So many 60-year-olds... The medieval median age was 21. The median age in CK3 seems to be 45.
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
Why are all characters so old in this game?
So many 60-year-olds... The medieval median age was 21. The median age in CK3 seems to be 45.
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
Most Noblemen don't actually fight in wars in CK which is kind of insane
Peasants it was 20-35. So they got married very young and had kids very young in high numbers, which was common for everyone for thousands of years before and many centuries after. I mean shit in ancient Rome, if you made it to the age of 10, you were officially declared a man due to the harshness of childhood. Similar mentality in the middle ages.
Nobles it was anywhere from 40 to 90. Depending on locations,wealth,war,disease and position of power and influence.
Oldest medieval member of my ancestral household was 87 years old 1182 to 1269, buried in the family crypt. Oldest ever ancestor was 104 and they were born in 1741 and died in 1846 just weeks before their 105th birthday.
Considering 95% of Medieval warfare was fought by professional noblemen and the fully equipped state and feudal armies of "freemen", it is quite shocking they overlooked that fact.
They seem to think that the vast majority of armies were comprised solely of peasants with little training and little equipment such as scythes and basic hammers, which was only true till around the late 900's CE in most west and central European lands. East Europe didn't change till around the 1300's iirc.
tl;dr
>Nobles it was anywhere from 40 to 90.
Capetians had life expectancy of 40 and the Byzantine Emperor of 52. So, not I don't think any place had a life expectancy of 60.
>Oldest medieval member of my ancestral household was 87
Of course, life expectancy is just an average, and you occasionally had outliers like Dandolo or Narses who made it to 90.
Assassination was also uncommon in the middle ages and I don't think the games vassal system remotely accurately portrays the majority of governments in the era. It's a video game, you'll have to use your imagination to role play.
That's expected, the game by design is based on typical fiction based on the medieval era, IIRC they changed the age of historical characters to match their TV show counterparts
It is, nobility was literally "men who fight",
I don't get what is the point knights limit, why can't all your male courtiers fight?
For the same reason kings and emperors are hardcapped on the amount of MAAs they can use, and why primogeniture is locked by tech which itself is locked by the date: arbitrary restrictions designed to slow down the player's inevitable blobbing
Why not just scale MAA cost relative to the number of MAA you use?
Like let's may maintenance cost 1 gold per month
>you hire one MAA it costs 1 gold per month
>you hire two MAA it costs 4 gold (2×2)
>you hire three MAA it costs you 9 gold (3×3)
That way everybody can afford some MAA, and big blobs can have as many as they like but they will bankrupt themself for sake of having marginally more MAA
The truth really is that they're ugly as frick, 3D characters were a mistake especially since they don't do anything with them except gay poses, I'd rather have nice 2D art for events than seeing two poorly made characters staring at each other
boomer
moron
They look like the sims 3 townie brown potato blobs
>since they don't do anything with them except gay poses
This, why can't they bothered to put them in different poses for events (instead of just giving them different facial expressions and clothing), like if the event says the characters are kissing, can you please make the character kiss instead of just standing aside looking at different directions?
Too much work, buy the next DLC goy
>like if the event says the characters are kissing, can you please make the character kiss instead of just standing aside looking at different directions?
But it's realistic for the target audience.
Also their artstyle is not distinctive so every character over the world has the same smoothed look, it feels like a mobile game.
>when one of the three new gimmicks among all the cut content is fricking 3D full body emojis
Paradox moment
nah, they look fine
ck2 art was dogshit and you don't get proper genetics when everything consists of a number of set pieces that can't deform
definition of corporate art direction
It's more like there's no art direction, as the faces are pretty lifelike.
Old rulers meant that you used to be able to matrilineally marry your daughters/granddaughters etc to the direct male heir great-grandchildren of the most powerful rulers in the world to get your dynasty everywhere and the AI wouldn't realise what you were doing. They might have changed that though.
The map is also awful. CK2's map is genuinely better.
>The map is also awful. CK2's map is genuinely better.
At least Far East is better
>map
Why did CK3 get rid of unique escutcheon for all different government types?
