Let's talk about traits.

[Kaleidoscope]

With the fourth dev diary we may have seen the first trait that might be included in CK2...

Looking at Edward III's character sheet, I would venture to guess that the traits are represented by the row of three icons directly below the dynasty arms. If that's correct, we can also see that the first icon is a rectangular shape (as with the education-granted traits from CK1) while the other two are circular (as with event-granted traits from CK1).
We can also see that the circular icons contain numbers within them (a 3 and a 2) - perhaps representing different degrees or levels of traits? Remember that CK1's education traits were all granted in various levels depending on factors such as educator stats and capital province improvements.

Finally, looking to the right, we can see that one of Edward III's vassals (presumably the Duke of Cornwall, also called Edward III) has a positive relation modifer due to his liege (Edward III, King of England) being "Diligent" - which I would guess is one of the traits represented on Edward's character sheet.

So there's a bit of guesswork and inference going on there, but what traits would you like to see in CK2? If traits have different levels, how do you think that might work?
Personally I'd like to see all of CK1's traits reappear in some form, though a trait like Diligent could replace CK1 traits like Energetic. Hopefully traits will be easily added and removed via modding.

 

[Cocco81]

IIRC also CK1 had levels for some traits, notably the ones coming from education (e.g. misguided warrior VS brilliant strategist).

Having levels for other traits is fine for me, the only thing I'd change is the number, which should not be a background number (hard to read, see the "2") but something like dots below the icon (as per the leveled traits of CK1).

I fully support the moddability of traits (more, less, different) and I don't think it would be that hard to achieve (balancing might be, though). But to start guessing now which ones will be present... it is a little hard I think!

Just my 2 cents...

 

[unmerged(133356)]

Inheritable traits might be a good idea...

 

[unmerged(157596)]

Given the alpha state of the game, I'd be a bit cautious in guessing what trait the icons could represent.
The first one, the one with the heart could be both Lustful/Fertile (stick figure having loads of descendants) or Inbred (the two figures coming from the same tree).
The nest two, with the numbers suggest they are based on education (since having "levels" in other traits seem strange).
What they are supposed to be is a bit hard to tell, the green one could be Builder/Engineering (caliper and spade), the red Science/Alchemy (vial, coins and microscope?). Could be they are a abstraction of Practical (tools) and Theoretical (sciency equipment) skill? Which would mean the education system is more varied than the 4 (quantifiable) outcomes possible with the one in CK.

Anyways, neither of the symbols looks like Diligence to me, suggesting they are just arbitrary placeholders.

As for Diligent being an replacement for Energetic which as posited by Kaleidoscope, I think that is a better.
Energetic suggests boundless energy, but not necessarily focus and discipline, something which Diligence does (and which suits the effects of the trait IIRC).

 

[unmerged(157596)]

Inheritable traits might be a good idea...

As long as it is traits that is naturally inheritable like latent health and mental issues.
In other words no Lamarckian evolution, thank you.

Hmm... would mean DNA strings more useful than just looks (and clothing).

 

[vertinox]

Inheritable traits might be a good idea...

I suppose we should throw in the nature vs nuture debate in here sometime. Hehe.

I think there should be genetic and environmental trait inheritance.

Obviously things like diseases, genetic disorders, and fertitilty should be genetic but also the potetial of certain things such as strength and intelligence.

That said, you shoulnd't have super babies via a breeding program like CK1. The potential for high skills should be there, but there should be more to do with education and upbringing than just having smart parents.

Now lets say you do have a very intelligent and highly charasmatic father. If he personally raises the child then that should rub off on them. Of course if he sends them off to a noble's house he might not get the same quality of education, but perhaps the monastary could even provide a greater place to learn depending on the bishops skills. Also, court upbringing should have something to do with the chancellors skills as well as marshall if you go the military route. etc etc

So if you have a not so savvy parent, your child may have hope getting a good upbringing if have highly skilled court members.

