413) FEEDBACK: Dynasties 1 and 6 have no surnames

[unmerged(29096)]

Dynasties 1 and 6

Apologies if this has been dealt with already (I couldn't find it in the buglist). I've reached the 1140s in the 1066 scenario* and noticed a Count and his family without a surname. I checked the savegame file using the excellent CrusaderEd tool and found 10 living characters without a surname. They all belonged to either dynasty 1 or 6. I checked dynasties.txt (or whatever it's called exactly) and saw that 1 and 6 have no name (name=""). Those two seem to be the only nameless dynasties. I assume this must be an error.

* I was one of the first to get the game by post but my girlfriend and boss, rather unreasonably, won't let me play the kind of 12-hour sessions I'd like

 

[unmerged(485)]

................................

* I was one of the first to get the game by post but my girlfriend and boss, rather unreasonably, won't let me play the kind of 12-hour sessions I'd like

Can't help you with this part because it is WAD.

 

[unmerged(14905)]

Those two seem to be the only nameless dynasties. I assume this must be an error.

I think not.
Not all characters need to have a surname... wifes of fantasy chars, as an example.

 

[unmerged(29096)]

I think not.
Not all characters need to have a surname... wifes of fantasy chars, as an example.

I take your point, but in that case I'm at a loss to explain how the Count of Plasencia (?spelling -- it's in central Spain) ended up with no surname.

I suppose I (or some other helpful person) should check who belongs to dynasties 1 and 6 at the start of the 1066 scenario, and see if there's a good reason for whoever that is having no surname.

 

[unmerged(29096)]

I suppose I (or some other helpful person) should check who belongs to dynasties 1 and 6 at the start of the 1066 scenario, and see if there's a good reason for whoever that is having no surname.

Well, I had a look, and it's just a couple of women in dynasty 1, and no one at all in dynasty 6... So,

a) by what mechanism did I end up with some men in dynasty 1?
b) where did dynasty 6 come from, if no one at the start of the game belongs to it?

 

[NeilJT]

Well, I had a look, and it's just a couple of women in dynasty 1, and no one at all in dynasty 6... So,

a) by what mechanism did I end up with some men in dynasty 1?
b) where did dynasty 6 come from, if no one at the start of the game belongs to it?

a) 'A straping young man catches you eye' events? i.e. creating Bastards from female countesses.

b) No idea... it isn't listed as a random dynasty for any province, is it?

 

[unmerged(29096)]

a) 'A straping young man catches you eye' events? i.e. creating Bastards from female countesses.

Good point. Yes, I have seen countesses with bastard sons. So that probably explains how that one arose.

b) No idea... it isn't listed as a random dynasty for any province, is it?

I'll check. Is that in 'provinces.csv'? Can't look right now as I'm at work

 

[NeilJT]

Its entries of the form:

dynasty = {
id = { type = 12 id = 60000 }
name = "Caverhyl"
province = { 51 }
}

in dynasties.txt - happily its ordered by dynasty number, and I can confirm that there are no provinces with 1 or 6 listed as a random dynasty.

 

[unmerged(29096)]

in dynasties.txt - happily its ordered by dynasty number, and I can confirm that there are no provinces with 1 or 6 listed as a random dynasty.

Thanks! Well, in that case, the appearance of someone in Dynasty 6 is truly weird. Also, what's Dynasty 6 for?! Unless, perhaps, it's used in one of the other two scenarios.

Anyway I can't really think of any good reason why these two dynasties should remain nameless, and the fact that it can lead to rulers without surnames does make it a sort of a bug. I'd have thought this would be extremely easy to fix in the next patch.

 

[Solmyr]

Thanks! Well, in that case, the appearance of someone in Dynasty 6 is truly weird. Also, what's Dynasty 6 for?! Unless, perhaps, it's used in one of the other two scenarios.

It might be that someone started a scenario with a wife from the nameless dynasty, granted her a county, and she had some random cousins appear in her court, thus generating more people of the nameless dynasty.

 

[richvh]

If no dynasty is defined for a province, all random courtiers will be from dynasty 1. I found this out while playing with ICOCK variants and had a dynasty include file with no provinces defined for any of the dynasties being read - all random courtiers were "of Vestisland" - dynasty 1 for ICOCK.

 

[Cat Lord]

I could understand we need one dynasty in the game with no surname for whatever reason, but 2 wouldn't make sense IMHO, so I suspect there is a bug here.

Cat

 

[unmerged(29096)]

I could understand we need one dynasty in the game with no surname for whatever reason, but 2 wouldn't make sense IMHO, so I suspect there is a bug here.

Agreed on two such dynasties being a likely bug. I can see that there might be a good reason for leaving one dynasty available for this kind of new family line (bastard sons of female rulers, or whatever). It doesn't really seem elegant or plausible to me, though, to allow these people to exist without a surname. If one of 'em gets to Count level (as happened in my game), then the possibility exists of the family flourishing and surnameless individuals spreading all over Europe. I'd suggest that the 'blank' dynasty should bear some suitably nondescript surname (I gave mine Nemo -- Latin for 'no one').