Less women

[Mr. Capiatlist]

Let's keep the discussion to the balance of men and women in game, and not let it wander off that.

 

[Taylor138]

The issue with all of this really comes down to the fact that men die EXTREMELY more often then women in the game so if you you see the AI ruler with 2 sons but 3 daughters it’s really not an issue until you look back up in a year or so and notice both sons and even there sons have all died in different situations and scenarios, but the daughters are kicking strong with 20 children of lowborn dynasties ready to inherit with open arms. Otherwise the gender breakdown wouldn’t be so bad but that’s not the case sadly.

 

[Chlodio]

No. If you already have 5 girls the next roll will still be 49% Female and 51% male. And even if: Also there are millions of players. 2% of them will get it. That's still a high number

No, that's literally the probability of outcome calculation. I don't have to argue that the sky is blue, I can objective prove it with a code. Here is a simple java simulation I did:

import java.util.Random;

public class Probablity{
    public static Random randy = new Random();

     public static void main(String []args){
        
        int a = 0;
        for(int x = 0; x < 100; x++){
            a += getGroup();
        }
        System.out.println((a/100)+"/"+100);
     }
    
     public static int getGroup(){
        String[] s = new String[100];
        int a = 0;
        String t = "";
        for(int x = 0; x < s.length; x++){
            t = getVal(6);
            if (t.equals("000000") || t.equals("111111")){
                a++;
            }
        }
        return a;
     }
    
    
     public static String getVal(int i){
         String v = "";
         for (int x = 0; x < i ; x++){
             v += String.valueOf(randint(2));
         }
         return v;
     }
    
     public static int randint(int i){
         return randy.nextInt(i);
     }
}

It asks the simple question that if 100 people all have exactly six children, what percentage of those parents only have same-sex children, and repeats the process 100 times, and subdivides it by 100, which gets 3 out of 100 on average, which is 3%.

 

[Gurkhal]

There are reasons to not buy CK3 like Fervor being wonky or frustrating partition succession or obnoxious seduction events or simply being satisfied with CK2. Being bad at statistics however is not a particularly good reason to not get a game.

I feel that I must clarify myself on the post you replied to.

When reading your post I get the impression that you mean I was ironic or sarcastic as in meaning that what I meant was that many women characters was a reason to not get the game or that I have an issue with many women characters in the game.

As I don't want to give anyone the impression that I dislike women characters in the game I feel that I must clarify that I find it a good mechanic with many women characters in the game. I like it very much and that's what I think that I wrote. I renounce, if anyone thinks otherwise, sexism in all and any form in and beyond gaming.

And the reason for me wanting women characters is that I've come to find women to often be more interesting to read about in history and literature than men counterparts and thus I find it a promesing thing that there will be many women characters in a game with a focus on RP. Especially with the experience of a lack of women characters in Imperator.

Hence many women characters in the game is a reason for me to get this game.

And I apologize that I didn't write my short post longer to avoid this misunderstanding.

I'm not the best communicator but I hope I have managed to make my meaning come across through the screens to you and others who read this thread.

 

[Nevars]

On the other hand it's very unlikely: 1-(1/2)^6=98% chance for male on the sixth roll.

I wish the probability literally work like that, I would have ton of ssr in gacha if it work like that.

import java.util.Random;

public class Probablity{
public static Random randy = new Random();

public static void main(String []args){

int a = 0;
for(int x = 0; x < 100; x++){
a += getGroup();
}
System.out.println((a/100)+"/"+100);
}

public static int getGroup(){
String[] s = new String[100];
int a = 0;
String t = "";
for(int x = 0; x < s.length; x++){
t = getVal(6);
if (t.equals("000000") || t.equals("111111")){
a++;
}
}
return a;
}


public static String getVal(int i){
String v = "";
for (int x = 0; x < i ; x++){
v += String.valueOf(randint(2));
}
return v;
}

public static int randint(int i){
return randy.nextInt(i);
}
}

It asks the simple question that if 100 people all have exactly six children, what percentage of those parents only have same-sex children, and repeats the process 100 times, and subdivides it by 100, which gets 3 out of 100 on average, which is 3%.

