Creating new dynasties (it might not be what you think)

[DreadLindwyrm]

Because matrilinial marriage as represented ingame never happened and is hugely game-y.
A cadet branch is more likely, going from history, and would solve all the same problems.

Dynasties are a fairly modern concept. Henry II didn't inherit due to being Geoffrey d'Anjou's son, but rather by being Henry FitzEmpress. The accepted dynasty name was a personal nickname shifted into being a dynasty name at the point two branches fought over the throne, and the usurping branch wanted to emphasise they were also the descendents of this family.

And... I'm sorry but if you can't acquire Sayyid trait due to removing matri-marriage that is already impossible in Islam, tough.
And of course with my given suggestion it wouldn't be more impossible than before, but nevermind that.
Tanistry and seniority wasn't in my thoughts, I have to admit. I never play them myself unless I am forced to for a single character, so it didn't really spring to mind.
Were either put into use outside of courts? Or "countries"? I'm not sure how to do them justice unless you naturally allow those two dynasty-based inheritances to pick and choose between all branches, but that does seem a little arbitrary.

A variation of seniority was used in Rus. Tanistry was used for Ireland and Scotland at various points, and possibly for some titles in Wales.

As for the nephew-inheritance, maybe I explained that poorly? I meant that you'd always be able to continue playing if you "inherit down" or "inherit sideways" in terms of cadet dynasties: If your heir is a cadet to your current dynasty, or is a cadet from the same main dynasty as your cadet line, you can continue playing. You can't "inherit up" (Since for the king, he would just as easily inherit the end of a ducal dynasty) to the main branch.
And of course if your heir is from an entirely different dynasty, game over as it is currently.

So, you can't inherit up to the main dynasty, but you could easily become the junior line if your younger brother gains a higher title than you? So when you die and the nearest heir for your titles is your younger brother or his son, you get the game over?

That would be ideal, yes, but IIRC the French Capets got extinct and none of the cadet branches "took over"? Was that since, in game terms, they remained as they were, or something else?

I know little about the French Capets.

 

[Miaow]

That would be ideal, yes, but IIRC the French Capets got extinct and none of the cadet branches "took over"? Was that since, in game terms, they remained as they were, or something else?

Both the Valois and the Bourbon are cadet branches of the Capetians (and Orléans a cadet branch of the Bourbons), so all kings down to the abolition of the French monarchy in 1848 were patrilineal descendants of Hugues Capet, as are the current Kings of Spain and Grand Dukes of Luxembourg and the former monarchs of various other European countries.

Of course, most European royalty also descend from Queen Victoria and quite a few other historical figures, which is the whole reason real-life houses split into cadet houses: otherwise, it just gets silly (as it does ingame).

 

[Esben_DRK]

Dynasties are a fairly modern concept. Henry II didn't inherit due to being Geoffrey d'Anjou's son, but rather by being Henry FitzEmpress. The accepted dynasty name was a personal nickname shifted into being a dynasty name at the point two branches fought over the throne, and the usurping branch wanted to emphasise they were also the descendents of this family.

Yes exactly. Henry I tried to get a new son after having married his daughter (And heir presumptive) off, and when he didn't get the desired son, Mathilda and her children (Specifically Henry II) could continue the line. That was not a matrilinial marriage.
In current CK2, your game would have ended there - but the English line didn't IRL.

A variation of seniority was used in Rus. Tanistry was used for Ireland and Scotland at various points, and possibly for some titles in Wales.

As said, I know very little about them and I don't have any clever ideas for how they should be represented if dynasties are changed.
Something does indicate that it was done away with later on, though, so maybe it should have a limited use? Food for thought.

So, you can't inherit up to the main dynasty, but you could easily become the junior line if your younger brother gains a higher title than you? So when you die and the nearest heir for your titles is your younger brother or his son, you get the game over?

Not younger brother, no. That would, as I said, still be same dynasty. If for example your younger brother "easily" becomes king instead of you (The treacherous bastard!) your line would become the capet dynasty when his grandson becomes King, assuming no further intermarriage.

 

[Miaow]

Yes exactly. Henry I tried to get a new son after having married his daughter (And heir presumptive) off, and when he didn't get the desired son, Mathilda and her children (Specifically Henry II) could continue the line. That was not a matrilinial marriage.
In current CK2, your game would have ended there - but the English line didn't IRL.
.

And because CKII is entirely focused on the concept of dynasty, it's quite acceptable to portray this as a matrilineal marriage—a concept that would have, in any case, been largely meaningless before the concepts of dynasties and family names emerged.

 

[kemmy23]

As far as I am aware the idea of dynasties did exist during the period in which CK2 is set. I don't quite understand why there are some who it wasn't.

But this getting off topic, should we not stick to critiquing this idea?

