Dynasty Potential

[Jayavarman]

The institution of dynasties means that diplomacy would need to be revamped in conjunction with succession laws. Countless treaties and laws were created over succession. For example, EU III would need to model the many partition treaties made over the Spanish Succession.

 

[Herr Doctor]

As long as they are *historical* dynasties.

I don't want the CK-morass of nobodies.

I agree with you. CK system will kill the game.

 

[Verenti]

In EU3 if it had the Dynasty system how would it handle say... A republic or A constitutional Monarchy where the people in power change frequently and political marriages are non-existant. I mean would you get a who new retinue of followers as the Members of Parliment change and couldn't use your Monarch to do anything except to carry on the family line and be a figure head?

 

[Jayavarman]

In EU3 if it had the Dynasty system how would it handle say... A republic or A constitutional Monarchy where the people in power change frequently and political marriages are non-existant. I mean would you get a who new retinue of followers as the Members of Parliment change and couldn't use your Monarch to do anything except to carry on the family line and be a figure head?

If Paradox chooses to incorporate the dynasty system, they are going to have incorporate a bunch off other systems to allow all the other countries to be playable.
It would make for a quite varied and diverse gaming experience depending on what country you play, but creating such an engine to simulate all the different governments and states will be a mighty undertaking...

 

[5678]

I seem to be in the minority here, but having to micromanage my dynasty in CK killed the game for me. Definite no.

 

[BiB]

I seem to be in the minority here, but having to micromanage my dynasty in CK killed the game for me. Definite no.

If managing dynasties is not your thing, I wonder why you ever got to CK in the first place unless you didn't know beforehand that it wasn't your thing

 

[5678]

If managing dynasties is not your thing, I wonder why you ever got to CK in the first place unless you didn't know beforehand that it wasn't your thing

Bah. I suppose that's true. I liked the tech and provincial improvement system a lot, and the dynastic aspect didn't ruin the game, but it made it too complicated, I think. Not my thing.

 

[SecondReich]

Anyone who doesn't want the dynasties system eats babies. There, I said it. I didn't want to have to go there. o

 

[5678]

Anyone who doesn't want the dynasties system eats babies. There, I said it. I didn't want to have to go there. o

 

[unmerged(2456)]

It might be dynasties similar to Rot3K where you can set each member up beforhand, their birth atleast (or when they become available) and set a tenative deathdate where they would start to have a high, but not guaranteed deathrate.

 

[SecondReich]

It might be dynasties similar to Rot3K where you can set each member up beforhand, their birth atleast (or when they become available) and set a tenative deathdate where they would start to have a high, but not guaranteed deathrate.

Could you explain this somewhat more? That sounds extremely unrealistic...

 

[unmerged(2456)]

Could you explain this somewhat more? That sounds extremely unrealistic...

For that you can set up "nobles" that appear at a gven date. You can set who their parents are (their parents must be age 15 in the latest game). You can how old they should live (which is similar to a deathdate). After this they become weak quite often and their stats drop depending upon the severity of their weekness. Its possible they could linger for decades, but not likely. Before this, they only get weakened because of battles and only usually die because of executions.

The big glaw is you can have your parents die and the child still appears, however, you can have a child set outside marriage, though you cannot have poligamy marriages or even divorced/remarriages for widow(er)s. That and other things that can seem odd, such as having the child and never having met (because the courtiers are just spawned at the appropriate time.

But they also give the option to have a "trusted indivisual" someone you'd stake your life on. This does not need to be mutual either.

 

[thefish7]

I think a very simplified dynasty system could be really interesting in here... I'd like a viewable family tree (in an accessible tree type format)... and depending on the country maybe several families that progress through the game. I don't want to pick who marries who, but for the game to pick appropriate family members from each tree for a royal marriage type treaty. There could be some stats/perks/traits for each member of the family as well as culture/religion/and maybe political bent. I don't really want any part of picking who is raised how and managing the comings and goings of the court... maybe some title-management.

Also, as brought up I think it's significant that different countries have different situations. So instead of for a family tree an elective system may have some parties or whatever.

I feel like that was all terribly vague.

