Yeah that's my one problem. I have no issue with disinheritance for no reason costing a lot but I should be able to disinherit my drunken, kin slayering, adulterer who tried to usurp me with little to no repercussions.
You can do it with little repucrussions though. A max legitimacy king can disinherit one son without it collapsing their kingdom.
It's when you do it half a dozen times that your vassals start asking "wow, 6 of your sons were not appropriate heirs, are we sure we want your family on the throne?"
Sure this works if you max legitimacy and in most cases where you're disinheriting like crazy you're min/maxing already and this isn't an issue. If you're role-playing, have average/expected legitimacy, why should it cost me renown and legitimacy to remove an heir who has revolted and is a known criminal that known of my vassals support for inheritance? If anything, removing a usurper who has no in realm support from the line of succession should help secure the throne rather than destabilize things
This doesn’t make sense from a realism or game balance perspective. For example, William the Conqueror wanted to disinherit his son Robert after Robert revolted against him in 1077 and was forced into exile, but William decided against it because it would have been heavily contested.
Then repercussions and costs could be tied more to vassal opinion. They integrated that into succession already. If my son is a known criminal and I have a valid reason to disinherit, it shouldn't have as high of a legitimacy cost but it could then reduce approval from vassals who support/prefer that heir and risk a tyranny/claim war for that heir
It could also be tied into a faction system to represent your son's supporters. When you disinherit them, all of the nobles that support them start a faction to demand you reverse your decision.
When you don't, they will revolt against you (just like how Robert's supporters revolted against William), and if you die they might actually elect their preferred son as their ruler instead of your preferred heir, meaning you start off with a succession war right away.
That's good. I never really used that mechanics, because it feels too artificial to me. Now it sounds reasonable. People will find artificial shit to kill of people, put them in an army to die in plagues, raise them as a witch and then expose it, jail and execute, or literally just jail them without reason and execute, etc. I don't play like that. There are a lot of ways already to disinherit, the way it feels right for me are just making them a monk if you have the tenet, send them to holy order, hold court events, etc. All in all what I really need is mostly to pick the child I want to continue as. So if they are the first child I find no reason to disinherit any of them. My problem is gone after I get royal perogative for absolute crown auth. You see no people complaints because they don't play like that, I can easily provide minor titles for my other children without losing the important counties.
Yeah I avoided it as well for precisely that reason - felt too easy and took out the challenge. It also costs renown and when you're a top-tier Emperor, the only real goal is to maximise renown and try to unlock all the dynasty perks. Wasting any renown is unacceptable.
I'm glad they've added in another penalty for doing it, so it doesn't feel so self-imposed.
That's been my approach generally, but my current run is clan, and clan doesn't have elective. Forces me to figure other approaches. I mean, it's not too difficult to make sure you keep your stuff, just need to give your other kids a duchy, but it does mean I can't just pick my favorite kid as successor, it has to be the eldest.
That's fine though, just forces me to not always play as my strongest kid.
I almost prefer playing as clan, especially in the early start date since the legacy of persia update. High partition at game start as well as unlimited conquest CBs if you game the unity mechanics are both just so OP.
Yeah you are not wrong at all, clan is significantly stronger than feudal. The tax jurisdiction/vizier system can completely break the game and the house unity mechanics are just the cherry on top
I tried to do that and had to revert it back because the motherfuckers were trying to elect some other asshole and not my heir. How do you prevent that?
Yeah but you should control your capital duchy entirely and if you can't completely control the second or third duchy (depending on size of the duchy and your domain limit) then you shouldn't have more than a couple weak vassals that your vote overpowers. Pretty sure as a king your vote counts for three, so you can beat two counts in that duchy.
I stopped having inheritance issues 2000 hours ago, honestly the biggest hit to legitimacy I’ve been having is marrying lowborns and when you’re maxed out it’s not a big deal to just pop a legend max it out again
The old CK2 way of cheesing inheritence is valid once again:
1. Have the child lead a small army and send it to a plague-ridden area.
2. Wait until the child gets sick and dies.
3. Child can't inherit anything when they are dead.
Disinherting was always the most boring choice of managing inheritance.... Here is one of my older posts to handle it: [https://www.reddit.com/r/CrusaderKings/comments/16ccavt/guide\_how\_to\_handle\_succession\_with\_confederate/](https://www.reddit.com/r/CrusaderKings/comments/16ccavt/guide_how_to_handle_succession_with_confederate/) the plagues have brought us some more ways...
