After this series, you'll need to go back to the last DLC. You never touched the byzantine administration government content. Maybe the start of the new series can be an adventurer that makes their way to Byzantium and purchases an estate somewhere in the empire.
RE: "Quantum Leap" style play - the main issues are that you don't really engage with the dynastic maintenance mechanics (succession, dynasty legacies, etc.) which are normally quite important, and especially if you don't inherit as a young character it's quite limiting. If you're not feeling it - I'd say just make the executive decision to change the "leap" criteria. RE: Wanderers vs. Dynastic (or other governments) - Basically, at this point for me I see it as a tool and/or a role-playing story entry point. Take a ruler to some reasonable goal (e.g. conquer a kingdom, create a religion and spread it a bit, create some oddball hybrid culture, etc.) and then when things seems settled enough - choose a distant relative who won't inherit and either move that goal forward (e.g. conquer another kingdom and try to merge with the former through marriage or conquest, or maybe proselytise the new religion) or work against the power that I set up previously (e.g. now that I've converted all of Iberia to Catholicism, set up a prosperous kingdom with a good army composition, and ended the struggle, can I take my new character, reconquer it, and convert it to Hindu.)
31:32 It would be nice to play a dynasty up until some point. Maybe you develop a kingdom with its own culture and religion. And then choose one of the children to become an adventurer and start from scratch somewhere else. Would also make your Crusades a lot more interesting having more kingdoms to contribute troops and knights to.
After this series, you'll need to go back to the last DLC. You never touched the byzantine administration government content. Maybe the start of the new series can be an adventurer that makes their way to Byzantium and purchases an estate somewhere in the empire.
RE: "Quantum Leap" style play - the main issues are that you don't really engage with the dynastic maintenance mechanics (succession, dynasty legacies, etc.) which are normally quite important, and especially if you don't inherit as a young character it's quite limiting. If you're not feeling it - I'd say just make the executive decision to change the "leap" criteria.
RE: Wanderers vs. Dynastic (or other governments) - Basically, at this point for me I see it as a tool and/or a role-playing story entry point. Take a ruler to some reasonable goal (e.g. conquer a kingdom, create a religion and spread it a bit, create some oddball hybrid culture, etc.) and then when things seems settled enough - choose a distant relative who won't inherit and either move that goal forward (e.g. conquer another kingdom and try to merge with the former through marriage or conquest, or maybe proselytise the new religion) or work against the power that I set up previously (e.g. now that I've converted all of Iberia to Catholicism, set up a prosperous kingdom with a good army composition, and ended the struggle, can I take my new character, reconquer it, and convert it to Hindu.)
31:32 It would be nice to play a dynasty up until some point. Maybe you develop a kingdom with its own culture and religion. And then choose one of the children to become an adventurer and start from scratch somewhere else.
Would also make your Crusades a lot more interesting having more kingdoms to contribute troops and knights to.
In inspection you should pay for 3 lvl option for more rewards and success chance
Just curious about your current character, does he have a claim on Scandinavia? If he has can he be a legitimist , we haven't played as that yet.
Can we finish as a dynasty that's unlanded and you can get them landed then conquer an empire with whomever you roll?