So a Medieval simulator but no knights, squires, and pages?

[Metz]

I've realized that all this time and after a bunch of DLC's there is no system in place that represents the rise of knights from being a young page to learning to squire to being dubbed a knight errant/knight bachelor.

Would this be fitting in game? As a way to groom characters in ones court to be loyal fighters and leaders? Perhaps you can educate others while they are paging or squiring for you and that way you have someone outside the family that you can trust and depend on.


Maybe some day there can also be the adoption button.

 

[riadach]

Surely that comes under military education?

 

[Thure]

Depending on your definition of 'knighthood'... Actually this is a very... romantic view on knighthood.

Actually you could say that every noble is already a knight.

 

[TheDungen]

There are knights in the game they are the cultural retinue for French, Norman, Occitan, German, and Breton.
There is also the tournament decision/event and the christian holy orders.

 

[Thure]

And yes. Military education is absolutelly fitting for squires. Noble quires didn't do the same as squieres from low nobility. The squieres you know about in story (the pages of knights which do the dirty jobs) is only for very low ranked boys. This is nothing a boy from high nobility would do.

 

[TheDungen]

Did a squire system like that ever even exist? Where and when?

 

[Thure]

Did a squire system like that ever even exist? Where and when?

Actually it did exist in western Europe. But for the western nobility it was mostly just an education like ingame. Send your child away to another nobles court where he learn everything.
Squires in the sense we know it, as servants of knights who work for him and did the dirty job, it was more something for the lower nobility. Somebody did need to do the job and it was a good way to climb the social ladder (to a very limited degree of course).

So the second type of squires can be ignored. And the first layer is already portrait ingame with the normal education system.

 

[Finnway]

Depending on your definition of 'knighthood'... Actually this is a very... romantic view on knighthood.

Indeed. Most of our conception of "knighthood" and "chivalry" comes from medieval and renaissance poets romanticizing knighthood rather than historical sources.

Actually you could say that every noble is already a knight.

Indeed. A knight is nothing more than an aristocrat with enough farmland to be able to afford a warhorse and heavy suit of armor. They ride around on horseback running over enemies so they don't have to risk death in battle like the peasantry.

 

[TheDungen]

Actually it did exist in western Europe. But for the western nobility it was mostly just an education like ingame. Send your child away to another nobles court where he learn everything.
Squires in the sense we know it, as servants of knights who work for him and did the dirty job, it was more something for the lower nobility. Somebody did need to do the job and it was a good way to climb the social ladder (to a very limited degree of course).

So the second type of squires can be ignored. And the first layer is already portrait ingame with the normal education system.

Western europe eh? So we're talking france and maybee england then? I'm not super informed on the matter but I always assumed it was just nonsense more or less invented during the romanticism.
As for the education system well they're redoing it so we may get more pageing and squireing from the new system.

Then again back in the days kids were usually treated like small adults so having the educated kids actually performing some kind of function would make sense, and I supose it would make it kind of like a page or a squire.

 

[frolix42]

I've realized that all this time and after a bunch of DLC's there is no system in place that represents the rise of knights from being a young page to learning to squire to being dubbed a knight errant/knight bachelor.

"Knights" generally are ranked below Barons. Usually someone if someone is referred to as a "Knight", it is because they have no higher title. I would love for playable Barons to be added to the game. I would love to have more events related to upbringing for men and women.

Would this be fitting in game? As a way to groom characters in ones court to be loyal fighters and leaders? Perhaps you can educate others while they are paging or squiring for you and that way you have someone outside the family that you can trust and depend on.

"Invite a warrior to court" does this in a really non-specific way. When you grant a courtier a title, they will love you. When you raise a male child, I think they are acting as your squire.

Maybe some day there can also be the adoption button.

You can raise someone else's child, they still aren't legally your child. If I could, I might always choose to adopt the person with the best stats in the world and make them my heir. That's a bit game breaking.

 

[Thure]

Western europe eh? So we're talking france and maybee england then? I'm not super informed on the matter but I always assumed it was just nonsense more or less invented during the romanticism.
As for the education system well they're redoing it so we may get more pageing and squireing from the new system.