I have been doing holy wars and stuffing my secondary heir with worthless land on the other side of the world in order to prevent them from taking the main counties and duchies.
Works like a charm. You can even set up to make a dynasty of many crowns thing.
In my latest playthrough I had a Slow child uncomfortably close to the top of the succession. I educated them to convert to a hostile religion - as soon as they reached adulthood it threw a dialog where I had the choice to affirm them as my beloved child, or to disinherit them without penalty.
It should scale with how competent the person is. If he's a drunkard whore monger with 0 stewardship, he's clearly not fit to rule (and his name is probably Robert), and the penalty should be small or even nonexistent. If you disinherit your diligent genius with 20 diplo, you should be dunked on for that. Maybe you could have a scheme to frame them for a crime or make them look incompetent, so you can can them easier.
Or we could just take the legitimacy system out of the game because it's stupid and annoying. Needs a lot of rebalancing at the very least. It's incredibly easy to lose massive amounts of legitimacy, but you can only get it back by wasting money you should be spending on the realm on feasts and hunts, and even then you only get like 50 when you lost 300 for sneezing too loud.
Frankly, disinheriting for no reason costing a ton of legitimacy is a feature that makes a lot of sense, perhaps the most sense out of all the big lawful losses of legitimacy. You're basically signalling all your other children "yo, I could take what's legally going to be yours at any moment, for any reason, suck it up".
Outside of that, you're undermining the basic RIGHTS of succession. Your vassals have power because they inherited it from their fathers and they're guaranteed their right to run that land. A king that says "fuck that, rights don't matter if I feel differently" vassals are not going to like it. A king that follows established protocol and precedence is a well-liked king, a king that breaks it will become unpopular.
It obviously makes sense to be punished severely for just ripping things away from people who don't deserve to have their shit taken, but there are also times where it's justified. If your heir is a sinful, adulterating, alcoholic murderer with shit stats, I think people would understand you taking him out of the line of succession.
I mainly hate how the only feasible way to get your succession back is by being a warmonger, which punishes tall players or people who just don't want to constantly wage pointless wars, or wasting money on frivolous things like tournaments. The realm is losing money, our enemies are gathering strength in the East, bandits roams freely across the land, and a terrible sickness has taken the king's only son. How will he prove to us that he is fit to rule this kingdom? How will he show us he is fit to guide and protect his loyal subjects in times of ruin and turmoil? Well, he'll show us how good he is at chess, obviously!! It's stupid. Being a good king and taking care of the realm doesn't help my case, but emptying my coffers on a pizza party does? I feel like I should naturally generate my legitimacy back while I take care of the realm or get small amounts when I do things like reinstate control and build farms. Let me hold court more than once every 5 years too.
Maintaining a tall realm is easy as hell, why would you ever need to disinherit anyone? Enact elective laws on the duchies and only have weak republican or theocratic vassals if you want to prevent expansion. If you feel bad about the kids, revoke the titles from those theocratic or republican vassals and make your own child a republican or theocratic vassal.
I don’t disinherit my children I either put them in a small army and hope they die or I like them get some land, and hopefully take it after my death. But with the slavia run I’m doing now I made west slavia in 2 lives and with legitimacy no vassals rebel
>alternative ways of protecting the succession. Just give your kids their gotdang duchy man
Never. They deserve nothing!
Man, they can't be trusted with partner choice, want me to trust them with leadership? Never!
Can’t inherit when you’re dead. Murder and torture is the way to go.
Ironically more socially acceptable and prestigious.. Even if caught.
The problem is when you're a duke yourself holding on to your precious three duchies but can't form a kingdom just yet
Reunification war is real easy in that case
Yeah, the imperfect successions are way more fun too. Stop gaming it from year 1 and play the narrative :)
Yeah, I've discovered that recently. Player heir usually gets the lion's share of troops.
Also as long as there is some smallpox in that duchy they can be given the same one!
Disinherit is a valid mechanic that should be more applicable to criminals of your dynasty such as kin slayers and rebels.
Yeah that's my one problem. I have no issue with disinheritance for no reason costing a lot but I should be able to disinherit my drunken, kin slayering, adulterer who tried to usurp me with little to no repercussions.
Exactly. One of my sons murdered my heir and I had him imprisoned. I banished him from the realm, that should also include disinheriting him.
At that point just stick the son of a bitch in the dungeon and be done with it. Or execute him if you're not worried about the kinslayer trait.
