Is this bad?

[mdutr0]

My first Byz King (Early Era) had was like 7* or 8*. He had 4 heirs. One was 9* - cool man The second one was 7* - good genes I guess. But the second two were both 0* Then wham The King dies and guess who asscends to the throne?

That's right; Emperor Goose-Egg. A 0* heir is now my King Does this mean that his sons are gonna suck too? Should I suicide him?

Thanks,

Micah

[Despot of the English]

I think what happens if you have a 9-star monarch is that his heir will always be 0 star when he succeeds to the throne. Or something like that.

[Tozama]

I awlays check the succession order when any heir is of age.
Soon as I see anyone less worthy above the best prince I have I send him on a suicide attack against 2-3 stacks of my eenemy somewhere - an island if possible, until he dies in battle.
This, coupled with always using my king in enough fights to get his stars up high, marrying princesses into and out from my faction (latter to strengthen alliances, former to produce good heirs), creating high influence by immediately taking some real estate and doing a crusade/jihad as soon as a king is crowned seems to produce really good heirs for me.
This has increased my economic standing so well that my trade empires rake in florins every game under great kings.
Sets the tone for the whole game really.

[katank]

9* tend to produce a lot of duds.

8* about half the time.

6* and 7* tend to produce the best heirs.

try to make sure 7*'s ascend.

suicide lower ones and you may have to sacrifice 8* to make sure that furture line wouldn't be full of duds.

[mfberg]

Or go for the goose egg challenge, see how many stars you can put on your goose egg heir before he dies (my best is 5 without v&v stars).

mfberg

[mdutr0]

I think I'm gonna suicide him. He's got a pretty good heir that just matured...

Katas Charge

Micah

[katank]

sounds good.

note that if duds (0*'s) are lower on the line of succession, it doesn't hurt to keep them as they are usually high valor and have killer stats for a gov (super hgih acumen/dread).

[afrit]

ahem,
I must be missing something. Why do you want your king to have high command? I prefer to leave the high command to the generals and keep the King out of fighting and in the capital province. The only things I care about are acumen (+2% income per feather) and dread to avoid rebellions. So I'd rather that my highest command prince does not become King and keep using him as a general instead.

So what am I missing? Does command help anywhere other than battles? loyalty maybe?


afrit

[mdutr0]

I may be mistaken but it seems, in my limited experience, that high ranking command Kings beget high ranking command heirs. Let's face it, who are most of one's generals? Heirs and people who used to be in line for the throne.

I know for a fact that with Hungary, when my king died and his heir took over (who was like 7* or so) almost all his sons were 7* or higher

If there is, in fact, a relationship between the command rating of a king and that of his potential offspring then it seems entirely possible that a king with a command rating of 0* might have sons of little command ability.

Who wants that?

Thanks,

Micah

[Al Khalifah]

In respect to ensuring that the royal line is kept as good stock its usually helps to have a good assasin around at all times to make sure that the heir to the throne will be a strong king. While I appreciate the fact that killing your own son just to ensure the success of your progeny is a bit harsh, a nation needs a strong king. In MTW an army commanded by the King recieves a morale bonus (so long as the King doesn't rout or die in which case the morale penalty is much higher). If the King is a 7* plus general, this can lead to unstoppable armies.

I would try to ensure however, before killing your heir, that you will still be left with at least an heir and spare. And make sure the assassin is competent - otherwise you could get a civil war or at the least very plummetted loyalties from all generals.

[Quokka]

Quote[/b] ]If there is, in fact, a relationship between the command rating of a king and that of his potential offspring then it seems entirely possible that a king with a command rating of 0* might have sons of little command ability.

There is a relationship. If a 3* King gets a Battle virtue, Skilled Attacker etc, then this is generally passed on to his offspring who will be 4* or higher. This is not a hard and fast rule.

Marrying foreign princess helps keeps the blood strong and will avoid the Chinless Wonders and worse.

In a bizarre twist the 0* son of a 9* King is actually a 10* or higher but the game doesn't recognise that so they pop out as 0*, which is why they still have good stats in the other areas and aren't your typical English or Italian total loser.
So it might be a good idea to let the 9* King just do a few battles to avoid becoming Lazy and let the genes water down to 7* or 8* again before impersonating Philip of Macedon.

