Gens to rule throughout the ages.

[cosmeIII]

How extensive will the families of this game be? The ptolemies had a family that extended throughout most of the game's timeframe. Various Roman gens also held positions of power during the entirety of the Roman republican era.

Blood may not be as important as it was in the middle ages' strict feudal system, but it is clear that it was an important factor in people's social, political and economical standing.

Personally, I am expecting that extensive families will be built in most nations, playing in politics and rising to prominence as their name becomes more and more important. Dealing with families should be an integral part of managing a successful empire.

It would help greatly with immersing players, as they have the feeling that the characters are not just arbitrary numbers randomly generated seconds ago by a machine, but instead have a background that built them and turned them into what they are. Built by circumstance and not random chance.

Anyone else agree?

 

[Gurkhal]

I agree very much.

I've previously in the old "Rome II Suggestions" thread suggested that states should go from being dominated by prominent families to gradually have those families challenged by non-dynastic characters rising through their own merits.

 

[Puking Panda]

I agree very much.

I've previously in the old "Rome II Suggestions" thread suggested that states should go from being dominated by prominent families to gradually have those families challenged by non-dynastic characters rising through their own merits.

Maybe have your state have a Dynastic Legitimacy value(if you'r a monarchy/empire), a bit similiar to EU 4, which increases the more your Country wins wars, has stable sucessions, has battlefield victories with Dynastic geneals and just a gradual increment and decreases when you lose wars, non-dynastic characters have battlefield victories, have a civil war, have dynastic feuds, lose to revolts, have bastards inherit, etc as well as events that can either increase or decrease.

The Dynastic Legitimacy gives bonusses or penalties, just like EU, and more importantly determines the nature of civil wars. If you have a civil war when you have a high Dynastic Legitimacy the civil war will be led by a relative(brother/uncle/cousin/nephew of the current ruler) who is friends with rebellious characters, if he wins you will get a new character as monarch but keep your dynasty.

If you have a low Dynastic Legitimacy or if there are simply no qualified dynastic alternatives the civil war will instead be led by non-dynastic characters led by the most powerful rebel character who will try to overthrow the current dynasty and place himself and his own new dynasty on the throne with very low Dynastic Legitimacy.

Taking the Roman Empire as example, it's founding dynasty should automatically have high Legitimacy, under terrible/hated rulers such as Caligula and Nero it should lower dramatically, rebel generals should then try to overthrow your dynasty, however each of these rebels will have a low legitimacy themselves even if they win so they and their heirs will quite likely face rebellions themselves unless they produce excellent rulers. If you have somewhat incompetent rulers being rebel leaders and then being deposed themselves by incompetent rulers you could end up with like a Crisis of the Third Century scenario.

 

[Will Steel]

I still wish they allowed us to play as a character/single dynasty like in CK2, but with all the nation management/economy features it has.

It adds a whole new meaning and far more replayability to the game. Nurturing a dynasty to rise from lowly, third-grade newcomers into the rulers of an empire, carefully creating a family network, running characters for governorships and offices, buying and selling estates, raising private armies...rather than simply watching the uncontrollable AI characters do their thing randomly until they die like in EU-Rome.

It makes all the famous dynasties more worthwhile.

 

[alvaro]

I still wish they allowed us to play as a character/single dynasty like in CK2, but with all the nation management/economy features it has.

It adds a whole new meaning and far more replayability to the game. Nurturing a dynasty to rise from lowly, third-grade newcomers into the rulers of an empire, carefully creating a family network, running characters for governorships and offices, buying and selling estates, raising private armies...rather than simply watching the uncontrollable AI characters do their thing randomly until they die like in EU-Rome.

It makes all the famous dynasties more worthwhile.

i was hoping i:r to have more of this

 

[Sir Garnet]

You are so right about family relations. During the Republic, the idea of dynastic rule was abhorrent - death to Kings and men who would be kings or or be seen with such ambitions. So it was with Caesar.

Families, however, and alliances and relations between families and the dense network of patron-client relations and public offices were the social network of the age.

Such a system was not uncommon, but what was unusual and impressed later ages was the degree of serious attention to civic duty and Roman republican virtues that enabled the cumbersome structure to function and evolve into a decentralized but responsive imperial administration. (China developed an impressive administrative empire, but very different in many ways

How many other countries will be playable and what level of modeling detail will they get to reflect their social, political and military systems? Generic categories, cosmetic variations, or in depth treatments?