Prestige penalty for unlanded sons

[Bellicosity]

Anyone else think they are so low as to be a non-factor? I never even bother with landing sons to get rid of it.

Personally I think it should be much higher and perhaps even include other detriments. Maybe a piety hit, relations with vassals hit, relations with any blood relative hit, etc

Thoughts?

 

[HabemusZlatan]

A more severe prestige hit? Yes, why not.
All the other things? nah.

 

[FabiusBile]

Anyone else think they are so low as to be a non-factor? I never even bother with landing sons to get rid of it.

Personally I think it should be much higher and perhaps even include other detriments. Maybe a piety hit, relations with vassals hit, relations with any blood relative hit, etc

Thoughts?

Yeah, well it of course depends how much prestige you make per month. If you're an empire and already get like 25 Prestige/Month just by sitting around, of course you're going to ignore it. But at the beginning or for smaller realms (i.e. not starting King sized etc.) the maximum of -3 can be crippling.

But maybe it could scale with realm size. That woould make sense, at least to me .

 

[Baron Jukaga]

I always feel guilty about 'unlanded sons'. If I don't intend them to inherit I build them a castle somewhere most seem content to remain as a baron. My heir usually gets a Duchy to rule to build up some prestige. I usually have a duchy that I recycle in this manner. (when playing as a king)

 

[grancheater]

Yeah, well it of course depends how much prestige you make per month. If you're an empire and already get like 25 Prestige/Month just by sitting around, of course you're going to ignore it. But at the beginning or for smaller realms (i.e. not starting King sized etc.) the maximum of -3 can be crippling.

But maybe it could scale with realm size. That woould make sense, at least to me .

Checking defines.lua, it actually scales according to your rank, so the penalty for counts/dukes/kings/emperors is different. It scales from -0.1 per month for a count to a whooping -1/month for an emperor.

 

[FabiusBile]

Checking defines.lua, it actually scales according to your rank, so the penalty for counts/dukes/kings/emperors is different. It scales from -0.1 per month for a count to a whooping -1/month for an emperor.

Ah, okay, I didn't know that. I always assumed -1.00 per unlanded son, even at king Level, but I remembered incorrectly. Still, -1.0 Prestige is not that much for an Empire.

 

[whosthebestcop]

If the penalty was more severe then the benefit of landing your sons would have to increase equally.

Currently I would say there is absolutely no benefit to landing your sons. Pretenders always get negative opinion. In most succession laws children get negative vassal opinion. Not to mention the claims for pretenders that lead to succession wars and now faction wars.

You can't just have a high penalty on something without having an actual real benefit in the game.

For example catholic holy war can earn you an entire duchy but the negative is all Sunni might join to defend. Penalty and benefit.

 

[Comradebot]

I'll land my sons simply so they can stop begging for land and so they can start popping out more grandkids. You never know when you're eldest son will only have daughters in agnatic succession or he might turn into one of them there "queermosexuals" and not give you any kids.

And just because they're unlanded doesn't mean people can start factions to support them. The only way around that as a Christian is to murder or imprison them, and I'd rather deal with a single crappy war then risk getting labeled a kinslayer or take a hefty tyranny hit. Though as Miaphysite, it's totally plausible to vassalize the Coptic Pope, auto-excommunicate any potential problem kids, and throw them in the dungeon for free... Still, if you're not landing sons, you're family isn't growing, and they aren't getting any new land to hold. So I ask: where's the fun in not making your dynasty as prevalent as humanly possible?

 

[whosthebestcop]

I'll land my sons simply so they can stop begging for land and so they can start popping out more grandkids. You never know when you're eldest son will only have daughters in agnatic succession or he might turn into one of them there "queermosexuals" and not give you any kids.

And just because they're unlanded doesn't mean people can start factions to support them. The only way around that as a Christian is to murder or imprison them, and I'd rather deal with a single crappy war then risk getting labeled a kinslayer or take a hefty tyranny hit. Though as Miaphysite, it's totally plausible to vassalize the Coptic Pope, auto-excommunicate any potential problem kids, and throw them in the dungeon for free... Still, if you're not landing sons, you're family isn't growing, and they aren't getting any new land to hold. So I ask: where's the fun in not making your dynasty as prevalent as humanly possible?

Getting your dynasty their own realms. Just not landing them in your own realm.

 

[KPJ]

If the penalty was more severe then the benefit of landing your sons would have to increase equally.

