well no one will play for more than 20-40 in game years that's barely 2 generation + yes an rpg should have the most possible options and ways to play it trying to say that people after 100 years in a game may get 1million lords thats unrealistic because most people wont stay in a game for that long. and EA does not mean u change every single feature in a game EA means u fix and add features to a game and some changes not complete change to a feature they could have just added the lords death as a feature and be done with it and told us it will be the most stable option for games longer than 40 years. and if 90% of people are asking for something that means it should happen and not what you and the other 10% want .
This is not a democracy. And 90% of people wanting something from the development is nothing but a shortsighted appeal to popularity. @Earth Dragon is completely right with what he's saying here (though a little uncivilized I guess), and you should frankly take it to heart. The game is already several orders of magnitude more survivable for everyone involved than the real middle ages as there are no diseases as of now, and food shortages are an issue of distribution, not supply, as harvests and all the possible issues surrounding them like droughts aren't modeled in the game, not to mention that it is currently impossible to actually starve to death afaik. As such, the only two ways to die in this game are violence and old age. Which historically is estimated to be less than 20% of all actual deaths occurring before germ theory and the ascension of modern medicine.
Child mortality is therefore basically nonexistent, and the calradian noble population increases at ludicrous levels.You're practically looking at exponential growth here, not to mention that new noble houses can now rise out of rebellions which makes that issue even worse. It's going to take less than 20-40 years for your game to run into serious memory issues and performance problems due to overpopulation if people can no longer die prior to their 50's, as the game will have to track enormous amounts of nobles if death is off the table for many of them for a significant time.
There is a game which actually works as a dynastic simulator. It's called 'crusader kings', you may have heard of it. And even though crusader kings does everything in its power to limit population growth, including but not limited to: Death in battle, various diseases, random death events, deadly duels, conspiracies to kill people, soft and hard limits on the amount of children the AI can have and even straight up deletion of unimportant characters from the game from time to time, it still slows down considerably during the end game under normal circumstances because the number of characters has still increased tremendously.
Your idea is bad. Death in battle is the bare minimum of pop control needed.
Last edited: