CKII is released.

[Vaarna_Aarne]

IIRC all the counties and duchies will be split among the children, but the heir will be the one who gets the empire/kingdom/duchy title and the capital demesne at minimum, the rest become his vassals. However, the junior heirs will get claims on the sibling liege's titles.

Though if you have multiple kingdom titles but no empire title, split happens. Same if you have multiple empire titles or duchy titles (without kingdom title of course).

Siblings can also be subject to conga line vassalage, since the counties are also split by de jure duchy, so the sibling who gets the duchy is the lord of the siblings who may have gotten a county in that duchy.

 

[Average Manatee]

Yeah, if you can expand consistently one way to avoid gavelkind problems is to land your 2nd/3rd/etc heirs ahead of time. If they already have an "equal" share of territory pillaged from muslims or something then they'll get nothing on Gavelkind. In this sense you can also handle it by plotting to revoke titles from vassals, or having them rebel when you attempt to imprison them for plotting, etc, and then taking those titles to give to your sons. They will still get claims on the titles your heir gets but if they have enough they won't get anything additional on succession.

I do try to give as much land to my dynasty as possible, even martrilineally marrying my daughters to courtiers that I'll hand out duchies to. Their children become nice landed dynasty members that don't have claims on my titles, the best kind of vassal since dynastic links generally predispose characters to not rebel or plot so long as they don't have a reason to hate you.

 

[Higher Game]

Yeah, if you can expand consistently one way to avoid gavelkind problems is to land your 2nd/3rd/etc heirs ahead of time. If they already have an "equal" share of territory pillaged from muslims or something then they'll get nothing on Gavelkind. In this sense you can also handle it by plotting to revoke titles from vassals, or having them rebel when you attempt to imprison them for plotting, etc, and then taking those titles to give to your sons. They will still get claims on the titles your heir gets but if they have enough they won't get anything additional on succession.

I do try to give as much land to my dynasty as possible, even martrilineally marrying my daughters to courtiers that I'll hand out duchies to. Their children become nice landed dynasty members that don't have claims on my titles, the best kind of vassal since dynastic links generally predispose characters to not rebel or plot so long as they don't have a reason to hate you.

While expanding, I think I constantly have -45 relations just from stripping 3 counties away every 5 years for my dynasty. Even baronies. I have to give out a lot of gifts to do this. Plus, whatever piety claims the pope gives me. This is how to develop a phenomenally loyal core of vassals for future empire stability. Gavelkind is the best succession law for this stage, because it plays with what you're going to do anyway, and then electoral monarchy when one's dynasty absolutely dominates the realm. It's almost always effectively picking your successor.

I've never tried seniority succession. I don't even know if it's possible to escape for a large dynasty, because the oldest member isn't ever going to last 10 years. I think of it as something quirky the AI does, not for players.

 

[The Brazilian Slaughter]

I tried Seniority once, its a pretty useful way to avoid the pitfalls of Gavelkind and Elective, but its kinda shitty for running eugenic programs and inheriting other people's claims. I generally run elective in earlier start-dates and then set up a con-job system where pretty much the only people that hold elector titles are me, my chosen heir and maybe another guy who likes me a lot. This assures that elections are very impartial and democratic, yes.

By the way, NEVER EVER have multiple elective titles. Seriously, just don't. I almost lost good land because the people in my two domains weren't voting for the same heir. This goes double for Tanistry, because anybody and his dog can vote in it.

Dunno how elective works in Holy Fury, but if its anything like Imperial and Eldership, then its probably fucking dogshit.

 

[CthuluIsSpy]

There's one good thing I can think of when it comes to seniority, and that's you don't have to panic as much if you king dies while his heir is still age 0, and you have to wait 16 years with a thumb up your ass before you get to play the game.
I wish they allowed you to play as the regent if the regent is part of your dynasty.

