Ancient Warrior's post popped a thought into my head..alot of nobles and such back in these times would send their male children to other noble households to learn things..will this be in the game at all?
-
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.
Often those sons were the commanders of the fathers army, I think it should be in, it was rare ( in europe anyway) at the time to have commanders that were not of some royal birth or linage.
Well, I just mean they would leave when they were kids to lean how to be a knight or what have you and that would help keep the alliances firm and loyalties in place within the
"country".
"country".
It would also be fun to send your lesser (read:insane and stupid)out the window or to Egypt so the Muslims could knock him out
Originally posted by Nikolai
And what do you do when he comes back, telling he just conquered the Holy Land?
Go Back and administrate it as King of Jerusalem
Originally posted by Nikolai
And what do you do when he comes back, telling he just conquered the Holy Land?
Push him out the window
This is all a very good argument for not revealing all leader stats. otherwise you can be too good at spotting lucky idiots.
Wow! he defeated Saladin what a guy! I can't wait till he inherits...
Wow! he defeated Saladin what a guy! I can't wait till he inherits...
Actually, I think that's a very good idea, to a certain extent. The only problem is with realism. In the game you're playing as the guy's father. It certainly would be reasonable to think that a father would have some insight into the character of his son. I like the idea from a gameplay point of view, though. I think it should be that you don't know exactly what you're getting in an heir. Otherwise it would be too easy to pass over the morons for the better sons, as you said. Maybe this would be one of those "game balancing" issues for beta that Sergei was talking about....
This is a good idea and I think it could be implemented in the form of another choice for a formal education.
Also, regarding the father to not be able to know all the stats of the son. What you could do is reveal a certain number of stats, but have some stats blurred out until the successor has been chosen or until he is King. This way you will have an idea, but not a perfect picture. Example: King has 3 sons. Half the stats are visible, half are not. You choose a successor, when he ascends the throne his and his brothers stats become fully visible and this way you can see if your decision was a good one.
Also, regarding the father to not be able to know all the stats of the son. What you could do is reveal a certain number of stats, but have some stats blurred out until the successor has been chosen or until he is King. This way you will have an idea, but not a perfect picture. Example: King has 3 sons. Half the stats are visible, half are not. You choose a successor, when he ascends the throne his and his brothers stats become fully visible and this way you can see if your decision was a good one.
I agree with how this thread has gone with the "hidden traits" for sons, but shouldnt some of them be learned? If I put my son in charge of armies he is going to have to learn from the expirence and therefore his command attribute should increase. Maybe place a son in charge of a domestic task so that his admin skills increase. I think there should be a factor for this "education" of heirs.
I think the stats should assume that the heir is receiving that kind of experience. What you are suggesting would mean that a Ruler's stats would also have to increase during the time he is in power. Otherwise Rulers who come to power at a young age will have less stats throughout their rule.
For example take King A who takes the throne at 16. And Prince B who is the same age but does not rule until age 26. Prince B will actually have higher stats at age 26 because he has had ten years of "education" but King A, who has had to learn on the job did not get stat increases. This just doesn't make sense.
I do not know enough about the game mechanics to sort this out.
I don't think we should have rulers who can increase stats similiar to an RPG. That would likely ruin the feel of the game because rulers would be engaged in activities soley for the purpose of increasing their stats.
I see your point and agree that I dont want it to become an "RPG" type of feel. Yet why shouldnt my rulers stats increase with more expirence? This isnt a slam at you CC but isnt it logical the more you do something the more expirenced/skilled you become at it no matter your age?
In HOI your generals gain expirence as they fight, I will grant thats narrowed to battle expirence only, but since we have diplomacy and domestic affairs why cant we have the same expirence gains there?
I doubt highly it will be in the game, but it should. Lets take your "King A" at age 16 he ascends to the throne, and personally leads 2 crusades in his life time shouldnt his military traits increase each time? For me its realistic to have improving generals/monarchs/heirs if they are doing specific tasks. If "King A" over his life never changes his stats, and his stats are at the heart of how your dynasty is governed (IE thier impact on specific functions), your stagnant for his reign if they never improve. In addition to increasing "King A" military for the 2 crusades, his other skills should go down as he isnt home conducting domestic affairs during that time, so in my view it can work both ways. Yes its a bit like an RPG, but from what I have read so far CK will be more like an RPG then we are used to from Paradox anyway so I say why not add this dynamic if possible?
Odin
You make good points. I think though that there should be a fundamental distinction between ability and experience.
