Who Should Have Princess available and why? (POOL)

[Cute Wolf]

Well, please sent your opinion about some typical culture, who should have princess and who shouldn't. Notice that I also give some "ridiculous" option kind of faction to have princess such as nomads, but feel free to give a proper arguments. and wait for the pool to be shown first.... In case I think too long...

[antisocialmunky]

... I just want my family tree to look as impressive as the bottom half of this one:



IS THAT SO WRONG?!?

[Cute Wolf]

Actually we can roleplay incests with Princess... so that's their primary use for a good Ptolemaic family tree...

[Reno Melitensis]

I voted no, but if the EB team manage to prevent marriages between Hellenic and Romans and Gauls ans Lusitanians and a genetic pool its ok. Imagine the AI Roman daughter of the Princeps marrying the son of a Gallic King. Non sense, so its better to leave this one out.

Cheers.

[Ibrahim]

... I just want my family tree to look as impressive as the bottom half of this one:



IS THAT SO WRONG?!?

you are sick. just plain...sick

actually, to be honest, I'd ike to make an imbred ptolemaic dynasty as well. but I'm dubious of having princes in EB-I only voted on the ssumption that they could limit princesses in certain factions.

[antisocialmunky]

There are some problems because that family tree has some multiple marriages to relatives. As in that chick that married her cousin and then her uncle.

If we can't do that sort of crap then what's the point?

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

An inbred Ptolemaioi dynasty would be a good counter for their extremely powerful and wealthy base.

[Ibrahim]

An inbred Ptolemaioi dynasty would be a good counter for their extremely powerful and wealthy base.

assuming you could somehow connect the traits related to imbreeding to marriage options-I doubt it can be done, but one can give a try.

[Skullheadhq]

Ptollies should have princesses, since marriage ceasefires using marriages where quite often used with the Seleukids.

And inbred is fun
Then we should have generals with funny shaped heads..

[Alsatia]

Then we should have generals with funny shaped heads..

Another reason Seleukeia shoud fear the Ptolies.

[Atraphoenix]

I do not think dev team will add them but in reality many monarch dating from the known history used their daughters to get political support.
but any idea if we have chance to reject a princess whose faction I am at with? or if a cunning princess seduces one of my generals it make an automatic alliance deal?

[HunGeneral]

Well I voted:

Monarchic Dynasties (first) - dynastical mariages were not rare among thoose kingdoms. Ptolamaid/ Seleukid Mariege, the Maiage between the Hay and Pontic royal families.

Another Monarchis Faction (second) - as much as I know then marriages between "leading families" of different tribes was not uncommen aswell (I'm not sure however, maybe the EB team knows more).

Nomadic tribals - I voted on this because Marriage was often seen as a form of "uniting", "merging" two tribes since the child would descend from the Ancestors of both "dynasties" and would have a divine right to rule both (however this custom did change from tribe to tribe and era to era so I still consider it uncertain). The other point for it was that in several cases in history "settled dynasties" often married with nomadic warlord families (and the other way around) to secure alliances/military support.

[Chris1959]

I voted no because Total Wars diplomacy is so weak that dynastic marriages have no hold, and forgive me if I'm wrong but the only function I found for Princesses was to steal another factions FM's.

[Skullheadhq]

I voted no because Total Wars diplomacy is so weak that dynastic marriages have no hold, and forgive me if I'm wrong but the only function I found for Princesses was to steal another factions FM's.

Marriage alliances are stronger

[antisocialmunky]

Then its unrealistic since those Diadochi marriage alliances didn't really work well.

[Megas Methuselah]

I voted no because Total Wars diplomacy is so weak that dynastic marriages have no hold, and forgive me if I'm wrong but the only function I found for Princesses was to steal another factions FM's.

I often find that marriage alliances stay strong until the death of the princess. That's one reason why I enjoy princesses (another is because of inbreeding, but that's beyond the point).

[The General]

... I just want my family tree to look as impressive as the bottom half of this one:



IS THAT SO WRONG?!?

Oh wow.

And I thought the Habsburgs were bad. I knew Ptolemies had brothers marrying sisters, but I didn't know they were *that* creative with the forms of intermarrying.




On topic, I voted for Civilized Monarchic Factions, "Another" Monarch-ish Factions and Nomadic Tribals - monarchic factions with ruling dynasties could and would intermarry. However, as this was not on the level of intermarrying of the medieval European aristocracy, I'm not all that sure if it can be properly included in EBII.

