Stop letting A.I worthlessly modify culture.

[Tethryss]

A temporary culture head should not be allowed to modify the culture or a child should now be the culture head.
So stupid I have to deal with prolific hunting when I wanted to add Stalwart defenders.

[Сааребас]

I can understand your irritation but there is no such thing temporary culture head.

A character is or is not and AFAIK also have to pay for making changes to the culture just like the player.

You can change it (later) yourself.

[Emperor2000]

Originally posted by Пьяный Медоед (Се:

I can understand your irritation but there is no such thing temporary culture head.

A character is or is not and AFAIK also have to pay for making changes to the culture just like the player.

You can change it (later) yourself.

There is, at least when a Child inherits the Throne, because now some random Vassal will become the Culture Head, even the Childs has a lot more Counties of the Culture than the Vassal, because Paradox blocked Childs from being Culture Head, which is not fair in my Opinion, because Childs can be a HoF, so there no legal reason for Devs to block Childs from being Culture Heads and I have seen Child Ruler, who have had a higher learning stat than anyone else.

[Сааребас]

Originally posted by Emperor2000:

Originally posted by Пьяный Медоед (Се:

I can understand your irritation but there is no such thing temporary culture head.

A character is or is not and AFAIK also have to pay for making changes to the culture just like the player.

You can change it (later) yourself.

There is, at least when a Child inherits the Throne, because now some random Vassal will become the Culture Head, even the Childs has a lot more Counties of the Culture than the Vassal, because Paradox blocked Childs from being Culture Head, which is not fair in my Opinion, because Childs can be a HoF, so there no legal reason for Devs to block Childs from being Culture Heads and I have seen Child Ruler, who have had a higher learning stat than anyone else.

I understand the mechanics but it's still not a temporary head of culture.
Sure, the one being HoC does so temporary but that's not the same, unlike a regent.

[Emperor2000]

Originally posted by Пьяный Медоед (Се:

Originally posted by Emperor2000:

There is, at least when a Child inherits the Throne, because now some random Vassal will become the Culture Head, even the Childs has a lot more Counties of the Culture than the Vassal, because Paradox blocked Childs from being Culture Head, which is not fair in my Opinion, because Childs can be a HoF, so there no legal reason for Devs to block Childs from being Culture Heads and I have seen Child Ruler, who have had a higher learning stat than anyone else.

I understand the mechanics but it's still not a temporary head of culture.
Sure, the one being HoC does so temporary but that's not the same, unlike a regent.

It is temporary, because the Child Ruler has more Counties, than anyone else and as soon they Come of Age, they get the Culture Head Position and the AI should not be able to change anything, which was started by a Player.


And it is not fair, from the Devs, that Child Rulers are forced into an entrenched Regency, even the max. amount of Years for this Regency is 16 Years.

On the other side, an imprisoned Ruler gets only an temporary Regency, even they are imprisoned for over 50 Years.

[Сааребас]

Originally posted by Emperor2000:

Originally posted by Пьяный Медоед (Се:

I understand the mechanics but it's still not a temporary head of culture.
Sure, the one being HoC does so temporary but that's not the same, unlike a regent.

It is temporary, because the Child Ruler has more Counties, than anyone else and as soon they Come of Age, they get the Culture Head Position and the AI should not be able to change anything, which was started by a Player.


And it is not fair, from the Devs, that Child Rulers are forced into an entrenched Regency, even the max. amount of Years for this Regency is 16 Years.

On the other side, an imprisoned Ruler gets only an temporary Regency, even they are imprisoned for over 50 Years.

A regency is per definition temporary because only the decision-making, or part of it, is done by the regent whilst the position remains under a person's control (like HoF or ruler) because that person/character is still eligible to that position due to the requirements that position holds.
No matter what type of regency.
Hence why it's dejure always considered temporary regardless of how it defacto plays out.

A child isn't eligible to be a HoC and therefor the person/character taking up that role is not considered temporary, even tho (s)he takes on the role temporary.
Which makes perfectly sense to me.

Now, from a fun perspective I completely understand both you and OP and Darren it's not fun.
It being fair is moot.
However changing the mechanics, since both a.i. and players play 99% by the same rules, would mean that taking over a H.o.C position (as player) you cannot override changes set in motion by other characters (a.i.).

[jerrypocalypse]

Originally posted by Пьяный Медоед (Се:

Originally posted by Emperor2000:

It is temporary, because the Child Ruler has more Counties, than anyone else and as soon they Come of Age, they get the Culture Head Position and the AI should not be able to change anything, which was started by a Player.


