Hello again folks!

This diary will be a bit on the short side due to the frenzy at the office this week, but since it recently came up on the forum, I thought I'd say a little bit about regnal numbers. One of the nice little touches in Europa Universalis III (and its predecessors) is that kings have proper regnal numbers. This feature was missing from the original Crusader Kings, but I am pleased to announce that it will be fully implemented in Crusader Kings II. The way it works is that the first names of actual scripted holders in the character database are counted for each landed title at game start. Regnal numbers are only displayed for Dukes and above, which includes the Pope (a kingdom tier title.) The Holy Father, however, is a bit special in that he changes name on accession. So, a character named, say, Étienne Aubert could get the name Innocent VI if he became Pope.



Somewhat related to regnal numbers is the state of a character at the time of death. In Crusader Kings II, you can browse back through dead characters and see exactly which titles they held and what regnal number they had. I'll leave you with some extra screenshots while you're waiting for the next dev diary, which will be about our beautiful new map. Failing unexpected delays, it should be posted on february 4.




Henrik Fåhraeus, Associate Producer and CKII Project Lead

 

[RedRalphWiggum]

Irish patronymics are in, but it's not 'O', it's 'Mac'. O'Hara actually means grandson of Hara.

ooo Alright, that was pretty embarassing...

 

[Annibal]

O'Hara = of Hara

 

[Orinsul]

Is welsh 'ap dad' or is there something more specific?
If the patronymics are all going to be culturally specific, with the 'of placename' for random courtiers be too?
and anychance bastards could start new dynasties using their patronymic?
thus making bastards a threat to the dynastic succession and the players future and also bring an ever changing world thingy into the game. i.e. King John has a bastard, the son is of the son is head and only member of dynasty Fitzjohn, well unless there was another bastard of same said king then theyd share.

 

[RedRooster81]

He would be Alphonse I, though we might have time to tweak this eventually.

Thanks for answering my question. I have another (of course). Have you worked out Iberian patronymics? The end of the patronymic is different depending on the father's name. Generally, the last vowel is changed into an *ez* and the appropriate accent mark added in Castillian: e.g., Rodrigo > Rodriguez, Fernando > Fernandez, Lain > Lainez; but there are other endings in Portuguese and Catalan. And of course there are exceptions, like Diego > Diaz, and Garcia > Garcés.

 

[unmerged(84239)]

Important dynasties like the Plantagenets will get proper pre-scripted ones

I hope this 'random coat of arms to lesser dynasties' will be moddable.
somehow I fear that apart from english and french, not many will fit the 'important' criteria...

 

[Orinsul]

one would assume they would be. even if only by editing the save.

 

[Doomdark]

I hope this 'random coat of arms to lesser dynasties' will be moddable.
somehow I fear that apart from english and french, not many will fit the 'important' criteria...

They are fully moddable.

 

[Cèsar de Quart]

I hope this 'random coat of arms to lesser dynasties' will be moddable.
somehow I fear that apart from english and french, not many will fit the 'important' criteria...

Or worse: they will look like modern regional CoA's, which was an awful thing from CK1 that kept me modding the CoA's for hours.

****

Will they make the Castillian patronymic system work properly? And will they make it right in Catalonia and Occitania, where it was just adding the father's name after yours? We'll see. I really hope so.

So far, it seems they just add "-son" after the father's name. And Castillian patronymics usually change the root of the name. The son of Rodrigo is Ruyz (yes, fine, Rodrigo is the more modern version of Ruy, so there you have Ruyz, but still, i'm afraid I'd see Ruyez, because it would add "-ez").

This will work with most names, though, but... Rodrigoez? Lopeez? Nuñoez? or Nuñoz, Lopoz, Rodrigoz...?

Scary.


***

Anyway, let me give you three examples:

Lope Bermúdez (Lope, son of Bermudo) -- Pero López (Pero son of Lope) --> Casitllian way (also used in León, Asturias, Navarra and Aragón).

