View Full Version : successor to the throne...
Damn Dirty Ape
10-10-2004, 12:39
not sure if any of you guys have problems with it, but i find it really annoying when my king has no children again..[ what are they, impotent? ], and I'm not able to choose my successor... The game automaticly picks a knight to be the king then, but the ****ty part is that it always goes for my strongest marshal.. I'm fighting in foreign countries with my marshal of level 9 for instance, wooping their pittifull armies, and BAM, he's king and i can't afford to fight with him for if he dies im screwed.. Why can't i choose the knight to succeed when the king has no heirs..
Some other small things.. Please make the marshals visible on the minimap.. I can see them on political view but on the normal map i have to look for ages in order to find them..
Someone already adressed the AI diplomacy issue
Perhaps some more ways to keep people happy? Citizens tend to get quite pissed off when you're having war and they're are not all that many ways to keep them happy.. too few imho.
Some more townslots perhaps? Not that big a deal but it would help sometimes at major cities wich need defending and a good economy...
not sure if any of you guys have problems with it, but i find it really annoying when my king has no children again..[ what are they, impotent? ], and I'm not able to choose my successor... The game automaticly picks a knight to be the king then, but the ****ty part is that it always goes for my strongest marshal.. I'm fighting in foreign countries with my marshal of level 9 for instance, wooping their pittifull armies, and BAM, he's king and i can't afford to fight with him for if he dies im screwed.. Why can't i choose the knight to succeed when the king has no heirs..
Actually, kings leading armies to battle was at the time and age rather common. However, aiming for the enemy marshal is too easy a tactic IMO at this point. Perhaps the kill chance should be a bit smaller.
Damn Dirty Ape
10-10-2004, 12:47
i just want to choose my next king..not have it randomly picked and thus loosing my best marshal to the throne.. Yes it was common then.. But don't you think a king would choose rather he'd go to war himself or not..
Damn Dirty Ape
10-10-2004, 12:50
i forgot to mention another point.. Trading goods.. Aren't they a bit over the top? For kingdom advantages you sometimes have to have a very wide variouty of goods in order to get something.. But why in godsname do you need paint and silk for a conquest advantage for instance... It doesn't make sence...
i forgot to mention another point.. Trading goods.. Aren't they a bit over the top? For kingdom advantages you sometimes have to have a very wide variouty of goods in order to get something.. But why in godsname do you need paint and silk for a conquest advantage for instance... It doesn't make sence...
For the colorful painting of the armor and the silken capes of the knights? :bconfused
Some other small things.. Please make the marshals visible on the minimap.. I can see them on political view but on the normal map i have to look for ages in order to find them..
Perhaps some more ways to keep people happy? Citizens tend to get quite pissed off when you're having war and they're are not all that many ways to keep them happy.. too few imho.
Some more townslots perhaps? Not that big a deal but it would help sometimes at major cities wich need defending and a good economy...
finding marshals - click on the marshal's portrait and press spacebar, that will center the strategic view over the marshal. better yet you can assign them a hotkey by using "ctrl + #".
happiness - i think there are enough ways to keep your population happy. if there were anymore then the game would be too easy which i think it already is (even on hard). it makes sense that people would have -20 happiness for a prolonged war and -10 happines for nostalgia. try to build hostels and have a kingdom power at 5.
more townslots - i disagree. i think there are enough. if you had any more townslots then it would take away the strategy of balancing your kingdom. you should need to a have control of a vast empire in order to reap the benefits of all the trade goods. so i like the limit amount of building slots. it forces you to think, manage and sacrifice.
not sure if any of you guys have problems with it, but i find it really annoying when my king has no children again..[ what are they, impotent? ],
...
Actually i think i found something.I notice that when you have the king as a marsahl or any other job(merchant, spy, extt..) he doesnt have any children.However when he isn't on the royal court he did had couple of children with his wife, Which i found to make much sence because if he isn't on the royal court he isnt with the queen :cool: and can't :silly: have children.So maybe your king isnt impotent after all.lol
I've had pop-ups that tell me my king is infertile (or words to that effect).
devs..................!
i am not having and sons!!!!!!!! even if i get them my kings dies before they grow up you should make having childs easier comon! it wasnt like that hard getting one...
Damn Dirty Ape
11-10-2004, 14:29
devs..................!
i am not having and sons!!!!!!!! even if i get them my kings dies before they grow up you should make having childs easier comon! it wasnt like that hard getting one...
i know, it's what i mean.. the guy just has sex and bam, 9 months later the queen has a baby.. I've seen it yes, they tell you some doctors examined the guy and he couldn't have children [ it was a cleric, god wouldnt allow it? ] But even if he's not, they still sometimes refuse to have children..
