Your heir to the throne

[Marcus Scipio]

On of the things I liked about in EU3 -HttT was the appearance of a legal heir and it's implications (especially when you didn't get one).

However, sometimes, that great 8-7-9 Heir sits in waiting for your 4-4-4 king to die, but he seems immortal, until your heir eventually dies at age 72, or becomes king on that age, only to die himself 2 years later.

So, wouldn't it be an idea to "do something" with your heir? A king can be converted to a general, why not a heir? Examples in History are plentiful, so why don't put it in the game?

And if he's got a bad Military skill, make him an advisor. Quite a few princes worked as diplomats, emissary's, etc. It was a Portuguese prince, who was responsible for the Portuguese expansion, for his interest in the fleet.

So: let's do find something useful to do for your heir!

 

[Checco]

I think too that the Heir mechanics could have been expanded a little more, and not just for the sheer gameplay reasons.

After the ruler, the Heir should be the most important person, or close to that, in most nations, especially large ones.

Perhaps if in EU4, as they announced, many national features are decided by the ruler's stats, you will have more to say about who will be next .

 

[Natte]

Maybe the ability to have multiple heirs and different succession laws? Or at least the ability to send my 3-5-5 heir to get some education through his thick skull?

 

[Marcus Scipio]

Maybe the ability to have multiple heirs and different succession laws?

Like EU: Rome?

 

[Natte]

Like EU: Rome?

Now that I think about, yeah they could use that as inspiration. Could also create some interesting situation if for example you had 2 heirs, 4-4-4 Frederik Dumbert von Hessen, and 9-9-9 Wilhelm Amazing von Hessen. But Dumbert was first in succession, so if you break succession and choose Amazing 9-9-9, maybe Dumbert could start a civil war. Then again, don't think they were too common in this era, maybe just a massive legitimacy loss or something.

But brainstorming a bit too much here. But I agree that it would be a great idea to be able to put your heir(s) to work as something, be it general, administrator, statesman, diplomat etc. Maybe even give him a chance to improve one of his stats from time to time depending on his work? Like if he was a active general for 30 years it makes sense that he would've improved a little in his military stats even if he started as a 3.

 

[Orinsul]

I really feel, and always have since even before heirs were introduced and were just in discussion, and that both the Monarchy and the primary heir need to have a religion definition separate to that of the nation.
As after the Reformation, the religion of the heir and the monarch were serious issues with serious political importance.
James II of England and Henry IV of France being good examples of places were the stability and politics of the nation were all bound up in the heir before they came to power and after too so are good for examples of both why heirs and monarchs ought have it.

 

[Spurius]

Now that I think about, yeah they could use that as inspiration. Could also create some interesting situation if for example you had 2 heirs, 4-4-4 Frederik Dumbert von Hessen, and 9-9-9 Wilhelm Amazing von Hessen. But Dumbert was first in succession, so if you break succession and choose Amazing 9-9-9, maybe Dumbert could start a civil war. Then again, don't think they were too common in this era, maybe just a massive legitimacy loss or something.

But brainstorming a bit too much here. But I agree that it would be a great idea to be able to put your heir(s) to work as something, be it general, administrator, statesman, diplomat etc. Maybe even give him a chance to improve one of his stats from time to time depending on his work? Like if he was a active general for 30 years it makes sense that he would've improved a little in his military stats even if he started as a 3.

I like the idea of interacting with the heir but what would be the potential down-side for the player? At the moment, this looks a bit of a one-sided bet.

A really stupid heir who spends thirty years in the army could be as likely to spend it drinking, gambling and worse with various unsavoury hangers-on and generally being an embarassment and a nuisance to the real generals as actually learning anything about war. Alternatively, you could get a Kaiser Wihelm II type with a thing about military uniform and a desire to rattle the sabre at every opportunity once he succeeded as ruler.

However, this feels a bit like punishing the player further for having an heir with poor stats.

 

[vyshan]

I really feel, and always have since even before heirs were introduced and were just in discussion, and that both the Monarchy and the primary heir need to have a religion definition separate to that of the nation.

As after the Reformation, the religion of the heir and the monarch were serious issues with serious political importance.
James II of England and Henry IV of France being good examples of places were the stability and politics of the nation were all bound up in the heir before they came to power and after too so are good for examples of both why heirs and monarchs ought have it.

I agree. if for example my heir is a catholic in a Protestant nation, then I do suspect that things won't go over swimmingly in my kingdom.

 

[Natte]

I like the idea of interacting with the heir but what would be the potential down-side for the player? At the moment, this looks a bit of a one-sided bet.

A really stupid heir who spends thirty years in the army could be as likely to spend it drinking, gambling and worse with various unsavoury hangers-on and generally being an embarassment and a nuisance to the real generals as actually learning anything about war. Alternatively, you could get a Kaiser Wihelm II type with a thing about military uniform and a desire to rattle the sabre at every opportunity once he succeeded as ruler.

However, this feels a bit like punishing the player further for having an heir with poor stats.