Raimon Roger (Raimon, son of Roger) -- Guilhèm Raimon (Guilhèm, son of Raimon) --> Occitan / Catalan way.

Godefroi FitzRaoulph (Geoffrey, son of Ralph) --- Piers FitzGodefroi (Peter, son of Geoffrey) --> Anglo-Norman patronymic (with names in one of the several Anglo-Norman ways they appear written)


Wouldn't it be nice?

 

[Vladislav]

I hope that the Russian patronymics work well and that they change the "Rurikovich" dynasty to "Rurikid."

 

[Woody Man]

Wouldn't it be nice?

I believe it's already been confirmed that each culture will have different patronymics.

 

[Annibal]

I dont understand that developers avoid preparing the game properly. And their excuse is ready: Moddable. I hate this situation. You can release a proper game and fix bugs with patches. Why you release games improperly? I saw the CKII map, unfortunately no difference from previous games. Pathetic.

 

[Romtos]

I dont understand that developers avoid preparing the game properly. And their excuse is ready: Moddable. I hate this situation. You can release a proper game and fix bugs with patches. Why you release games improperly? I saw the CKII map, unfortunately no difference from previous games. Pathetic.

Wait, first you talk about stuff which needs patches. And then you jump to the map which should differ a lot from other games?

Your first point might hold some legitimacy, it sucks if games need patches. Unfortunately, the nature of the paradox games and their small studio size will ensure a number of patches needed. Some might find this acceptable, others don't. There is little to argue over that.

But seriously, why abandon a perfectly good programmed map from another game you developed? Why reinvent the wheel? That argument holds no merit. Also, I doubt there won't be any difference at all. I think I see improvements over previous paradox titles. And depending on what you mean with 'previous games' I think this game is both an improvement on V2 and EU3W (which are the most advanced maps at this point) and CK (which you could also mean with previous game). It's strange you think it's pathetic, merely because they reuse good components across their games.

 

[RedRooster81]

Wait, first you talk about stuff which needs patches. And then you jump to the map which should differ a lot from other games?

Your first point might hold some legitimacy, it sucks if games need patches. Unfortunately, the nature of the paradox games and their small studio size will ensure a number of patches needed. Some might find this acceptable, others don't. There is little to argue over that.

But seriously, why abandon a perfectly good programmed map from another game you developed? Why reinvent the wheel? That argument holds no merit. Also, I doubt there won't be any difference at all. I think I see improvements over previous paradox titles. And depending on what you mean with 'previous games' I think this game is both an improvement on V2 and EU3W (which are the most advanced maps at this point) and CK (which you could also mean with previous game). It's strange you think it's pathetic, merely because they reuse good components across their games.

I concur. At the end of the day, it is their product, the result of their design choices. There are a lot of buggy games out there, but in general Paradox is better than most developers in fixing bugs once they are found. And yes, Paradox games are incredibly moddable. You can change an awful lot of things to suit your own vision of what Crusader Kings 2 should be, which I consider a strong positive. So I don't think that it's fair to call someone's work pathetic because they have made choices that you do not agree with. Normally, you would have to take the developer's choices or leave them. Since the first EU, Paradox devs have gone out of their way to enable players to change what they disagree with, and I for one often spend more time modding than playing. That is part of the process for me.

 

[Annibal]

It is ok if game needs a patch. I am not mentioning about it. I am talking about games that released improperly. A friend gave an example above. He mentioned about CoA to lesser dynasties. If Paradox gets this CoA from modern provinces CoA, it would make the game improper.

And I must say that after watching CKII trailer on Youtube, it is same old story. I would love to play with muslim dynasties. Why dont they add this development on? In map matter we both aggree on I guess.

Apart from that, all games need patches. It is normal.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

It is ok if game needs a patch. I am not mentioning about it. I am talking about games that released improperly. A friend gave an example above. He mentioned about CoA to lesser dynasties. If Paradox gets this CoA from modern provinces CoA, it would make the game improper.

