Is it just me or has the mortality rate of the nobles been turned down quite a few notches from CK1? With that game I considered myself lucky if half my kids reached adulthood (50% infant mortality was the historical norm) and if my noble then made it past 40. Not to mention that every pregnancy had a very good chance of the mother dying. Now the little brats seem to be mostly in perfect health and so far my nobles all die comfortably in their 70's. Haven't even seen a single mother die during birth either. Heck, even the plagues that in CK1 emptied my court seem to hardly affect anyone now. I must say, I miss the old ways in which I was constantly afraid to lose my heir to a common cold or have my great king die at 32. This is way too easy!
Did CKII introduce anti-biotics and modern healthcare in the game?
- Thread starter Trashed
- 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.
Agreed. I've had my kings contract diseases and get wounded but they would recover every time.
From checking the birth-events file there don't even seem to be any events for mothers or children dying in childbirth!
They did that because of the children limit of courtiers and that a court full of dead toddlers is not worthwhile.
Yes, the devs have said they toned down both infant mortality and fertility. So you have fewer children than people did historically but they are more likely to survive to adulthood.
I have had my ruler die of an illness though.
I have had my ruler die of an illness though.
Its because its stupid to have 5 dead children under 3 cluttering up the screen. I have seen plagues kill lots of people though.
It worked splendidly in CK1 and provided a lot of tension and challenge to the game. There your character could even gain negative traits like depressed if his children or spouse died. It absolutely added to the game and the atmosphere as a whole. Not having even a remote chance of having the mother or child die in birth is just, well, lame.
Now kids and mothers always survive birth and 99% of kids reach adulthood. That special fear you had in CK1 of your heir with awesome stats and traits dying so you had to do with his idiot sibling is now all gone. Shame.
Now kids and mothers always survive birth and 99% of kids reach adulthood. That special fear you had in CK1 of your heir with awesome stats and traits dying so you had to do with his idiot sibling is now all gone. Shame.
Yeah, it can be crazy some times.
Usually its okay, but then you get people like "King Gabriel the Cruel of Burgundy"
All those kids (19 in all) and that age!
Usually its okay, but then you get people like "King Gabriel the Cruel of Burgundy"
All those kids (19 in all) and that age!
Damn 102 and still popping out youngin's! that guy is fertile! Were all those kids from his wives? Mine keeps sleeping with his daughter in laws.
Yeah, Perhaps "The Fertile" would be more fitting!
Yeah, since my King was "The cruel" I felt divorce and assassination were good ways to part with my wives (all 7 of them)!
Not the same but still odd for the poor grunt. If they die you can draft new levies in no time. I like it when my troops die, but it´s anoyning, that after a decisive victory the troops of you enemys raise from the graves.
yes, and they also have condoms, when in crusader king 1 you had 5 children and 2 survived, now you have 2-3 and only 1/10 die before adulthood.
But the worst are my kings who dies only after 65, I started on 1066 and i'm at my fifth ruler in 1140.
But the worst are my kings who dies only after 65, I started on 1066 and i'm at my fifth ruler in 1140.
Removing any chance of death at childbirth and making sure that 99% of kids reach adulthood introduces a lot of certainty and predictability in a game that's best when it hits you in the face with something totally unexpected. As I said before, in CK1 some of the most exciting parts were hoping your good heir would survive against the odds. Not to mention that you have much less reason to sire bastards or even more children now that you can alsmost be sure your heir will become the next lord.
And indeed, most of my lords also seem to live to at least their late 60's. Amazing resilience in that day and age and again, the game losing a lot of its charm if you don't have to fear your lord biting the bucket as much.
And indeed, most of my lords also seem to live to at least their late 60's. Amazing resilience in that day and age and again, the game losing a lot of its charm if you don't have to fear your lord biting the bucket as much.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_monarchs#House_of_Normandy
5 kings, 1066 to 1189 seems pretty historical...
Personally, I'd rather have them keep the high mortality from the first game, and maybe aggressively cull/delete dead kids from the database of non-player dynasties (so the file isn't bloated).
It made the game feel more realistic and more uncertain.
The game is still amazing, by the way!
It made the game feel more realistic and more uncertain.
The game is still amazing, by the way!