I don't disagree with you, what I said was just a short bit of brainstorming, a very general outliner. And tbh I am not really sure how common it was to go disregard the line of succession in this time, not the CKII era we are talking about here. Maybe risk of civil war or assassinations?

And on the second point, that is very true, and if he spent lots of time in the military there should also be the risk of him getting killed prematurely. And honestly the stats of a monarch seems to indicate a mix of interest/talent in different fields. So think it should be better if they stayed the same, don't want this to be a game where you raise your kids like in CKII.

But, I like the basic idea of having something to do with your heirs, diplomats, administrators, statesman, general/admirals and so on.

 

[GurenGaaze]

I really feel, and always have since even before heirs were introduced and were just in discussion, and that both the Monarchy and the primary heir need to have a religion definition separate to that of the nation.
As after the Reformation, the religion of the heir and the monarch were serious issues with serious political importance.
James II of England and Henry IV of France being good examples of places were the stability and politics of the nation were all bound up in the heir before they came to power and after too so are good for examples of both why heirs and monarchs ought have it.

But the thing with the heir to have a different religion than your father is really unlikely, unless he spent very little time with his son or the son were somewhere else with a family with a different religion.

 

[Orinsul]

But the thing with the heir to have a different religion than your father is really unlikely, unless he spent very little time with his son or the son were somewhere else with a family with a different religion.

Id say have it a chance based on percentage of core provinces with said religion or something basic like that. Maybe an increased chance of going to a religion if the country has a converted_from_religion=X value or something along those lines.

 

[GurenGaaze]

Id say have it a chance based on percentage of core provinces with said religion or something basic like that. Maybe an increased chance of going to a religion if the country has a converted_from_religion=X value or something along those lines.

But have the chances low and if your heir(sons) army get totaly crushed then you have to ransom him back?

 

[odinnot]

Dynasty Interface of ck is the best

 

[Spurius]

Talking of CK, the ideas in this thread would really come into their own if EU4 has personality traits for rulers and heirs. One of the early screen shots of a ruler screen didn't show anything like this but it could work as part of an expansion.

Orinsul's idea of a separate religion definition for leaders and heirs would really help represent some of the religious issues of the time. Looking at English rulers between the split with Rome and the post-Glorious Revolution settlement that barred Catholics from the throne gives us:

Henry VIII - Catholic, converted to Protestant
Edward VI - Protestant, zealous
Mary I - Catholic, zealous
Elizabeth I - Protestant
James I - Protestant
Charles I - Protestant, Catholic sympathies
Oliver Cromwell - Reformed, zealous
Charles II - Protestant, Catholic sympathies
James II - Catholic
William III - Protestant

Mary and James II both experienced problems because of religious differences. Charles I had far more issues than just religion but his Catholic sympathies did not help. Charles II also had Catholic sympathies but was a much more skilled ruler.

I cannot see a situation in an EU3 game where a player would change religion more than once.

 

[Spurs_man123]

Well maybe that could be the answer. Instead of it being a player decision to change religion it could be based on your ruler's sympathies. For instance in England (My country so it's easiest to use as a reference) you could have the normal event firings for different provinces. Then you would have a monarch with random religious sympathies, which could be affected by the previous monarch's sympathies and by the country's dominant religion. Therefore when you used missionaries on provinces, that werent part of what religion you wanted, they would not be based on a player chosen religion but by the monarch's religion. So one year Catholic Bloody Mary could be on the throne sending out catholic missionaries and the next year she would die and it would be Protestant Elizabeth sending out protestant missionaries. Therefore it might mean that a player who wanted to play as catholic would have to work much harder to convert his country if his provinces and monarch were mainly protestants.

 

[Arakhor]

I think that James VI & I was more Calvinist (Reformed) than he was Lutheran (Protestant). Henry VIII was still Catholic: he'd just placed himself at the head of the church in England.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

I think that James VI & I was more Calvinist (Reformed) than he was Lutheran (Protestant). Henry VIII was still Catholic: he'd just placed himself at the head of the church in England.

And thus had founded (by our terms) a different Protestant church - it was Protestant, not Lutheran. It's a little complicated when the system being used needs to be as granular as EUIII.

Possibly Henry VIII could be considered to be Catholic with the various "restraint of appeals" type decisions taken, later becoming de facto Protestant with those decisions still in place. Perhaps there needs to be a new form of religion made available "National Catholic Church" which is attainable when you have poor relations with the Pope, and tanks your relations further, also opening up the possibility for the Pope to authorise wars for your throne by proper catholics. I'd presume that taking the decision would automatically excommunicate you (as far as Catholics are concerned you're a schismatic heretic).

 

[Grubnessul]

It makes little sense for a 4/4/4 king to want to die to have his awesome son succeed him. Giving the player control over what heir he wants will make the game to easy and allows for too much awesome heir farming.

 

[Spurius]

It makes little sense for a 4/4/4 king to want to die to have his awesome son succeed him. Giving the player control over what heir he wants will make the game to easy and allows for too much awesome heir farming.

Agreed, and in any case it would be seen as driving a coach and horses through the law of the land, which ought to have very negative consequences.