Yeah, Elective is annoying. I had to destroy the Kingdom of Brittany, because one of my rival heirs was about to win the vote, and my character was still a child. I just knew that he would kill the kid if he wins that vote, to seize both Ireland and Britanny. Well jokes on you, old man. You're dead, you're kid's in a dungeon and your lands got given to distant relatives. Took 2 kings but I finally dealt with that succession problem.


Is there a succession law where you can just pick your successor, without worrying about voting and crap?

 

[Average Manatee]

Is there a succession law where you can just pick your successor, without worrying about voting and crap?

It's called the "I marry celibate women, cheat on her with seduced court members and only legitimize the bastard I want to rule" succession.

Practically speaking you should be able to get a lot of mileage out of changing between primo and ultimo. Primo most of the time but if your son fucks himself up or dies and the 2nd son is trash, you go to the earliest son. Depending on religion you can also disinherit the youngest son ahead of time by making him a priest or something before changing to Ultimo so that you get the third in line rather than the 4th or w/e. Can't normally disinherit your primary heir like this, but you can do it before a succession change makes them primary.

Personally I'm a good father who tries to treat all his children well. Fine with killing my wife to get a newer model with more claims or changing succession so the best son inherits, but all my sons or daughters get some decent titles or positions unless they are inbred retards or something.

 

[CthuluIsSpy]

I like treating my kids well too and I try to personally mentor them so the AI doesn't give them shit, or marry them off to a close relative.
I did learn 2 things the hard way though :

1) Too many heirs can be a bad thing
2) If you have too many heirs, don't land them all and certainly do not give them a Duchy. Or if you do give them a duchy, put all the sons under the Duke there. I'm not sure if it'll work, but they'll probably hate each other due to the -20 title claimant debuff.

I'm thinking I'll just give my primary heir land, and the rest can just wait. Or join the clergy. Or join the templars like manly men.
What happens if your last dynasty member is in a holy order? Game over?

 

[The Brazilian Slaughter]

Is there a succession law where you can just pick your successor, without worrying about voting and crap?

Some religions can designate heir. If I remember right, Taoists can do this.
You can also pick Meritocratic on pagan reformation.

 

[CthuluIsSpy]

Ah, I don't have any DLC. I guess I'll just stick with primo. Maybe experiment with the other ones, but primo tends to be the safest bet, as long as you plan your kingdom right and aren't worried about a civil war now and then to get rid of any uppity lords.

 

[Higher Game]

I mostly use rulership focus, which gives the depressed trait, so when I have a good heir election locked in it's balcony jumping time.

 

[The Brazilian Slaughter]

Talking about women and marriages... am I the only who endeavours to joins the Satanists just to kidnap scores of Genius/Strong/Quick/Attractive women for my breeding programs? Like, who cares at all those nifty Satan powers, I just want to abduct people. Religious with concunbinage are great for that.

Man, I feel like non-pagans really miss their own Warrior Lodge equivalent. I don't see why to send my ruler into the battlefield without being part of a warrior lodge. Maybe IF sucession is assured and the next one is even better. I want to be a kickass Christian knight, not a monk!

 

[Higher Game]

Talking about women and marriages... am I the only who endeavours to joins the Satanists just to kidnap scores of Genius/Strong/Quick/Attractive women for my breeding programs? Like, who cares at all those nifty Satan powers, I just want to abduct people. Religious with concunbinage are great for that.

Man, I feel like non-pagans really miss their own Warrior Lodge equivalent. I don't see why to send my ruler into the battlefield without being part of a warrior lodge. Maybe IF sucession is assured and the next one is even better. I want to be a kickass Christian knight, not a monk!

Satanists are better now that the damned pope demands his artifacts back or he won't crown you emperor. Well, joining the religious orders just to loot a true magical relic pretty much makes you a Satanist anyway, might as well make it official to set the record straight. I think I've sent thousands of imaginary kings on certain paths to hell by now.

God this game is so corrupting. Starting to get worried.

