What would you actually use cadet branches for if they were in the game?

[Keizer Harm]

Top requested feature, next to naval combat, theocracies, and (formerly) Chinaaaa, yet I cannot figure out what a player would actually do with them.

So you could occasionally split a dynasty in two - why would you ever do that, and get rid of the same dynasty opinion bonus and ease of creating naps/alliances, in exchange for (I presume) a lesser bonus? You can already customise your dynasty name and coat of arms. Or is it historical cadet dynasties people wish to see represented? That does not feel good enough for the level of importance people are attaching to it, imo.

Are people using cadet branches as a shorthand for greater dynasty importance in the game's politics? Then I could understand it better.

 

[persianfan247]

I always assumed people wanted Cadet branches because that is what historically existed. But yeah I don't see any game-play advantages for this either.

 

[caedussl]

Roleplaying. I find the game more fun when I feel like what happened could have actually happened instead of just meta.

 

[The Shacks]

For me its the roleplaying depth, simply if I played some long as f** european game it'd be cool to be like oh those are the <Insert names> of <insert name> big important family in this place they split off from my family two hundred years ago etc. But that aside It'd be nice to see one of the last few DLCs (as you said) deepen dynastic gameplay in general. Granted much of it might not be intricate game-changing touches but it'd be fun for RP purposes which hell is most of the game's appeal. It's neither hard nor -that- complex once you master it.

 

[Semigall]

They have them in GoT and I don't use them, if they would be in vanilla I would also not use them, I prefer big dynasty with tons of prestige.

 

[Ribbon]

I'd love it and use them for RP dynamics, definitely.

Last time I played a Shia Viking game, I spliced Sayyid into my dynasty through conversion shenanigans and then proceeded to generate bastard Sayyid dynasties through Seduction every generation, so that I could seed my lands with Counts and Dukes that also had the trait. Toss them several commoner wives before shipping them out to their new capital, to try to mitigate the massive terrifying inbreeding that they'd eventually get up to. It had the interesting side effect of having 'Cadet' branches that I didn't have to concern myself with regarding Decadence. Before the change, I would usually plant members of my Dynasty as Counts etc under other Dukes, so they'd assist in clearing up Decadent relatives. Too bad that doesn't happen anymore.

 

[Caeserion]

1) Vassal Merchant Republics so that my dynasty is technically generating money but is also not stealing my perfect heirs
2) Vassal Khans/Neighbouring Khagans through a claim war. All prestige based successions eventually bite you in the arse so cadet branches could prevent that
3) Prevent Decadence when playing as a Muslim. Now you have to do it by fathering bastards which hits piety and makes your wives hate you
4) Vassals of different cadet branches are less likely to marry one another as opposed to vassals of your dynasty, which means fewer super dukes/kings forming via inheritance and neater borders are easier to maintain. No more King of England inheriting Anatolia because his mother was the only daughter of its king.
5) RP

 

[Lord_Bean]

I'd personally like that not everybody and their mum is of my dynasty after a few hundred years of playing. Especially if they've been an independent king of a different culture for a long time. It'd just feel a bit more realistic.

Gameplay-wise there could be a few advantaged such as have been mentioned, but it is mainly an immersion thing for me.

 

[Me_]

I would like to see dynasties split according to certain rules, not based on player's choice. That is, some parts of the dynasty would grow distant over time and become a separate cadet branch.

 

[Ciniod]

I would like to see dynasties split according to certain rules, not based on player's choice. That is, some parts of the dynasty would grow distant over time and become a separate cadet branch.

Agreed. I think CK2+ has a mechanic to create a new dynasty branch or something, though I haven't really tried it out, but I'm not sure if the AI uses it. It's kind of odd when that count in southern India who's line split from yours 500 years ago and hasn't had any contact since is still considered as part of your dynasty when you're playing in England or something.

 

[Nyrael]

For gameplay, it would make sure that you don't have hundreds of dynasty members (most of them would turn into Cadet branches).

 

[Nameless_Ensign]

Top requested feature, next to naval combat, theocracies, and (formerly) Chinaaaa, yet I cannot figure out what a player would actually do with them.

So you could occasionally split a dynasty in two - why would you ever do that, and get rid of the same dynasty opinion bonus and ease of creating naps/alliances, in exchange for (I presume) a lesser bonus? You can already customise your dynasty name and coat of arms. Or is it historical cadet dynasties people wish to see represented? That does not feel good enough for the level of importance people are attaching to it, imo.

Are people using cadet branches as a shorthand for greater dynasty importance in the game's politics? Then I could understand it better.

So I know my dynasty has spread all across the land without having to deal with 500 claimants.

 

[Jaang]

It depends on how cadet dynasties function.


If they still give an opinion bonus and still give prestige bonuses, then they'd be great for forming distinct family branches when you're blobbing all over the place.


If a cadet branch member could be a valid non-game-ending hier, then everyone could use them to prevent too much intermarraige among closer dynasty branches.

 

[Woifee]

I wouldn't. Some weird inheritance shenanigans and game over. No thanks.

Yesterday first game in months played a character inside the HRE, inherited the first time, my devil sister killed my 16 year old ruler, the nephew of my mother inherited all my titles, tough I had agnatic-cognatic, and had a game over. My 13 year old sister should have got it I think.

I do not need that with cadet branches.

 

[Patriarch of Bub]

Would you be able to play as a cadet branch of your dynasty, should you remain heirless? Or game over?

 

[Woifee]

Would you be able to play as a cadet branch of your dynasty, should you remain heirless? Or game over?

Could be a choice. Play further with cadet branche but Ironman is deactivated or game over.

 

[Foefaller]

Just going "distant dynasty members can form their own dynasties and that's that" wouldn't be enough, I agree. You'd have to add some other mechanics/bonuses/"fun" to it to make it worthwhile. Things like:

-Main branch gets an opinion bonus with members of cadet branches that is greater than the +5 normally gained between dynasty members.
-Cadet branches get to compete (based on current holdings/dynastic prestige from the original common ancestor?) for the honor of being seen as the main branch, for the opinion bonus for other branches and becoming the true heirs (and beneficiary of dynastic prestige) of the ancestors that preceded the split. You could add that to the current cadet branches that already exist, like the Son of Lodbrock in the Old Gods proving who's the true heir to the father, the Irish lords the rightful successor to Conn, and so on.
-When a cadet branch is formed, the option to continue playing from that branch instead of the current one. Give you the ability to "start over" without having to start over.

And so on.

 

[Dave1]

They are in the game. The option to play as any landed character above Baron, is there every time you load up your campaign.

 

[Sopbucket]

I always pictured it as a mechanic that would split up large dynasties over time. No one would "make" cadet branches unless they were themselves splitting off from their dynasty, but the AI would do it every now and then. Things like matrilineal lines, being a distant relative from the dynasty head, having poor relations with the dynasty head, and being a successful adventurer could make a character more likely to do it, while the family focus and high dynasty prestige might prevent it from happening.

I see it as a good way to make the dynastic game more challenging while also creating interesting historical developments in game.

 

[Keizer Harm]

I suppose it would help if the Karlings split into different dynasties...