[Idea]Sub-Dynasties, playable unlanded courtiers, earlier scenario

[ExecutiveDax]

Sorry if this was already mentioned/considered/implemented in some way I haven't yet seen, but I was looking back at history and I've noticed that a lot of times, people from one dynasty would "branch out" and create their own dynasty which essentially became a "Cadet branch" of the main dynasty (Such as Fairhair, Gille, and Sverre; they were each sub-houses of Yngling, though the Kings of these particular sub-houses still took the name Yngling).

Say if one branch of Habsburg united with the House of Lorraine. That particular branch may decide to adopt the name "Habsburg-Lorraine" so as to keep up relations and recognition with the House of Lorraine. However another branch may continue to call themselves "Habsburg". They're still the same family, but one branch operates a little different because of diplomatic relations.

My initial idea had limited it to bastards and children born of concubines but after some thought this seemed a little unrealistic, as non-bastards/concubines did that as well. I do think, however, that for somebody to break away from their own birth dynasty completely, they should have to be a bastard/concubine child, or "disinherited"

In a multiplayer game with one of my friends, we had planned to play a liege/vassal game. I wanted to play as Halfdan Hvitserk, but he has no landed vassals, so I had to pick somebody else. I think, then, that unlanded courtiers should be playable - Maybe not the lowborn ones but at least the ones that have a house. In this situation, my friend would have played as Ubbe, Halfdan's brother.

I've also been thinking that setting the timeline back a little farther might offer some interesting games. Possibly setting it back to the year 9CE (Battle of Teutoburg Forest scenario), with all relevant countries/nobles.

 

[kdonovan]

Matrilineal marriages could result in cadet branches.

 

[Azarias59]

Matrilineal marriages could result in cadet branches.

Matrilineal marriages are almost completely ahistorical.

I agree with then additions of cadet dynasties, BUT we don't need an earlier start dates this is because the concept of feudalism was not introduced so early.

 

[Brodacious]

9 AD seems way too far back for this game.

 

[DerOstkonig]

before any earlier start dates we need full playability between 867 and 1066 imo.














and the danube needs to be fixed.

 

[ExecutiveDax]

I can see fixing playability between 867 and 1066 before any earlier start dates are considered.

 

[Baalshazar]

This has been asked so many times.

 

[keneticpest]

9CE? 867 was already pushing it, but 9CE? The game would need an entire rework for 9CE.

 

[ggggtotalwarrio]

9 CE!!!??? In a FEUDALISM simulator?

This forum.....

 

[ExecutiveDax]

It's not a feudalism simulator. It's a dynasty simulator. The Roman Empire, the Germanic tribes, Nordic kingdoms, and Celtic tribes all had their own dynasties. 9CE would therefore fit just fine with this game.

 

[ExecutiveDax]

9CE? 867 was already pushing it, but 9CE? The game would need an entire rework for 9CE.

Why would it need an entire rework? Just add some different countries/titular titles/dynasties. There would be virtually no changes required. Marriage for alliance, etc..

 

[Brodacious]

Were there counts and dukes during Roman times? Was there a pope? How are you going to handle Jesus and the
start of Christianity? What are you going to do for barbarians? How are you going to simulate the fall of the Roman Empire and it changing from the fancy legions into the later barbarianly auxiliaries? Will the Roman Empire just randomly split into East and West? Just general stuff like that would have to be done which would almost warrant a new game. By the way, i love this game but who would play from 9 AD to 1453? That seems beyond bearable.

Sorry to be such a downer

 

[Luhood]

Were there counts and dukes during Roman times? Was there a pope? How are you going to handle Jesus and the
start of Christianity? What are you going to do for barbarians? How are you going to simulate the fall of the Roman Empire and it changing from the fancy legions into the later barbarianly auxiliaries? Will the Roman Empire just randomly split into East and West? Just general stuff like that would have to be done which would almost warrant a new game. By the way, i love this game but who would play from 9 AD to 1453? That seems beyond bearable.

Sorry to be such a downer

And that isn't even the biggest problem. Ever heard about this Al-Andalus place? Which in English means "of the Vandals"? Talking of a place which didn't even HAVE Vandals 'till 400 or 500 CE, we're talking some heavy shit. This was before England turned Anglo-Saxon. This was before the Franks took France. Heck, this was before Rome invaded the British Isles. This was before Islam. This was before both Vassal-states and Feudalism, both of which are as much a thing from Franko-Germanic supremacy as it is of Christendom. Both thing which weren't even things in 9 CE.

And even more important for your view of the game, as a Dynastic simulator rather than a Feudal simulator... what Dynasties do you know of from this era? 9 CE is before history itself, more or less. We know of events and certain key individuals basically, and that's it. There is most certainly no one who could tell you who the Count of Uppland were at 9 CE, or anywhere in the world really. And even those we know of we barely know anything about. Not even if they were actually real.

So, sorry, but the game do have to be rebuilt if we push the game back to 9 CE. Hell even 865 (or whatever the current date is) is pushing it what with the Hungarian invasion of Hungary, the last of the great migrations.

 

[ExecutiveDax]

Were there counts and dukes during Roman times? Was there a pope? How are you going to handle Jesus and the
start of Christianity? What are you going to do for barbarians? How are you going to simulate the fall of the Roman Empire and it changing from the fancy legions into the later barbarianly auxiliaries? Will the Roman Empire just randomly split into East and West? Just general stuff like that would have to be done which would almost warrant a new game. By the way, i love this game but who would play from 9 AD to 1453? That seems beyond bearable.

