• 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.
Oh, and I'm curious: if succession passes to a cousin or uncle or something, is it always traced through the father of the current ruler?
That's precisely how it works. The problems are when the current ruler doesn't have a son or grandson alive (but it *should* default to great-grandson).

Chancellor => Diplomat
Martial => Army Reformer?
Steward => Sherrif? Treasurer?
Spymaster => Spymaster
Court Chaplain => Theologian
Steward is probably closer to Treasurer than Sheriff.

Their level will depend on their relevent CK2 skill. If your CK2 chancellor has 0 diplomacy, then he will be level 1. If however he has the greatest dimplomacy level in the world (either THE greatest diplomacy level in the world, or greater than some arbitrary cutoff) then he will be level 6.
There are levels in CK2 as well, but anything beyond a certain value (somewhere around 13-15, I think) doesn't have any effect for a lot of them (Forge claims, for example, is capped slightly above 10%, and it doesn't matter how skilled your Chancellor is beyond that point). I've not looked at the numbers very closely, but Spymaster is definitely affected by his intrigue skill. Pretty certain Court Chaplain is capped too (county conversion and such) -- but I can check that later. Anything above 20 is extraordinary though (in CK2), and should be treated as such.
0-5: 1
6-10: 2
11-15: 3
16-20: 4
21-25: 5
26+ : 6
Maybe?
Of course, you can shift them around somewhat -- maybe you want a it to be 11-13, 14-16, 17-19 and 20+ instead? /shrug

I wonder if I can get at the skill value data somehow, we could get a nice view of what numbers we're actually looking at (instead of super-humans bred by players).
 
I had been thinking in terms of making everyone that's available for your council an advisor of some kind. The kind being determined by stats and traits. Like many things I think of, it's how the CK To HttT converter did it. They only converted for a subset of advisor types, but maybe the rules will guide this notion. Or not, and we go with the 'just use the council' idea. I'll pull out the old converter rules this evening.

Edit: Here they are. They are ugly, so I will explain them as well.

Code:
ruler_stats = {
		-11 =  0.0
		-10 =  0.0
		-09 =  0.2
		-08 =  0.4
		-07 =  0.6
		-06 =  0.8
		-05 =  1.0
		-04 =  1.2
		-03 =  1.4
		-02 =  1.6
		-01 =  1.8
		 00 =  2.0
		 01 =  2.2
		 02 =  2.5
		 03 =  2.8
		 04 =  3.1
		 05 =  3.4
		 06 =  3.7
		 07 =  4.0
		 08 =  4.5
		 09 =  5.0
		 10 =  5.5
		 11 =  6.0
		 12 =  6.5
		 13 =  7.0
		 14 =  7.5
		 15 =  8.0
		 16 =  9.0
		 17 = 10.0
		 18 = 11.0
		 19 = 11.0
		 20 = 11.0
		 21 = 11.0
		 22 = 11.0
		 23 = 11.0
		 24 = 11.0
	}