Five dollar future DLC goy
This ticked me off when I tried playing through CK3. The fact that diplomacy map mode was gone and also the fact that Muslims did not have their own COAs made figuring out who is friend or foe a fricking nightmare.
>The fact that diplomacy map mode
can't have too many map mode, it would confuse the normies
It's just Johan being moronic and wanting le epic all-in-one mapmode
At least they stopped pushing terrain mapmode as the default
Johan had nothing to do with CK2 and CK3, it is all Henrik (Doomark), at the time of CK3 he was focused on Imperator. You can't just blame everything PDX does on Johan.
They never stopped pushing the terrain map mode.
They just integrated it into the political map mode so you cant even turn it off.
Why are they obsessed with terrain map? I don't give a frick about terrain especially when terrain is statistic and does not show the impact of defestration.
What I don't get is why they made CK3 map so soulless and ugly compared the Imperator one if they wanted so hard people to use the terrain mode.
Because CK3 was in developed for 5 years, and Imperator only two years. Imperator was built on a newer engine, while CK3 was built on something a bit more advanced than the engine HOI4 is using.
Oh yeah sounds right. I remember devs saying something along this lines when people asked why they didn't include some of the cultures and provinces fixes that were already in ck2: "Ck3 development started before this ck2 patch was out". Well, I think the culture and province fix a bit of a bullshit, they must have simply forgot about it, a 5 minutes edit can't be so hard to make while they do other stuff. They simply didn't care to have everything fine and ready.
You've literally proved his point, morono.
that isn't a vanilla map from CK2, it is HIP map
why would he drew a comparison between the bland vanilla CK3 map and a modded CK2 map, implying CK3 version was better?
most likely a google search found from HIP subreddit
Again in CK2 vanilla Europe is nice, rest of the world is pretty shit
Maybe it's just my autism but I like when provinces snap in place, but clearly the devs thought giving each province as many adjacent provinces as possible was a priority.
I didn't imply CK3 was better in any way. It's worse than vanilla CK2 in many ways and much worse than the modded CK2 map that comes integrated with HIP that anyone should be playing with. I was reinforcing the opinion of that man by posting a visual representation.
Listen to this anon. We had interesting portraits and now we have this sassy crossed arms zoomer pose that feels completely out of place in the historical setting. And why do all women have either resting b***h face or strong independent womyn face.
3d portraits are good, there's nothing good about 2d sprites
moron
absolute moron
It might have something to do with how the game artificially suppresses the number of children unimportant characters have.
how and why?
Characters get a maximum number of children based on how important/highly ranked they are. If you've noticed your unlanded courtiers never seem to have more than 1 or two children while your own loins veritably explode
I always thought the fixed limit was a lazy thing to do.
I understand the idea of limiting the population growth, but the devs don't get the medieval population growth so they can't mimic.
From 1000 to 1300 AD, it is estimated that the population of Europe DOUBLED, it took THREE CENTURIES for it to double. In CK3 the population QUADRUPLES within a DECADE and continues ridiculously linear growth because most characters live up to 60, every ruler has nine children, and all of them marry and have children of their own.
There is no reason for an arbitrary fertility cap when the population itself would remain stable, if all rulers wouldn't be able to carry all their children, this could be done by each marriage costing gold relatively to their rank.
The issue is that I'm pretty sure infant mortality was insanely high even for nobility. The fact that every child except for the rare exception survives into adulthood is the real issue. Dynastic continuation SHOULD be a real issue for the player at every stage of the game.
Shills would argue that an abundance of dead 0 would impact the performance.
But at the same time nobody seems to understand that if you don't have infant deaths, you have to drastically decrease fertility. The average ruler would be lucky if 5 of their kids reached age of 20
>that an abundance of dead 0 would impact the performance
I don't understand why it would, with how much I've used the debug mode I've noticed that it looks like dead characters get put in their own register in ck3 and old living character numbers get reused
I mean it would take memory, no?
everything takes memory, but living characters use up a shitload more processing power with every decision every single one makes at every single second of the game, and dead characters are basically just static stat sheets that get pulled up when you look at them.
