Ck3: Custom Ruler Designer thoughts

[SolarSatellite1]

The first real decision: gender. When considering your 1st ruler: Male or Female Ruler, not only is the tradeoff between Fertility vs Longevity of your 1st ruler, but it is also a 10 Opinion difference hit, usually depending on Tenets, I think for the female ruler. Aside from tenets, there are 2 factors to consider before picking. It depends on Age and Children. Beyond a certain age (Idk the math), it makes more sense to just live longer, where adding fertility (the male advantage) shouldn't matter because you have your next heir in line to inherit the throne.

So, the gender decision is based on the Age decision and children decision. Let's compare 2 different ages. Age 18 vs Age 45. At age 18, you get 1 free perk, and 27 years to earn the difference of the 9 free perks the 45 year old player just got for being middle aged. Those 27 years seem disadvantaged from a perk standpoint, but if the 45 year old player is expected to live just 27 more years, up to 72 years old, then after those advantaged perk years, becomes a disadvantaged new heir without your 1st player advantage. Now, which case is better, and why? It doesn't seem so obvious to me. If the 10 free perked ruler was able to live just 4 years longer, due to gender, wouldn't that be the way to go, or if the very fertile 18 year old happened to lock in a long-term children advantage, over the years, while surviving the other player's advantage, without costing customization points to do so, wouldn't that be excitedly exceptional?

This causes the question to be asked, in general, are perks better earned or free? How many free perks would you take for an advantage, if that meant 3 years closer to death for each free perk you took?

Another thought worth speaking to are childrens' Inheritable Traits. I've thought about Inheriting knights before, so they should all be sons initally. Giant, Herculean come to mind, and then just being married with those kids, while upping just the neccessary stats, and perks like Kingsguard (4 free perk cost, minimum), inside the Martial Education tree. So, 18+3*4= at least 30 years old. But, what should the other stats be for such a strategy? Can I get away with making 5-8 knights immediately to add to the army?

Or, if I might want to educate the children instead, with Learning, because kids always seem to have 16 years age difference than the ruler. If educated, maybe I don't need the knights out early. If not educated, maybe, I can just up my ruler's age and get free knights. Idk which is better. And, if younger aged, then that should be considered with the 18 year old saving points situation on kids. And, if older aged, then that should be considered with the 45 year old and getting more Free Perks! But, what free perks would I get to enhance my knights if all I really want is the Kingsguard one, being age 30? Hmm...

[bulbatrs]

you obviously want to be 16 years old as your 1st ruler needs to live and reign long time - most op, especially in tribes.
Male cos you can make more kids that way, especially if you can have concubines.
Having lots of kids is important because it prevents game overs from unlucky deaths and gives more bloodline points.

[SolarSatellite1]

Just verifying. So, Free Perks aren't enticing at all at the very start? 16/M is surely better than 18/M even with 1 free perk? What if that 1 free perk gave you an an extra Fertility advantage, like the Intrigue ones - Weeds in the Garden? +30% Fertility. Dividing up a player's fertility over many concubines would sort of need an extra sort of short-term advantage or viagra like boost (3 year) advantage by getting to it 1st. And, buying kids (worth 10 points each) starting at age 17+ aren't worth it either for being (1 year) ahead of the game? So, which stat(s) would you rather have upped instead of having a 10 point kid, being even 1 year older?

[Ēarendel]

Start 10-12 years old, and choose an education. The perks will follow rather quickly, since there's also events that grant exp

[SolarSatellite1]

Isn't starting at an age earlier than 16 essientally a gamble? I haven't tried it, but hear me out. Can you expect your Empire to survive/thrive without you ruling it, being pre-16? Even though, like you said, perks may follow rather quickily - don't you miss out on all game playing options that a 16+ aged person has? I'd think, the situations where its better to start being pre-16 would be the same situations where doing nothing in the beginning was considered. In that situation, I can see where earning perks faster is a bonus compared to doing nothing in the first few years of the game or so. Are you sure that's the best way to start off the game, at let's say 10-12 years old. (4-6 years of earning perks faster vs decision making for those 1st 4-6 years of gameplay).

