Can't give titles to heirs or mercenaries

[Hurin_Rules]

I can't seem to give heirs or mercenaries the titles from territories in VI. This makes getting high-star generals a real drag, and seems to me historically inaccurate-- I mean, think of the Prince of Wales or William Marshal. Anyway, can anyone just tell me whether this is a bug in my game or whether this is a standard feature of VI? I would really appreciate it.

Thanks

[magnatz]

I noticed it too, with both plain MTW and VI.

I think it is a bug, or at least I can't see any valid reason why heirs and mercs shouldn't have titles... surely it is not because of historical accuracy.

[Quokka]

Quote[/b] ]I can't seem to give heirs or mercenaries the titles from territories in VI. This makes getting high-star generals a real drag

It is included in both MTW and VI intentionally.

If you gave a title to a Mercenary general then he would become landed gentry, with vested interests and ties to a particular monarch and would no longer be Mercenary would he?

Most monarchies in RL have a strict line of succesion. The English for example have the Prince of Wales as their Crown Prince. For the game to model RL then the firstborn son of the current King would have to become the Prince of Wales, taking that choice out of your hands. Younger sons would have to be assigned titles also. Many titles are not present in the game (eg Earl of Sandwich), so what do you do with those heirs whose specific title is not represented in the game? What happens if the English have lost control of Wales? A large portion of the governorships would have to be reshuffled upon the death and ascension of a King. It is easier to allow the player to determine who governs.

The uncrowned heirs don't age and die so all you have to do is wait a while. Royals aren't intrinsically better generals, often building their units results in generals just as gifted. Many Royals are in fact duds and are sent on suicide missions to kill them off.

[Hurin_Rules]

Thanks for clearing up the fact that it is not a bug.

I have to disagree with you, however, that it is historically accurate. One of the constant complaints by medieval nobles is that mercenaries are being given titles that should have gone to the nobles. William the Marshal, for example, began his career on the tournament circuit and later held several important titles. As well, kings would often give their sons titles to give them some experience governing, in case they would later inherit the throne. Henry II, for example, gave Richard the Lionheart the duchy of Aquitaine. The French kings were constantly giving their younger sons appanages.

In short, mercenaries and younger royals constantly got titles in the Middle Ages.

[Brutal DLX]

Quote[/b] (Hurin_Rules @ Nov. 11 2003,21:53)]In short, mercenaries and younger royals constantly got titles in the Middle Ages.
I agree with that, but really it would mess up some aspects of the game, as Quokka said.

You still can "grow" some normal generals to at least 4 stars and go from there by giving them office titles. It's not the best solution, but it works.

[MrWhipple]

Once again we come up against the clasic game design problem: Do we make it 100% real or do we make it playable. Designers come up against this problem all of the time, and they usually come down on the side of playable. I have played a few games in the old paper hex map days that tried to be 100% real and they were a real drag to play. Sometimes you just have to make a few compromises to make it work. After all it is a GAME. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif Have fun

[Hurin_Rules]

Yeah, I know, it has to be playable. It's just a bit of a letdown to have it now much more difficult to get high-star generals. It seems my generals with 4 stars or more have to win ten battles just to get a single star. I have yet to get a general beyond 6 stars.

[Brutal DLX]

Yes, there's a rule for giving stars. It follows the 2^n line, meaning you have to win one battle for one star, 2 for 2, 4 for 3, 8 for four etc... that's why it's usually easier to give an office title to a 4 or 5 star general to give them two additional stars instead of letting them fight 32 or 64 battles.

[Ironside]

Citera[/b] ]Yes, there's a rule for giving stars. It follows the 2^n line, meaning you have to win one battle for one star, 2 for 2, 4 for 3, 8 for four etc... that's why it's usually easier to give an office title to a 4 or 5 star general to give them two additional stars instead of letting them fight 32 or 64 battles.

I don't think it's 2ˆx anymore (as it was in Shogun) on higher levels, but you'll still need alot of victories to get stars on a late level.

I know for certain that I had 5+star generals that gained stars. And I'm quite certain I had 7+star generals that gained stars.

[MrWhipple]

Here is a thread that talks a bit about the whole general promotion process both before and after VI.

Anyone else notice... (http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=7;t=10624;hl=star+general)

[Brutal DLX]

I think it still works the same way as in Shogun, but you have to know that V&Vs as well as bonus stars from titles don't figure in the equation, so if you have a 7 star general but he got 2 stars from virtues or an office title, he still is in effect a 5 star general and thus needs less victories to advance to the nect rank, only then you will have an 8 star guy due to the bonus.
I suspect that was the case in the aformentioned situation.