Editable Title Histories and/or Dynamic Claim-based Regnal Numbers

[ButcherOfTorfan]

I would really like Crusader Kings III to incorporate at least some way of dealing with CK II's somewhat arbitrary approach to regnal numbers.

So, it's pretty simple. In CK II regnal numbers are based on who held the title. That seems fine, right? Sure, except wait ... wouldn't that make Edward I actually Edward III (or IV if you count Edward the Elder)? Well, no, because the developers made sure that the Saxon spelling of Edward was disconnected from the English spelling. Which ... well, that doesn't help at all.

Regnal numbers are subjective so it's silly to fix them to an objective mechanic. Here's an easy way of demonstrating the problem. One of the most dangerous times for a monarch is upon succession - no long reign bonus, council discontented, potentially even dealing with a regency and so on.

So you have John X die and his son succeeds as John XI. John X's brother decides he should be king because his nephew is illegitimate (it doesn't matter if that's true). He goes to war and wins, becoming Henry III. His nephew goes into exile. Henry III dies, naming his son heir. His son's name is John so, according to Henry, he's the real John XI. Except, according to the game, he's John XII because Henry III "conquered as claimant" to displace the previous John XI. Who's calling him "John XII"? Not the royal court, since they say Henry's nephew was never legally king, and not the previous John's supporters since they say neither Henry nor his son are legitimate.

So anyway, "John XII" turns out to be incompetent and loses a war to none other than John XI, back from exile. John XI rules well and is succeeded by his son Edward II. Edward II dies without issue, so the throne passes to his younger brother William. When William dies, he is succeeded by his son ... Henry. Henry IV?

So, according to the initial rebellious brother, the line goes:
John X, Henry III then John XI

According to John X's son, the line goes:
John X, John XI, Edward II, William then Henry III

But ... according to the game, the line goes:
John X, John XI, Henry III, John XII, John XI, Edward II, William then Henry IV

This could be "solved" by having the game track regnal numbers based upon claims rather than titles.

Otherwise characters (this could be limited to the player-characters only, if necessary) could be able to edit the title history in-game to reflect their personal interpretation of the line of succession.

If the above example was too long-winded, I've got another (one I used when I first came across this issue).

So, let's say a King John II dies and a war breaks out over the succession between his only daughter's first born son (named John) and his uncle (also named John).

If the pretender wins (doesn't matter which one the pretender is in game terms), unseating his rival then the line of title history (and regnal numbers) will go like this:

John II, John III then John IV

This is obviously wrong, since neither claimant considers the other the legitimate successor. They are both claiming to be the rightful King John the Third.

What are your thoughts? Am I right to complain? Do you like my suggestions? Do you have your own? Am I mistaken about CK II's mechanics.

 

[prismaticmarcus]

it's a strange argument that an AI's view on numbering should affect game development

 

[Arko]

Even if correct, it would be too confusing honestly.

 

[Xain]

Although I do see the possibility to have a decision to enact a sort of damnatio memoriae in some cases (e.g. succession dispute)

 

[ButcherOfTorfan]

I'm struggling to understand the response here, to be honest. Maybe I've misunderstood or misstated something but it's just a matter of: "I think it would be more realistic, not to mention more conducive to player choice, to have a dynamic approach to regnal numbers." Are people "respectfully disagreeing" with the idea of the developers solving the issue or are they "respectfully disagreeing" with the idea that it's even an issue to begin with?

it's a strange argument that an AI's view on numbering should affect game development

What is the "an AI's view"? It's the game's view. It's how the game emulates regnal numbers, which are an aspect of a monarchy that the game simulates. The whole point of game development is to make choices about how the game works. It's a small issue, obviously, but I don't think it's much smaller of an issue than, say, how "religion groups" work or which names should be used to describe various countries/titles and so on.

Never mind, by the way, that it already has affected game development. The reason the Saxon name "Eadweard" is disconnected from "Edward" is precisely because, otherwise, the game would call Edward I, Edward III. The way the AI "views" regnal numbers is a problem, albeit a small and cosmetic one, which I think the developers should tackle head on, rather than relying on crude fixes, such as pretending Eadweard and Edward are different names.

Even if correct, it would be too confusing honestly.

