CK3 Dev Diary #34 - It’s all about appearances

[PrutteHans]

That would be unhistorical. Most of medieval Europe has culturaly conditioned smal chest fetish. No, realy.

Pretty sure being fat was also seen as attractive at some point during the medieval ages. Taste and style can change a lot in ~1000 years.

 

[KKrive500]

Maybe this will be for a future dev diary but how easily is it to just import any 3D model to replace the current ones so we can have Sauron for a Middle Earth mod? Does it have to be fully rigged? Is it possible to be animated at all or will we have to customize the poses ourselves? It couldn't simply be a copy and paste of a file right? Is there some sort of developer program that will release somewhere in the game files we could open up like the map editor? What about a dragon 3D model for a future AGOT mod? Lots of questions but I'm genuinely curious.

 

[Illusive_Mike]

I'm curious how many generations back the DNA keeps track of? It's mentioned back to grandparents in the DD, but it also suggests that it goes back further. Obviously the more recent family traits are more likely to come into play, but let's say your family line is pretty homogenous going back 5 generations, but one member married someone of vastly different looks - whether hair color, skin tone, facial features, etc. - and although no children/grandchildren going down the line for 5+ generations inherited any of those features, is there the potential to eventually see something from that one person appear far down the line?

It seems from the DD that it only keeps 2 versions of each trait's gene, which I suppose means that the odds of what I'm asking actually happening would be rare as the chances of continually keeping the same regressive gene for multiple generations is minimal, but is it possible?

I'm fairly certain that genome is preserved indefinitely in the sense that any gene can be passed on as recessive for however many generations. They mention grandparents as an example, but in general it seems to be a full and robust system with genes only being lost in the proper "it never got passed on" way. The 2 versions thing doesn't imply any artificial reduction in the inheritance, it's just normal genetics - everyone gets just one of the two genes from each parent, their dominant or their recessive. So a previously-always-recessive gene suddenly popping back up again after multiple generations should be unlikely, but possible.

 

[Leyrann]

That would be unhistorical. Most of medieval Europe has culturaly conditioned smal chest fetish. No, realy.

I knew it. Medieval people had better taste than modern people.

Also on the topic of the most recent posts: Do grandparents even come into the equation? I was under the impression that everyone got a gene from both parents, one of which was rolled as dominant and one as recessive in their case, and then their child would randomly get either of those genes (but weighted, iirc, towards getting the dominant gene). Grandparents aren't needed there, because you can already have a recessive gene skipping one or even several generations and then popping up again, just inherent in the system.

 

[Olden Weiss]

I'm fairly certain that genome is preserved indefinitely in the sense that any gene can be passed on as recessive for however many generations. They mention grandparents as an example, but in general it seems to be a full and robust system with genes only being lost in the proper "it never got passed on" way. The 2 versions thing doesn't imply any artificial reduction in the inheritance, it's just normal genetics - everyone gets just one of the two genes from each parent, their dominant or their recessive. So a previously-always-recessive gene suddenly popping back up again after multiple generations should be unlikely, but possible.

I certainly hope so, but that said, it depends on how much data the DNA consumes as well. Storing seven generations worth of DNA for several hundred bloodlines could be problematic from a memory front. I assume it's handled as a string, though, so it probably won't be too taxing. It was in Imperator, anyway.

I knew it. Medieval people had better taste than modern people.

Also on the topic of the most recent posts: Do grandparents even come into the equation? I was under the impression that everyone got a gene from both parents, one of which was rolled as dominant and one as recessive in their case, and then their child would randomly get either of those genes (but weighted, iirc, towards getting the dominant gene). Grandparents aren't needed there, because you can already have a recessive gene skipping one or even several generations and then popping up again, just inherent in the system.

I believe that's how it's handled, yes. Grandparents aren't actively factored into the equation, but rather they passively provide their recessive genes to their children, who then have a chance of passing those genes as dominant to their children.

