Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Heirless kings

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Crusader Kings II 69946 Bug Reports 19719 User Modifications 10605 Suggestions 5969 Tech Support 6374 After Action Reports
Show only dev responses
unmerged(2456)

unmerged(2456)

Pure Evil Genius
Mar 29, 2001
11.211
0
www.hero6.com
Like the heirless count, an heirless king when they died would spawn a country-cousin to take their place in CK1. This option should be removed as it had no support behind it by anyone.

Their were basically 3 alternatives proposed (i of course support my alternative):
  1. Have the most powerful duke/count take over
  2. Have the kingdom dissolve, but hand out titles to the 2-3 most powerful dukes and the demese being divided amoung the upper court/dukes
  3. Have the kingdom dissolve and no one gets any freebies and the demse being divided amongst the court (preffering upper court) and then dukes/counts
My perfered option is #3 basically because it uses the gameplay mechanics instead of handing out freebies and thus simulates reality more readily; if no one is strong enough to claim the kingdom title, then no one should get it for free since the dynasty died out. If someone was powerful enough to claim the thone, then they shouldn't be handed a freebie.

Those who supported the second option mostly from my memory seem to have said it would help spur a race to the throne, but my tests in CK1 by giving titles to dukes who were kingless vs not giving them didn't show the AI changed all that much save not spending its massive prestige on the title and using it for other claims.

The argument for keeping the kingdom intact is that someone would always come to its rescure to keep it maintained, which i, and a few others (some of whom supported #2) found equally as unhistoric as the country-cousin idea - sometimes kingdoms don't continue on and they collapse.

The division of the demesne would be done akin to how gavelkind law was, but for everyone.
 
I would modify #1 to have the most powerful duke get the title, but the top 2 or 3 dukes all claim the title and start a civil war, with the various other dukes and counts picking sides. Whoever comes out on top becomes the new king, but the kingdom will probably be pretty fractured and will take years to put back together.

So, for example, the King of England dies without an heir. The Duke of Normandy seizes the throne, but the Duke of Northumbria also claims the throne and sways several powerful dukes to his side. The Duke of Normandy mobilizes his vassals who pledged loyalty to him against the Duke of Northumbria and his allies, but he is unable to land significant forces across the Channel in time. As Northumbrian troops overrun the country, many smaller dukes and counts declare independence in order to avoid the conflict entirely. Normandy finally admits defeat and the Duke of Northumbria becomes the new King of England, although Normandy and many of the dukes and counts remain independent.
 
Last edited:
sjones25 said:
I would modify #1 to have the most powerful duke get the title, but the top 2 or 3 dukes all claim the title and start a civil war, with the various other dukes and counts picking sides. Whoever comes out on top becomes the new king, but the kingdom will probably be pretty fractured and will take years to put back together.
.
Click to expand...


IMO this is the best solution. And simulates reality the best. Like f.e. England after the death of Edward the Confessor or Germany after the death Louis the Child (the last Carolingian king of East Francia).
 
Veldmaarschalk said:
IMO this is the best solution. And simulates reality the best. Like f.e. England after the death of Edward the Confessor or Germany after the death Louis the Child (the last Carolingian king of East Francia).
Click to expand...
But again, why should they get a freebie? Why them and not the 2nd-most-powerful? What if there are 2 equally powerful dukes (once all game-machanics are factored in)?

After all, most powerful duke doesn't have an automatic claim to the thone just because the king kicks the bucket without an heir if all of his duke and count rivals disagree.
 
sjones25 said:
I would modify #1 to have the most powerful duke get the title, but the top 2 or 3 dukes all claim the title and start a civil war, with the various other dukes and counts picking sides. Whoever comes out on top becomes the new king, but the kingdom will probably be pretty fractured and will take years to put back together.
Click to expand...

I like this one also.

But, who ever you are playing must be blood related if your current dynasty dies out. I wouldn't want to see country cousins coming out of nowhere so it feels like you have infinite lives. A part of the fun for me, is the risk of your dynasty dying out and game over, as strange as it sounds. It's fun to see how long you can last, hopefully up to the end of the game time.
 
