I'm running out of family members...

[raistlinmajere8]

Basically the title...

I'm playing the Romans right now, and I'm running out of family members.

Half my cities don't have governors, and I'm just not sure what to do. No one in my family tree is having kids..... and I really don't want to have recruited generals running cities like Capua or Lilybaeum.

What am I supposed to do here? Anyway to force my people to start making babies?!

I have looked at all my current family members, and I'm not seeing any traits that would hinder baby making, except for one guy who has got gonorrhea or something. But that's one person, out of 8 living family members! The rest just WILL NOT have kids.

[Ferdiad]

Conquer more lands.
/

[raistlinmajere8]

Errr. Forgive my ignorance, but how does conquering more lands add more family members?

Wouldn't that, uhh, make my situation worse? Adding more lands to be governed, whilst having a shortage of family members?

[Ferdiad]

More land=More babies and more adoptions
/

[Spartan198]

Well, it could be worse. I started a Sparta campaign last night and an earthquake struck Laconia on turn 2, killing my entire family tree.

[raistlinmajere8]

More land=More babies and more adoptions
/

Well that does indeed appear to be true, for I just took Genoa and Banonia and both my faction leader and successor had sons.

Well, it could be worse. I started a Sparta campaign last night and an earthquake struck Laconia on turn 2, killing my entire family tree

Yeah I kinda had the same thing happen. Earlier on in my campaign I had both my leader and successor at Lilybaeum. They both were killed by an earthquake....

[Spartan198]

Yeah I kinda had the same thing happen. Earlier on in my campaign I had both my leader and successor at Lilybaeum. They both were killed by an earthquake....

I'd always thought losing both faction leader and successor at the same time would cause a CTD. At least our misfortune has proven that fear unfounded, right?

[Nota']

Remember Roma has multiple family trees

[RebelCub]

I had the same thing happen in one of my campaigns as the Romans. All of my men were like 40 and childless. I had to get drastic and use the cheat "Fertile 3" which is "Prolific", give them all a "healthy wife" and an Herbalist to get things started.

[Desley]

give_trait this "Fertile"3

(works in medieval 2 total war )

[Ferdiad]

Does anyone else marry their princesses to their family members in Med 2?I do I WISH IT WOULD GIVE TRAITS LIKE "Inbreeding-You married his sister to your brother, now your son has a tail"

[Rafaelp]

I would give your generals the "fertile" trait i think its called?....gives them a better chance of having more children... I dont know if that's how its called just look it up on cheat code list.

[tone]

or else recruit some generals and hope they get adopted. They should still act as reasonable governors.

[a-woowie.doowie]

Many recruited generals start out way better than family members. It's a matter of taste though, I also dislike having recruited governors in charge of big and(or) important cities. It just feels rather . . . false.

But in my roman campaign(before I bumped into trouble not to be discussed here) I had atleast one governor in each settlment. I gave the retinues(the good ones/those best suited) of old non-family members to either young family members or the new recruited governor of the city. Sure this takes away some of the chances of improving retinues but it mostly works as a filtration(keeping the good retinues "alive" while letting the useless/bad ones "die"). For example, two (annoyingly) common retinues are Siege Engineer and Hunting Dog which I really find useless for governors, since they don't give you any bonuses when it comes to actual management, influence, public order, trade or tax bonuses. These I let go down with the "sinking governor" while I save those such as Treasurer etc.

Ehhm. . . think I seriously lost the topic, but I'll post this anyways if it somehow(?) could be of any use to anyone.

[Guga]

Many recruited generals start out way better than family members. It's a matter of taste though, I also dislike having recruited governors in charge of big and(or) important cities. It just feels rather . . . false.
...

For me it is the other way around. As Rome, having members of only one family rule most of my empire, is completly ahistorical. Roman governors\military commanders were appointed by Senate\Emperor and came from different families. Normally you had to advance through curus honorum to achieve such a post, altough beeing affiliated to an Emperor certainly helped, it wasnt reserved only for his family. to bypas RTW engine limitations I RP recruited generals as members of different roman families perfectly suited to take any post in the empire, not some sort of hired mercenaries. Of course it is just my playing style and You dont have to be historical, just have fun as I do.

[dvk901]

The RTW 'family' system is totally ahistorical and really not even necessary. I know a lot of people seem to pay a great deal of attention to this, but in the long run it has little effect on a good campaign. The game automatically chooses heirs if there aren't any in the 'family' (which is more historical), and recruiting characters (generals) gives the game a huge selection of characters from which to choose heirs, even if they are never adopted. Where you run into problems is if you depend on RTW to adopt characters and 'lesser generals', and never recruit Generals. This can shrink the pool of characters (especially in very small factions), and create a situation (which I have seen) where you have a faction leader and no other characters in the whole family. In that case, if he dies, so does your campaign with him.

RS2 was set up with a good deal of reliance on recruiting characters, because for a number of factions the family that rules can be switched all over the place....even to a character who has no family at all. In that case the game will try to build one quickly (and we've seen that happen), but there is just no way to play RS2 and have all the necessary Governors (which are necessary) for all your cities. Governors are actually part of having a more 'vibrant' economy....and in the next patch will be even moreso.

[a-woowie.doowie]

@dvk901 Have I misunderstood you or not - this we'll found out in your answer to the following questions.

As you obviously know, there are characters(atleast in the roman campaign) who are family members but not seen on the family tree. Is it possible to manually make a member of an alternate family tree an heir? If so - how?

I didn't really understand the part towards the end of your comment. But here goes; when I had RS2 installed(lazyness problems has kept me from reinstalling it again) I pretty much had a family member/recruited governor in every city I posessed. Why would this be some sort of problem or "impossibility"?

Last one.

When you said: "Governors are actually part of having a more 'vibrant' economy....and in the next patch will be even moreso." What did you mean? You're being mystic .

[Ferdiad]

Probaly need good govenors to rake in decent cash to fund your military.

[a-woowie.doowie]

Yeah, the average governor seems to be worth 5k in those cities with the "Roman culture and economic building" or whatever they're called.

Warning - following spoiler will be off topic.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I've never ever understood how so many players seem to be able to drain their treasury each turn(living on the turn-income). It's actually something I want to do - since having unreasonable sums of money isn't very fun, besides; it results in bad traits(extravagant and curruption traits). I have this problem in every mod I play in - I simply can't keep the stash low and I doubt it's because I builid economical buildings, if this were the case then everyone should have this amount money stashed up.

I think it would be seen as arrogant if I were to start a thread called "how to keep treasury low" without listening to the obvious/stupid(in my opinion) tips; 1: give your money away. 2: Builid armies. 3: Don't builid economically classed buildings. etc. I simply won't do that because; 1; that's pretty stupid. 2; I don't need more armies. 3; That's even more stupid than #1.

Any other decent tips to what I can do to keep my stash lower than in the millions? Now I'm more searching for tips for the start of a campaign - not an existing one. Meaning; what can I do diffrently so that I don't get this humongus treasury able to sustain pretty much anything?

[Ferdiad]

You can never have enough armies!Im totally serious, In my games Im always produciing units, sometimes only a few but sometimes 9x5=45 thats an average early to middle game production when Im blitzing.I often run out of money so often than no new buildings get built for ages.