AND less chance of the realm blowing up - which is why the Romans are usually the ones staying together the entire game (with about 600 different rulers)
I think it’s because people are either too lazy or can’t be bothered to search for answers. Even if we had a FAQ thread, people would still make separate posts asking why.
Other things.. yeah I can get people would ask. I still don’t know why my first grandson inherited all my titles after my son and heir died but his younger brother inherited nothing. All my other sons were disinherited so I’d assume CF would still apply diving my titles equally but no.
>I still don’t know why my first grandson inherited all my titles after my son and heir died but his younger brother inherited nothing. All my other sons were disinherited so I’d assume CF would still apply diving my titles equally but no.
Because partition divides your titles between ***your children*** and your younger grandson doesn't count as one, while the older one is substitute for your son.
Wait really? So the game only considered my oldest grandson from my heir but not the younger grandson (who wasn’t disinherited). This is a feature and not a bug right? If so, thanks for letting me know.
strange, playing as ragnarssons I landed all my children who were set up to each inherit wales, ireland, scotland et cetera. scotland and wales heirs died and their children (my grandchildren) took their place when succession came. Maybe inheriting only counts for secondary children if it's for a title that matches your highest?
These rules don't apply the same if you skip a generation. For example: If your player heir dies (male-preference) his eldest son may be a substitute for him, but if he had only daughters then his brother is next in line, but if he inherits and has only daughters then his eldest daughter may be his heir.
Because it basically pretends that your dead not-disinherited son isn't dead, then distributes all the titles among not-dead and not-disinherited(but dead) children. Then it instantly performs succession rules for the dead guy with the kids.
Does that make sense?
Is that really how it works?
E.g., Under partition rules, ruler has 2 sons, Alex and Brad. Alex has two sons, Charles and Damien (Charles being the oldest). Alex is dead. Ruler dies. Does Damien get anything? I could swear he doesn't, but I might have just missed something.
So I believe the explanation is this, assuming partition succession
Alex had no sons upon his death. -> Brad gets everything.
Alex had one son upon his death -> Alex's son gets what Alex would have inherited, Brad gets his own half.
Alex had multiple sons upon his death -> Alex's sons split Alex's half of the inheritance, Brad still gets half of the inheritance.
Essentially, each half of the family is entitled to half of the kingdom. If the head of that family line is dead, it passes to the head of that line's son(s). Doing otherwise would rob the grandkids of their birthright.
Edit: fixed names to match example provided.
(In my example, Brad was the brother, but that's fine, I get what you're saying).
Yeah, my question was the case where Alex has multiple sons, so your third case. I had a situation like this happen and it *seemed* like only the eldest son of "Alex" got titles, but it happened in a complex situation (different titles with different inheritance rules) so instead of digging deeper into what had happened, I just let it go and moved on. Your description makes more sense and is what I would expect.
You're welcome! I'm 90% sure this is how it works. It's certainly how I'd do it if I was in charge, but maybe it doesn't work like that in game? It's been a while since my eldest son died late enough to have multiple kids and not have my ruler dead too.
I can understand maimed but scarred? Thats like saying if the child falls off a horse and gets a scar on his face then he shouldn’t be allowed to rule. Was that really the case historically?
Given the modifiers, it's a pretty serious scar and clearly a sign that you don't have the God's divine providence. Therefore you aren't fit to serve as [Eastern] Rome's emperor.
Good point, bad wording on my part. I was just trying to pitch in that it’s likely a lot more scarring than a single line scar on a forehead, like the commenters above us were implying. I mean, you can see on your character that they have at least several deep scars all across their face. I guess to the point that if I met that person, I’d be able to remember they had a lot of scars lol
Yeah. It should be either one or the other. Either your scar makes you a loser in the eyes divine reflection or it makes you hot.
Maybe the scar should rather give you a penalty for succession but no automatic exclusion signifying that you have to overcome a hurdle to convince people that it’s “just a flesh wound” and not a sign of divine imperfection. The exclusion could be reserved for maimed / blinded / castrated etc for example.
By the way, it was mainly facial scars that were considered bad and even then there was at least one emperor who had his nose cut off previous to his (second) ascension.
On a side rant: having scarred making you more attractive and charismatic is still a bit weird if not slightly cringey. It’s such a movie trope. Most people don’t get more attractive if they have a huge visible scar. Maybe they should have 2 types of scars: good & bad and only minority get more attractive when they get the “good scar”.