 

[CthuluIsSpy]

Ok, so something weird happened.
For whatever reason, the game moved my underaged her to some county in jerusalem, changed the guardian from me to some old woman, and I can't work out how to get him back.
What happened, how can I fix it? He's a good heir too. Left handed and shrewd, with some nice traits.

 

[Higher Game]

It just hit me that this game has the weirdest "vampires" ever, the ones who abduct courtiers for their bloodlines. Imagine being kidnapped by Satanists in reality and informed that they aren't going to sacrifice you because your blood is special, but instead present you a castle and a lustful 16 year old. And somehow, you still need a high diplomacy skill and gifts to make them accept this deal.

 

[CthuluIsSpy]

Ok, did. Got to year 1453 with a score of 91 000. If I had a couple more decades I could have formed the Britannian Empire. I'll have to start as Mumu again to do it properly, now that I know the mechanics.
Is it normal that a few counties in England had a church as a primary hold instead of a castle? That's what I noticed when I conquered it.

The fact you can't make kings into vassals is really annoying, and is not how it worked back then. Back then there totally were kings who were vassals to kings. The Plantagenet are one of the more famous example.

It also really annoys me that you can't execute traitors or strip all of their titles. That makes no sense.
If a duke rebels, he should be executed or have all of his titles stripped. Whever I strip a duke of his title, he's still taking up one or 2 counties as a count. How's that a solution for removing a troublesome count? And the tyrant penalty is 30 years, which is retarded.

If I remove his titles or execute him, the rest of the vassals want to rebel even more, which goes against the entire point of punishing rebels. Its dumb, and flies in the face of the argument that this game is meant to be a "simulation"

 

[Average Manatee]

Is it normal that a few counties in England had a church as a primary hold instead of a castle? That's what I noticed when I conquered it.

It's normal that there are some, but I think it's also a bug with the current patch that sometimes granting multiple titles to someone makes them a priest or mayor rather than a noble.

The fact you can't make kings into vassals is really annoying, and is not how it worked back then. Back then there totally were kings who were vassals to kings. The Plantagenet are one of the more famous example.

You can do tributaries, but yeah, it's kind of a limitation of how the system was designed to work.

It also really annoys me that you can't execute traitors or strip all of their titles. That makes no sense.
If a duke rebels, he should be executed or have all of his titles stripped. Whever I strip a duke of his title, he's still taking up one or 2 counties as a count. How's that a solution for removing a troublesome count? And the tyrant penalty is 30 years, which is retarded.

If I remove his titles or execute him, the rest of the vassals want to rebel even more, which goes against the entire point of punishing rebels. Its dumb, and flies in the face of the argument that this game is meant to be a "simulation"

You should be able to strip 2 titles off anyone who revolts without causing opinion penalties with vassals, and stripping the last county away from a duke automatically removes the duke title. Also, keep in mind that revoking titles is not tyranny, and has a penalty of only -15 for 10 years. A lot more manageable than the 30 year tyranny penalty. If they aren't in prison and they rebel then you can quickly squash them again and take 2 titles.

If you want someone dead who has rebelled, just keep him in prison and throw him in the oubliette. It gives -3 health IIRC, basically a death sentence.

 

[CthuluIsSpy]

That's what I normally do, but they refuse to die in there. I've had counts survive for a decade in the oubliette, and I'd rather have some else run the county.
That's another thing; how the hell are counts still able to vote or run a county in prison? That's dumb.

 

[IDtenT]

Talking about women and marriages... am I the only who endeavours to joins the Satanists just to kidnap scores of Genius/Strong/Quick/Attractive women for my breeding programs? Like, who cares at all those nifty Satan powers, I just want to abduct people. Religious with concunbinage are great for that.

Man, I feel like non-pagans really miss their own Warrior Lodge equivalent. I don't see why to send my ruler into the battlefield without being part of a warrior lodge. Maybe IF sucession is assured and the next one is even better. I want to be a kickass Christian knight, not a monk!

