A plea for a return of genetics

[themendios]

I think an argument can be made either way as to how realistic and/or balanced genetics impacting stats/traits would be.

But what I would argue is that when it was removed it took a good chunk of gameplay out, namely you wanting to keep that marshal around because his sons would likely make good marshals, giving a count title to the guy with good stewardship because it's likely his line won't turn into blathering idiots with 0 income in a generation.

I actually really, really had to think about whether I wanted DV with genetics taken out since I played vanilla (accidentally) for quite a while.

Let me have my breeding stable please!

 

[Doctor Zoviet]

I want my Finno-Ugric ubermenschen! +1

 

[Galle]

As I understand it, genetics was cut out because it resulted in all of Europe evolving into superheroes by the end of the game. So if they can work around that problem, by all means, bring it back.

 

[Gwyn ap Nud]

I dunno, I think the LEVEL to which it affected things was plainly ridiculous. Sometimes, two brilliant people can have a blathering idiot of a son. I would like it to be MOSTLY random, and slightly affected by genetics.

 

[RedRooster81]

It should be a factor, not too heavy, but things like environment (childhood experiences, where you send him for education) should be just as much so. Of course, nice things like genetic diseases can be transmitted by trait.

 

[themendios]

It should be a factor, not too heavy, but things like environment (childhood experiences, where you send him for education) should be just as much so. Of course, nice things like genetic diseases can be transmitted by trait.

Yea, exactly! Mother blind? Maybe you will be too! (Though they probably took blind out lol)

Alternately (preferably!) make child development a moddable on_action and do whatever the hell you want!

 

[SolSara]

Some traits are congenital so if any parents have a congenital trait such as lisp then their child might get it.

 

[Maestro Ugo]

Does this mean that now having a 9/9/9/9 father and a 9/9/9/9 mother will give you the same probability of them having a 1/1/1/1 or 9/9/9/9 child?

 

[Raczynski]

It was stupid, with a hint of unfortunate implications thrown in.
Good riddance.

 

[unmerged(226921)]

It should be a factor, not too heavy, but things like environment (childhood experiences, where you send him for education) should be just as much so. Of course, nice things like genetic diseases can be transmitted by trait.

These are my thoughts on it as well. Genetics play a role in someones skills and abilities, no doubt, but it's not the deciding factor. Great individuals sometimes produce terrible stock, such is the case with Geoffroy d'Anjou regarding Henry II and of course, King John the Great and his son, Henry III.

The Magnificent

 

[Kaleidoscope]

These are my thoughts on it as well. Genetics play a role in someones skills and abilities, no doubt, but it's not the deciding factor. Great individuals sometimes produce terrible stock, such is the case with Geoffroy d'Anjou regarding Henry II and of course, King John the Great and his son, Henry III.

The Magnificent

lmao look at this idiot.

 

[Keinwyn]

I don't see the need for genetics. As has been pointed out (John the Magnificent gives two excellent examples) an idiot can sire a genius and vice versa.

But I would also add that just because a person was smart does not mean they were a capable or good ruler.

 

[Maestro Ugo]

I don't see the need for genetics. As has been pointed out (John the Magnificent gives two excellent examples) an idiot can sire a genius and vice versa.

But I would also add that just because a person was smart does not mean they were a capable or good ruler.

Naturally that it CAN happen, the question is only about odds and probabilities (for the complicated genotype traits at least). If you observed a group of 1000 geniuses and 1000 idiots and made careful observation of their progeny, you would no doubt conclude there are more genius-children in the genius-parent than in the idiot-parent group. That being said, there are bound to be some idiot-children in the genius-parent group and vice versa - just not as many. Things like personality, intelligence, habits and even things like food preference and political affiliation can all be inherited to some degree. When I say inherited I don't mean a one-for-one relationship, but just that genes do play a role, there is no denying that.

