So, the rate of death is really high.

[LordDamien]

Gameplay trumps realism. Having to appoint the same title four or five times in a year is just frustrating; it's just busy work.

Well It would depend on who your giving the title too. Are they people with a large family or just random people. And why are you appointing titles that many times in a year. Something sounds off by that.. unless they are just really unlucky and dying really quickly ( Do you by chance have Screenshots showing that happening ) or your just.. Well I do not want to call you a liar.. But again too me sometimes just sounds weird about you having to give the title so many times

Question - Do you mean like a Viceroyality title or titles such as " Keepers of Swans etc ". Because even then I would find it weird that you would need to keep appointing people to that title 4 to 5 times a year...

 

[Verenti]

Well It would depend on who your giving the title too. Are they people with a large family or just random people. And why are you appointing titles that many times in a year. Something sounds off by that.. unless they are just really unlucky and dying really quickly ( Do you by chance have Screenshots showing that happening ) or your just.. Well I do not want to call you a liar.. But again too me sometimes just sounds weird about you having to give the title so many times

Question - Do you mean like a Viceroyality title or titles such as " Keepers of Swans etc ". Because even then I would find it weird that you would need to keep appointing people to that title 4 to 5 times a year...

Yes, something is off with that. The people who I am creating to give titles to (because there aren't really any families left) are dying off before they can have children. Something being off is what this thread is about.

I mean counties and duchies and baronies. I am having to appoint the same titles again and again because life expectancy is very, very low.

 

[LordDamien]

Yes, something is off with that. The people who I am creating to give titles to (because there aren't really any families left) are dying off before they can have children. Something being off is what this thread is about.

I mean counties and duchies and baronies. I am having to appoint the same titles again and again because life expectancy is very, very low.

Curious Did you build a hospital in each province of your lands ?. Also do you have any outbreaks of diseases happening ?. That could be the cause of the deaths. Since if you do not have one and there is a epidemic of disease then it would explain the deaths. happening.

 

[dreamer05]

For real. I like the ability to change options, but my rulers aren't living past 35... And these illness and physician events are already too frequent and getting old fast.

 

[BFKelleher]

It used to be you could live to ripe old age with the stressed trait. Now it seems You die at 28 of stress.

 

[LordDamien]

It used to be you could live to ripe old age with the stressed trait. Now it seems You die at 28 of stress.

Being stressed should allow you to live long at all. After all how can you live to a old age when your stressed out and getting gray hair etc ?. honestly the changes they made are I dare say it perfect in my eyes. Now it feels like I have to be careful what happens in the world and being cautious when I go on pilgrimages or go to war etc.

 

[Kumicho]

One thing I noted was that sending a councillor somewhere where there was an epidemic *drastically* shortened his/her lifespan. So I had to replace multiple Spymasters until I realized that Constantinople was suffering from some epidemic or other...

 

[BFKelleher]

Being stressed should allow you to live long at all. After all how can you live to a old age when your stressed out and getting gray hair etc ?. honestly the changes they made are I dare say it perfect in my eyes. Now it feels like I have to be careful what happens in the world and being cautious when I go on pilgrimages or go to war etc.

The reason why average age of death was so low in the middle ages was high infant mortality. Once the person got past infancy they'd usually live to around 60.

 

[Kumicho]

U

The reason why average age of death was so low in the middle ages was high infant mortality. Once the person got past infancy they'd usually live to around 60.

Ummmmm, no.

http://www.sarahwoodbury.com/life-expectancy-in-the-middle-ages/

For *royalty* it was 43 for women and 48 for men (median as opposed to mean), at least in that example from the 12th and 13th centuries.

 

[TheLastSamovar]

Your source, apart from being written by an author (so hardly an authoritative source), bases its data off only 20 people, from the same geographical area and a tiny time frame. A pretty poor representation. Her argument against the idea that people could live in to there 60s is "That claim is not substantiated by the data I’ve found." Some author, untrained in research, apparently knows better than actual experts.

Secondly, the issue in this thread is death by disease, so male deaths in battle or execution etc shouldn't even be factored in.

 

[Rags17]

The reason why average age of death was so low in the middle ages was high infant mortality. Once the person got past infancy they'd usually live to around 60.

U


Ummmmm, no.

http://www.sarahwoodbury.com/life-expectancy-in-the-middle-ages/

For *royalty* it was 43 for women and 48 for men (median as opposed to mean), at least in that example from the 12th and 13th centuries.

Umm, yes.

