The Black Death

[unmerged(44072)]

I've finally managed to play a 1066 scenario all the way through the Black Death and I think its manifestation in the game could be improved.

1. The bubonic plague doesn't spread nearly fast enough. It appeared kind of early (1305) in Salamanca (first place to get it in Spain, strangely) and took more than ten years to spread through Spain.

2. It hangs around way too long. In most cases, the bubonic plague seemed to stay in a province for 5-10 years, and in some cases for over 30 years. The historic plague was over throughout Europe in three to five years. Maybe the idea is to simulate the ongoing effect--reduced population and hence reduced income and workforce for building--that persists long after the plague itself is over. But if so, the effect doesn't last long enough--it would take generations to rebuild the population. Maybe a province with the "plague-immune" tag could have its income reduced by 20-50% for the next twenty-five years, 10-25% 25-50 years after then end of the plague, and 0-10% thereafter. It's unfortunate CK doesn't have a direct population number like the EU games, because that would really be better. More of a CK2 thing, I guess.

3. Not enough court members get it, and when they do, they take too long to die. I only had one member of the court contract plague and he lived with it for five years, amazingly not passing it on to anyone else. I'm not saying a third of all characters should die, but there should be enough deaths to be noticeable. The King of Castile died, as did the wife of the King of France and one of the King of England's daughters.

4. There should be some plague-related events. Maybe increased outbreaks of heresy, revolts, etc. At the moment, the plague is mostly an annoyance because it reduces income and manpower drastically for a a couple decades. I'd like to see it be a more dramatic event.

 

[unmerged(5822)]

But if so, the effect doesn't last long enough--it would take generations to rebuild the population. Maybe a province with the "plague-immune" tag could have its income reduced by 20-50% for the next twenty-five years, 10-25% 25-50 years after then end of the plague, and 0-10% thereafter. It's unfortunate CK doesn't have a direct population number like the EU games, because that would really be better. More of a CK2 thing, I guess.

Agreed on the time aspects of the plague; it should be quicker and much deadlier. On the economical matters, however, the effect should rather be that the army reserves of a plague-stricken province decays while a province with immunity should enjoy a permanent economical boost of some sort (since the plague consolidated wealth rather than erode it).

 

[Justinian_A]

Magritte...I agree with pretty much everything you said.

 

[Sera]

Fully agree with the original poster. Avoid a situation where you feel singeled out or very unlucky to be affected by making plague spread faster and further. One would be less inclined to go; "ooopps, reload!" Common fate (misfortune) is common comfort (felles sjebne er felles trøst) as we say in Norway. What is the English equivalent proverb by the way?

 

[Lambert Simnel]

Common fate (misfortune) is common comfort (felles sjebne er felles trøst) as we say in Norway. What is the English equivalent proverb by the way?

Misery loves company

 

[Sera]

Ahh...that's it, I remember now. Thanks, it was really bugging me!

 

[unmerged(33270)]

I agree to magritte.
The plague should not last that long but it should be alot more devastating. I think that it should be a catastrophe for economy buildings, regiments and courtiers.
I actually also think that the trait plague infected should be removed, because people died after around three days if they got the plague.

 

[unmerged(44651)]

Dont redo this... it was terrible before they fixed it in beta patch and i dont want to see it back again like it was in the past

It lasts to long of course...

 

[unmerged(29883)]

"I'm not saying a third of all characters should die"

Why not? About a third of people did, after all...and it would clean up the court nicely.

Plague spread should, IMO, be faster than it is. It should feel that plague is pretty much sweeping across Europe, rather than slowly creeping from place to place. I've got no problem with a slightly ahistorically long plague effect to represent the long-term effects of the plague - plus, a 15 year long bubonic plague is believable.

I don't believe its possible for traits to have time-periods attached to them with effects that change over time. Once a province is plague immune, it shouldn't be suffering any positive or negative effects - it has gone back to normal after the plague has gone. What *should* happen is that economies will have collapsed, and many areas will be poor or struggling to reflect the reality of the situation, and the length of time for recovery. Perhaps a much lower MTTH for those economy events when a province has the plague?

With regard to court members, you could make the MTTH for the plague catching event higher, and make the effects of it more severe. I can't recall what the health loss is offhand, but also it shouldn't be *too* severe. People did catch the plague and recover - even if the majority died. Plus, once someone had the plague, they'd be locked up away from everyone else with a big red cross painted on their door.

I haven't dug through the events, but if there aren't already, then an event for killing someone with the plague and an event for curing them would solve the problem for you. Have a low MTTH for someone automatically dying whilst plague infected, and a higher one for curing them, so that there is a chance that they will recover. I imagine such events already exist, so perhaps they just need a bit of tweaking.