What you mean by "even if"? Have I incorrectly described CK II's mechanics? I don't see how an editable title history would be more confusing than the present system.

 

[Arko]

What you mean by "even if"? Have I incorrectly described CK II's mechanics? I don't see how an editable title history would be more confusing than the present system.

If you've got two John III f.e. the "real" one in power, who rewrote annals to be John III instead of being John because he don't the usurper who was formely named himself John III. That other John III won't stop calling himself John III just because you rewrote history. So having two John III for the same title is confusing.

 

[ButcherOfTorfan]

If you've got two John III f.e. the "real" one in power, who rewrote annals to be John III instead of being John because he don't the usurper who was formely named himself John III. That other John III won't stop calling himself John III just because you rewrote history. So having two John III for the same title is confusing.

You wouldn't need two John IIIs, just one ... the one that actually holds the title. In the current system, the pretender becomes John IV if he wins but the successor remains John III. All I'm suggesting is that the victor reigns as John III regardless rather than pretending succession disputes aren't, you know, disputes about succession..

The real title history, that tracks who held the title (for the game's purposes) can remain the same, since the game can easily differentiate any number of John IIIs. The player, on the other hand, would just see whatever the current title holder considers to be the legitimate line of succession.

 

[prismaticmarcus]

You wouldn't need two John IIIs, just one ... the one that actually holds the title. In the current system, the pretender becomes John IV if he wins but the successor remains John III. All I'm suggesting is that the victor reigns as John III regardless rather than pretending succession disputes aren't, you know, disputes about succession..

The real title history, that tracks who held the title (for the game's purposes) can remain the same, since the game can easily differentiate any number of John IIIs. The player, on the other hand, would just see whatever the current title holder considers to be the legitimate line of succession.

i can't imagine how that would work in multiplayer where the two John III's could both be human players

 

[Masternachos]

My initial thoughts are that I am very confused. But after some thought, if what you're arguing is that regnal numbers would work as they do in CK2 but with the option for the player to edit/alter regnal numbers, THEN that sounds like it could be "immersive". (But if you're arguing anything else, then I'll go back to being confused.)

 

[ButcherOfTorfan]

i can't imagine how that would work in multiplayer where the two John III's could both be human players

Simple, in that (likely to be very rare) scenario, one would win (John III) and one would lose (John). I'm really not seeing how it could be confusing. All you need is a way to track succession based on prior claims, it could be totally invisible to the player and still work behind the scenes so to speak.

In the John example, all the game needs to recognise is that both players/characters consider themselves to be John III. The character actually called John III would be the title holder (which is how the game already works). The only difference is that if the pretender wins he would erase the loser from the title history and become John III. John fighting John over who succeeds John is already a, potentially, confusing scenario so I don't see how my suggestion makes it more confusing.

My initial thoughts are that I am very confused. But after some thought, if what you're arguing is that regnal numbers would work as they do in CK2 but with the option for the player to edit/alter regnal numbers, THEN that sounds like it could be "immersive". (But if you're arguing anything else, then I'll go back to being confused.)

Regnal numbers work well in CK II until it comes to succession disputes, when the system relies on the arbitrary distinction of who initially holds the title. For example, the Normans obviously didn't consider Edgar Aethling to be King of the English but in CK II's purely mechanical terms (being the elected successor) he was. The developers have kept him out of the title history, however, because they know that the line of succession is subjective. They also know regnal numbers are subjective, since the Norman Kings were numbered separately from the Saxons ... which is why they uncoupled the names Eadweard and Edward in the cultures file, which is silly.

What I want is an in-game solution to three problems.

The first is the fact that, historically, numbers can relate to subjective criteria (as with the Norman Edwards). Instead of pretending Eadweard and Edward are different names (which would cause problems for someone who wanted to play a Saxon restoration or who managed to spawn English culture after defeating William I), the game could just have a system that let characters edit/alter regnal numbers. For the Norman Kings of England, this would be a simple flag within the title history that says "numbering starts with William I". Someone else could come along and reverse that flag (Henry II, for example, might want to do that). The can of worms that is a freely editable title history could be a player-character only option, to prevent chaos with the AI.