At the same time there should be a chance that the kid just doesn't want to learn and if you punish him, he may get antagonistic with his mentor.

There is lots of options and events you could have with this.


BTW, I believe the raw skills should not be quantified for the player other than the traits. So rather than using a spreadsheet to determine who is the best person for the job, you look at their traits which should have a gray area in which the actual skills is known. In so much that the traits would be more important than the actual underlying skills.

 

[unmerged(133356)]

As long as it is traits that is naturally inheritable like latent health and mental issues.
In other words no Lamarckian evolution, thank you.

Hmm... would mean DNA strings more useful than just looks (and clothing).

I wasn't thinking of all traits, no. But certain health-related traits -- good and bad -- might be appropriate, as would tendancies.

(And awesome, by the way, to drop a reference to Lamarkian evolution.)

 

[unmerged(133356)]

I suppose we should throw in the nature vs nuture debate in here sometime. Hehe.

I think there should be genetic and environmental trait inheritance.

Obviously things like diseases, genetic disorders, and fertitilty should be genetic but also the potetial of certain things such as strength and intelligence.

That said, you shoulnd't have super babies via a breeding program like CK1. The potential for high skills should be there, but there should be more to do with education and upbringing than just having smart parents.

Now lets say you do have a very intelligent and highly charasmatic father. If he personally raises the child then that should rub off on them. Of course if he sends them off to a noble's house he might not get the same quality of education, but perhaps the monastary could even provide a greater place to learn depending on the bishops skills. Also, court upbringing should have something to do with the chancellors skills as well as marshall if you go the military route. etc etc

So if you have a not so savvy parent, your child may have hope getting a good upbringing if have highly skilled court members.

At the same time there should be a chance that the kid just doesn't want to learn and if you punish him, he may get antagonistic with his mentor.

There is lots of options and events you could have with this.


BTW, I believe the raw skills should not be quantified for the player other than the traits. So rather than using a spreadsheet to determine who is the best person for the job, you look at their traits which should have a gray area in which the actual skills is known. In so much that the traits would be more important than the actual underlying skills.

I think you're on the right track.

One way to avoid the "superbreeding" issue from early CK1 would be to establish a range of variance in the potential score for each characteristic in the child, from the average of the parents' score in that characteristic, and establish an upper limit for the raw characteristics (before the educational and event modifiers are applied).

 

[vertinox]

I think you're on the right track.

One way to avoid the "superbreeding" issue from early CK1 would be to establish a range of variance in the potential score for each characteristic in the child, from the average of the parents' score in that characteristic, and establish an upper limit for the raw characteristics (before the educational and event modifiers are applied).

Yes, and also there should be a limit to "potential education" due to technology spread. As schools and universities became more prevalent after the 1300's, people (mostly nobility and clergy) began to learn more about science, law, reason, humanities, mathematics, and so on. Although meager compared today's standards, it was light years ahead of what you could expect from education in the 1100 to 1200s.

So by building monasteries, schools, and universities, you can raise the upper limit on potential trait bonuses especially when it comes to things like budgeting and diplomacy. That because you now had kings who had university scholars educating their children, you now had kings who understood logistics, law, military tactics, and diplomacy who started to create the more centralized states because they could manage more lands simply because they knew what the heck they were doing.

In that regard, if you don't have a university in your lands, you could always send your kid off to a court where one is present and they will receive a better education.

 

[Innocent Beard]

Suggestion for traits:

Secretly Female ---> Suspected to be Female ---> Discovered to be Female
Secretly Female ---> Suspected to be Female ---> Proven to be Male (But Still Secretly Female)

Effects:

Secretly Female: +3 Intrigue
Suspected to be Female: +1 Intrigue, -1 Diplo/Authority, -1 Loyalty of Vassals
Discovered to be Female: -3 Intrigue, -3 Diplo/Authority, -5 Loyalty of Vassals
Proven to be Male: +5 Intrigue

 

[unmerged(133356)]

I'll admit, that's one I had not thought of before.

