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...

[ShepherdOfCats]

Whenever I create a child-ruler, I get a bug where none of the skill points I assigned show up. Anyone know how to work around that? I always end up creating one at age 0 because skill points just get wasted.

[SolarSatellite1]

General Advantaged Married Options a Male Ruler has:
-I'm sold on the idea that playing a Male Ruler is always better, if Married, always is the better choice, and below is why. But, I am not sold on which playstyle overall is best.

Going for Extra Fertility bonus in 3 marriages advantage (2 divorces, 3 total marriages), having more total kids.
- to which female rulers don't gain extra Fertility via Divorce, losing it until age 45.
*A 16/M marries a 25/F for 20 Fertile years. (divorce)
*A 36/M marries a 25/F for 20 Fertile years. (divorce)
*A 56/M marries a 25/F for ~20 Fertile years. (until he dies).

Going for a younger ruler advantage, being able to control the next ruler in-line longer.
- to which female rulers don't have this tradeoff opportunity, going for a later Fertility option.
*A 16/M marries a 46/F for 30 Celebate years. (until death do they part).
*A 46/M marries a 20/F for ~25 Fertile years, plus final celbate years. (until death do they part).

Going for a standard 1 marriage advantage, assisting them the longest.
-if nothing else there is the standard opinion bonus, which is especially great for Catholic rulers, but women live 0.5 health longer = ~4 years, which means at age 16 the male can has more options to marry up to age 20, whereas a 16/F wouldn't be assisting her stats if she marries a 20/M, losing the last 8 years of assisting stats to death.
*A 16/M marries a 20/F for 60 years, (1st 25 yrs Fertile, last ~35 years Celebate).

[Ēarendel]

Dude just enjoy the game, you're getting too technical for your own good

[SolarSatellite1]

If the Male takes the Fecund choice; I figure he should always go for a 25/F when he's ready to express his fertility, getting the best stats from her while not sacrificing the ability to have kids.

In case 1:
His Fecund bonus is definately experienced strongly during his 3rd marriage. (both children + lifespan bonus).

In case 2:
His Fecund bonus helps grow children during a 20 year period instead of 25 years, during his 2nd marriage, having the ~same number of kids overall, while living longer too - living more celebate years at the end (piety bonus).

In case 3:
His Fecund bonus is primarily applied to just his lifespan, where having the ~same number of kids for less Fertile years has the downside of the 9 years age difference + 1 year, because he lives longer.

Yeah, Im enjoying the game, trying to be technical too! :) Right now I'm considering against case 3 (because of her pre-mature death), and leaning towards case 2 (a younger next ruler + piety bonus for living longer), figuring the extra kids from case 1 might be more kids than is benefical to have - how many kids does a ruler need?, whereas a Piety bonus in case 2 is benefical, assuming I have kids to inherit the throne, which means at age 16 as a male ruler, I plan on marrying a 46 year old female 1st, before marrying a 25/F.

But, before being a 16/M character, I should consider starting the game at age 0 for the maximum "Grace period" I think, which I realize there's another question from another user's previous post, working around wasted skill points. Any ideas how to work around that?

[SolarSatellite1]

Also, looking at health stat. clues - really, the choices are either the following:
Poor Health, Fine Health, Good Health, or Excellent Health. - when looking for a woman to marry.

