Do people not realize how shitty healthcare was in medieval times?

[napoleon_mayo]

I don't think people are dying ENOUGH. Also if you manage to get past the age of 30 you would have considered yourself lucky.

I can't believe people are saying people are dying too much in this game, and yet they are playing a game that is supposed to be a medieval simulator. My goodness.

Edit: Ever had strep throat? Want to know what would have happened if you didn't get antibiotics? The infection would spread to your heart and you would die. Ever had an abscess on your knee? Nathan Mayer Rothschild the richest man in the world in the 19th century died of that because antibiotics weren't around yet.

 

[Soladept]

mortality rates get exageratted because infant mortality was severe enough to alter the averages, if a child survived into adulthood they could expect to live to be elderly, assuming war or crime didnt kill them. yes, people died a lot more from sickness, but it wasnt to the point where nobody lived to be 40



i think the game actualy needs to tone down the non epidemic sicknesses slightly, maybe by 15%, the characters modeled in the game are noble rulers and their court after all, epidemics are fine although. The game could also make getting sick more common/dangerous for children, to reflect child mortality rates, people had lots children because half of them dying before adulthood or having stillborns was common, even for nobles.

as it stands now i can have ten children and all of them usualy live to be adults ingame.

 

[DukeDayve]

Royalty and rich people tended to live longer due to the better food they had.

 

[Ternega]

I think people trying to argue historicity one way or the other are wasting their time. Hospitals in the timespan of the game were rare as platinum, oh sure greece/italy had a few, and later with the plague and general development of healthcare they become more and more commonplace, but mostly you had personal physicians of royalty, town healers half of whom were hacks, and military hospitals.

The argument shouldn't be about "this is historical" vs "no it isn't". The real question is if current rate of mortality is detrimental or beneficial to gameplay. I personally find the affair amusing, and don't have much of a problem with any aspect of it because I happily abuse ambitions/foci and lovers to expand my dynasty to an unkillable size. But it does get silly every now and then as far as how many people who leave my personal court where my 20+ Professional medkits reside.

 

[napoleon_mayo]

I think people trying to argue historicity one way or the other are wasting their time. Hospitals in the timespan of the game were rare as platinum, oh sure greece/italy had a few, and later with the plague and general development of healthcare they become more and more commonplace, but mostly you had personal physicians of royalty, town healers half of whom were hacks, and military hospitals.

The argument shouldn't be about "this is historical" vs "no it isn't". The real question is if current rate of mortality is detrimental or beneficial to gameplay. I personally find the affair amusing, and don't have much of a problem with any aspect of it because I happily abuse ambitions/foci and lovers to expand my dynasty to an unkillable size. But it does get silly every now and then as far as how many people who leave my personal court where my 20+ Professional medkits reside.

I agree that hospitals shouldn't be in the game but I don't think diseases need to be toned down. I don't think historical accuracy should ever take a backseat to gameplay. I think this game should be much harder than it currently is.

What I would like to see is diseases not affecting nobility as much as it affects your levies/taxes. Rich people got a lot less sick than the masses did.

 

[Metz]

Hospitals should be rare like the early universities that were set up in Italy.

 

[Ternega]

i think the game actualy needs to tone down the non epidemic sicknesses slightly, maybe by 15%, the characters modeled in the game are noble rulers and their court after all, epidemics are fine although. The game could also make getting sick more common/dangerous for children, to reflect child mortality rates, people had lots children because half of them dying before adulthood or having stillborns was common, even for nobles.

as it stands now i can have ten children and all of them usualy live to be adults ingame.

Low children mortality rates for kids get brought up a lot, and some mods model it better, but there very good reasons why they are not part of the core game. They are a waste of computing time that exists only to slightly increase historicity, that very few people would either enjoy or appreciate, in exchange for a dip in performance.

I agree that hospitals shouldn't be in the game but I don't think diseases need to be toned down. I don't think historical accuracy should ever take a backseat to gameplay. I think this game should be much harder than it currently is.

What I would like to see is diseases not affecting nobility as much as it affects your levies/taxes. Rich people got a lot less sick than the masses did.

On your first point - this is a game not a research project. If you value historicity this much i'd advise checking out HiP.

On your second point - prosperity/depopulation do that quite well I find.

 

[Sunspawn]

I have yet to see a depopulated province. Then again, no Plague yet either, so it might come yet.

