Remove Cadet Dynasties

[Arrowfiend]

As they currently are, they serve nothing other than to make the game more annoying. I'm currently playing a Megacampaign and I constantly have to reload due to dynasty members that I have placed on other kingdoms switching to cadet branches. As it stands, Cadet branches function like a totally new dynasty, rather than a branch of the main dynasty that still has familial ties to the original dynasty. In turn, alliances are broken. It will also be annoying going into the EU4 portion, as it will be much harder to place those kingdoms under personal unions (which I intend to do).

 

[Rylock]

Why would we remove them?

The point is to prevent mega-dynasties (and thus mega-alliances) from sprawling all over the entire map. If you get someone who has a kingdom of their own, and is so far removed from the dynasty head that the connection to that branch is tenuous at best, why wouldn't they start a dynasty under their own name (provided they're ambitious enough)? They still have all the normal familial relations to their former dynasty members -- but if those relations were already remote, that really should be meaningless.

So, sorry, but it sounds like what you're describing is "works as designed".

 

[horngeek]

Pretty much- what you're complaining about seems to me to be pretty much the intention behind Cadet Dynasties (particuarly in the case of, say, the Karlings), so... if it's a deal-breaker, CKII+ might just not be the mod you're looking for.

 

[Arrowfiend]

Why would we remove them?

The point is to prevent mega-dynasties (and thus mega-alliances) from sprawling all over the entire map. If you get someone who has a kingdom of their own, and is so far removed from the dynasty head that the connection to that branch is tenuous at best, why wouldn't they start a dynasty under their own name (provided they're ambitious enough)? They still have all the normal familial relations to their former dynasty members -- but if those relations were already remote, that really should be meaningless.

So, sorry, but it sounds like what you're describing is "works as designed".

But I've continually had good relations. I only recently granted them kingdoms. It makes no sense. And we have no relations afterwards. All alliances are broken and the relation boost from same dynasty is gone. In fact, leaving the dynasty only hurts them since they (the kingdom of Jerusalem) are diplomatically isolated.

I also might add that the people forming the branches are distant relatives rather than younger brothers, which was how cadet branches historically formed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadet_branch

 

[Arrowfiend]

Pretty much- what you're complaining about seems to me to be pretty much the intention behind Cadet Dynasties (particuarly in the case of, say, the Karlings), so... if it's a deal-breaker, CKII+ might just not be the mod you're looking for.

I never said it was a deal-breaker. I simply stated my opinion and what needed to be done. No need to make a claim like that.

 

[Rylock]

But I've continually had good relations. I only recently granted them kingdoms. It makes no sense. And we have no relations afterwards. All alliances are broken and the relation boost from same dynasty is gone. In fact, leaving the dynasty only hurts them since they (the kingdom of Jerusalem) are diplomatically isolated.

I also might add that the people forming the branches are distant relatives rather than younger brothers, which was how cadet branches historically formed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadet_branch

I'm well aware of what a cadet is. Our system supports that as well, but it's not enough for the purpose of the system -- which is to make it so that dynasties don't sprawl endlessly. Not the AI's and not the player's. I think having rulers maintaining permanent alliances based on nothing more than the fact they share a last name is a bad idea.

The scenario you mention is, in my mind, more of an argument that granting your relative the kingdom (which I assume was done through a crusade or a claim war on their behalf) should make them a friend -- since friends can now be considered allies -- but I certainly wouldn't extend that to his children or yours as some kind of permanent alliance, regardless of what you think their reasoning should be. I'll wait to even consider changing that much, however, until I see what the next expansion offers, since there is a hint of it involving "pacts" of some kind, and hopefully it offers something more than the "all or nothing" type of alliance the game has currently.

 

[Arrowfiend]

I'm well aware of what a cadet is. Our system supports that as well, but it's not enough for the purpose of the system -- which is to make it so that dynasties don't sprawl endlessly. Not the AI's and not the player's. I think having rulers maintaining permanent alliances based on nothing more than the fact they share a last name is a bad idea.

The scenario you mention is, in my mind, more of an argument that granting your relative the kingdom (which I assume was done through a crusade or a claim war on their behalf) should make them a friend -- since friends can now be considered allies -- but I certainly wouldn't extend that to his children or yours as some kind of permanent alliance, regardless of what you think their reasoning should be. I'll wait to even consider changing that much, however, until I see what the next expansion offers, since there is a hint of it involving "pacts" of some kind, and hopefully it offers something more than the "all or nothing" type of alliance the game has currently.

Fair enough. I will admit, my initial reaction was a bit too much. However, I do think Cadet dynasties should be improved in some way so that they act more than just another dynasty when it comes to interdynastic relations. Hopefully, like you said, the next expansion will give us the technology to do so.

 

[Sunspawn]

Sorry to hijack the thread, but are the cadets considered wrong dynasty for inheritance matters? Does it give a game-over? I suspect yes, but wanted to ask.

 

[Rylock]

Sorry to hijack the thread, but are the cadets considered wrong dynasty for inheritance matters? Does it give a game-over? I suspect yes, but wanted to ask.

Yes.

 

[vukica]

pagans are a bit problematic in that regard.

maybe increase count to 60 for pagans. that should balance out the additional children from concubines.

also could new dynasty name be changed to "OldDyn of NewDynLocation" or maybe even better "OldDyn-NewDynLocation?

 

[Rylock]

pagans are a bit problematic in that regard.

maybe increase count to 60 for pagans. that should balance out the additional children from concubines.

Not really. Cadet dynasties aren't formed in realms that have elective gavelkind (or tanistry), so for most pagans you're not going to see new dynasties form unless they're in their own independent realm...in which case I'm completely fine with it happening more often for pagans, just as it happens more often for muslims.

also could new dynasty name be changed to "OldDyn of NewDynLocation" or maybe even better "OldDyn-NewDynLocation?

No. We can't control dynasty names. They either need to be pre-made and in the dynasties folder or they are randomly created according to that culture's rules.

 

[vukica]

hm, shame

i doubt paradox will be changing that.