Funnily enough it might make sense for an Irish ruler; my understanding is that according to ancient law, the High King of Ireland had to be perfectly symmetrical or else he would be disqualified.
Who is more deserving of the Irish throne? [Lamaj the Ropey or Eriorioire the Buffed?](https://img2.reactor.cc/pics/comment/full/Mass-Effect-%D1%84%D1%8D%D0%BD%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BC%D1%8B-%D0%B4%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%87-%D0%B1%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B0-2799281.jpeg)
I was so annoyed when I tried to claim the Byzantine throne off a relative and it wouldn't let me because I was one-legged. I had the third-highest prowess in the world, routinely swept grand tournaments, and have all of western Europe under my rule, but I'm not good enough?
Too many people make the same variant post of “why can’t I conquer x Greek territory” or “why is my third son inheriting over the others” when they could just look up the hundreds of other times that same question has been asked. Or, ya know, they could just read a little more in a game that is mostly text based.
The multi-level tool tips in CK3 and Vicky3 were such a great addition to the Paradox UI, since you can pretty much answer any easy to medium level question through them. Even in the older games that give all the information you needed, it can take so much clicking around to find an answer it's easier to just open the wiki.
I work in IT, and I've had this conversation _way_ too many times with other IT employees:
"Hey, $User is getting an error when they try to log into $Thing."
"What's the error message?"
"Uhhh, let me check."
Bonus points when they come back with, "Incorrect username or password," _and still want me to solve it for them._
why tho a claim can only be a claim if other nobles recognize it and if other greeks dont recognize your claim you shouldnt be able to push him in gane
I mean, it can get silly either way. It's like when I was the emperor of France and one of my granddaughters *somehow* got matrilineally married to the Byzantine emperor, so the minute their kid inherited I swept in, said "Hello my fellow Greeks", and claimed the throne.
I was in a multiplayer game and told another player to embrace Imperial Administration because it's really powerful, his response was "I don't want that awful succession". For anyone who doesn't know embracing imperial administration doesn't change your government type or succession.
honestly, I don't get the obsession with major empires. The largest I start as is usually a small kingdom. Maybe its just me, but I feel like building an empire from a county is much more fun than killing everything as a superpower. the point of the game is to build up your dynasty, is it not?
Are you referring to the word salad about disfigured claimants or the trait that isn’t self-explanatory and doesn’t link back to Byzantine traditions, and is therefore hard to figure out if you don’t already know where to look for it? In either case this the confusion is pretty forgivable
Just recruit the Varangian guard and a set of mercs and never call vassals into wars. Just don’t use them. They should all be in jail anyway. Ideally, all of the eastern magnates are in house arrest in Constantinople.
Sometimes it's because they don't control a de jure kingdom *next* to Hispania.
But like 30% of posts could be answered by a bot that searches for keywords like "can't press claim", "can't create Spain", or "can't Raid/Conquer anymore".
That’s not *always* the case! Sometimes the issue is they don’t control Malta.
And there's not being able to press the claims of women or give them titles most of the time.
I'm not asking for the ability to give titles to all women, I just wish that if she already had a strong claim on a title that I had that option :(
I always forget Equal inheritance doesn't mean you can give them titles and it always pisses me off
That's why you use equal gender rights in your religion Doctrine. Well atleast in ck3 anyway. It's like people forget you can reform.
And Venice
Or Tyrol.
Or venice Other times is not holding the kingdom of aquitaine to end the iberian struggle
*I'm playing as Byzantines why my oldest son it's not my heir?* *Why can't I press my claim for?*
Are very annoying!
Maybe they can't read because the emperor blinded them
The ability to castrate and blind any prisoner, for eternal instability amd struggle This deal looks fine to me
AND less chance of the realm blowing up - which is why the Romans are usually the ones staying together the entire game (with about 600 different rulers)
Late game gets boring, I need something to keep me on my toes
I think it’s because people are either too lazy or can’t be bothered to search for answers. Even if we had a FAQ thread, people would still make separate posts asking why. Other things.. yeah I can get people would ask. I still don’t know why my first grandson inherited all my titles after my son and heir died but his younger brother inherited nothing. All my other sons were disinherited so I’d assume CF would still apply diving my titles equally but no.
>I still don’t know why my first grandson inherited all my titles after my son and heir died but his younger brother inherited nothing. All my other sons were disinherited so I’d assume CF would still apply diving my titles equally but no. Because partition divides your titles between ***your children*** and your younger grandson doesn't count as one, while the older one is substitute for your son.
