low fertility king

**viermaaldomi** · 04-21-2005, 18:49

Hi all,

I just lost for the first time because all my heirs died of age.Here's what happened:my first king had only 2 sons.He only died when he was already 87.
The 2 sons ,by then 60 and 50, were both married for about 30 years.Great was my surprise when I saw that Phillippe 3,the first heir in line didn't have any sons.Neither did he get any until his death at age 79.His brother Jean 1,had a 10-year old son,Louis, when he ascended to the throne at age 69.he died 3 years later and the game was over.
Now here's my question:is this just a case of very bad luck or are there known reasons for these kinds of happenings?I must point out that neither of the royals fought a battle until they were about 70.Do they need to do more manly stuff to get a lot of children?I guess they will die sooner too when they fight a lot,even if they don't get killed,or am I mistaking?(It's just that I prefer invading Tunisia and Algeria from Antioch and Tripoli then to start a war with the English or Germans).I await your replies with trepidation.Thanks in advance!

**Tricky Lady** · 04-21-2005, 20:48

Well I guess that's just a case of bad luck.
IIRC you could "raise your king's fertility" by fighting a few battles, but there might be some mist in my head as it's been some time since I played MTW (now that I come to think of it: I should start a MTW campaign again).
It happened to me only once that I lost a game when my king died without heirs.

BTW, welcome to the Org!

EDIT: There is a cheat code to make sure a son is born in the next year, but -aargh!- I can't remember it! You gotta search the forums, or wait for another member to reveal it, sorry.

**IrishMike** · 04-21-2005, 21:06

.unfreeze. is the cheat code for the son being born. I use it sometimes to fight off those evil unreproducing kings.

**viermaaldomi** · 04-21-2005, 21:36

Thanks for the cheat guys

**Ash** · 04-21-2005, 22:35

I sometimes use the unfreeze cheat.

Cuz even if you marry your kings with foreign princesses, they still manage to produce only girls.
Richard I of the English is notorious for this in my games.

**viermaaldomi** · 04-22-2005, 08:49

I guess some kings just don't get sons (or very few) because they historically didn't get any.Maybe I should start a list with these kings and make sure that they die very quick so that the heirs can take over when they're still young.So Richard I and Phillippe II are the first kings on my low-fertility-list.

**English assassin** · 04-22-2005, 12:17

You need to watch out for very old kings with very old heirs. I don't think an heir gets ANY children until he is king. (At least, in my experience, they all take the throne with only brothers for heirs. I guess its a bug) . So an 87 year old king with two old sons is a risk because the sons may not have time to have children before they die themselves.

You've got two choices once your king is getting on a bit and your heirs are past prime child rearing age, either use .unfreeze. to get another son and hope your king makes it to another 16 years, or send him on a suicide mission before he is really ancient and hope his heir does the business quickly (which again you can help on with .unfreeze.)

Personally I think the whole heirs/dynasty thing is entirely lame and adds nothing to the game at all.

**Tricky Lady** · 04-22-2005, 16:55

@ English Assassin:
I am quite sure that an heir to the throne can have sons/daughters before he becomes king. I've had several kings where a new "bloodline" appeared at the accesion to the throne. That was the moment were the brothers (or uncles?) disappeared from the possible heir to the throne list.

**Procrustes** · 04-22-2005, 17:04

I generally save my turns so that I can re-fight exciting battles, though for the campaign I stick with my first results. I have noticed that the king dying is fairly random once you've installed the VI patch - so if you are desperate you could re-play the turn and see if your king survives another year. If you give him long enough he may have a surviving heir.

I tend not to feed any of my heirs to the lions - even ones with crappy stats. It helps to have some brothers and uncles around sometimes. If I end up with a crappy king I role with it - the whole eugenics thing gives me the willies. So far I haven't lost to "no heirs", but I've come darn close.

(Personally I like the heirs/dynasty thing, but hey.)

**viermaaldomi** · 04-22-2005, 20:14

I'm gonna install the VI patch then when I start playing again.For the moment though I'm gonna play Shogun Warlord's edition now (my loss was just too painful).I've had the game for a couple of months but was too addicted to Medieval to start playing.I'm surprised that so many of the improvements of Medieval were already in the MI expansion (more heirs

,bribing armies,different eras,...).Plus I love all the Japanese stuff and am very eager to see the battlefield ninjas and Kensai in action!

**Ironside** · 04-23-2005, 07:51

You need to watch out for very old kings with very old heirs. I don't think an heir gets ANY children until he is king. (At least, in my experience, they all take the throne with only brothers for heirs. I guess its a bug) . So an 87 year old king with two old sons is a risk because the sons may not have time to have children before they die themselves.

Care to explain how you can get two hiers at the same age, one ends up as thwe first hier and the other last, without the hiers getting children before they get to the throne and the first one is the new king's son and the other one is the old king's son?

I would say that Tricky Lady is correct.

Having married sons is somewhat tricky though.

Usually is most princesses from one faction for the entire campaign.

**Evil_Maniac From Mars** · 04-23-2005, 16:08

What you do in that case, make a really good general with a huge army hate you, then when he rebels, join the Rebel side!

**Yoyoma1910** · 04-23-2005, 16:46

Frankly, I don't know why they never made an 'illegitimate heir' patch, where random out-of-wedlock heirs pop up in provinces with taverns or brothel houses after a king dies. That would have solved the problem, and add a bit of interest to the game... I can just imagine what vices and virtues they would have had.

I mean, maybe the guy's wife just wasn't so nice to him, should that imply he was completely infertile.

**Sir William Wallace** · 04-28-2005, 14:19

Yoyoma1910, that is actually a great idea, i mean , its stupid to end the game when you have no heirs, i mean in real life a race of people didnt die out b/c they had no king, usually someone from another country would try to take over (for example, when Polish King Wladyslaw took the Russian throne during Russias courtship instability in the early 1600's), or someone from the bloodline would pop up somewhere. this would be more historically accurate. i hope someone makes a mod in the near future that includes this, it would add a whole new dimension to the game, with playing with foreign kings in your faction or distant heirs.