Reaper's Due Death Rate - Upside Down Gameplay

[CyaN]

But here's the thing, my first game (Toulouse, 1066) lasted 6 characters. 3 had the Lunatic trait, 2 had The Great Pox, 3 had Incapable... And yes, that was going immediately to level 3 Hospitals (and every single building in the hospital), and going to level IV hospital once my tech caught up. Here were my rulers:

Count Raimond of Melgueil - Died Age 54, had: Great Pox, Lunatic, Severely Injured
Duke Peire of Toulouse - Died Age 49, had: Incapable
Duke Raimond IV of Toulouse - Died age 26, of the Plague
Duke Ermengau - Died age 67, had Great Pox, Lunatic
Duke Guigues - Died 61, Incapable (for like 6 years!!!!)
Queen Ermessentz of Aragon - Lunatic, Incapable at 53

Game ended as when Queen Ermessentz slipped into incapable I wasn't able to change the inheritance rules (son was dead, and granddaughters were traditionally married by my idiot son).

So I started a second game as 867 Nantes trying to just get a rich and successful realm going. He died after 5 years from Stress, Cancer and Infirm.

So I started a third game as 867 Nantes. He got Infirm one year later.

Yes, Renowned Physicians helps (a LOT!), but that doesn't do much for your courtiers dying left and right, and certainly doesn't help much when you're just starting out and haven't even had a chance to build hospitals yet.

Overall, I like the epidemics (and would even go for more of these), and I LOVED the Black Death, but the sheer number of times that people got cancer, rabies, infirm, etc are a bit much. At least in my opinion...

First game: They all died in their old age (in Medieval terms), except for 1 of them. I don't see what's the problem with that exactly, except that rulers regularly lived to be 80 before. That was stupid.

Your dynasty died because you made a mistake: you don't give a title to your son, or marry him to a landed character, unless you know for sure that your succession is completely safe, because he'll mess it all up. He'll marry his sons and daughters to the wrong people. No big deal; we all make mistakes, and sometimes they're so big that they lead to a Game Over. That's part of the fun.

Second and third game: You chose to play as an elderly character. He didn't live long, because he's an elderly character. In fact, in most of my games, in previous patches, Hasteinn died on me after a few years.

I don't see what's wrong with any of that, exactly.

 

[GCRust]

I do agree Hospital costs could be scaled down drastically. I mean, I'm raking in decent gold per month, and it helps I've pretty much gotten Level 3 upgrades on everything in my demense before Reaper's Due came out, but 700 gold for a Level 2 Sickhouse is wildly excessive, considering that's basically the cost of building a new holding entirely.

 

[HREmperor]

Child mortality rates may have been huge in the Middle Ages, but if you lived to 12 you could expect to live to 60 as long as you weren't caught up in a major plague or war. What I'd propose is to hugely decrease the chance of random diseases(the ones that don't show up on the province map and you just randomly get), but increase the child mortality and battle mortality rates. That'd be more realistic and a bit less annoying, since you won't have to deal with vassals and councillors dying every 2 minutes.

 

[Kumicho]

First game: They all died in their old age (in Medieval terms), except for 1 of them. I don't see what's the problem with that exactly, except that rulers regularly lived to be 80 before. That was stupid.

Your dynasty died because you made a mistake: you don't give a title to your son, or marry him to a landed character, unless you know for sure that your succession is completely safe, because he'll mess it all up. He'll marry his sons and daughters to the wrong people. No big deal; we all make mistakes, and sometimes they're so big that they lead to a Game Over. That's part of the fun.

Second and third game: You chose to play as an elderly character. He didn't live long, because he's an elderly character. In fact, in most of my games, in previous patches, Hasteinn died on me after a few years.

I don't see what's wrong with any of that, exactly.

44 years old is "elderly" in your mind? Good grief... And I like how you conveniently ignored the fact that half (HALF!) of them were lunatics, or that half of them just randomly got incapable, or that 1/3rd of them had The Great Pox. Yes, a good court physician can relieve some of the worst parts of it, but seriously, I don't think that half of all medieval characters were insane, or that Syphilis rates were 1 out of every 3 people. And 50% of my rulers randomly getting Incapable just mean more fun times sitting around in regencies waiting to die... Not exactly my idea of a fund time.

 

[Burned Coffee]

As far as I can see it is living up to its name.

Which is a success in my book

 

[-Malovane-]

Yeah, As per the Wikipedia article, Encyclopedia Britannica lists the mortality rate of aristocracy who survived until 21 in Europe to be roughly 64 years old. Given their decent nutritional intake, that seems fairly reasonable.