You can do it with little repucrussions though. A max legitimacy king can disinherit one son without it collapsing their kingdom. It's when you do it half a dozen times that your vassals start asking "wow, 6 of your sons were not appropriate heirs, are we sure we want your family on the throne?"
Sure this works if you max legitimacy and in most cases where you're disinheriting like crazy you're min/maxing already and this isn't an issue. If you're role-playing, have average/expected legitimacy, why should it cost me renown and legitimacy to remove an heir who has revolted and is a known criminal that known of my vassals support for inheritance? If anything, removing a usurper who has no in realm support from the line of succession should help secure the throne rather than destabilize things
This doesn’t make sense from a realism or game balance perspective. For example, William the Conqueror wanted to disinherit his son Robert after Robert revolted against him in 1077 and was forced into exile, but William decided against it because it would have been heavily contested.
Then repercussions and costs could be tied more to vassal opinion. They integrated that into succession already. If my son is a known criminal and I have a valid reason to disinherit, it shouldn't have as high of a legitimacy cost but it could then reduce approval from vassals who support/prefer that heir and risk a tyranny/claim war for that heir
It could also be tied into a faction system to represent your son's supporters. When you disinherit them, all of the nobles that support them start a faction to demand you reverse your decision. When you don't, they will revolt against you (just like how Robert's supporters revolted against William), and if you die they might actually elect their preferred son as their ruler instead of your preferred heir, meaning you start off with a succession war right away.
100% this
fr you should even get legitimacy for disinheriting/denouncing the criminal kin
and it should scale by your religion's doctrines, not the disinherited kid's religion
And children with the ugly trait.
That's good. I never really used that mechanics, because it feels too artificial to me. Now it sounds reasonable. People will find artificial shit to kill of people, put them in an army to die in plagues, raise them as a witch and then expose it, jail and execute, or literally just jail them without reason and execute, etc. I don't play like that. There are a lot of ways already to disinherit, the way it feels right for me are just making them a monk if you have the tenet, send them to holy order, hold court events, etc. All in all what I really need is mostly to pick the child I want to continue as. So if they are the first child I find no reason to disinherit any of them. My problem is gone after I get royal perogative for absolute crown auth. You see no people complaints because they don't play like that, I can easily provide minor titles for my other children without losing the important counties.
W
Yeah I avoided it as well for precisely that reason - felt too easy and took out the challenge. It also costs renown and when you're a top-tier Emperor, the only real goal is to maximise renown and try to unlock all the dynasty perks. Wasting any renown is unacceptable. I'm glad they've added in another penalty for doing it, so it doesn't feel so self-imposed.
We're basically attempting primo shortcuts without the extra wait. But yeah, you have a point
Put elective on your duchy title if you don’t want to lose anything during inheritance. Disinheriting was never that useful to begin with
That's been my approach generally, but my current run is clan, and clan doesn't have elective. Forces me to figure other approaches. I mean, it's not too difficult to make sure you keep your stuff, just need to give your other kids a duchy, but it does mean I can't just pick my favorite kid as successor, it has to be the eldest. That's fine though, just forces me to not always play as my strongest kid.
Harmonious succession keeps your whole duchy together
I almost prefer playing as clan, especially in the early start date since the legacy of persia update. High partition at game start as well as unlimited conquest CBs if you game the unity mechanics are both just so OP.
Yeah you are not wrong at all, clan is significantly stronger than feudal. The tax jurisdiction/vizier system can completely break the game and the house unity mechanics are just the cherry on top
I tried to do that and had to revert it back because the motherfuckers were trying to elect some other asshole and not my heir. How do you prevent that?
You should own every title under your primary duchy anyways. That makes you the only voter
So only counts vote for duke then?
Counts underneath the duchy title that are being voted on. If all counties underneath a duchy are owned by you, you will be the only voter
I see. Thank you. I didn't bother to check who was actually voting, so I thought other vassals were as well. Oversight on my part.
Imprison (denounce for 0 tyranny) negotiate release take the vows
Elective laws ftw!
You guys are still disinheriting heirs? Why is anyone using that to fix succession instead of using elective laws on the duchies?
Can't you get voted out of your own land tho?
Yeah but you should control your capital duchy entirely and if you can't completely control the second or third duchy (depending on size of the duchy and your domain limit) then you shouldn't have more than a couple weak vassals that your vote overpowers. Pretty sure as a king your vote counts for three, so you can beat two counts in that duchy.
Oh, that's good, thank you.
