why do my kings live for such a short time?

[crusaderknight]

If you leave a General in charge of an army without fighting battles, he is more likely to die of disease, winter attrition or some other fitting end. He doesn't even have to be in a battle. He will die off faster if you turn him into a general and leave him charge of an army. Don't like the facts then argue with me till you turn blue in the face, it won't change the facts. :rofl:

And the fact is that three of my monarchs have led their troops for the entirety of their reigns without problem. But, in leading these troops, they have humbled (and ultimately annexed) Morocco, defeated Algiers, and aided England in the invasions of Connaught, Scotland, and Norway. Because of the military leadership of Afonso V, Henrique I, and Joao II, Portugal is a world power. Without them, I would still be rather wimpy. So I fail to see the foolishness in making them generals.

 

[unmerged(67707)]

As far as I know kings and queens have random life spans. You can make their lives shorter if you have them as generals.

 

[Nimic]

And the fact is that three of my monarchs have led their troops for the entirety of their reigns without problem. But, in leading these troops, they have humbled (and ultimately annexed) Morocco, defeated Algiers, and aided England in the invasions of Connaught, Scotland, and Norway. Because of the military leadership of Afonso V, Henrique I, and Joao II, Portugal is a world power. Without them, I would still be rather wimpy. So I fail to see the foolishness in making them generals.

How can you say "without problem"? They died, didn't they? And "for the entirety of their reigns" is a bit silly, since they could have died within 2 months, and that would have been the entirety of their reigns. I also use my monarchs if I dare risk them, but fact is that the chance of them dying is rather bigger if they are leading an army.

And to the opening poster; I don't see the big issue with that list. Ok, so you had 3 kings in a row that lived for 4, 1 and 4 years. Then one who lived for 11 years (respectable), then one who lived for 10 years (respectable), then another short one at 2 years, then a regency council. Just a short string of bad luck.

 

[crusaderknight]

How can you say "without problem"? They died, didn't they? And "for the entirety of their reigns" is a bit silly, since they could have died within 2 months, and that would have been the entirety of their reigns. I also use my monarchs if I dare risk them, but fact is that the chance of them dying is rather bigger if they are leading an army.

Yes they died. Name me one monarch in the history of the world that hasn't? Death is quite natural. And none of them ruled for only 2 months. They all had nice healthy reigns.

 

[SonofWinter]

And the fact is that three of my monarchs have led their troops for the entirety of their reigns without problem. But, in leading these troops, they have humbled (and ultimately annexed) Morocco, defeated Algiers, and aided England in the invasions of Connaught, Scotland, and Norway. Because of the military leadership of Afonso V, Henrique I, and Joao II, Portugal is a world power. Without them, I would still be rather wimpy. So I fail to see the foolishness in making them generals.

Good for you, unfortunately you went through three kings in 46 years at 15 years each, not so bad, but maybe that 8 admin 9 diplo king could have lived 30 years if you hadn't turned him into a general. I also don't like risking -1 stab if the King dies in battle, not to mention that you might become a junior in a PU if you keep this up, but like I said, enjoy your game however you like, you paid the money, good for you.

 

[crusaderknight]

Good for you, unfortunately you went through three kings in 46 years at 15 years each, not so bad, but maybe that 8 admin 9 diplo king could have lived 30 years if you hadn't turned him into a general. I also don't like risking -1 stab if the King dies in battle, not to mention that you might become a junior in a PU if you keep this up, but like I said, enjoy your game however you like, you paid the money, good for you.

To avoid the whole Personal Union thing I always ensure that I have no more than 1 Royal Marriage. And also, I'm not denying that there is risk involved with turning a king into a general. I totally agree that it is risky. But I disagree that it is foolish. As I have said, my monarchs' leadership has made me much more of a power than I would have been letting them sit on their royal butts all day in Lisboa doing nothing but administrate.

 

[SonofWinter]

To avoid the whole Personal Union thing I always ensure that I have no more than 1 Royal Marriage. And also, I'm not denying that there is risk involved with turning a king into a general. I totally agree that it is risky. But I disagree that it is foolish. As I have said, my monarchs' leadership has made me much more of a power than I would have been letting them sit on their royal butts all day in Lisboa doing nothing but administrate.

Depends, a good admin king with a 8 or 9 can give you a +30% tax bonus each year. Maybe his administration could pay for 10,000 extra cavalry that would not neccessitate him being at the battle. As for avoiding PU, 1 RM is enough to become a Junior. A high diplo king can remove the BB points that you accumulate through all that warfare and maybe diploannex most of Iberia. Corpses don't provide any of these benefits. But ultimately, I'm ok with making a king a general, I'm just surprised when people asky why their kings are dropping like flies, when they are putting them at the head of their armies. :rofl:

 

[unmerged(55833)]

I have noticed stability tends to correlate with monarch life.

That probably means you were using him as a general, and he died.

 

[smellymummy]

i've seen numerous nations with a queen as monarch, but as of yet, haven't been in a battle where the enemy commander is the queen

can it be done? and do you think they'd have good general stats? speaking of which, is it just me, or do the ruler's general stats spawn randomly?

 

[Mrdie]

i've seen numerous nations with a queen as monarch, but as of yet, haven't been in a battle where the enemy commander is the queen

That's because female leaders in game cannot lead armies. (Says so in the manual)

 

[unmerged(8351)]

That probably means you were using him as a general, and he died.

No it does not, I never use them unless I want them to die, I am well aware of all the released game mechanics.

 

[unmerged(16407)]

I use my kings as generals, but I can see the wisdom in it right now.

 

[General di tuti]

I use my kings as generals all the time.. only had 1 war casualty so far (in a rather thrilling game as france, spent a lot of time waging war at the right places)

as for this case; it might be the dangers of being in the army, on the other hand it's not terribly unrealistic to have bad series of monarchs.

 

[Onedreamer]

And the fact is that three of my monarchs have led their troops for the entirety of their reigns without problem. But, in leading these troops, they have humbled (and ultimately annexed) Morocco, defeated Algiers, and aided England in the invasions of Connaught, Scotland, and Norway. Because of the military leadership of Afonso V, Henrique I, and Joao II, Portugal is a world power. Without them, I would still be rather wimpy. So I fail to see the foolishness in making them generals.

same here with a certain Giacomo Ludovico I of Savoy (never heard of). He kicked serious butts and lasted more than all the other (idle) regents.

 

[crusaderknight]

Depends, a good admin king with a 8 or 9 can give you a +30% tax bonus each year. Maybe his administration could pay for 10,000 extra cavalry that would not neccessitate him being at the battle. As for avoiding PU, 1 RM is enough to become a Junior. A high diplo king can remove the BB points that you accumulate through all that warfare and maybe diploannex most of Iberia. Corpses don't provide any of these benefits. But ultimately, I'm ok with making a king a general, I'm just surprised when people asky why their kings are dropping like flies, when they are putting them at the head of their armies. :rofl:

You're right about the bonuses that an 8 or 9 admin king can grant. But none of my kings were 8 or 9 admin. But they were all high military, so it only made sense to have then lead (Joao II has an awesome shock value for this early in the game). I, also, would be surprised at people putting kings at the front and asking "why are they dying?". I for one have not asked that question. My argument this whole time has been with the claim that it is foolish to make your kings into generals. That's all.