#	The effect of traits modifies the resulting stat after conversion in the previous table
	ruler_traits = {
		amateurish_pettifogger		= { adm=-0.1 mil=-0.5 dip= 0.3 }
		arbitrary			= { adm=-0.4 mil= 0.4 dip= 0.0 }
		brilliant_strategist		= { adm= 0.8 mil= 4.0 dip= 0.0 }
		charismatic_negotiator		= { adm= 0.7 mil= 0.3 dip= 1.9 }
		chaste				= { adm=-0.1 mil=-0.1 dip= 0.3 }
		clubfooted			= { adm= 0.0 mil=-0.4 dip= 0.0 }
		court_education			= { adm= 0.5 mil= 0.5 dip= 0.5 }
		coward				= { adm= 0.1 mil=-0.3 dip= 0.1 }
		cruel				= { adm= 0.0 mil= 0.4 dip= 0.0 }
		deceitful			= { adm= 0.1 mil= 0.1 dip=-0.3 }
		depression			= { adm=-0.5 mil=-0.5 dip=-0.5 }
		detached_priest			= { adm=-0.3 mil=-0.3 dip= 0.5 }
		ecclesiastical_education	= { adm= 0.5 mil= 0.1 dip= 0.9 }
		energetic			= { adm=-0.1 mil= 0.3 dip= 0.3 }
		flamboyant_schemer		= { adm= 0.3 mil= 0.3 dip= 0.7 }
		forgiving			= { adm=-0.1 mil=-0.1 dip= 0.3 }
		fortune_builder			= { adm= 1.7 mil= 0.1 dip= 0.9 }
		generous			= { adm=-0.4 mil= 0.0 dip= 0.0 }
		grey_eminence			= { adm= 0.8 mil= 0.4 dip= 3.6 }
		harelip				= { adm= 0.0 mil= 0.0 dip=-0.4 }
		hole_in_the_pocket		= { adm=-0.7 mil=-0.3 dip= 0.1 }
		honest				= { adm=-0.1 mil=-0.1 dip= 0.3 }
		hunchback			= { adm= 0.0 mil=-0.4 dip= 0.0 }
		illness				= { adm=-0.5 mil=-0.5 dip=-0.5 }
		illusive_shadow			= { adm= 1.5 mil= 1.5 dip= 1.9 }
		inbred				= { adm=-2.7 mil=-2.7 dip=-2.7 }
		indulgent			= { adm= 0.0 mil= 0.0 dip=-0.4 }
		intestinal_worm			= { adm= 0.5 mil= 0.5 dip=-0.7 }
		intricate_webweaver		= { adm= 0.9 mil= 0.9 dip= 1.3 }
		just				= { adm= 0.4 mil=-0.4 dip= 0.0 }
		kinslayer			= { adm= 0.0 mil= 0.0 dip=-0.8 }
		knowledged_tactician		= { adm= 0.7 mil= 2.7 dip=-0.1 }
		lazy				= { adm=-0.3 mil=-0.3 dip= 0.1 }
		lisp				= { adm= 0.0 mil= 0.0 dip=-0.4 }
		lustful				= { adm= 0.0 mil= 0.0 dip=-0.4 }
		maniac				= { adm=-2.7 mil=-2.7 dip=-2.7 }
		martial_cleric			= { adm= 0.3 mil= 1.9 dip= 1.1 }
		martial_education		= { adm= 0.1 mil= 0.9 dip= 0.5 }
		mastermind_theologian		= { adm= 1.9 mil= 0.7 dip= 2.3 }
		merciful			= { adm= 0.0 mil=-0.4 dip= 0.0 }
		midas_touched			= { adm= 2.5 mil= 0.1 dip= 1.3 }
		misguided_warrior		= { adm=-0.4 mil= 0.8 dip=-0.4 }
		naive_wirepuller		= { adm=-0.3 mil=-0.3 dip= 0.1 }
		plagueinfested			= { adm=-2.7 mil=-2.7 dip=-2.7 }
		pneumonia			= { adm=-2.7 mil=-2.7 dip=-2.7 }
		proven_accountant		= { adm= 0.8 mil= 0.0 dip= 0.4 }
		proven_dealbreaker		= { adm= 0.5 mil= 0.1 dip= 0.9 }
		reckless			= { adm= 0.1 mil=-0.3 dip= 0.1 }
		sceptical			= { adm= 0.1 mil= 0.1 dip= 0.1 }
		schizofrenia			= { adm=-2.1 mil=-2.1 dip=-2.1 }
		scholarly_theologian		= { adm= 1.2 mil= 0.4 dip= 1.6 }
		selfish				= { adm= 0.4 mil= 0.0 dip= 0.0 }
		stress_symptom			= { adm=-0.5 mil=-0.5 dip=-0.5 }
		stutter				= { adm=-0.7 mil=-0.3 dip=-1.5 }
		suspicious			= { adm= 0.1 mil= 0.1 dip=-0.7 }
		temperate			= { adm= 0.0 mil= 0.0 dip= 0.4 }
		tough_soldier			= { adm= 0.1 mil= 1.7 dip=-0.3 }
		trusting			= { adm=-0.3 mil=-0.3 dip= 0.1 }
		valorous			= { adm=-0.3 mil= 0.1 dip=-0.3 }
		vengeful			= { adm= 0.1 mil= 0.1 dip=-0.3 }
		war_invalid			= { adm= 0.0 mil=-0.8 dip= 0.0 }
		wise				= { adm=-0.1 mil= 0.3 dip= 0.3 }
		zealous				= { adm= 0.0 mil= 0.4 dip= 0.0 }
	}