And it is not fair, from the Devs, that Child Rulers are forced into an entrenched Regency, even the max. amount of Years for this Regency is 16 Years.

On the other side, an imprisoned Ruler gets only an temporary Regency, even they are imprisoned for over 50 Years.

A regency is per definition temporary because only the decision-making, or part of it, is done by the regent whilst the position remains under a person's control (like HoF or ruler) because that person/character is still eligible to that position due to the requirements that position holds.
No matter what type of regency.
Hence why it's dejure always considered temporary regardless of how it defacto plays out.

A child isn't eligible to be a HoC and therefor the person/character taking up that role is not considered temporary, even tho (s)he takes on the role temporary.
Which makes perfectly sense to me.

Now, from a fun perspective I completely understand both you and OP and Darren it's not fun.
It being fair is moot.
However changing the mechanics, since both a.i. and players play 99% by the same rules, would mean that taking over a H.o.C position (as player) you cannot override changes set in motion by other characters (a.i.).

I agree here. The player has the same ability to take over as culture head when an AI child inherits the majority of counties. It honestly makes sense to me that a child isn't allowed to be the head of a culture.

[Emperor2000]

Originally posted by Пьяный Медоед (Се:

Originally posted by Emperor2000:

It is temporary, because the Child Ruler has more Counties, than anyone else and as soon they Come of Age, they get the Culture Head Position and the AI should not be able to change anything, which was started by a Player.


And it is not fair, from the Devs, that Child Rulers are forced into an entrenched Regency, even the max. amount of Years for this Regency is 16 Years.

On the other side, an imprisoned Ruler gets only an temporary Regency, even they are imprisoned for over 50 Years.

A regency is per definition temporary because only the decision-making, or part of it, is done by the regent whilst the position remains under a person's control (like HoF or ruler) because that person/character is still eligible to that position due to the requirements that position holds.
No matter what type of regency.
Hence why it's dejure always considered temporary regardless of how it defacto plays out.

A child isn't eligible to be a HoC and therefor the person/character taking up that role is not considered temporary, even tho (s)he takes on the role temporary.
Which makes perfectly sense to me.

Now, from a fun perspective I completely understand both you and OP and Darren it's not fun.
It being fair is moot.
However changing the mechanics, since both a.i. and players play 99% by the same rules, would mean that taking over a H.o.C position (as player) you cannot override changes set in motion by other characters (a.i.).

Players can not change the Reformation of a Tradition, which the AI can, because of a Bug, so the AI currently plays by different Rules, but this Bug could have been easily avoided by the Devs by allowing Childs to become Culture Heads.


And the Game should probably a little bit more dynamic with Age Groups, currently the Game has only 2: Childs and Adults.
But a 13 years old is not a Child, but a Teen and a Teen can take the Responsibilities of an Adult, if needed.

[Artos]

Originally posted by Emperor2000:

Originally posted by Пьяный Медоед (Се:

A regency is per definition temporary because only the decision-making, or part of it, is done by the regent whilst the position remains under a person's control (like HoF or ruler) because that person/character is still eligible to that position due to the requirements that position holds.
No matter what type of regency.
Hence why it's dejure always considered temporary regardless of how it defacto plays out.

A child isn't eligible to be a HoC and therefor the person/character taking up that role is not considered temporary, even tho (s)he takes on the role temporary.
Which makes perfectly sense to me.

Now, from a fun perspective I completely understand both you and OP and Darren it's not fun.
It being fair is moot.
However changing the mechanics, since both a.i. and players play 99% by the same rules, would mean that taking over a H.o.C position (as player) you cannot override changes set in motion by other characters (a.i.).

Players can not change the Reformation of a Tradition, which the AI can, because of a Bug, so the AI currently plays by different Rules, but this Bug could have been easily avoided by the Devs by allowing Childs to become Culture Heads.


And the Game should probably a little bit more dynamic with Age Groups, currently the Game has only 2: Childs and Adults.
But a 13 years old is not a Child, but a Teen and a Teen can take the Responsibilities of an Adult, if needed.

Okay... that part "Teen can take the Responsibilites of an Adult, if needed" is really a grey area. Back then ? Yeah, definietly, girls of that age were already getting married/pregnant and it was a treated as normal. Boys were part of armies etc.

Nowdays we know that this statement is not true. Teens have a "growing up" phase in which they defy common logic, often to just rebel. If you tell them sky is blue, they will say its red. Does that mean they can take the responsibilites ? In some rare cases yes, but generally no. So, if child or as you say teen, would become a culture head, they would definietly do some random bs, just like the "new" culture head.

