A plea for a return of genetics

[unmerged(226921)]

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

IIRC Traits tended to be inherited, or at least the chance to gain your fathers traits were higher.

The Great

 

[SaberHRE]

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.

I absolutely agree. A father or mother can pass on genes to their children, but not success, or guarantee that the will be good rulers.

I really like your foster period idea.

 

[tretii_sleva]

No no no, we are not dogs with bread traits, genetics may us only help in general. For example father with 9/9/9/9 has a son, and with good teachers around him he might reach his own 9/9/9/9. So genetics is only predisposition to achieve more then average individual would in the same situation.

 

[performer]

I would like the genetics just for optical reasons ... I want to breed my stunning gaelic-arab beauties NOW

 

[Xain]

I would like the genetics just for optical reasons ... I want to breed my stunning gaelic-arab beauties NOW

I think that this kind of "genetics" is implemented in the game, insofar as the physical traits wil be "hereditary".

The post was more about hereditary "disposition", in game terms hereditary stats, e.g. father good marshal --> son good marshal.

 

[Gwyn ap Nud]

I would like the genetics just for optical reasons ... I want to breed my stunning gaelic-arab beauties NOW

Well OBVIOUSLY
Wasn't so fun in CK1, being as 99% of the girls were uuuugly.
Also, the genetic hairstyle was a little silly. My Crovans kept the same bloody hairstyle for 200 years!

 

[RedRooster81]

Well OBVIOUSLY
Wasn't so fun in CK1, being as 99% of the girls were uuuugly.
Also, the genetic hairstyle was a little silly. My Crovans kept the same bloody hairstyle for 200 years!

Ha! I know. And I could point out a few dynasties just based on their hairstyle, and even cadet lines. It was rather bad in Iberia, where the Kings of Navarra, Castile, and Leon all looked distinctive in 1066, and their sons usually looked identical to them. I always hoped that the more attractive French hairstyles would be 'inherited' by my Castilians.

 

[Nick B II]

IIRC Traits tended to be inherited, or at least the chance to gain your fathers traits were higher.

The Great

In theory this was true.

But in practice the percentage difference was so low that nobody noticed in-game.

Nick

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

Personally I find CK1 more interesting without the 'breeding', getting a idiot heir after a superhuman ruler always creates a lot of fun and excitement

 

[Nuril]

Personally I find CK1 more interesting without the 'breeding', getting a idiot heir after a superhuman ruler always creates a lot of fun and excitement

But it isn't a in-born limit that's random, right? If he/she gets a decent education and is raised by good/intelligent people then certainly they should average a lot better stats even if not literally inherited? If not then I disagree, because that'd be silly. Certainly sometimes brilliant individuals leave realms to incompetent offspring, but there's other reasons for why they're incompetents the majority of times.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

I am not argueing that, I was just stating what is more 'fun' for me.

 

[themendios]

I am not argueing that, I was just stating what is more 'fun' for me.

I think the opposite, completely random children was immersion-breaking.

Have a child? Roll a 2d6 per stat. Who care who their parents were, maybe they'll get a 5% chance of also being stubborn.

 

[Nick B II]

But it isn't a in-born limit that's random, right?

Yup.

Since DV every year every kid gets a random stat increase.

If he/she gets a decent education and is raised by good/intelligent people then certainly they should average a lot better stats even if not literally inherited? If not then I disagree, because that'd be silly. Certainly sometimes brilliant individuals leave realms to incompetent offspring, but there's other reasons for why they're incompetents the majority of times.

It strikes me that the core problem with your argument is that you're assuming that mom and dad are actually involved in raising their children, and haven't fobbed off all child-rearing duties on some poor servant.

Moreover it strikes me that IRL there's always a reason somebody's incompetent, and it's very rare for that reason to be that his Mom sucked at math (bad Stew), or his Dad didn't have the upper-arm strength to swing a sword (bad Mil).

Keep in mind that one major difference between CK2 and RL is that CK2 characters with 115 IQ points are just as likely to be incompetent as characters with 85 IQ. Remember CK2 professions are Chancellor, Spymaster, Soldier, Priest, and Steward. And there are a lot of very smart people I know who would be total failures in life if those were the only jobs available.

Nick

 

[Nuril]

You misunderstand me, Nick.

Yup. Since DV every year every kid gets a random stat increase.

This meant "It isn't a randomized pre-determined stat change that determines the competency of the child regardless of parents (genes) or upbringing (nurture), right? That would be ridiculous." and is talking about CK2. As is the thread. There shouldn't be a random "TIME FOR AN IDIOT!" mechanism if nothing in his actual life would make that plausible.

