Remove dynasty renown for number of living members

[TheDarkMaster]

Getting dynasty renown from the number of living members is impossible to balance between religions that have polygamy, those that have consorts for rulers, and those that are strictly monogamous. It should just be removed and have vassal rulers contribute a little renown instead.

 

[PeterCorless]

Jeez. Being a single-county Uighur about the only thing I found happy was that I had living 36 relatives.

 

[iZach]

Yes, this is hugely imbalanced. As an Iberian Catholic I seduced as many women as possible so that I could try to emulate being part of a polygamous religion without actually converting to one (and then took the piety and prestige hit to acknowledge the children & legitimize them) solely for the purpose of renown both through my dynasty being more numerous (which is what this thread is about) and by giving my dynasty a chance to take over various titles (which means even more renown). It's game-changing how much renown you get the bigger your dynasty is and all of that renown lets you unlock more dynasty legacies. When I looked at the dynasty legacies that the various AI dynasties in my game had unlocked, I was unsurprised to see that Muslims were far ahead of Christians; it wasn't even close. It took a lot of Christians forever to unlock even their first dynasty legacy; meanwhile Muslims were more than halfway through a tree.

 

[klopkr]

I think dynastic renown should be tailored heavily towards Achievements and land ownership of the dynasty.

who cares if they poped out 40 nobodies!

 

[iZach]

I think dynastic renown should be tailored heavily towards Achievements and land ownership of the dynasty.

who cares if they poped out 40 nobodies!

It will always be a problem unfortunately because those 40 nobodies will have a much higher chance of gaining titles that will give the dynasty even more renown. Polygamous religions are probably always going to be OP compared to monogamous ones. You get no bonus points for having a small dynasty in any way. The renown system is designed entirely to encourage you to have as many children as possible.

 

[K0nsumBauer]

In my opinion it isn't really a problem, its just a difference in game experience. I mean a huge part for me in playing Crusader Kings is that different culture groups and different religions actually feel different and dont just have a different name. So I'm actually fine with polygamous dynasties getting more Renown, at least in my games it they didnt get too powerful.
I haven't played as a Polygamous Ruler though, so i dont know if it will have an impact on the game difficulty and make it too easy.

 

[Foefaller]

This feels like a non-issue really. Independent rulers give waaay more renown than living members do, and having more kids doe not inherently get you more titles.

Yes, this is hugely imbalanced. As an Iberian Catholic I seduced as many women as possible so that I could try to emulate being part of a polygamous religion without actually converting to one (and then took the piety and prestige hit to acknowledge the children & legitimize them) solely for the purpose of renown both through my dynasty being more numerous (which is what this thread is about) and by giving my dynasty a chance to take over various titles (which means even more renown). It's game-changing how much renown you get the bigger your dynasty is and all of that renown lets you unlock more dynasty legacies. When I looked at the dynasty legacies that the various AI dynasties in my game had unlocked, I was unsurprised to see that Muslims were far ahead of Christians; it wasn't even close. It took a lot of Christians forever to unlock even their first dynasty legacy; meanwhile Muslims were more than halfway through a tree.

It's worth noting that not everyone starts with the same amount of renown; The Abbasid Caliph in 1066, for example, is already just a few years away from getting his first dynasty perk despite the fact there are only about 3-4 living members at start and he is technically only a duke.

Plus you also have dynasties like the Seljuks that already begin the game with hundreds of Dynast members.

 

[klopkr]

It will always be a problem unfortunately because those 40 nobodies will have a much higher chance of gaining titles that will give the dynasty even more renown. Polygamous religions are probably always going to be OP compared to monogamous ones. You get no bonus points for having a small dynasty in any way. The renown system is designed entirely to encourage you to have as many children as possible.

There's only so many titles to go around. If your dynasty is landed all over the place you're probably earning that renown rightfully,

 

[TheDarkMaster]

In my opinion it isn't really a problem, its just a difference in game experience. I mean a huge part for me in playing Crusader Kings is that different culture groups and different religions actually feel different and dont just have a different name. So I'm actually fine with polygamous dynasties getting more Renown, at least in my games it they didnt get too powerful.
I haven't played as a Polygamous Ruler though, so i dont know if it will have an impact on the game difficulty and make it too easy.

Well just playing as a pagan tribal ruler with concubines, my dynasty that started with a single dynast had over a hundred living members after ~70 years. That's equivalent to having two independent kings right now for renown, and gave +2 prestige per month to the dynasty head. This was just from a couple sessions of confederate partition.

It seemed so silly to me that I removed renown and prestige gain for number of family members and enabled a 10% gain from dynastic vassals.

 

[ulix]

Just have it scale. Let's say first 25 give 1 renown, then the next 25 give 0.5 renown, the next 25 0.25 renown, until at some point everyone only gives 10% or less of the original value.

 

[iZach]

There's only so many titles to go around. If your dynasty is landed all over the place you're probably earning that renown rightfully,

If by "only so many" you mean every single category, then yeah. As a polygamous character you can marry your children off to counts too; you have plenty to go around. Having a dynasty member that is a count gives .25 renown per month and having a dynasty member married to one gives the only slightly lower .20 renown per month. You can easily marry counts and get your dynasty in control of counties. For reference, it only takes 4 counts to equal the renown gained by 1 king. Of course, it's better to go for the higher tier titles but the renown given to your dynasty by having counts is nothing to scoff at, once you've run out of everything above that. You can't get renown by stacking your dynasty in your own realm of course, but that isn't much of an issue when it comes to renown gain as there are plenty of other realms to marry off to.

To address the topic a bit more: Yes, the more characters your dynasty has in the world, the more renown your dynasty earns; all they have to do is simply exist. However focusing on that gets away from the big picture I think. Those countless characters mean more people for you to marry off and more of your dynasty out in the wild, working to acquire higher tier titles and earn even more renown for your dynasty. To call it imbalanced is an understatement.