[Ēarendel]

Originally posted by SolarSatellite1:

Isn't starting at an age earlier than 16 essientally a gamble? I haven't tried it, but hear me out. Can you expect your Empire to survive/thrive without you ruling it, being pre-16? Even though, like you said, perks may follow rather quickily - don't you miss out on all game playing options that a 16+ aged person has? I'd think, the situations where its better to start being pre-16 would be the same situations where doing nothing in the beginning was considered. In that situation, I can see where earning perks faster is a bonus compared to doing nothing in the first few years of the game or so. Are you sure that's the best way to start off the game, at let's say 10-12 years old. (4-6 years of earning perks faster vs decision making for those 1st 4-6 years of gameplay).

There is no wrong approach for this matter, its a matter of preference. I prefer starting earlier so my ruler lives longer, at the beginning things are relatively simple, but get progressively harder if for example your ruler forges a kingdom, you want your first ruler to stay in power as long as possible to tie up loose ends like insubordinate vassals that your heir might inherit.

[snuggleform]

I start at 0 years and it works out fine. One thing you may not know is that the game has a "grace period" depending on your starting rank where factions will not form. I think for emperors it's something silly like 10 years and counts it's 1 year or so. I might have it in reverse. But in any case, it is not hard to get the ball rolling with a 0 year old. In fact, I prefer it since they get the maximum long reign buff assuming you make it far enough.

The game isn't tuned to the point where you really need to analyze the tradeoffs of perks vs years lived. It just isn't hard enough or punishing enough such that if you chose incorrectly you would feel a difference. As long as your culture and faith match most of your starting vassals then you can get by just fine. And even if your culture/faith don't match, which I have done on purpose, even then it's not necessarily hard either if you're willing to grant people independence when they revolt and just hold onto a few key territories as you build slowly up.

When I do a custom ruler, I just give it 1 x genius, 1 x pretty, 1 x hale (this activates the Strong Blood decision) with no negative inheritable traits, and I downgrade prowess to get under the 400 cap if need be since I don't really intend to be dueling or fighting in armies myself anyways. The rest is a wash to me.

[SolarSatellite1]

So, what I get from reading this is:
1. Earning perks (below age 18) > Free perks (age 18+), and that is because a perk is always worth less than the opportunity cost of spending 3 years of a starting ruler's total lifespan for getting each additional perk.
2. Maximizing earning perks (age 0) has no minuses compared to starting at ages 16 or 17 because of a "Grace Period" being able to start making decisions 16 years later at a perk advantage, compared to being Hasty starting the game at age 16 or 17.

So, the take-away is perks have value, and they are worth earning up to the age of 16, but they are definately not worth spending 3 years, fast forwarding life, just for an "free" extra perk.

[Solitus]

The perk isn't "free", it is giving you perks you would have earned if you had played the character for those three years.

But yes, as SolarSatellite1 said, no amount of perks is worth more than getting to control your rulers life for longer. The only reason 16 is better than 15 is you can spend the points to lock in the education you want them to receive.

[SolarSatellite1]

Even with spouting the value of living longer (females live 0.5 health longer ~4 years in ck3), there can be things worth more than a ruler's longevity alone, like a male Fertility bonus over the course of their reign and Opinion bonus, in the beginning.

So, it can be said, in general:
the value of Adult Perks (over age 16) < the ruler's leftover lifespan starting at 16 (female bonus) < Fertility and Opinion of the ruler. (male bonus).

Wondering though, with enough future generation in place, would it ever be worthwhile down the line - generationally, to switch male dominance to female dominance or pluralist picking up the extra 4 years of longevity for the ruler?

[snuggleform]

I think male dominance is the easiest way to achieve what I like to achieve, which is having a young ruler take the throne.

Specifically with male dominance I can wait until 50 or 60 before I have a child so that it's close to 16 when it succeeds the throne. With female dominance you're forced to you have your last child at 45 (modified by some few factors). To me, being forced to have your last child at 45 is not worth the extra years in personal lifespan you would gain by having females be dominant.

