Longevity and infertility - the silent killers.

[PershsNhpios]

---

[Prince Cobra]

.unfreeze. is the only cheat I use on regular basis. (I use .matteosartori. before I quit the game). I tend to use it every 15 years if there is no new born heir. It's stupid to lose because of lack of heirs. If you play a Muslim, this cheat even goes more naturally. The rulers and the princes had huuuge harems (sign of prestige and a source for pleasures). Use it!

In MTW/VI I had a very critical moment in XIIth century with Byz /i forgot i need an heir/ but since then the dynasty is well, even with irregular use of cheats. Despite having over 30 provinces, my princes are still desired by some like the Rus. The big problem are the princesses that appear once in 50 years. I follow strict dynastic doctrine and marry them only within the Empire. However, in my game the French ang Hungarians died out because of lack of heirs, which benefited them later.

[caravel]

If I have six brothers and one son as heirs to a throne, does the game cut off further births until one passes? (If so, then there is an easy fix...)

Yes there is a maximum number of heirs, but I can't remember the exact limit...

[Prince Cobra]

I missed that. Then kill one of the heirs. Suicide missions/assassins. It is easier to kill a faction heir than the leader.

[Jxrc]

Yes there is a maximum number of heirs, but I can't remember the exact limit...

The numer is 6 IIRC. This includes the king's brother so you might sometimes run into trouble if one of your king has a "surge" of heirs for a very short period and live quite long .... you can indeed end up with a king (the eldest son) that is crowned at the glorious age of 50 something and with five brothers of about the same age .... Unless the AI is kind enough to give you an heir aged between 6 or 10 when the new king is crowed you can have a change of ruler every one or two years for a while ... One possible solution is, if you spot the problem in time, to send the least useful of your heirs conquer a province on its own ...

[Cute Wolf]

Quick Remedy: Old but extremely good trick, sent your old Sultan to charge rebel pikemen as his last Heroic deeds.... frontally.... repeat with another old family members... your heir will quickly married and get some son afterwards....

[sharpshooter]

I have wondered about infertility too. Early in the campaign producing heirs seems generally simple - making alliances, requesting princesses (even unsuccessfully, though this seems to trigger daughters rather than sons), turning down an alliance that would make life easier (e.g. Turks rejecting Egyptian alliances, Polish rejecting HRE alliances,) pursuing a robust foreign (military) policy that is still not a "bullying" one ...

At a certain point the "freeze" kicks in, and I'm unsure of its trigger(s). Unfreezing heirs (apart from the cheat) seems to get increasingly difficult as the campaign goes on. Certainly forgetting about diplomatic activity with emissaries seems to beg for the freeze to begin. I now continue to go through the motions even when I know my alliance proposal will be rejected. I have tried mating my princesses with their brothers, and all seems well, but it is not the route I prefer my future kings to take.

I wondered at one point if you needed to continue building farmland improvements, even if you have enough money and the demand seems to be only for castles. I now will have farmland improving at whatever stage of the campaign, but like so many things it is difficult to be sure of any effect.

There seems to be a mix of factors, and at some point the heirs freeze and are then very difficult to unfreeze.

It is another MTW puzzle set to make us do Hard Sums just as we might think of relaxing inside comfortable empires ...

[Ironside]

As mentioned, the primary problem is the 6 male heir limit.

Usually in your case, it resolves itself when the Sultan dies. Next turn oldest son is married, turn after that he gets a heir. Then you go through 2-3 of his brothers before that heir comes to age.

It's not particullary common to die out due to lack of heirs (while very annoying when it happens). On this matter I've never really bothered and only lost once due to lack of heirs. That Danish king had 7 daughters before the first son and it was v2.0 with the 56 (that is the correct age right?) bug.

Requesting marriages helps of course, usually 1-2 factions will be willing to marrying their princesses most of the time. While the rest are more grumpy about it.

[Vantek]

Sounds like 7 is the limit then...

Suicide missions FTW! Do an amphibious attack and refuse the ransom!

I once requested marriage from the same princess over 5 times (while bombarding other factions as well) before she finally accepted (likely out of sheer pity).

[drone]

Sounds like 7 is the limit then...

Faction leader + 6 brothers/sons is the limit. When your leader has 6 brothers, take the most worthless of the brood and kill him off. Suicide mission, assassination, inquisition, whatever. Once a son takes the throne, the royal uncles will no longer count against this limit, and usually make for great generals.

[Jxrc]

Once a son takes the throne, the royal uncles will no longer count against this limit, and usually make for great generals.

I am not 100% about that one. Last week-end I had a king whose rule started when he was 25. He got married the next year. Did not get any male heir as long as all its six uncles were alive (they were no longer princes but still had the crown next to their portrait). Once the first royal uncle died was then and became a "non-royal uncle", I got my first heir (my king was 43 then so he stayed 17 years without male heir and just produced three princess). Don't know if that is a coincidence but it might be worthwile looking a bit deeper if the limit is not six princes and/or royal uncles.

