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

[Miaow]

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.

"Plantagenêt" is actually tracing descent from Geoffrey Plantagenêt of Anjou; if the dynastic name was taken from Henry II it would be the Curtmantle dynasty. Though, what names historians assign to dynasties is essentially random, prior to the 14th century when families were consistently refered to as House of Primary Title; the Capetians descend from the Robertians without any break of any kind, yet somehow they're a separate dynasty, while Philippe-Auguste changed his title (from King of the Franks to King of France) and his descendants are still Capetians, and as mentioned the House of Anjou is still the House of Anjou despite transmission through a sister who never ruled.

In short, while there are some rules in latter dynastic naming, in the early and high middle ages where the dynasty names are made up after the fact, they follow no set pattern and quite frankly make no sense whatsoever. It's just whatever name later descendants took for themselves or historians assigned to them.

 

[Ruwaard]

@ Miaow: you're right that Plantagenêt is derived from a nickname of count Geoffrey V of Anjou, Henry II Curtmantle's father. Still I was referring to the fact that Henry II claimed the throne by his maternal heritage and thus the English line didn't end, OTOH later kings referred to him (Curtmantle) in a similar way, so it could just as well be a new beginning. In other words a agree with your point on dynastic naming.
Regarding the inheritance of Anjou, inheritance through the female line (in the absence of direct male heirs), but not by women, was not uncommon.

 

[MrLebanon]

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.

You may get your answer perhaps more easily the mod forums? I imagine users around there would be more well versed in what is and is not possible in the Clausewitz engine

 

[kemmy23]

You may get your answer perhaps more easily the mod forums? I imagine users around there would be more well versed in what is and is not possible in the Clausewitz engine

Indeed, that might be the case. However it just seems that this topic is quickly descending into a history lesson rather than a community critique of an gaming idea. As fascinating as a history lesson is.

 

[MrLebanon]

Indeed, that might be the case. However it just seems that this topic is quickly descending into a history lesson rather than a community critique of an gaming idea. As fascinating as a history lesson is.

The historical faction springs a rebellion again! Welcome to CK2 forums

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

Indeed, that might be the case. However it just seems that this topic is quickly descending into a history lesson rather than a community critique of an gaming idea. As fascinating as a history lesson is.

The problem is, in order to critique a gaming idea we need to be able to match the proposal against what happened in history. Hence the discussion of what happened, and whether a given incident qualifies as representative or not.

 

[kemmy23]

The problem is, in order to critique a gaming idea we need to be able to match the proposal against what happened in history. Hence the discussion of what happened, and whether a given incident qualifies as representative or not.

History is not the sole determination on whether something should be implemented, there are other things as well. This is a sandbox-simulation game after all, any additions should exist to improve play. History is important to this game, but should only be used to properly contextualise the game as well as a few other things...

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

History is not the sole determination on whether something should be implemented, there are other things as well. This is a sandbox-simulation game after all, any additions should exist to improve play. History is important to this game, but should only be used to properly contextualise the game as well as a few other things...

True, but when we're looking at something like dynasties, it helps if it can be based on what happened historically, and then made to fit into and improve the game. I do still have reservations about the potential game overs involved with splitting dynasties, and how to handle the relations between them, but if a method of doing it sensibly does come up, I'm certainly willing to take a look and provide a critique.

 

[kingofrus]

That's what I was thinking, for both Cadet branches and new dynasties. I would invisage having particular relation modifiers for both characters of the Cadet branches and the 'Parent' dynasty.

Same dynasty modifiers are pretty tiny as is though this modifier would mean next to nothing.

I think maybe claims in main house titles popping up randomly (small %age per year maybe) would make the system much more interesting.
"My liege some documents have been found proving (founder of dynasty) was the true (king/duke/count) of (whatever titles are/were held by founding dynasty)!"
"I knew it" (accept claim, pay "historian")
"My ancestors chose justly"(deny claim)
Etc.