I worked for 20 years in life insurance and have been studying social history for around 40 years. Life expectancy AT BIRTH in the Middle Ages was around 25-30 (one study of the Plantagenets showed that up until the 1300s the average was around 17 !), but once you got to age 5 things improved dramatically - the average jumped to around 60 or more depending upon where you lived. Cold, overcrowded areas had higher diseases and thus higher mortality, hot dry areas had lower mortality but correspondingly lower health infrastructure (ie less cash for hospitals etc) so had about the same LE overall.

If you think about, this MUST be so, if the average is less than the age of majority then the next generation would die before it could have kids, thus leading to the eventual extinction of the population. There are times and places where this was the case but overall the trend for human population has almost always been up, up, up.

 

[Queen Tekla]

The death spam is a problem. I have lots of people dying within months of starting a new game(no plagues). The game says they just died of "poor health" with no indication of any sort of illness. Most of them are young too. Not even 20. Also like what someone else said... child rulers have become the epidemic. Some adjustments clearly need to me made.

I see people complaining about it on the steam forums as well.

 

[Sonmi]

I've definitively have been experiencing a rather ridiculous rate of death and sickness. It's fun, but could definitively be turned down a bit.

Went three years in my first game as a Tamil Raj in 769 before my whole dynasty (my brother and I) were wiped out, tried it again - died under one. Tried it one more time, ONLY bought hospitals and hospital upgrades, and definitively got further, about 60 years before I stopped playing, at that point about half of the Indian rulers were children, and the others were lepers.

I'd personally keep the epidemics as deadly as they are right now, but the other generic diseases are currently way too deadly/common if you ask me, even with the benefit of an awesome 36 learning Indian court physician/guru.

 

[Narvait]

One thing I noted was that sending a councillor somewhere where there was an epidemic *drastically* shortened his/her lifespan. So I had to replace multiple Spymasters until I realized that Constantinople was suffering from some epidemic or other...

My Liege! Constantinople? What have I ever done to you?
Yours truly
Spymaster.

 

[RykaS]

I've definitively have been experiencing a rather ridiculous rate of death and sickness. It's fun, but could definitively be turned down a bit.

Went three years in my first game as a Tamil Raj in 769 before my whole dynasty (my brother and I) were wiped out, tried it again - died under one. Tried it one more time, ONLY bought hospitals and hospital upgrades, and definitively got further, about 60 years before I stopped playing, at that point about half of the Indian rulers were children, and the others were lepers.

I'd personally keep the epidemics as deadly as they are right now, but the other generic diseases are currently way too deadly/common if you ask me, even with the benefit of an awesome 36 learning Indian court physician/guru.

Yes! I can't even make it 15 years out before I drop dead from the flu, or malaise. Not sure how the court physician mechanic works either, my first few death runs he would try to save me, but my last few saves the physician is putting buffs on everyone else but I'm over here dying of consumption.

That and I've gotten syphilis five runs in a row as an unmarried, chaste, ruler. I'm sitting here like, do I risk childbirth to machine gun out some heirs as quickly as possible, but omaigerd what if I get a runny nose while pregnant? I won't even make it to term!

I do so love the pop ups of world leaders dropping dead left and right, it's hilarious. So many disagreements with food, haha.

 

[Drunkard]

My first ruler went insane, and hired a horse (Horse M.D.) as his personal physician. Best dang doctor he ever had. Cut out his eye when he got cancer, made it another 20 years - Ludewijn the Great died at the ripe age of 60, in his bed. A story for the ages.

Suffice it to say, this is fantastic.

 

[Subcomandante]

First game, of the 8 children of the first ruler none survived past 23. Elsewhere it doesn't seem much different. Grooming a first born looks like a losing proposition.

 

[Llyw olaf]

I like it, in a DLC about death, illness and diseases I want more death, illness and diseases. I'm fine with Paradox tweaking death rate and illness but please make it another game rule rather than a patch nerf for everyone, last time they messed about with diseases they made them too annoying for some players and then reverted them back to irrelevance for players like me.

I would also welcome two more game rules:
Riskier childbirth, barren wives, sterile husbands and stillbirths. No need to create a new character with stillbirth, just have a morbid description in a event.

Option to choose how much non seduction children you can have before the hard lock, 9, 12, 15 or 20. It can be very noticeable when you have a ruler with young and lustful wives and concubines and they all suddenly stop conceiving. You could also set it to player only.

 

[riadach]

I've notice no issue really. I did have two kings on a row who became disfigured but both casualties of war which is to be expected. Consumption ran through the province once but we survived relatively unscathed.

 

[Morte66]

Is this happening to people who don't have the DLC, just the latest patch?