Self-explanatory. Maria Theresa was the exception, not the rule, and even then, not really.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
-
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.
Female rulers themselves are in many ways an exception already. I am not convinced this would make sense in a game as abstract as this (and certainly not everywhere).
There's also the part where an heir isn't even necessarily the child of the ruler
There's also the part where an heir isn't even necessarily the child of the ruler
so...you like the idea of a more indepth dynasty system?Female rulers themselves are in many ways an exception already. I am not convinced this would make sense in a game as abstract as this (and certainly not everywhere).
There's also the part where an heir isn't even necessarily the child of the ruler
so...you like the idea of a more indepth dynasty system?
There should be some mechanics that show:
1) Ruler
2) Consort
3) First heir (next in line, can choose to educate in diplomacy, martiality, stewardness, intrigue, or piety)
4) Second heir (can be educated as well. Small chance of a coup d'etat if not chosen over the first heir and has more court support)
5) Main Pretender (another house, assumable that it is a cadet branch)
There should also be a restricted amount of children to avoid mass royal marriages. It would make royal marriages more strategical and selective. It would also make the sucession game more interesting.
Yeah that would be really useful to know. Event that lets you knock off the current heir whos useless and/or older then the current ruller is a risk when you don't know if there's a replacement (which often there should be more than 1 child and relative)
Perhaps some sort of mechanic for keeping track of claims to foreign titles, too, especially non-existent ones like Jerusalem.
It would be nice to have both happen though. Sometimes the heir being of female monarch's dynasty and sometimes of male consort's.Female rulers themselves are in many ways an exception already. I am not convinced this would make sense in a game as abstract as this (and certainly not everywhere).
There's also the part where an heir isn't even necessarily the child of the ruler
However, as general rule, a female ruler was not able to pass on her dynasty.
Even Maria-Theresia isn't really an exception. Yes, her heirs were called "of Habsburg-Lorraine", but that was basically a courtesy towards the old imperial dynasty (and a propaganda move to strengthen the claim on their old thrones). The head of the dynasty (and later the Holy Roman Emperor) was Francis I, not Maria Theresia, and for legal purposes, the house of Habsburg went extinct with the death of Maria-Theresia and was succeeded by the Ducal house of Lorraine.
In all other cases where a queen was succeeded by heir son in the EU4 timespan (for reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_queens_regnant), the successor was of the father's dynasty:
- Juana la Loca de Trastamara, Queen of Castile, succeeded by Charles I./V., of Habsburg
- Jeanne d'Albret, Queen of Navarre, succeeded by Henri III of Bourbon (who would become Henri IV. of France and would found the Bourbon, not the Albret dynasty)
- Catherine the Great was of Anhalt-Zerbst, her successor Paul I was of the Holstein-Gottorp-Romanov dynasty (whether he really was a child of Peter II is a wholly different matter)
Yes, but even under EU4's level of abstraction, one can assume that a heir with a "strong" claim is a legitimate child of the ruler. More distant relations (cousins, nephews/nieces, uncles/aunts, illegitimate children) are abstracted as having an "average" or "weak" claim.There's also the part where an heir isn't even necessarily the child of the ruler
Even without major changes to the game's dynastic system, wouldn't it be possible and make sense to have the dynasty switch to that of the prince-consort if you have a female ruler and a heir generated with a strong claim?
That way, a child (which is what an heir with a strong claim is) would have his father's dynasty, while a more "irregular" successor (i.e. one with a weak or average claim) could be assumed to be a more distant relative of the reigning dynasty.
Last edited:
On a related note, PUs of regents with Rights of Man DLC should NOT get the regent dynasty.
I recall countless examples in game of, let's say à French "Di Savoia" regency for a young "De Valois" heir established its dynasty (di savoia) on the kingdom of Spain instead of the dynasty of its heir.
Remember that in such case the regent herself is often got through marriage, meaning she/he is her/himself of a foreign dynasty.
I recall countless examples in game of, let's say à French "Di Savoia" regency for a young "De Valois" heir established its dynasty (di savoia) on the kingdom of Spain instead of the dynasty of its heir.
Remember that in such case the regent herself is often got through marriage, meaning she/he is her/himself of a foreign dynasty.