Part of the issue is that there is an absurd rate of cancer and heart disease, and other serious diseases - especially at ages where people would be presumed healthy. I've had countless children in their 20s die of heart attacks. It just doesn't make any sense. Are they subsisting entirely on raw pig fat and coca cola for their calories or something? As far as cancer goes - it was pretty rare during this time frame.

I was playing recently where 4 of my 7 vassal kings were disfigured lepers. In reality, leprosy was quite rare among royalty. Perhaps 8 or 9 Kings in known history had it (most famously Baldwin of Jerusalem). So - it's a little exaggerated and a bit comical to me, if Hell was a funny place.

Most of the infant mortality in the Middle Ages (which was the main cause of reduced life expectancy) was due to relatively simple ailments like dysentery and flu. Otherwise, children would be the hardest hit in epidemics. If we want the game to be somewhat realistic, the mortality rate for any diseases before the age of 5 would be much higher, as would be their chance to catch them.

I'd also point to the "infirm" trait, which was originally introduced in game to be the general equivalent of cancer, or other ailments that cause death in older people. It's still there. If we have those other ailments - why is it still hitting your average character at 50, reducing them to drooling incapable rulers by 55? Just seems to be a doubling up of risk if you ask me.

 

[aono]

As far as cancer goes - it was pretty rare during this time frame.

Just for the scientific accuracy - that's not true. Cancer was always here, but medieval medics couldn't make an autopsy to describe some death as "cancer". "He just died."

 

[CyaN]

44 years old is "elderly" in your mind? Good grief... And I like how you conveniently ignored the fact that half (HALF!) of them were lunatics, or that half of them just randomly got incapable, or that 1/3rd of them had The Great Pox. Yes, a good court physician can relieve some of the worst parts of it, but seriously, I don't think that half of all medieval characters were insane, or that Syphilis rates were 1 out of every 3 people. And 50% of my rulers randomly getting Incapable just mean more fun times sitting around in regencies waiting to die... Not exactly my idea of a fund time.

You're throwing a die, getting a 1 and saying "god, this die is broken, it only gets 1!". It is a futile exercise in frustration.

I have had zero lunatic characters in two centuries. I have seen a Lunatic character every now and then around the realm. Nothing excessive. A plague of Lunatic characters does not exist, least of all half (half!) of them being Lunatics. You've been unlucky. It happens. Random number generators are like that. Sometimes they don't like you.

Curiously enough, I haven't had a single Incapacitated character, either, which is quite weird. That used to be pretty common, normally I would have got a couple at this point. It goes to show that luck is just luck and it goes both ways.

Now, we can sit here and cry over how that 1 that you rolled on the die was a really low number, or we can just keep rolling. Play a couple of games and see if half (half!) of the characters are Lunatics again. I guess they won't be.

 

[-Malovane-]

Just for the scientific accuracy - that's not true. Cancer was always here, but medieval medics couldn't make an autopsy to describe some death as "cancer". "He just died."

Cancer has always been relatively rare, mostly affecting older people. It's not to say it didn't exist - but they have done studies of old bones and found relatively few examples of cancer in Middle Ages remains. Of course, there's evidence of Cancer going back to neolithic times, but the chance of someone dying by this was extremely low given all the other ways to die, and given the age range it usually afflicts.

Right now you have about 454 people in 100,000 in the US coming down with Cancer per year. Less than 1% of those people are from the ages of 1 and 19. For reference, that's 1% of half a percent of the population. Given the extra environmental issues we have over our forbears, like living under power lines, both the total rate of people, and the number of children who come down with cancer, would be even less in the medieval era.

So, just for scientific accuracy, I stand by my statement.

 

[aono]

I have seen a Lunatic character every now and then around the realm.

I had one. He was wisard, mystic and gone for Necronomicon. And he died in 40, from the Great Pox, taken in 22.
Besides him that game ruler was: dynasty founder who died in 86, his grandson who died at 70, his son died at 70 too and said 40 years lunatic. Not so bad for 211 years.
But I used a lot of health bonuses (because I always do) - with hunting focus and pet owls. Plus best medic I can manage. I can really see how it can be seen as "limiting gameplay" (even if I don't think so myself).

Right now you have about 454 people in 100,000 in the US coming down with Cancer per year.

Right now you have 8.5% adult population in USA ever diagnosed with cancer, inculding child cancer (and that's main death cause in USA).

 

[-Malovane-]

Right now you have 8.5% adult population in USA ever diagnosed with cancer, inculding child cancer (and that's main death cause in USA).

Honestly, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

As per the US, ages 50-74 represent 53% of all new cancer cases. Ages 75 and up make up 36%, and 25-49 make up 10%, Below 25 makes up 1% of all cancer cases, with below 19 making up a statistically negligible portion.

