I just loaded up an iron man save to play as Alfred the great but he does not have an legandary blodline. I feel like he should have an blodline since he is called Alfred the great.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
So? I mean other historical character aka Ragnar get bloodlines from birth even if you start when they are children and they haven't done anything. So why shouldn't alfred get one?
If you're playing as him, it's up to you to forge the bloodline.
Not trying to sound like a jerk here, but if every ruler who was ever known as "the Great" were given a bloodline the game would be pretty cluttered with bloodlines.
I imagine that Ragnarr Lodbrok was given a bloodline because it has a pretty unique feature (enabling the Viking/Pirate, Reaver, and Seaking/queen traits for non-Germanics) based on his background as a legendary viking raider.
Not trying to sound like a jerk here, but if every ruler who was ever known as "the Great" were given a bloodline the game would be pretty cluttered with bloodlines.
I imagine that Ragnarr Lodbrok was given a bloodline because it has a pretty unique feature (enabling the Viking/Pirate, Reaver, and Seaking/queen traits for non-Germanics) based on his background as a legendary viking raider.
Pretty sure he's the only English king ever given 'the great' title. Big fan of 'last kingdom' show so I'm all for a bloodline
There's also Cnut, Humphrey, and Rhodri the Great. Plus Llywelyn the Great, but I think he may have been Welsh.
And that's just England (and maybe Wales). Imagine the sheer volume of them if we expand our scope to cover the whole CK2 map.
And that's just England (and maybe Wales). Imagine the sheer volume of them if we expand our scope to cover the whole CK2 map.
.png){kind=avatar}
So I don't disagree that Alfred was a great (heh, see what I did there?) figure, but when we set up historical rulers in HF one of our rules was that we should try and refrain from stacking historical bloodlines.
And I hear what you might say "But Snow Crystal, dear dev and overlord, there isn't any other bloodlines in that dynasty, is there?", and you would be right. There isn't. Yet.
And I hear what you might say "But Snow Crystal, dear dev and overlord, there isn't any other bloodlines in that dynasty, is there?", and you would be right. There isn't. Yet.
Do the devs have plans to add more Bloodlines, both historical and forged, in the future?
There's also Cnut, Humphrey, and Rhodri the Great. Plus Llywelyn the Great, but I think he may have been Welsh.
And that's just England (and maybe Wales). Imagine the sheer volume of them if we expand our scope to cover the whole CK2 map.
Alfred is the only English King to be called "the Great", the others are either not English or not Kings, or both.
This feels like a good time to ask about something that has been bothering my for a while:
Why are the "House of Cerdic" and the "House of Wessex" separate, given all Kings of Wessex, and later England, have descended from Cerdic in some fashion? Surely, if all the Cadet branches of Caput are considered one house, likewise the Cerdings?
Well, he was Anglo-Saxon. Or if you mean specifically mean the title king of England, Alfred never was. Cnut the Great was king of England, though, but his ethnicity was Danish.
This isn't an England simulator, though, but a covers a rather large area of the world, and as I mentioned before if we gave bloodlines to people on account of them having been nicknamed "the Great" we'd clog the place with bloodlines.
Plus, the British Isles is already the most bloodline dense area in the CK2 world with the Vortigern, Caradog, and Niall bloodlines existing from the very first starting date.
That being said, Snow Crystal is hinting strongly that at least Alfred's dynasty has another bloodline coming, so I guess we'll see.
Alfred's "Greatness" is more the result of Early Modern English nationalists emphasizing him as a hero; it's not clear that he was seen as much more significant than other kings of Wessex at the time; certainly not compared with either his son Edward (who actually unified most of England) or his grandson Athelstan (who at least temporarily finished the job).
I assume they'll get the Cerdic bloodline at some point, though note that the actual descent of a lot of the West Saxon kings is somewhat unclear (and most of the other dynasties are even less clear; we have no idea if e.g. the kings of East Anglia in 769 or 867 are related to each other or to any of the preceding or following kings of East Anglia after the early 700s, when our last surviving East Anglian royal genealogy was written).
I assume they'll get the Cerdic bloodline at some point, though note that the actual descent of a lot of the West Saxon kings is somewhat unclear (and most of the other dynasties are even less clear; we have no idea if e.g. the kings of East Anglia in 769 or 867 are related to each other or to any of the preceding or following kings of East Anglia after the early 700s, when our last surviving East Anglian royal genealogy was written).
Since i Only play viking i know alot about Alfred the great How he fought alot of Vikings tbh
In conclusion give this mad lad a blodline
In conclusion give this mad lad a blodline
Well, he was Anglo-Saxon. Or if you mean specifically mean the title king of England, Alfred never was. Cnut the Great was king of England, though, but his ethnicity was Danish.
This isn't an England simulator, though, but a covers a rather large area of the world, and as I mentioned before if we gave bloodlines to people on account of them having been nicknamed "the Great" we'd clog the place with bloodlines.
Plus, the British Isles is already the most bloodline dense area in the CK2 world with the Vortigern, Caradog, and Niall bloodlines existing from the very first starting date.
That being said, Snow Crystal is hinting strongly that at least Alfred's dynasty has another bloodline coming, so I guess we'll see.
Well, you referenced other "Greats" in Britain, so I distinguished between them and Alfred, one of those you referenced was only a baron. Certainly, there are other "Great" monarchs in the period and we can argue about whether or not they should get a bloodline too, but I was speaking specifically about Alfred because that was the topic of conversation.
I very carefully said "English King" and not "King of England", the endonym "English" dates back as far as Bede, at least, and functionally means the same as "Anglo-Saxon" so whilst Alfred did not title himself "King of the English as opposed to "King of the Anglo-Saxons" there's functionally no difference. Now, it is true that Alfred was far from being the King of all the Anglo-Saxons or English but that hardly diminishes the point that he essentially refounded the Kingdom we today know as England.
Elizabeth II, our current monarch, can claim direct descent from Alfred and through him the legendary Cerdic.
Alfred's reputation was incredibly important in the later Middle Ages, that's why Henry I married his descendent Edith (Matilda) and why Oxford University claimed him as a legendary founder.
I'll grant you Athelstan but Edward the Elder was not so impressive, a lot of the real work was done by his sister and it's telling that Athelstan contrived to become King of Mercia first and Wessex second.
Well, you said:
"I feel like he should have an blodline since he is called Alfred the great."
...and I replied that I didn't think being called "the great" is a good enough reason to give someone a bloodline considering how many "the great" there are. That's the topic of the conversation I was having with you, and I still stand by that point.
"I feel like he should have an blodline since he is called Alfred the great."
...and I replied that I didn't think being called "the great" is a good enough reason to give someone a bloodline considering how many "the great" there are. That's the topic of the conversation I was having with you, and I still stand by that point.
there are many people called 'the Great' for various of reasons. Not all of them were really 'Great' just because they were called so.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_known_as_"the_Great"
Otherwise we would need a Matteo Rosso Orsini bloodline:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matteo_Rosso_Orsini
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_known_as_"the_Great"
Otherwise we would need a Matteo Rosso Orsini bloodline:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matteo_Rosso_Orsini
For the next major update, I have added some, yeah. Including one for a descendant of Alfred. I sort of had to.
Well, you said:
"I feel like he should have an blodline since he is called Alfred the great."
...and I replied that I didn't think being called "the great" is a good enough reason to give someone a bloodline considering how many "the great" there are. That's the topic of the conversation I was having with you, and I still stand by that point.
Actually, it wasn't me who said that - you're conflating me with another poster.