>In CK3 the population QUADRUPLES within a DECADE
How do you know that im interested
The average character is pretty much never at risk of death from anything but instakills from random events, so they just keep living. War only kills knights and commanders (unless the capital's taken and even then it's only ~2 courtiers), contagious diseases are a rare event bound to one court, and AI rulers don't really execute that often.
Average age was brought down by death in infancy more than dying in the 20s and 30s
>obligatory moron who can't tell the difference between median and averahe
Due infant mortality you ignorant twat. If you survived that chances are you would die in your 50s or 60s
Do the math, even if we assume 33% of people would have died before age of 20, it alone doesn't make the median age 20.
that's because you had a 50/50 chance of living past 2, but if you survived you could expect to reach your sisties, even if you were a peasant, unless the plague or war takes your live
no, look at French kings, most of them died in their 50s, and few (medieval) made it past 60. In CK3 60 is the norm, while 50 should be the norm.
Of course french kings would die in their fifties because they lived like wine fueled degenerates
Its just your impression, rarely anybody lives past 61 in the game and accounting for earlier deaths its averages to your 50. I would say tho that the players characters death is too rare for my opinion unless you get out of your way to increase the chance of it happening
No, that's YOUR impression, I can prove you are factually wrong. In fact, you can actually calculate this with values from the defines.txt, which tells how the natural death tick operates. The file tells us that:
>the base health value is 5
>once the health drops below 3, there is a 25% chance they die every month
>once the character turns 25 there is a 7.5% chance annually that character will lose 0.125 health, 7.5% chance increases every year by 2.2%
So, assuming the characters die naturally and their health isn't modified by traits or events (illnesses themselves are pretty rare), characters can't even die naturally before turning 41 (which itself is very unlikely because a drop from 5 to 3 would take 16 years starting at 25).
I actually replicate the death tick mechanic in JavaScript (https://codeshare.io/bvygbw), it runs the loop 100 000 times and tells you the average death age (which is ~60.4), apparently, there is only a ~3% chance of dying before the age of 55, and ~36% making it past 61...
So autistic, I hate myself...
And most English Kings didn't live even close to 50. Frick you.
Dante literally start the divine comedy with "at half of the road of my life" and he was 35 in time the story is set
this game is total garbage. Not even trying to be contrarian but CK2 is just better in every single way besides graphics
>median age of the entire population
>nobility
>nobility not dying in wars
yeah
They actually looked like that in the old times
1) Nobles had a higher median age than most people
2) The median was brought down by the sheer number of people who died under 10, if you lived past childhood you were reasonably likely to hit 60-70
3) Poor game design
Pick three
>what is infant mortality and the young being drafted
this why is this moron question always brought up when its been explained in terms a child could understand a million fricking times
CK3 paracuck devs dont care about balance or realism. Just funny memes from Reddit.
What a stupid thread
Noblemen and people of middle-class lived longer moron. It was the peasants that died early. Also infant mortality like other anons said.
Plus people say "the median age of the Medieval era". But we're talking about over 900 years of history encapsulating almost every single nation with vastly different cultures. You can't quantify that into a simple fricking generalization.
Please do even basic research before talking about subjects you know nothing about.
Pic related is a table of 15th-century princesses (all princesses from England, France, and Castile), which should be more accurate than the birth records from earlier centuries. You can see that even if you ignore all princesses who died before 20, life expectancy would still be 43.6 years.
>Citing Western Europe
Holy shit you people are moronic, especially when I said:
>But we're talking about over 900 years of history encapsulating almost every single nation with vastly different cultures. You can't quantify that into a simple fricking generalization.
This is what happens when you are taught with Anglo-American education. What about the Balkans? What about Byzantium? What about Southern Europe? What about Northern Europe? What about Asia? What about the Maghreb? What about the Middle-East?
Also several of these aren't even Medieval, the are Renaissance era. In fact, you cited the 15th Century, literally the end of the Medieval era and the start of the Renaissance. Life expectancy for nobility decreased and illnesses increased due to hygiene actually downgrading in the renaissance. Nobility literally refused to bathe and only cleaned their clothes.
>Please do even basic research before talking about subjects you know nothing about.
Clearly I know more than you, considering you literally think the 15th Century is representative of the entirety of the Medieval period.
