I really like this new conqueror

[Eldrin]

But ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ it is handed out like ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ candy and sometimes is somehow passed down in generations.

Great conqueror never had equally successful heirs usually their empires blew up after they died.

Mongolia, Tartaria, Volga-ural, Scandinavia, Xenxir all of them have it for a long time already.
That is not even the mongol invasion just some randoms.

This conqueror is an amazing idea but handed out way too much. It also should not be the difficulty we seek. AI needs to make better alliances and learn to make coalitions vs over expanding realms.


https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3385536081

[brownacs]

I think you might've just gotten unlucky with that number of conquerors managing to keep the trait for a while (I think 5 conquerors is the limit but could be wrong there). My games typically have 1 or 2 really successful ones at a time.

... also never and usually are probably overstatements.

[Yhvh10]

I personally love the Great Conquerer but yeah i think its nonsense their heirs automatically get the GC trait.

My personal opinion is that the GC should not automatically pass onto the heirs. But that there is a chance based on martial and learning skills for it to happen.

[Eldrin]

Originally posted by Yhvh10:

I personally love the Great Conquerer but yeah i think its nonsense their heirs automatically get the GC trait.

My personal opinion is that the GC should not automatically pass onto the heirs. But that there is a chance based on martial and learning skills for it to happen.

Honestly the AI is so good with the trait that i think it should not have any chance at all the be passed on. Think about it for a second all the great conquerorers of our time never had heirs that do the same, the vast majority of their realms broke apart after the conquest. Alexander, Napoleon, Khan, Attila etc etc....

Only a very few rare cases the empires do not blow up after the great conquerors death like Julius Caesar.

ATM it feels at one point i am playing EUIV late game not CK3.

[denton91]

Turn the inheritance off in game options, it is achievement-compatible.
I agree it is way too common for how influential it is and the inheritance means some corners of the world just have massive empires under generations of conquerors until the AI messes up and the primary heir gets content.

[Eldrin]

Originally posted by denton91:

Turn the inheritance off in game options, it is achievement-compatible.
I agree it is way too common for how influential it is and the inheritance means some corners of the world just have massive empires under generations of conquerors until the AI messes up and the primary heir gets content.

If only i knew that was an option before. Guess forced to start a new game again, because i like difficulty but this has became too EUIV

[brownacs]

Originally posted by Eldrin:

Honestly the AI is so good with the trait that i think it should not have any chance at all the be passed on. Think about it for a second all the great conquerorers of our time never had heirs that do the same, the vast majority of their realms broke apart after the conquest. Alexander, Napoleon, Khan, Attila etc etc....

Only a very few rare cases the empires do not blow up after the great conquerors death like Julius Caesar.

ATM it feels at one point i am playing EUIV late game not CK3.

If by Khan you mean Temujin aka Genghis, that's not what happened. The Mongol Empire reached its zenith under Kublai Khan, its 5th ruler, or Möngke Khan, its 4th, depending on whether we're acknowledging Kublai as much more than a nominal emperor. It did not collapse immediately following Temujin's death; it expanded more. The Napoleonic Empire transforms into the 2nd French Colonial Empire, conventionally dated as ending in 1980 and reaching its maximum size in the 1920s/30s so I'm struggling with the idea that that empire immediately collapsed following Napoleon's final defeat. They lost Napoleon's European conquests sure but that was a quite small percentage of the total area of the empire. And Julius Caesar probably wouldn't belong in this category. In a CK3 analogy, he conquered one (super low development) kingdom (Gaul). His effect was more political in terms of consolidating power during the first triumvirate then his civil war such that a shift towards the imperial period of Roman history was inevitable under Augustus and the Principate (although a real structuralist would probably point to the Marian reforms and Sulla's civil war earlier still). I'd be more inclined to consider Pompey than Caesar. Alexander and the Macedonian Empire's rapid expansion then spectacular collapse is probably your best example of this happening but it's not very common (and was probably only possible thanks to the infrastructure and weakening of central authority in the Achaemenid Empire, which did not collapse after its founder Cyrus died about 200 years before Alexander). Even Attila is debatable as he wasn't the first historical Hunnic ruler. That's just when the west, if you will, really becomes aware of and interacts the most with the Huns.