	counselor_stats = {
	HttT = {
		use = { type=stand_alone }
		convert = {
		army_reformer = {
			mil = { -10=-10 0=-3 2=-2 4=-1 7= 0  9=0.5 10=1 11=1.5 }
			dip = { -10=-10 0=-3 2=-2 4=-1 7= 0 10=0.5 11=1 }
			int = { -10=-10 0=-3 2=-2 4=-1 7= 0 10=0.5 11=1 }
		}
		trader = {
			dip = { -10=-10 0=-3 2=-2 4=-1 6=-1  8=0.0  9=1 10=1.5 }
			ste = { -10=-10 0=-3 2=-2 4=-1 6=-1  8=0.0  9=1 10=1.5 }
		}
		diplomat = {
			dip = { -10=-10 1=-3 3=-2 5=-1 8= 0  9=1.0 10=2 11=3.0 }
		}
		spymaster = {
			int = { -10=-10 1=-3 3=-2 5=-1 8= 0  9=1.0 10=2 11=3.0 }
		}
		statesman = {
			ste = { -10=-10 0=-3 2=-2 4=-1 7= 0  9=0.5 10=1 11=1.5 }
			dip = { -10=-10 0=-3 2=-2 4=-1 7= 0  9=0.5 10=1 11=1.5 }
			int = { -10=-10 0=-3 2=-2 4=-1 7= 0  9=0.5 10=1 11=1.5 }
		}
		treasurer = {
			ste = { -10=-10 0=-3 3=-2 5=-1 8= 0  9=1.0 10=2 11=3.0 }
		}
		}
	}
	}

	counselor_traits = {
		chaste				= { philosopher=1 }
		zealous				= { theologian=1 }
		lisp				= { diplomat=-1 trader=-1 }
		harelip				= { diplomat=-1 trader=-1 }
		lustful				= { philosopher=-1 spymaster=-1 diplomat=-1 trader=-1 }
		stutter				= { diplomat=-1 trader=-1 spymaster=-1 }
		sceptical			= { philosopher=1 }
		kinslayer			= { diplomat=-1 }
		arbitrary			= { statesman=-1 diplomat=-1 trader=-1 }
		deceitful			= { spymaster=1 }
		energetic			= { army_reformer=1 diplomat=1 trader=1 statesman=1 }
		forgiving			= { diplomat=1 philosopher=1 statesman=1 }
		generous			= { trader=-1 treasurer=-1 philosopher=1 statesman=1 }
		indulgent			= { diplomat=-1 philosopher=1 }
		just				= { statesman=2 philosopher=1 treasurer=1 theologian=1 }
		suspicious			= { diplomat=-1 spymaster=1 }
		selfish				= { treasurer=1 trader=1 diplomat=-1 }
		wise				= { all=1 statesman=1 }
		court_education			= { diplomat=1 spymaster=1 }
		honest				= { diplomat=1 spymaster=-1 philosopher=1 statesman=1 trader=2 }
		lazy				= { all=-1 philosopher=1 }
		merciful			= { philosopher=1 statesman=1 }
		reckless			= { philosopher=-1 statesman=-1 }
		temperate			= { philosopher=1 diplomat=1 theologian=1 }
		trusting			= { diplomat=-1 trader=-1 philosopher=-1 spymaster=-1 }
		valorous			= { army_reformer=1 philosopher=-1 }
		vengeful			= { diplomat=-1 statesman=-1 philosopher=-1 }
		amateurish_pettifogger		= { diplomat=1 }
		proven_dealbreaker		= { diplomat=2 trader=1 }
		charismatic_negotiator		= { diplomat=3 trader=1 statesman=1 }
		grey_eminence			= { diplomat=4 spymaster=1 statesman=2 }
		naive_wirepuller		= { spymaster=-1 }
		flamboyant_schemer		= { spymaster=2 }
		intricate_webweaver		= { spymaster=3 diplomat=1 statesman=1 }
		illusive_shadow			= { spymaster=4 diplomat=1 statesman=2 }
		martial_cleric			= { army_reformer=2 }
		detached_priest			= { theologian=1 }
		ecclesiastical_education	= { theologian=1 }
		scholarly_theologian		= { theologian=3 philosopher=1 }
		mastermind_theologian		= { theologian=5 philosopher=2 diplomat=1 }
		hole_in_the_pocket		= { treasurer=-1 }
		proven_accountant		= { treasurer=2 trader=1 }
		fortune_builder			= { treasurer=3 trader=3 statesman=1 }
		midas_touched			= { treasurer=4 trader=4 statesman=2 }
		martial_education		= { army_reformer=1 }
		misguided_warrior		= { army_reformer=1 }
		tough_soldier			= { army_reformer=2 }
		knowledged_tactician		= { army_reformer=3.5 }
		brilliant_strategist		= { army_reformer=5 }
		schizofrenia			= { reject = 1 }
		plagueinfested			= { reject = 1 }
		pneumonia			= { reject = 1 }
		maniac				= { reject = 1 }
		inbred				= { all=-3 }
		depression			= { all=-1 }
		stress_symptom			= { all=-0.5 }
		illness				= { all=-0.5 }
	}

CK stats were mapped to the appropriate EU3 stat, then converted to a reasonable for EU3 number (not quite linear, thus the odd look-up table). Those were further modified by traits, as listed in the next table.