 

[Wilkey]

You can already do this with save game hacking, I know it sounds really complicated but ones you get the hang of it it's pretty easy to change just about anything about any person or dynasty in your game.

I always link to this video when I see people ask about it, it was where I learned to do it.
[video=youtube;03M-FQ4cLcE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03M-FQ4cLcE&list=PLH-huzMEgGWDGEdK0yTDDSL2ni3ZCmlf6&index=3[/video]

 

[Orko80]

You can already do this with save game hacking, I know it sounds really complicated but ones you get the hang of it it's pretty easy to change just about anything about any person or dynasty in your game.

I always link to this video when I see people ask about it, it was where I learned to do it.

Have fun keeping track of several hundred dynasties and merging/spliting them every month manualy in the file...

 

[Iki_balam]

May I interject here? History needs to be 'preserved', after all this is a historical game. However, this is also a game and it needs to be fun, but challenging. How do we settle on these two concepts and parameters? Well, lets look at what are best historical dynamics.

what if cadet branches fought as a whole over titles? as a family?
what if major dynasties fell apart or splintered into cadet branches like when empires/kingdoms fall apart in civil war?
set another cadet branch as a rival (kind of like rivals in EUIV), new mechanic, event chains. Only heads of major dynasties can have other dynasties as rivals
ability to switch to another character, after some sort of event chain sets off and branches off as cadet? maybe even pick some original dynasty members to join cadet house. this would be something that nets you lots of prestige, and short terms claims

just some thoughts. Other than that, keep up the good work and ideas guys

 

[kemmy23]

I believe strongly that the creation of cadet dynasties should be a concious act by the player (or AI), making it an automatic action seems to overcomplicate matters somewhat.

 

[unmerged(766678)]

At the very least, when you land a family member, it should create a new branch of the family where that character simply just takes a new coat of arms. As an example:

Say you are king Bob and you have 3 sons, Mo Larry and Curly of house Stooge. Mo will inherit the kingdom so nothing changes for him. Let's say that you decide to grant Larry a duchy. His coat of arms will change (randomized, but customizable). When you look in your family history, Mo Larry and Curly's portrait will all be extending from Bob's, but under Larry's picture is his new coat of arms, and his kids will not appear in the family tree (as if he were a bastard or matrilineally married). When you go to his new house it will say House Stooge (of [duchy name here]) rather than simply "House Stooge". This will only happen if a family member is actually landed by a ruling monarch, not under any form of succession (so if you are in gavelkind and the realm splits between brothers, this won't happen). So it wouldn't be "cadet branches" per se, but simply more clearly defined branches of the same family (or maybe they would be considered cadet branches).


Edit:.... actually reading this back it sounds terribly confusing, lol but whatever.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

At the very least, when you land a family member, it should create a new branch of the family where that character simply just takes a new coat of arms. As an example:

Say you are king Bob and you have 3 sons, Mo Larry and Curly of house Stooge. Mo will inherit the kingdom so nothing changes for him. Let's say that you decide to grant Larry a duchy. His coat of arms will change (randomized, but customizable). When you look in your family history, Mo Larry and Curly's portrait will all be extending from Bob's, but under Larry's picture is his new coat of arms, and his kids will not appear in the family tree (as if he were a bastard or matrilineally married). When you go to his new house it will say House Stooge (of [duchy name here]) rather than simply "House Stooge". This will only happen if a family member is actually landed by a ruling monarch, not under any form of succession (so if you are in gavelkind and the realm splits between brothers, this won't happen). So it wouldn't be "cadet branches" per se, but simply more clearly defined branches of the same family (or maybe they would be considered cadet branches).


Edit:.... actually reading this back it sounds terribly confusing, lol but whatever.

So, essentially if you give your son even a barony, they cease to be part of your family?
Seems a very easy way to get a game over, especially as the game encourages you to land your sons. For example, King Bob grants his second and third sons Larry and Curly some land. To keep his main son as part of the original house, he doesn't give Mo anything. Disaster strikes however, as Mo dies childless, leaving Larry (no longer of house Stooge) as the heir to everything Bob owns. Shortly thereafter Bob dies, and House Stooge sees the game over screen.
Remember, as things stand a COA is tied to a dynasty code, and you're either in the dynasty or out.