I figure that depends on the strategy for a 16/M character.
* Where divorce is considered, any of the above healths can be considered because if she dies, well, that doesn't hinder your marriage plans, but if she lives beyond 45 you'll have to execute your divorce for your future fertile marriage plans. Here, it's about the Fertility of the marriages, not about her longevity.
* Where celebate years are 1st considered (over 45) before fertile years and its until death do you part, don't marry for Good Health or Excellent Health for sure. Fine Health is probably acceptable for an estimated 24 to 40 years left, given the best case and worst case scenarios and that's because a 16/M with fine health will out live her (worst case) given the same health conditions by 9 years (pre-25 advantage), allowing for the 2nd fertile marriage to happen; however given the margin of error (=16 years from the 24 to 40 years left life estimate) - this is a gamble. And, in the best case of fine health you out live her by 9+16 years, giving plenty of time left over. It's probably safest to marry a 45+/F with Poor Health, before doing the 2nd marriage for fertility, except if the 1st marriage dies within the first 9 years (before you're 25), which in that case I'd say marry another 45+/F with poor health again before marrying for children in a 3rd marriage and possibly up to Good or even Excellent Health is fantastic.
* Where a lifelong marriage is considered, Good or Excellent Health are for sure. If she outlives you - that's to your benefit, and if she has Excellent Health, as a male character - you can consider marrying up in age for the extra stats, up to 25. (above 25 sacrifices % chance of Fertility).

Also, besides gambling on their health, there is gambling on their Fertility age for a female.
16 to 25 = a sure bet on a child (next heir), if you are Fecund or are young in age (under 35/M).
26 to 45 = a calculated, but very probable, bet on children, regardless.
So, during the first ruler's reign, I'd suggest not marrying over 25 when marrying for children. 25 should be the maximum age to consider for a sure bet.

[Rodi]

Start 10 years
0 personality traits
Pick whatever genes you want (i like to minmax the day 1 bloodline decision)
Get a competent guardian with good personality traits (norse courtiers are good for this for some reason), and then watch as you get ambitious, dilligent, temperate with tier 3-4 education with op genetic traits

[SolarSatellite1]

I not sure I understand the different advantages of considering all the pre-adult years. (for example).
Age 0 = Maximum skill pts and maximum "Grace period"
Age 3 = Similiar to age 0, except you get to pick a precise childhood trait you want.
Age 6 = ?? More skill pts than a 9 year old person but less than a 3 year old.
Age 9 = ?? More skill pts than a 12 year old person, but less than a 6 year old.
Age 12 = ?? More skill pts than a 15 year old person, but less than a 9 year old.
Age 15 = Not enough skill pts difference compared to a 16 year old for not directing your Education focus.

I'd think, if pre-adult, it should want to be either age 0 or age 3. Is there something about age 10 (for example), that makes that a consideration, compared to getting more skill pts and "grace period?" What is your minmax of the day 1 bloodline decision?

By the way, I like the idea of picking a competent guardian for a character - great idea!

[SolarSatellite1]

One difference I noticed, experimenting with the starting ages: 6, 9, and 12, I noticed:

If you put in 8 points worth of stats in every category, not including Prowess, then:
At age 6, you get 3, 3, 3, 3, 4 as stats. (about 3/8 + 1)
At age 9, you get 5, 5, 5, 5, 6 as stats. (about 5/8 +1)
At age 12, you get 6, 6, 6, 6, 7 as stats. (about 6/8 + 1)

Already, I notice that putting 8 skill point in every category isn't worth the additional skill points you'd recieve. From age 9, compared to age 12, sure you pick up 9 skill points, but you lose 20 skill points (4 pts per increasing the skill above a base of 4, multiplied by 5 skills) by losing the extra stat. And, at age 6, it gets worse as you pick up 15 skill points compared to age 12, but you essitentally have half the stats!

Therefore, I conclude, the advantage for starting pre-adult isn't about the stats you inherit in the custom ruler designer, probably best to set them to 0 - its about earning stats with a "grace period" while pumping the points into things that trascend your stats, like either cogenital traits (next generation traits) or Prestiege Resources (like August pick), or Piety Resources (like Virtue).

However, if you did decide to add stats to a pre-adult age, I'd think to error on an older pre-adult starting age, but not too old as there comes a point when age 16 beats it.

Is there any reason to pump up the stats of someone aged 12 years old or younger?