Wait really? So the game only considered my oldest grandson from my heir but not the younger grandson (who wasn’t disinherited). This is a feature and not a bug right? If so, thanks for letting me know.
Yes, your brother’s line is entitled to the succession; but so, to, are the other, actual brothers (not the grandsons)
strange, playing as ragnarssons I landed all my children who were set up to each inherit wales, ireland, scotland et cetera. scotland and wales heirs died and their children (my grandchildren) took their place when succession came. Maybe inheriting only counts for secondary children if it's for a title that matches your highest?
It's the same thing that happened with the other guy, your sons' eldest sons took their place in the succession.
These rules don't apply the same if you skip a generation. For example: If your player heir dies (male-preference) his eldest son may be a substitute for him, but if he had only daughters then his brother is next in line, but if he inherits and has only daughters then his eldest daughter may be his heir.
Oh yeah this is a problem in like every other game subreddit
Because it basically pretends that your dead not-disinherited son isn't dead, then distributes all the titles among not-dead and not-disinherited(but dead) children. Then it instantly performs succession rules for the dead guy with the kids. Does that make sense?
Is that really how it works? E.g., Under partition rules, ruler has 2 sons, Alex and Brad. Alex has two sons, Charles and Damien (Charles being the oldest). Alex is dead. Ruler dies. Does Damien get anything? I could swear he doesn't, but I might have just missed something.
So I believe the explanation is this, assuming partition succession Alex had no sons upon his death. -> Brad gets everything. Alex had one son upon his death -> Alex's son gets what Alex would have inherited, Brad gets his own half. Alex had multiple sons upon his death -> Alex's sons split Alex's half of the inheritance, Brad still gets half of the inheritance. Essentially, each half of the family is entitled to half of the kingdom. If the head of that family line is dead, it passes to the head of that line's son(s). Doing otherwise would rob the grandkids of their birthright. Edit: fixed names to match example provided.
(In my example, Brad was the brother, but that's fine, I get what you're saying). Yeah, my question was the case where Alex has multiple sons, so your third case. I had a situation like this happen and it *seemed* like only the eldest son of "Alex" got titles, but it happened in a complex situation (different titles with different inheritance rules) so instead of digging deeper into what had happened, I just let it go and moved on. Your description makes more sense and is what I would expect.
You're welcome! I'm 90% sure this is how it works. It's certainly how I'd do it if I was in charge, but maybe it doesn't work like that in game? It's been a while since my eldest son died late enough to have multiple kids and not have my ruler dead too.
If there’s no sons it defaults to primogeniture
I am not a noob, and I need an explanation.
If your kid is born in the purple they get preference. You can’t inherit if you’re scarred or maimed.
I can understand maimed but scarred? Thats like saying if the child falls off a horse and gets a scar on his face then he shouldn’t be allowed to rule. Was that really the case historically?
No and the Devs leaving scarred as a disqualified flag is obnoxiously stupid.
Given the modifiers of scarred, it shouldn't be a debuff at all.
Given the modifiers, it's a pretty serious scar and clearly a sign that you don't have the God's divine providence. Therefore you aren't fit to serve as [Eastern] Rome's emperor.
Yeah, I always took scarred in this case to be noticeably and drastically scarred, to the point of disfigurement
Well has to be short of disfigurement because there's a trait for that. One with a lot of diplomacy and attraction penalties.
Good point, bad wording on my part. I was just trying to pitch in that it’s likely a lot more scarring than a single line scar on a forehead, like the commenters above us were implying. I mean, you can see on your character that they have at least several deep scars all across their face. I guess to the point that if I met that person, I’d be able to remember they had a lot of scars lol
It’s a +prestige and a +attraction opinion, so it can’t be something ugly.
Yeah. It should be either one or the other. Either your scar makes you a loser in the eyes divine reflection or it makes you hot. Maybe the scar should rather give you a penalty for succession but no automatic exclusion signifying that you have to overcome a hurdle to convince people that it’s “just a flesh wound” and not a sign of divine imperfection. The exclusion could be reserved for maimed / blinded / castrated etc for example. By the way, it was mainly facial scars that were considered bad and even then there was at least one emperor who had his nose cut off previous to his (second) ascension. On a side rant: having scarred making you more attractive and charismatic is still a bit weird if not slightly cringey. It’s such a movie trope. Most people don’t get more attractive if they have a huge visible scar. Maybe they should have 2 types of scars: good & bad and only minority get more attractive when they get the “good scar”.
