Should sons be landed?

[Flickmann]

I currently have four sons, one of which has recently come of age. Is it like in CK2 where if you land them, they will inevitably marry themselves to an inbred leper from Mongolia and constantly scheme to murder you?

[EA Latium]

It's rather contextual, normally I try to either land them or marry them in other rulers' families so there is a chance they could get somewhere with time.

As for your concern they won't necessarily be hostile, that really depends by their personalities and relationship.

You can also marry them to who you prefer before being landed, most of the time I make sure there are at least some alliances within the family to make successions smoother.

[Aldon]

You have full control over their marriage, the gain a big opinion bonus for the gained title, they start accumulating lifestyle points, they loose all claims on their brothers title, so no brother war after daddies dead. Should you land them? Absolutly YES Sir!

[Al Gore]

They won't be able to marry unless A) you check the "Can marry" box in their dialogue, or B) They've been landed for at least 10 years

[ShepherdOfCats]

If it doesn't interfere with my other plans I land them, for example: I'm low on gold or military strength and need as big a personal domain as possible, they won't get anything from me. Otherwise, I think it is better that they start working on and benefiting from their lifestyle perks (even if they aren't necessarily taking the path you would want them to take, but you have no control over it anyway unless you character-switch).

Plus they can also keep high control and develop the county you grant them so it frees your council from having to do all that yourself. Just watch them carefully and try to help them out if they suffer a rebellion, you don't want them getting killed in a siege from some peasant army (or maybe you do).

[Flickmann]

Originally posted by Aldon:

You have full control over their marriage, the gain a big opinion bonus for the gained title, they start accumulating lifestyle points, they loose all claims on their brothers title, so no brother war after daddies dead. Should you land them? Absolutly YES Sir!

Holy cow, they lose all claims on their brothers' titles if they are landed? Is that intentional? I would have thought they'd still claim everything once their father passes away.

[Aldon]

Originally posted by Flickmann:

Originally posted by Aldon:

You have full control over their marriage, the gain a big opinion bonus for the gained title, they start accumulating lifestyle points, they loose all claims on their brothers title, so no brother war after daddies dead. Should you land them? Absolutly YES Sir!

Holy cow, they lose all claims on their brothers' titles if they are landed? Is that intentional? I would have thought they'd still claim everything once their father passes away.

No, because it are "implicit claims", which will convert to pressed claim, if the ruler dies. But when you grant the land all sons loose the implicit claim, otherwise they would have a claim an every countie you ever possessed. If you got the perk "know thyself" you can even grant your heir all but one counties he will inherit anyway in a year, and his brother will only have a claim on the capital and duke or king title, nothing else. Its most useful to prevent your sons to fight each other, once you die.

You can also keep an ancient lowborn with 50-year-old wife at the court, to whom one is then given the second duchy shortly before death. Your heir will get it back after his death and the brothers are not entitled to it.

[Al Gore]

Your primary heir should be landed as soon as possible so he will pick a lifestlye and start gaining XP, just pick somewhere safe so he won't do something stupid and die, also give him an infertile wife with high stats so he gets help with his court without getting retarded kids.

Have yet to have my sons plot on me, but it's likely because my dread is always 80+

Something else to keep in mind, your heir gets the right to choose a new wife after he's been landed for 10 years, so preferably you want to time it so that you die less than 10 years after you land your son, which you should do as soon as he turns 16.

[sudokek]

I will land every single brother and cousin even where possible. I always encourage my family to have children and do their own thing. When I am ready, I grant out kingdoms or empires to dynasty to allow them to continue doing their own thing. My house has almost 1k living members in current save. We control Europe.

[angel of derp]

Towards the endgame, I definitely land every relative because my line has bred strong, and I want to ensure good marriage candidates for the future.

Also, the more you land, the more they get stronger themselves, increasing Renown. I don't know the exact mechanics, but the more they make those Cadet branches, the better. It's more points.

I never even granted independent Kingdoms of Empires. We still easily hit Legacy cap as a family as one giant Imperial blob. (I think it's Cadet branches with head of house that also adds to your overall Renown. As Emperor, I always had control of the House unlocks.)