Then for each possible adviser type, a score is generated, based on stats and then modified by traits. Whichever type had the highest score became the adviser type. I'm not sure how adviser level was calculated, it may have been the score itself. Also, there was a flat-out 'reject' adviser type. If that was the highest scoring type, the character was discarded.
 
Last edited:
Does this work with ck 2 plus

It will not do so by default, but it looks like someone would just have to apporiately remap CK2 Plus' extra provinces and cultures and what-not.
 
I've committed code that does the initial conversion of stats. CK2 stores attributes w/o the effects of traits, so I have not yet taken traits into account. Nor the scaling for characters younger than 16.

Attributes are scaled by 1/3 for now.

Edit: And I just committed code that handles succession laws. Or at least should. Building a new mini-release now.

Edit2: 0.2C is now up on Sourceforge.
 
Last edited:
Edit: And I just committed code that handles succession laws. Or at least should. Building a new mini-release now.

Edit2: 0.2C is now up on Sourceforge.

Well, I still have the wrong heir. I got me some stats, but my ruler converted with a military skill of 0. His martial skill is 3, and only one point of that is due to a trait. It is hilariously low, but it's also non-zero... WAD? Should we enforce a minimum of one, anyway?

EDIT: Still thinking on population. Seems like every province will have pretty much tend to have the same number of buildings and upgrades by the end of the game. This means that, assuming we are doing a weighting, that every province will have pretty much the same population as the next. Acceptable? If it is a minor mechanic, then this is probably acceptable, and will be overshadowed by our taxes conversion.

Taxes are derived from the base tax of the province. Other factors include the workshop, the location of a CoT (ooh, now, there's another problem!), province modifiers, plus a boost from the capital. These will be implicit in the other conversion rules, so when it comes to taxes all we need to do is focus on the base tax of the province.

CK2 provinces have a "base tax", which is simply the sum total of all tax bonuses. (All of this information can be found in [CK2]\common\buildings.txt). This value is then modified percentage-wise by other factors, like events or farming tech.

When taking the entire provinces tax bonuses, you can get a very large value indeed (relative to EU3 base tax values). For example, in my Ireland game, if I were to add up all the tax bonuses for every holding in, say, Connacht, the total is 73.8! In Middlesex it's 40.6. In Byzantion (Constantinople) it's well over 100! Most of these provinces, of course, will be many-to-one, and will have to be summed together to maintain balance, so our composite provinces will have mostly three figure values! The trick is transforming these values in to something that isn't completely mad. Would a simple divisor do? It might need to be quite large (i mean, like, 20 or so)...
 
Last edited:
Well, I still have the wrong heir. I got me some stats, but my ruler converted with a military skill of 0. His martial skill is 3, and only one point of that is due to a trait. It is hilariously low, but it's also non-zero... WAD? Should we enforce a minimum of one, anyway?

The same wrong heir, or a different wrong heir? As for the stats, is the combination of his intrigue and learning less than three? And martial the lowest of his attributes? If so, WAD. And yes, we probably should cap it at a minimum of one.

EDIT: Still thinking on population. Seems like every province will have pretty much tend to have the same number of buildings and upgrades by the end of the game. This means that, assuming we are doing a weighting, that every province will have pretty much the same population as the next. Acceptable? If it is a minor mechanic, then this is probably acceptable, and will be overshadowed by our taxes conversion.

I've not gotten a game to the end yet, so I don't know if every (or nearly every) barony gets maximally built, but provinces will have varying numbers of baronies, so it still might work out. And maybe if we include the timing of building being built (assuming that data is available in the save) we could work something out. I've structured the code somewhat better than in the other converter, so such things are easier.


Taxes are derived from the base tax of the province. Other factors include the workshop, the location of a CoT (ooh, now, there's another problem!), province modifiers, plus a boost from the capital. These will be implicit in the other conversion rules, so when it comes to taxes all we need to do is focus on the base tax of the province.

