Why didn't they do this? (Heir System)

[Emperor_Palpy]

Like just about everyone else, I am frustrated by the irritating heir system.

Why couldn't they have kept Rome's system? (Kings picked their heirs didn't they? If you picked a younger son, maybe the older could rebel or something...:hmmm

Or, here's an idea:hmmm:. If you have heirs, but they're under age, the game designates your best general as a regent, and then the proper heir ascends the throne when they are 16.

[Ex Tenebris Lux]

Like just about everyone else, I am frustrated by the irritating heir system.

Why couldn't they have kept Rome's system? (Kings picked their heirs didn't they? If you picked a younger son, maybe the older could rebel or something...:hmmm

Or, here's an idea:hmmm:. If you have heirs, but they're under age, the game designates your best general as a regent, and then the proper heir ascends the throne when they are 16.

Sounds good to me. That would be great. I never could stand not being able to designate your heir. I don't know what they base this limitation on. It wasn't unheard of...

[Kiljaden]

As long as kids that haven't come of age yet can be named king while, say, the general with the most loyalty or some other stat becomes Regent while the boy king ages, I'd be happy with that instead of choosing heirs.

I hate it when my 56 year old adopted older brother becomes the Heir when my kid is like 13. But then again, I always smile when I get to send my brother out to sea. Permanently.

[Ilmater]

Well I suppose you could always dispatch the heirs (or anyone else with retarded traits) whom you deem undesirable by way of sending them on suicidal missions. For starters, assigning them full stacks of peasants and send them on a crusade/jihad sounds like a good idea. That's what happened during the First Crusade anyway.

And yes I do agree the inability to select one's heirs is an unnecessary annoyance and an inexplicable retrogression from RTW.

[Gobmech]

Or at least have the option whether you want it automated. I guess you could explain it like this:

Automated: King chooses heir
Manual: The council of nobles choose an heir they deem worthy.

[Clodius]

Actually kings generally did not choose their heirs - custom was that they were always succeeded by their oldest legitimate son or if they had no descendants by the senior relative in the male line.

At the start of the period William I of England did choose his second surviving son William Rufus to succeed him - but he was able to make that choice because he had conquered rather than inherited England and was therefore freer to do with it as he pleased.

Normandy - which he had inherited - had to go to the oldest son Robert.

As time went on succession systems became more and more rigid and even a raving loon like Henry VI of England or Charles VI of France or a psychopathic tyrant like Pedro the Cruel of Castile could not be easily removed from the succession other than by assassination (which if you include secret executions of captured monarchs by rebellious relatives was actually a lot more common than you'd expect).

Having said this some states not ruled by kings such the Holy Roman Empire, Milan or Venice had elective systems where the nobles chose the best qualified candidate.

Some element of election was also used in the Kingdoms of Jerusalem, Poland and Hungary - although in all three cases candidates mostly came from one royal house or married into it.

For much of the period the Russians had a bizarre system by which succession to the rank of Grand Prince was supposed to rotate amongst the senior princes of the house of Rurik - who were all expected to move from city to city in a game of musical chairs every time one died and the order of seniority changed.

Never quite worked out how succession works in M2TW but it doesn't seem to follow any of these systems.

On balance the RTW choice system would hardly have been less realistic.

[Schleiden]

Eh... in most if not all monarchies, was not leadership only given by heritage? I'm not very learned in medieval history, but I don't think nobles went about having votes on who gets to be king or queen. M2's system is not even that bad. When I get a bad King, it's more of a challenge! If he's particularly incomptetent, you can just send him into battle and have him die... But really, I've never even had any of my kings do that, because the character has value in and of itself. If a King has bad command, so what? Chuck him into your highest income city and get him some piety...

My only real gripe with M2... no queens? I'm pretty sure the era had loads of significant female leaders...

[Ex Tenebris Lux]

Eh... in most if not all monarchies, was not leadership only given by heritage? I'm not very learned in medieval history, but I don't think nobles went about having votes on who gets to be king or queen. M2's system is not even that bad. When I get a bad King, it's more of a challenge! If he's particularly incomptetent, you can just send him into battle and have him die... But really, I've never even had any of my kings do that, because the character has value in and of itself. If a King has bad command, so what? Chuck him into your highest income city and get him some piety...

