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

 

[RedRooster81]

A bit off topic, but I know a real life prince Heinrich XIII, from a family in which all male members were named Heinrich from the 13th century onward. So why only XIII? Because they invented a special notation system that starts the numbering anew after certain criteria.

No, my friend, it is rather on topic. There have been some cases (okay one I can think of) when numbering restarted, and that was the Norman conquest of England, when continuity was not a desired aspect of governance. So Edward I Longshanks Plantagenet was Edward I of England, despite IIRC three Saxon kings of England named Edward. So it could cause problems for the devs (although England does always complicate generalizations I find) when they code the numbering of titleholders.

 

[Johan11]

Yeah, if somebody's Richard III of Normandy, and then he becomes Richard I of England. That could cause some issues.

 

[Mrdie]

Yeah, if somebody's Richard III of Normandy, and then he becomes Richard I of England. That could cause some issues.

As the Regnal Chronologies website points out: "As an example, the last Edward to be King of England/Great Britain called himself Edward VIII. But a glance at the list reveals, not 8, but 11 different Edwards. The current King of Sweden is Charles XVI; examination of his predecessors will provide a certain sense of disorientation when the first Charles encountered is styled Charles VII. What needs to be noted is that the Latin numerals often tagged to royal names bear only a tangential relation to an accurate count; they are political numbers, not mathematical ones. The English sequence commences in 1066, not the beginnings of the Kingdom. In Sweden, the six missing Charles may be discovered inhabiting a genealogy produced in the late middle ages which owes more to creativity than to reality. In many instances, the numbers were not used at all, but are the additions of modern historians, in order to differentiate identically named people."

So I don't have a problem with it. People in the next few hundred years in game would probably refer to that man as Richard I of England regardless of any other Richards who might have also ruled England at one point.

An easy way to fix this would simply be to have different dynasties who achieve power via conquest restart the numbering. So for instance if Bob IV Lameassius of Ass has his realm conquered by Bob Badassius of Feminine Private Parts, there's a good chance that Bob Badassius will consider himself the first Bob of the new dynasty, and anyone who calls him Bob V will suffer a terrible fate indeed. If Bob V Lameassius' son, however, reconquers the realm for his dynasty, he restores the numbering and reigns as Bob V. Likewise if the former Bob IV returns he gets to keep his glorious Roman numeral for posterity.

 

[Jarp]

No, my friend, it is rather on topic. There have been some cases (okay one I can think of) when numbering restarted, and that was the Norman conquest of England, when continuity was not a desired aspect of governance. So Edward I Longshanks Plantagenet was Edward I of England, despite IIRC three Saxon kings of England named Edward. So it could cause problems for the devs (although England does always complicate generalizations I find) when they code the numbering of titleholders.

This is a good point, however regnal numbering in CK2 would to a fair degree be anachronistic. The numbering of early post-Conquest kings occurred after the death of Edward Longshanks, but it's curious that the Anglo-Saxon Edwards weren't included in the tally considering William the Bastard was meant to be the true heir to Edward the Confessor.

One potential headache - one screenshot showed Harold Godwinson reigning in England. Once the game kicks off, the Conquest may or may not succeed but the Edward tally has to start somewhere. Could we see Edward I of Wessex or Edward IV de Normandie? I guess a solution could be to use a new country tag for post-Conquest England with their own regnal numbering starting point.

Regnal numbering in the Imperial states is tricky sometimes - so much partitioning and re-amalgamation of lands. At least in CK2, there's a smallest divisible unit of a realm.

 

[RedRooster81]

This is a good point, however regnal numbering in CK2 would to a fair degree be anachronistic. The numbering of early post-Conquest kings occurred after the death of Edward Longshanks, but it's curious that the Anglo-Saxon Edwards weren't included in the tally considering William the Bastard was meant to be the true heir to Edward the Confessor.

One potential headache - one screenshot showed Harold Godwinson reigning in England. Once the game kicks off, the Conquest may or may not succeed but the Edward tally has to start somewhere. Could we see Edward I of Wessex or Edward IV de Normandie? I guess a solution could be to use a new country tag for post-Conquest England with their own regnal numbering starting point.

Regnal numbering in the Imperial states is tricky sometimes - so much partitioning and re-amalgamation of lands. At least in CK2, there's a smallest divisible unit of a realm.

