How big can a dynasty be ?

Jos Theelen · Oct 30, 2003

One of the goals of the game is making your dynasty as powerful as possible. I assume you want to have for each member of your dynasty as many children as possible. An example: with a lot of children you get a lot of RM's.

Because the game runs over 4 centuries, you could say there are roughly 16 generations in the game. But if you double each generation (4 kids for each 2 parents), you get around 65000 members of your dynasty. That is too much for my poor brain
:wacko:

Murmurandus · Oct 30, 2003

You at least half that amount to reflect the fact that some will become priests and won't have any children...

And I don't think that each couple would have an average of 4 children... (a lot of kids died young those days...)

Jos Theelen · Oct 30, 2003

Originally posted by Murmurandus
You at least half that amount to reflect the fact that some will become priests and won't have any children...

And I don't think that each couple would have an average of 4 children... (a lot of kids died young those days...)

I wonder if priests and popes can have children in the game

.

But you are right, I exaggerated a bit. But is it correct to assume, that you have to control hundreds of people in your game, certainly in the case when you dynasty is booming?

Murmurandus · Oct 30, 2003

I suppose you can only 'control' the dynasty leader...

unmerged(5630) · Oct 30, 2003

My impression has also been that big does not always equal good in this game. It sounds like there will be pressure and incentives to invest your children with land and titles in the game, thus possibly causing the loss of more royal demesne (sp?). Also, the more children had means more chance of dynastic conflict over who gets the throne (heck, just look at the three sons of Henry II).

unmerged(8915) · Oct 30, 2003

from what i gather from the previews, CK will simulate the medieval world to an unprecedented level. and if you have 6 children, there's always a lot of bikcering IRL, now add the possibility of these kids raising armies and you'll see that in a feudal world, the line between a familty too large and too small if often precarious.

Jos Theelen · Oct 30, 2003

I have the idea, that it is good for your dynasty, when you have a lot of daughters. You can let them marry with some vassals, and in that way "binding" those vassals to your dynasty.

With boys it seems different. With a lot of sons, you can get trouble in the family. But you want a excellent son as future leader of the dynasty, so more sons means more chances on a bright future.

So I would still think that you need to have as many children as possible. But ofcourse, it is just guessing.

unmerged(5630) · Oct 30, 2003

Originally posted by Jos Theelen
I have the idea, that it is good for your dynasty, when you have a lot of daughters. You can let them marry with some vassals, and in that way "binding" those vassals to your dynasty.

Dowries. Normally in land. Also still the potential for dynastic conflict depending on Salic law vs other modes of inheritance.

With boys it seems different. With a lot of sons, you can get trouble in the family. But you want a excellent son as future leader of the dynasty, so more sons means more chances on a bright future.

So I would still think that you need to have as many children as possible. But ofcourse, it is just guessing.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily.

unmerged(6356) · Oct 31, 2003

Lets not forget, some family members will likely be shooting blanks.

I hope for one that too much intermarriage will be reflected in a high level of sterility/(lets call em not the greatest heirs to have)

Drakken · Oct 31, 2003

Usually, the youngest sons were kept the closest possible from the King's household. Since they cannot realisticly become spares to the throne unless their older brothers become extinguished they'd be much more eager to try to find a situation on their own by caressing adventures, revolts or simply candidacies to foreign crowns. In other words, youngest sons are big problems to Monarchs : neither heir nor spare.

Monarchs usually try their best to give them a satisfying situation as sons of monarchs, while not keeping them too far away to prevent "independent" desires. Also, they try to find good marriages occasion with foreign princesses, especially if they can bring a crown as dowry.

D.

Jos Theelen · Oct 31, 2003

It depends how it is implemented in the game. I assume as a leader of the dynasty, you decides who will be the next, when the old king/ruler dies. You also know from the information of the game, which son is probably the best to rule. In that case you could as player choose the youngest son, because he is the best.

In reality, the oldest son has the most rights and will be choosen most often, but I don't know how that is implemented in the game. Some loss of prestige, if you don't choose the oldest?