Jinnai said:
But again, why should they get a freebie? Why them and not the 2nd-most-powerful? What if there are 2 equally powerful dukes (once all game-machanics are factored in)?

After all, most powerful duke doesn't have an automatic claim to the thone just because the king kicks the bucket without an heir if all of his duke and count rivals disagree.
Click to expand...

Sometimes, might makes right. ;)
 
While this is an era of "might makes right" didn't several kingdoms fall back on the election of the next heir? IIRC almost every King title in this era is notionally elective, even if it is de facto primogeniture, but weren't their bodies that would elect a King if such a situation were to arise? For example the Witan in Saxon England. Again, William's successful invasion tossed the Witan's ruling out the door, reinforcing the idea that a strong contender can push his weight around. I guess what I am trying to say is that I would support the modified first option to best simulate what I am talking about.
 
Jinnai said:
But again, why should they get a freebie? Why them and not the 2nd-most-powerful? What if there are 2 equally powerful dukes (once all game-machanics are factored in)?

After all, most powerful duke doesn't have an automatic claim to the thone just because the king kicks the bucket without an heir if all of his duke and count rivals disagree.
Click to expand...

Well he is the most powerfull, if number 2 wanted to be king he should have made himself the most powerfull :). It is very unlikely that there will ever be 2 equally powerfull rulers (based on number titles, number of vassals, prestige, piety, gold, stats).

Also the most powerfull dukes in a country will most likely be related to the royal family, no matter how distant. They could use that relation as a justification for their claim.
 
Hawkeye1489 said:
While this is an era of "might makes right" didn't several kingdoms fall back on the election of the next heir? IIRC almost every King title in this era is notionally elective, even if it is de facto primogeniture, but weren't their bodies that would elect a King if such a situation were to arise? For example the Witan in Saxon England. Again, William's successful invasion tossed the Witan's ruling out the door, reinforcing the idea that a strong contender can push his weight around. I guess what I am trying to say is that I would support the modified first option to best simulate what I am talking about.
Click to expand...

From the way it sounds, we both want the modified first option, as I previously said in my other post in this thread, unless I'm mistaking what you are saying.
 
Veldmaarschalk said:
Well he is the most powerfull, if number 2 wanted to be king he should have made himself the most powerfull :). It is very unlikely that there will ever be 2 equally powerfull rulers (based on number titles, number of vassals, prestige, piety, gold, stats).

Also the most powerfull dukes in a country will most likely be related to the royal family, no matter how distant. They could use that relation as a justification for their claim.
Click to expand...
Okay let me give you a scerio where I can clearly show that giving it to the most powerful duke is just arbitrary and has zero justification.

Take an example of a kingdom with 3 dukes and no independant counts where an heirless king dies. After all the computation is done behind the scenes the game figures out that the following power ratings for the dukes (because when it boils down, its all about the total numbers):

Duke Veld: 10
Duke Londo: 9
Duke Jinnai: 8

By this rating Duke Veld would get the title even though he clearly is in no real position of power. As if that weren't enough lets say Duke Londo had Duke Veld as his rival. He certainly wouldn't support that claim and lets say Duke Jinnai was friends with Duke Londo. He would not support Duke Veld's claim to the throne if Duke Londo contested it and would prefer Duke Londo's claim.

Furthermore, as if that weren't enough, lets say Duke Veld was embroiled in a costly 100-year war and Duke Londo had the plague, worms and was going on 93 and his heir is a scitzo who killed Jinnai's favorite chancellor because "he was the devil incarnate", while Duke Jinnai is 30 and has an heir he gets along with, Duke Jinnai isn't going to support either of them believing he can swipe that title for himself.

In none of those cases does Duke Veld have the poltiical capital to just say "the King of Paradoxia belongs to me" and make it so.


The only time I could see it is if the duke has enough of the realm that he would be the clearly the uncontested dominate duke, but then he should have enough prestige to purchase the title anyway.
 
@LordofSaxony - pretty much. IIRC, there were real life councils who would meet at the extinction of a line to determine the proper succession when there are multiple weak heirs who have three drops of the royal blood running through their veins.

