Godwin(son).
Also Hohenstaufen, Lusignan, and probably some Plantagenets down the line.
Also Hohenstaufen, Lusignan, and probably some Plantagenets down the line.
Which dynasty do you want to play?
- Thread starter RedRooster81
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I think it'll depend on who and what is around. I think I'd like to try playing as Edward the Confessor's son, and try to claim back the throne from Harold Godwinson, or Harald Hardrada, or William the bastard of Normandy depending on how things fall in the Conquest scenario.
It might even be entertaining to come in as a Scot/Welsh/Irish claimant to try and sweep all of them into the sea.
It might even be entertaining to come in as a Scot/Welsh/Irish claimant to try and sweep all of them into the sea.
Hadrada gonna be my first game. But i have a soft spot for the de Penthievre's, ever since I randomly chose them for a game. I once had a de Penthievre randomly chosen as a native King of France in EU3, after coming out of a PU with Savoy. That made me sooo happy, especially as he was a great king, and his line was really successful, and expanded France a lot.
The House of Barcelona, of course.
Also, I like the Hautevilles and Montferrato a lot. I will make the Siculo-Normans kings of Italy and conquer the Byzantine Empire with the Montferrats.
By the way, the name "Jiménez" could not be more wrong for the ruling houses of Castille, Navarra and León. Please, don't use it. Don't. It makes no sense. "de Navarra" would be a lot better than "Jiménez". The fact that today it's usually called "Dinastía Jimena" doesn't mean that those people were called "X Jiménez". Even "de Jimeno" would be better than "Jiménez".
Also, I like the Hautevilles and Montferrato a lot. I will make the Siculo-Normans kings of Italy and conquer the Byzantine Empire with the Montferrats.
By the way, the name "Jiménez" could not be more wrong for the ruling houses of Castille, Navarra and León. Please, don't use it. Don't. It makes no sense. "de Navarra" would be a lot better than "Jiménez". The fact that today it's usually called "Dinastía Jimena" doesn't mean that those people were called "X Jiménez". Even "de Jimeno" would be better than "Jiménez".
I would add Byzantine Komnenos family to the list. Playing as the young Alexios I Komnenos is always interesting especially before you become the Emperor of Byzantine Empire. In practice, it would mean fighting against the Seljuks.
de la Marche, de Nevers or a Norman dynasty. Though I usually start as a Swede and do something in the Baltic, too many to chose from.
I like playing big families in general, more than starting with one or two men of the same name and building from there (like the Habsburgs). The Hautevilles are expanding and have a lot of room to spread out, but the Jiménez fight too much among themselves to the point of losing the whole peninsula, except when I play Castilla.
I have thought about what to call the Jiménez family. It is one of those families with no easy label.
Usually I'll try to expand into the Sundgau and Breisgau first. I once had a Habsburg game were I tried (and succeeded) to establish the house of Habsburg in Austria, Styria, Carinthia, Carniola and Tirol, once that goal is achieved the next goal was to become king of Bohemia. Later goals were Hungary and Croatia
.However, as a later limitation after creating the first duchy ('the princely county' of Tirol, but the counts of Tirol were later vassalized) the rulling houses had to be related to eachother, before a territory could be conquered. Another rule was to keep various vassal dynasties, however those were kept weak.
Last edited:
Bagratuni, Komnenus, De Hauteville...
Never the Rurikovich though, they need to be exterminated.
Never the Rurikovich though, they need to be exterminated.
Bite your tongue! The Rurikids are great fun as long as you don't go too ez-mode and start with one of the big Princes (Kiev, Nov, Pery) so the initial incompetents have time to wreck your realm some...
I've always liked playing the Angevins(or plantagenets?). Whatever they're called. It is probably one of the more thrilling CK experiences for me to play them when they already own half of France, and conquer the rest while taking over the holy land.
It's just that there are 23904382409 Rurikids, any time I try playing as any of them I just feel like I'm just another Rurikovich in a sea of Rurikovich rulers. If I play in Russia I would rather play as a different russian dynasty, or even a non-russian invading dynasty, and wrest control of russia from the Rurikids.
If I'm playing an empire near russia but not having plans of it for myself I always like to try to help a non-Rurikid ruler become king of russia. Once when I was allied with the Danes I helped him become the king of Denmark and Russia by taking on the Rurikid princes one by one, I was mighty proud of my scheming. >:3
I did something similar once with the Byzantine Empire, on one of the older builds of CK-DV, where all of the independent Orthodox leaders would join the empire en masse. Kind of fun ruling from the Aegean to the Arctic with hardly any effort on my part.
I always liked the Hohenstaufen, von Zahingrian (spelled correctly, of course), Angelos, any remaining Phocas, Nakonids, the one non-terrible Doukas, Trencavel, and the Orsinis (vassals of the Pope).
The Orsinis, Trencavel, and Angelos were especially my most-played dynasties.
The Orsinis, Trencavel, and Angelos were especially my most-played dynasties.
+1 on the Orsini. Hopefully the Papal States will be fleshed out, as a whole feudal realm.
Ynglings without question... Might run a test on one of the lesser norwegian nobles first though.