Picking a Lineage

[cavvie]

I searched and there weren't any real discussions on this. How does everybody pick their heir? Do you pick who'd be the best influence on the Senate and Plebs? Do you pick the eldest living son, no matter what? I haven't been playing that long so I haven't had a chance to play it out much.

I'd kind of like to know what the Romans actually did. I know in the later empire women could inherit, etc. Perhaps there wasn't any real consistencies but noble families often adopted preferred "sons" and willed them considerable status.

[John I Tzimisces]

Interesting question.
I try to pick a heir, when I bother, if the current heir is disgustingly incompetant, I like to pick a guy with a good amount of management and influence.

[cavvie]

Yeah, that actually makes me think of a follow up question. When replacing your dead leader with the currently designated heir, does the game default to a certain person? I one experience I have is that after making the first born son the new leader, it designated his next eldest brother as the heir.

[Diomedes]

Upon the death of the paterfamilas of a Roman family his last will & testament would name what each son/daughter and of course his wife recieved (women could only get up to a certain amount), the eldest son would then become the new paterfamilas. If I play a roman faction a pick the character with the closest blood relation to the original faction leader, anyother factions I pick the best general.

[John I Tzimisces]

The game picks the heir as the one with the most influence. If there is a tie the older one gets it. I think.

[HappeR]

I think the game picks the oldest guy, because sometimes the game picks terrible generals as faction heirs, simply because they are the faction leaders younger brother, and so the oldest general.

When I pick faction heirs myself (that is, if I don't forget to pick a faction heir), I choose my best general in the field because a big bodyguard is always nice as cheap (very strong) units.

[Lusted]

No, its been shown that it picks heirs based on influence, it doesn't take command into account.

[HappeR]

No, its been shown that it picks heirs based on influence, it doesn't take command into account.

I thought it picks heirs by age...not by influence..because it sometimes picks generals without influence for me.

And I didn't say IT picks heirs by command, I said I pick heirs by command for the bodyguard

[Sitarus Originalus PM-30+]

in general i agree with Lusted, but however crowd liked their hier to be a good general also... for the glory if Rome they would say. it is true that politicians wanted influential and popular hier, but in antient times one way to gain glory and fame was to concor land and bring new slaves to Rome. we could say then that comand was important as it was a tool to manipulate people and gaining finances and influence (just remember what ceasar did).

[Favre]

I usually pick the guy with the coolest profile picture, then i take him on huge campaigns to give him like 7-8 command stars, then rest him in my capital etc etc to get him management

[amiliusbrutus]

i pick my hiers by thier influence and their prowess in battle my leader and hier are allways frontline generals

[Trajan]

When I'm playing as the unified Romans, I let the Senate choose the next leader. I know that it's the computer that automatically chooses the heir but as the Romans, I like to pretend that it's the Senate who decides. When I'm playing a nation that is ruled by a King and not a Senate, the heir will always be the King's son. If the King has no son, then it'll go to his brother and so on and so on.

[Armfelt]

I usually pick mine from the guys with high managment and atleast some influence and no mental problems, the best faction leaders are rarely the best generals.

[cavvie]

I made a succession criteria for myself when I started my Germanic Campaign last night on my newly downloaded TE mod. Since they're a warrior people, the heir shall be the family member with the greatest warrior prowess (either through stars or personal badassery). Age is the tie breaker.

I just think it's fun to set out some criteria and see it though. For example, you might decide to do a basic dynastic, first-born heredity but then have to deal with the nincompoops that you end up with.

[PyrrhusIV]

I like to go by royal bloodlines. I remember for one Roman campaign, my faction leader was absolutely brilliant, but as I noticed he was getting terribly older, and his chances of living until his very young son matured, I appointed my faction leaders best General, the heir. When my leader died, Numerius (His general) was Ruler and Regent of Rome for nearly 40 years until his death. After that the position of Imperator was handed over to the Grandson of the original Imperator, his father (Son of the first emperor) already being dead.

I like to roleplay in the game. I sometimes have absolutely incompetent leaders, and sometimes brilliant ones. Once & awhile I even have little dynasties that rule the country hehe

[Sétanta]

I always make the Leaders first son the heir. And If there is no heir then the brother, second brother, nephew etc.

I get really RPGish sometimes. To the point of insanity for my campaign

[Shadows]

I usually pick an older man, about 35-45 to be my heir. But he has to also have decent management and influence. Of course, many times I just keep the heir the game selects, sinceits easier than going through thirty or forty guys to find the best candidate.