I recently did the AEIOU achievement and had a lot of fun due to the different playstyle

[GreyOgre]

If you want a tree to bear fruit, you'll have to prune it from time to time.

After yet another achievement run that somehow ended in reforming Rome, I decided to go for the "A.E.I.O.U. & Me" achievement. For those who don't know, it requires you to start as a single-county Habsburg count in Aargau and create the Archduchy of Austria (despite the name, a kingdom-level title) without declaring a single war, and while staying a count or Duke.
So to get the 2-5 duchies needed for that title, your only options are marriage and inheritance... with the occasional dagger between someone's ribs, or a snake in a cradle...

I have created dynasties with 30k members before, bit this was the first time CKIII really felt like a dynasty simulator for me. I had to plan inheritance two or three generations in advance, in some cases even ensuring the  order of inheritances - if my heir got Auvergne from his mother before a Gwrman duchy from me, he'd suddenly be a French duke, and forming the Archduchy requires you to be a direct vassal of the Holy Roman Emperor.

I also forgot how powerful the left intrigue tree can be - with Twice Schemed and the scheme phase duration bonus, you can basically murder someone every month. This obviously makes engineering inheritances much easier - the AI will marriage off their thirdborn matrilineally, but what if he's suddenly an only child?
And of course, you will also have to... adjust... inheritances within your own dynasty as well. If you happen to be dynasty head, you can use "disinherit" - but since you can't form a kingdom and are limited by overextension, you can't really depend on being dynasty head - or culture head for that matter.

So, to TL;DR these ramblings: The enforced pacifism and tall play made this run much more interesting. I could still do my usual minmax/powerganing thing, but it still felt like an actual challenge - and the achievement notification felt actually rewarding. 5/5, would murder 200 infants again.

 

[Voidian]

It's sad because this "alternative playstyle" used to be the norm in CK2, a long time ago, even before DLCs, it was great, having to keep track of sucession lines in different kingdoms and all.

In CK3 there are far too many ways to bend and completely ignore the CB mechanic, and if all else fails, creating claims is also guaranteed (another big mistake), so even in the areas of the map that were supposed to be the most stable, christian kingdoms bordering other christian rulers, you don't really need to do any of that anymore, it's a shame.

 

[Barron of Gondor]

Yeah a ton of players, play the game like they’re playing EUIV or Imperator. Which is OK. Conquering and managing an empire is fun. But the game’s mechanics aren’t built for that.

An alternation to the your “Habsburg” play style is the “Karling” play style. Your goal is tho spread your dynasty, not to make a huge empire. The difference between the Habsburg and Karling play styles is that you’re not using marriage and inheritance as the primary tools. You’re using conquest. However you’re not turning conquered land into vassals. You’re granting said land to family members, and giving them independence. Either by partition succession, or just giving them independence.

The Karling play style is overlooked. Whenever your character dies and your realm splits, people tend to get upset and declare on their now brothers. To reclaim their blob because they think they are weaker now. In the short run that’s true. But in the long run your dynasty will be a lot stronger because of legacy unlocks.

The Vikings are massively strong with doing the Karling play style.

 

[GreyOgre]

Yeah a ton of players, play the game like they’re playing EUIV or Imperator. Which is OK. Conquering and managing an empire is fun. But the game’s mechanics aren’t built for that.

An alternation to the your “Habsburg” play style is the “Karling” play style. Your goal is tho spread your dynasty, not to make a huge empire. The difference between the Habsburg and Karling play styles is that you’re not using marriage and inheritance as the primary tools. You’re using conquest. However you’re not turning conquered land into vassals. You’re granting said land to family members, and giving them independence. Either by partition succession, or just giving them independence.

The Karling play style is overlooked. Whenever your character dies and your realm splits, people tend to get upset and declare on their now brothers. To reclaim their blob because they think they are weaker now. In the short run that’s true. But in the long run your dynasty will be a lot stronger because of legacy unlocks.

The Vikings are massively strong with doing the Karling play style.

