I wish dynasties would die out of their own accord more, families just tend to balloon
Dynastic Death
- Thread starter Mehmed2
- 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.
Well, if you marry all children properly (daughters going with matrilineal, not marrying people with huge negative modifiers to fertility), families shouldn't die out.
But historically they did. If we ever get cadet branches then this may end up happening. Of course, it should be possible to continue playing if your heir is of a cadet branch.
Historically, they died out due to lack of heirs. Matrilineal marriages are definitely not common, and many kings did die without heirs, or their heirs were killed either through intrigue or war or just plain old bad luck.
Yup. But since the game ends if you do not have a dynastic heir, Paradoxs has set up the odds so that large noble families breed like rabbits and few people die in wars. So we either reduce the size of dynasties by reducing nirth rates and increasing mortality, or we add-in cadet branches.
Another thing is the lack of royalty and nobility going into the church, often third and lower sons would be go into the priesthood to become part of the higher clergy.
I sometimes do that in my games. Such as in my current game as Sweden, my younger brother is the current Prince-Archbishop of Livonia (He has the ugly trait, so their was no way I was going to vote him as my succesor anyway, nor allow him to propogate). I do sometimes see the AI do this as well.
You do see dysnasties die out in the game, though it's mainly unlanded families (Since lords rarely will breed their courtiers). I think adding cadet branches into the game would be interesting, as long as we could continue playing as our cadet branches if the main line died out.