 

[Riamus]

I certainly hope so, but that said, it depends on how much data the DNA consumes as well. Storing seven generations worth of DNA for several hundred bloodlines could be problematic from a memory front. I believe it's handled as a string, though, so it probably won't be too taxing.

Yeah, I can't see this being a space problem. Even if we have 200 genes (probably less) and 1 million people over the course of a game, you're still only looking at under 500MB most likely. In the past, that might be excessive, but today with most computers have multiple terabytes of space, it's not too bad. And besides, I'm thinking we're looking at fewer genes and lower population, so it's probably much smaller. There's probably also a compression method through hashing the DNA so you don't need 1-3 bytes per gene.

 

[Riamus]

One last question from me here... it's said that modding your DNA to get a character that looks like you or a specific person isn't too difficult. But what is considered difficult varies based on a person's knowledge and skills. Can the average person with no programming skills or specific knowledge craft a character that looks like themselves or a specific person? Or is this something that requires at least a modicum of knowledge and skill to accomplish? I do have programming skills, but have never modded CK2 and most likely won't mod CK3, but I'd be interested in trying to make my starting character look like myself and see how my GGGGG-grandchildren look in the game just out of curiosity. But only if it doesn't take a serious amount of time and effort to accomplish.

 

[Sushurashi]

Well, I just read it and it says that all genes will come from your parents. So I guess no mutation will happen.

I hope you guys are still awake for the continuation of this Dev Diary. What does all this genetics mumbo-jumbo mean for you as a player? It means that inheritance has a much bigger impact on the appearance of a character in CKIII than than it does in CK2. Characters of different ethnicities that get down for the hanky panky will make babies that look like a blend between both parents, with some genes from further back in the family tree thrown into the mix. Of course, there’s still a fair amount of randomness in the system so we won’t get identical siblings unless they are, you know, identical twins.

So yes, I'd say mutation is in.

 

[Illusive_Mike]

So yes, I'd say mutation is in.

I'd say the part just past the bolded one makes it quite clear that this part is about the dominance and inheritance, since non-identical siblings can get different genes from their parents, and then there's a not-quite-true-to-life random roll for which of the genes expresses. I don't think this quote directly implies mutation.

Edit: it seems to be there to soften up the impact of the previous words and assure people that "it may all be inherited but characters will still look decently unique".

 

[Olden Weiss]

One last question from me here... it's said that modding your DNA to get a character that looks like you or a specific person isn't too difficult. But what is considered difficult varies based on a person's knowledge and skills. Can the average person with no programming skills or specific knowledge craft a character that looks like themselves or a specific person? Or is this something that requires at least a modicum of knowledge and skill to accomplish? I do have programming skills, but have never modded CK2 and most likely won't mod CK3, but I'd be interested in trying to make my starting character look like myself and see how my GGGGG-grandchildren look in the game just out of curiosity. But only if it doesn't take a serious amount of time and effort to accomplish.

It won't be as difficult as you expect. Nils confirmed my suspicion in an earlier post as to the presence of a console akin to what Imperator has, so I can tell you how it works in Imperator and we can probably expect it to work similarly:

There's a console command you can use to bring up a portrait editor, which features various sliders and such. In Imperator, it takes a little divining to figure out what does what, but I got the hang of it after just a few minutes of fiddling. Once you orient yourself, you simply craft the character you want with the visual editor, and then copy the DNA string the editor provides you. Essentially your edits are baked into a DNA string as you edit.

Once that's done, it's just a matter of opening up your save, finding the character you want to replace, and pasting your DNA string over their own (along with any edits you want to make to name or similar).

Edit: The editor looks like this.

I'd say the part just past the bolded one makes it quite clear that this part is about the dominance and inheritance, since non-identical siblings can get different genes from their parents, and then there's a not-quite-true-to-life random roll for which of the genes expresses. I don't think this quote directly implies mutation.

Edit: it seems to be there to soften up the impact of the previous words and assure people that "it may all be inherited but characters will still look decently unique".