[snuggleform]

I can't say I have anything more to add to the discussion. I honestly think you're overanalyzing what turns out to be a very small portion of the game. You go through something a dozen rulers if you start from 1067 and go to natural conclusion in 1300. Not all of them turn out with the exact stats that you want. Not all of them are the age or even gender that you want when you become them.

Focusing on your first ruler's stats doesn't substantively change much. What does change is what I already stated earlier, picking up a level 3 intelligence trait + level 1 beauty + level 1 robust in order to activate a day 1 strengthen bloodline decision. I haven't any idea why you think you need to analyze the tradeoffs of starting at age 6 vs age 9, I don't see how it in any way affects how the game plays out overall. You'd have to be valuing something that the rest of us aren't even valuing at all.

I feel like your curiosity would serve you better to analyze things like which religious tenets you want to pick, and/or when to switch to a new religion, than focusing on whether your first character has a little bit less or more stats that really don't change much at all. I haven't read a single argument or thought in here that changes my baseline of just set someone to age 0 with genius/hale/pretty and let it rip.

[vortex_13]

Female character diplomacy education, beautiful trait, gregarious= 100 opinion with all your male vassals.

[SolarSatellite1]

Genious/hale/pretty are all cogenital traits with great long-term consequences. With your extra skill pts at age 0, you are choosing wisely to invest them in the next generation(s) rather than maximizing your own stats for a better short term advantage. Great choice!

Some things weren't so obvious to me - expressing my need to over-analyze a little bit (just to understand). Thats the reason I always tend to over-analyze is to gain an understanding for something people may generally find simple or just accept on a belief without knowing or thinking about, moving on. Like you said, you go thorugh something like a dozen rulers if you start from 1067 and goto the natural conclusion in 1300.

Its kind of like Chess, in a way - your first move (or ruler) doesn't really matter, but if you don't understand it; you could be setting yourself up for failure later, plus in Chess it is possible to lose the game in just 2 moves, if you really don't understand the purpose of your 1st move, or what you were setting yourself up to do later, knowing that some combinations really just suck. You could set yourself up for the most challenging, and stupid challenge I know of yet, which is to pick a female aged 0, while only upping 1 stat with all of your points, lets say its stewardship for inefficent domain control. That's not the smartest start, but if someone truly understood the choices they picked, and made it through the game, lasting until 1300 starting like that - that person has better Empire management skills and can probably teach people a lot about the game, ck3.

I know its backwards, trying to understand what a best 1st move looks like, rather than trying to understand what a checkmate looks like in ck3, and then trying to make it happen. Also, its counter-intutitive, but sometimes in trying to win the game with assumed short-term advantages can lead to unneccessary weaknesses (like the 4-move checkmate plan in chess). Often, playing the long-game means, constantly improving your position down the road, rather than, trying to win it with a tactical punch by upping stats alone.

However, realistically, I find in life - its a combination of both short-term (cummalitive) snowballing advantages combined with long-term leaps that wins! The balance, I think, is about 80% short-term and 20% long-term, for best results. In a way, its kind of like comparing consumption to savings/investing. What produces the best lifestyle? Well, it makes sense to live today, within your means, and to have your future days grow ahead of you. I'd like to live that motto in ck3.

[Solitus]

Your biggest mistake is that Crusader Kings is not like chess. In Crusader Kings, there are no right or wrong choices. Just interesting choices to make.

Sometimes the correct choice is the "wrong" one because it makes for a much more interesting character/story that can be told.

[SolarSatellite1]

There are some wrong choices that can be made - It is possible to have your 1st ruler die before his/her time and without an heir (a 2nd chess move), and the choices leading up to that. For example: Choosing to play as a female character with no fertility and no kids, at age 46+ is an obvious mistake someone could make, looking to live longer with free perks - that is unless there's a hidden adoption mechanic idk about, your ruler has an option to do.

[Solitus]

Those still aren't wrong choices, because losing isn't failure in Crusader Kings. It is just a different story that was told. Maybe it was more interesting than playing perfectly and "winning" all the time.