Separate personal holdings from realms [CK3]

[Ferrero]

Several times the devs have highlighted that the game is about dynasties, this is why government forms where you can't preserve the ruling dynasty were ruled out. Afterwards, merchant republics were added, as the main holding became the family palace.
Now, what I suggest is making the "family estates" the basic holding for all dynasties. These would be barony-level holdings, much like the patrician palace, that could upgraded, but they would be divided into two categories:

• the palace, like the one we already have. Each non-nomadic dynasty has one, located in a province. It can be upgraded, but only patricians and some bishops will start with something more than a basic building. The palace can however be raided, damaged and conquered, leading to an ultimate game over.
• the estates: these are the land estates, agrarian based, and the number per province is limited (must not take into account the max holding numbers, as the 6 holding counties represent cities). All feudal, iqta and tribal characters have them, even more than one and in several provinces, but they are tied to the character, not the dynasty. Their upgrading potential is limited, and in the long run it will be difficult to be as profitable as a well-developed palace. They have their own tab in the province.
• nomads will retain their current system.

Now, if you are a typical feudal lord, nothing much changes: you have your desmene, which is yours for all intents and purposes, and maybe land estates. If you happen to be the dynasty leader as well, you control the palace too. But, if for any reason you lose your last county it's not game over, but you switch to the dynasty patriarch (if it isn't you). In case he is landed, you continue as usual, otherwise you still have at least your main palace, from where plot your next move for your kinsmen or yourself.

Now, what happens in war? The estates are the most prone to damage, being an easy target for looters and other armies, they can be conquered in limited wars (like the trade wars) or they can be traded after a certain level of legalism. Palaces, on the other hand, can be heavily fortified and won't fall unless they are specifically targeted by a "dynastic purge", another limited war where the aggressor tries to evict the family from its holdings, making them exiles (or downright slaughtering them), meaning a true game over for the player. The now empty palace won't be occupied but it will provide a rich loot.

What does this mean? First of all, the focus stays on the dynasty, your family really is the most important element of the game. But this also means that imperial governments such as the early Byzantium or a (possibile) Chinese Empire finally see their elite of landowners in government roles. Frankish lords too now have to struggle to have their demesne hereditary. But this also lets us have theocracies, orders and smaller republics playable, since you will be able to play a bishop, for example (unless he is lowborn) and then switch to the dynasty leader, trying to get his family in monastries, bishoprics, holy orders and counties.

This idea is still very sketchy and I need some feedback and elaboration, but for sure it would be meant for a new game, not the current one.

 

[Keizer Harm]

And what will you be able to do, once restricted to your family holding? You don't have armies, you don't have income, you barely have political influence. The best you could do is hope somewhere down the generations someone becomes regent, and hope someone has founded a faction to get you back on the throne. Otherwise it is really just an observer game.

 

[Ferrero]

Of course you will have a limited income, and limited army (as you already do as a patrician without fiefs). Is this the moment for maximum game speed? Yes, of course, but this should be paired up with more diplomacy and intrigue options, family feuds driven not only by events, more actions as a councillor. Going back to power will be by means of intrigue and marriage policy, as a reward (for example, you helped against a rebel, or a new holding after a holy war), you or a family member going on adventure. Now that I think about it, we should be able to switch to characters of the same dynasty once they get to a position of power, be it feudal of in a holy order or theocratical or in a minor republic, and then be able to revert to our family head if we haven't been able to secure an inheritable fief for our house.

 

[Ruwaard]

Not exactly what's suggested, but often medieval dynasties held both fiefs in vassalage and owned allodial lands (which made one noble, but not a count or duke, those are tied to fiefs). The latter could vary in size, but could even be rather extensive. The duchy of Brunswick-Luneburg was mostly created out of the Saxon allodial lands of the house of Welf, which were inherited from previous ducal dynasties of Saxony. The trade off being that originally allodial lands were transformed into fiefs, in exchange for becoming a duke again and the confirmation as prince of the Empire (Reichsfürst).

 

[Rawrschach]

And what will you be able to do, once restricted to your family holding? You don't have armies, you don't have income, you barely have political influence. The best you could do is hope somewhere down the generations someone becomes regent, and hope someone has founded a faction to get you back on the throne. Otherwise it is really just an observer game.

More extra titles to fight over need to be available. Such as offices, which should give you more events and decisions to take.

The whole the Byzantines needs to be like this. With most families owning a manor holding that is in Constantinople. Major political/senatorial people in the empire were based there and didn't hold much land. Land holders might have been rich, but they would not be of senatorial origin. I can see why they use the current system with the viceroy duchies to represent themes, but its not the best.