Murmurandus · Oct 31, 2003

Originally posted by Jos Theelen
...
In reality, the oldest son has the most rights and will be choosen most often, but I don't know how that is implemented in the game. Some loss of prestige, if you don't choose the oldest?

Or just a nice little civil war...

unmerged(8913) · Oct 31, 2003

Originally posted by Jos Theelen
You also know from the information of the game, which son is probably the best to rule.

I had thought that you as the player were not informed of all of the attributes of the characters ingame, since in reality a king would not have necessarily known how good of a ruler each of his sons would potentially be. That way you have to make a decision on succession based on less than the full information about your son's abilities.

Havard · Oct 31, 2003

Originally posted by Jos Theelen
You also know from the information of the game, which son is probably the best to rule. In that case you could as player choose the youngest son, because he is the best.

You could (probably), and that should piss of your legitimate heir, all his supporters, a lot of your vassals and most likely cause a civil war

In reality, the oldest son has the most rights and will be choosen most often, but I don't know how that is implemented in the game. Some loss of prestige, if you don't choose the oldest?

See above...

Jos Theelen · Oct 31, 2003

In the FAQ, they write that you know the skills of your descendants, maybe even the possibility that you can educate them.

But it would be a nice thing in the game, deciding to take the best son for the job and at the same time risking troubles with your vassals, because they want the eldest son (a stupid idiot in your eyes).

unmerged(8913) · Oct 31, 2003

Originally posted by Jos Theelen
In the FAQ, they write that you know the skills of your descendants, maybe even the possibility that you can educate them.

But it would be a nice thing in the game, deciding to take the best son for the job and at the same time risking troubles with your vassals, because they want the eldest son (a stupid idiot in your eyes).

Yeah, I know that's in the FAQ, but I thought somewhere else (one of the old developer's diaries, maybe?) Sergei had said that you'll know some of the traits but others are hidden from view. Wish I could search for it now, but we all know that's been disabled....

unmerged(19226) · Nov 1, 2003

re Priam

My impression has also been that big does not always equal good in this game. It sounds like there will be pressure and incentives to invest your children with land and titles in the game, thus possibly causing the loss of more royal demesne (sp?). Also, the more children had means more chance of dynastic conflict over who gets the throne (heck, just look at the three sons of Henry II).

History of humanity is full of dynastic conflicts caused by too many pretenders to throne. So I would rather prefer one son (if I knew that he won't be dead when his father will die) and many daughters

unmerged(11633) · Nov 1, 2003

I imagine the laws of inheritance will have a major effect on whether or not big families are good or bad.

For example, if the law is that all the royal land is split on the death of a king, everything you have worked to build up could be squandered as your precious demesne is split between squabbling siblings. Look at what happened to post the Charlemagne Frankish empire- split in three and an easy target for the vikings.

On the other hands, if the law gives it all to the senior son and everyone agrees(unlikely), where's the harm in having a big family?

unmerged(19226) · Nov 1, 2003

re Gjerg Kastrioti

On the other hands, if the law gives it all to the senior son and everyone agrees(unlikely), where's the harm in having a big family?

Do you really think that laws were able to prevent wars between sons of a ruler? History says, rather not

unmerged(11633) · Nov 1, 2003

Do you really think that laws were able to prevent wars between sons of a ruler? History says, rather not

Prevent? Certainly not. But make things easier, definitely.

It will be much easier for the proper son or whatever to regain control with the weight of law and tradition behind him, than when he must brutally murder his relatives in order to gain their lands.

In CK control of Demesne provinces will be very important. I'd rather not have to hand out my provinces to my ungrateful brats, but rather give them the lands of my ungrateful vassals.

How big can a dynasty be ?

C.U.T.

Crusader for Fun and Profit

C.U.T.

Crusader for Fun and Profit

Grandmaster

User #8915

C.U.T.

Grandmaster

Logothete of the Secreta

Kawachi-no-kokushu

C.U.T.

Crusader for Fun and Profit

Megas Domestikos

Dark Power

C.U.T.

Megas Domestikos

Major

Field Marshal

Major

Field Marshal