 

[kemmy23]

Again, I do not believe that you should a Cadet family through an uncontrolled mechanic. It should be a concious act, like editing your family name or Coat of Arms.

 

[Sir Tornado]

In order to have cadet dynasties, there should be a need to have cadet dynasties. Right now, there is no such need.

If you are King of France (lets say Capet dynasty), and another member of your Dynasty becomes the new King of Denmark, then is in your interests to remain part of the same dynasty. The Dynasty becomes more prestigious, which increases prestige of your descendants, and it also offers you free alliance with each other.

To counteract this, there needs to be a drawback, which is not here at present. Something should compel King of Denmark to change his dynasty. I propose the following:

1) Give more control to Head of Dynasty
Right now, Head of Dynasty is just a figurehead, this needs to change. It should be possible for HoD (in the above case, King of France) to meddle in affairs of King of Denmark in a way beneficial to France, which would compel King of Denmark to break off and form a cadet dynasty. This creates the "need" for cadet dynasties. I propose following measures:

2) HoD approval for dynasty member marriages.
Revamp marriage system a bit -- make it compulsory for every ruler to get approval from head of dynasty before conducting marriages of dynasty members in his/her court (but not himself).

3) Tributes.
Landed dynasty members have to give a small tribute to head of Dynasty in terms of percentage of their income.

4) Mini-excommunication.
Allow HoD power to "excommunicate" dynasty members. I don't mean excommunicate in a Catholic church kind of way, this "excommunication" (I use this for lack of a better word) would just affect opinions of other dynasty members towards the excommunicated member

5) Dispute settlement.
Intra-family feuds are bad. Give HoD powers to settle disputes among non-excommunicated dynasty members.

So, now Head of dynasty has some powers over their dynasty members. This would do 2 things. One, it would make the position of HoD a bit meaningful. Two, it would now give King of Denmark an incentive to break off from the Dynasty.

Forming New Dynasties

So, now King of Denmark has decided he does not want to be part of the Capet dynasty any longer. He will break off. For this you need to keep a minimum Gold and Piety requirement. Once you fulfill that, you should get an option to form a new dynasty -- Capet-Holstein dynasty. All the lineal successors of King of Denmark will become part of this new dynasty. Now, the King of Denmark is the master of his own dynasty and free from the influence of the King of France. He won't have to pay any tribute, etc.

There should be some drawbacks. For example, the alliance between dynasties will not be present any more. Nor will you be voted by the parent dynasty under Tannistry or Elective succession laws. There could be some relationship boost between dynasty members. However, for player succession purposes, parent dynasty and it's cadet dynasty should be treated as one. It should not be game-over if your new dynasty is your cadet dynasty. Or, if you have formed your own cadet dynasty, it shouldn't be game over if your successor belongs to your parent dynasty.

 

[kemmy23]

In order to have cadet dynasties, there should be a need to have cadet dynasties. Right now, there is no such need.

If you are King of France (lets say Capet dynasty), and another member of your Dynasty becomes the new King of Denmark, then is in your interests to remain part of the same dynasty. The Dynasty becomes more prestigious, which increases prestige of your descendants, and it also offers you free alliance with each other.

To counteract this, there needs to be a drawback, which is not here at present. Something should compel King of Denmark to change his dynasty. I propose the following:

1) Give more control to Head of Dynasty
Right now, Head of Dynasty is just a figurehead, this needs to change. It should be possible for HoD (in the above case, King of France) to meddle in affairs of King of Denmark in a way beneficial to France, which would compel King of Denmark to break off and form a cadet dynasty. This creates the "need" for cadet dynasties. I propose following measures:

2) HoD approval for dynasty member marriages.
Revamp marriage system a bit -- make it compulsory for every ruler to get approval from head of dynasty before conducting marriages of dynasty members in his/her court (but not himself).

