Why is the vast majority of rulers in 1444 as terrible as they are?

[Nwaij]

Why is the vast majority of rulers in 1444 flat out terrible?

Math as explained on the wiki suggests that on average, a ruler should be 3/3/3, for a total of 9 points across all categories. Yet going by the wiki again, up until our beloved start date of November 11, 1444, there are a whooping 350 rulers listed with a total stat of 9+ (only 3 of them being 6/6/6), and this list goes back to 1260, almost 200 years before the start date.

On the same vein, there are 860 rulers listed with stats below a total of 9, 444 of them even with total stats below 6. So I really wonder here @Pardox, what's up with this? Why is the vast majority of rulers at the start date of 1444 pictured as bumbeling fools?


Maybe it's just me, but looking at a nation that has to be played for an achievement and realizing that my 12 dev nation at the ass end of the world is going to be stuck with a 0/0/1 ruler aged 22 isn't really making me want to play that campaign.

 

[Battlex]

Why is the vast majority of rulers in 1444 flat out terrible?

Math as explained on the wiki suggests that on average, a ruler should be 3/3/3, for a total of 9 points across all categories. Yet going by the wiki again, up until our beloved start date of November 11, 1444, there are a whooping 350 rulers listed with a total stat of 9+ (only 3 of them being 6/6/6), and this list goes back to 1260, almost 200 years before the start date.

On the same vein, there are 860 rulers listed with stats below a total of 9, 444 of them even with total stats below 6. So I really wonder here @Pardox, what's up with this? Why is the vast majority of rulers at the start date of 1444 pictured as bumbeling fools?


Maybe it's just me, but looking at a nation that has to be played for an achievement and realizing that my 12 dev nation at the ass end of the world is going to be stuck with a 0/0/1 ruler aged 22 isn't really making me want to play that campaign.

Because their historical rule was bad?

 

[Godd_Howard]

I mean most of the time the monarch is just some dumb rich kid who doesn't know anything beyond their own Palace. So seems logical in terms of history. You get way more George III's than Nalopeon I's if you read the history of that time.

 

[Clark]

it seems you have thought that 1444 rulers' stats were randomly generated, but they are actually based on how good/bad they were historically

 

[Nwaij]

it seems you have thought that 1444 rulers' stats were randomly generated, but they are actually based on how good/bad they were historically

Oh I do not think they were randomly generated. I just wonder why they are below average for the vast majority of them. As in, how did we end up with an "average" that is anything but?

 

[Godd_Howard]

Oh I do not think they were randomly generated. I just wonder why they are below average for the vast majority of them. As in, how did we end up with an "average" that is anything but?

Marrying your cousin a few too many times does that. That's why republics in early game are king,

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I mean most of the time the monarch is just some dumb rich kid who doesn't know anything beyond their own Palace. So seems logical in terms of history. You get way more George III's than Nalopeon I's if you read the history of that time.

it seems you have thought that 1444 rulers' stats were randomly generated, but they are actually based on how good/bad they were historically

These arguments don't work in the context of the OP's criticism, because 3/3/3 is supposed to be something approximating a ruler who is "average" in each respective category. If the "typical" ruler was "just some dumb rich kid", then a "dumb rich kid" was an average/baseline ruler in the period.

You can't have 70% of rulers be "below average". Monarch point maximum isn't nearly high enough for that to be possible.

CK2 models this a lot better because that game centers around the ruling characters. In EU 4, points are heavily abstracted and you get no agency over training/etc, other than the ability to spend multiple wars worth of prestige to dump an heir and roll again. Even that option doesn't exist in 1444 for the ruler you start with.

Unless something happened in 1444 that would make every ruler in the world superior (on average) to every ruler prior, these numbers don't make sense.

None of the responses to OP square with the game implementation, and the assertions that "below average = average" don't make sense. The game's threshold for average does not align between these two interactions, and yes that makes a lot of starting nations more annoying/prone to sitting around.