Satanists are better now that the damned pope demands his artifacts back or he won't crown you emperor. Well, joining the religious orders just to loot a true magical relic pretty much makes you a Satanist anyway, might as well make it official to set the record straight. I think I've sent thousands of imaginary kings on certain paths to hell by now.

God this game is so corrupting. Starting to get worried.

Acquiring power is a corrupting game.

Have you ever just let a central country go independent when you have had the upper hand?

 

[CthuluIsSpy]

I sometimes grant independence if the country has no use to me.
In my first game I had control of Iceland. I had no need for it, and it was more trouble than it was worth, so I let it go. Same with territories in the Holy Land.
I found that if you hold too many unnecessary lands, it gets too difficult to manage. I should have focused on forming Britannia, instead of taking Brittany, for example.

Considering how shitty the AI is at running their own lands, me taking it over is for the best, really. Sasana was constantly split apart by revolts, lost Cumberland and Northumberland to Scotland, lost most of the duchy of Kent to Aragon and they had a really fucked up layout with dukes owning multiple duchies and lands out of their jurisdiction. After I took over though? No revolts, lost counties were retaken for Sasana, and there were hardly any fullscale revolts, unless to force a Duke to give up a Duchy they really shouldn't have.

Speaking of Duchies, why do I have a 2 duchy limit as a king, but dukes don't have any limit? Shouldn't kings have more? Like, I can have 4 kingdoms, but apparently 3 duchies is just too much? How does that work?

That's actually something I noticed; I never had revolts in my counties, but it seems to happen a lot to the AI.
Seriously, I'm just sitting in my Kingdom of Eire, and Sasana was just shitting itself constantly.

Oh, and then you have the Holy Roman Empire. I knew that it was powerful in history, but in game its just nuts. The AI let it just roll over everyone, and no one can fight it effectively as it would just dump 50k soldiers on your capital.
Even you are on an island you aren't safe, because unlike Total War there doesn't seem to be ship combat, which makes having a navy completely pointless makes stopping invasions more tedious than it should be. Its not even historically accurate; during the first phase of the Hundred Years War, the French were about to invade England with a fleet, but was stopped an English fleet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Sluys

Relevant to Crusader Kings in general.

 

[wwsd]

So I finally decided to have a look at this "Holly Furry" thing and was pleasantly surprised to find that it involved neither the 60s band with Graham Nash in it, nor yiffing.

I did some of my perennially favourite rolls like Munster/Mumu 1066, Harald Wartooth in 769 to get the Viking Age from the start, Apulia 1066, etc., some of them just to play a few years and get the feel of the game in its current form. I've been getting the most mileage out of the Hautevilles, who are always good fun with plenty of stuff to do. Crusades are a good way to accumulate dough and relics, what with the war chest system.

I still don't think the battlefield duel mechanics are very well balanced. I sometimes found myself winning a remarkable range of duels that should be evenly matched, but then I've also had highly skilled warrior-kings killed or maimed with no alternative options, even when leading 5,000 men against 1,000 rebelling peasants who were already retreating. I suppose it's always possible, but it happened a bit too often for my taste. Sometimes it's not so bad to lose a ruler who has been making too many enemies, but it sucks if you get stuck in a regency.

With a combination of holy wars, crusades, religious focus, and monastic orders, it's quite feasible to get virtuous traits and high piety and become canonised after death. After two centuries, my kings of Sicily now have the bloodlines of two different saints. With this and "opinion of previous rulers" modifier, my kingdom is pretty stable and it's easy to make loyalist councils eat whatever shit you choose to feed them. I do notice that vassals are far more likely to intermarry and strive towards merging duchies than in previous versions, whereas for a player such behaviour would be irrational if it led to a game-over state if you control the woman's family. So every once in a while I have to use assassinations, arrests and revocations to prevent the formation of rivalling grand duchies.

