.png){kind=avatar}
I apparently was an exception who likes playing later dares. :/ Charlemagne DLC hopefully will fix this with that new bookmark screen.
Anyway, just more of an excuse for the later period to get some love.
Dude, Where's My Black Death?
- Thread starter gathomas88
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I apparently was an exception who likes playing later dares. :/ Charlemagne DLC hopefully will fix this with that new bookmark screen.
Anyway, just more of an excuse for the later period to get some love.
Well, it shouldn't just be the Black Death by itself, this theoretical Late Game DLC needs the other things that happened and are left out of the game at the time.
I've been playing the 1204 and 1220 bookmarks lately (which are really fun by the way, people tend to dismiss late starts for some reason) and I've yet to see this Black Death you speak of.
Indeed! Moar Black Death naow!
As others mentioned: I wouldn't mind a Late Middle Ages DLC. It's way more needed than early game ones (Charlemagne...). A a late game DLC should contain the Riders of the Apocalypse (Late Medieval crisis: famine, disease and well... war, but I guess war is already in the game) and the gradual transformation from feudal to early modern states. Kings get more power by f.e. allowing a larger demesne and allowing to have more than two duchy titles while being a king. That way he gets more direct control over his kingdom in a way that's pretty close to how it was hstorically. Though, there should be some variation, seeing that the HRE lost power in the same period whereas the Imperial vassals gained power.
Also, if realms would tend to become more centralized in the late game, they should be less so in the early stages of the game. I still think kings are too powerful at game start. They shouldn't be able to raise levies from their vassals, let alone tax them. What happened to "Le roi doit vivre du sien"? (English: "The king has to live of his own [possessions]") In other words, the monarch must live of his demesne, not take anything from his subjects apart from occasional 'bede' (Dutch term, don't know the English variant. If anyone could translate, please do so. I'll edit this post then), which, on the otehr hand, only started from 1200 onwards.
As others mentioned: I wouldn't mind a Late Middle Ages DLC. It's way more needed than early game ones (Charlemagne...). A a late game DLC should contain the Riders of the Apocalypse (Late Medieval crisis: famine, disease and well... war, but I guess war is already in the game) and the gradual transformation from feudal to early modern states. Kings get more power by f.e. allowing a larger demesne and allowing to have more than two duchy titles while being a king. That way he gets more direct control over his kingdom in a way that's pretty close to how it was hstorically. Though, there should be some variation, seeing that the HRE lost power in the same period whereas the Imperial vassals gained power.
Also, if realms would tend to become more centralized in the late game, they should be less so in the early stages of the game. I still think kings are too powerful at game start. They shouldn't be able to raise levies from their vassals, let alone tax them. What happened to "Le roi doit vivre du sien"? (English: "The king has to live of his own [possessions]") In other words, the monarch must live of his demesne, not take anything from his subjects apart from occasional 'bede' (Dutch term, don't know the English variant. If anyone could translate, please do so. I'll edit this post then), which, on the otehr hand, only started from 1200 onwards.
Not sure bout the great mortallity being fun in this game. A lot campaigns will end prematurely due to extinct dynasties. Also mercs and manpower in general would be very scares, taxes drop, warfare was pretty much stalled. It'll be a pretty boring thing.
As mentioned before - the Black Death should not just be a massive random killer going around and reducing the number of characters in play. That would make for pretty boring gameplay. If, however, a general overhaul of how the economy/population/technology is on it's way, one that would make the wealth of provinces more dynamic and allowed for both historic and unhistoric outcomes, without upsetting the balance through snowballing, THEN the Black Death should, along with other major events, become a major part of that overhaul.
I raised the contagiousness and severity of all diseases by about 20 to 50 % (flat) and it really made quite a big difference, especially when combined with CK2+. A much better experience than the extremely low mortality rate of vanilla. 
I've had characters live through pneumonia more often than not, and that, right there, is something.
I've only played three games past 1300, so that explains why I've never seen it. Shame, I would have thought it would be a scripted event with a tiny chance that it would not happen, like horde spawn events.
Hmm, perhaps centralization could be tied to Technological advancement? Another thing that should be implemented is gunpowder, perhaps through an event in the 1300s/ late 1200s like how it is in Medieval II Total War.
I'd happily replace those bullshit adventurers and their armies 3x the size of mine with a random plague chance that simulates the devastation of population by severely reducing levies and realm income with a chance to also spread to the courts of the ruling elite. Also a plague mapmode would be ******* awesome.
It sure is great, as long as you and an heir survive. Ever played CK1 and its plagues ? That was quite exciting and scary and i loved it.
Though it was probably a bit exaggerated concerning higher (landed) nobility and their lower death rate in comparison to the general public during the Black Death era.
The new 'Hiding' decision/trait could also help here.