In our daily experience we meet people who have been doing things a long time (have a lot of experience) but do not do it very well (ability) and the reverse.
To use your example a king who is an administrative whiz but a poor military tactician who goes on crusade likely will not lose any of his previous administrative abilities. The question of whether he becomes a better tactician is an open one. More likely he will learn from his experience that he is better off staying at home administering his kingdom and sending others to fight his battles for him
But I agree that things are not so black and white. After all people with ability had to learn those abilities somehow. But my point is that experience alone should not improve or decrease a trait score.
historical leaders have been exceptionally good and bad in certain areas. The problem I see for experience based trait improvement is that everyone will be able to improve abilities over time so that everyone will be good to excpetional.
This type of model works well in a RPG where the whole purpose is to role play an exceptional character ie if they were not exceptional at something what would be the point?
But in the context of CK I would rather have both strengths and weaknesses modelled.
Perhaps (and this may be getting to subtle for a game engine) rather than improvement to a global trait score experience can be modelled more specifically.
To use the diplomatic example. If the ruler has a lot of experience dealing with neighbouring kingdom X - he should get some kind of bonus or penalty depending on the previous interactions but when dealing with another kingdom for the first time the interaction would be based on his traits alone.
Some sort of idea for military engagments. Obviously if the ruler engages an particular enemy on the field more than once he will have some insight in that enemies tactics and thereby gain some advantage when fighting them again.
The difficulty with this model though is that the ruler's counterparts are getting the same experience and so likely the results would be a wash and not really worth the time programming into the game.
I think I am starting the ramble so I will stop.
Originally posted by crazy canuck
You make good points. I think though that there should be a fundamental distinction between ability and experience.
In our daily experience we meet people who have been doing things a long time (have a lot of experience) but do not do it very well (ability) and the reverse.
To use your example a king who is an administrative whiz but a poor military tactician who goes on crusade likely will not lose any of his previous administrative abilities. The question of whether he becomes a better tactician is an open one. More likely he will learn from his experience that he is better off staying at home administering his kingdom and sending others to fight his battles for him
But I agree that things are not so black and white. After all people with ability had to learn those abilities somehow. But my point is that experience alone should not improve or decrease a trait score.
historical leaders have been exceptionally good and bad in certain areas. The problem I see for experience based trait improvement is that everyone will be able to improve abilities over time so that everyone will be good to excpetional.
This type of model works well in a RPG where the whole purpose is to role play an exceptional character ie if they were not exceptional at something what would be the point?
But in the context of CK I would rather have both strengths and weaknesses modelled.
Perhaps (and this may be getting to subtle for a game engine) rather than improvement to a global trait score experience can be modelled more specifically.
To use the diplomatic example. If the ruler has a lot of experience dealing with neighbouring kingdom X - he should get some kind of bonus or penalty depending on the previous interactions but when dealing with another kingdom for the first time the interaction would be based on his traits alone.
Some sort of idea for military engagments. Obviously if the ruler engages an particular enemy on the field more than once he will have some insight in that enemies tactics and thereby gain some advantage when fighting them again.
The difficulty with this model though is that the ruler's counterparts are getting the same experience and so likely the results would be a wash and not really worth the time programming into the game.
I think I am starting the ramble so I will stop.
you didnt ramble CC I got your point. I think we are close to an agreement here. Expirence shouldnt just translate into better skills based on your real life example. Your right there are people who dont learn anything at all and dont improve over time. But in the game that level of sublty I think is unachievable. In addition the point you made about his skills in administration not going down due to being away is valid, yet in the time he is gone the situation he adminsitered before he left might have changed therefore he might not have the expirence with which to admin it when he gets back.
These are pretty indepth issues for the game, but lets face it if the games primary feature is the dynasty line, and the people on it then without the ability to improve thier skills you eliminate replay ability as they wont change from game to game, or you make it random. I would rather have some say into my rulers and heirs developement then not, as I understand it its the dynasty line and those charecters that drive the game.
Maybe this is more an RPG then we think? if my assumption of the dynasty line and rulers impact on play are overblown someone correct me, its just the impression I got when reading the material available about the game play.
Odin
Odin,
I agree with your point regarding replayability. But I think the quality of the off spring produced will always in a sense be random. If you are a parent you will know what I mean.
I don't really want to start a nature vs. nuture sub string here but dynasties in the time of CK and parents right up to present have tried to provide their heir's with training for the future.
In the end we still end up with a bell curve of talent. Some exceptionally good leaders (either because of ability or circumstance or both); some terrible; and most who are completely unremarkable.
