problem with Heirs ...

[Vantek]

Ah, I thought so. It's good that a married heir will have his own heirs ready.

I bet the game just spawns them at succession, since in practice it is indistinguishable from keeping track of them from early on, but much easier to program.

BTW am I the only one who hates this 6 heir rule? IMO, heirs should be unlimited. Also, heir units should not require upkeep and should all respawn their soldiers (but only as long as they are heirs). This would actually make them a meaningful and interesting force, and also help weaker factions in comparison to stronger ones.

[Martok]

Yes, I believe heirs will produce children of their own (so long are they're married). Their kids just won't show up on the heirs' list unless they ascend to the throne.

BTW am I the only one who hates this 6 heir rule? IMO, heirs should be unlimited.

I don't think anyone would disagree with wanting unlimited heirs. As a practical matter, however, a limit probably had to be set for programming purposes.

Also, heir units should not require upkeep and should all respawn their soldiers (but only as long as they are heirs). This would actually make them a meaningful and interesting force, and also help weaker factions in comparison to stronger ones.

Again, I suspect most here would concur with you. (Indeed, the idea has been proposed numerous times before, especially in conjunction with modding the game.) Certainly I've always felt that heirs' bodyguard units should automatically respawn, and watching small factions like Aragon and the Danes struggle under the financial burden of supporting numerous princes (and more specifically, their RK's) makes for a compelling argument for reducing their upkeep to zero.

[Togakure]

One problem I'm having in my current game is that heirs mature with zero Command and no V&Vs to suggest why, whereas other heirs in the same line have 4-7 Command. I'm playing a Byzantine campaign for fun, their influence in Early is huge, and it doesn't make sense to me.

I dimly seem to remember that there is some bug that causes the command to be set to zero, but it's been sooo long since I've played or read about MTW that I can't remember the details of it. Do any of you know why this happens?

[caravel]

Yes, the Byzantine faction fall victim to the command stars "wrap around" bug fairly quickly. The best solution to this is to mod the default_heroes.txt and reduce command stars drastically for their starting faction leaders/heirs.

It's also worth noting that the Byzantine faction leader gets a 2 point influence bonus and 1 bonus command star anyway. This is why if you check the default_heroes.txt file before starting a campaign you will notice that the faction leader has one less command star than he starts the campaign with. Also all faction leaders start the game with 4 influence by default, but the Byzantine faction leader starts out with 6. AFAIK this is hardcoded, but completely recreating the Byzantine faction under another name (i.e. changing "FN_BYZANTINE" to something like "FN_EAST_ROMAN" in every single file) should bypass this (never tried it myself though).

[Togakure]

Ah yes, the "wrap around" bug was what I'd read about here, long ago. Thanks for the info on how one might address it, Asai Nagamasa-san. I knew the that the Byz got some significant perks, but didn't know the specifics until now; thanks for that too. I've never taken the time to learn the TW file systems, so getting into any but the simplest of mods is not something I'll likely do. But it's good to know where to find the info if I decide I want to at some point.

[Aelwyn]

I remember there being a console command that would produce a male heir the next turn. After some searching I found it: Open up the console and type ".unfreeze." with the periods before and after. I don't think I ever tried it myself, but from what I remember it did work.

[Ironside]

The issue appears at 7+ star kings and get more prevalent the more stars and influence the king has. So should your king have 9 stars, he will need low influence to keep most heirs from having this. That is usuallly quite hard to pull off, unless you like losing wars on purpose.

It's the heirs that should get 10+ stars, but the game doesn't handle them properly. Gamewise, those heirs can be removed by "accidents", or if the rest of the stats are high enough (including influence), high star hiers can be gotten again in 2-4 generations (usually 3).

[DEB8]

I don't think anyone would disagree with wanting unlimited heirs. As a practical matter, however, a limit probably had to be set for programming purposes.

I am not sure practicality is the main reason here. The Infant Mortality rate in the period covered by this game is very high. Up to 50% ( maybe higher ) of all births, could result in an early death. Six heirs, who all make it to maturity seems good to me. Based on the English Royal families of the period it certainly is!

IMHO anyone who wants / needs more than six is unlucky, foolhardy or maybe just plain greedy!

[Vantek]

It's perfectly fine if each person is limited to six sons... Hell, I'd be happy with three. It's the fact that an old king's six brothers prevent him from having any sons whatsoever that's disturbing.

[DEB8]

It's perfectly fine if each person is limited to six sons... Hell, I'd be happy with three. It's the fact that an old king's six brothers prevent him from having any sons whatsoever that's disturbing.

I agree that is annoying ( and odd ). That ( I guess ) is down to programming, as I presume it's too complex to program it appropriately. That said though, it has been suggusted here, that the program may allow for children of said brothers, who will turn up after one of the said brothers dies. I hope this happens. No idea if it does or doesn't though!

The logical answer to the problem ( as touched on before by someone ), is to kill one of those brothers. With six brothers, I would expect some "falling out" between them along the way, and therefore the assassination of at least one, at some stage, by a sibling. To us today, a murder like this would be un-natural; but back then it was not seen that way at all, and the chances of getting caught were low too... In the game, I guess, you would need to organise the deed yourself. That should throw out any heirs held "in hand" by the AI or create space for a natural one to be produced / born.

[Vantek]

I agree that is annoying ( and odd ). That ( I guess ) is down to programming, as I presume it's too complex to program it appropriately.

Hmmm? It's not complex at all to program a better system. It's just an oversight. The developers just screwed up this particular aspect.

[DEB8]

Hmmm? It's not complex at all to program a better system. It's just an oversight. The developers just screwed up this particular aspect.

Seems complex to me - too many if's and but's so to speak - but then most programming is anyway.
If it's not so for you, perhaps you could draw up a patch for those of us who might be interested....?

[Ironside]

It's perfectly fine if each person is limited to six sons... Hell, I'd be happy with three. It's the fact that an old king's six brothers prevent him from having any sons whatsoever that's disturbing.

Minor detail, it prevents him from having any children. No more princesses.

Anyway, part of the reason is probably a simple way to limit the ex-heir general spam. A silly way of doing it without the limitation. Get 3-4 heirs married. Have the king ending up with an "accident". Repeat until you're at the final heir as a king. Now the family of the 3-4 heirs will show up in the royal family...

Hm, should theoretically be a limitation on the invisible children of the main heir as well then. They can still possibly be pulling a programming trick (married heir got 5 brothers, no children, king dies, bam 0-1 sons X daughters at below 16), but they shouldn't get children due to the 6 heir limit.