I just lost my first game

[Arizal]

It was easy to lost a game in CK1. You just had to be invaded by the Zirids while you were in Scotland...

But today, I just lost because my dynasty extincted.... Well, not exactly, and this is what puzzle me. There were many people from my bloodline in the world, one was a duke, I had a one years old queen-grand-daughter and I had a possility, through a matrilinear mariage, to inherit the HRE. Yet, the game didn't want me to play the "cadet branche" of my dynasty, it just said I lost.

I don't really know what to think about that. I guess it is okay, but I was under the impression that as long as one living person in my family has lands, I shouldn't be game over.

Still, I had made the mistake of marrying my eldest daughter to the HRE instead of going matrilineary...

 

[unmerged(592515)]

From what I've seen, if your heir is listed in red text your game will be over if your current ruler dies. So you aren't trying to preserve the overall dynasty, you are instead trying to preserve your line of the dynasty through whatever succession mechanism you are ruling under.

 

[unmerged(196653)]

From what I've seen, if your heir is listed in red text your game will be over if your current ruler dies. So you aren't trying to preserve the overall dynasty, you are instead trying to preserve your line of the dynasty through whatever succession mechanism you are ruling under.

This. The only way family alive matters is when you have seniority or only agnatic primogeniture. If you had switched from Cognatic-Agnatic to agnatic, then you would be fine.

 

[OrdepNM]

Its always a good idea to hold off on marrying your eldest daughter until you have a male heir ready to take over when your king dies. Ive had a few scares myself, but nothing too bad, while Ive seen the Salian line stupidly die off because the emperor married all his daughters away, the AI possibly assuming a male heir would come up somewhere down the line, and then it never came, 5 daughters and no sons.

 

[Arizal]

Ho, I knew what I did at the time. I married my eldest daughter to the emperor and hoped my son would get an heir. He did, but this heir wasn't so good at making children, so it ended like that. I take the risk and I lost. Funny thing is that because of my actions during the reign in which I doomed myself (before the one I actually lost) my king was nicknamed "the bold" (he reigned 60 years, enough to see my heir marrying his son to a member of my dynasty). Finally it isn't war that had me, nor the total incoherence of my "empire" (Britanny, Sweden, South-West of France, parts of Spain and parts of England), but marrying off my daughter.

Thing is I only would have to wait a few year before someone of my dynasty would have come back on my throne, since I married my grand-son with an old branch of my dynasty. But it didn't work.

I wasn't complaining at all. It's just a little sad that it hs to end in 1314... Now, I can start a game with the newest patch (and not-fearing a horde of Aztecs that will never come).

 

[maccyb]

It is equally annoying when you have a dynasty member who isn't your child as the next person in line for the throne in a seniority or elective succession. Rather than getting to play as your first born you get to play as your fourth cousin. yay!

 

[unmerged(462833)]

This. The only way family alive matters is when you have seniority or only agnatic primogeniture. If you had switched from Cognatic-Agnatic to agnatic, then you would be fine.

Someone wrote that too - if You have electice You can switch to any of Your family member. I remember a game when I was starting as count of Hainaut and I was expanding in Lithuania and Finland. And I changed my ruler to Finnish member of my dynasty only to create Kingdom of Finland. Later, after his death I swiched to my old line as there were more interesting members there (and they were Dutch as most of my vassals). It seems that Frederic just missed to take care of his game and didn't do enough to continue game as his dynasty. This is a little harder now, cause in CK I You could easily choose bastard as heir (and there were really many of them). I remember when I was playing in Portucal and the only children were male bastards - in CK II I have to arrange their marriages matrilinneary so their heirs rather aren't from my dynasty...

 

[Captain Frakas]

Just load your last autosave with the duke of your family if you wish.

 

[Ravenous.BE]

Ho, I knew what I did at the time. I married my eldest daughter to the emperor and hoped my son would get an heir. He did, but this heir wasn't so good at making children, so it ended like that. I take the risk and I lost. Funny thing is that because of my actions during the reign in which I doomed myself (before the one I actually lost) my king was nicknamed "the bold" (he reigned 60 years, enough to see my heir marrying his son to a member of my dynasty). Finally it isn't war that had me, nor the total incoherence of my "empire" (Britanny, Sweden, South-West of France, parts of Spain and parts of England), but marrying off my daughter.

Thing is I only would have to wait a few year before someone of my dynasty would have come back on my throne, since I married my grand-son with an old branch of my dynasty. But it didn't work.

I wasn't complaining at all. It's just a little sad that it hs to end in 1314... Now, I can start a game with the newest patch (and not-fearing a horde of Aztecs that will never come).

Your avatar is surprisingly fitting.