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

Yes exactly. Henry I tried to get a new son after having married his daughter (And heir presumptive) off, and when he didn't get the desired son, Mathilda and her children (Specifically Henry II) could continue the line. That was not a matrilinial marriage.
In current CK2, your game would have ended there - but the English line didn't IRL.
As said, I know very little about them and I don't have any clever ideas for how they should be represented if dynasties are changed.
Something does indicate that it was done away with later on, though, so maybe it should have a limited use? Food for thought.
Not younger brother, no. That would, as I said, still be same dynasty. If for example your younger brother "easily" becomes king instead of you (The treacherous bastard!) your line would become the capet dynasty when his grandson becomes King, assuming no further intermarriage.

Have I misunderstood this quote of yours from the front page?

Or if the brothers both have the same overlord? What happens if the emperor survives your coup and now you're stuck with two sons and two kingdoms on gavelkind? As long as they're both vassals of the same liege, their dynasty will not change. If one of them loses the kingdom title that unfortunate branch will become a cadet, and if one manages to get the emperortitle, the leftover will become a cadet.

If I read this right, as the elder brother, if the younger brother retains their king title and I lose mine, or the younger brother gets the emperor title, then I become a junior cadet branch, and would get a game over if I died without sons since your method gives me a game over for inheriting "up" to the senior branch?

 

[Esben_DRK]

Have I misunderstood this quote of yours from the front page?
If I read this right, as the elder brother, if the younger brother retains their king title and I lose mine, or the younger brother gets the emperor title, then I become a junior cadet branch, and would get a game over if I died without sons since your method gives me a game over for inheriting "up" to the senior branch?

The quote is a continuation from a line such as:

Essentially, we want a cadet branch each time you give a cousin or nephew a duchy, or a younger brothers dynasty is far enough removed.
The thing that happens if that if a dynast gets land, as a vassal of the same dynasty, but isn't of the rulers' close kin, he gets a cadet branch (...)

Although now that I read it again it was terribly worded since nephews and cousins IIRC are close kin.
I think if you read my explanation of the two brothers again, or my reply to your question here, in the light that cadet dynasties come from family members who are not close kin, my reasoning should make more sense.
Granted, the quote you highlight was pretty obtuse. I'm not sure I could have made it less clear even if I tried.

As far as I am aware the idea of dynasties did exist during the period in which CK2 is set. I don't quite understand why there are some who it wasn't.

Yes, both Houses and Dynasties, but much of the "rules'n'regulations" and more specific dynastic lines are sometimes critiqued for being retroactively created by later historians. I'm not a historian so I can't really judge, but it's something you fairly often see in social sciences, that stuff gets classified today in a way that in the timeframe would sound like utter nonsense.
So it's not as much the idea of dynasties that's being question, but which idea...
:huh:

 

[WingedLion14]

I always thought a way to balance the Cadet Houses and the you-need-dynasty members to keep playing mechanic would be that Cadet Houses act as "subsets" of the dynasty.

Basically, a branch of the dynasty which has held the same title for 2+ successions can, costing a lot of money, piety, and prestige, declare themselves a "Cadet House" of the dynasty. A cadet branch then acts like it's own dynasty, with a relations boost to the main branch, but a malus to its brother cadet branches (to make them rivals). When a cadet branch becomes larger than the main branch, however, that boost becomes a malus, which becomes a massive malus for any situation where the main branch is a vassal of the cadet branch. The main branch can call its cadets to war, but the cadets cannot call the main branch or each other to war.

If the main branch's titles is inherited by a member of the cadet branch, gameplay continues, but not vice versa - but the heads of the other cadet branches get strong claims on those titles so they may dispute the succession if they so choose. Additionally, if the main branch dies out, the cadet branches can try to declare themselves the main branch, and "cadet-ize" the rest.

The goal of this system would be to create a mechanic where the main and cadet branches are all engaged in a sort of "frenemy" relationship with each other.

 

[Azarias59]

I am in favor of this!

 

[Tuerai]

I would thoroughly enjoy things like that. Like fighting to unify the kingdom of wales and declaring myself Pendragon or something like that.

 

[kemmy23]

The goal of this system would be to create a mechanic where the main and cadet branches are all engaged in a sort of "frenemy" relationship with each other.

That would be the idea, and would add an interesting new dynamic to interactions between characters within the game.

 

[kemmy23]

If I read this right, as the elder brother, if the younger brother retains their king title and I lose mine, or the younger brother gets the emperor title, then I become a junior cadet branch, and would get a game over if I died without sons since your method gives me a game over for inheriting "up" to the senior branch?

I do not invisage it like that, I very much see the creation of cadet branch as concious action by the player rather than something that occurs on its own.