Heavens, you're even more cynical than I am! Haha, I can relate, so I'm going to do my best to parse these words and allay your fears, as I think Sushurashi's find does indeed prove deviation:

Characters of different ethnicities that get down for the hanky panky will make babies that look like a blend between both parents

The point of this line is to establish the baseline system for generating children. It could otherwise be stated as, "Because our system blends the DNA of both parents, even ethnic traits will blend comfortably." We now know that this "blending" is achieved by assigning dominant and recessive genes from each parent to each of their children.

with some genes from further back in the family tree thrown into the mix.

This portion establishes the recessive gene mechanic, informing us that traits from a grandparent or further back can sometimes show up unexpectedly.

As these have been established, we can therefore surmise that...

Of course, there’s still a fair amount of randomness in the system so we won’t get identical siblings

... this is meant to establish that there is another layer to the generation process, which adds an element of unpredictability to the outcomes we'll see. It could be otherwise stated as, "While children are inheriting familial genes, there's no risk of siblings looking exactly alike, because there's also an element of randomness that comes into play."

I don't see how it could be saying anything else. If it were drawn entirely from genes in the pool, there would always be a slim chance of two siblings unintentionally looking identical. It says we won't get identical siblings, not that we shouldn't or that they'll be incredibly rare.

unless they are, you know, identical twins.

Then there's this fun little tidbit that confirms there are, in fact, identical twins in the game, but these cases are intentional.

 

[Riamus]

It won't be as difficult as you expect. Nils confirmed my suspicion in an earlier post as to the presence of a console akin to what Imperator has, so I can tell you how it works in Imperator and we can probably expect it to work similarly:

There's a console command you can use to bring up a portrait editor, which features various sliders and such. In Imperator, it takes a little divining to figure out what does what, but I got the hang of it after just a few minutes of fiddling. Once you orient yourself, you simply craft the character you want with the visual editor, and then copy the DNA string the editor provides you. Essentially your edits are baked into a DNA string as you edit.

Once that's done, it's just a matter of opening up your save, finding the character you want to replace, and pasting your DNA string over their own (along with any edits you want to make to name or similar).

Ok, that sounds easy enough. It's too bad it won't work for Ironman as I am admittedly an achievement chaser, but I don't mind playing a regular game to do this. Thanks.

 

[Illusive_Mike]

... this is meant to establish that there is another layer to the generation process, which adds an element of unpredictability to the outcomes we'll see. It could be otherwise stated as, "While children are inheriting familial genes, there's no risk of siblings looking exactly alike, because there's also an element of randomness that comes into play."

I don't see how it could be saying anything else. If it were drawn entirely from genes in the pool, there would always be a slim chance of two siblings unintentionally looking identical. It says we won't get identical siblings, not that we shouldn't or that they'll be incredibly rare.

To keep being pedantic, this extra mechanism may instead just influence the way genes are picked to ensure that something different expresses, especially since guaranteeing diverse appearance of a couple's children via mutation alone would mean that there would generally be so much mutation that multi-generation inheritance would disappear into noise. Really, I'd say the only good way to stress-test it without actually getting a dev word on this (or reading the save data, I guess...) would be to run 6-ish generations of sibling-only marriages and see how the system reacts to the shrinking of the gene pool.

Yes, I did just propose inbreeding for science.

 

[Olden Weiss]

To keep being pedantic, this extra mechanism may instead just influence the way genes are picked to ensure that something different expresses, especially since guaranteeing diverse appearance of a couple's children via mutation alone would mean that there would generally be so much mutation that multi-generation inheritance would disappear into noise. Really, I'd say the only good way to stress-test it without actually getting a dev word on this (or reading the save data, I guess...) would be to run 6 generations of sibling-only marriages and see how the system reacts to the shrinking of the gene pool.

Yes, I did just propose inbreeding for science.

Right on, it's Crusader Kings after all!