On imperial states, that is those descended from the Carolingian empire, you have Charlemagne, who is Charles I for France and Karl I for the HRE, and then there are all those Carolingian men named Louis who get confusing but who are some of the early French kings named Louis. So continuity in both states dates back to that period of unity and greatness. So I just wanted to point that out.

 

[RedRooster81]

I have thought some on patronymics. It has been confirmed that Irish, English, and Scandinavian patronymics specifically will be in. My comrades here have suggested others, including IIRC Iberian, Polish, etc. Along with regnal numbers, patronymics are an interesting part of the game that may not add content directly, but that I think will be an irritation if it does not quite work out.

Now, I would recommend as a general matter that there could be generic patronymics for those characters belonging to cultures where either there was not a specifically strong tradition of patronymics that we use the term the Latin form "filius <father's personal name>." Iberian Christian patronymics as a system contain many irregularities, so I wanted to suggest this as well, as a general default option if the game has trouble handling either irregularly spelled patronymics (e.g., Diaz > Diego, Alonso > Alfonso) or rather unusual names. I don't know how this aspect of the game will be coded, but I hope that it will be very moddable. It would probably be too much to ask for place-names to be added to the end of the patronymic, as in Rodrigo Diaz de Vivar, as El Cid's full name would have been, Rodrigo, Son of Diego, from Vivar.

Arab, Berber, and Arabized (that is, Jewish characters living in Islamic states, as well as Mozarabs, etc.) characters could use the form "ibn <father's personal name" with the House being represented by the Arabic tribal designation banu, as in Banu Qasi, the Muslim dynasty that ruled parts of Navarra in the VIII-X centuries (interestingly, the descendants of a Visigothic count named Cassius).

There is an interesting aspect here: with conversion to Christianity or to Islam, should there be an event that fires allowing the character's culture and hence name to change? This happened frequently in certain areas historically.

 

[Hertog Jan]

This is a good point, however regnal numbering in CK2 would to a fair degree be anachronistic. The numbering of early post-Conquest kings occurred after the death of Edward Longshanks, but it's curious that the Anglo-Saxon Edwards weren't included in the tally considering William the Bastard was meant to be the true heir to Edward the Confessor.

One potential headache - one screenshot showed Harold Godwinson reigning in England. Once the game kicks off, the Conquest may or may not succeed but the Edward tally has to start somewhere. Could we see Edward I of Wessex or Edward IV de Normandie? I guess a solution could be to use a new country tag for post-Conquest England with their own regnal numbering starting point.

Regnal numbering in the Imperial states is tricky sometimes - so much partitioning and re-amalgamation of lands. At least in CK2, there's a smallest divisible unit of a realm.

A solution of the specific 'Edward problem' has been mentioned before, which is to give Edward the Elder, Edward the Martyr and Edward the Confessor the Old English form of the name: Ēadweard. Etymologically the names are the same, but the game would recognise it as something different leading to different numerals.

 

[Nick B II]

A solution of the specific 'Edward problem' has been mentioned before, which is to give Edward the Elder, Edward the Martyr and Edward the Confessor the Old English form of the name: Ēadweard. Etymologically the names are the same, but the game would recognise it as something different leading to different numerals.

If desired there's an even simpler solution: put a space after Edward the Confessor's name. *poof* Edward I and Edward II in Saxon times can be followed by Edward I post-conquest.

Nick

 

[3inar]

Got a question for anyone who might know, the text in the first picture just under where the character religion says is that the character location or does it show something ells? (where he is born mabe?)

Thanks in advance!

 

[Wezqu]

Got a question for anyone who might know, the text in the first picture just under where the character religion says is that the character location or does it show something ells? (where he is born mabe?)

Thanks in advance!

Yes it most likely means of what province he currently is. So for example it limits who you can have leading an army that you raise in the province to those characters that are currently in the province. So no more nobles teleporting to the other side of the map to lead an army.

 

[3inar]

Yes it most likely means of what province he currently is. So for example it limits who you can have leading an army that you raise in the province to those characters that are currently in the province. So no more nobles teleporting to the other side of the map to lead an army.

Yes I found a cupple of other pictures with other lines in that place including one that say " "Insert name here" is leading troops in västergötaland"