 

[aono]

I have yet to see a depopulated province. Then again, no Plague yet either, so it might come yet.

Well, I had plague outbreak with pattern "only Britain excluded" in 992, without a lot of hospitals around (because tech and cash).
Yeah. Depopulation happens.

 

[Ternega]

I have yet to see a depopulated province. Then again, no Plague yet either, so it might come yet.

Decease outbreaks first strip prosperity than start moving slider (its' hidden, I have no clue why) into negatives. Check out provinces in the middle of the outbreak, there is usually one ore two depopulated ones.

Or you can just load up a black death start date and watch the world burn.

 

[Sonmi]

I don't think people are dying ENOUGH. Also if you manage to get past the age of 30 you would have considered yourself lucky.

I can't believe people are saying people are dying too much in this game, and yet they are playing a game that is supposed to be a medieval simulator. My goodness.

Edit: Ever had strep throat? Want to know what would have happened if you didn't get antibiotics? The infection would spread to your heart and you would die. Ever had an abscess on your knee? Nathan Mayer Rothschild the richest man in the world in the 19th century died of that because antibiotics weren't around yet.

If you could live past 21, life expectancy was 64 in Medieval Europe before the bubonic plague.

https://books.google.ca/books?id=T4DLK7zLxYMC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA8&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

The notion that people were dying of disease left and right (especially the well-fed nobility) is a very widespread popular misconception.

 

[Thure]

The life expectancy during the middle ages was higher than during the early modern era. Especially since factories became a thing it was very law for a long time.

 

[JohnKR]

mortality rates get exageratted because infant mortality was severe enough to alter the averages, if a child survived into adulthood they could expect to live to be elderly, assuming war or crime didnt kill them. yes, people died a lot more from sickness, but it wasnt to the point where nobody lived to be 40

So....in game, most characters don't reach their 40s? Cause then i have to check if my game, or the games of my friends are OK cause in my game most character die from cancer or other diseaces. After their 40s. It would be better if the game was just writing natural death? There is no natural death. Even deaths that we call natural have a reason and they are a very small tiny percent even today.

[QUOTE="Ternega, post: 21782205, member: 896549"

On your first point - this is a game not a research project. If you value historicity this much i'd advise checking out HiP.

On your second point - prosperity/depopulation do that quite well I find.

[/QUOTE]

STOP WITH THAT AT LAST! This is a game. We all know that. Then what? It should have dragons maybe? Believe me this game is very far away from a research progress. But when you create a game that claims that is a grand strategy game that wants to be realistic thus unique cause there are no other games that simulate those ages so well, it should do most things by the book. Otherwise we have other games that are not trying to be realistic to play you know! ( Total War, Civilization )

If you value historicity??? We shouldn't value historicity in a game about medieval times. OK. Then what we should value? Fun Factor? Then lets play FIFA or Battlefield. They are fun.

You know in game that wants to be a historical grand strategy game that tries to simulate the challenging situations of the medieval times, HISTORICITY IS A HUGE PERCENTAGE OF THE FUN FACTOR. Of course without beeing tedious and unproductive. But thats we you have interface, and you don't have to wait for you diplomat to go somewhere, or have to eat and wait to raise the banners.

 

[aono]

HISTORICITY IS A HUGE PERCENTAGE OF THE FUN FACTOR

Yeah. Posts about, let's say, healthcare should seems just that way:
"Hello, fellow historicans. I have some data about medieval healthcare. [Data presented]. So I believe mortality rate for our characters should be tweaked that way: [way presented]. Of course I looked into another researches about healthcare, I know about popular argument about my theory - [such as this], and I refute it with another argument - [arguement presented]."
Let me check... well, starting post here looks quite another way.

 

[flammable888]

Maybe the OP is correct but if the game kept recoreds of more people who had died like he is saying would it be a problem with performance on your PC?

 

[JohnKR]

Yeah. Posts about, let's say, healthcare should seems just that way:
"Hello, fellow historicans. I have some data about medieval healthcare. [Data presented]. So I believe mortality rate for our characters should be tweaked that way: [way presented]. Of course I looked into another researches about healthcare, I know about popular argument about my theory - [such as this], and I refute it with another argument - [arguement presented]."
Let me check... well, starting post here looks quite another way.

What makes crusader kings II unique it's the realistic aproach of history and how things worked back then. That's what makes all paradox games unique. If you change that you destroy the essence of those games and what made them popular and unique in the gender. If you don't like that, then please look elsewhere.

