Even today, even in a same country: the previous photographed man might be labelled by some as being blonde hair (as suggested Greenace) or as being light-chestnut hair (like I would) or even light-brown it seem (like Monster just did).
Imperator - Development Diary #7 - 9th of July 2018
- Thread starter Johan
- Start date
-
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.
There is nothing unconfortable in the discussion.
Contemporary research actually with evidences and sources all point that blondism was quite diffused in ancient Rome especially among patrician class and thats a fact .
Its not that we always have to see things and history throught the filter of antinazism and political correctness . Or everytime we speak of blond white people there have to be "nazi" theories behind ... There is no sin in beeing blond .
Romans were white light skinned and had a range of colors for hairs , blond was common , most probably not the dominant one though.
Last edited:
What does the "Ancient Romans were Aryan" argument have to do with this dev diary?
Very little. Good points were made, so I’d appreciate it if we could all (myself included), move on from the topic.
In CK2, the enatic succession rule is not available. The best you can do is a cognatic succession, i.e. gender equality towards succession (with the exception of a few religions/cultures)... and to unlock it, you have to go through every levels of the tolerance tech (while other cultural techs are of highest priority). We cannot say that CK2 goes overboard with this question.
The code for enatic is technically in the game, it just has to be unlocked through a mod. However there are a number of bugs with the laws and the AI doesn't really work that well with the enatic succession laws. Heck, it doesn't work that well with vanilla absolute cognatic either.
OR will it be like the fallout 4 and mass effect andromeda where they take the two parents features and mix them up becuase if we can get horror shows like that... that would be great...
You say "powerful position" and "had a lot of power" but wasn't their power based mainly off their relatives' power (which means males, who were able to hold offices, etc.)? Because as far as I am concerned, in Rome women had no right to vote and no right to hold an office (political at least). Basing on that I am fully expecting women of Rome to be mostly courtiers or grey eminences at best.
I instead have another question ...
Back on topic, will we see those little traits we have in CK II? I love playing the breeding with the characters in CKII...
Empress Ulpia Severina ruled as actual Empress after Aurelian due to numismatic evidence as she minted coins.
Rare cases but possible.
Back on topic, will we see those little traits we have in CK II? I love playing the breeding with the characters in CKII...
As Answered before ... Several women expressed power even if not de Jure rulers but actually ruling Agrippina Minor, Julia Domna, Julia Maesa, also Julia Soaemias Bassiana , the mother of Elagabalus, reigned from 218 to 222 AD.
Empress Ulpia Severina ruled as actual Empress after Aurelian due to numismatic evidence as she minted coins.
Rare cases but possible.
Last edited by a moderator:
A developer asked that the topic of blonde/aryan Romans be dropped, and was ignored, so I will repeat: drop the topic and move on.
Finally some good base to work with unlike that with some other aspects. Hope to see more of it
Looks good! Though I do hope traits are a more rare occurence than in CK2. I felt like in CK2 every character would have 10+ traits and having traits would lose meaning when your ruler was: Grey Eminence, Depressed, Lustful, Cynical, Gardener, Charitable, Crusader, Kind, Arbitrary, Craven, Shy, Sympathy for Islam, Adventurer, Holy Warrior, Honest and probably four others by the time they died.
I'd think traits have a lot more impact when you just have a few and gaining/losing one becomes a big deal. When your character has so many traits it makes them less interesting when you get/lose one. I'd rather characters have at least 1 trait and up to 5 traits.
I'd think traits have a lot more impact when you just have a few and gaining/losing one becomes a big deal. When your character has so many traits it makes them less interesting when you get/lose one. I'd rather characters have at least 1 trait and up to 5 traits.
Well, yes and no... I've always thought (largely for purposes of my own immersion) that the CK2 traits are more like 'having a reputation for...' or 'is on record to have behaved in a way that is...'. In other words, they also tell a story, like so many other aspects in the game: the story of the character's interactions with the world and the characters in it. If looked at this way, it is not such a problem that there is a plethora of them, since they mostly represent a sort of lingering after-effect of what has gone before, and only lost if there is a demonstrable evidence for their opposite. Thus, a character is Brave until there is clear evidence (or strong rumours) of their cravenness, and vice versa. Of course, looked at this way, the more permanent traits like 'Sympathy for [religion_name]' should probably be lost if the character joins a holy war against said faith.
I suppose I can understand that. Just from a gameplay perspective I would never even really care if I got a trait unless it was Lunatic/Possessed or some health issue. Almost all of the traits impact gameplay minimally, if at all (like you'll get an 'arbitrary' ruler and this will show itself in that you *might* get a random event that causes you to get +5 with some courtier or lose 10 ducats)
They're pretty much at the point where I just viewed CK2 traits as being stat buffs/nerfs and I would prefer them to play a significant role. I could agree with your standpoint but a thing that always bothered me was when you looked through the history of titles and would look at the traits of the rulers before you and they always have 2-6 traits generally. I think Charlemagne, for example, only has 4, but I guarantee if you play Charlemagne now in a campaign he'll end with 10+.
They're pretty much at the point where I just viewed CK2 traits as being stat buffs/nerfs and I would prefer them to play a significant role. I could agree with your standpoint but a thing that always bothered me was when you looked through the history of titles and would look at the traits of the rulers before you and they always have 2-6 traits generally. I think Charlemagne, for example, only has 4, but I guarantee if you play Charlemagne now in a campaign he'll end with 10+.
We had quite a few interesting 'bugs' very befitting the latter, too bad they've not been saved for posterity.
I wonder if characters will be able to be given nicknames like in CK2 if they become prominent enough?
Actually yeah, that'd be very cool. I often found it difficult to keep track of characters in EUR. I don't know how CK2 does it, but allowing a player to give characters their own agnomen would be excellent.
I don't know if "Baal Hannid" is supposed to be a full name, or if "Baal" is a title. In the latter case, use of "Adon" would probably be more accurate, or "Sufet", cognate to Hebrew "Shofet", for high-ranking members of government. If it is a proper name, "Grace of Ba'al", because "Baal" was typically reserved for deities, Hammon/Hadad (Punic/Phoenician name respectively) in particular. This is also the reason why its use as a title for temporal rulers is also problematic.
In EU:Rome a character would receive nicknames if he accomplished some feat. For example "Africanus" or "Macedonicus" if he conquered some provinces near Chartages or in Greece. Probably something similar will be in I:R