CK2 provinces have a "base tax", which is simply the sum total of all tax bonuses. (All of this information can be found in [CK2]\common\buildings.txt). This value is then modified percentage-wise by other factors, like events or farming tech.

When taking the entire provinces tax bonuses, you can get a very large value indeed (relative to EU3 base tax values). For example, in my Ireland game, if I were to add up all the tax bonuses for every holding in, say, Connacht, the total is 73.8! In Middlesex it's 40.6. In Byzantion (Constantinople) it's well over 100! Most of these provinces, of course, will be many-to-one, and will have to be summed together to maintain balance, so our composite provinces will have mostly three figure values! The trick is transforming these values in to something that isn't completely mad. Would a simple divisor do? It might need to be quite large (i mean, like, 20 or so)...

Is that value recorded in the save? That would make my job so easy. And I like that. And a simple divisor would at least be easy to check. Especially with some of those newer map filters.
 
The value is not recorded in the save. Buildings are recorded, and building tax bonuses are recorded in common\buildings.txt, so you can derive it simply-ish.

EDIT: A problem with my tech group idea: horde countries are allowed to build exactly the same soughts of learning buildings as everyone else. This gives the possibility of the golden horde, say, being western. Should we force them to be the Horde Tech group? This seems wrong to me. I'm tempted to let them convert either normally, or take their ROTW provinces in to account (as university-less provinces) when converting for tech group. Also, those eastern provinces have less holdings, and therefore less opportunities for tech buildings.


EDIT:
The same wrong heir, or a different wrong heir? As for the stats, is the combination of his intrigue and learning less than three? And martial the lowest of his attributes? If so, WAD. And yes, we probably should cap it at a minimum of one.

Same wrong heir, and my leader's intrigue and learning were also 3.
 
Last edited:
EDIT: A problem with my tech group idea: horde countries are allowed to build exactly the same soughts of learning buildings as everyone else. This gives the possibility of the golden horde, say, being western. Should we force them to be the Horde Tech group? This seems wrong to me. I'm tempted to let them convert either normally, or take their ROTW provinces in to account (as university-less provinces) when converting for tech group. Also, those eastern provinces have less holdings, and therefore less opportunities for tech buildings.

Hordes are going to be a problem. They have special mechanics in CK2, so I want them to to be hordes in DW, but then building and tech group and the like will be issues.


EDIT:


Same wrong heir, and my leader's intrigue and learning were also 3.

Okay, sanity check: true-cognatic means females can inherit, cognatic means inheritance can pass through females, and agnatic means males-only, right? If so, I'm either picking up gender laws incorrectly or not always properly noting when a character is female.

And can you list all the (pre-trait) attributes of your leader? I can use that as an example of how the skills are calculated.
 
Okay, sanity check: true-cognatic means females can inherit, cognatic means inheritance can pass through females, and agnatic means males-only, right? If so, I'm either picking up gender laws incorrectly or not always properly noting when a character is female.

And can you list all the (pre-trait) attributes of your leader? I can use that as an example of how the skills are calculated.

Agnatic: Males only. Succession can pass through a female, but a female can not inherit.
Agnatic-Cognatic: Males and Females can inherit, but females will only inherit if there are no eligible males.
Absolute Cognatic: Men and Women inherit the same way.

And, of course, the primogenitor rules are complicated enough. Having a look at my family, I'd lay money on the code not correctly recognising gender. My oldest child is female, and dead. If this were a male (or the law was Absolute Cognatic), then the conversion rules for Primogenitor would be working perfectly, and her eldest child (Ulv Yngling) would be the rightful heir, but since she is a she, she shouldn't be counted unless I had no male children. But I do have male children, and he lives, therefore he is the correct heir. So it looks like your code incorrectly determines gender.


As for my rulers pre-trait stats (with total stats):

Diplomacy: 9 (10)
Martial: 2 (3)
Stewardship: 6 (16)
Intrigue: 4 (3)
Learning: 1 (3)

Traits: Fortune Builder, Celibate, Just, Gregarious, Temperate, Content, Chaste
 
Agnatic: Males only. Succession can pass through a female, but a female can not inherit.
Agnatic-Cognatic: Males and Females can inherit, but females will only inherit if there are no eligible males.
Absolute Cognatic: Men and Women inherit the same way.