The second is that succession disputes are not resolved properly by the game. This the scenario that my John III example illustrates. This could be solved by having the game create, in essence, a tidy-up event that triggers after the war, if the pretender wins, to erase the loser from the title history. Otherwise, a successful pretender could have a decision that they could activate at their discretion to do the same thing. I'd prefer the latter but I don't really care if the developers implement my suggestion, just that they find some way of solving the problem.

The third is the fact that claimant dynasties can't be simulated by the game at all. The solution would be to create an invisible landless title that tracks regnal numbers through one's claim. The Jacobites (though outside the game's time period) did this for example (continuing to number their pretenders as if they were Kings of England and Scotland). The Blackfyres, from ASOIAF (I should, at this point, mention that I spent about 50% of my time on CKII using the AGOT mod), also did this. Within the game's own universe and time period, however, is the hundred year's war that had two dynasties claiming the same (French) throne over multiple generations.

 

[elvain]

But ... according to the game, the line goes:
John X, John XI, Henry III, John XII, John XI, Edward II, William then Henry IV

I don't see why this should be any wrong. It makes things clear. And that's what regnal numbers are for in the first place. Even contemporary chroniclers would still have to deal with the fact that an illegitimate/usurper king has ruled and in historical records that ruler would still have to be recognized and noted and named somehow.

Considering that regnal numbers were more of a later invention, in the CK time period, the rulers would still be known not by numbers, but nicknames.
John X.would probably be... John the Old or something like that.
John XI. would be - depending on political party - called John the Young or John the Illegitimate.
Henry III either Henry the Restorer or Henry the Usurper...
John XII the Weak/the Incapable...
And so on...
It would only be historians a century or more later who would give them all regnal numbers... and they would - in order to avoid confusion - most probably use the numbering assigned by the game.

The other options do make sense from some perspective, but not at all neither from the perspective of the game's time period (immersion), nor from the perspective of a historian who would give them the regnal numbers those several centuries later.
So.... all in all, I think the suggestion might be nice, but unnecessarily confusing. So better keep things clear.

 

[ButcherOfTorfan]

I don't see why this should be any wrong. It makes things clear. And that's what regnal numbers are for in the first place. Even contemporary chroniclers would still have to deal with the fact that an illegitimate/usurper king has ruled and in historical records that ruler would still have to be recognized and noted and named somehow.

To be clear, I am not saying that the game's order is wrong but that it is not any more correct than the alternative. Indeed, if the system was used consistently I'd probably learn to live with it but the Eadweard/Edward example shows that it isn't. If we are talking about what chroniclers would use in some far off alternate future, should we assume that, in the event of a Saxon restoration, they agree to number any Harold in the ordinary way but stick with the Norman tradition for numbering any Edward?

Considering that regnal numbers were more of a later invention, in the CK time period, the rulers would still be known not by numbers, but nicknames.
It would only be historians a century or more later who would give them all regnal numbers... and they would - in order to avoid confusion - most probably use the numbering assigned by the game.

As far as I was aware, regnal numbers were used in the 13th and 14th centuries, which is firmly within the Crusader Kings timeline. I'm happy to hear evidence to the contrary.

The other options do make sense from some perspective, but not at all neither from the perspective of the game's time period (immersion), nor from the perspective of a historian who would give them the regnal numbers those several centuries later.

I would concede ground on the latter point but I don't appreciate the notion that the current system is better for immersion. From my perspective, the more subjective and open to fiddling/fudging a system is, the more immersive it is.

From a strictly historical perspective, for instance, the game's insistence on placing infants who live and die under a dubious regent on the title history no matter how short their reign is or how much of it is spent at war is totally off. And, as I mentioned before, the Hundred Year's War began within CK's time frame. What should France's title history look like if, say, a player wins definitively as Henry V?

 

[elvain]

To be clear, I am not saying that the game's order is wrong but that it is not any more correct than the alternative. Indeed, if the system was used consistently I'd probably learn to live with it but the Eadweard/Edward example shows that it isn't. If we are talking about what chroniclers would use in some far off alternate future, should we assume that, in the event of a Saxon restoration, they agree to number any Harold in the ordinary way but stick with the Norman tradition for numbering any Edward?