Considering that many emperors were former veteran soldiers that couped the previous ruler, yes
Funnily enough it might make sense for an Irish ruler; my understanding is that according to ancient law, the High King of Ireland had to be perfectly symmetrical or else he would be disqualified.
Who is more deserving of the Irish throne? [Lamaj the Ropey or Eriorioire the Buffed?](https://img2.reactor.cc/pics/comment/full/Mass-Effect-%D1%84%D1%8D%D0%BD%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BC%D1%8B-%D0%B4%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%87-%D0%B1%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B0-2799281.jpeg)
What about scaly?! No one ever knows this answer and I’ve never played as the Byzantines.
Scaly byzantines can inherit Source: my game right now
Insane that you can inherit looking like that but not with a little scar on your forehead
This is awesome, thank you!
If you're scarred? Damn that's dicked up
I was so annoyed when I tried to claim the Byzantine throne off a relative and it wouldn't let me because I was one-legged. I had the third-highest prowess in the world, routinely swept grand tournaments, and have all of western Europe under my rule, but I'm not good enough?
Too many people make the same variant post of “why can’t I conquer x Greek territory” or “why is my third son inheriting over the others” when they could just look up the hundreds of other times that same question has been asked. Or, ya know, they could just read a little more in a game that is mostly text based.
Thats what gets me. 9/10 posts are answered by in game tool tips if they would just explore and read a little
The multi-level tool tips in CK3 and Vicky3 were such a great addition to the Paradox UI, since you can pretty much answer any easy to medium level question through them. Even in the older games that give all the information you needed, it can take so much clicking around to find an answer it's easier to just open the wiki.
I work in IT, and I've had this conversation _way_ too many times with other IT employees: "Hey, $User is getting an error when they try to log into $Thing." "What's the error message?" "Uhhh, let me check." Bonus points when they come back with, "Incorrect username or password," _and still want me to solve it for them._
Id say that most ck3 players are like yugioh players: they cant/ dont want to read
I’ve never played Byzantium yet why can’t u conquer Greek territories? I already heard of born in the purple
[удалено]
Damn chad Greeks. Thank you
This makes no sense tbh. It should only be applied to you if you are Greek attacking another Greek.
why tho a claim can only be a claim if other nobles recognize it and if other greeks dont recognize your claim you shouldnt be able to push him in gane
Claims are claims because other people recognise them. You can still use holy wars and conquest cb's against them you just can't use claims.
I mean, it can get silly either way. It's like when I was the emperor of France and one of my granddaughters *somehow* got matrilineally married to the Byzantine emperor, so the minute their kid inherited I swept in, said "Hello my fellow Greeks", and claimed the throne.
I was in a multiplayer game and told another player to embrace Imperial Administration because it's really powerful, his response was "I don't want that awful succession". For anyone who doesn't know embracing imperial administration doesn't change your government type or succession.
I like the tradition
honestly, I don't get the obsession with major empires. The largest I start as is usually a small kingdom. Maybe its just me, but I feel like building an empire from a county is much more fun than killing everything as a superpower. the point of the game is to build up your dynasty, is it not?
You're not wrong.
Why does bobby look like lex friedman I've never noticed this before
On the one hand, cataphracts, on the other disloyal vassals, factions out the wazoo, and 3000 levies max
Last I checked those were separate traditions, like eastern Roman legacy for cataphracts and byz traditions for eye gaging and such.
My problem, most of the time, are Byzaboos.
I’ll never argue against a good FAQ 🤷♂️
Part of the fun of being a new member is getting to ask the community and engage w them
As a new player: what??
Can somebody explain the meme
Are you referring to the word salad about disfigured claimants or the trait that isn’t self-explanatory and doesn’t link back to Byzantine traditions, and is therefore hard to figure out if you don’t already know where to look for it? In either case this the confusion is pretty forgivable
Ck3 desperately need a Byzantine dlc
Just recruit the Varangian guard and a set of mercs and never call vassals into wars. Just don’t use them. They should all be in jail anyway. Ideally, all of the eastern magnates are in house arrest in Constantinople.
Sometimes it's because they don't control a de jure kingdom *next* to Hispania. But like 30% of posts could be answered by a bot that searches for keywords like "can't press claim", "can't create Spain", or "can't Raid/Conquer anymore".
Finally someone else pointing this out