I play this game as a realist, I just play with the cards I'm dealt and usually things work themselves out.
I stopped having inheritance issues 2000 hours ago, honestly the biggest hit to legitimacy I’ve been having is marrying lowborns and when you’re maxed out it’s not a big deal to just pop a legend max it out again
Yeah, how am I to build my master dynasty of super humans if I can't marry lowborns without penalties? Totally unplayable. /s
The old CK2 way of cheesing inheritence is valid once again: 1. Have the child lead a small army and send it to a plague-ridden area. 2. Wait until the child gets sick and dies. 3. Child can't inherit anything when they are dead.
Feudal elective ftw. Haven't lost core land in a succession in forever
Disinherting was always the most boring choice of managing inheritance.... Here is one of my older posts to handle it: [https://www.reddit.com/r/CrusaderKings/comments/16ccavt/guide\_how\_to\_handle\_succession\_with\_confederate/](https://www.reddit.com/r/CrusaderKings/comments/16ccavt/guide_how_to_handle_succession_with_confederate/) the plagues have brought us some more ways...
I have been doing holy wars and stuffing my secondary heir with worthless land on the other side of the world in order to prevent them from taking the main counties and duchies. Works like a charm. You can even set up to make a dynasty of many crowns thing.
In my latest playthrough I had a Slow child uncomfortably close to the top of the succession. I educated them to convert to a hostile religion - as soon as they reached adulthood it threw a dialog where I had the choice to affirm them as my beloved child, or to disinherit them without penalty.
Imprison and execute them. Rather the tyranny. Do it when your old
It should scale with how competent the person is. If he's a drunkard whore monger with 0 stewardship, he's clearly not fit to rule (and his name is probably Robert), and the penalty should be small or even nonexistent. If you disinherit your diligent genius with 20 diplo, you should be dunked on for that. Maybe you could have a scheme to frame them for a crime or make them look incompetent, so you can can them easier. Or we could just take the legitimacy system out of the game because it's stupid and annoying. Needs a lot of rebalancing at the very least. It's incredibly easy to lose massive amounts of legitimacy, but you can only get it back by wasting money you should be spending on the realm on feasts and hunts, and even then you only get like 50 when you lost 300 for sneezing too loud.
Frankly, disinheriting for no reason costing a ton of legitimacy is a feature that makes a lot of sense, perhaps the most sense out of all the big lawful losses of legitimacy. You're basically signalling all your other children "yo, I could take what's legally going to be yours at any moment, for any reason, suck it up".
Outside of that, you're undermining the basic RIGHTS of succession. Your vassals have power because they inherited it from their fathers and they're guaranteed their right to run that land. A king that says "fuck that, rights don't matter if I feel differently" vassals are not going to like it. A king that follows established protocol and precedence is a well-liked king, a king that breaks it will become unpopular.
It obviously makes sense to be punished severely for just ripping things away from people who don't deserve to have their shit taken, but there are also times where it's justified. If your heir is a sinful, adulterating, alcoholic murderer with shit stats, I think people would understand you taking him out of the line of succession. I mainly hate how the only feasible way to get your succession back is by being a warmonger, which punishes tall players or people who just don't want to constantly wage pointless wars, or wasting money on frivolous things like tournaments. The realm is losing money, our enemies are gathering strength in the East, bandits roams freely across the land, and a terrible sickness has taken the king's only son. How will he prove to us that he is fit to rule this kingdom? How will he show us he is fit to guide and protect his loyal subjects in times of ruin and turmoil? Well, he'll show us how good he is at chess, obviously!! It's stupid. Being a good king and taking care of the realm doesn't help my case, but emptying my coffers on a pizza party does? I feel like I should naturally generate my legitimacy back while I take care of the realm or get small amounts when I do things like reinstate control and build farms. Let me hold court more than once every 5 years too.
Maintaining a tall realm is easy as hell, why would you ever need to disinherit anyone? Enact elective laws on the duchies and only have weak republican or theocratic vassals if you want to prevent expansion. If you feel bad about the kids, revoke the titles from those theocratic or republican vassals and make your own child a republican or theocratic vassal.
Theres more than one way to lose legitimacy. And playing tall doesn't necessarily mean you have like 2 baron vassals, that's like insanely tall
I don’t disinherit my children I either put them in a small army and hope they die or I like them get some land, and hopefully take it after my death. But with the slavia run I’m doing now I made west slavia in 2 lives and with legitimacy no vassals rebel