The HRE also still seems to be stable unless the player interferes with it by waging war and encouraging excommunications. I've had to actively smack down the emperor's antipopes, because neither the pope nor the other Catholic kingdoms had much success of this, and HRE vassals seem to have invariably high opinions of the emprah. Otherwise I fear he would eventually conquer the papacy. Although I managed to prevent him from doing this (and got the pope a good chunk of central Italian land in the process), the HRE did carve out a lot of Lebensraum in Poland, Hungary, Ukraine, and Russia. No AI kingdom seems able to resist the emprah as he is always capable of putting two armies of >20,000 men on your doorstep. The HRE still seems like a heavily centralised war machine, more like the Third Reich than the First.

The Catholic kings in Spain were slowly getting eaten up by the Muslims who then started encroaching into France, so I redirected the second crusade against Spain and managed to get a cousin of mine on the throne of the newly formed crusader kingdom of Badajoz. He then quickly went on to take almost all of Spain, encroaching into Morocco, while the French seized Catalonia. Another crusade was redirected by a merchant republic against Byzantium, leading to a short-lived Latin Empire which was pretty amusing. Byzantium by that point had already been getting eaten up by Seljuk invasions and Shia jihads. The Fatimids soon took Constantinople from the Latin Empire. I'm trying to expand in Epirus and Greece, but I have to do it either one claim at a time, or marry-and-assassinate, or take the consequences of the border conflict casus belli.

Overall, good fun so far, but it seems by this point there is little left in the way of balance.

 

[The Brazilian Slaughter]

Holy Fury is really, really good. This is the kind of DLC Pdox needs to be releasing.

I still don't think the battlefield duel mechanics are very well balanced. I sometimes found myself winning a remarkable range of duels that should be evenly matched, but then I've also had highly skilled warrior-kings killed or maimed with no alternative options, even when leading 5,000 men against 1,000 rebelling peasants who were already retreating. I suppose it's always possible, but it happened a bit too often for my taste. Sometimes it's not so bad to lose a ruler who has been making too many enemies, but it sucks if you get stuck in a regency.

Take a look at the intrigue of the characters involved. High-intrigue low personnal combat skill characters can win fights by cheating.
But sometimes the Random Number God just decrees its your time to die.
As a rule of thumb I avoid commanding soldiers and dueling, unless I'm playing on a Warrior Lodge.

Overall, good fun so far, but it seems by this point there is little left in the way of balance.

Define balance.

For example, turning yourself into a god through hermetics is not viable anymore, because you can only have so many certain items equipped, no more being a god among men because you have a bunch of magical books written by your ancestors.

On the other hand, Warrior Lodges are the shit - train your entire family in warfare and shit-kick your way to victory. Kill dudes in duels, take the rest in ramsom or use for sacrifice, get your lodge buddies to help.

I do agree that the HRE is helluva powerful now. I think the ERE is also more stable, or at least that's what I see in my last Old Gods games.

 

[Higher Game]

I've wondered lately if it's better to seduce ugly women, because you know they aren't going to get married and their bastards will all be yours.



Lots of more genius sayings here.

By the way, is absurdly high dynastic prestige a cause of inbreeding? Late in the game, the dynasty seems to consistently become dead or retarded because of the constant mixed marriages if I don't manually manage them all, and I suspect it's because more modest dynasties lack appeal. This seems like a clever balancing mechanism, and it probably explains how bloodlines tend to die out rather than spread out, due to the apparent advantages they offer.

 

[Fedora Master]

Holy Fury is really, really good. This is the kind of DLC Pdox needs to be releasing.

It's mostly ideas stolen from mods or more Awesome Button mechanics.

 

[Mikeal]

You see Paradox it ain't so hard. https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1622945384

 

[Higher Game]

It's mostly ideas stolen from mods or more Awesome Button mechanics.

Mods, especially for games like CKII, usually make my potato computer melt. Real DLC's with optimal performance and programming are worth it.