 

[RedRooster81]

IIRC also CK1 had levels for some traits, notably the ones coming from education (e.g. misguided warrior VS brilliant strategist).

Having levels for other traits is fine for me, the only thing I'd change is the number, which should not be a background number (hard to read, see the "2") but something like dots below the icon (as per the leveled traits of CK1).

I fully support the moddability of traits (more, less, different) and I don't think it would be that hard to achieve (balancing might be, though). But to start guessing now which ones will be present... it is a little hard I think!

Just my 2 cents...

I want to be able to add my own traits and mod those already there. Putting in levels would make things simpler, maybe with stronger positives and negatives as you go higher in some cases, for things like education. Loyalty modifiers are also present in CK1 traits, and you can mod these. I did, as a way to understand why my vassals and courtiers' loyalty kept falling. So by default the trait excommunication has an opinion_of trait of -25. I added or modified small opinion bonuses to the traits just, temperate, and the better educational traits (e.g., brilliant_strategist). So that might be what we're seeing displayed on-screen in CK2, whereas in CK1 all this stuff was going in the background.

 

[Orinsul]

Yes, and also there should be a limit to "potential education" due to technology spread. As schools and universities became more prevalent after the 1300's, people (mostly nobility and clergy) began to learn more about science, law, reason, humanities, mathematics, and so on. Although meager compared today's standards, it was light years ahead of what you could expect from education in the 1100 to 1200s.

So by building monasteries, schools, and universities, you can raise the upper limit on potential trait bonuses especially when it comes to things like budgeting and diplomacy. That because you now had kings who had university scholars educating their children, you now had kings who understood logistics, law, military tactics, and diplomacy who started to create the more centralized states because they could manage more lands simply because they knew what the heck they were doing.

In that regard, if you don't have a university in your lands, you could always send your kid off to a court where one is present and they will receive a better education.

But as far as the rulers abilities, that should effect all that much. Would a rounded education in a university make him any better a ruler [i.e. raise his stats more] than saying being raised in the court, educated by people doing the job he would one day be doing and everyday being involved with the day to day of rulership?

Definetly you ought to be able to send a character off to university in another country, but if the son was going to go on to be a fria or treasurer or the like. It wouldnt necessarily raise his stats more than being educated and his fathers elbow or in the local monastry. It would just open different, seperate but more or less equal education traits.
or just raise the chance a tiny bit to come out of it with a better education trait, but not enough to make so much of a difference.

St-Thomas Aquinas was an exceptional, intelligent and educated man, but in CK terms, where the stats are concerned with fitness to rule and work at court and military prowess. He wouldnt look very impressive at all. An education would certainly be a benefit, but it shouldnt be an all. In CK the education traits werent so important outside of how hard it was to get a bishop sometimes, and i feel they should remain so.

 

[Count Lake]

Suggestion for traits:

Secretly Female ---> Suspected to be Female ---> Discovered to be Female
Secretly Female ---> Suspected to be Female ---> Proven to be Male (But Still Secretly Female)

Effects:

Secretly Female: +3 Intrigue
Suspected to be Female: +1 Intrigue, -1 Diplo/Authority, -1 Loyalty of Vassals
Discovered to be Female: -3 Intrigue, -3 Diplo/Authority, -5 Loyalty of Vassals
Proven to be Male: +5 Intrigue

Is this a joke? Sure you could mention the "Pope Joan" thing but lets be serious and ask ourselves how many people in a regular playthrough of CK could be secretly female.

 

[Orinsul]

i think the thought was if a trait could switch genders than the game could be tricked into allowing a girl by turning her temporarily into a boy, to succeed her father onto the throne. Rather than saying it was something likely to happen. but theres not much explaination so who knows, maybe it was a joke.

 

[Innocent Beard]

Actually I was thinking it would be a fun trait for say 1/750 chance kinda thing. A fun twist to your perfect kingdom that could utterly destroy your dreams of completing your 20th WC with England. A rare treat.