Plz, make them hornier in the next patch...
There was too little protection that time, too easy to become sick of some venerian stuff. The king/queen is scared of such things and don't want to risk.
WEll having kids during that time wasnt easy. No much madicine and babys died easyly.
Even the common cold of today could kill people back then.
King Juhafin
11-10-2004, 18:08
WEll having kids during that time wasnt easy. No much madicine and babys died easyly.
Even the common cold of today could kill people back then.yeah, that's true., not many children survived to the age of 10 etc.
Damn Dirty Ape
11-10-2004, 18:48
yeah, that's true., not many children survived to the age of 10 etc.
the more reason to have sex every day ala catholic factoryworker style
we are talking hear about BORN childs dieing not never born childs
com on its stupid every king had a son how do u think the empires survived without heirs their would be civil war....
no one wants to end his bloodline...
Paladin|Lazy|
12-10-2004, 00:28
I think the devs have handled it correctly - if the king dies with no heirs, a successor among the nobility would -choose himself-, realistically the one with the strongest possible claim and the strongest military force with which to assume control. Therefore, your highest experience marshal makes perfect sense, because he has the highest likelihood to come out on top during any internal conflict. However, I'd love it if the royal -family- would come into play, aside from king/queen and prince/princess so that you could place whoever had the strongest claim in a position of power that would cause no real strategic loss like a high ranking marshal. The idea that the princes and princesses just "go away" when the king dies makes little sense.
Afterthought:
Changing successors should have a cost associated with it, lowering the happiness level of your kingdom, maybe even turning a son against a father in the form of a large scale army revolt, maybe the prince convinces some low level marshal to fight for his cause. It really shouldn't just "happen."
Lighthope
12-10-2004, 01:16
Changing successors should have a cost associated with it
I thought that the devlopers said there was a cost associated with violating the line of succession. Admittedly, I did it once, but the demo ended before I had a chance to see if anything happened.
Lighthope
Pearls of Wisdom - "Sometimes at the end of the day when I'm smiling and shaking hands, I want to kick them." - Richard Nixon
--== THE DOCTOR WHO AUDIO DRAMAS: http://www.dwad.net
--== Give performance reviews of your boss: http://www.rateyourboss.org
--== Everlasting Films Call Board: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/everlastingfilms
[QUOTE=Afterthought:
Changing successors should have a cost associated with it, lowering the happiness level of your kingdom, maybe even turning a son against a father in the form of a large scale army revolt, maybe the prince convinces some low level marshal to fight for his cause. It really shouldn't just "happen."[/QUOTE]
I agree, during that time many kingdoms split in half just because the king had 2 sons and both of them wanted to take power, so the 2 brothers fought each other for total control. some supported 1 son others supported the other guy starting a civil war.
About the kind dieing without hairs, sometimes distant cousens claimed the right to become king. maybe something like could happen on the game.
EXp. you had a king of scotland with 1 son and 1 doughter. the dougther marry the prince of england. the king dies, his son takes control but have no sons, dougthers.Meanwhile his sister have a son(price of England). then the king of england dies the price takes control and his uncle(king of scotland dies as well, no hair) so the king of england has the right to claim scotland now because of the bloodline.
Fatih Sultan
12-10-2004, 03:00
just before my last save i got a message sayin my king isnt gonna have children =/ he was ugly but successful
Lighthope
12-10-2004, 03:03
EXp. you had a king of scotland with 1 son and 1 doughter. the dougther marry the prince of england. the king dies, his son takes control but have no sons, dougthers.Meanwhile his sister have a son(price of England). then the king of england dies the price takes control and his uncle(king of scotland dies as well, no hair) so the king of england has the right to claim scotland now because of the bloodline.
As realistic as that might be, that's asking a lot on the programming side. You'd have to have a large table to remember who is marrying whom for all those kingdoms and for at least two generations.
I think it would be better to keep it simple: No heirs == major kingdom problems, maybe even split as a marshall or two takes provinces of their own.
Lighthope
Pearls of Wisdom - I'm desperately trying to figure out why Kamikaze pilots wore helmets.
--== THE DOCTOR WHO AUDIO DRAMAS: http://www.dwad.net
--== Give performance reviews of your boss: http://www.rateyourboss.org
--== Everlasting Films Call Board: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/everlastingfilms
vBulletin v3.5.4, Copyright ©2000-2007, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.