 

[Arakash]

Ive always thought this would be a nice addition, but i always imagined it as something that happened to very distant relatives with foreign cultures in realms far from your own.
For e.g. i played a few games where my entire kingdom and empire was ruled by my dynasty down to count level. When i looked at my family towards the end of the game, i found people ruling places far from mine (like southern italy), who were a different culture to me, and were only related to me by people from 200-300 years ago.
In that case i think it makes more sense for them to be a cadet branch rather than the main.

 

[Orko80]

I have a bit food for thought here.

First of do you think every dynasty should get access to cadet branch system? I'm thinking not. If not what requisitions would be there. Tie it to crown law? Or Inheritance Law? Or even restrict it to culture's ?

Maybe several point's. For example depending on the Law combinations you could get fewer relations distance for cadet branches. Maybe gavel kind and elective doesn’t allow for any. But High crown law would enable for all dynasty's for distant relatives to branch of 1.
And Seniority, primogenitor with high law's would allow for closer relatives with sub branches.


Also with every game feature you have to look at what would be the enhancement's and the drawback's.
Your proposal doesn't look like having much of a drawback. Besides some minor prestige bleed. Honestly mostly only see positives about this.

Maybe give every lower cadet branch dynasty leader a weak claim on the primary title of the death of the leader of their parent Dynasty. This would be a major drawback and reign you in not spawning every child as a cadet branch.
Combine this with Law prerequisite’s on how much branching is allowed and it sound's more interesting game mechanic.

I know these point's i raise are highly unhistorical and only to be seen as game mechanic concept and food for thought and inspiration to fleshing out the proposal.

 

[Shuriken]

Admittedly I didn't think my idea was on the same level as a time machine and solving world hunger.

You have gained the humble trait.

 

[MrLebanon]

I like the idea.. I think the simplest implementation is one such that the cadet branch & main branch are not "game over" triggerer's when succession happens - we don't want players signing a suicide contract by making a cadet branch. I think the announcement of the cadet branch would be made at the time of a wedding and the children would take on the new COA & branch, and it should be something triggered by high-prestige families.

I see this kind of decision to make a cadet branch a role play decision, as it is one that would likely cause more benefit than harm to the player. If we have it implimented we don't want it just a name, we want it to do something. That said, I can't see anything good coming out of it in game terms - just sounds like more opportunity for intrigue and deception! E.g.
- factions being formed amongst vassals in support of cadet vs parent and vice versa
- different cadet factions in large realms competing for greater prestige and standings
- cadet branches being caught between interests of two parents and forced to act one way or another causing event triggers with fellow cadet branch members rejecting/accepting the player's decision

TLR, cadets will be a great vacuum for player role play and inter-family drama and story creation. I can't see any "power players" who play to "win" and expand immensely finding any use for the feature at all.

But this getting off topic, should we not stick to critiquing this idea?

I agree - while the historic debate is interesting - it's really gotten to the point it needs its own thread. Let's stick to talking about what this idea means to the game, as we all know real life events and game mechanics end up aligning differently.

 

[kemmy23]

The question I really want the answer to is whether or not the implication of this idea would require an immense amount of coding to achieve.

 

[Hoodinski]

Love the idea of adoption and cadet branches.

 

[Kenthen]

Cadet Branches for 2014.
But no, really, it's probably one of the biggest things I want to see added to this game, aside from more depth/events/stuff added to things already in the game, like with the SoA DLC injecting more stuff into the religions.

 

[Ruwaard]

Adding cadet branches seems like a great, but it will require certain rules. Certain rules will be needed. Some look useful to me, especially rules concerning game over, allowing a cadet branch to inherit from the main branch, but not the other way around, and allow inheritances between cadet branches. Naturally that will depend on inheritance laws.

Another issue are matrilinear marriages and exploitative marriages, IMHO the marriage game is an important part of the game, and marrying up should still be possible. However that might need some rules, so that a lowly count or courtier will end up in a matrilinear marriage, when they marry a Royal or Imperial heiress. However a marriage between a Royal or Imperial heiress and a duke should in most cases be an ordinary marriage, likewise a count should be able to marry a duchess.
Matrilinear marriages can be the rule for bastards and landless characters, but in other cases it is more difficult and should be far less common, maybe a kind of more than two tier difference rule.

Henry II FitzEmpress traced his right on the throne from his maternal side, still his descendants traced their rights on the throne to him. In this case it may be fitting, instead of d'Anjou or de Normandie, the dynasty became known as Plantagenêt. Ironically that was the senior line of the first house of Anjou, however by that point it was a matrilinear continuation, the last female descendant of Ingelger had married a member of the house of Châteaudun. IIRC the junior Jerusalem Angevin line remained referred to as d'Anjou.

@Miaow: patrilinear the current Grand duke of Luxembourg would be a member of the house of Bourbon-Parma, but it continues the house of Nassau-Weilburg, just like how in the Netherlands the house of Orange-Nassau is continued, both would be in game examples of matrilinear marriages.