My impression is that Dynastic names are more or less generated at random in EU3, with no control on your part.
When a fascist rebellion take over your country in V2, this is the result of your own action, not a random thing, because you made bad decision going to war with an unstable country or whatever, and it's mostly logical.
Well, in EUIII, if you don't want a Habsburg on the throne of England, don't marry one.
Most of the time that you lose a dynasty in EUIII it will be to one of three circumstances.
1) Dynasty dies out - someone from a royal marriage will take over (- includes personal unions)
2) Pretender revolt that you cannot defeat (-nearest to the fascist revolt)
3) Dynasty dies out - and is not taken over by someone from one of your royal marriages (this gives a random dynasty from your cultural list).
The last option, breaking a personal union is treated as 3 above.
Okay, first of all. The idea to make the last name of a family dynasty the name of a country in CK2 was a horrendous idea. For some of the CALIPHATES it is fine because they actually called their domains "the ****** Caliphate," but for example a country like the Ottoman Empire. To get things straight their dynasty name was NOT Ottoman; as portrayed in CK 2. Their name was Osman/Osmanali/Osman-ali. This was a flawed system in implementation. I also believe when you look around the current CK2 map wanting to create a title like I don't know. The Empire of Spain. You can't tell if it exists because it says Mojaud. This is also a EUROPA game; meaning the derivation of the LATIN names of country is to be their name. Which I find appropriate even if you want to go off and play some small country like Khiva etc. This is not World Universalis. Personally I believe the Dynasty name as a country name is just plain annoying. :angry: Though the derivation of the Ottomans was Osman's Empire... it simply wasn't just called OSMAN.
I've cut the colour because it was hard to read.
The only place the $DYNASTY_NAME thing is used in CKII is with the Muslim dynasties, which makes sense since in general the "X Emirate" or "X Sheikdom" are valid. As a modern example, Saudi Arabia is named after the Al-Saud family. In CKII, as a general rule of thumb, the Empire of Spain is likely to be held by the Muslim dynasty stretched over the majority of Iberia...
Yes, it is a EUROPA game as you notice, but would you prefer we used English, French, German, Spanish, Italian, Portugese or Russian derivations of country names? After all, not all the names are related across these languages.
Ottoman is a corruption of Osmanli (I apologise for the wrong i, but I don't seem to have it on my keyboard...).
Dynasty name is OK for nations that were known by the dynasty name (e.g. Ming China, Osmanli Empire (although here at least in English the derivation "Ottoman" is more familiar)), and can help to distinguish between different political entities that both claim the same area (e.g. in the War of the Roses, having "Yorkist England" and "Lancastrian England" would be valid), or different iterations of the same geographic entity. It isn't a case of replacing "England" with "Plantagenet" or "Tudor", but "Tudor England" might be appropriate. "Poland-Lithuania" can legitimately for a chunk of history be referred to as "Jagellionian Empire", and at one point the land held by the Plantagenets in England and France was informally known as the "Angevin Empire", since the Plantagenets were a cadet of the house of Anjou. Austria under the Habsburgs was legitimately "the Habsburg Empire" or the "Habsburg dominions".
I guess it depends whether a particular family were especially responsible for the rise and sustaining of the political unit ruling the geographic unit, and how they signed their paperwork. If it was signed as "Emperor X of the House of Y" rather than "X, Emperor of Y, King of A, B, and C", this gives different results.