 

[Symmetry]

Personally, I thought that the dynasty system of CK could have been very good if there had been a better user interface. The UI seemed to be designed with the assumption that you would only have at most ten people at your court, while in a typical game I assumulate 40 or so - far more than the UI lets me manage easily. There were similar problems with the pop interface in Victoria, and the peace resolution UI in EUI & II, and the loan repayment system in Victoria, and the lending system in EUII, and so forth. Remeber, its not sufficient to have your user interface work well just simple situations if it becomes cumbersome for large numbers.

 

[unmerged(37948)]

I cant express enough how much I love the dynasty system in CK. It was the game I waited longest to play but it was worth it(patched etc).

CK is one of the FEW games that captures the essence of feudal systems at a strategic level at least. And imho it makes every sense to use at least parts of it for almost the entire scope of EU. Up until the American/French revolutions at least.

Sure. CK can be improved on many levels (thats what CK2 is for <g>). But the concept is wonderful. Pity that so many missed out on this gem. One of Pdox finest accomplishments (now at least).

bm

 

[Gogog]

Major potential

The major reasons for introduceing dynasties and 'personalities' would be to simulate intrigue, powerplays and factions.

Dynamic organized revolts based on factions and parties would be the best thing they could add in EU3, in my opinion and very possible if dynasties/factions/personalities have their own agenda .

It would be an excellent successor to the stability system. Instead of funding an abstract concept you would actually have to balance different factions within your nation. If it was possible to influence things from outside then we could have a form of political warfare.

It would make ruling during peace a lot more interesting which is one of paradox's goals. You would really have a system where you make genuine decicions on policy and there was many dynamic ways to succeed. Whether it be Habsburg style succesion or Russian style terror.

 

[unmerged(10426)]

I'd love for more character/dynasty-based features to be introduced.

 

[unmerged(37697)]

Yeah, me too

Monarchs would be cool.

All hardcoded historical characters of course, that have their own AI depending on what they wanted to acheive historically. Phillip II, Louis XIV, Elisabeth I, etc.

Have CK-style traits and personalities and whatnot, but the AI would be important

 

[Twoflower]

As suggested in another thread, what about allowing free arrangement of marriages, but having the male characters still only produce the children they produced historically? Thereby dynastic development in order to acquire inheritances, claims and allies would be included as a strategic element of the game with huge potential while keeping historical characters.

 

[Drakken]

As suggested in another thread, what about allowing free arrangement of marriages, but having the male characters still only produce the children they produced historically? Thereby dynastic development in order to acquire inheritances, claims and allies would be included as a strategic element of the game with huge potential while keeping historical characters.

Why bother doing a dynastic system, then? The point is that the children, marriages, and reigns would be different from history. Many monarchs did not have legitimate children, like both Charles II of England and Spain. Why marry then if I know in hindsight that my monarch will have no decendents? I'll just do an alliance, then.

Also, how to simulate Louis XV (great-grandson of Louis XIV) if his predecessor has legitimate children who are still alive? Want the successive deaths of all your French heirs and grandheirs that you groomed and cared for hardcoded?

And what if I DON'T want James VI to succeed Elizabeth, Queen of England?

To me, it is a binary choice: Either you do it in full or you do not and keep the current linearity. If it wasn't complicated to manage your dynasty in KOEI's Genghis Khan II, in Medieval: Total War or even in Knights of Honor, I can't see why it would be too complicated in EUIII. In all of these games dynasties were in AND simple for the player to manage. We all agree here that we don't want the kind of micromanagement like in Crusader Kings, but design can be made for a system deep enough that it is ripe in intrigue and surprises, while in the mean time simple enough to be easily managable.

Not including dynasties with a totally new engine would be a hell of a missed oppurtunity for Paradox to be ground-breaking, I think. The argument that it should only concentrate on the family of the monarch is IMHO the best one, and I applaud it. Forget courtiers and maidens-in-honor and deal only with the King, his immediate family, and the spouses. The only worries would be to find a good suitor to the children and keep them in line so that it does not become a modern "The Lion in Winter".

My own nitpicks? One, I want dowries. I want Tangiers as dowry if my Charles II marry Catherine of Bragance. Two, I want prenuptials and bethrotals. Last, I want marriage deals.

D.