Quick question. Although I have been involved in the beta play as well as having played extensively since release, I'm a bit confused by Dynasties.
It would seem to me that if I kill an enemy Sovereign outside of their territory, the heirs should assume the throne. Instead, the whole empire (or kingdom) crumbles. I know I've seen posts like this before. Is this meant to be like this? Because it would seem the whole Dynasty system doesn't mean a whole heck of a lot if it is.
Thanks...
Krool
I would like to see the faction survive until out of heirs.
Yup, everything just goes "poof" if the sovereign dies, which trivializes singleplayer since the AI will often send its sovereign headfirst into your territory.
You're right ! It has been stated many times over. I hope the dev team did hear us
I agree , changing this would give the game longevity
I expect this will be addressed in one of the upcoming expansions. The dynasty screen indicates the order in which your children should take over the kingdom, so I think it is just a matter of time before this is implemented.
Agreed. However there should be a penalty for losing your sovereign. Some of your cities should go to people you have marriage alliances with. Or if if you don't have marriage alliances they should go neutral and have to be reconquered. I think this would be an awesome civil war mechanic.
As it stands now dynasties are completely pointless, and cities just disappearing when the sovereign dies is annoying and ridiculous.
Yea, this would increase depth quite significantly from a storyline perspective. Dsraider, some good ideas too.
When the Sovereign dies, there has to be a line of succession which ofcourse could results in a civil war.
The cities become neutral and stop trading with each other until there is a new faction leader or now we have 2+ factions with independant city states. That's how you add content and story in one swoop.
Interesting proposals, but I wouldn't like to automatically have cities break from the kingdom/empire and declare independence - there should be a factor that changes the probability this happens, and it should be influenceable. I'm not a history nerd, but I don't think every time there was a successor to a particular throne in medieval Europe half the kingdom declared independence.
I would also be interested in having an option to claim a foreign kingdom/empire in succession if I have married some of the sovereign's offspring to those of the foreign sovereign - say, if the foreign sovereign had only daughters, and you had a son married to one of those and the foreign sovereign fell in battle, you'd have a chance of claiming the throne of the other kingdom/empire through your son. Of course, there might be other kingdoms/empires that have ties with that particular kingdom/empire with legitimate claims, so succession struggles might broke out.
Probably difficult to balance out, but it would be interesting and it would make the dynasties a really prominent feature of the game.
I think the probability of civil war could be determined by distance from the so-called capital city (first city placed on map) or perhaps the location of the heirs, etc. Probably all a pipe dream, but for gods sakes, at least let a heir inherent the kingdom if the Sovereign dies (which could be another kingdm if that heir is married to a male from another kingdom). Now that would be a good chance for civil war.
Besides lines of succession for a fallen Sovereign (if it worked that is) is there really any point of marrying off a child?
If said child was really crappy of a channeler, you can marry her off and hope some of her children ally with you (and hopefully they will be better than her). Then again, the AI will probably get her killed soon. Heh.
Agree 100% with the OP. The current dynasty system is simply a way to get more champions.
There's no point in knowing who is in line to the throne if the heirs don't take over when the Sov dies. And I don't get why the 1st in line's son becomes 2nd in line, instead of the second born child?
Offsprings info cards are simply copied from the parent of the same gender. They even show the parent's name. If Rillis has a daughter, the daughters bio will be about Rillis. I'd rather show the daughter's actual name, since it's her card, and a 1 line bio that says "Blah is the daughter of Blah and Rillis, and is first in line to the throne of Blah." Maybe make it editable so we can do it ourselves, whatever, but at least get rid of the parent's bio from their offspring's cards.
Marrying them off should increase relations with the factions of their spouses. I think it does now, I'm not sure, but if it doesn't it should. And if war breaks out with those factions, then the spouses, maybe even with the heir they're married to and their offspring, could have a chance (different for each individual unit) of defecting to that faction.
If an heir does take over, then maybe some cities could rebel, requiring you to garrison troops there to restore order; or maybe cities near a rival faction's border could flip; if you have any children married to other factions, then said faction could gain some kind of influence in the event of you Sov's death, maybe some cities would flip to them or maybe the faction would even try to claim the empty throne for itself, thus causing war.
Marrying does improve relations (+2), and you get even more once they have children (+1).
Yea, I had this silly game yesterday. Playing on hard, large map and 8 opponents. Kraxxis was my strongest neighbour and was at war with Pariden, who was alot weaker looking at the kingdom reports. Then out of the blue, the whole of Kraxxis was gone suddenly, because of some silly suicide run of the sovereign. That was kind of a let down.
Yes, I love your ideas. may i suggest additions? Placing a child of the soverign (a royal) in a settlement improves some aspect(s) of the settlement (deprednig on abilities of the royal). Also, over time, (if settlement is kept safe from raiders, etc) creates/strengthens a loyalty bond to that royal (and their heirs). Should that royal be married into another soverign's line, then 'attacking' (not defending against) that soverign 'might' have consequences for that settlement (refuse to pay taxes till war is over, or send troops, etc...) maybe, if war drags out, settlement go neutral (until war is over).
BTW, raiding parties were very common "back then." They would go in, 'raid some food, livestock, gold, etc., and run away. As of sept 20 updte, its all or nothing - neutrals, bandits, etc. attack and destroy. Some sort of 'raiding' mechenism (and/or kingdom/empire options) would add a great deal. The raiders go in and steal,not destroy... they don't want to kill the gooose that lays (the golden) eggs?
I'm totally behind the "Heir to the Throne" idea. If your Sov dies the next in line should assume the throne.
To maintain balance however children shouldn't be as plentiful. In a 2 hour game you could have 6+ kids, if that was 2-3 kids it would balance it out.
Until 1.1+ though I'ma just play AoW : SM. Offering it for £6.32 on Impulse is rediculous (read:- awesome). Only downside is I realise AoW is more appealing than Elemental at this point in time
I guess you're American or Canadian or some other country that never had a Monarchy?
The line of succession is correct. E.g In England when the Queen dies Prince William will take up the Throne, therefore he is King and a new line of succession is accorded. As in when he has a son, he is heir to the Throne.
The only way Prince Harry (Williams brother) can become King is if William dies childless.
If this is too confusing for you, watch The Lion King. Scar needs Simba gone before he can assume power, killing Mufasa was not enough alone
Agree
er..... Both of these countries once were ruled by the British Crown. In fact Canada is still a Constitutional Monarchy, with the Head of State being the Queen of England.
Thanks James, I didn't know that.
"However there should be a penalty for losing your sovereign" Well, losing a powerful unit is a bit of a penalty right off the top. But if the heir happens to be super, don't need any other penalty. How much penalty was there for Macedonia when Phillip died and Alexander took over (all right, not so great in the long run, but give me a while and I'll think of an example that turned out well after for longer).
For what it's worth today, they might as well have never had one. I'm well aware of Englands history and former Territories but a lot of Americans/Canadians aren't. That's not a dig at you guys, it's just a fact.
Today America is independent and the "Constitutional Monarchy" doesn't exactly mean anything. Technically she's Head of State, realistically she'd probably still need a visa to visit. (Joke but you catch my drift)
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
