Burgundy Phillip III Early Deaths

[Quickmelty]

I don't know what's happened or I have the worst RNG luck in existence, but Phillip the Third has always died within months or a single! Year of me starting an ironman game of burgundy. Did the new DLC change something because while three times in a row is not exactly the widest statistical model, it is disheartening to have a 48 year old ruler with 15 pips (rulers, who generally die around 55-60 ) eat shit and die immediatly because he was a general for five seconds before I immediately hired a new one. Is he getting shanked in an army camp in the five seconds he's a general? What's going on here?

 

[alandalusi7]

On the other hand, my Phillipe died in 1449, when I tried Burgundy for the first time yesterday until dismantled by a pan-european coalition after 1½ hour, because I forgot that Provencal and Lorraine territory were HRE lands...

 

[Battlex]

On the other hand, my Phillipe died in 1449, when I tried Burgundy for the first time yesterday until dismantled by a pan-european coalition after 1½ hour, because I forgot that Provencal and Lorraine territory were HRE lands...

Barrois is hre, the rest isn't, wait for them to be excommunicate

 

[MachopPower69]

Every time I play Portugal, Infante Pedro or whatever his name is dies when he is in his 20s

 

[Vulpes Cinerea]

I was thinking of this the other day when I was listening to the history of the Netherlands podcast. Philip died in 1467. In this game he's dead before the 1450's, 90% of the time. Alfonso of Aragon, Skanderbeg and even Hunyadi when he turns regent have the same problem. I think the leaders that are also generals in 1444 die way too soon.

You could argue that this is a sandbox game and that other historic outcomes are desireable. But wouldn't that also mean that a Philip of Burgundy could live to the 1480's? With all the historic railroading going on, couldn't the developers just make it so he at least have a chance to get to his historic age?

 

[Battlex]

I was thinking of this the other day when I was listening to the history of the Netherlands podcast. Philip died in 1467. In this game he's dead before the 1450's, 90% of the time. Alfonso of Aragon, Skanderbeg and even Hunyadi when he turns regent have the same problem. I think the leaders that are also generals in 1444 die way too soon.

You could argue that this is a sandbox game and that other historic outcomes are desireable. But wouldn't that also mean that a Philip of Burgundy could live to the 1480's? With all the historic railroading going on, couldn't the developers just make it so he at least have a chance to get to his historic age?

the game has historical nudging, not railroading. The double check for king generals got removed, dunno if it just got downgraded to a 1.5 check tho

 

[Thucydides7]

The game has historical nudging, not railroading.

This nudging is probably my favorite aspect of the game.

 

[Triplebassist]

Every time I play Portugal, Infante Pedro or whatever his name is dies when he is in his 20s

The Infante Pedro is a regency for Alfonso V, which has a scripted end in 1447 when Alfonso comes of age

 

[Quickmelty]

Thanks for the replies guys! I didn't know the game had historical nudging. Makes me feel better , but I did do a fourth game and he actually lived much longer this time. Guess I just have bad RNG!

 

[JaxElite]

The actual reason is that philippe is assigned as a general far before 1444 in the history files, upping his death chance

 

[MachopPower69]

The Infante Pedro is a regency for Alfonso V, which has a scripted end in 1447 when Alfonso comes of age

Got them mixed up

 

[henriqueb1]

Phillip never lived long, even before 1.30 he would rarely reach the renaissance.

 

[Quickmelty]

The actual reason is that philippe is assigned as a general far before 1444 in the history files, upping his death chance

hmm is that a mechanic that's been in the game for a while? I never even knew making your ruler a military leader (even if you don't use him) upped his death chance

 

[Prince Ire]

IMO the increased death chance from making a ruler a general is much to high. How many rulers even died in battle during the game's time frame? There's Charles XII of Sweden, but who else?

 

[JaxElite]

IMO the increased death chance from making a ruler a general is much to high. How many rulers even died in battle during the game's time frame? There's Charles XII of Sweden, but who else?

Well ruler generals rarely die in battle, do they?
Now many died before their time though due to the long term effects of military campaigning, especially the conditions is camps?

 

[henriqueb1]

IMO the increased death chance from making a ruler a general is much to high. How many rulers even died in battle during the game's time frame? There's Charles XII of Sweden, but who else?

Is it increased by them just being generals still? It used to be they had 2 death rolls, as general and as ruler, which is why this is a long standing strategy for getting rid of them, but after Emperor I haven't yet noticed an increased death chance for them just being generals. Of course, drilling is another matter.

 

[Battlex]

IMO the increased death chance from making a ruler a general is much to high. How many rulers even died in battle during the game's time frame? There's Charles XII of Sweden, but who else?

You really comment this in a burgundy thread?

 

[ianchen12345]

my Timmy's shah rukh died in 1467. cough cough I didn't extend his life I promise cough cough

 

[Battlex]

my Timmy's shah rukh died in 1467. cough cough I didn't extend his life I promise cough cough

1467 is a bit late? The first reconquest war vs ajam and then improving relations, ruler personality, and iqta ability used to keep you good until 1454, with strong duchies now it should be even easier to keep LD down

 

[Prince Ire]

You really comment this in a burgundy thread?

......... Yeah, ok, Charles the Bold is pretty obvious isn't he?