[SolarSatellite1]

If there's a 15+ year age gap (older male, younger female) for the purposes of having the last child inherit longer, I can see that. However, for the same married couple, you could reign 19+ years longer playing as the female dominated character in such a situation, and if celebate, pick up 1 extra piety every month for that time (a bonus). Also, wouldn't the male character have the minus from ages 16-31, because the queen being 15+ years younger stats aren't added by assisting your male ruler's stats during that time - her being under the age of 16, possibly bethrowed, assuming marriage is a life-long event, without divorce?

For a 1 time marriage deal, it might make more sense to be the female ruler, I think, because of the male character at ages 16-31 who if marries up in age, or the same, can't produce the strategy you point to at age 60, and should be married to a ruler who assists their stats - running into the under 16 aged female problem for that stategy you propose.

Note: However, In a Divorce situation, I can see the advantages of a young male character (16-31) living out his years of marriage to up to a 15+ year old female, having extra kids, up to the point she is 45 years old, and then divorcing her for a younger woman (15+ years younger) for the purposes of having more kids, as well as the younger ruler inheritance advantage.

[SolarSatellite1]

2 general cases to consider: which situation is better in ck3 and why?

1. A female ruler at age 16 marries a 42 male for 30 years. Until death do they part. (Fertility Marriage w/ stats).
Then, at age 46, marries again another 42 male for 30 years. Until death do they part. (Celebate Marriage for stats and Piety).

2. A male ruler at age 16 marries a 31 female for 15 years. Until Menopause do they part, getting a Divorce. (Fertility Marriage w/ stats).
Then, at age 31, marries again, but this time to a 16 year old, female for ~30 fertile years, and then its finally until Death do they part, roughly ~15-4 years later. Where, if the female lives longer, the child still inherits the throne.

Q: Should it should depend on the cost/benefit analysis of kids per the divorce, or are there other considerations to be made here?

[snuggleform]

My solution is none of the above, when I'm a young male in power, I marry someone over 45 with good stats to assist me on the council (i.e. marry old crone). She is going to die (naturally) before I actually have kids. At some point after she dies I pick up a breeding horse for my own progeny.

I don't know how you arrive at the 19 extra years being a female but again even if the differential were that severe I'd still prefer being able to sire children at 60, as a male, and pass the reigns to someone fresh, I like it too much. With a female you're forced to have your last child at 45 (perhaps extended if you have fecund and maybe some other trait I forgot about).

Note there's really nothing wrong with that, the game is perfectly playable as a female, but there is a solution which I lean towards based on my preferences.

This is all assuming your religion makes divorce difficult. Once you reform the faith to your own specifications, this all becomes moot as you can freely divorce without having to wait for someone to die. Also don't forget if you're playing in a male dominated religion like the catholics, you're going to get whammo'ed by the wrong gender opinion.

[SolarSatellite1]

Seems like you opt for a situation 1, except as a male ruler. Except you are being celebate first, being fertile last. Having that part of my equation flipped.

Thinking about it, I can see the advantages of having a younger ruler inherit (because it is flipped), and being able to play as a Catholic too, without the Opinion minus. In your strategy, Divorce doesn't matter because you aren't shooting for kids in the 1st 30 years of your 1st marriage. Whereas, I was thinking, the whole point of the male advantage was expressing the extra Fertility, so that you'd have to get a Divorce just to make it work. Now, it's clear to me - your strategy, seeing its strengths! which is: Male bonus Opinion + younger inhertance. (seems better than option 1). Although, I probably opened up a new idea to be considered: Divorce for Fertility reasons, which may or may not be worth it for the male player to consider.

[Ēarendel]

Originally posted by snuggleform:

(perhaps extended if you have fecund and maybe some other trait I forgot about).

45 is the cutoff point where it drops to 0% afterwards irrelevant of perks, fecund only gives a fertility boost up to 100% before that point.