>I also bet you are the same guy as
>what is infant mortality and the young being drafted
this why is this moron question always brought up when its been explained in terms a child could understand a million fricking times and
(You), you should put even minimum effort in disguising it
You are blind if you think those two posts even sound the same or even have the same writing style.
Western Europe
Don't you think that's fair when the game models its core feudal system in western Europe?
>Also several of these aren't even Medieval, the are Renaissance era.
The 15th century is arguably medieval, it has some extended to the 16th century, but the entire point was to model the daughters of 16th monarchs.
>Clearly I know more than you, considering you literally think the 15th Century is representative of the entirety of the Medieval period.
It is absolutely absurd to argue that the death rate actually went up in the early modern, period. Look at the average age of French kings, Direct Capetians (1060-1328) kings had a life expectancy of 39, meanwhile, the Bourbons (1589-1774) had a life expectancy of 60.
>Don't you think that's fair when the game models its core feudal system in western Europe?
Not really considering that this is both the third game in the series and by then the games also have playable factions that aren't Western Europeans. Hell, many expansions have focused on MENA and Asiatic factions.
>The 15th century is arguably medieval, it has some extended to the 16th century,
I'd like to counter-argue this. Because this makes no sense. Yes, the 15th Century was arguably Medieval. But it was also the END of the Medieval period and the start of the Renaissance, so it's inaccurate to use that as a measuring point for the entirety of the 500 years of the Medieval period. The reformation started in the 1400s with Jan Hus. The Hussites basically destroyed the concept of Knighthood and plate armour with their early guerilla firearms tactics. And Constantinople's Walls were destroyed by Ottoman cannons. And during those years, mercenaries with experience in gun powder became more high valued than Knights. Leonardo Da Vinci's lifetime and career also began in the late 1400s.
On top of that, Witch Hunts (which were more common in the rennaisance) basically began in the 1400s and marked a severe turning point for Catholic laws changing rapidly due to moronic rulers.
>Direct Capetians (1060-1328) kings had a life expectancy of 39, meanwhile, the Bourbons (1589-1774) had a life expectancy of 60.
Whilst numbers don't lie, I find it hard to believe this has to do with improved sanitation or advancements of technology. Considering that the Bourbons and French nobility literally defecated and pissed in designated pissing/shitting-zones of the open halls of the Versailles Palace. If there is an increase in life expectancy, I believe it has to do with Kings becoming more paranoid and staying indoors and refusing to go into the open field of battle like in the Medieval era. Don't forget how many assassinations happened in the Medieval era.
>On top of that, Witch Hunts (which were more common in the rennaisance) basically began in the 1400s
I should clarify when I meant "basically began", I don't mean it didn't happen before. It did. But the codified laws for Witch Hunting started to happen around that time. Before Witch Hunts were basically an odd exception to the rule of "witches didn't exist and witch hunting is illegal" law that the Catholics had. But by the 1400s, that started to change.
>Don't forget how many assassinations happened in the Medieval era.
Were they? The only Capetian monarch to get assassinated was Good King Henry in the 17th century.
Similarly, Sweden's only king to get assassinated was in 18th century.
are you moronic?
About half of kids died in childbirth to a year old, but after that it was smooth sailing. Most people lives from 60-80. The only reason averages are "low" is due to infant mortality.
Frickin' moron. Holy shit, how do you even function in society?
half of kids died in childbirth to a year old
>>Most people lives from 60-80
>>The only reason averages are "low" is due to infant mortality.
>[citation needed]
From perspectives, the infant death rate was 10%, while something like 33% died before age of 20. Regardless it doesn't mean that if made 20, you would live to 60. Please see
I also bet you are the same guy as
and
, you should put even minimum effort in disguising it
first post in the thread moron
>Yes I think CK3 is better than 2 and don't have sperg outs over character age how could you tell?
can anyone share their mods playset? Thinking of giving the game another go
CK2 still better than 3?
I'm too lazy to read this thread, but back in CK2 times Paradox said they didn't add realistic child mortality because it would be quite boring (and disheartening, I guess) to simply have 10 more dead children just to end up with the same number of alive children anyway in the end
CK 2 had the same problem until they introduced reapers due, after that the average age of a ruler wasn't 70+ anymore