80% of Retinue Dies to Consumption+?

[unmerged(512626)]

It's 1339 Italy -- in '37 consumption, smallpox and typhus break out (though mostly everyone gets the first, the other was isolated). I don't know if this is label for the "Black Plague" (since that name wouldn't exist yet) but not that many of my people died and I had a retinue of near 20K that next time I looked was 2K??? Obviously this poses financial and strategic concerns and of course I'm due for a new heir any day now.

My realm manpower doesn't seem to be down much and I think my levy that is missing is with the Emp. This seems like serious overkill -- anyone see this before? Oh and if this isn't the plague I'm thinking I'm throwing my money away if it's around the corner.

 

[Darkgamma]

No, the plague is much worse.
And, typhus + smallpox... you're lucky you have those 2k men :laugh:

 

[unmerged(512626)]

And, typhus + smallpox... you're lucky you have those 2k men :laugh:

Seriously, you're right but if I go by how it was distributed I never saw anyone die from those two, (I just saw the pop-up in a couple providences) only the consumption and though it infected a lot of people I think maybe 10-15 people died in the kingdom, if that, from it. So it's not a bug? And the plague is worse on the troops? .. I mean I know it is historically. Poor Italy. Poor Pocketbook.

 

[Darkgamma]

Don't let your armies linger in diseased provinces for long - not good for numbers. I've had dozens of dynasty members die from smallpox, and the plague knows how to empty your levies... really quickly.
I don't think it's a bug - if it is, it's a bug we share.

 

[unmerged(512626)]

Don't let your armies linger in diseased provinces for long - not good for numbers. I've had dozens of dynasty members die from smallpox, and the plague knows how to empty your levies... really quickly.
I don't think it's a bug - if it is, it's a bug we share.

Thanks for bringing this up...I was wondering just now if I moved them north next time, if not into Swabia etc., then Lombardy maybe if it would keep them alive.. (I believe the plague travels north though once it hits Italy, not 100% certain) this 1937 outbreak though pretty much hit the whole country.

 

[Lord Finnish]

Diseases are like that.

 

[Phalanxia]

Consumption is the archaic term for tuberculosis.

 

[RustyTurban]

Disease is definitely not overkill in CK2. If anything it should be much more dangerous.

Also I've never played a game past 1250 so does anybody know if the little Ice Age is represented in CK2 or not?

 

[Lord Finnish]

Disease is definitely not overkill in CK2. If anything it should be much more dangerous.

Also I've never played a game past 1250 so does anybody know if the little Ice Age is represented in CK2 or not?

The worst parts of the Little Ice Age fall beyond CK2's timeline.

 

[unmerged(512626)]

Diseases are like that.

Helpful.

I wasn't asking about disease severity or the definition of consumption -- I'm a health news writer among other things (beats). The percentage of fatality for the retinues, however, didn't add up -- hence my question. And I mentioned -- in so many words -- the virulence was significant (about 15-20%) and fatalities generally low in the rest of the population and my dynasty.
My realm manpower was not reduced so it seems even more illogical 80%+ of the retinue die.

I'm not trying to sound rude, but more often then not I see some forumites jump in with unsolicited information and half the time it's hard to distinguish between a troll, a sincere effort to show off one's knowledge or be helpful. To those who have been helpful, or attempted to be, I thank you.

 

[unmerged(512626)]

Disease is definitely not overkill in CK2. If anything it should be much more dangerous.

Also I've never played a game past 1250 so does anybody know if the little Ice Age is represented in CK2 or not?

If you haven't played past 1250, what prompts you to say this? All it takes is a son to die to end a game early on and losing your good council when there are no replacements is just a start of the challenges. I could handle more of my genetically weak kin and overstuffed court succumbing to illness...but for the most part there seems to be enough to be concerned about in game w/o ramping illness up. Guess it depends on who/how you play and of course your opinion is valid, but I'm just curious how you arrived at it.