Now, to the topic I think there should be a system, where you cannot modify culture if:

1. You are not independent ruler
2. You are not a Kingdom tier ruler.

or

You can modify your culture 4-5 years after you took the mantle of " Head of Culture"

It would solve the issue of them just randomly modifying your culture, but wouldn't stop
technology from being researched.

[jerrypocalypse]

Originally posted by Artos:

Now, to the topic I think there should be a system, where you cannot modify culture if:

1. You are not independent ruler
2. You are not a Kingdom tier ruler.

I definitely don't agree with this restriction. There are so many smaller cultures that are part of a larger kingdom that aren't independent, and they shouldn't be restricted from growing and changing. This would cause a massive stagnation of multi-cultural domains, both for the player and AI.

Originally posted by Artos:

or

You can modify your culture 4-5 years after you took the mantle of " Head of Culture"

It would solve the issue of them just randomly modifying your culture, but wouldn't stop
technology from being researched.

This is could understand if they wanted to add some restriction to it. Personally, I think the current system is fine, and I like it the way it is. If they did something like this, I think it should be an optional game rule with a slider with how many years the player wants to have a lock-out for.

[Artos]

Originally posted by jerrypocalypse:

Originally posted by Artos:

Now, to the topic I think there should be a system, where you cannot modify culture if:

1. You are not independent ruler
2. You are not a Kingdom tier ruler.

I definitely don't agree with this restriction. There are so many smaller cultures that are part of a larger kingdom that aren't independent, and they shouldn't be restricted from growing and changing. This would cause a massive stagnation of multi-cultural domains, both for the player and AI.

Originally posted by Artos:

or

You can modify your culture 4-5 years after you took the mantle of " Head of Culture"

It would solve the issue of them just randomly modifying your culture, but wouldn't stop
technology from being researched.

This is could understand if they wanted to add some restriction to it. Personally, I think the current system is fine, and I like it the way it is. If they did something like this, I think it should be an optional game rule with a slider with how many years the player wants to have a lock-out for.

Look, I only gave some idea. in the end Its up to paradox to decide if any change is needed.

Personally I have no issue with cultures. If I'm small, I will accept decisions of my liege. If I'm big I am deciding and creating the one I need. I don't remember a case in any of my games where AI would take control of my culture and modify it on spot. Maybe because I always have rulers that live for 55-69 years and by the time they die my kids are old enough. Maybe because I'm fine having a lot of vassals and they are not that powerful. Like force your vassal to have vassals and they will be weaker than them having full dutchy title holdings. Just minimise the chances of them gathering prestige. Having vassals some what forces them to use it to sometimes hold the stability of their realm

[Сааребас]

Originally posted by Emperor2000:

Originally posted by Пьяный Медоед (Се:

A regency is per definition temporary because only the decision-making, or part of it, is done by the regent whilst the position remains under a person's control (like HoF or ruler) because that person/character is still eligible to that position due to the requirements that position holds.
No matter what type of regency.
Hence why it's dejure always considered temporary regardless of how it defacto plays out.

A child isn't eligible to be a HoC and therefor the person/character taking up that role is not considered temporary, even tho (s)he takes on the role temporary.
Which makes perfectly sense to me.

Now, from a fun perspective I completely understand both you and OP and Darren it's not fun.
It being fair is moot.
However changing the mechanics, since both a.i. and players play 99% by the same rules, would mean that taking over a H.o.C position (as player) you cannot override changes set in motion by other characters (a.i.).

Players can not change the Reformation of a Tradition, which the AI can, because of a Bug, so the AI currently plays by different Rules, but this Bug could have been easily avoided by the Devs by allowing Childs to become Culture Heads.


And the Game should probably a little bit more dynamic with Age Groups, currently the Game has only 2: Childs and Adults.
But a 13 years old is not a Child, but a Teen and a Teen can take the Responsibilities of an Adult, if needed.

A teen is still a child. Taking up responsibilities and being fit to are two different things.
However, and I have no idea how that could be implemented, I do agree that responsibilities could slowly, staged, to be transferred if the regent isn't too powerful.
I firmly disagree that a child can be the head of culture under any circumstance, unlike a child being HoF or a ruler.
It simply doesn't make sense.

I didn't know it was a bug because I've only been in OP's position and haven't looked into the code other then a glance when CK3 came out.
I certainly found it annoying but other then it taking a little longer there wasn't really much to it.
It certainty wasn't more annoying than having to play a bad ruler for 60+ years.

Besides, faulty code needs to be fixed and not worked around unless that's the only way.