Then again back in the days kids were usually treated like small adults so having the educated kids actually performing some kind of function would make sense, and I supose it would make it kind of like a page or a squire.

The knight need somebody to do his work. This isn't anything special. A lot of romanticism played a role in how we imagine it today. And as I said... it was only for low nobility. This was low nobility squires.

High nobility squires were different. Actually there education was more around noble customs... How do you interact with the people at court? It had less to do with helping a knight. It used the same term but was mostly something very different. Romanticism mixed both types a lot. At least this is what I read in the Lexikon des Mittelalters about this topic.

 

[Metz]

You can raise someone else's child, they still aren't legally your child. If I could, I might always choose to adopt the person with the best stats in the world and make them my heir. That's a bit game breaking.

I feel traits should be hidden if you don't know the person. It is already overpowered to know what people are like. Traits should slowly appear for people you are meeting and have known over time. Only extended family members should have completely visible traits since you "know" them fully, and perhaps your liege and other major characters near you (people talk and chances are you have to meet them). This is would add another reason to attending and having banquets.

To get to know people in a court you should send your chancellor or a family member to reside and get to know the court, maybe to report back on eligible women and their claims.

Wife hunting and sorting for the best traits is kind of game breaking, one would only look for the best traits. How is it possible to know dozens of women/men's traits from all around the world? Also the idea of transcontinental marriage is far-fetched. There should be restrictions based on rank and prestige. Why would a Portuguese count arrange marriage to a Russian countess for the sake of inheritance? Characters should focus marriage in places near them and as they grow in rank and their realm size increases then it would be more reasonable to marry someone a bit farther away.

 

[TheDungen]

The knight need somebody to do his work. This isn't anything special. A lot of romanticism played a role in how we imagine it today. And as I said... it was only for low nobility. This was low nobility squires.

High nobility squires were different. Actually there education was more around noble customs... How do you interact with the people at court? It had less to do with helping a knight. It used the same term but was mostly something very different. Romanticism mixed both types a lot. At least this is what I read in the Lexikon des Mittelalters about this topic.

I think you idea of what education means is somewhat coloured by the modern definition of the word though. Back in those days you learned by doing, sort of an apprenticeship in lording. Sure a high nobility page or squire for say his king wasn't a servant but he was expected to perform a practical function at court.

 

[Azarias59]

You're thinking too low. We are playing the highest of nobility here.

 

[Thure]

I think you idea of what education means is somewhat coloured by the modern definition of the word though. Back in those days you learned by doing, sort of an apprenticeship in lording. Sure a high nobility page for say his king wasn't a servant but he was expected to perform a practical function at court.

Of course. That too. Military and social education.
The problem with earlier views on squires was that the old historians mostly used literary sources. Poems and epic tales etc. And of course they were not really realistic for noble education. I mean... we don't use Harry Potter as source for Schools in England.

 

[TMSaxon]

The knight need somebody to do his work. This isn't anything special. A lot of romanticism played a role in how we imagine it today. And as I said... it was only for low nobility. This was low nobility squires.

High nobility squires were different. Actually there education was more around noble customs... How do you interact with the people at court? It had less to do with helping a knight. It used the same term but was mostly something very different. Romanticism mixed both types a lot. At least this is what I read in the Lexikon des Mittelalters about this topic.

I'm actually currently studying Chivalry for my final year at university.
Basically, knighthood as we understand it was something invented in romantic literature and by poets/story tellers later on. Knights were essentially those that were able to afford a horse, plate mail (or chainmail in the earlier period of chivalry), and had the time and training to use lances, swords, shields etc whilst mounted. Originally, "knighthood" was relatively open - even relatively poor individuals could be knights, and end up climbing the social ladder - William Marshal is literally the single best example of this, especially in English history. He went from a fourth son of minor landholder to the first Earl of Pembroke and Regent of England. Obviously, "knighthood" changed over time - one of the few constants was that it involved being mounted.
Squires and pages were more of an invention - whilst it is true that sons and daughters both were sent out to other nobles households and learnt by doing, they did not fulfill the role that you'd see in say George R.R. Martins Tales of Dunk and Egg - a knight had servants, not young nobility, for truly menial chores. Younger nobility did do chores, but lifelong "squires" weren't really a thing. Definitely not amongst the kind of nobility playable in CK2.

