dynasty actions - there was a child who took over Finland, and no way would a Child in Finland grab the tribe of a 20-year old man with a lifetime of loyalty built up for his family's rule of the tribe, especially if that 20-year old man is now South of Finland as the King of Estonia (with 3 times the troops in reserve and a Retinue of 3500 Infantry + Horses). These numbers also need to be considered in future Succession plans. Why wouldn't "power" also play into Succession for Tribes specifically? It's what Tribes based Authorities on, in most cases. Tribes didn't bother with Paperwork that says "I own this, with these boundaries, and you own that over there" - that's Feudal talk. Tribes need a more dynamic, robust system that brings more life into the game, and fewer French terms like de Jure. What Tribal leader ever considered "de Jure" anything?? I'd even suggest ridding the game of de Jure when a player is playing a Tribal game play-through, and the de Jure phrase doesn't get used until going into a Feudal/Merchant Republic/Republic system later. Come up with a different term for Tribal claims, but don't use de Jure.
Screenshots to follow. One shows the highlighted outline of the Jarldom of Austerbotn, totally lost on Succession even though my new King of Estonia was the High Chief over that tribe for 8 years (and his brother/father held that same High Chief authority for 12 years prior to that). The other screenshot shows what I'm left with, the Kingdom of Estonia (as expected, no complaint there), but without Riga remaining my capital as it was absorbed into the shift of all Lithuania to a Dynasty competitor who never held it a single day prior (and the site of what would be the most loyalist among the Tribe btw, to include an entire Court built up of 3 Kingdoms of growth and 54 game-years of Riga as the Capital of the Kingdom of Estonia (even though not de Jure, is a neighboring province to Estonia). A last suggestion is that if the core holding (Kingdom of Estonia) has a directly neighboring province outside de Jure, that neighboring province if the capitol, should be retained as an over-ride to normal Succession rules such as occurred with Lithuania taking the whole thing without a fight.
Last, I know full well how to fight my way back into control of all of these lost lands/titles, and it will put me on the task of warring against fellow Dynasty competitors (which I expected for the 2 Kingdoms at risk of being lost before I could form an Empire to put Umbrella insurance over the whole thing). Just making sure you understand that I am not making this soliloquy because of the tasks I have to now accomplish, but simply because the Succession of this Tribal system comes off as if a Feudal system instead of a Tribal system, to include the terminology.
(Edit) btw if you look at the screenshot of the Jarldom of Austerbotn, you'll see that - my main character that held that Jarldom for 8 years, is not even in the Line of Succession now, which in itself is also a very "Feudal" presentation of Succession instead of a Tribal system. 20 years of Tribal High Chief in my family line, and these bunch of kids under 16 are the only ones in the Line of Succession, without "power" or some Tribal metric being applied to give a better portrayal of the way Tribes respected things other than the paperwork of Feudal systems?