The example only shows that the game was designed so that Edward I. is Edward I. and not Edward III. It has nothing to do with the system's consistency or inconsistency.
You seem to be looking for a problem where there is none.

As far as I was aware, regnal numbers were used in the 13th and 14th centuries, which is firmly within the Crusader Kings timeline. I'm happy to hear evidence to the contrary.

No need to. I didn't come to argue, but to show you that there is nothing wrong with the current system. That is the point. I said later invention, which does not inherently exclude later as later parts of CK timeline. Again you are seing problems/contradictions where there are none.

I would concede ground on the latter point but I don't appreciate the notion that the current system is better for immersion. From my perspective, the more subjective and open to fiddling/fudging a system is, the more immersive it is.

How about a perspective that we are talking about a video game where things should better be kept clear and not confusing. From this perspective, as I already said, the system present in CK2 is by far superior to the one you suggested, although, as I said, your suggestion does make sense from some perspective. Again, I didn't come here to argue, but tried to help you understand why perhaps people don't find your suggestion as improvement.

From a strictly historical perspective, for instance, the game's insistence on placing infants who live and die under a dubious regent on the title history no matter how short their reign is or how much of it is spent at war is totally off. And, as I mentioned before, the Hundred Year's War began within CK's time frame. What should France's title history look like if, say, a player wins definitively as Henry V?

There is no strictly historical perspective in a video game. Having things clear and understandable for gameplay is the most important thing. Sometimes strictly historical perspective has to be sacrificed.

The game simply needs to deal with some irregularities somehow. Since it is a game and abstraction, it will use some abstract method, ideally some close to some pattern of irregularities, but it will never be able to reflect them all perfectly.

And the Henry question?
It depends on which title will become his final primary title. If he primarily uses English, he will use English numbering, if he prefers France, he would use French.

And no matter what would be the result, we're talking about alternative history, so there is no wrong nor good decision, although there will always be people saying that either way of representing it is wrong, because they subjectively don't like it.

 

[ButcherOfTorfan]

The example only shows that the game was designed so that Edward I. is Edward I. and not Edward III. It has nothing to do with the system's consistency or inconsistency. You seem to be looking for a problem where there is none.

It shows that the mechanism employed by the game to produce regnal numbers cannot account for an aspect of the real world system. Basically, the player can simulate this (and only this) one aspect of reality but it cannot be replicate in other parts of the world or at other points in time. It ensures Norman numbering is used by pretending Eadweard and Edward are different names, rather than by simulating the actual reasons for the Norman numbering system. It is a minor issue but an issue nonetheless.

To be clear, since it is possible to have English culture spawn and have an Anglo-Saxon ruler, subsequently seize power. At that point, the Eadweard/Edward disconnect would become immersion breaking.

I said later invention, which does not inherently exclude later as later parts of CK timeline.

Norman numbering is also a later invention (around the reign of Edward III), and yet that is accounted for by the game.

How about a perspective that we are talking about a video game where things should better be kept clear and not confusing. From this perspective, as I already said, the system present in CK2 is by far superior to the one you suggested, although, as I said, your suggestion does make sense from some perspective. Again, I didn't come here to argue, but tried to help you understand why perhaps people don't find your suggestion as improvement.

The distinction is that I am not suggesting that the system be replaced. My suggestions, and I have made a few of them (specifically to account for the fact that any one system has its problems), are designed purely to mitigate an aspect of the system which I dislike.

For example, an option for the player (and the player alone) to freely edit his title's history would not be confusing. How could it? Anyone who found the current system clear and easy to understand, wouldn't need to touch (or even acknowledge) that the option existed. It could even be disabled in multiplayer, if that became a concern.

Otherwise, an optional decision to erase the loser of succession dispute from the title history would not be confusing. The system remains in place and anyone who'd be confused by anything else, again, wouldn't need to touch it.

And the Henry question?
It depends on which title will become his final primary title. If he primarily uses English, he will use English numbering, if he prefers France, he would use French.

I didn't ask which numbering system he would use. I asked what the title history of the Kingdom of France would look like. Would it reflect the fact that his predecessors were also French "Kings" in the same sense that he was (apart from the fact that he got to 100% war score)? Shouldn't it?