Heirarchies within an Empire

[Yellowjacket]

Playing my 2nd game as scotland - things had been going well and I unified the island as Brittania. Thought it might help with micromanagement if I gave the kingdoms within my empire to my siblings. Mistake? Rebellions are really bad, they all think THEY should be running the show. Will it get better in a few generations when/if they lose the claims on the empire and the other kingdoms within it that they don't control?

Would it have been smarter to give these kingdoms to people in my dynasty who are further removed, instead of pretenders (haha just typing that out makes me think I know the answer) - I guess I thought they'd be happy enough with a kingdom, but as soon as that "gifted" bonus wears off, they just get angry.

 

[whosthebestcop]

Really bad like crossing the streams.

I would say a general rule for most of the time in the most situations would be to avoid giving duke/king titles out to anyone of your dynasty in your own realm. You will avoid a world of trouble and nonsense.

Give kingdoms to content vassals who have no other claims except on their de jure duchy.

And only gavelkind really gives a vassal opinion bonus for landing family members. Most succession laws you get a huge negative modifier for landing dynasty members and especially pretenders.

 

[Isaios]

It'll get better, certainly. And as long as you keep hold of England it should work out well-ish. You might want to take Duke or two away and keep them 'till they assimilate.

And yes, you got the answer already in regards to the pretenders .

 

[Yellowjacket]

OK, thanks guys. So why is it better to give to members outside of the dynasty? Just because the dynasty members usually have *some* claim on my stuff?

Yeah, I had a super nasty succession crisis, and the next generation of kinglets doesn't seem to like me much better

I think some revocation is in order.

 

[whosthebestcop]

Claims, inheritance, vassal opinion, not controlling sons marriage, not controlling grandsons. Those are the big reasons not to land your children and other dynasty members.

Gavelkind- +30 to every eligible heir, +10 other dynasty members, +5 to others vassal, -10 to oldest eligible heir
Seniority- +10 to all dynasty members, -30 to eligible child, -20 to all other children, -10 to non dynasty vassals
Primogeniture- +20 to oldest eligible heir, -5 to dynasty members, -20 to all other children
Feudal Elective- +20 to non dynasty vassals, -30 oldest eligible heir if not elected, -10 for other eligible children, -5 to all other dynasty

So you can see giving eligible heirs and pretenders land can potential have some huge negative opinion modifiers. Plius having claims on your characters titles is another huge negative opinion modifier. Add that with your other laws and it is extremely hard to get their opinion of you high enough to not join or start factions.

Edit:However getting them land outside of your realm another kingdom perhaps is extremely beneficial. 1 gives you more stuff to do in game, helping them control their realm problems. 2 it gives you a blood ally the entire time they are in control of that realm.

 

[Isaios]

Personally, my preference has always been to land my own people wherever possible. Sure it's risky, but risk is fun I also tend to stick with Gavelkind as much as possible, ridding myself of extra sons in monastaries across the land.

I just LIKE having lots of nobles around with my Dynastic name, makes me feel all inbred.

 

[OrdepNM]

In an old game as the caroligien count, I always gave count or above titles to my dinasty... And then I learned the hard way why thats a bad idea...

 

[AchedTeacher]

Why did you give away kingdoms to begin with?

 

[unmerged(26764)]

To be honest, there's not a big difference between landing your dynasty or not. Personally, I usually try to make every single landholder in my realm part of my dynasty. But that's just because I'm obsessive that way.

The benefits are slightly in favor of your dynasty. You will get:

1. A ton of dynasty prestige. Every member of your dynasty, including your characters, is born with a massive amount of prestige just for belonging to such an impressive dynasty. When half the characters on the map are your family, this can become a very big deal.

2. Family members have an easier time getting marriages, including you. Everybody wants to marry into prestigious dynasties.

3. You get a small +5 bonus with your dynasty.

4. You get automatic alliances. Which once you're a king, really doesn't matter.

5. If you use elective, you can groom a stable of perfect heirs in every duchy and always have a god-king.

The downsides?

1. If you get the kinslayer trait, that's a nasty -25 with everybody in your dynasty. If you're the sort to kill off undesirable heirs, this is something to think about.

2. If someone gets free and goes to war with you, he gets automatic alliances with all your other dynasty vassals. This used to be very nasty, but it really doesn't come up often now that we have the faction system.

That's really about it.

What people try to avoid is landing pretenders with claims on your titles. So a brother might be a problem for you, because he gets a nasty relationship penalty when you land him. Which is also why landing second and third sons can suddenly become a problem when your firstborn inherits. Cousins and beyond? It really doesn't matter much at all. And I don't even worry much about pretenders because the penalties are bad but they're easily managed so long as you know what you're doing.

The biggest benefit is if you want to use elective. Elective is a bad idea if you have vassals that aren't of your dynasty. But if every duke is of your dynasty, it's easily the most powerful law because no matter who wins he's your heir. And you can pick the best possible heir every time.

