How does hereditary birthright work?

[Albion Crusader]

My 29 year-old heir to the throne, prince Rupert, has a son, Nicholas, who is 3 years old and related to him by blood. Rupert recently became a benefactor and adopted Tostig, a 20 year old general. When the present king dies, who will become the next heir to the throne, Nicholas or Tostig?

I wish you could change the heir to the throne like in RTW!

[Rædwald]

From my experience it would be Tostig. The same thing happened to me my Prince adopted someone and he was then considered next in line as the oldest child.

The only way I could see this not happening is if Nicholas came of age before his father became king, but I am sure it would be Tostig

[carl-the-conqueror]

i wish the CA would take thisinto consideration

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heir_Presumptive
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heir_apparent

rather than just the one.

[=WM=Aufklarung]

i wish the CA would take thisinto consideration

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heir_Presumptive
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heir_apparent

rather than just the one.

Whooaa...if CA added that to MTW2 then on a rare occasion your nation has a chance of Civil War! Would that be hard to code?

Genius concept yes?

[Vor]

I've taking to getting Faction Heirs killed in battle until I can get the one I want in the position. Its not really that good an option however, since it cuts down on your Generals.

[Albion Crusader]

I've taking to getting Faction Heirs killed in battle until I can get the one I want in the position. Its not really that good an option however, since it cuts down on your Generals.

Exactly, generals are damn useful and it seems a shame to throw one away in battle just because CA don't allow you to allocate your own damn heir.

One of the problems with the game is that there is often very little age difference between the king and the heir. When the king dies, the new king doesn't have long to reign which means you've largely wasted alot of time using that character to win battles in order that he'll have a high authority rating. Far better to have a relatively young king who reigns for a long time.

If CA don't patch this problem then I wonder if it would be relatively easy for the modding community to deal with?

[Savage_Swede]

I can't seem to get into my head why CA put the ability to choose your heir out of the game! It's not exactly a big feature, or am i just crazy? Why put it out? Why?

[Wurfspiess]

I can't seem to get into my head why CA put the ability to choose your heir out of the game! It's not exactly a big feature, or am i just crazy? Why put it out? Why?

Its a marketing feature
"you dont even have to micromanage your heir....blablabla"

[Pnutmaster]

Its a marketing feature
"you dont even have to micromanage your heir....blablabla"

Well, according to that same line of thought, we didn't have to micromanage our heirs in RTW either. The game automatically chose the 'most qualified' (most influence, normally) family member and assigned him the role if your current heir died.

[Darkiemond]

I think humans shouldn't have ability to change heirs at will, just because computer doesn't have that ability, and computer doesn't send their bad rulers on suicide attacks or one way boat trips.

In history great rulers often had not so great successors and that is well represented in a game. Besides, you can do things with your heir to make him better.
I think it should be a part of the game experience to suffer with a bad leader sometimes.

[harm]

I think humans shouldn't have ability to change heirs at will, just because computer doesn't have that ability, and computer doesn't send their bad rulers on suicide attacks or one way boat trips.

In history great rulers often had not so great successors and that is well represented in a game. Besides, you can do things with your heir to make him better.
I think it should be a part of the game experience to suffer with a bad leader sometimes.

right on dude!

[johnhughthom]

I think humans shouldn't have ability to change heirs at will, just because computer doesn't have that ability, and computer doesn't send their bad rulers on suicide attacks or one way boat trips.

In history great rulers often had not so great successors and that is well represented in a game. Besides, you can do things with your heir to make him better.
I think it should be a part of the game experience to suffer with a bad leader sometimes.

That would be fine and dandy if the game had a logical hereditary system. The only way I have found to make sure you only have blood relatives get the crown is to refuse all adoptions, and how historical are all those adoptions anyway? Sure we need generals, but do they need to be part of the family tree? A system of titles along the lines of the original medieval would be much better to give us extra generals.

[saber]

I think what CA should do, in a patch, is to bring back the titles, the civil wars, and the ability to pick your own heir. The computer can chose an heir for you, based on age and being the eldest son etc. but you should be able to change it if you don't like their traits. However, changing the heir should have some heavy consequences such as civil war, happiness penaltities, and economic ramificiations.

But, I think one of the problems with implementing the civil war is that when one does occur, the faction which turns coat becomes a new faction and it may not be possible to have such a system for 20+ factions (would be scripting 40+ factions). In BI, it only happened for the Roman factions.

[=WM=Aufklarung]

I think what CA should do, in a patch, is to bring back the titles, the civil wars, and the ability to pick your own heir. The computer can chose an heir for you, based on age and being the eldest son etc. but you should be able to change it if you don't like their traits. However, changing the heir should have some heavy consequences such as civil war, happiness penaltities, and economic ramificiations.

But, I think one of the problems with implementing the civil war is that when one does occur, the faction which turns coat becomes a new faction and it may not be possible to have such a system for 20+ factions (would be scripting 40+ factions). In BI, it only happened for the Roman factions.

I thought about that when I proposed my idea above considered how they would do this with existing features. When a portion of your nation rebels, they come - well - rebels! Of course this will rarely happen but it allows some role-play element if the player wishes to change heirs again, and again, and again

The only thing CA (or modders?) has to do is enable that option and script it to randomly rebel when the leader dies.

[Revan The Great]

I'd be all for choosing an heir from a small pool, perhaps all of the King's current sons. Why would the King's eldest son be passed up for a guy he adopted off the street. Why couldn't adoptions go into a secondary or tetrary line instead of the eldest bloodline?