My Mighty Empire. Gone

[Largefry07]

Here's what happened. A spy killed my only heir to the thrown and when the king died my cleric took over. Ok thats fine I would rather have him take over than one of my skilled marshalls. It happened to my once and everything is fine. But the local govenors decided to take over and I lost half of my kingdom. Has anyone else expenised this? B/c I got really mad in fact I got so mad I just didn't save the game.( Now I wish I had so I would have a chalege)


And another thing What does it mean when the speaker say "town atority has been taken over"?

[lurking horror]

When town authority is taken over you have taken control of the town you recently conquered.

I had this happen to me. I was reduced down to about a tenth of my kingdom. It's frustrating, but I think it adds a nice touch of challenge to the game. If family was more important, it might work better. As it stands now, it's important to build a family so that you have heirs. But you can't actually keep your king from getting married. He'll do so with permission or not. And you obviously have no control over the situations with him developing heirs. I think that after three daughters and no sons you should be allowed to assign the King a mistress. Not unprecedented.

Anyway, the point is, I see nothing wrong with the loss of the kingdom if their is no heir. Simply that it need to be more interactive.

[joasoze]

I went from 19 to 2 provinces when I refused to give up land to a prince who was supposed to get land when the king died.

[Lighthope]

I think that after three daughters and no sons you should be allowed to assign the King a mistress. Not unprecedented.


Not unprecidented, but completely useless since it's the male that determines the gender. Unless the queen is too old to bear children, then the king could presumably have a mistress to keep the royal line going.

But then you take the fun away of having domestic troubles with no heir. So I think it should be left as is.

Lighthope

Pearls of Wisdom - (A)bort, (R)etry, (S)mack the frigging thing...

--== THE DOCTOR WHO AUDIO DRAMAS: http://www.dwad.net
--== Give performance reviews of your boss: http://www.rateyourboss.org
--== Everlasting Films Call Board: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/everlastingfilms

[lurking horror]

Why is it completely useless when the point is to generate a male heir?

Actually, I would think that an illegitimate heir would cause more domestic troubles. Not less. Say your mistress has a son, then suprisingly, your wife has a son after all. Your king dies, your kingdom is split in half by civil war, you lose half your knights to this new kingdom.

Or, if younger brothers actually had some value, a younger brother and an illegitimate heir would again, cause more domestic issues.

I'm not against getting rid of the domestic issues. In fact, I prefer having this added wrinkle to the game. What I'm in favor of is making those domestic issues something that you can actually influence. Right now, you have no say in the matter of whether or not your king marries. You have no say in him having children. Other than marrying them off, you have no say in the lives of the daughters. Other than using them as a jack of all trades, royal sons have no use beyond the heir. For the most part, the royal family is something that runs itself, regardless of your invovment. You don't actually NEED to do ANYTHING with them. This is unfortunate.