First one about heirs. About their skills.
Characters born after starting the campaign grow one time and become full part of the game. From this moment they are able to lead parties, be governors etc. BUT most of them either warriors with, OK, few advanced combat skills or just useless persons with no abilities. Of course, not all of them should become overlords of Calradia. But looking back and reminiscing the state of lords in the early beginning of the campaign... it makes you a little upset cause next generation is worse (?), at least less useful comparing to first one. We have some badass persons in each culture from the start, why not to create few same ones after?
Would be nice to rework this and add heirs some more skills from the moment they grow out of childhood.
Agree! They often have great potential, gets massive xp for what they do BUT AI lords are not doing that much stuff! Many lords could get 150 skill from the focus/atrributes they have from start but to get there takes time! And AI picks the best suited lord when creating a new party/assigning governors. Highest current score and does never check potential. I have seen 30 year old such charachter with huge potential but stuck on level 1 because AI never use them because they allways have better options.
My solution: Bring youths to map earlier(at age 16 but they cant lead parties and they cant govern holdings untill 1
. Set them as "Squires" in armies or beside governornors. The teatchers skill is used but half the unmodified XP is awarded the squire. This means the next gen will be better prepered!
Now about how game determines who to give fiefs to. Played for different kingdoms, different versions of the game, in each faction there are couple of clans who eager to grab each fief the kingdom conquered. Even ruling clan is not so greedy. There is some logic I noticed like, of course, quantity of fiefs, location of new fief (if it’s close to candidate’s area), relationships with the ruler and voting lords. BUT it’s broken too often, usually there are same persons at the elections and no logic in how they were proposed. As a result, 3-4 clans (with the ruling one) possess most of lands while there are could be clans even without a single city under control. Unable to make smth with this as a vassal, not ruler.
Yes. And the worst part is generation the candidates! Now you are there if you have no fiefs or nearby fiefs
1. there should be more than 3. Increase to a maximum of five!!
2. First candidate is allways the king/ruler!
3. Second - forth candidate candidates are the 3 with least holdings and most poverty.
4. Fifth is allways the one conquering
Then let nomenated clans decide to accept nomination by paying some influence(King does it for free, conquerer pay some extra). The accepting is listed. Things clans consider when accepting/declining:
1. Do I have enough suitable governors to handle my fiefs(including this)?
2. Is it close to my other fiefs?
3. Can I afford to spend influence on my own vote?
4. ...
Then the voting! today vassals tend to vote exactly the same. I want divercity!!
1. Make relation matter more!
2. Make traits matter more!
3. Make distance to the clans other holdings matter more!
4. Strategy. Consider both internal and external espects.
5. ...
This would likely mean more fiefs to the ruler. But then he can hand them out to whoever he finds fit(Depending of his traits, relations and strategic needs of the realm - mainly external)!