 

[Justinian_A]

I'd think it was great if the plague killed off about a third of your court. Usually by that stage in the game, I have no worries about the dynasty ending and a horde of courtiers.

 

[unmerged(21937)]

If plague is a devastating killer, it makes playing 1337 scenario less fun, since you have not had time to build up massive dynasty and hordes of courtiers. And AI doesn't build up courtier-farms so AI a bit screwed too.

 

[unmerged(38613)]

It is not just plague that impacts your court, the smaller "plagues" such as typhoid, smallpox, and dysentary should also impact your courts. When these have hit my capital, I have not seen any real effect on the court. Even courtiers who were ill to begin with don't seem to die. Granted your courtiers probably live in better conditions than the average peasant, but these diseases were real killers. I would support any effort to increase the effect of the plague and the other diseases on the court.

It sounds like the MTTH for death should be lowered for plague, but I would suggest the MTTH for death (or recovery) by pneumonia should also be lowered. My current ruler has had pneumonia for over 5 years now. Granted he does have a 9+ health rating. You can also say that maybe pneumonia represents a range of respiratory illnesses that may be less dangerous and have a longer effect, but pneumonia and the death or recovery from pneumonia should have a shorter span.

 

[unmerged(44072)]

I think a third is probably a little excessive for court members. I don't think if you looked at royal families that the death rate was usually quite as high as in the general population. They tended to flee the cities when plague hit, and sometimes were successful in escaping it. Also, generally being in better health to start with, they would be more likely to survive it. Maybe a 15% die off would be good. In any event, nobody suffered from the plague for months, let alone years. And actually, although an individual epidemic of the plague would typically rage and die out in an area after a few months, they were not immune to future outbreaks. Europe suffered repeated epidemics every 10-15 years, though they diminished in severity over time. I don't think the pneumonic and bubonic forms were exclusive epidemics either.

 

[unmerged(5822)]

I think a third is probably a little excessive for court members. I don't think if you looked at royal families that the death rate was usually quite as high as in the general population. They tended to flee the cities when plague hit, and sometimes were successful in escaping it. Also, generally being in better health to start with, they would be more likely to survive it. Maybe a 15% die off would be good. In any event, nobody suffered from the plague for months, let alone years. And actually, although an individual epidemic of the plague would typically rage and die out in an area after a few months, they were not immune to future outbreaks. Europe suffered repeated epidemics every 10-15 years, though they diminished in severity over time. I don't think the pneumonic and bubonic forms were exclusive epidemics either.

So there should be non-immunising disappearances as well (but in that case, perhaps immune provinces should also spread the disease - they're not dying from it, but they can still be carriers).

 

[unmerged(29883)]

I don't think you can be a carrier for the bubonic plague if you're not infected by it, can you?

I wasn't seriously suggesting that a third of characters die out, but a slightly higher plague death rate would be acceptable.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

If plague is a devastating killer, it makes playing 1337 scenario less fun, since you have not had time to build up massive dynasty and hordes of courtiers. And AI doesn't build up courtier-farms so AI a bit screwed too.

We could, as has been suggested, change a lot of those generic courtiers with no wives or children and make generic families to start out for them. This would help a lot.

 

[unmerged(21937)]

We could, as has been suggested, change a lot of those generic courtiers with no wives or children and make generic families to start out for them. This would help a lot.

Perhaps, but having families pop up instead of courtiers is quite significant new coding.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

Perhaps, but having families pop up instead of courtiers is quite significant new coding.

No. Once again my intentions seem misinterpeted. I meant the default 1337 sceneio and all othes have families set up even for most (not nessarily all) generic courtiers instead of just one ruler. This would be varied with different ages for adults and children and numbers of children. Perhaps some with grandchildren or two.

It was suggested a while ago.

Anyway i'd suggest 1/3 for normal and lower and higher levels for different difficulty levels.

 

[unmerged(21937)]

No. Once again my intentions seem misinterpeted. I meant the default 1337 sceneio and all othes have families set up even for most (not nessarily all) generic courtiers instead of just one ruler. This would be varied with different ages for adults and children and numbers of children. Perhaps some with grandchildren or two.

It was suggested a while ago.

Hmh, well, that would reduce the mutability and randomness involved with each scenario, as you don't have same people in your court every time. Or some courts do, but I think they are in a way boring. Especially if they are boring generic courtiers, without any interesting dynastic involvement or other things that make them stand out.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

its true it would get rid of randomness, but it would also make the game seem more realisitc and fluidic if not over half of europe were bachelors with no courtiers to start off. Not saying there can't be a few, but it definalty seems like a major suspension of disbelief.

Plus sometimes, as a few i mentioned in the grand culture mod, could be added to various scenerios that are historic, even if they use the current culture setup.