Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

How do inheritable traits work?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Crusader Kings II 69864 Bug Reports 19707 User Modifications 10587 Suggestions 5969 Tech Support 6361 After Action Reports
In CK1 Paradox had a system whereby all stats were inherited. In the unlikely event you got a ruler with a natural, pre-traits 12 Stew and you married a woman with a similar score of 12 pre-traits, your kids scores would average 12. This led many gamers to consciously breed super-geniuses. Apparently Paradox hated that, because they totally scrapped the system in DV.

I strongly suspect the anecdotal claims that marrying only geniuses will lead to a) a whole bunch of genius children and b) many nasty mutations appearing in your line are true, because a line of half-deformed/half-brilliant rulers would really fit into the je ne se quais of this game. Moreover it would be in line with the decision I mentioned above; where they didn't only nerf breeding, they totally eliminated it from the game.

Nick
 
Nick B II said:
I strongly suspect the anecdotal claims that marrying only geniuses will lead to a) a whole bunch of genius children and b) many nasty mutations appearing in your line are true...
Click to expand...

Could be (ref. to b; pun not intended). But I'd think inbreeding could have something to do with that. How on earth are you going to get them geniuses for everyone on third generation without getting somebody involved with their "grand-aunt's half-daughter"? :glare:
 
From Vinhas's Georgia save:

Children who are imbeciles:
fathers 458
father was imbecile 15
father was slow 11
father was quick 10
father was genius 7
mothers 457
mother was imbecile 17
mother was slow 8
mother was quick 7
mother was genius 5
had two parents 457
both were imbeciles 0
both were slow 0
both were quick 0
both were geniuses 0

Children who are slow:
fathers 465
father was imbecile 4
father was slow 17
father was quick 7
father was genius 8
mothers 464
mother was imbecile 5
mother was slow 24
mother was quick 9
mother was genius 11
had two parents 464
both were imbeciles 0
both were slow 2
both were quick 0
both were geniuses 0

Children who are quick:
fathers 453
father was imbecile 8
father was slow 11
father was quick 31
father was genius 8
mothers 446
mother was imbecile 11
mother was slow 11
mother was quick 23
mother was genius 7
had two parents 446
both were imbeciles 0
both were slow 0
both were quick 2
both were geniuses 0

Children who are geniuses:
fathers 459
father was imbecile 5
father was slow 10
father was quick 10
father was genius 30
mothers 458
mother was imbecile 8
mother was slow 11
mother was quick 9
mother was genius 25
had two parents 458
both were imbeciles 0
both were slow 0
both were quick 0
both were geniuses 2

Children who are "normal":
fathers 31626
father was imbecile 314
father was slow 463
father was quick 460
father was genius 423
mothers 29394
mother was imbecile 372
mother was slow 436
mother was quick 521
mother was genius 600
had two parents 29378
both were imbeciles 0
both were slow 9
both were quick 7
both were geniuses 5

"Normal" here means doesn't have any of: imbecile, slow, quick, or genius.

What I find interesting here is that there doesn't seem to be any overlap. I would have thought that a slow child would be more likely from an imbecile parent, but they seem about as likely as from a genius parent.
 
From Vinhas's Navarra save:

Children who are imbeciles:
fathers 362
father was imbecile 16
father was slow 8
father was quick 2
father was genius 7
mothers 361
mother was imbecile 10
mother was slow 3
mother was quick 9
mother was genius 9
had two parents 361
both were imbeciles 0
both were slow 1
both were quick 0
both were geniuses 1

Children who are slow:
fathers 475
father was imbecile 5
father was slow 20
father was quick 8
father was genius 8
mothers 475
mother was imbecile 11
mother was slow 23
mother was quick 10
mother was genius 10
had two parents 475
both were imbeciles 0
both were slow 0
both were quick 0
both were geniuses 1

Children who are quick:
fathers 429
father was imbecile 4
father was slow 8
father was quick 28
father was genius 5
mothers 421
mother was imbecile 4
mother was slow 9
mother was quick 35
mother was genius 10
had two parents 421
both were imbeciles 0
both were slow 0
both were quick 8
both were geniuses 0

Children who are geniuses:
fathers 472
father was imbecile 7
father was slow 12
father was quick 3
father was genius 27
mothers 471
mother was imbecile 8
mother was slow 11
mother was quick 10
mother was genius 30
had two parents 471
both were imbeciles 0
both were slow 0
both were quick 1
both were geniuses 3

Children who are "normal":
fathers 30544
father was imbecile 274
father was slow 357
father was quick 370
father was genius 467
mothers 28249
mother was imbecile 304
mother was slow 412
mother was quick 486
mother was genius 539
had two parents 28234
both were imbeciles 4
both were slow 4
both were quick 6
both were geniuses 11
 