And, of course, the primogenitor rules are complicated enough. Having a look at my family, I'd lay money on the code not correctly recognising gender. My oldest child is female, and dead. If this were a male (or the law was Absolute Cognatic), then the conversion rules for Primogenitor would be working perfectly, and her eldest child (Ulv Yngling) would be the rightful heir, but since she is a she, she shouldn't be counted unless I had no male children. But I do have male children, and he lives, therefore he is the correct heir. So it looks like your code incorrectly determines gender.

Actually:
1. The laws are named differently between the saves and the in-game display.
2. I implemented them exactly how I described, which is some degree of wrong. I'll have to update them (and ponder agnatic-cognatic for awhile).

As for my rulers pre-trait stats (with total stats):

Diplomacy: 9 (10)
Martial: 2 (3)
Stewardship: 6 (16)
Intrigue: 4 (3)
Learning: 1 (3)

Traits: Fortune Builder, Celibate, Just, Gregarious, Temperate, Content, Chaste

If I implemented it how I think, you should be getting
DIP 5, MIL 0, ADM 2

This is done with the following code
Code:
+	int* stats = src->getStats();
+	int bonus		= ( stats[INTRIGUE] + stats[LEARNING] ) / (3 * 3);
+	diplomacy		= stats[DIPLOMACY] / 3		+ bonus;
+	administration	= stats[STEWARDSHIP] / 3 	+ bonus;
+	military			= stats[MARTIAL] /3			+ bonus;
+	
+	int leftover	=	( stats[INTRIGUE] + stats[LEARNING] ) % (3 * 3);
+	leftover			+= stats[DIPLOMACY] % 3;
+	leftover			+= stats[STEWARDSHIP] % 3;
+	leftover			+= stats[MARTIAL] % 3;
+
+	diplomacy		+= leftover / (3 * 3);
+	administration	+= leftover / (3 * 3);
+	military			+= leftover / (3 * 3);
+	leftover			%= (3 * 3);
+
+	if ( (diplomacy >= administration) && (diplomacy >= military) )
+	{
+		diplomacy += leftover / 3;
+	}
+	else if (administration >= military)
+	{
+		administration += leftover / 3;
+	}
+	else
+	{
+		military += leftover / 3;
+	}

Running the code by hand:
bonus = 0
DIP = 3
ADM = 2
MIL = 0
Leftover = 5
Leftover = 5
Leftover = 5
Leftover = 7
DIP = 3
ADM = 2
MIL = 0
DIP = 5

This agrees with my assessment above. Are you getting otherwise, or do the results just seem a bit absurd? If the latter, accounting for traits will help, your ruler would become
DIP 3, MIL 1, ADM 7
 
Are you getting otherwise, or do the results just seem a bit absurd? If the latter, accounting for traits will help, your ruler would become
DIP 3, MIL 1, ADM 7

Nope, that's what I was getting, and it sounds reasonable except that I would not expect to get a score of 0 with non-zero CK2 attributes. :p

I implemented them exactly how I described, which is some degree of wrong. I'll have to update them (and ponder agnatic-cognatic for awhile).

I'm guessing that "true_cognatic" means "Absolute Cognatic"? And "cognatic" means "Agnatic-Cognatic"? Why would they label them such?
 
I'm guessing that "true_cognatic" means "Absolute Cognatic"? And "cognatic" means "Agnatic-Cognatic"? Why would they label them such?

I just verified in localizations, and it is so.

Edit: I think the problem was that I was always considering children in birth order. I now consider males first (unless the law is absolute cognatic) and female lines in a second pass.
 
Last edited:
0.2D uploaded: traits taken into account for stats, EU3 stats have a minimum of 1, gender laws really should work correctly this time.
 
Yay! Do ruler and heir stats seem reasonable overall?
 
Yay! Do ruler and heir stats seem reasonable overall?

They do! My heir has the ludicrous diplomacy skill of 10.

His stats are:

Diplomacy: 22
Martial: 6
Stewardship: 4
Intrigue: 10
Learning: 11

... so he deserves that score, it seems. Looks like everything's working just fine. :D
 
0.2E uploaded. Bastards accounted for in succession, and stats extrapolated for people under age 16 (unless they have no guardians and no parents, in which case it sucks to be them).
 
0.2E uploaded. Bastards accounted for in succession, and stats extrapolated for people under age 16 (unless they have no guardians and no parents, in which case it sucks to be them).

How interesting... in CK2, if a child has no guardian and no parents, what happens to them? Are they still a member of the court? Is the ruler of the that court still prompted to find them an heir?