And I must say that after watching CKII trailer on Youtube, it is same old story. I would love to play with muslim dynasties. Why dont they add this development on? In map matter we both aggree on I guess.

Apart from that, all games need patches. It is normal.

I am fairly certain that they will do their best to ensure that as many dynasties as possible have their correct arms. If a new dynasty appears (from say a bastard founding his own dynasty), they have said they will get randomly assigned arms from their generator. As far as provinces go, again, I am sure that they will research them as well as is possible. Just bear in mind that there is the possibility of there being more than one "legitimate" set of arms for one county or duchy, due to them having been created, destroyed, absorbed and recreated several times, as well as different kingdoms that may have covered an area having assigned different arms to that area at different times.

As far as the youtube comment goes, you are aware this is the pre-alpha information for the first release of the new game? You are also aware that the focus of the game is on Europe, and the "Crusader Kings" - you did read the title of the game? If they included the muslim dynasties, how far should they expand the map eastward? Should they reach the far eastern muslim states? If so, why not include China and Japan? Of course, by now the game fails to focus on the Crusaders because the area covered by the map is so large, and the majority of the map is not associated with either Europe, or the Crusades.

The map seems to be larger than the old CK map, as we appear to have a bit more of Africa and the near-middle East on there.

 

[Annibal]

As far as the youtube comment goes, you are aware this is the pre-alpha information for the first release of the new game? You are also aware that the focus of the game is on Europe, and the "Crusader Kings" - you did read the title of the game? If they included the muslim dynasties, how far should they expand the map eastward? Should they reach the far eastern muslim states? If so, why not include China and Japan? Of course, by now the game fails to focus on the Crusaders because the area covered by the map is so large, and the majority of the map is not associated with either Europe, or the Crusades.

The map seems to be larger than the old CK map, as we appear to have a bit more of Africa and the near-middle East on there.

U dont have to be sarcastic. I know the title of the game, I am one of the fans of the game. It is about Crusades. So why dont they include the defenders of Crusades? Wars are double sided. And I'm pretty sure if they want to add muslim dynasties, they can do it properly.

They dont have go to far far east. It is unrelevant with subject if you know the history. The scale of map is ok, I am not talkin about the scale. I am talking about projection of the map. It isn't fit any of the map projections, they are using their own projection and on that, distortion is too much. They could easily adapt Victoria II map, but they didn't anyway. I am talkin about this. I hope you can understand this time and I'd be pleased if you stop posting irritating messages.

 

[unmerged(84239)]

They are fully moddable.

Yay! Thanks DD!

 

[Romtos]

U dont have to be sarcastic. I know the title of the game, I am one of the fans of the game. It is about Crusades. So why dont they include the defenders of Crusades? Wars are double sided. And I'm pretty sure if they want to add muslim dynasties, they can do it properly.

Sure they could. It's not a matter of ability, but one of available resources. All efforts put into Muslim dynasties will cost in the detail concerning Christian dynasties.

They dont have go to far far east. It is unrelevant with subject if you know the history. The scale of map is ok, I am not talkin about the scale. I am talking about projection of the map. It isn't fit any of the map projections, they are using their own projection and on that, distortion is too much. They could easily adapt Victoria II map, but they didn't anyway. I am talkin about this. I hope you can understand this time and I'd be pleased if you stop posting irritating messages.

You just find them irritating because people don't agree with you. That's why you feel compelled to keep on replying. Nothing wrong with either of that, but you shouldn't request people to post messages which don't fit into your mindset.

 

[Annibal]

He says this:

you did read the title of the game?

And I told him that he was irritating. What isn't true?
Everyone could disagree with me and they do. I'm just complaining about his irritating manner of writing, not his disagreement with me. You guys have problems with understanding?

(Whoaw! I guess I'm the one who is irritating now, do you like it? )

 

[unmerged(9481)]

I would love a family tree of anscestors and descendants giving an overview of the dynasty. I'm in a state of suspended motion and baited breath until this point is confirmed or not by Doomdark.

*starting to turn blue from holding my breath*