[Ironside]

I am not 100% about that one. Last week-end I had a king whose rule started when he was 25. He got married the next year. Did not get any male heir as long as all its six uncles were alive (they were no longer princes but still had the crown next to their portrait). Once the first royal uncle died was then and became a "non-royal uncle", I got my first heir (my king was 43 then so he stayed 17 years without male heir and just produced three princess). Don't know if that is a coincidence but it might be worthwile looking a bit deeper if the limit is not six princes and/or royal uncles.

Coincidence, the game does decide gender of the child until after birth, aka you'll get no princesses while having 6 male heirs (not 100% on this one though). And a king's death will always decrease that number by one obviously, so that's 5 uncles.

Then again, it could explain why some kings get very few heirs.

[Jxrc]

aka you'll get no princesses while having 6 male heirs (not 100% on this one though).

Not sure either. Seems that princesses are just not taken into account since they have been occurrence when I got results such as 3 matured male heirs and a waiting list including three other princes below 16 and a few princesses below 15. I never keep my princesses very long and almost always immediately marry them to one of my generals. We'll check if I get the chance

BTW, non V&V involved in my recent problem since my king was had only one "materialist".

[Jxrc]

I have just been reminded why not having an heir when your king turns 50 can be a major pain in the neck. Playing as England and everything was ok when in 1135, Richard I became king. Was 26, married no prince remained (quite a few royal uncles were still around). Did no pay attention to the princes just born and suddenly realised that he had his first male heir when 42. Doable so I kept on going since 58 is not an age undheard of. French had been wiped out and had taken sweden, norway and burgundy from the rebels. It had never occured to the spanish to wage war on the elmos and they had just taken navarre and aragon. Are they going to attack toulouse or acquitaine some day .... What a suspense .... Enventually they did attack acquitaine in 1165 and were beaten. The same turn I taken Lorraine and switzerland from the HRE (they had attempted to take flanders the previous turn) ... Then my king died ... Game over. Tried to reload, refought the battle with the spanish .... King dies immediately after... Tried three times to withdraw to the keep rather than fight .... Same result each time (as if the ai had already decided before the battle with the spanish that my king was doomed)Kind of annoying. Happened once with the danes after I had fought to massive battle against the GH appearinh in Khazar and VolgaI-bulgaria ... I almosy punched the screen in rage ...

[Ironside]

You have v2.01 I hope? The one where the 56 year bug is fixed?

Not sure how long before the random seed for the king's death this year is decided though, but dying before age 58 is quite rare.

[Jxrc]

You have v2.01 I hope? The one where the 56 year bug is fixed?

Got v2.01, no problem there.

Not sure how long before the random seed for the king's death this year is decided though, but dying before age 58 is quite rare.

Yep it seems that it is decided before the battle are fought. I suspected it might even happen sooner for all I know since when you reload the turn preceeding the death of your king, it does die almost each type even if he is just something like 54 ... Nevertheless, there seems to be some kind of memory that's gets erased if you play another campaign for a while rather than doing an immediate reload, a bit as if the AI had some kind of short term memory that is not included in the save game file but is erase if overwritten in another campaign ... Just a theory though, no hard data to support this ...

[Trapped in Samsara]

Hi

I have definitely had one king (probably Polish) who died 'of natural causes' about two years short of an heir maturing; he was probably 56 or 57. I can recall much wailing and cursing happened.

It took a couple of reloads from saved games and then old bugger stuck it out for another decade or so!

My conclusion was that the king's death (after 56) is an incrementally increasing probability, with a ceiling, obviously. I have had kings survive into their late seventies, though.

Regards
Victor

[Jxrc]

As a rule of thumb, I do not get concerned if my king got an heir while being 40 since 55 is not difficult to reach.

Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that the game will not decide to mess with you a bit. No big deal if you are in a quite period with no battle or just skirmishes to fight but always a drag to reload just after a tough battle that you unexpectedly won (or boring and long battle). Seeing a long campaign end because of lack of heir despite the fact that the king has been married for 25 years is an unfair result and I have no qualm about reloading but if each reloading attempt involves re-fighting the same battle each time against countless jinettes its basically time to start another campaign.

As for king living until they are 70 or more, they can be dangerous. When he dies most of his sons will be 50 or more and if you are unlucky you will discover that your new king has no son of his own (or an heir that is just 1 or 2) and that the heir list is without anybody below 50 … It means that in the best possible scenario you will see each of your heirs (sometimes your best generals) become king for a few and disappear a few years later … If you are unlucky you can end up in a civil war or with no king at all ….

[Trapped in Samsara]

Hi

Yes, extremely long-lived kings are as much of a bane as a boon. They can give your empire stability, and allow your throne to amass great influence - with all the opportunities that that opens up, such as long-distance province capture with super loyal generals. But once they pop their clogs, you can be faced with a whole raft of their aged sons ascending the throne before one of them has a mature eligible son to get the succession situation back onto an even keel.

MTW rewards patience and sound strategic play like no other game I have ever played.