It strikes me that the core problem with your argument is that

Arugment? I was asking a question and expressing what I think is wrong with that "randomized" outlook, if it was the case.

you're assuming that mom and dad are actually involved in raising their children, and haven't fobbed off all child-rearing duties on some poor servant.

..No. I, in fact, stated the opposite. See "If he/she gets a decent education and is raised by good/intelligent people". That can clearly mean anyone that is good/intelligent, whether their parents or not. If raised by an incompetent uncle or servant then obviously the character should take after their ways and NOT magically be inherently stronger. I am NOT a proponent of making it a "breeding Ubermensch" game. If genetics had an effect in the game it should mostly be with being prone or not prone to certain diseases and the effects of good/bad looks. Intelligence is mostly (it would certainly work in a biological sense to do "eugenics" based on intelligence, but it simply didn't happen that way in the game and would not be sufficiently noticable) based on nurture, not nature, and thus is a silly thing to have in the game.

Moreover it strikes me that IRL there's always a reason somebody's incompetent, and it's very rare for that reason to be that his Mom sucked at math (bad Stew), or his Dad didn't have the upper-arm strength to swing a sword (bad Mil).

Are you kidding me? Studies have even found that having books present in the house increases the likelyhood for intelligent offspring. You don't have to read them. They don't have to read them. Just that they're "there" creates a better attitude towards knowledge. Is it some big coincidence that fat people often have fat children and nothing to do with the kids directly having the diet of the parents? That physically active (good Mil) people would be more inclined to have their children be physically active as well? Not having adults capable of solving [math] problems you're having trouble understanding doesn't reduce the chances you'll become better than your current limit at math? This, quite honestly, just sounds crazy and nonsensical to me. These ARE reasons why someone is incompetent at something. Pretty damn big reasons.

Remember CK2 professions are Chancellor, Spymaster, Soldier, Priest, and Steward. And there are a lot of very smart people I know who would be total failures in life if those were the only jobs available.

Agreed.

 

[Diet of Worms]

To solve the superhumans in three generations problem, but retain the fun, maybe they could just tell us they implemented genetics but not actually do so...

I started playing CK with DV, and after reading an old pre-DV strategy guide, I must have spent at least a (real time) year or so carefully choosing high-stat brides for my dynasty so that their children would have good stats.

Never even occurred to me that it might not be working...

 

[RedRooster81]

Precisely, Nick. Not much childrearing was done by either parent, typically. Though there were likely exceptions. Once they reached a certain age, sure, say 7 or 8 or 10 they could attend at court if they were heirs and not fostered out. But by that age boys became pages to another knight and girls were supervised by a woman other than their mothers. I would bet that wet nurses were all the rage, though I don't know exactly. In very small households it was probably different, but I don't imagine that kings spent very much time with their children, even their heirs until they came of age. Which is why parental upbringing is potentially an important thing to decide on, but it should be an uncommon choice.

And I find myself agreeing with Nuril as well. Having a library, a monastic school, a monastery in the first place should have a good effect, as well as having good councilors who would overlook different parts of the education of the lord's children and fosterlings. So it is like feudalism, knowing who to delegate things to, and having those people know who to delegate to in turn.

 

[Nuril]

Precisely, Nick. Not much childrearing was done by either parent, typically. Though there were likely exceptions. Once they reached a certain age, sure, say 7 or 8 or 10 they could attend at court if they were heirs and not fostered out. But by that age boys became pages to another knight and girls were supervised by a woman other than their mothers. I would bet that wet nurses were all the rage, though I don't know exactly. In very small households it was probably different, but I don't imagine that kings spent very much time with their children, even their heirs until they came of age. Which is why parental upbringing is potentially an important thing to decide on, but it should be an uncommon choice.

And I find myself agreeing with Nuril as well. Having a library, a monastic school, a monastery in the first place should have a good effect, as well as having good councilors who would overlook different parts of the education of the lord's children and fosterlings. So it is like feudalism, knowing who to delegate things to, and having those people know who to delegate to in turn.

Exactly! That's a good thing. It shouldn't be random OR hard-line genetic.

 

[Panjer]

I wouldn't mind if a supertalented ruler got a terrible-stat child, I just hope there'll be an ingame reason for it instead of it being random.

 

[themendios]

I just hope it's moddable after seeing all this argument about how rl children develop.

[DEV COMMENT PANDER]

 

[RedRooster81]

I wouldn't mind if a supertalented ruler got a terrible-stat child, I just hope there'll be an ingame reason for it instead of it being random.

Because the heir to the throne is really the son of... the court jester. The first clue should have been returning from a five-year crusading bout and three years imprisoned in Algeria to find that you have five more children than you did before you left.