To depict this in a game like CK, one should build a model preferably based on the mechanisms of real genetics - it can definitely be done. The alternative is a totally random system where a die is rolled for each child and any similarity with the parent is purely coincidental. I'm not saying that that's something I couldn't live with - I probably won't even notice when I play the game, I'm just saying that having some form of attribute inheritance (again, not one-for-one) would be preferable.

And statements like "It was stupid, with a hint of unfortunate implications thrown in." stem from ignorance, In my opinion, of mistaking genetics for eugenics. There is nothing "unfortunate" in genetics whatsoever.

 

[RedRooster81]

We tend to reproduce ourselves in our children, socially as well as genetically. It rather depends on who actually raises the child. Hence the CK1 decision allowing for parental upbringing, or turning the child over to different groups of people within the royal castle. Now, I think that this should be crucial in CK2. The early pre-fostering period that is, and who is given reign over the child. If the ruling parent (you) personally oversee the child's upbringing, there should be more weight on that parent's personality, within limits. It's hard to tell whether that would be social or genetic, at this point where basic outlook on life, values, favorite activities are first being molded.

Then the fostering period (age c.7-15), when who your foster parents are will determine a lot. The level of development of the capital province where you're being fostered will also come into play, though I think they should only so much. Leaving your father's very poor barony in the Peloponnese to foster in the imperial court in Constantinople will change your life certainly, but how much should it affect your final stats, compared to your elder brother who stayed behind to learn at your father's feet? Lots of variables there. If you're a "nature" person, you might say that both brothers should turn out about the same, but if you're in the "nurture" camp, then Mr. Fancy-Pants who came back to the ancestral hill fort speaking Greek with perfect diction will be a man of a different quality than his brother, the heir. So I'm not offering any easy answers, just more questions.

 

[unmerged(226921)]

lmao look at this idiot.

There's no need to be so rude to an individual vastly more qualified to make such statements than yourself.

The Enraged

 

[Nesrie]

The problem I had with the way children grew up after genetics were taken out is it seems to be completely random now. Same events, some time period, a save and reload, completely different results. I mean sure things are based on percentages but with some level of genetic involved at least you could choose between the lowly girl with awesome stats likely to give you the best child or the idiot inbred most likely to give you a child in line to some foreign throne.

 

[RedRooster81]

Either way, I'm hoping for more balanced stats in CK2. Most people who grew up being bred to rule should be fairly competent at most areas required, and you should be able to find some decent talent to help you. By balanced I mean in general no wildly extreme stats, but interesting and unique characters at the same time. Each should have his or her own strengths and weaknesses. In an era of extremely personal politics you should not be able to attract and keep followers if you are not able to handle intrigue, diplomacy, estate management, and warfare with a decent competency.

 

[unmerged(7537)]

Some traits are congenital so if any parents have a congenital trait such as lisp then their child might get it.

What about fertility?

 

[themendios]

Either way, I'm hoping for more balanced stats in CK2. By balanced I mean in general no wildly extreme stats, but interesting and unique characters at the same time. Each should have his or her own strengths and weaknesses.

Agreed, maybe the devs can implement some kind of tethered attribute system ie if one is over 7 or under 7 then probability for the opposite on other traits? I can't think of the logic right now but that's probably because I've been coding a stupid data parser the last 16 hours straight.

Also, thanks for the reply Sol but that is only the whipped cream on the sundae I am hoping to enjoy. I am more perturbed by two prodigies having completely random children, I'm sure some kind of balance can be made between CK1, but even CK1 with all its complaints of uberchildren (imagine I used some umlauts there) didnt' approach the wild statistics of CK2 - I remember thinking 12 in vanilla was awesome and in DV 19 was awesome. It took generations of persistence to happen and quite honestly when you invest that much time into an aspect of a game then I would expect significant rewards.

Mendios I of The, the Altiloquent

 

[TempestDK]

What about fertility?

Fertility and Health were the only stats that were inherited in DV.