 

[Battlex]

These arguments don't work in the context of the OP's criticism, because 3/3/3 is supposed to be something approximating a ruler who is "average" in each respective category. If the "typical" ruler was "just some dumb rich kid", then a "dumb rich kid" was an average/baseline ruler in the period.

You can't have 70% of rulers be "below average". Monarch point maximum isn't nearly high enough for that to be possible.

CK2 models this a lot better because that game centers around the ruling characters. In EU 4, points are heavily abstracted and you get no agency over training/etc, other than the ability to spend multiple wars worth of prestige to dump an heir and roll again. Even that option doesn't exist in 1444 for the ruler you start with.

Unless something happened in 1444 that would make every ruler in the world superior (on average) to every ruler prior, these numbers don't make sense.

None of the responses to OP square with the game implementation, and the assertions that "below average = average" don't make sense. The game's threshold for average does not align between these two interactions, and yes that makes a lot of starting nations more annoying/prone to sitting around.

Of average ability isn't the mean value. There are logarithmic differences between 666 and 111 rulers not just 6x as good

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Of average ability isn't the mean value. There are logarithmic differences between 666 and 111 rulers not just 6x as good

Given how humans work in general, this is probably a point in favor of OP's criticism rather than against it.

 

[SPAMbuca]

Ehh this is just mere speculation on my side but this is what I can come up with:

- 1444 is a pretty unstable period in history with tons of conflicts everywhere. Instability, slumbering conflicts, civil wars, huge ongoing rivalries make the start interesting, generally might be an indication on the current rulers.

- History usually remembers monarchs for a few specific events in their life which more or less defines their rule if you'd watch some documentary or scripture. A lot of disasters or failures, sometimes completely out of the monarch's hands are yet still contributed to his reign. Some are remembered as national heroes, some as fairly competent, some as disastrous, but most of them simply meh or bad.

- Some might be compared unfairly to a famous, exceptional predecessor? On the other hand, Charles VII killed the duke of Burgundy forcing Burgundy to side with England causing him loss after loss yet is a 4 2 4. Maybe because he was no Charles VI?

- The 0 0 0 - 6 6 6 spectrum is meant for the entire period depicting the period between 1444 and 1821. Wouldn't say monarchs are necessarily better in 1821 but they were educated better at the very least.

Just spitballing why history doesn't remember generic monarchs too well causing bad stats on average.

 

[Choorus]

Ehh this is just mere speculation on my side but this is what I can come up with:

- 1444 is a pretty unstable period in history with tons of conflicts everywhere. Instability, slumbering conflicts, civil wars, huge ongoing rivalries make the start interesting, generally might be an indication on the current rulers.

- History usually remembers monarchs for a few specific events in their life which more or less defines their rule if you'd watch some documentary or scripture. A lot of disasters or failures, sometimes completely out of the monarch's hands are yet still contributed to his reign. Some are remembered as national heroes, some as fairly competent, some as disastrous, but most of them simply meh or bad.

- Some might be compared unfairly to a famous, exceptional predecessor? On the other hand, Charles VII killed the duke of Burgundy forcing Burgundy to side with England causing him loss after loss yet is a 4 2 4. Maybe because he was no Charles VI?

- The 0 0 0 - 6 6 6 spectrum is meant for the entire period depicting the period between 1444 and 1821. Wouldn't say monarchs are necessarily better in 1821 but they were educated better at the very least.

Just spitballing why history doesn't remember generic monarchs too well causing bad stats on average.

If that were the case then either the average should grow over time, which it doesn't or it should be lower than it is.

 

[Dell19]

I assumed the starting rulers were meant to be the normal split of ruler ability but over time various changes have meant that the random generated rulers end up being too good particularly with things like disinheritance and the talented daughter event.