Currently I would say there is absolutely no benefit to landing your sons. Pretenders always get negative opinion. In most succession laws children get negative vassal opinion. Not to mention the claims for pretenders that lead to succession wars and now faction wars.

You can't just have a high penalty on something without having an actual real benefit in the game.

For example catholic holy war can earn you an entire duchy but the negative is all Sunni might join to defend. Penalty and benefit.

The balance, currently, is whether you can sustain that penalty to prestige or whether you want to act against it (giving a son land). Increasing the penalty makes this a real decision, thus creating balance. The argument of this thread is that the prestige penalty is not hard enough to consider it a balancing act, but instead something that can be ignored. On the plus side, you remove this penalty (which must be larger to make this a real decision). On the minus side, your sons are out of your control (so you might end up with such a minor problem as one less title, or the very major problem of a succession war).

 

[Yxklyx]

Realistically, the "penalty" should be that if you don't land your son, a foreign king will and then press his claim. This is something I do all the time but the AI doesn't do it as often it seems. In order to invite him over, I think his opinion of you needs to be low - so perhaps just tweaking the opinion modifiers more so that unlanded sons really hate you and are easily invited to rival courts.

 

[Comradebot]

Getting your dynasty their own realms. Just not landing them in your own realm.

And it'll be easier to get them their own realms if they're out reproducing and creating kids with claims that can be pushed for said other realms. If you live in constant terror because you have a single landed brother with a claim on your kingdom, then you're doing something horribly wrong.

 

[Effixel]

I just marry of my sons to some distant duchess. They're happy with that, they don't bother me, and the "no landed son" icon disappear.

 

[whosthebestcop]

And it'll be easier to get them their own realms if they're out reproducing and creating kids with claims that can be pushed for said other realms. If you live in constant terror because you have a single landed brother with a claim on your kingdom, then you're doing something horribly wrong.

Perhaps I play it too much as a SimCity game. I want to control everything my dynasty does in my own realm. I don't really want them producing kids in my realm filling up my court. I don't want them as vassals if I'm playing elective it is a negative vassal modifier for dynasty members while non dynasty vassals gives you +20.

Its all about vassal opinion and in most cases in most of the games possibilities children and dynasty members as vassals causes more negative vassal opinion then it is worth.

Much easier to matrilineally marry your daughter to someone who has a claim. That person comes to your court. Then you push his claim. His children will be of your dynasty and will inherit the kingdom.

My sons I either raise to be my heirs or council members or generals. Unless I have many many sons I don't need to marry them for claims.

But is just personal preference however I still believe in most succession laws landing children and dynasty members doesn't make sense and provides zero game benefit. Except gavelkind which you get a dynasty bonus. Seniority is all negative for children -30 and -20, Elective is negative, and Primogeniture is -20 for all your possible heirs -5 to all dynasty. Oldest child gets a plus. That is the reason landing children who are either heirs or pretenders doesn't really make sense.

I would also think that for new players landing dynasty members causes the most problems. They generally think they to land dynasty members since it is a game about dynasties. But then all of a sudden they get all of these vassal negative modifiers and there are rebellions and factions.

 

[Bellicosity]

The balance, currently, is whether you can sustain that penalty to prestige or whether you want to act against it (giving a son land). Increasing the penalty makes this a real decision, thus creating balance. The argument of this thread is that the prestige penalty is not hard enough to consider it a balancing act, but instead something that can be ignored. On the plus side, you remove this penalty (which must be larger to make this a real decision). On the minus side, your sons are out of your control (so you might end up with such a minor problem as one less title, or the very major problem of a succession war).

Exactly. Either take the penalty out or make it substantial. I personally feel like it should increase exponentially the more unlanded sons you have and the further from gavelkind your inheritance goes (gavelkind -> primo -> seniority -> elective)

 

[Comradebot]

Perhaps I play it too much as a SimCity game. I want to control everything my dynasty does in my own realm. I don't really want them producing kids in my realm filling up my court. I don't want them as vassals if I'm playing elective it is a negative vassal modifier for dynasty members while non dynasty vassals gives you +20.

Its all about vassal opinion and in most cases in most of the games possibilities children and dynasty members as vassals causes more negative vassal opinion then it is worth.

Much easier to matrilineally marry your daughter to someone who has a claim. That person comes to your court. Then you push his claim. His children will be of your dynasty and will inherit the kingdom.

My sons I either raise to be my heirs or council members or generals. Unless I have many many sons I don't need to marry them for claims.

