Disease and Royal pieces

[KyodaiSteeleye]

Hi,

I'm currently playing Byzantines on expert. After the first emperor, Alexius, died (after kicking some ass and having a ridiculous no. of children), i then proceeded to go through about 6 emperors in about 10 years, no kidding. I began to think that it might be that i had him in the garrison at constantinople, and seeing as i had a port, they were just all dying of dysentry or something (they all copped the 'died of nasty disease&#39. So i tried keeping the next few emperors out of garrison - not sure it helped though. So, my question is - does putting a king in a garrison with a port increase the risk of him dying from disease? Or was it just that nearly all of his sons were in their 50's, and so were just at the time when they were likely to kick the bucket?

On another note, does anyone else find it bizarre that your non-direct heirs (eg: uncles/great uncles etc.) and generals never die (except in battle). I must have some 'living ancestors' who are over 200 years old and still leading armies

cheers,

Span

[Demon of Light]

Sounds like REALLY bad luck. I haven't noticed any connection between ports and the age at which a monarch dies.

[The_Emperor]

Quote[/b] (Demon of Light @ May 05 2003,14:37)]Sounds like REALLY bad luck. I haven't noticed any connection between ports and the age at which a monarch dies.

Yeah sounds like it.

I had a period of time when I went through kings of England like mad, in the end the king died his only heir (in his 30s) dies of disease as well Then I have a kickass Royal Blood General take over who begins to make kids like crazy (with the help of his new Italian Wife)

Nothing like a new start once in a while.

[Longshanks]

Quote[/b] (KyodaiSteeleye @ May 05 2003,14:34)]On another note, does anyone else find it bizarre that your non-direct heirs (eg: uncles/great uncles etc.) and generals never die (except in battle). I must have some 'living ancestors' who are over 200 years old and still leading armies

cheers,

Span

Yeah I didn't like that aspect of the game. I wish generals and royal uncles had life spans as well. It would add a bit more realism, and also would make gameplay more interesting since you'd have a limited window to make use of your all-stars.

[SmokWawelski]

Would make the game harder, although I would like to see that You could have some spooky V&V like immortal, or vampirism too

[guardian3]

Just a thought, but at what time in the game did all this start taking place? Could be some correlation with the Black Death plague that swept most of Europe during the middle ages.

[Gregoshi]

Another double welcome coming up

Greetings and welcome, Steeleye and guardian3.

Greetings and welcome, Steeleye and guardian3.



echo...echo...

[GilJaysmith]

Every person from peasant to King is the same as far as their representation in the game data goes. Everyone's age is tracked. So we could have installed a life expectancy, and I suspect that generals dying of old age was in there at some point, but I also suspect that it got taken out because the messages about their deaths started looking like spam.

[Dogmeat]

unrealistic it may be, but i'm fairly happy that my 9 star royal blood general is not going to die out any time soon, its much more honourable to die in battle I actually start to value him more than the king. a 200 year old war legend instills fear in the enemy quite nicely

[DDogwood]

The weird thing that happened to me was in a Byzantines campaign - after over a hundred years of gameplay, my childless Emperor died of disease. His five younger brothers, also childless, took over the throne in turn, all dying after a few years. Then the second son of my very first Emperor took over the throne - I was worried, since he was well over 100, that he would kick the bucket pretty soon, but when I looked at his age he was 21 years old

I don't know if this was a bug or if the clock resets at 100 years old, but it was pretty funny. I figure that he discovered the Holy Grail, because I started fighting off Crusades a couple of years later.

[GoldenKnightX2]

I bet the crusaders are mad at him

[Demon of Light]

Quote[/b] (GilJaysmith @ May 06 2003,02:57)]Every person from peasant to King is the same as far as their representation in the game data goes. Everyone's age is tracked. So we could have installed a life expectancy, and I suspect that generals dying of old age was in there at some point, but I also suspect that it got taken out because the messages about their deaths started looking like spam.

Does the tracking of everyone's age influence which royal blood general gets the throne when your king dies with no heir?

Any chance I can get a message telling me that Lord Gille of Norway died in battle? It isn't as though I would know otherwise considering he is just another viking unit.

[KyodaiSteeleye]

Thanks for replying Gil.

I would have said that give generals lifespans, but only tell the player when star generals die - this would cut down the 'spam'. (you could also have an option to turn this off).

On a new note, what would people think about attrition being added to the game?

I know that in sieges, defenders already suffer attrition. But to add a new layer of realism what about age being taken into account on your soldiers (if they're tracked already should this be a problem?), and they die like everyone else of old age. However, also, the major source of attrition would be invading armies in foreign lands far away from their homelands/supplylines, or garrisons in plague towns. It was a sad fact of many invading armies in this period (eg: the crusades) that sometimes the majority of combatants died before they ever got to see the enemy.

I think this would make the game much more realistic, and much harder for people just to walk across the board, as you would have to send units back to get retrained more regularly, and good generals far away would be far more likely to die of a horrible disease, so you would have to take this into account when sending that 9* general...

Thoughts?

[Elwe]

Quote[/b] (KyodaiSteeleye @ May 06 2003,17:04)]I think this would make the game much more realistic, and much harder for people just to walk across the board, as you would have to send units back to get retrained more regularly, and good generals far away would be far more likely to die of a horrible disease, so you would have to take this into account when sending that 9* general...

Nice idea, but would quickly turn into a pain in the neck.. you'd be forever sending units back to get retrained, and never have time/resources to build new units.

One thought though, instead of having 'spam' through getting constant messages about generals dying of old age, why not have a single parchment pop up that lists all generals and governors that have died this year. That way you'd have the 'realism' of old-age for more than just your royal line, and you wouldn't get spammed... I'm certain I could handle one extra parchment in the End Turn. And I agree, it would be nice to be told when a Titled general/governor dies in battle, even if he isn't the army general.

Cheers

[Gregoshi]

Absolutely. There has been more than one time that I've wondered what happened to General So-and-So. I think it would be very nice to have some kind of marker for each unit on the battlefield that is lead by a title holder. I've also thrown a few good men into the meat grinder unknowingly during battle.

Regarding attrition: it might be realistic but it would be a pain in the neck. I played a galactic conquest PC game a number of years ago and the game simulated wear and tear on the ships as the years went by. It seemed like ships were in peak fighting condition only 1/2 of the time. And that was when they didn't fight. The ships were constantly going back to a star port for routine repairs and maintenance.

[Papewaio]

It would be interesting to track age of everyone, if aging was taken into effect (series of virtues/vices based on age), but also if it was focused on a smaller scale campaign.

Like Hannibals invasion over the alps. Smaller provinces, more moves per year, aging of the soldiers etc.

Or an even smaller scale of warband level of skirmishing. Essentially battle it out with small units 1-20 each and have the campaign essentially focus on the size of a single province. A far more RPG version of TW focue.