Setting Heirs to your preference

[aduellist]

I think I found another case where this seems to be ignored. I created an ancillary that gives +8 authority. I removed Authority effects from all traits and ancs that were not solely attainable by the FL. The anc works as advertised, unless the current FH has a son that has come of age when the FH becomes FL. At that point the former FH's eldest son becomes FH if the anc is held outside his personal line.

In the first test, I created a family tree where the FL had three sons, rwo of them under age, and a daughter (screenie #1). Screenie #2 shows state of family tree just before death of the FL. Youngest holds the anc that gives Authority bonus. Screenie #3 shows that son becomes FH when FL dies and FH becomes FL.

In the second test, I added a wife and two underage sons to the starting FH (screenie #4). I once again gave the Authority anc to the youngest son of the starting FL. As you can see in screenie #5, when the FL died and the FH moved up to FL, his eldest son became FH and not the character holding the anc giving Authority bonus. So that would seem to be another case where authority is not used to select the FH.

Can someone try to recreate my test results for validation?

[konny]

Have you repeated this test with the same outcome several times? Because I have several occasions in my campaigns with the situation of #5, with even more complex family trees, in which one of the brothers became FH, but not a son of the fromer heir and current leader.

But in general I am satisfied as long as even in large family trees with dozends of FM always someone of the royal bloodline becomes FH, and not some in-law from the other end of the family tree.

[aduellist]

I haven't, but I started testing because our beta testers were reporting that the anc "wasn't working". It's just in that particular case, though.

I, too, am satisfied that the game actually makes the "correct" choice in that instance. After discussion with the mod leader, I'm going to try ditching the anc and approaching it from the same angle you've done, which is keeping the succession more "correct" from the bloodline perspective.

Thanks for the research and inspiration!

[Pnutmaster]

aduellist,

In your second test, who came out age first? The FH's sons, or the FL's?

EDIT: Note: My "heir ancillary" gives +10 Authority. There's always a chance that lesser values can skew results. Who knows, maybe the game grants Authority to characters when they come of age, then removes it a turn later? From CA, that would make as much sense as removing heir selection, ignoring pleas to make it toggeable, and releasing Empire: Total War

[konny]

I came across another limitation:

I had a character becoming FH who had 0 Authority, while the desired heir had 9 Authority. That unwanted heir (a busy crusader) had 10 Piety, 9 Loyalty and 8 each in Command and Chivalry. While I have a couple of guys in every campaign that have 10 in Command, Piety and/or Loyalty, with none of them becoming FH out of the line, 8 Chivalry indeed is very rare.

I am suspecting the Chivalry being the culprit because I had observed the same effect when it comes to governing cities: usually the guy with the highest Piety becomes governor, but this seems to be outruled by characters with very high Chivalry entering the town (with the M2TW system of traits, characters with high Chivalry usually also have high Piety, so you wouldn't always notice).

Follows: Try to limit the ammount of Chivalry non-heir or -leader characters can acquire. Having some chivalry seems to be save. I always have several characters who have two or three in Chivalry without becoming heirs out of the line; may be the threshold beyond which Chivalry has an impact on both government and heir selection is 5.

[konny]

I had a character becoming FH who had 0 Authority, while the desired heir had 9 Authority. That unwanted heir (a busy crusader) had 10 Piety, 9 Loyalty and 8 each in Command and Chivalry. While I have a couple of guys in every campaign that have 10 in Command, Piety and/or Loyalty, with none of them becoming FH out of the line, 8 Chivalry indeed is very rare.

I am suspecting the Chivalry being the culprit

After some more toying around with that, I came to the conclusion that the above problem seems to be result of a bug: Characters that acutally have/would have negative Authority are treated as having the maximum (10) Authority. This is not only a matter of display, but indeed works as that.

In an ongoign campaign I had a FL who had 0 Authority, and it worked like that, means characters and generals were rebelling all the time. Then he acquired the next level in "Cuckold" what would have given him overall -1 Authority, but he was displayed +10 Authority; and I also had no more rebellious generals until he died.

[Userpro]

Thanks once more for still sharing with us your last findings and possible issues. I'm a bit disapointed with ourselves coz our mod still isn't arrived in his long awaited betatesting phase, to finaly contribute something to your last findings and theories.

[Caesar Clivus]

Quick question: If I was to set a non-family member general to have +10 authority, would the game ever consider him to be the next heir? Or does the game only ever consider family members?

[konny]

Quick question: If I was to set a non-family member general to have +10 authority, would the game ever consider him to be the next heir? Or does the game only ever consider family members?

The game only picks characters from the family tree.

[Caesar Clivus]

The game only picks characters from the family tree.