[Maeda Toshiie]

1. High ranking kings face the wrap-round problem with their sons, ie the son is meant to be rank 10 but since there isnt a rank 10, they end up as rank 0.

2. Heirs tend to be +/- 2 of the rank of their old man.

3. The higher the influence, the more the sons would be like their old man. Observation (my own) is that the elder sons (when the king's influence is lower) tend to be weaker, while the younger sons (when the king has higher influence) the sons tend to be better, sometimes even better than the king (eg rank 4 king with having a rank 6 son).

[gaijinalways]

I myself don't worry if my king's command stats are great or not. I get enough good generals from my other units, not necessarily from the royal family.

I worry more about the king's influence (helps to get treaties and keep allies) and his dread and acumen for the reasons stated earlier.

[ah_dut]

doesn't matter suicide them, the results can be tres amusant. I've got a valour 50 command 7 prince trying to kill him, after that i left it, he was capable enough

[Papewaio]

Accumen is King

Gold buys armies, armies that win battles gain influence. Even faster with Muslims, send 9 Jihads at one provence, win and gain 9 influence... very cheesy.

Influence is an easy one to gain.

Kings do not live long compared with generals. So I rather concentrate beefing up my generals who last several generations of Kings. Typically these are ex-princes as they have good starting Stats as do some of the neutral starting generals... El Cid is around for a long time in the game.

[mdutr0]

Well i did it I had my king and his group of katas charge a full stack and then some of Egyptians (they reemerged and it was a perfect opportunity). I actually thought he was going to make it through the battle at one point.

The unit killed over 600 people....

I almost wish he had survived...

But now I've got a king pumping out 6* and 7* heirs so its cool.

Thanks,

Micah

[katank]

sure the king doesn't last long but the generations do.

frequently, I get 5-6 offspring and 4 of them becomes exheirs soon.

with some heir farming and eugenics, I always get those exheirs to be 7* or 8*.

having a gazillion of those with amazing acumen and dread in every province is wonderful.

I simply see fields of stars.

sure you lose a high star commander now but you get many more later if you make your best stat prince king (with exception of 8* or 9* as the wraparound might destroy you)

[econ21]

I can't bring myself to off bad heirs. I don't have the heart. It just doesn't feel right and seems a rather gamey exploit to me. I don't understand why some people are scathing about reloading battles and encourage killing off bad heirs. Either way, it seems like the challenge is to play with the cards you are dealt. And at least when you reload, you can learn something from your earlier mistakes. Killing off bad heirs just breaks the immersion and role-playing element I enjoy from the game. Each to his own, though.

[ah_dut]

Quote[/b] (Simon Appleton @ July 21 2004,10:47)]I can't bring myself to off bad heirs. I don't have the heart. It just doesn't feel right and seems a rather gamey exploit to me. I don't understand why some people are scathing about reloading battles and encourage killing off bad heirs. Either way, it seems like the challenge is to play with the cards you are dealt. And at least when you reload, you can learn something from your earlier mistakes. Killing off bad heirs just breaks the immersion and role-playing element I enjoy from the game. Each to his own, though.

steel urself simon a good king must rule with an iron fist and be ready to kill his flesh and blood to improve the gene pool

[katank]

exactly, it's for the good of the empire.

also, it somehow seems deliciously medieval.

it affords in addition the ability for my heirs to flaunt their jedi prowess and often destroy several hunred men, softening the enemy up for the real strike.

[Ludens]

Quote[/b] (Quokka @ July 21 2004,02:21)]Marrying foreign princess helps keeps the blood strong and will avoid the Chinless Wonders and worse.

It's a persistent myth, but it is not true. Marrying foreign princesses does not decrease the chance on 'chinless wonder' and related vices. It does not effect your heirs at all. This has been confirmed by Longjohn. I am afraid that the thread in which he said that is deleted, but you can ask Kraxis since he participated in that thread.
However, marrying foreign princesses does allow you to get heirs earlier.

[katank]

yep. hunting down foreign babes is desirable only due to early heirs so that your king gets heirs in the pipeline when he ascends which usually means more good generals.

actually, marrying your own princess to your princes will do the same if you don't mind the secret incest.

[Tozama]

huh...
I never tracked this scientifically but it seemed so obvious (guess not) that I was getting great quality heirs only in games where I married a lot of princesses.
Must have been just a coincidence.