In the CK time period my recollection is that rulers were imbued with a divine right to rule (I think this was a part of pagan belief as well) and that anyone born into the ruling line was assumed to be superior.
In reality this was probably true given that memebers of the ruling elite would likely be the only ones with access to education and other training. (I know this makes your point Odin). But the question is how does the ruler rate in comparison to other rulers. That is what the traits measure. If everyone can improve their ability scores then nothing will really change on a relative basis.
I assume the response will be that one ruler may choose to specialize in religious or administrative abilities while another may choose to focus on military abilities.
My response (and I hope I have not just set up a straw man) is that those particular choices should be reflected in the results those choices make in the game. Someone who wants to play a dynasty focusing mainly on administrative matters, rather than building up a military, will receive the benefits and risks of that strategy. There really isn't a need to change the skill traits to reflect those choices. Also, making those kinds of dynastic choices will not practially influence whether the heir has any greater or lesser ability as an administrator. It just means that he will inherit a kingdom that is relatively well administered.
I agree with your point regarding replayability. But I think the quality of the off spring produced will always in a sense be random. If you are a parent you will know what I mean.
I don't really want to start a nature vs. nuture sub string here but dynasties in the time of CK and parents right up to present have tried to provide their heir's with training for the future.
In the end we still end up with a bell curve of talent. Some exceptionally good leaders (either because of ability or circumstance or both); some terrible; and most who are completely unremarkable.
In the CK time period my recollection is that rulers were imbued with a divine right to rule (I think this was a part of pagan belief as well) and that anyone born into the ruling line was assumed to be superior.
In reality this was probably true given that memebers of the ruling elite would likely be the only ones with access to education and other training. (I know this makes your point Odin). But the question is how does the ruler rate in comparison to other rulers. That is what the traits measure. If everyone can improve their ability scores then nothing will really change on a relative basis.
I assume the response will be that one ruler may choose to specialize in religious or administrative abilities while another may choose to focus on military abilities.
My response (and I hope I have not just set up a straw man) is that those particular choices should be reflected in the results those choices make in the game. Someone who wants to play a dynasty focusing mainly on administrative matters, rather than building up a military, will receive the benefits and risks of that strategy. There really isn't a need to change the skill traits to reflect those choices. Also, making those kinds of dynastic choices will not practially influence whether the heir has any greater or lesser ability as an administrator. It just means that he will inherit a kingdom that is relatively well administered.
Yes I am a parent, and a former Martial arts instructor. If I begin to instruct my son in martial arts he will improve. The time he devotes to it will be time he cant spend improving on something else. His skills at the onset are random based on his genetics thats undisputable, but I dont want another EUII where I have to wait for a leader to come along to improve my chances for task A, B or C. I want to be able to focus on it and improve my ability.
On your final paragraph it wouldnt factor in to the heirs abilities if he didnt participate in the administration granted. Once he ascends however he has to maintain it, and I dont think its a stretch to have someone improve thier ability over thier reign and therefore improve the outcomes of that particular task.
At this time I am agreeing to disagree with you CC, good discussion but I dont have more to add on my end, I will read your reply if you make one though, I just think on this issue we are on different paths, all the better for future discussions.
Regards,
Odin
I agree with everything you said.
I am just concerned about how this works in game terms. All AI leaders will also improve. So in relative game terms I am not sure what will be achieved except to create an advantage of older leaders over younger.
Maybe a solution is this.
A leader gets a set of ability scores as a base.
Then, borrowing from Ancient Warrior, these abilities scores can be modified through training in particular areas - either as direct training from the ruler (which will take the time the ruler has for other things) or by paying other tutors. I suggest that there be a percentage chance of increasing the ability score which will diminish the greater the score - requiring significant time and resources to improve a base ability to the level of being exceptional. Also it would probably be best to design it so it would be impossible to study all areas to the degree necessary to increase ability scores in all areas - ie force choices in the training that will be received. (I know I know this is sounding like an RPG but I am coming around to your view).
Once the Heir becomes a ruler he may choose to concentrate in a particular area (gaining bonus ability scores there and corresponding penalties in other areas) or being more well rounding and pay attention to all areas - gaining no bonsus or penalties.
I know that this is not exactly the kind of experience based model you had in mind but it would prevent all AI leaders from increasing abilities on a relative equal basis.
Fair compramise CC, we will have to see what happens in the game when it is released. File this away in your mind and hopefully 6 months from now we can haggle some more of the implimentation or non implementation of a like system in CK.