Cancer is a disease that generally affects older people. This is not exactly esoteric knowledge.

And no, cancer is second to heart disease in America as a cause of death.

 

[ruzen]

I am still playing with my new Asturias campaign (diseases on default) and I have to say minor plagues are very easy to deal with. You can get a good court physician too. Just select your highest learning stat subject! Also, don't try out experimental treatment unless It's absolute necessity.

Life expectancy dropped with current 2.6.1. build yea but It was sky high before! Even now I get to see 86-87 ages but It's somewhat few now. Which is suppose to be at first place.

*But I too think there needs to be some adjustments needed. AI needs to focus building few hospitals! It should at least make It level1 with 1 or 2 upgrades. I really feel like cheating when AI doesn't do hospitals. Please tweak that AI.

*3 prosperity level isn't enough; It's quite easy to achieve and maintain. I have my counties still booming even with the minor plagues were on them. Even with the level 1 hospital.

*Also, I wish grand tournament should gives realm boost rather than capital. I feel like "booming prosperity" bonuses needs buff too.

*but most importantly AI has to build hospitals too!

 

[CyaN]

*But I too think there needs to be some adjustments needed. AI needs to focus building few hospitals! It should at least make It level1 with 1 or 2 upgrades. I really feel like cheating when AI doesn't do hospitals. Please tweak that AI.

*3 prosperity level isn't enough; It's quite easy to achieve and maintain. I have my counties still booming even with the minor plagues were on them. Even with the level 1 hospital.

It might need some fine-tuning indeed. The AI certainly built some hospitals in my game, but only rarely.

I think, given the character you're playing, that you're able to maintain Prosperity 3 because your realm is in a geographically remote location. There aren't many plagues that spread that far or many hostile armies marching through that isolated corner of the Peninsula, which makes it an ideal place for the Prosperity bonuses. Try playing near Constantinople for the opposite case. You've got the yearly Measles plague, either coming from the east or from the west, and the yearly civil war ravaging your counties

 

[aono]

Honestly, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

I'm trying to make a point that cancer isn't esoteric and modern-only illness, that's all, and nothing more.

And no, cancer is second to heart disease in America as a cause of death.

I meant child cancer as main child death cause, sorry. Also even if we speaks about total deaths, cancer isn't so far from heart disease - 591,699 vs 614,348, with 147,101 (chronic lower respiratory diseases) on third place.

 

[-Malovane-]

*but most importantly AI has to build hospitals too!

I've noticed that the AI starts to build hospitals around 1000 AD or so - funds permitting. In my current game, around 1150 AD, there's probably 20 or 30 of them in mainland Western Europe. About 20% of them have some form of upgrades, usually focusing on the main building and the leper colony. Part of the problem is that hospitals are extraordinarily expensive. Upgrading to a level 6 hospital (a hospital with 5 upgrades) costs something like 11k, let alone all the other upgrades you can do with it (which would put you at around 15k per hospital).

I'm not sold on their usefulness so far - at least at lower tiers. When the first Black Death came around in my game, I had 12 level 2 hospitals, with a level 4 hospital on my capital. I wasn't expecting the Black Death to pass me by, as even with a couple upgrades my local provinces were booming (-20% resistance), giving me a total resistance of 2% on those. The capital had supposes resistances of around 24% IIRC, and "major" depopulation protection. Didn't stop my capital from getting severe depopulation.

Waiting at the moment for a new epidemic to roll around. Managed to max out all those hospitals - see if they actually do anything. 75% resistance (95% without booming economy) to epidemics might ward it off entirely. Who knows?

 

[Haldan]

I would rather have a historical accurate game that is as hard as dark souls then a balanced game that is as easy as pokemon.

Reapers due is a step in the right direction. Casuals need to stop ruining my fun.

Titles-mon! Gotta usurp them all!

 

[Kapitalisti]

Reapers due is a step in the right direction. Casuals need to stop ruining my fun.

 

[cmpunker]

In my experience lowering the illness rule helped a lot. In my current playthrough Mathilda of Tuscany died of rabies, the next ruler had cancer but died in an incident and my current ruler has cancer too. Still they were able to rule for 20 years each, so I'm satisfied.

But I think hospital upgrade prices need a nerf.

 

[GCRust]

Honestly, I feel like Cancer ought to be rebranded as "Wasting Disease". The game doesn't call Syphilis or Typhus by their modern names, and it's off putting that cancer isl. It should also drastically affect Martial skill of the afflicted.

 

[Thure]

Honestly, I feel like Cancer ought to be rebranded as "Wasting Disease". The game doesn't call Syphilis or Typhus by their modern names, and it's off putting that cancer isl. It should also drastically affect Martial skill of the afflicted.

Cancer isn't a modern name.