In any case, I can give this a test in Imperator, though I can't guarantee how accurate it will be to CK3's system. That one, we won't be able to know until we get our hands on it (or a developer outright tells us, "Yes, there is definitely genetic mutation.")

 

[Illusive_Mike]

I also didn't think to point it out in time, but we did decide that mutation wouldn't be necessary anyway after analyzing the IR portraits. I still think the quote is (good) PR-speak.

 

[Sushurashi]

That would be unhistorical. Most of medieval Europe has culturaly conditioned smal chest fetish. No, realy.

Sources?

 

[Sushurashi]

Pretty sure being fat was also seen as attractive at some point during the medieval ages. Taste and style can change a lot in ~1000 years.

There is a food scarcity hypothesis that is the impetus for this line of thought. As in, because food is scarce, if someone is fat, it means they are wealthy enough to overeat, and wealth is always been a signal for attraction. However, since gluttony was a sin, and the easiest sign of gluttony is being overweight, this is probably not as true as we like to think. Also, when we look at the real diets of medieval peoples (including the peasantry) food was of much better quality then is portrayed in modern media. Modern History TV has done a whole series on what foods different groups would have eaten in medieval periods and they were a lot more nutritious than we tend to think. So, rather than overweight or fatness being a sign of wealth, it was more likely a sign of being older, in the sense that you simply couldn't exert yourself as much as you age, but continued to eat as much as you did in your youth.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

There is a food scarcity hypothesis that is the impetus for this line of thought. As in, because food is scarce, if someone is fat, it means they are wealthy enough to overeat, and wealth is always been a signal for attraction. However, since gluttony was a sin, and the easiest sign of gluttony is being overweight, this is probably not as true as we like to think. Also, when we look at the real diets of medieval peoples (including the peasantry) food was of much better quality then is portrayed in modern media. Modern History TV has done a whole series on what foods different groups would have eaten in medieval periods and they were a lot more nutritious than we tend to think. So, rather than overweight or fatness being a sign of wealth, it was more likely a sign of being older, in the sense that you simply couldn't exert yourself as much as you age, but continued to eat as much as you did in your youth.

I've heard suggestions that the "rich peasant" diet was better for you than the "rich noble" diet, simply because it was more varied, and wasn't based on exotic/expensive foods at the expense of nutritious staple foods - think if the "modern rich" diet was based around imported fatty pork and beef, chocolate, honey, and cheese, but cutting out such grotesque substances as "wheat", "beans", and "green vegetables".

 

[Duditsfireguy]

Pretty sure being fat was also seen as attractive at some point during the medieval ages. Taste and style can change a lot in ~1000 years.

Being fat was not a trait considered attractive it was a trait of being rich which the latter was found attractive

 

[Olden Weiss]

Being fat was not a trait considered attractive it was a trait of being rich which the latter was found attractive

Being what we consider as "fat" was, however, considered attractive. This is evidenced by many paintings of the era which, as we know, are almost always rendered in the most flattering way possible.



There were, of course, plenty of "thin" women in medieval paintings as well. However whenever someone could be portrayed as on the softer side, they were. At the very least, we can surmise that a bit of weight was not seen as unattractive.

Actually being fat, on the other hand, I believe you're right about. It was likely more that you saw someone of considerable girth and thought, "There goes a wealthy lord/lady."

(Note: I have no guarantee these are all medieval paintings. On short notice, I had to rely on Google.)

 

[TartanClad]

Those 1066 characters are difficult but I'll have a go!

From left to right I think it's:
1. Edward the Confessor, King of England (who died in 1066).
2. Harold Godwinson, King of England (Edward's successor and last Saxon King of England).
3. William, Duke of Normandy (aka. The Conqueror).
4. Harold Hardrada, King of Norway (Defeated by Harold Godwinson in 1066).
5. Bleddyn ap Cynfyn, King of Gwynedd (Grudgingly allied with the Saxons against the Normans, and also the ONLY relevant character I could find that MIGHT not have had a beard).