 

[Hecko]

These arguments don't work in the context of the OP's criticism, because 3/3/3 is supposed to be something approximating a ruler who is "average" in each respective category. If the "typical" ruler was "just some dumb rich kid", then a "dumb rich kid" was an average/baseline ruler in the period.

You can't have 70% of rulers be "below average". Monarch point maximum isn't nearly high enough for that to be possible.

CK2 models this a lot better because that game centers around the ruling characters. In EU 4, points are heavily abstracted and you get no agency over training/etc, other than the ability to spend multiple wars worth of prestige to dump an heir and roll again. Even that option doesn't exist in 1444 for the ruler you start with.

Unless something happened in 1444 that would make every ruler in the world superior (on average) to every ruler prior, these numbers don't make sense.

None of the responses to OP square with the game implementation, and the assertions that "below average = average" don't make sense. The game's threshold for average does not align between these two interactions, and yes that makes a lot of starting nations more annoying/prone to sitting around.

But who the hell says that 3/3/3 represents the average ruler capability in that time period? 3/3/3 represents an average point distribution in terms of stats for the player, which is what the wiki implies. In terms of time period who says a 0/0/0 isn't the average stat of the rulers back then? It would be like saying since the max level is 100 in an rpg than the average level of all beings in existence of that world should be 50.

 

[Choorus]

But who the hell says that 3/3/3 represents the average ruler capability in that time period? 3/3/3 represents an average point distribution in terms of stats for the player, which is what the wiki implies. In terms of time period who says a 0/0/0 isn't the average stat of the rulers back then? It would be like saying since the max level is 100 in an rpg than the average level of all beings in existence of that world should be 50.

3/3/3 is the average stats for all non-event-generated heirs, isn't it?

 

[Ashvin]

If custom nations are created, the default ruler and heir stat are 2/2/2. it is that equilibrium.

 

[Zaddy]

But who the hell says that 3/3/3 represents the average ruler capability in that time period? 3/3/3 represents an average point distribution in terms of stats for the player, which is what the wiki implies. In terms of time period who says a 0/0/0 isn't the average stat of the rulers back then? It would be like saying since the max level is 100 in an rpg than the average level of all beings in existence of that world should be 50.

The fact that a 9 point total (ie a 3/3/3) is the average outcome of stat rolls...? I mean... Am I missing something with this comment? The game implicitly states 3/3/3 or some variation is the average...

 

[Godd_Howard]

The fact that a 9 point total (ie a 3/3/3) is the average outcome of stat rolls...? I mean... Am I missing something with this comment? The game implicitly states 3/3/3 or some variation is the average...

I think the problem is some of us are thinking about the strictly arithmetic average(which while it is "The average" doesn't take into account any historical context) while others are saying it makes sense to have 1/2/1's and 0/1/0's everywhere because it's logically an "average ruler" to have in 1444.

 

[Zaddy]

I think the problem is some of us are thinking about the strictly arithmetic average(which while it is "The average" doesn't take into account any historical context) while others are saying it makes sense to have 1/2/1's and 0/1/0's everywhere because it's logically an "average ruler" to have in 1444.

I don't understand this. The scale we're talking about suggests that the "average ruler" that you speak about is a 3/3/3. If the game agreed with the assessment that the "average ruler" was a 0/1/0 or thereabouts, that would be the average, correct?

 

[threetypesofcorn]

Is there any paper, that infers that rulers at 1444 globally were especially below or above average than after? That is the only way this would make sense - as it stands, any automatically generated ruler is statistically better than any 1444 ruler.

 

[Hecko]

The fact that a 9 point total (ie a 3/3/3) is the average outcome of stat rolls...? I mean... Am I missing something with this comment? The game implicitly states 3/3/3 or some variation is the average...

The 9 point total isn't the average outcome of stat rolls. It's the most likely. It's also different from saying it represents the average skill levels of the rulers in the world. You get the average stats by calculating every ruler's stats in the game so if you want to find out what they average ruler stats that the devs feel it is in 1444 than you can calculate it.