From Vinhas's Scotland save:

Children who are imbeciles:
fathers 565
father was imbecile 24
father was slow 11
father was quick 10
father was genius 10
mothers 564
mother was imbecile 25
mother was slow 11
mother was quick 11
mother was genius 11
had two parents 564
both were imbeciles 2
both were slow 2
both were quick 0
both were geniuses 0

Children who are slow:
fathers 546
father was imbecile 8
father was slow 30
father was quick 8
father was genius 8
mothers 545
mother was imbecile 4
mother was slow 28
mother was quick 14
mother was genius 5
had two parents 545
both were imbeciles 0
both were slow 3
both were quick 0
both were geniuses 0

Children who are quick:
fathers 526
father was imbecile 9
father was slow 8
father was quick 23
father was genius 8
mothers 519
mother was imbecile 6
mother was slow 6
mother was quick 27
mother was genius 9
had two parents 519
both were imbeciles 1
both were slow 0
both were quick 4
both were geniuses 0

Children who are geniuses:
fathers 533
father was imbecile 10
father was slow 3
father was quick 12
father was genius 34
mothers 532
mother was imbecile 9
mother was slow 10
mother was quick 12
mother was genius 36
had two parents 532
both were imbeciles 0
both were slow 0
both were quick 1
both were geniuses 2

Children who are "normal":
fathers 36870
father was imbecile 479
father was slow 432
father was quick 516
father was genius 464
mothers 34628
mother was imbecile 399
mother was slow 502
mother was quick 577
mother was genius 672
had two parents 34612
both were imbeciles 2
both were slow 7
both were quick 7
both were geniuses 5
 
I also calculated this from one of the files:

Genius children from genius fathers: 34
All children from genius fathers: 521

Genius children from genius mothers: 36
All children from genius mothers: 733

Genius children from both genius parents: 2
All children from both genius parents: 7

So the overall feel I'm getting from these numbers is that there is some basic chance of getting any one of these traits and then that chance is boosted if either of the parents have the trait. But still you only have about a 6 or 7 percent chance of getting a genius kid from a genius parent.

So getting a lot of geniuses into your family might be useful if you're using elective succession. Then you foster as big a family as you can to increase your chances of having a genius to pick. But otherwise it's probably not worth the effort to go out of your way to marry geniuses.
 
Great work. As the earlier discussion suggested, I picked this thread because my genius wife produced a slow son, and I wondered if bad traits weren't bumped up a bit to punish breeding. It looks like they're not, though there are some slight bumps. My quick-and-dirty meta-analysis (I read the stuff and thought about it) says this seems to show a normal distribution and a triple bump for the like trait.

By the way, it's still worth going for genius wives because of the short-term boost you get from her resulting stats, even if the kids are normal. Also, my Forest Gump King is actually pretty decent. Not like the lustful lesbian mastermind theologian wife who I swear had my king murdered (she had good stats, back when imbicile was -3).

Thanks for all the work, good to see real numbers and not anecdotes.
 
So, it seems a genetic trait raises the chance of getting another genetic trait, with the most likely outcome being the same trait.

A genius parent has a higher likelihood of having a genius child, but also a high chance than normal of having an imbecile.

I'd still love to see these numbers including all the traits (strong, weak, harelip, etc) because I think these are somehow implicated as well. And how would we compare these to see if a genius parent really has a higher chance than normal of having an imbecile child than a parent without a trait?
 
When we have more number we can compute them all together and probably get close to the real values.

But from what i can tell, there is a % of chance of having those traits that is very small, and having parents with the trait increases it, maybe by a lot.
For example, if there is a 2% chance to have a genius, even if having a genious father raises it by 50%, we are still talking about a low 3% chance.

One question, you use "children" but does your scrip runs this for only characters bellow 16 years old, or all ages? If it is just checking infants we can greatly increase our sample by checking all characters.

Tomorow I will try to work some numbers out of the data.

Edit: just noticed i said the exact same thing as squaregear... So hum... I agree
 
A_Dane said:
hmm, personally I ran a game where i my first heir turned out to be a genius. I married only genius females in the main line from that point on, but kept other side lines alive..

some 200 years later, the a good portion (20 % or so), of the living descendants had bad genetical traits, mostly dwarfism or harelips. (my main line was infested with the latter). As far as I could tell, there was no dwarfs amongst any of the ancestors before they suddenly started sprouting out like flies..

on the + side, i had some 15-20 % with either quick, genius or strong as well, so it wasn't all bad, but was rather surprised to see the amount of bad traits popping out, as I was rather cautious about who i married my sons to.. it was definiatly more than any of my "normal" games where i simply go for claims or stewardship skill.