@Jinnai - I would alter your scenario to include a condition to check consanguinity. If Duke Veld is even remotely related to the previous King, then his claim should be the senior one, especially if the other two aren't related to the Ruling Dynasty at all. So, if Duke Veld is the 5xGreat-Grandson of the First King in the female line, his "power score" should be altered accordingly to recognize his descent from the King.
 
Allow anyone with a claim to choose to try and take the throne, multiple claimants = war. Alternately, anyone without a claim may make a claim before the succession war is triggered if a claim would be feasible.
 
On what bases would any of the three alternatives occur? Family and family connections played a huge role in the middle ages, and I think the throne should go to anyone who is remotely related to the ruling family.

However if the King dies, and his far-far-provincial-princeling cousin inherits, and there are certain ambitious dukes, they should get a huge loyalty hit, and try to rebel, although they shouldn't get claims on the throne, because they just simply don't have any grounds to claim the throne.

Another posibility could be the 60-somethin year old king gets an event "Your vassals demand the change of inheritance laws, because you don't have an heir"(which I think is already in CK1)

Or simply the nobles "elect" a ruler among themselves or a foreign ruler related to the heirless king.

Of course it would all depend on the inheritance laws.

This is already happening in CK1, where I often saw the Arpad dynasty struggle with their nobles. At one point one Bela Arpad died without and heir and he was succeded by a 2 year old arpad who just happened to live in Byzantium. The nobles decided to use this to their advantage and within couple years I noticed Hungary had elective law. However when the 2-yr old arpad grew up, he turned out to be a great warrior and tyrant, and next thing I know his son inherits the kingdom which again has salic law.
 
sjones25 said:
I would modify #1 to have the most powerful duke get the title, but the top 2 or 3 dukes all claim the title and start a civil war, with the various other dukes and counts picking sides. Whoever comes out on top becomes the new king, but the kingdom will probably be pretty fractured and will take years to put back together.

[..]
Click to expand...
I also like this suggestion as it seems the most politically realistic.
 
Jinnai said:
Okay let me give you a scerio where I can clearly show that giving it to the most powerful duke is just arbitrary and has zero justification.

Take an example of a kingdom with 3 dukes and no independant counts where an heirless king dies. After all the computation is done behind the scenes the game figures out that the following power ratings for the dukes (because when it boils down, its all about the total numbers):

Duke Veld: 10
Duke Londo: 9
Duke Jinnai: 8

By this rating Duke Veld would get the title even though he clearly is in no real position of power. As if that weren't enough lets say Duke Londo had Duke Veld as his rival. He certainly wouldn't support that claim and lets say Duke Jinnai was friends with Duke Londo. He would not support Duke Veld's claim to the throne if Duke Londo contested it and would prefer Duke Londo's claim.

Furthermore, as if that weren't enough, lets say Duke Veld was embroiled in a costly 100-year war and Duke Londo had the plague, worms and was going on 93 and his heir is a scitzo who killed Jinnai's favorite chancellor because "he was the devil incarnate", while Duke Jinnai is 30 and has an heir he gets along with, Duke Jinnai isn't going to support either of them believing he can swipe that title for himself.

In none of those cases does Duke Veld have the poltiical capital to just say "the King of Paradoxia belongs to me" and make it so.


The only time I could see it is if the duke has enough of the realm that he would be the clearly the uncontested dominate duke, but then he should have enough prestige to purchase the title anyway.
Click to expand...

Well, I think that in a case like the one you depict, Londo and Jinnai would could easily have a very low loyalty to Veld. They could actually refuse to liege.
 
sometimes people were invited over to rule from royal/noble lines if there were no legitimate heirs, happened a lot in Hungary as example, would like to see this option possible ingame, to invite a french, english, or other noble to rule and bring his own dynasty to the throne, of course it would have the danger to become a part of the other nation but most of the time it would be either a secondary line for them in the new realm or ruled over in a personal union instead, also only the top 10-20 "nations" could be asked to send over a ruler this way, would actually mean something to be on top of the prestige/power list that way, and it would help building up dynasties like the RL Anjou
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back