As for your post i really don't understand your point. Is it bad to have arguments based on facts and how those can be incorporated in a fun and balanced way in the game? Isn't that how the game conceived and evolved in the first place? All paradox games?

It's like criticizing a soccer fan in a soccer game about argueing that shoots should be more realistic or this player should be better. Criticizing by telling him that "come on dude, it's a game, it has to be fun, give my shoot and goal from the center and no fatigue"

 

[ninoallen]

just gonna leave this here for you guys.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicine_in_the_medieval_Islamic_world

other places in the world were more advanced than europe and had better health care (better than obama care)

 

[aono]

What makes crusader kings II unique it's the realistic aproach of history and how things worked back then. That's what makes all paradox games unique. If you change that you destroy the essence of those games and what made them popular and unique in the gender. If you don't like that, then please look elsewhere.

As for your post i really don't understand your point. Is it bad to have arguments based on facts and how those can be incorporated in a fun and balanced way in the game? Isn't that how the game conceived and evolved in the first place? All paradox games?

It's like criticizing a soccer fan in a soccer game about argueing that shoots should be more realistic or this player should be better. Criticizing by telling him that "come on dude, it's a game, it has to be fun, give my shoot and goal from the center and no fatigue"

My point is history isn't soccer.
We don't really know what was with healthcare in medieval times, no one (at least known for me) living historican didn't saw it. We have estimates, based on archeology, evidences (unreliable), our thoughts about what's possible, hundreds of factors. So if you want to have arguements based on facts, you should first realize you don't know facts. You know some interpretations for some evidences.
So if you want to really speak about realistic approach in historical game, you should realize there are a lot of different theories about any fact, especially everyday facts. Not only everyday (let's say Paradox wanted to include Richard III of England; which traits should he have? take your pick between Tudor interpretation, Richardians one or any in-between!), but especially everyday. This automatically should make you very careful with flatness. You can be if you are absolutly sure (you can be really convinced by some interpretation), but then you should include - or at least be ready to include when any question arise - your interpretation into your arguement.
Another way you're not using facts. You're using mythology, that can be correct or not to be correct, but it's just random.
And when you're using mythology, your position have nothing common with "realistic approach to history".

 

[JohnKR]

just gonna leave this here for you guys.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicine_in_the_medieval_Islamic_world

other places in the world were more advanced than europe and had better health care (better than obama care)

Did you read the link? Look their medical methods and how much successfull they were. ( bloodletting ) Also i really don't understand the point of all this. The death rate of the game it's not very far from today's death rate worldwide. Most people who complain about it tell things that are wrong and without evidence. Like that most characters die before their 40s. That's totally untrue and i would really like evidence for that. Because in my games many of my characters get past their 40s. And 40s should start to be a dead zone, which is even one today. Most problems start at 40s and 50s ( especially heart attacks and cancer ) but today we have highest survival rate for the unlucky ones who may have them.

 

[JohnKR]

My point is history isn't soccer.
We don't really know what was with healthcare in medieval times, no one (at least known for me) living historican didn't saw it. We have estimates, based on archeology, evidences (unreliable), our thoughts about what's possible, hundreds of factors. So if you want to have arguements based on facts, you should first realize you don't know facts. You know some interpretations for some evidences.
So if you want to really speak about realistic approach in historical game, you should realize there are a lot of different theories about any fact, especially everyday facts. Not only everyday (let's say Paradox wanted to include Richard III of England; which traits should he have? take your pick between Tudor interpretation, Richardians one or any in-between!), but especially everyday. This automatically should make you very careful with flatness. You can be if you are absolutly sure (you can be really convinced by some interpretation), but then you should include - or at least be ready to include when any question arise - your interpretation into your arguement.
Another way you're not using facts. You're using mythology, that can be correct or not to be correct, but it's just random.
And when you're using mythology, your position have nothing common with "realistic approach to history".

There is no mythology in not having stents. Or is it mythology not having antibiotics? Chemotherapy?...What would you do if you had diabetes in medieval times?

I like your anthropological approach. It's good to use those when you don't want to talk with arguements and evidence. I am not saying that they were not people who survived until their 70 or 80 or even more. But that also happens in game. It's just not so easy to happen and you have to fight and be lucky for it. Thats how it was. Thats almost how it is. Look how many people have heart attacks at their 50s even today! But today we have more means to survive those things. Thats not mythology.