I would like to see the faction survive until out of heirs.

You're right ! It has been stated many times over. I hope the dev team did hear us

I expect this will be addressed in one of the upcoming expansions.  The dynasty screen indicates the order in which your children should take over the kingdom, so I think it is just a matter of time before this is implemented.

Agreed. However there should be a penalty for losing your sovereign. Some of your cities should go to people you have marriage alliances with. Or if if you don't have marriage alliances they should go neutral and have to be reconquered. I think this would be an awesome civil war mechanic.

As it stands now dynasties are completely pointless, and cities just disappearing when the sovereign dies is annoying and ridiculous.

When the Sovereign dies, there has to be a line of succession which ofcourse could results in a civil war.

The cities become neutral and stop trading with each other until there is a new faction leader or now we have 2+ factions with independant city states. That's how you add content and story in one swoop.

I think the probability of civil war could be determined by distance from the so-called capital city (first city placed on map) or perhaps the location of the heirs, etc. Probably all a pipe dream, but for gods sakes, at least let a heir inherent the kingdom if the Sovereign dies (which could be another kingdm if that heir is married to a male from another kingdom). Now that would be a good chance for civil war.

Besides lines of succession for a fallen Sovereign (if it worked that is) is there really any point of marrying off a child?

Agree 100% with the OP.  The current dynasty system is simply a way to get more champions.

There's no point in knowing who is in line to the throne if the heirs don't take over when the Sov dies.  And I don't get why the 1st in line's son becomes 2nd in line, instead of the second born child?

Offsprings info cards are simply copied from the parent of the same gender.  They even show the parent's name.  If Rillis has a daughter, the daughters bio will be about Rillis.  I'd rather show the daughter's actual name, since it's her card, and a 1 line bio that says  "Blah is the daughter of Blah and Rillis, and is first in line to the throne of Blah."  Maybe make it editable so we can do it ourselves, whatever, but at least get rid of the parent's bio from their offspring's cards. 

Marrying them off should increase relations with the factions of their spouses.  I think it does now, I'm not sure, but if it doesn't it should.  And if war breaks out with those factions, then the spouses, maybe even with the heir they're married to and their offspring, could have a chance (different for each individual unit) of defecting to that faction.

If an heir does take over, then maybe some cities could rebel, requiring you to garrison troops there to restore order; or maybe cities near a rival faction's border could flip; if you have any children married to other factions, then said faction could gain some kind of influence in the event of you Sov's death, maybe some cities would flip to them or maybe the faction would even try to claim the empty throne for itself, thus causing war. 

Yea, I had this silly game yesterday. Playing on hard, large map and 8 opponents. Kraxxis was my strongest neighbour and was at war with Pariden, who was alot weaker looking at the kingdom reports. Then out of the blue, the whole of Kraxxis was gone suddenly, because of some silly suicide run of the sovereign. That was kind of a let down.

I'm totally behind the "Heir to the Throne" idea. If your Sov dies the next in line should assume the throne.

To maintain balance however children shouldn't be as plentiful. In a 2 hour game you could have 6+ kids, if that was 2-3 kids it would balance it out.

Until 1.1+ though I'ma just play AoW : SM. Offering it for £6.32 on Impulse is rediculous (read:- awesome). Only downside is I realise AoW is more appealing than Elemental at this point in time

Agree

Thanks James, I didn't know that.

For what it's worth today, they might as well have never had one. I'm well aware of Englands history and former Territories but a lot of Americans/Canadians aren't. That's not a dig at you guys, it's just a fact. 

Today America is independent and the "Constitutional Monarchy" doesn't exactly mean anything. Technically she's Head of State, realistically she'd probably still need a visa to visit. (Joke but you catch my drift)