Sorry to be such a downer

The title of Duke is derived from the Latin title Dux, which was a military and political leader who more often than not held lands in Roman territory. Count comes from the latin word...comes (Koh-meez) which meant companion. Until the times of the post-Roman Frankish Kingdoms, it was more of an honorary title. There was a Pope. Peter I reigned from 30 CE to some time between 64 and 67 CE. While at the time Christianity wasn't common or accepted, it still had small plots of land in Rome (Vatican Hill).

As for the start of Christianity, a random courtier in the Judea-area with a "son of Yahweh" trait or something of the sort would essentially create a Jewish heresy which would essentially break off into its own religion (historically, this happened sometime around 300 CE when Constantine the Great moved the Capital to Thrace. Before this time Christianity was very minor, hence why I suggest keeping it a Jewish heresy). Some of the prerequisites for the official "creation" of Christianity in Europe could be "Roman Emperor is Christian", "Capital of Rome is in either Alexandria, Jerusalem, Constantinople, or Antioch.

You bring up a good point that it would be a little long to go a full 1450 years in this game, but it's still an interesting concept for a future paradox game. Sort how they made Europa Universalis: Rome, they can do a Crusader Kings: Rome...with a different name, of course.

Still, what about my other suggestions?

 

[ExecutiveDax]

And even more important for your view of the game, as a Dynastic simulator rather than a Feudal simulator... what Dynasties do you know of from this era?

Back then, even in medieval europe, the "dynasty name" was more or less the tribe name or the name of the place the founder(s) came from. The chieftan of the Suebi would (if we were using modern German instead of proto-Germanic; that's not exactly a well known language anymore) von Schwaben. Much like von Hohenzollern and von Hohenstaufen both took their name from the land they came from.

 

[ringhloth]

I have to mirror a lot of other people's complaints with the earlier start date. 867 already is super imba, and any further back just makes this more and more prominent.

As for the cadet branches, tons of lag and clutter for almost no gameplay difference. There's no difference between dynasties aside from dynastic prestige and alliances; dynastic prestige doesn't really count for too much; alliances can be a dime a dozen, with the way the AI feels about marrying it's courtiers off.

As for unlanded courtiers, they can't be done. The game just doesn't work that way, engine wise. Republics are a big stretch, and even then your palace has the magical ability to teleport around.

 

[Brodacious]

Still, what about my other suggestions?

I'm not sure i'd count Peter as a real pope but whatever. The way i'm looking at it is that you would probably have a huge possibility of Christianity never really starting or getting much of a hold. I don't see one courtier starting a religion either. He'd be converted or expelled . You told me where the words for ranks came from, i'm still not sure of what structure the game would take since they didn't have feudalism as this game shows/features. I may just be dumb but i don't see how this could work with this game's system.

For your other suggestions,

Cadet Branches- I have no clue how they would get it to work. You'd wind up with weird names i'd think. In my opinion, you can already make Cadet branches if you wanted to. Just use the Customizer DLC on a bastard and make it's CoA somewhat like yours and whatever name you want. Seems like alot of trouble to make it happen "dynamically" for something I'd personally not pay much attention too. I would think you wouldn't want your dynasty just splitting up all the time. Would you suggest they make it playable as well?

Unlanded Characters- No. I dont see why they would do it. It would only apply for situations like your MP game with your friend. I'd think it would make the game too easy since you are basically never gonna lose from losing titles then. I also have no clue what you would do until you acquired a title. I've seen others say make a republic mansion-like building for you to have but i don't see the overall point in making them playable.

 

[ExecutiveDax]

I'm not sure i'd count Peter as a real pope but whatever. The way i'm looking at it is that you would probably have a huge possibility of Christianity never really starting or getting much of a hold. I don't see one courtier starting a religion either. He'd be converted or expelled . You told me where the words for ranks came from, i'm still not sure of what structure the game would take since they didn't have feudalism as this game shows/features. I may just be dumb but i don't see how this could work with this game's system.

For your other suggestions,

Cadet Branches- I have no clue how they would get it to work. You'd wind up with weird names i'd think. In my opinion, you can already make Cadet branches if you wanted to. Just use the Customizer DLC on a bastard and make it's CoA somewhat like yours and whatever name you want. Seems like alot of trouble to make it happen "dynamically" for something I'd personally not pay much attention too. I would think you wouldn't want your dynasty just splitting up all the time. Would you suggest they make it playable as well?

Unlanded Characters- No. I dont see why they would do it. It would only apply for situations like your MP game with your friend. I'd think it would make the game too easy since you are basically never gonna lose from losing titles then. I also have no clue what you would do until you acquired a title. I've seen others say make a republic mansion-like building for you to have but i don't see the overall point in making them playable.

From what I've seen of the customizer DLC, if you change the dynasty for one person in the family, it changes for everyone, and only the highest ranked lord in the realm can make the change. Of course there would have to be monetary/prestige/piety requirements for the sake of limitation, as well as certain personal requirements.

 

[Wooz]

IMO it would be grate to set up your own cadet branches. An example: you're the king of Italy and your dynasty is Bonifazi. The succession is primo and you can make your younger son a cadet branche with a title and upon succession he don't get a claim on the throne at all. Another mechanic would be great that when a kinsman (no close family) becomes landed, he creates a cadet branch of its own. Otherwise you will have thousends and thousends of kinsmen and that's very annoying.

 

[Thure]

9CE? Fuck... An I tought the dark ages suggestions are stupid... But this... Really... How many historical characters do you know for all regions of the game at this time? Or even legendary? Outsite of Rome. Really... 867 is early enough. There was no feudalism like in the game at this time. The game can't handle migration. It would be a completly new game with own mechanics.