[Aldon]

Cadet branches add nothing, but cheer number of members do.

[Sol]

Not as much but they will still scheme to kill your favorite one, and marry their own heirs to inbred lepers from all over the world. I prefer to marry my non-primaries off far away to someone with no bad genetic traits and a few claims for their kids to inherit.

[CrUsHeR]

Originally posted by Al Gore:

Your primary heir should be landed as soon as possible so he will pick a lifestlye and start gaining XP

https://ck3.paradoxwikis.com/Lifestyle

"Characters must be landed or heirs to gain lifestyle experience and can buy perks even if unlanded."

So that lifestyle XP argument is invalid. And the downsides do vastly outweigh the other few advantages.

Making them a councillor living at your court is the 100x better choice. If they have high learning, court physician is also great - they can get the physician traits for extra disease resistance, which are otherwise unattainable.



Well i have explained all the contra thoroughly in several other threads, the OP might as well have used the search function.

Rule of thumb is - Don't give your heirs any land. Unless you want to punish them by living alone on a new court with a court physician with 8 learning, and losing liberty wars against their mayors. Etc. etc.

Also if your rulers and heirs are getting married at 16, the strategical problem is much deeper than just the question "should i land my heirs". Same like IRL, a king should only sire his firstborn at around 30-35. That keeps a healthy age gap between generations, so the heir is not e.g. 50 years old when you die at 66.

[CrUsHeR]

Originally posted by Aldon:

Cadet branches add nothing, but cheer number of members do.

Well yeah, no offense but most of the things said on the "pro" side just show a lack of knowledge of game mechanics.

Yes you want more than 1 son, and yes they should be landed. But after your death.
Then they can do what they want, get their daughters married to random foreign rulers, which then actually gives renown (cadet branches or any domestic vassals of your dynasty don't).

The best way to do this is to simply keep 1 duchy or kingdom title ready for each additional son. Smooth transition on succession, they start out extremely weak so they don't pose any threat for possible claims on your realm - likely they even accept a negotiated alliance.
Whatever happens to them afterwards is not really of your concern.

[angel of derp]

Independent/foreign rulers only add Renown?

I read that, but I never bothered with it. I still reached the Legendary/full Legacies well ahead of 1453.

I spun off nothing. Maybe my distant cadet branches married into foreign kings, but I easily capped all the Legacies while staying in one giant blob... Europe, North Africa, the Levant, Arabia, into Central Asia. Iberia to Persia was all under my Empire.

I had over 6000 family members (concubinage will do that), 400 Cadet Branches. All in one big blob. Except for very small states on the fringes (I was going to say except England, but then I absorbed England in a single war) everyone else was a hostile religion on my borders. (i.e. There was no opportunity to marry into anything, anyway. Hostile religions won't do that.)

A lot of stuff they say doesn't work like they think it does. The Raise Army thing is just the latest in things not working as they say. In practice? Spinning off stuff seemed counter-productive, so I didn't bother and it didn't hurt my score.

In the early game? Sure, marry kids off to Kings to get a couple extra points.

Later? Nobody to marry kids off to, and internal stability was more important than marrying for a single point.

[Lovecraft's Cat]

Yes after some years (I think something like 8) they pick a spouse themselves, so when you land them, you should definitely pick a good betrothal yourself - perhaps a nice sister-in-law cousin aunt with good genetics. It's pretty easy to pick a good match because there's this handy filter where you can only show your own dynasty members in the possible spouses. It's what I do, to keep it in the extended family.

Now the actual question, should you land them? In most of my games, I find that you sort of have to land them if you want to keep all your important titles for your heir. Say your personal domain is 10 holdings, you have a couple of kingdoms and two duchies. When you have 4 sons, you gotta hand out conquered land. Each kid gets a duchy and numerous counties, maybe a new kingdom here and there, until their thirst for your titles is quenched.

It's a mad giveaway of free titles, and you can always check the succession tab to see if you still lose anything on your inevitable demise.