It can ofcourse all have been bad luck, but didn't seem like it to me..
Click to expand...

So a family line of Tyrion Lannisters...
 
And still, it seems the dig is not deep and/or wide enough.
As per other threads (and Meneth's guide), inbreeding seems to be in the game as a serious issue. Also, if what seems to be called a "DNA system" is to make any sense, looking just to the parents is telling us relatively little. Well, at least squaregear's computing seems to have denied allegations that genious parents definitely have a higher chance of having monkeys as offspring (although the computings themselves are, unfortunately, infected with the abovementioned disease just as well).
I guess we need a more complicated script, or an answer from the devs - is it such a bloody secret, by the way? Aye, aye, figuring out stuff on your own is a part of the game, i get it. And, quite possibly the "DNA system" in the game is so clever, that it is a tier 5 secret of the 21st century Kingdom of Sweeden.

At any rate, a 2 dimensional limited matrix that considers parents only is not going to get us too far. The guys at Paradox are probably laughing their #*%@% off...
 
Vinhas said:
One question, you use "children" but does your scrip runs this for only characters bellow 16 years old, or all ages? If it is just checking infants we can greatly increase our sample by checking all characters.
Click to expand...

I do not mean children as in "under 16". I just mean child as opposed to parent in a parent-child relationship.
 
Valinn said:
And how would we compare these to see if a genius parent really has a higher chance than normal of having an imbecile child than a parent without a trait?
Click to expand...

All children from genius fathers: 521
Imbecile children from genius fathers: 10
% Imbeciles: 1.9
All children from all fathers: 36772
Imbecile children from all fathers: 564
% Imbeciles: 1.5

That's a little enough difference to not mean anything.
 
Zireael said:
This thread is brilliant. However, I wish we got an official explanation of the harelips/dwarfs popping up in genius couples...
Click to expand...

The answer is very simple.

They screwed game genetics directly instead off trying to give it a a real meaning. So in CK1 was exploitable so lets screw it up (because it's easier) instead of trying to cut down exploitable parts of the system. For example, how is it possible that I can invite in my court a courtier from other part of the world that has all good traits including let say quick when my whole court is full of hunchbacks, stupid, rotten courtiers??? Who would accept that kind of invitation? Why isn't in calculation included the prestige of the king/family, relationship with vassals and few more things??? The whole world is noble? Why isn't there much more normal people? 1st trait like gray eminence or elusive shadow and the rest of them should get just the few and not everyone. It looks like everyone is specialized for something??? Imagine today everyone is a scientist, explorer, artist...

In my council there are always foreign unmarried courtiers with stats 20+ for work they do. I kill all my courtiers and courtiers of my vassals with bad traits. In 100 years, it's hard to see someone with bad stats in my whole kingdom.

Or the best thing. The goal of the game should be massing the prestige. I get invited to war and I accept just not to lose prestige, but it was hard to implement + prestige depending the war score you made. Of course, no one will really send any armies in that war!!! Even worse, how can you get prestige from any kind of war??? Countries should get prestige for inovations, monuments, great buildings, art, aiding the poor...
 
Last edited:
i migth have a good semple, made a game with 300 court limit (wich i belive only affects the number of kids not the repartitions) and made attantion that my dinastie (and some others) raises results => 100 years of game / 1000+ dinasty members with many traits, and a save game of 7,83Mb after compression (53Mb before):
http://www.sendspace.com/file/allmdh
so a big save game with many kids
 
I think a lot of people are reading the data wrong and/or not realizing what it actually means.

For example we have only 7 recorded children from "both parents genius". 2 of those kids were themselves geniuses. What does that tell us?

Absolutely nothing at all. A sample size of 7 totally insignificant.
 
grisamentum said:
I think a lot of people are reading the data wrong and/or not realizing what it actually means.

For example we have only 7 recorded children from "both parents genius". 2 of those kids were themselves geniuses. What does that tell us?

Absolutely nothing at all. A sample size of 7 totally insignificant.
Click to expand...

The hypothesis was: Having one or more genius parents makes the imbecile trait more likely.

By looking at the results we can see that hypothesis is not supported.

You are correct that there is not enough information to support the statement "having two genius parents makes getting the genius trait more likely than having one genius parent". But that's not what was being looked for.
 
Amoral said:
The hypothesis was: Having one or more genius parents makes the imbecile trait more likely.

By looking at the results we can see that hypothesis is not supported.
Click to expand...

I actually think that's wrong too. I thought the conclusion was a genius parent probably makes it more likely to have an imbecile child, but even more likely to have a genius. The chance for a bad trait was increased by a positive green trait, but also by a little more the chance for another positive green trait.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back