Is historical rulers fixed in IN?

[Simon B]

In NA you cannot form royal marriages/diplo-vassalizing/diplo-annexing and it's very annoying. Is this been fixed or will there be a way to fix it by modding?
Thanks

 

[Pitt The Elder]

Seems to me like that's not a bug at all. If you're using historical leaders, they should only be brought about by thier historical relationships. And while I've never played with that option set as such, it seems like RM's would appear 'automagically' when it happened historically.

 

[unmerged(37697)]

I do think that all those nations that didn't survive to the game's end date historically (Burgundy, Scotland, Hungary...) should have their databases completed with historically plausible monarchs and leaders. I realise strictly speaking this would be ahistorical, but it would amend the fact that at present for many countries this particular aspect of the game is fundamentally flawed. It's a game-breaking bug; rulers did not live for two hundred years...

I really, really hope Johan fixes this in v3.0 or at least a later patch. IMO, every country's history file should be complete until 1820. Hell, I'd offer to do some of them myself if I knew for sure that they'd be included in a patch...

 

[AndrewT]

In NA you cannot form royal marriages/diplo-vassalizing/diplo-annexing and it's very annoying. Is this been fixed or will there be a way to fix it by modding?
Thanks

This is only so if you choose the Historical Leader option. Obviously with historical leaders you are not allowed to form ahistorical marriages and alliances. So there is no "fix" as there is no problem; if you don't like that don't choose Historical Leaders!

 

[Alerias]

This is only so if you choose the Historical Leader option. Obviously with historical leaders you are not allowed to form ahistorical marriages and alliances. So there is no "fix" as there is no problem; if you don't like that don't choose Historical Leaders!

Its indeed what he was referring to, and while its not technically a bug, its been oft-requested on these forums that we gain the ability to play with historical monarch but non-historical marriages. In other words, allow normal marriages even though we are playing with historical rulers.

Its definitely an option I would have really welcomed, even if it required some modding. But to answer the initial query, so far, nothing has been announced saying to expect changes in that area, and I really doubt we'll see any form of historical monarchs with control over marriages in IN, unless Johan has a really nice last minute surprise in store for us.

 

[unmerged(56754)]

Its indeed what he was referring to, and while its not technically a bug, its been oft-requested on these forums that we gain the ability to play with historical monarch but non-historical marriages. In other words, allow normal marriages even though we are playing with historical rulers.

Its definitely an option I would have really welcomed, even if it required some modding. But to answer the initial query, so far, nothing has been announced saying to expect changes in that area, and I really doubt we'll see any form of historical monarchs with control over marriages in IN, unless Johan has a really nice last minute surprise in store for us.

Agreed, I've recently be loving a game ith historical options on, but it just has a few too many 'flaws' im still OK with ahistorical options, it can be great fun, but having everyone die 33 seconds into the game becomes boring and unreasonable.

A real shme a dynamic historical monachs system is not to be included, but then, even without IN will fantstic.

 

[Johan]

Its indeed what he was referring to, and while its not technically a bug, its been oft-requested on these forums that we gain the ability to play with historical monarch but non-historical marriages. In other words, allow normal marriages even though we are playing with historical rulers.

Well, the marriages are there to create succession wars, inheritances, different monarchs... having royal marriages with historical monarchs makes as much sense as having a declare war button, but not having battles.

 

[unmerged(8915)]

Seems to me like that's not a bug at all. If you're using historical leaders, they should only be brought about by thier historical relationships. And while I've never played with that option set as such, it seems like RM's would appear 'automagically' when it happened historically.

will austria inherit hungary in 1526 automatically when playing with historical monarchs, or will there be a personal union instead?

 

[comagoosie]

Well, the marriages are there to create succession wars, inheritances, different monarchs... having royal marriages with historical monarchs makes as much sense as having a declare war button, but not having battles.

I see.

But what about having historical monarchs on a country that is early on annexed, aren't you stuck with the same monarch forever o

 

[unmerged(56754)]

will austria inherit hungary in 1526 automatically when playing with historical monarchs, or will there be a personal union instead?

No, Hungary wll just have the same monarch forever

Another flaw with historical options on.

 

[DarthJF]

Couldn't it be made so that when your last historical monarch dies you switch to use generated monarch as in normal game?

 

[Filip de Norre]

In NA you cannot form royal marriages/diplo-vassalizing/diplo-annexing and it's very annoying. Is this been fixed or will there be a way to fix it by modding?
Thanks

what's the B standing for?

 

[unmerged(50629)]

In many ways I think players should consider the historical options as best used for specific scenarios. For instance, use them for the 7 years war, the American revolution, and so on. Historical rulers makes less sense for the game as a whole, because of the dynamic model used. Eu3 really changed things from Eu2.

I think further that scenario events should be added, if at all possible. perhaps IN takes care of this issue, but if not, some of the nuances of what each side is trying to accomplish in the specifc conflicts depicted by the scenarios can be challenging to recreate. For instance, getting an alliance with France as USA is often impossible given the game engine, but makes sense as a event in the specific instance of the revolution scenario.

I believe that the historical settings fit better for isolated time periods, and used in that manner, I think players would be happier.

 

[Will Lucky]

In many ways I think players should consider the historical options as best used for specific scenarios. For instance, use them for the 7 years war, the American revolution, and so on. Historical rulers makes less sense for the game as a whole, because of the dynamic model used. Eu3 really changed things from Eu2.

I think further that scenario events should be added, if at all possible. perhaps IN takes care of this issue, but if not, some of the nuances of what each side is trying to accomplish in the specifc conflicts depicted by the scenarios can be challenging to recreate. For instance, getting an alliance with France as USA is often impossible given the game engine, but makes sense as a event in the specific instance of the revolution scenario.

I believe that the historical settings fit better for isolated time periods, and used in that manner, I think players would be happier.

Agreed, It certainly felt more historical and less flawed when I ran through the French Revolution scenerio with these options on.

 

[Mrdie]

I saw Greece go independent in 1425 with HM option on. Since it appeared to be a Republic, it had a random monarch (Doge) whereas Northumberland seemed to be stuck with 'No Ruler' for an eternity.

I'd certainly like a better system. Have it so historical monarchs go on and on. If there is no more, the last historical monarch gets a chance of dying, and after that the nation gets random monarchs. Also if a pretender wins his/her battle to the throne and such, the historical monarch thing ends. Sound good?