Bottom line -- it's really just a few small things. Do what feels fun. If you like making every single noble in Europe a member of your family, do that. If you like creating new noble houses and seeing them prosper, do that.

 

[Yellowjacket]

Why did you give away kingdoms to begin with?

because you only have to worry about the vassal opinion of the king, all the dukes and counts that are under him are his problem. It's to avoid having to micromanage all those little guys. Basically, once you are an emperor, kings are the new dukes. Thats my impression so far, anyways.

also, thanks valinn, I think I'll keep trying to promote members of my dynasty, just more DISTANT members.

I don't see the point really of promoting "content" people - that seems like it would only be useful for a single generation.

 

[Isaios]

To be honest, there's not a big difference between landing your dynasty or not. Personally, I usually try to make every single landholder in my realm part of my dynasty. But that's just because I'm obsessive that way.

This. Ever this (which is great fun after invasions...)

What people try to avoid is landing pretenders with claims on your titles. So a brother might be a problem for you, because he gets a nasty relationship penalty when you land him. Which is also why landing second and third sons can suddenly become a problem when your firstborn inherits. Cousins and beyond? It really doesn't matter much at all. And I don't even worry much about pretenders because the penalties are bad but they're easily managed so long as you know what you're doing.

The biggest benefit is if you want to use elective. Elective is a bad idea if you have vassals that aren't of your dynasty. But if every duke is of your dynasty, it's easily the most powerful law because no matter who wins he's your heir. And you can pick the best possible heir every time.

Bottom line -- it's really just a few small things. Do what feels fun. If you like making every single noble in Europe a member of your family, do that. If you like creating new noble houses and seeing them prosper, do that.

You can also have some interesting games by breeding your kin like crazy and having Seniority. Plenty of fun, but becomes ... somewhat exhausting after a while.

 

[OrdepNM]

To be honest, there's not a big difference between landing your dynasty or not. Personally, I usually try to make every single landholder in my realm part of my dynasty. But that's just because I'm obsessive that way.

I like try to go for this as well, same reason, but the problem I always run into is that I simply cant have enough family members to cover all my land. Last time I tried this, when I found myself obsessed over the dinasty tree, checking wether the 3rd son of some distant cousin of mine still didnt get pneumonia, because I really had a county with his name on it, I figured it probably wasnt worth it. Plus epidemics become so much more scary...

 

[whosthebestcop]

because you only have to worry about the vassal opinion of the king, all the dukes and counts that are under him are his problem. It's to avoid having to micromanage all those little guys. Basically, once you are an emperor, kings are the new dukes. Thats my impression so far, anyways.

also, thanks valinn, I think I'll keep trying to promote members of my dynasty, just more DISTANT members.

I don't see the point really of promoting "content" people - that seems like it would only be useful for a single generation.

Well if they are content and they educate their heirs or you educate their heirs then their heirs can also get content. But one generation can be in power for 3 decades or more. If you have say 3 de jure king vassals they will allow you to educate their heir so you can groom him to like you. Plus you get a mentor opinion bonus.

Also once you get 3 independent kingdoms for your dynasty you will get all of the benefits Valinn discusses but none of the problems of them being in your realm. Not only can dynasty cause you direct problems with direct claims. But they will intermarry and gain claims on each others land causing vassal on vassal war. Sometimes nonstop.

Plus Valinn is an experienced CK2 player. I wouldn't recommend any new Catholic players to ever land their any dynasty member in their first several games.

 

[name_here]

I generally like landing dynasty members, though I'd advise avoiding pretenders for the above-mentioned reasons. One reason I like giving land to Dynasty members is that it means it's harder to get totally knocked out of the game. Plus there's opinion bonuses and the dynasty prestige bonus. Granted, there is the occasional rebellious uncle or whatever, but I can just throw them in prison for the rest of their natural lives. Fixes the problem right up. It's generally best to have only a small number of important direct vassals, so you have fewer people to pamper with gifts and honorary titles.

 

[icedt729]

Giving out titles, especially kingdoms, to your siblings is one of most consistently bad decisions you can make in this game. If you're going to concentrate power in someone's hands, make it someone without a strong dynasty and without claims on your own titles. Relatives tend to be pretenders or at least have lots of claims.

 

[DavidMK]

I like landing dynasty members for the 'Same Dynasty' and the whole avoiding 'Game Over' thing. That said I wait 3 generations (if you're healthy, your starting guy should still be alive). Once I have the numbers, I land non-pretenders, look at their siblings/children, and land their non-pretenders. Rence and repeat until your dynasty rules all with nobody having pretender issues. Your vassals might start having issues after a few generations but you'll be safe and as long as you make sure to watch who female hairs marry, you're realm should be relatively stable.

Basically your dynasty needs to breed like rabbits and you need to think 2 generations ahead every time you land someone.

 

[Isaios]

I really wish I could buy brothers in the Ruler Designer. Brothers with no prior claims are ever so nice.

 

[aprogressivist]

Another option is to hand out baronies to your dynasty to let them breed and get a healthy stock. At that level they simply won't have the power to threaten you, usually.