Eedyt: *Nod-nods at HunGeneral's direction* Diggin' the nick, too.

[Macilrille]

Marriage alliances are stronger

Yet they always betray you anyway. I am playing MTW2KD at the mo for I am tired of EB's constant CTDs when I fight the Lusos and they keep declaring war on me and attacking me, loosing 1-3 stacks at the Rhone every turn and CTDing every turn...

Anyway, as English I happily allied myself by alliance and marriage to France and The Holy Roman Empire, yet they both gladly DoW-ed me, just like all the rest of Europe. And both refuses peace more adamantly the more I take from them. RTW's diplomacy is ridiculous! It is taking the fun from my games. EB and MTW2 :-(

[Hanoeman]

Isn't there a way to 'change' the MTW2 princesses in hostages? Most of the time they were taken from a defeated enemy but one could imagine them being 'given' to another nation to secure an alliance... with a bit of imagination.
We of course know that the Romans demanded hostages from vanquished tribes. Caesar also mentions Germans demanding hostages from Gauls (Caesar, 'De Bello Gallico' 1.31):

Moreover, [as for] Ariovistus, no sooner did he defeat the forces of the Gauls in a battle, which took place at Magetobria, than [he began] to lord it haughtily and cruelly, to demand as hostages the children of all the principal nobles, and wreak on them every kind of cruelty, if everything was not done at his nod or pleasure.
(I would have quoted the source but I can't, since it's my first post ><)

Also the Romans are known to have given hostages (Procopius 'Wars' 1.21)

but do you as quickly as possible remove from the land of the Romans and permit the ambassadors to act in the manner which will be of advantage to both peoples. For we are ready also to give as hostages men of repute concerning these very things, to prove that they will be actually accomplished at no distant date." Such were the words of the ambassadors of the Romans.

This plays in 531 which is, of course, much later than the EB timeframe.

I think we could deduce (with the risk of grossly oversimplifying) that people are ready to actually give hostages to endorse treaties on all levels. At least to people with a similar or superior power (no use in giving hostages to your inferiors). Perhaps not as good as the princess system or no system at all but, in my opinion, all the more interesting.

[Horatius Flaccus]

You would then have 'hostages' walking around and married of to family members.

[Hanoeman]

I forgot about that aspect. How about they're just walking around with family members.

[the unique joe]

sorry if i sound like an ignorant nosey new neighbor but could you add these "hostages" as the conquering generals retinue?

[A Very Super Market]

Welcome to .org

You could easily create an ancillary like that, and implement it, but you wouldn't be able to do much with it. Nothing in the like of diplomacy, really.

[Rahwana]

Marriage Alliances aren't necessarily stronger... but IT DID IMPROVE the Relationship points between both factions in question. Imagine you are at abysmal, with marriage alliance, you'll go into "hostile"

[the unique joe]

suppose you added hostages as a retinue, could you make it so that he becomes a more convincing diplomat, add the hostages to a diplomat's ret and he gains influence like agents skill in vanilla M2TW "well you could be a nice guy and allow trade rights and a ceasefire...or we can get rid of sally over here who just so happends to be from your town."

[moonburn]

omfg XD damm i shouldn´t drink :X

what if we could add ancylliaries to the towns ? so those hostage´s would be given to a caracther (either military comander or a diplomat or whatever) and he could bring "her" to the town

a retinue for cities and then you could eventually change them beteween caracthers and place them as reserve in your cities so one could have all those great military anciliary´s living on that city but not being part of a general personal retinue at that moment but when the time for war came they could be swapped or given to new family members

i mean socrates was not part of a personal retinue (i believe) but part of an entire city´s retinue (as he lived and worked in athens)

maybe if the city was left without a governor one could roleplay a kind of "trusted" council managing the city in the absence of a governor and give the city the positive traits of such people even if no governor was present (and even when the governor was present)

i better stop before i make a fool out of myself again

[A Very Super Market]

Well..... you can't.

[the unique joe]

you can only mod what is in the engine right? no add ins?

[A Very Super Market]

Yeah. There is an ancillary called "Foreign Hostage", which gives an influence bonus to diplomats, but you can't use it for ransoms or anything, just as.... an ancillary.

[antisocialmunky]

I suppose you can get a bonus to 'trade' if you wanted a FM version. There's a ransom option that takes care of hostages though.