But is just personal preference however I still believe in most succession laws landing children and dynasty members doesn't make sense and provides zero game benefit. Except gavelkind which you get a dynasty bonus. Seniority is all negative for children -30 and -20, Elective is negative, and Primogeniture is -20 for all your possible heirs -5 to all dynasty. Oldest child gets a plus. That is the reason landing children who are either heirs or pretenders doesn't really make sense.

I would also think that for new players landing dynasty members causes the most problems. They generally think they to land dynasty members since it is a game about dynasties. But then all of a sudden they get all of these vassal negative modifiers and there are rebellions and factions.

Which is what I try to do, but isn't always that easy. Often times they'll still bitch at me that my daughter isn't "important enough"... but that can be overcome by simply finding a claimant that'll accept an invitation to your court. Got a Greek Miahphysite sitting in my court right now mat-married to daughter that has a weak claim on Armenia... and wouldn't you know it, the Despot of Armenia just flew off a cliff. Starting to feel a crunch for time, though... still need to claim both Rome and Constantinople to finish the Pentarchy, and I'd like to get Armenia back to its Miaphysite roots. And its 1323. Eh, Rome I can have within a decade easy, Armenia I can try to free right now, and Constantinople... well, I could cheese it and go straight for it, but I've been a bit RPish with my moves towards the Pentarchy.

And gotta do all of that with the Ilkhanate still breathing down my neck. Gonna be a busy century.

 

[unmerged(512626)]

Perhaps I play it too much as a SimCity game. I want to control everything my dynasty does in my own realm. I don't really want them producing kids in my realm filling up my court. I don't want them as vassals if I'm playing elective it is a negative vassal modifier for dynasty members while non dynasty vassals gives you +20.

{stuff said}

I would also think that for new players landing dynasty members causes the most problems. They generally think they to land dynasty members since it is a game about dynasties. But then all of a sudden they get all of these vassal negative modifiers and there are rebellions and factions.

I will be anxious to compare a game where I don't land many dynasty with one that I do. I've done the later -- almost done with a game I have sunk 200 hours into. I think 120 of those hours were spent dealing with headaches caused by kin or trying to control their lives -- and in-fighting/civil wars. I think I'm at the point where I want to betrothe them and say, "Good Luck," here's some money, get the hell out of my castle and go prove yourself. Don't call me, I'll call you.

I can't say it hasn't paid off in terms of Dynasty and score but I'm guessing marriage to heirs would have been more efficient.

P.S. I'm at the point now I"m praying for consumption to wipe out half my court.

 

[whosthebestcop]

You will have a lot less headaches if you don't land your dynasty in your realm.

Set them up with their own realms and it actually becomes fun helping them keep the realm for centuries. Any you only gave to intervene when you feel like it.

As opposed to having that nonsense in your realm where it just causes problems.

 

[TheStrangerOrg]

imo most prestige bonusses and penalties should be scaled. Either with realm size, dynasty prestige or a combination of factors because many bonusses or penalties, while indeed in the beginning are a nice boon or deterrent, later on in the game are so low to not matter. For example early on i always take the prestige when i marry, but later on 50 prestige is so little, that i always take the money, because usually thats like around 200+ sometimes even around 1000.
(Imo it should actually be other way around, the smaller you are, the more aid u should get and less prestige if you pay it yourself, and the larger you are, the less money you should get and the more prestige if you pay for that big feast yourself )

Also such an event as I have proven myself in battle, imo thats quite something in a medieval setting and 5 prestige doesnt really cut it... There are many more examples, landed sons being one of them.

 

[Bellicosity]

imo most prestige bonusses and penalties should be scaled. Either with realm size, dynasty prestige or a combination of factors because many bonusses or penalties, while indeed in the beginning are a nice boon or deterrent, later on in the game are so low to not matter. For example early on i always take the prestige when i marry, but later on 50 prestige is so little, that i always take the money, because usually thats like around 200+ sometimes even around 1000.
(Imo it should actually be other way around, the smaller you are, the more aid u should get and less prestige if you pay it yourself, and the larger you are, the less money you should get and the more prestige if you pay for that big feast yourself )

Also such an event as I have proven myself in battle, imo thats quite something in a medieval setting and 5 prestige doesnt really cut it... There are many more examples, landed sons being one of them.

This is true. A king or emperor proving himself on the battlefield should net more prestige than a lowly count.

I wonder how the gameplay might change if piety and prestige penalties were bumped up a notch. Imagine losing prestige as a king with two unlanded sons.