Yesterday on @ck-game.bsky.social I stuck my 2 year old son in the dungeon until he expired. Just because I wanted his smarter 15yo sister to inherit the throne.
Now she's using murder and mayhem to keep the Abbasids at bay.
I'm with Richard. Sometimes you need to use the "downstairs nursery".
Now she's using murder and mayhem to keep the Abbasids at bay.
I'm with Richard. Sometimes you need to use the "downstairs nursery".
Comments
It's just constant medieval family shenanigans with the odd throne won or lost on the way.
I love it. (Even if it does bring out my inner git when dealing with unruly vassals/uncles/newphews...)
So sometimes you die, and then have to play as your own idiot nepo baby son.
what about bastards
especially if they turn out to be decent and you legitimize them...
Which is when you start looking at your inevitably competent eldest daughters, and feeling stabby...
😜
I know I play CK wrongly, as I always try to do the best I can with who the heir is
We call that an 'Alan' run. As every time I've had a kid the game called Alan they seemed to be useless.
I've stacked the treasury so here is hoping I can avoid the inevitable civil war
She's a genius, intricate webweaver and she served as her father's spymaster. He died of old age at 73, despite his many plotting enemies.
I did what was necessary for the kingdom.
*Stayed up way too late on Friday and Saturday nights in my ongoing quest to form Hispania. At the very slowly converting culture final stage now.
Asta here is actually very lucky. Survived both smallpox AND a bloody flux epidemic.
Smallpox seems to regularly sweep through Constantinople. And she's immune to it now. And clearly has a decent natural disease resistance level too.
I just happened to place him in a windowless, rat-filled dungeon, making it more likely that God would take the hint.
This is a historically accurate method for dealing with inconvenient royal relatives.
Key thing to remember is there's no real "winning" or "losing" in CK3. It's all about the journey and the stories you build on the way.
That'll do nicely.
It's how she likes her men. Less trouble for her that way.
But on these terms, Richard was *not* right - if he had been, he'd have made king for more than 3 years.
In doing so he turned half his own dynasty against him, and also had to take out one of his natural allies (Lord Hastings).
But he could have guessed Ed of Midd would die, because mortality of young children, even royals, in the C15th was high.
At best he wrote off a healthy 13 year old and 10 year old spare and gambled.
It's a massive gamble, and it fails.
It's a staggering display of incompetence which stems from the misjudgement that he could wipe out the Woodvilles without consequences.
But then, Marshal never thought he could be king.
Shakespeare wasn't entirely wrong in making ambition Richard's tragic flaw.