3) Tributes.
Landed dynasty members have to give a small tribute to head of Dynasty in terms of percentage of their income.

4) Mini-excommunication.
Allow HoD power to "excommunicate" dynasty members. I don't mean excommunicate in a Catholic church kind of way, this "excommunication" (I use this for lack of a better word) would just affect opinions of other dynasty members towards the excommunicated member

5) Dispute settlement.
Intra-family feuds are bad. Give HoD powers to settle disputes among non-excommunicated dynasty members.

So, now Head of dynasty has some powers over their dynasty members. This would do 2 things. One, it would make the position of HoD a bit meaningful. Two, it would now give King of Denmark an incentive to break off from the Dynasty.

Forming New Dynasties

So, now King of Denmark has decided he does not want to be part of the Capet dynasty any longer. He will break off. For this you need to keep a minimum Gold and Piety requirement. Once you fulfill that, you should get an option to form a new dynasty -- Capet-Holstein dynasty. All the lineal successors of King of Denmark will become part of this new dynasty. Now, the King of Denmark is the master of his own dynasty and free from the influence of the King of France. He won't have to pay any tribute, etc.

There should be some drawbacks. For example, the alliance between dynasties will not be present any more. Nor will you be voted by the parent dynasty under Tannistry or Elective succession laws. There could be some relationship boost between dynasty members. However, for player succession purposes, parent dynasty and it's cadet dynasty should be treated as one. It should not be game-over if your new dynasty is your cadet dynasty. Or, if you have formed your own cadet dynasty, it shouldn't be game over if your successor belongs to your parent dynasty.

We don't need to create a whole new set of systems/mechanics to require Cadet branches. The question of whether Cadet branches should exist in CK2 is answered like this:

Does the existence of Cadet branches have a historical grounding? I would say Yes.
Does Cadet branches add an interesting dynamic to gameplay? I would say Yes.
Does Cadet branches add some RP value to the game? Yes.

The compulsion to create Cadet branches would already be there, for it would limit claims of more powerful dynasty members on your titles as well as enabling you to have some prestige 'trickle' from the parent dynasty.

 

[Sir Tornado]

We don't need to create a whole new set of systems/mechanics to require Cadet branches. The question of whether Cadet branches should exist in CK2 is answered like this:

Does the existence of Cadet branches have a historical grounding? I would say Yes.
Does Cadet branches add an interesting dynamic to gameplay? I would say Yes.
Does Cadet branches add some RP value to the game? Yes.

The compulsion to create Cadet branches would already be there, for it would limit claims of more powerful dynasty members on your titles as well as enabling you to have some prestige 'trickle' from the parent dynasty.

- Powerful dynasty members do not get claims on your titles. Only your close family members do, and you can easily manage that without needing to split off the dynasty.
- 'Prestige trickle' is meaningless. Currently, if your dynasty rules over 4 different kingdoms, it gets dynasty prestige for 4 royal titles when the rulers die. Unless you are proposing 'Prestige trickle' from 3 cadet dynasties with 1 king each to the parent dynasty be higher than actually having 4 kings in your dynasty, it doesn't seem like a plus point, it seems like a huge negative point.

As things stand, there is a lot of upside and no downside to having multiple power centers within a single dynasty. As long as that does not change, there is no way cadet dynasties could work.

As far as RP reasons are concerned, the game has an AI, and if you want the AI to use the features logically and realistically as well, you will need some solid logical basis rather than just role-play and historicity.

 

[WingedLion14]

To be honest, I don't think cadet branches should be about role-playing and historicity; granted, they were historical, and could be great for role-play, but at the moment you can either mod that in yourself or just pretend.

I think the best way to do it would be modeled after the French Capetian cadets and just the general idea of "A Game of Thrones" - that within a realm a powerful enough branch of the dynasty can declare itself a cadet branch, and they have a similar rivalry system as the republican feuds do. The roleplay is provided for you, and it affects the game's internal diplomacy too.