But do the game code does it like that though?

A lot of game don't seem to do that, especially gacha game so I don't think we have to default every game probability have to work like that instead of you know how the probability work.

 

[Karlington]

On the other hand it's very unlikely: 1-(1/2)^6=98% chance for male on the sixth roll.

No. If you already have 5 girls the next roll will still be 49% Female and 51% male. And even if: Also there are millions of players. 2% of them will get it. That's still a high number

No, that's literally the probability of outcome calculation. I don't have to argue that the sky is blue, I can objective prove it with a code. Here is a simple java simulation I did:

[...]

It asks the simple question that if 100 people all have exactly six children, what percentage of those parents only have same-sex children, and repeats the process 100 times, and subdivides it by 100, which gets 3 out of 100 on average, which is 3%.

Two different issues.

The chance of having six children of the same sex may be 2-3%. You both agree on that.

However, let's say you already have five children of the same sex. When a sixth child is born, what are the odds of that child being the same sex? The chance is 50/50 (or 51/49, as it were). For anyone who disputes this, see the gambler's fallacy.

 

[Tuo]

No, that's literally the probability of outcome calculation. I don't have to argue that the sky is blue, I can objective prove it with a code. Here is a simple java simulation I did:

import java.util.Random;

public class Probablity{
    public static Random randy = new Random();

     public static void main(String []args){
       
        int a = 0;
        for(int x = 0; x < 100; x++){
            a += getGroup();
        }
        System.out.println((a/100)+"/"+100);
     }
   
     public static int getGroup(){
        String[] s = new String[100];
        int a = 0;
        String t = "";
        for(int x = 0; x < s.length; x++){
            t = getVal(6);
            if (t.equals("000000") || t.equals("111111")){
                a++;
            }
        }
        return a;
     }
   
   
     public static String getVal(int i){
         String v = "";
         for (int x = 0; x < i ; x++){
             v += String.valueOf(randint(2));
         }
         return v;
     }
   
     public static int randint(int i){
         return randy.nextInt(i);
     }
}

It asks the simple question that if 100 people all have exactly six children, what percentage of those parents only have same-sex children, and repeats the process 100 times, and subdivides it by 100, which gets 3 out of 100 on average, which is 3%.

But that's not the question you were presenting before - "How likely is it that all 6 children are girls?" is a completely different question than "How likely is it that the sixth child is not a girl like the 5 previous ones?". And it's gambler's fallacy to look at the latter and to assume it is the former.

 

[Ezumiyr]

The same thing as in CK2, the odds having many daughters on a row are astronomically low with a coin flip-style, yet it was frequent, but only with daughters. One could have suspected that dev implemented alleles system:

But no dev never admitted it, so I don't know.

This is much more likely to be confirmation bias.
It's extremely rare to get only sons or daughters in CK2, but we tend to remember it when it happens.

 

[Carewolf2]

interesting. the real problem, IMHO, is all the men getting armour for their 16th birthday and running off to be hacked to death

Yeah they should add "forbid son from being knight" to the list of "issues".. I keep having to remind myself to do it when the first son or two dies in a battle.

 

[Taylor138]

I don't do females so I'll pass. But what I especially dislike is having them foisted down on me in my personal entertainment (ref Ray 'Mary-Sue' Skywalker, among many examples in recent years).




Using the console is mandatory at this point, if only to force that plethora of female rulers to use matrilineal unions, or stabilize religious fervor.

I’ve used the console for literally every aspect of the game to keep it from exploding. At this point I’m exhausted from it.

 

[Beyond Disbelief]

I wish the probability literally work like that, I would have ton of ssr in gacha if it work like that.


But do the game code does it like that though?

A lot of game don't seem to do that, especially gacha game so I don't think we have to default every game probability have to work like that instead of you know how the probability work.

Gacha games don't actually work on probability. It's almost scam like but there's a whole science in it descending from collectable baseball card days to with prepackaged/sorted rarities and such to ensure better distriubtion and more enjoyment for the consumer. There was a nice talk on this very recently I forgot if it's GDC or White Nights (I think GDC).