Yeah, that's true. One of the mist fun runs I had was a Hæsteinn "world conquest", but I consciously stayed on confederate partition. In the end, my Dynasty had 40k members, 1/3 of the global population. Also sent my renown generation through the roof.

 

[DiabloDeVille]

Yeah a ton of players, play the game like they’re playing EUIV or Imperator. Which is OK. Conquering and managing an empire is fun. But the game’s mechanics aren’t built for that.

An alternation to the your “Habsburg” play style is the “Karling” play style. Your goal is tho spread your dynasty, not to make a huge empire. The difference between the Habsburg and Karling play styles is that you’re not using marriage and inheritance as the primary tools. You’re using conquest. However you’re not turning conquered land into vassals. You’re granting said land to family members, and giving them independence. Either by partition succession, or just giving them independence.

The Karling play style is overlooked. Whenever your character dies and your realm splits, people tend to get upset and declare on their now brothers. To reclaim their blob because they think they are weaker now. In the short run that’s true. But in the long run your dynasty will be a lot stronger because of legacy unlocks.

The Vikings are massively strong with doing the Karling play style.

Why is the karling style to grant independence to your brothers? Rather than making them tributaries if not vassals under a king?

 

[GreyOgre]

Why is the karling style to grant independence to your brothers? Rather than making them tributaries if not vassals under a king?

I guess it's referencing the split under Charlemagne's heirs, not during is lifetime. Of course, partition simulates that (and this probably part of the reason why partition is the default in CK2 and CK3), but it won't work if you have an empire and a bunch of surrounding kingdoms, but not enough for a second empire - the King's will stay your vassals, you won't get extra renown.. .

 

[Barron of Gondor]

Why is the karling style to grant independence to your brothers? Rather than making them tributaries if not vassals under a king?

I suppose you can make them tributaries. That mechanic is rather new. The play style isn't

I guess it's referencing the split under Charlemagne's heirs, not during is lifetime. Of course, partition simulates that (and this probably part of the reason why partition is the default in CK2 and CK3), but it won't work if you have an empire and a bunch of surrounding kingdoms, but not enough for a second empire - the King's will stay your vassals, you won't get extra renown.. .

I don't form an empire, unless I'm doing a run where I want the Western Empire brought back (Frankia, HRE) Anything else, I'm good with letting my secondary kingdoms go. More renown that way.

 

[Voidian]

Yeah a ton of players, play the game like they’re playing EUIV or Imperator. Which is OK. Conquering and managing an empire is fun. But the game’s mechanics aren’t built for that.

An alternation to the your “Habsburg” play style is the “Karling” play style. Your goal is tho spread your dynasty, not to make a huge empire. The difference between the Habsburg and Karling play styles is that you’re not using marriage and inheritance as the primary tools. You’re using conquest. However you’re not turning conquered land into vassals. You’re granting said land to family members, and giving them independence. Either by partition succession, or just giving them independence.

The Karling play style is overlooked. Whenever your character dies and your realm splits, people tend to get upset and declare on their now brothers. To reclaim their blob because they think they are weaker now. In the short run that’s true. But in the long run your dynasty will be a lot stronger because of legacy unlocks.

The Vikings are massively strong with doing the Karling play style.

I think you're right, but the reason why I think what you said is correct is rather depressing.

Not because it's such an overpowered strategy to gain some traits at the expense of having a larger, far more powerful realm.
But because nobody needs a large and powerful realm, a Duke can conquer the entire world of CK3, I've beaten the mongol invasion with a duke-level army with extreme ease before, so that means we're really trading nothing (worthless levies, MAA already at the cap anyway, don't need more gold) for some power (Renown & dynasty).

If CK3 was a serious game, if you were racing against time to try and create a very large empire before a larger empire dominated you, if the mongol invasion was half as devastating as it used to be in CK2, if claiming back the titles of our family members and beating them in wars wasn't so incredibly simple if needed then it wouldn't be so clear we should just give up power and stay small with a fraction of our army & economy size for a few "techtree" dynasty upgrades.