 

[frolix42]

I feel traits should be hidden if you don't know the person. It is already overpowered to know what people are like. Traits should slowly appear for people you are meeting and have known over time. Only extended family members should have completely visible traits since you "know" them fully, and perhaps your liege and other major characters near you (people talk and chances are you have to meet them). This is would add another reason to attending and having banquets.

To get to know people in a court you should send your chancellor or a family member to reside and get to know the court, maybe to report back on eligible women and their claims.

Maybe this could be incorporated into a realism mod, though I don't know if the game engine could be set up to dynamically hide traits from the player. From the POV of a player of CK2, it would be frustrating not to know why someone hates you, or why they are acting a certain way. Your suggestions are maybe more suited to a game with a focus on a single individual, not an entire dynasty that stretches over centuries. During a CK2 campaign, I would get sick of events relating to landless courtiers. To be frank, unless you are titled or are a potential title-holder, or are useful as a Councillor, I could not care less about that character.

Wife hunting and sorting for the best traits is kind of game breaking, one would only look for the best traits. How is it possible to know dozens of women/men's traits from all around the world? Also the idea of transcontinental marriage is far-fetched. There should be restrictions based on rank and prestige. Why would a Portuguese count arrange marriage to a Russian countess for the sake of inheritance? Characters should focus marriage in places near them and as they grow in rank and their realm size increases then it would be more reasonable to marry someone a bit farther away.

"Sorting for best traits" for purposes such as "Wife hunting" is not game-breaking on the same level as granting the player the ability to play as anyone willing to be adopted.

 

[TheDungen]

I feel traits should be hidden if you don't know the person. It is already overpowered to know what people are like. Traits should slowly appear for people you are meeting and have known over time. Only extended family members should have completely visible traits since you "know" them fully, and perhaps your liege and other major characters near you (people talk and chances are you have to meet them). This is would add another reason to attending and having banquets.

To get to know people in a court you should send your chancellor or a family member to reside and get to know the court, maybe to report back on eligible women and their claims.

Wife hunting and sorting for the best traits is kind of game breaking, one would only look for the best traits. How is it possible to know dozens of women/men's traits from all around the world? Also the idea of transcontinental marriage is far-fetched. There should be restrictions based on rank and prestige. Why would a Portuguese count arrange marriage to a Russian countess for the sake of inheritance? Characters should focus marriage in places near them and as they grow in rank and their realm size increases then it would be more reasonable to marry someone a bit farther away.

There's aproblem there, because there are probably thousands of characters in the game at any one time, keeping track about what each character knows about all others is quite a lot of extra information. Hence why we don't have hidden traits in the game.

 

[Metz]

There's aproblem there, because there are probably thousands of characters in the game at any one time, keeping track about what each character knows about all others is quite a lot of extra information. Hence why we don't have hidden traits in the game.

You mean extra profession as in processing power? All characters in game at any time are interconnected already by opinion modifiers. The hiding of traits of strangers would be a thing of not knowing anything to gradually being exposed once you have someone you know in the same court with them. Then everyone in that court would have their traits be exposed eventually.

 

[Metz]

Maybe this could be incorporated into a realism mod, though I don't know if the game engine could be set up to dynamically hide traits from the player. From the POV of a player of CK2, it would be frustrating not to know why someone hates you, or why they are acting a certain way. Your suggestions are maybe more suited to a game with a focus on a single individual, not an entire dynasty that stretches over centuries. During a CK2 campaign, I would get sick of events relating to landless courtiers. To be frank, unless you are titled or are a potential title-holder, or are useful as a Councillor, I could not care less about that character.

There wouldn't be events of any sort, it would be either traits appearing after you hear more about the person (no need for a notifier over this) or sending someone to go to a foreign court to know what people are like over there as a way to choose a bride.