However, when you play mobile games its pretty blatantly obvious some games chests are just scams since the community consistently won't get the desired items until the end of the event even though they're supposedly opening the same chest, and even then the chance is small artificially inducing everyone having to make a purchase or just not get the item. Some won't even bother trying to hide it and enforce a supposed random item to be always the last 2 to be drawn out of 25.

All the math stuff

There was one lonely boring evening I forced myself to reconcile and fully understand Gambler's Fallacy vs Regression to the Mean. There was one very helpful stackexchange responder who said one must separate probablistic facts from statistical observations.

Gambler's Fallacy is flawed because it assumes every iteration has memory of the previous. Just because you birthed a girl the game is not accounting for that on your next child. 49% for a girl is still 49%.

Regression to the Mean is a statsitical measure that only comes to play with very large quantities and largely not useful in any situation where you're tempted by Gambler's Fallacy. Trying to guess or "math out" the chances that you land somewhere on the statistical distribution curve is entirely irrelevant, that next child is still 49% chance of being a girl for you.

I'm not sure how to simplify it further but I was struggling with this a bit too and just forced myself to mull over it all evening. Once you understood it you can finally realize Gambler's Fallacy doesn't contradict Regression to the Mean at all and both remain true.

One's experience with Gacha games or loot boxes in various games is NOT a good reference because those are largely manipulated (for good or for bad) to either maximize consumer happiness or profits or both. One common mechanic is guaranteeing an epic item after every 10 packs you open, whether or not they tell the consumer about it is a strategic chocie by the PM.

CK3 is not guaranteeing your 6th child will be a boy.

 

[Beyond Disbelief]

On the other hand it's very unlikely: 1-(1/2)^6=98% chance for male on the sixth roll.

A lot of people even when educated in math greatly undersestimate the significance of 2%. A lot of times when they see single digit probability they stop planning for the adverse and take for granted assuming it just won't happen, that's very poor decision making and practice.


If you play cards, that's about the chance of you drawing Ace of Spades (1/52).

I'm sure most of us have drawn Ace of Spades while playing cards.

Or walking down the hallway and knock on 3 classrooms looking for that 2% individual, that's not a lot of effort.


If someone told me I had 2% chance to die over something I have no control over, I would be freaking the hell out, not relieved.

 

[Kikuchad]

Gacha games don't actually work on probability. It's almost scam like but there's a whole science in it descending from collectable baseball card days to with prepackaged/sorted rarities and such to ensure better distriubtion and more enjoyment for the consumer. There was a nice talk on this very recently I forgot if it's GDC or White Nights (I think GDC).

However, when you play mobile games its pretty blatantly obvious some games chests are just scams since the community consistently won't get the desired items until the end of the event even though they're supposedly opening the same chest, and even then the chance is small artificially inducing everyone having to make a purchase or just not get the item. Some won't even bother trying to hide it and enforce a supposed random item to be always the last 2 to be drawn out of 25.




There was one lonely boring evening I forced myself to reconcile and fully understand Gambler's Fallacy vs Regression to the Mean. There was one very helpful stackexchange responder who said one must separate probablistic facts from statistical observations.

Gambler's Fallacy is flawed because it assumes every iteration has memory of the previous. Just because you birthed a girl the game is not accounting for that on your next child. 49% for a girl is still 49%.

Regression to the Mean is a statsitical measure that only comes to play with very large quantities and largely not useful in any situation where you're tempted by Gambler's Fallacy. Trying to guess or "math out" the chances that you land somewhere on the statistical distribution curve is entirely irrelevant, that next child is still 49% chance of being a girl for you.

I'm not sure how to simplify it further but I was struggling with this a bit too and just forced myself to mull over it all evening. Once you understood it you can finally realize Gambler's Fallacy doesn't contradict Regression to the Mean at all and both remain true.

One's experience with Gacha games or loot boxes in various games is NOT a good reference because those are largely manipulated (for good or for bad) to either maximize consumer happiness or profits or both. One common mechanic is guaranteeing an epic item after every 10 packs you open, whether or not they tell the consumer about it is a strategic chocie by the PM.