My only real gripe with M2... no queens? I'm pretty sure the era had loads of significant female leaders...

Salic Law or whatever. Queens wouldn't rule. At least, not officially...

[Anglo-Pole]

Choosing the heir in my opinion would not have befitted the game well if you are looking at realism. I would however have liked to see a regent system where if the heir is not yet of age the general/family member with the greatest amount of loyalty is appointed regent until the heir is of age.

[sparty]

Selecting a succession policy from a menu of available choices might have been more appropriate since it was certainly handled differently from region to region. I believe that's how it works in Crusader Kings from Paradox which dealt exclusively with this dynastic aspect of the Medieval period.

[pericles_plato]

I like how they did it in France with Louis the...... can't remember.
He was the successor of the thrown and had a regent because he was like 3 or 6.

[Ex Tenebris Lux]

I like how they did it in France with Louis the...... can't remember.
He was the successor of the thrown and had a regent because he was like 3 or 6.

I THINK you are refering to Louis XV and Richelieu however I am much to lazy too do something as simple as checking out in wiki.

[RMSN NIKE]

Richelieu served Louis XIII, like in the 3 Musketeers.

[Ex Tenebris Lux]

Richelieu served Louis XIII, like in the 3 Musketeers.

Bingo there we go. Thanks for correcting me.

[sparty]

There were actually a variety of succession traditions. The one you're speaking of is actually a Norman tradition

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succession_order

I think it might be kind of interesting if they allows you to select a historically acceptable succession tradition for your kingdom which you could change with the fallout being a dramatic effect on relatives (who may be generals) loyalty to you. For example, allowing a male or female line may encourage other kingdoms to want to marry into your family. Whereas, if you're dividing them equally your kingdom splits and the game forces you to select which heir you want to control... It could be really intriguing!

[Old Geezer]

I very rarely - less than once a month - ever look at the family tree and give no concern whatsoever as to the next heir. If he turns out really worthless (and not just having a cute trait like deranged) then I send him off to fight heroic battles until he becomes a legend. As long as the faction leader has a very high authority I will tolerate almost any bad trait, except flatulance. (She-men and pagan magicians all get removed, all the time. I could no longer play vanilla (Retrofit, LTC, or SS) without "cheats" (which would be better called "game enhancement corrections"). BTW whatever does "wub" mean? Somehow I don't think it means "water users board" which is what I found on wikipeduh.

[Theseus1234]

BTW whatever does "wub" mean? Somehow I don't think it means "water users board" which is what I found on wikipeduh.

do you wub as in the acronym or wub as in ?
usually, the wub in form is usually used in place of swearing to protect the innocent eyes of the youngsters

as in: you guys, im going home

[Clodius]

The point is that succession systems changed from place to place and over time.

M2TW however has a one-size fits all system that is somehow supposed to reflect the varieties of primogeniture in catholic kingdoms, election in the HRE and Venice, the weird rotating seniority system in Russia, succession by assassination in Mameluke Egypt etc.

Given that they don't really care about historical accuracy, they clearly weren't going to delay the game by developing faction specific succession systems - and even if they had these could never have covered all the exceptions that make history so interesting.

[Leutrim]

The regent idea i'd like to see in Empire. Maybe queens too

[Cmdr_Sdxo]

Why couldn't they have kept Rome's system? (Kings picked their heirs didn't they? If you picked a younger son, maybe the older could rebel or something...:hmmm

Or, here's an idea:hmmm:. If you have heirs, but they're under age, the game designates your best general as a regent, and then the proper heir ascends the throne when they are 16.

I find your idea superior to that of both MTW and M2TW

CA probably had Rome's system in mind until the last minute because your generals can still get the "former faction heir"-trait(which costs 3 loyalty) but they can get it only if your faction heir becomes a rebel.

e: scratch that, the poster above already explained it better