[jerrypocalypse]

Originally posted by Artos:

Originally posted by jerrypocalypse:

I definitely don't agree with this restriction. There are so many smaller cultures that are part of a larger kingdom that aren't independent, and they shouldn't be restricted from growing and changing. This would cause a massive stagnation of multi-cultural domains, both for the player and AI.


This is could understand if they wanted to add some restriction to it. Personally, I think the current system is fine, and I like it the way it is. If they did something like this, I think it should be an optional game rule with a slider with how many years the player wants to have a lock-out for.

Look, I only gave some idea. in the end Its up to paradox to decide if any change is needed.

Personally I have no issue with cultures. If I'm small, I will accept decisions of my liege. If I'm big I am deciding and creating the one I need. I don't remember a case in any of my games where AI would take control of my culture and modify it on spot. Maybe because I always have rulers that live for 55-69 years and by the time they die my kids are old enough. Maybe because I'm fine having a lot of vassals and they are not that powerful. Like force your vassal to have vassals and they will be weaker than them having full dutchy title holdings. Just minimise the chances of them gathering prestige. Having vassals some what forces them to use it to sometimes hold the stability of their realm

Relax, I'm just discussing :)

[Artos]

Originally posted by jerrypocalypse:

Originally posted by Artos:

Look, I only gave some idea. in the end Its up to paradox to decide if any change is needed.

Personally I have no issue with cultures. If I'm small, I will accept decisions of my liege. If I'm big I am deciding and creating the one I need. I don't remember a case in any of my games where AI would take control of my culture and modify it on spot. Maybe because I always have rulers that live for 55-69 years and by the time they die my kids are old enough. Maybe because I'm fine having a lot of vassals and they are not that powerful. Like force your vassal to have vassals and they will be weaker than them having full dutchy title holdings. Just minimise the chances of them gathering prestige. Having vassals some what forces them to use it to sometimes hold the stability of their realm

Relax, I'm just discussing :)

Ohh. maybe it felt like im aggressive or something like that. Im chilling, I do agree with your points to some extent. I still feel that when you are not independend and somehow take control of culture, you should still not be able to reform it on spot. Some cooldown or at least get a prestige cost punishment that a player through proper character skills development could avoid or reduce, but AI would struggle a bit.

Idk, reduce the randomness of AI I guess, if you cannot code AI to be reasonable, don't open the gate for it to do it. Coz I have seen AI just destroy some of the cultures by reforming or creating hybrid cultures and taking out the best they had to offer, just to cripple themselves. Sometimes they just take it and don't use it XD

[Сааребас]

Originally posted by Artos:

Originally posted by jerrypocalypse:

Relax, I'm just discussing :)

Ohh. maybe it felt like im aggressive or something like that. Im chilling, I do agree with your points to some extent. I still feel that when you are not independend and somehow take control of culture, you should still not be able to reform it on spot. Some cooldown or at least get a prestige cost punishment that a player through proper character skills development could avoid or reduce, but AI would struggle a bit.

Idk, reduce the randomness of AI I guess, if you cannot code AI to be reasonable, don't open the gate for it to do it. Coz I have seen AI just destroy some of the cultures by reforming or creating hybrid cultures and taking out the best they had to offer, just to cripple themselves. Sometimes they just take it and don't use it XD

It's not completely random for everything but a.i. certainly does know how to destroy well thought out and crafted stuff to replace it with... less optimal stuff

[Artos]

Originally posted by Пьяный Медоед (Се:

Originally posted by Artos:

Ohh. maybe it felt like im aggressive or something like that. Im chilling, I do agree with your points to some extent. I still feel that when you are not independend and somehow take control of culture, you should still not be able to reform it on spot. Some cooldown or at least get a prestige cost punishment that a player through proper character skills development could avoid or reduce, but AI would struggle a bit.

Idk, reduce the randomness of AI I guess, if you cannot code AI to be reasonable, don't open the gate for it to do it. Coz I have seen AI just destroy some of the cultures by reforming or creating hybrid cultures and taking out the best they had to offer, just to cripple themselves. Sometimes they just take it and don't use it XD

It's not completely random for everything but a.i. certainly does know how to destroy well thought out and crafted stuff to replace it with... less optimal stuff

In my experience, the longer you leave AI unsupervised with an optional bad choice. Then the chances of bad choice being taken increase. Because sadly AI, doesn't think, they are not consistent enough. They might roll a dice 20 times during their life time rejecting the idea of picking bad culture just to pick it as they die. Its a charm of this game I guess. Nothing will beat the crusade AI tho, like I honestly think they coded it bad on purpose.