CK3 is not guaranteeing your 6th child will be a boy.

Simple way to see it. Each births is statiscally independent. Thus each time you have a child there is a 51% chance it's a boy.

However, the chance that for six of these events it lands everytime on "female" is really low.

On the other hand, if you throw a hundred coins, the chance of landing 6 heads or 6tails in a row somewhere is 80%.
For only tails or only heads it's ~50%. So the chance of seeing series of same gender gets quite high the more you play.

 

[Beyond Disbelief]

Simple way to see it. Each births is statiscally independent. Thus each time you have a child there is a 51% chance it's a boy.

However, the chance that for six of these events it lands everytime on "female" is really low.

On the other hand, if you throw a hundred coins, the chance of landing 6 heads or 6tails in a row somewhere is 80%.
For only tails or only heads it's ~50%. So the chance of seeing series of same gender gets quite high the more you play.

Using "chance" to describe statistics is a bit misleading but a common one because they use similar/related math. But the easiest way to logic this out is:


Probability influences statistics.

Statistics cannot influence probability.


Statistically, it is not uncommon see a series of the same coin flip along the distribution.

However, every coin flip is still 50% (or in the case of CK3 genders, 49% chance of female).

 

[Brian Bóroimhe]

Leaving the mathematical digression aside, no explanation beyond confirmation bias is needed.

I guess if childbirth had a higher mortality rate it would balance out all the men dying in battles. I think I've come across it twice so far? Should probably be a lot more common considering the time the game is set in.

 

[Glorblach]

Confirmation bias? Bah! I had 14 children, one male child died. So I had 9 male children left, and 4 women. Which means less marriage game, and man, did the partitioning "cause some interesting times". So, less male, more female!

 

[Beyond Disbelief]

Leaving the mathematical digression aside, no explanation beyond confirmation bias is needed.

I guess if childbirth had a higher mortality rate it would balance out all the men dying in battles. I think I've come across it twice so far? Should probably be a lot more common considering the time the game is set in.

You mean death during childbirth for the mother? If they try to simulate that they'd have to vastly increase infant mortality rates as well (not to mention baby boys are more likely to die than baby girls, so the slightly higher boy birth rate is evolution compensating for it) which get into a whole slew of can of worms that I and I suspect many others are not comfortable with in a game which ultimate goal is intended for entertainment, even if its a dynasty simulation.

 

[CrazyHeadGamer]

same here. i always have mostly daughters

 

[kgmi]

You mean death during childbirth for the mother? If they try to simulate that they'd have to vastly increase infant mortality rates as well (not to mention baby boys are more likely to die than baby girls, so the slightly higher boy birth rate is evolution compensating for it) which get into a whole slew of can of worms that I and I suspect many others are not comfortable with in a game which ultimate goal is intended for entertainment, even if its a dynasty simulation.

Add to that the mortality rate of CK 3 knights and you will be on your last Dynasty member and the Game Over warning pending a couple of decades into the campaign lol.

I have played a total of a bout 300 years through different runs and I have not encountered a gender issue of newborns in my runs. I wouldn't dismiss the claims of so many posters as confirmation bias tho. at this stage of the game it wouldn't surprise me if something can bug out or if there are hidden genetics that force women or men to produce boys / girls at an unusual amount.

 

[klopkr]

Add to that the mortality rate of CK 3 knights and you will be on your last Dynasty member and the Game Over warning pending a couple of decades into the campaign lol.

I have played a total of a bout 300 years through different runs and I have not encountered a gender issue of newborns in my runs. I wouldn't dismiss the claims of so many posters as confirmation bias tho. at this stage of the game it wouldn't surprise me if something can bug out or if there are hidden genetics that force women or men to produce boys / girls at an unusual amount.

It is sad that literally every knight dies early if you declare enough wars.

How often did male rulers and heirs die in battles irl?

I imagine a lot of male pretenders died conveniently early during the era but I imagine it's not from constantly fighting 3000 peasants by yourself like happens in ck3.