Regards
Victor

[SharkaPult]

As a rule of thumb, I do not get concerned if my king got an heir while being 40 since 55 is not difficult to reach.

Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that the game will not decide to mess with you a bit. No big deal if you are in a quite period with no battle or just skirmishes to fight but always a drag to reload just after a tough battle that you unexpectedly won (or boring and long battle). Seeing a long campaign end because of lack of heir despite the fact that the king has been married for 25 years is an unfair result and I have no qualm about reloading but if each reloading attempt involves re-fighting the same battle each time against countless jinettes its basically time to start another campaign.

As for king living until they are 70 or more, they can be dangerous. When he dies most of his sons will be 50 or more and if you are unlucky you will discover that your new king has no son of his own (or an heir that is just 1 or 2) and that the heir list is without anybody below 50 … It means that in the best possible scenario you will see each of your heirs (sometimes your best generals) become king for a few and disappear a few years later … If you are unlucky you can end up in a civil war or with no king at all ….

This and the below post are the exact reasons I slowly kill off any heirs older than 40. (I prefer the one-way province assault, of course, although an assassination attempt can trigger an always fun civil war) I want a long reign from whichever king ends up surviving. You can kind of roleplay it by an impatient and bored heir haring off on adventure or carving out an empire of his own.

[Jxrc]

This and the below post are the exact reasons I slowly kill off any heirs older than 40. (I prefer the one-way province assault, of course, although an assassination attempt can trigger an always fun civil war) I want a long reign from whichever king ends up surviving. You can kind of roleplay it by an impatient and bored heir haring off on adventure or carving out an empire of his own.

Quite a drastic move. Killing chinless wonder or lazy princes with two three stars makes sense but:

- early in the game you usually do not have enough decent general unless you play a faction that gets plenty of historical general (France and England);
- princes and former princes have, IMHO, a great advantage over historical or random general in the fact that they will never get V&V such as pride, hedonist, chinless wonder or drinker if they did not get it when they first appear (they retain that advantage even after they have ceased to be royalties and it also applies to former AI princes that you would bribe, usually after they turned rebel). Thus you can safely invest in a one or two star prince (or former prince) without risk that all you efforts will be ruined by a bad random v&v. I just hate it when I turn a 0 stra general into a four star one juts in time to see him get "secret pride" (which due to some bug is far worse than pride)
- I have been saved a few times by an zero star royal uncle that I had totally forgotten about and was the only possible heir. A dodgy king is better than no king at all.

Needless to say that the above does not take into account the role-playing aspects that you mention and any move is 100% sound as long as it keeps the game interesting.

[Vantek]

As long as there are 2 replacements, I tend to kill off every prince older than 30 or even like 26 :P Changing kings is something best done as rarely as possible!

I've never been sure about what happens when an old heir grabs the throne - I have never seen a load of mature heirs suddenly pop up, but do you at least instantly gain a lot of underage heirs that are his already existing sons? Or does noone in MTW breed until they are the king? :P

[Ironside]

As long as there are 2 replacements, I tend to kill off every prince older than 30 or even like 26 :P Changing kings is something best done as rarely as possible!

I've never been sure about what happens when an old heir grabs the throne - I have never seen a load of mature heirs suddenly pop up, but do you at least instantly gain a lot of underage heirs that are his already existing sons? Or does noone in MTW breed until they are the king? :P

The heirs won't breed until they're married (no literal bastards here), and unless you marry a foreign princess, they won't marry until after they're kings. When the old king dies, those new immature heirs show up. They can be of the same age as the older king, so you can have 2 heirs of the same age, where one goes up first on the heir list while the other goes last (the young "uncle").

I'm fairly certain that they won't suddenly appear as mature heirs, not sure how the game keeps track on that.

[Jxrc]

The heirs won't breed until they're married (no literal bastards here), and unless you marry a foreign princess, they won't marry until after they're kings. When the old king dies, those new immature heirs show up. They can be of the same age as the older king, so you can have 2 heirs of the same age, where one goes up first on the heir list while the other goes last (the young "uncle").

100% correct

I'm fairly certain that they won't suddenly appear as mature heirs, not sure how the game keeps track on that.

They will not appear together with the new king. The game does not seem to keep track of anything on that point. I have had heirs married when 40 who became kings when 48 and had a 12 years old heir (not sure about the exact figure but pretty sure about the principle as it kind of puzzled me whne I noticed that). I kind of think that when a new married king gets crowned, there is some kind of a roll of dice and he is allocated a random number of hirs (the system is smart enough to keep a 16 years difference between father and son so that you do not end up with a 20 years old king who has an heirs aged 15).

Might be other explanation to this but that's the only one I could figure out by myself

[Vantek]

My first idea would have been that the game keeps track of the offspring of married heirs and then when the heir becomes king "forgets" about those children that would be mature, but your idea is obviously much better Jxrc, as there is no practical difference between tracking offspring of heirs and randomly generating them when needed, and randomly generating is much more convenient.