Lack of newborn children

[starkhorn]

Folks,

I've got BI with the 1.6 patch and I've noticed that I've very few newborn children. I'm playing as WRE and nearly all of my family are married yet I think only 1 or 2 have kids at the moment.

I've played around 30 turns and I seem to remember lots more children than that.

I also noticed the same thing with the Vandals....very few or little newborn children.

Has anyone else noticed this?

Cheers
Starkhorn

ps I tend to reload nearly every turn....would this affect this?

[Avicenna]

I think the Vandals don't get any because they're hordes. FM's are given based on territories, in vanilla it was 2-3 territories per male FM, roughly. It must have changed in BI though, because I suddenly had a baby boom late in the game as the WRE, having gained around 5+ babies per FM, and to top that off I got the occasional good adoption!

BTW, mine is on 1.6 as well.

[Quillan]

In both the original game and in BI, I have noticed a lot of variation in births with no apparent reason behind it. I'll go long periods with no births at all, and then get a host of them in short order.

Now, what I did notice in BI is that the kids don't seem to come of age while you're a horde. I tried a game as the Huns, and the oldest child still hadn't come of age by the time he was 30...

[x-dANGEr]

I also think that to have kids, your fellas should settle in cities.

[gmjapan]

yeah, you can get married in the field but for the rabbit thing you need to hole up in a city.

[Seven.the.Hun]

its a cheaty kinda solution, but its only a game...
if u are needing a birth around a certain time...just save b4 u hit the turn button...and if it doesnt happen, reload, and hit it again...
i've noticed little differences when going into one year from the same point multiple times...sometimes the events are radically different.

i think i've done it to try to squeeze in a birth once or twice.

i like saving every year so i have the option of going back to a save game in a campaign. downside is filling up the savegame box but i go thru and get rid of boring years and keep a few exciting ones if i wanna play again and do different stuff.

i think after many campaigns and cultures it just seems stagnate at times...i guess every royalty guy cant be a playboy afterall.

[4th Dimension]

Did you ever had problems with your memebers genealy in 75% of times getting daughters. Curently in my RTR campain, those family members that have children usualy have 3-4 daughters and only one son.

[Quillan]

That's just luck of the draw, there. The only problem I have with that, is that the game only allows for one possible marriage per turn, no matter how many eligable daughters there are. I've had situations where I had ten unmarried daughters all of whom were old enough, and the game would only provide one potential suitor every few turns. The first few got married; the rest turned into spinsters because they got old before the game gave them a chance to get married. It should make the check for every possible daughter; it only checks for the oldest.

[4th Dimension]

Yes that's the problem too. Lately only those old hags get maried. And then when I saw that a very strong family member maried only in his 54 year I wanted to scream!
It seems that in this campain conquest won't be the problem. Havingy and heirs will.

[gmjapan]

I thought the chances of getting a son were directly linked to the number of cities versus existing family members that you have...

[gardibolt]

I thought the chances of getting a son were directly linked to the number of cities versus existing family members that you have...

That's Man of the Hour (adoption) chances.

[Severous]

I am pretty certain I saw two sons get married in the same turn.

I have seen comment that married geenerals of the right age will have more chance of children if they are governors.

[orangat]

I am pretty certain I saw two sons get married in the same turn.

I have seen comment that married geenerals of the right age will have more chance of children if they are governors.

I think its not so much that they are governors than that they are in a city (instead of being out in the field).

[Seven.the.Hun]

what if its a garrison commander for a fort perhaps. i wonder if the game sees this as the same as one in a city.

[Haudegen]

what if its a garrison commander for a fort perhaps. i wonder if the game sees this as the same as one in a city.

I remember someone reported that one of his generals got a son while he was in a fort. I am pretty convinced that at least in the early versions of RTW (~until patch 1.2) it was necessary that the potential father was living in a city or alternatively in a fort.

But a few days ago, playing RTR Platinum Edition 1.6 with BI-Exe, I was quite surprised when a general who was on campaign (besieging a hostile city) got a son!

Something must have been changed, either in the BI-Exe or maybe even in the RTW-Exe (1.5). Perhaps anyone else has noticed something similar?

[gmjapan]

The most my generals got in the field was married. Never managed to have kids there.

[Quillan]

Just because the husband isn't home doesn't mean the wife can't have children. It just means she can't have HIS children...

[gmjapan]

Just because the husband isn't home doesn't mean the wife can't have children. It just means she can't have HIS children...

Ahh, a common problem... even today!!

I now have the same "lack of offspring" problem after bribing a few enemy generals to relieve sieges. They are all middle-aged and unmarried. Now none of my generals have kids and they are all approaching 45 - 50 or already over.

One thing that makes me smile though is my bribed Roman general who now defends Caralis after trying to siege it a while back. He has the "Roman Turncoat" ancillary! A roman turncoat with a roman turncoat - nice.