Dang. I figured that'd be the case but I thought I'd check with the experts first

Oh another random thought: what about factions with the "teutonic" family tree setting from Kingdoms? If a faction has that, technically any general can be the next heir correct?

[konny]

Oh another random thought: what about factions with the "teutonic" family tree setting from Kingdoms? If a faction has that, technically any general can be the next heir correct?

Yes, that should be the case. But I can tell you more when I have finished coding in Novgorod for dHRR; what would be my first work on that matter with a Teutonic family tree. I am also planning to use characters spawned with the heir and/or leader tag there, to see whether I would be able to force a character becoming heir that way.

[Caesar Clivus]

Yes, that should be the case. But I can tell you more when I have finished coding in Novgorod for dHRR; what would be my first work on that matter with a Teutonic family tree. I am also planning to use characters spawned with the heir and/or leader tag there, to see whether I would be able to force a character becoming heir that way.

That's a coincidence. Novgorod is the reason why I'm asking all these questions

[Theodotos I]

The game only picks characters from the family tree.

This explains why my testing had failed, thus far.

[Gigantus]

The game only picks characters from the family tree.

There is a mod\script now that let's you determine the next heir whenever the FL dies, a bit like RTW style.

[Caesar Clivus]

I'm also curious to see what spawning a character with the leader or heir tag would do. I suspect though that the best case scenario would be that nothing would happen. The worst would be a CTD of some kind.

[konny]

I'm also curious to see what spawning a character with the leader or heir tag would do. I suspect though that the best case scenario would be that nothing would happen. The worst would be a CTD of some kind.

As far as I recall (don't have it on this PC), it is used in Britannia to respawn the king after sending him off map. So, it should be working and do a thing.

[gracul]

Im trying to get this to work, so at first i've done some of my own tests.
I have created a family tree with about 40 members - all had the exact same traits, the exact same attributes (3 piety 1 loyalty), and the same age (20). All traits/anc's are wiped of authority, so they have 0 authority as well. The family tree is script generated.
With the console i give the trait "authaddup" to current faction heirs third son so he now has +5 authority. I kill the current leader through script, and always the first son becomes the new heir, the one with 0 authority (instead the one with 5 authority).
I repeat the test several times with the same outcome. I also check what happens if the "predestinated guy" gets +5 authority and yep he still gets selected. Which seems like with all the guys being the same, having same attributes and same age - authority is not doing anything in heir selection.
Now im doing a second test. The second of heirs sons get +10 chivalry and +5 authority. The test seems fruitless as always the same patter is being followed - the first guy to the left of the family tree is the heir.
Third test - huge piety boost and +5 authority, tested twice, always the guy to the left gets selected heir.
Fourth test - huge loyalty boost and +5 authority, tested twice, always the guy to the left gets selected heir.
Fifth test - huge command boost and +5 authority, tested twice, always the guy to the left gets selected heir.
And last - all boost, +9 authority, tested twice, always the guy to the left gets selected heir.
The son i want to be the heir, never gets selected. Only the guy to the left of the tree does, when he's even far inferior to my pre-designed heir. So i come to this thing: If the current leader has eligible heirs, the foremost left always get selected.

So i change stuff around and now i only get 5 possible successors.
Now the images show what i have discovered. Works 100% of the times.
Also discovered only auth and age play a role, no chivalry etc does.















Hopefully you can read everything from the images. It comes simple - the auth/age stuff only kicks in if there is no 'straightforward heir' - meaning the current heir has no out of age children at all. (i was too lazy to check what will happen if the leftmost child of leader is still a baby).

But even so, this kind of "heir selection" is really working in like maybe 10% times of what you have in a campaign, because how many times it happened that you didn't have at least 1 son of current heir? If you have just one son, he always gets picked. I have also checked my work with differently looking family trees, 100% of the times i knew which general would be chosen heir.

[Rat-tail]

Has anyone advanced this in tests since march?

[konny]

Yes, sons of age of the current heir seem to outrule Authority. Otherwise I don't understand the result of your charts: You have always given all characters the same Authority, what does it say?

[gracul]

On the last 5 pictures yes, all chars had the same authority.
What i've shown is:
If you have a char with 9 auth in the lower branch, and a char with 9 auth in the upper branch, the lower branch gets chosen.
If all chars have 0 auth, the upper branch gets chosen.

So if everyone in both branches have 25yr's old, and 0 auth, the last one from the upper branch gets heir.
If everyone in both branches have 25 yr's old, and 9 auth, the last one from the lower branch gets heir.
So basically:
If the same highest authority value exists in both branches and its above 0, the lower branch takes priority in heir choosing.
If the highest authority value in both branches is 0, the upper branch takes priority in heir choosing.