Babies should be born with low health

[VVicked]

Babies should be born with low health that gradually increases and reaches its peak in their adulthood, at which point it starts decreasing as they age. This should make it more likely for sickly infants to die. The babies in the game are born at the peak of their health for some reason which doesn't do justice to the infant mortality rate in the middle ages.

 

[Opanashc]

This was done on purpose, so as to not clutter the history files with lots of dead babies. Birth rates lowered in order to compensate.

 

[VVicked]

This was done on purpose, so as to not clutter the history files with lots of dead babies. Birth rates lowered in order to compensate.

I think it'd still work if Paradox removed those dead babies from the history files, sorta like miscarriages in the game. In CK2 those miscarriages would be displayed as dead babies while in CK3 they just don't show up at all.

 

[G S Palmer]

I think it'd still work if Paradox removed those dead babies from the history files, sorta like miscarriages in the game. In CK2 those miscarriages would be displayed as dead babies while in CK3 they just don't show up at all.

I think they could keep the first dead baby you have, but all others are purged from the game files after ~5 years.

 

[Dathremo]

Still surprised this is brought up so constantly

CK is not meant to be a perfect 1:1 medieval simulator

The birthrate and infant mortality aren’t realistic

If players had tons of kids die in childhood it would frustrating for most casual players and people would just complain about it and stop playing

I do think Paradox should include settings to allow players who really feel that strongly about it to alter the health stats and risk of death but otherwise the base game should not be altered

 

[VVicked]

Still surprised this is brought up so constantly

CK is not meant to be a perfect 1:1 medieval simulator

The birthrate and infant mortality aren’t realistic

If players had tons of kids die in childhood it would frustrating for most casual players and people would just complain about it and stop playing

I do think Paradox should include settings to allow players who really feel that strongly about it to alter the health stats and risk of death but otherwise the base game should not be altered

I don't think CK is meant to be a medieval simulator at all seeing that there's a lot of important simulator stuff that's not included in the game. It's more of a loosely historical RPG where your character happens to be a ruler. (By it's very nature simulators are niche and attempting to make that niche more available for the wider audience by removing the simulator-y aspects for a simpler design deprives it of the simulator status.) Having more options so that you can keep a child healthy would also be good, like making it so that you can have a dedicated baby carer (I can't think of a better title) that has a salary and makes sure your baby is healthy would remove a lot of the frustration associated with many children dying since you can dedicate some resources to keep your child healthy.

 

[G S Palmer]

a dedicated baby carer (I can't think of a better title)

Wet nurse? Governess?

 

[VVicked]

Wet nurse? Governess?

Yeah, something like that. I didn't know that governess actually meant somebody who teaches students, I thought female governors would be called that.

 

[Toybasher]

I've had a few babies kick the bucket before reaching adulthood, although it typically only happens if they get Sickly.

I do think birthrate is a little too high currently, even barren people ("Loins completely unable to give life!") can have lots of kids.

 

[Blk82]

I think it'd still work if Paradox removed those dead babies from the history files, sorta like miscarriages in the game. In CK2 those miscarriages would be displayed as dead babies while in CK3 they just don't show up at all.

In CKIII, miscarriages don't enter the history files in the first place, as the miscarriage does not generate a character.

Also, "babies" are active characters. It is entirely possible for a 0-year old to be an Emperor, and have vassals, arrange marriages, and start wars. Likewise, I tend to land babies fairly often, as a part of dynasty spam. A "dead baby" who received a county is more important to the game files than a character who was never landed. Aka, Count Deadbaby is in the list of rulers for a title, had an heir, may have engaged in war, and did all the other things that landed characters do. It is not as though "dead babies" are a class of inactive clutter in the history files.

 

[VVicked]

In CKIII, miscarriages don't enter the history files in the first place, as the miscarriage does not generate a character.

Also, "babies" are active characters. It is entirely possible for a 0-year old to be an Emperor, and have vassals, arrange marriages, and start wars. Likewise, I tend to land babies fairly often, as a part of dynasty spam. A "dead baby" who received a county is more important to the game files than a character who was never landed. Aka, Count Deadbaby is in the list of rulers for a title, had an heir, may have engaged in war, and did all the other things that landed characters do. It is not as though "dead babies" are a class of inactive clutter in the history files.

I mean... obviously? Babies that you granted land would show up in the history files while those who never received land and just died young would be removed. I don't understand what point you're trying to make.

 

[Blk82]

I mean... obviously? Babies that you granted land would show up in the history files while those who never received land and just died young would be removed. I don't understand what point you're trying to make.

If characters who die in infancy can be deleted from the game files, why not all unlanded characters? My point is that babies are not necessarily inactive characters, but could be just as "active" an any other. Therefore, they don't really constitute a class of "throwaway" characters.

Of course, I think that is beside the point, because I don't think characters can be deleted from the game file. If they could, I would imagine claimless and landless lowborns would already be purged.

 

[VVicked]

If characters who die in infancy can be deleted from the game files, why not all unlanded characters? My point is that babies are not necessarily inactive characters, but could be just as "active" an any other. Therefore, they don't really constitute a class of "throwaway" characters.

Of course, I think that is beside the point, because I don't think characters can be deleted from the game file. If they could, I would imagine claimless and landless lowborns would already be purged.

I am really confused. I didn't say anything about classes of characters that should be thrown away or not, I said that dead babies should be removed from the history files. I should have been more specific and said that 'dead babies who never held titles' should be purged. Let's say that Deady McBaby died at the age of 2 never having held any title, I think that after a few years that baby should be removed from the memory since it's unnecessary to keep them. It's not like the game is going to do anything with them.

This is assuming that characters can be deleted in the history files.

 

[G S Palmer]

Characters who don't have any living relatives/never held a title are regularly "pruned" from the game files. That's why there's a whole "make_unprunable" effect.

 

[VVicked]

Characters who don't have any living relatives/never held a title are regularly "pruned" from the game files. That's why there's a whole "make_unprunable" effect.

Oh, do dead babies (never landed) get pruned?

 

[x4077]

This was done on purpose, so as to not clutter the history files with lots of dead babies. Birth rates lowered in order to compensate.

I'm not sure we have the same definition for the word 'lowered'.

 

[Opanashc]

I'm not sure we have the same definition for the word 'lowered'.

How does 6-7 babies for every unlanded, lowborn couple sound to you, compared to now?

 

[G S Palmer]

Oh, do dead babies (never landed) get pruned?

If they're not related to a landed or history character, then yes.

But this suggestion would expand that to any child that died before age (x).

 

[VVicked]

If they're not related to a landed or history character, then yes.

But this suggestion would expand that to any child that died before age (x).

Nope. I think babies should be pruned if they died young (and they were landless) regardless if they were related to a landed/history character. Not just any baby

 

[G S Palmer]

Nope. I think babies should be pruned if they died young (and they were landless) regardless if they were related to a landed/history character. Not just any baby

That's... what I was saying? Currently they won't be, if they have landed relatives. I'm saying they would need to be if something like this suggestion was implemented.