Heirless kingdom

[Oaty]

I don't think it should happen and would make the game much more interesting, if only you went through a massive civil war where you only got your longheld land safely in your control and many florins going away. Or another idea would be that all your armies are reduced to 1/3 making it much easier to lose lots of territory to the A.I. and causing you to lose much land before you can secure yourborders again.

So should an heirless kingdom be the end of the game?

[Oaty]

Another note on that sure beats the idea of having to cheat when your king turns 40 and typing .unfreeze. Well anyway I have the feeling even after the patch I will type in unfreeze on a 40 year old king just to be sure the geme wont be lost

[Snowhobbit]

I think that the idea of splitting up the country with a Civilwar is a great idea.
Its not realistic that a country that had existed for a couple of hundred years disapear becuase they dont have a heir.
In fact here in Sweden we had a time when there was no heir to the swedish crown, an officer went without permission to ask Jean Bernadotte to become the swedish heir, ofcourse the old guys in sweden where upset, but since it was up to the king to decide Bernadotte became the new heir and eventually the king.

[Vanya]

Quote[/b] (Snowhobbit @ Oct. 02 2003,01:25)]I think that the idea of splitting up the country with a Civilwar is a great idea.
Its not realistic that a country that had existed for a couple of hundred years disapear becuase they dont have a heir.
In fact here in Sweden we had a time when there was no heir to the swedish crown, an officer went without permission to ask Jean Bernadotte to become the swedish heir, ofcourse the old guys in sweden where upset, but since it was up to the king to decide Bernadotte became the new heir and eventually the king.
GAH

Civil war... you pick the general you want from the many factions... and you move on. Vanya sez... just don't pick the old bastid that's in his 50s... no time to spawn and cycle repeats...

GAH

[The Last Emperor]

Yeah...do agree tat t game dont hav to end after t last heir has died...choosing a general and fight a civil war would b a better alternative than just ending the game.

[[DnC]]

With my current campaign it almost seem to go that way, but my sultan Mehmed I just got a baby boy at the age of 39. PFEW Almost lost a campaign there http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

[MizuKokami]

definately, the game should go on. remeber, it's good to be king. likely in your king's glorious years, he likely sired a few illigitimate heirs. i'm sure anyone of them would be more then happy to be king.
further, if by some strange querk, you lose a campaign by being defeated and loseing your provinces, the game should fast foward ten years were you get.....an heir that escaped detection resurfaces, and a few rebel armies join you.

[bighairyman]

if a country loses it's royal family(no heir), someone strong usually raise an army ,c rush all other pretenders to the throne and becomes the new king, and thus a new ruling family. so i support this civil war thingy http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[neogerry]

Quote[/b] (MizuKokami @ Oct. 03 2003,00:46)]if by some strange querk, you lose a campaign by being defeated and loseing your provinces, the game should fast foward ten years were you get.....an heir that escaped detection resurfaces, and a few rebel armies join you.
lol, i agree whit that http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[spmetla]

A horse for my kingdom, a horse for my kingdom.

I'd love to fight for a kingdom. It'd be cool if the game had a pool of family house (Hapsburgs etc) and prebat shields and have new semi random factions appear instead of rebels during civil wars.

[Doug-Thompson]

I was having the most fun I'd ever had with this game. playing the Hungarians -- and then my king died without an heir.

Having only one wife at a time sucks.

Every once in a while, I tell myself that I really should play Christian factions. Then something like that happens.

[Brutal DLX]

On a related note, I think it should have been implemeted that if there is no male heir, any general who married a royal princess should have a legitimate claim to the throne. This would reduce game overs by an additional amount, as it is very unlikely that a king will neither produce princes nor princesses during his reign.
Of course, if there's more than one married general, we have the civil war scenario you spoke about..

[The Wizard]

I'd rather have a big civil war after the last heir of a dynasty of Kings dies.. the general that comes out on top is the new King... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif