• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

CK3 Dev Diary #04 - Development & Buildings

Greetings!

This week's Dev Diary is all about your holdings on the map - Baronies and counties, what they do for you, and what you can do with them! As seen in the map DD, Baronies are now physically present on the map. A group of Baronies makes up a greater unit, called a County.

DD4CountyView.jpg


While certain things are still on a per-Barony level, such as buildings, two of the most important values you have to deal with are on a per-County basis - Development and Control!

Development is the measurement of technological advancement and general infrastructure in a County. Development directly increases taxes and levies you get out of the holdings, and it also unlocks some other special options. Development increases very slowly across the duration of the game, and radiates outwards from high-development Counties to those nearby. For example, Constantinople (aka the City of the World’s Desire), starts with a very high Development level. This will slowly spread outwards, reaching the most remote areas much slower than their Greek heartland. Naturally, there are other ways to increase your development, such as through the Steward’s ‘Increase Development’ task, although this is a fairly slow process, and usually only worth doing in certain Counties. Having terrain such as Farmland or Floodplains in your Counties make them ideal candidates for development, and when they have gotten some levels of development you can just sit back and enjoy, as it slowly spreads throughout the rest of your realm!

Control, on the other hand, directly represents the power you have over the County. This naturally decreases during sieges and by forcefully seizing territory, taking the place of the ‘new Administration’ modifiers from CK2. If you don’t pace yourself, and use your Marshal to increase Control in newly conquered territories, you might find yourself with a slew of useless land. This also increases the importance of keeping peasant rabble and similar nuisances out of your lands…

Each County also has an opinion of their holder, referred to as the ‘Popular Opinion’. This represents the sentiment of the local peasants, and tends to decrease if you’re not of their culture or faith, promoting the use of ‘local lords’, vassals of the local culture/faith, to handle such territory for you - as converting it will take quite some time. Unhappy Counties tend to cause problems down the line… more on this in another DD.

Now, on to the Holdings themselves! Each County will have a certain amount of slots available for Baronies, with some being constructed at the start, and others not. The three core types of holdings remain unchanged - Castles, Cities and Temples make up the majority of holdings on the map, each with their own main purpose. Castles provide levies and fortifications, cities provide taxes with a secondary focus on Development, and temples provide an even mix of taxes and levies with a secondary focus on increasing Control. This means that if you want a County to develop really fast, building many Cities might be the thing for you. If you want a resilient domain perhaps you’d prefer Castles, etc.

DD4Holding.jpg


Based on the terrain of the province, each Holding has access to a number of buildings. Regular buildings primarily focus on increasing taxes and levies, with some secondary effects such as increasing fortifications or increasing supply. These are usually straight upgrades, and are long-term investments that you should always consider, much like in our other games.

DD4Buildings.jpg


To spice things up, we've also introduced the concept of Duchy Capital Buildings. These buildings can only be built in the capital Barony of any De Jure Duchy, limiting their availability across the map. To build them and have them be active, you need to hold their associated Duchy title personally - this way you can’t simply hoard Counties in which you can build these special buildings, as just like in CK2 you will get severe penalties for holding too many Duchies personally. The buildings themselves are very expensive, but come in many flavors - allowing you to tailor your experience. The Military Academies track of buildings increases the effectiveness of your Knights and allows you to have more of them, establishing marches will make the entire Duchy more defensible, the Siege Workshops will increase the effectiveness of your trebuchets, and so on!

DD4DuchyCapitalBuildings.jpg


We also have the concepts of special buildings. These aim to represent historical buildings, both ancient and those built during the time period. Placed in predetermined baronies on the map, you have the usual suspects such as the Pyramids or Colosseum, along with more fringe or lesser-known constructions such as Offa’s Dyke or the Buddhas of Bamiyan. Some of these will be possible to construct during the course of the game, such as the Tower of London or the Alhambra. All of these constructions provide unique and interesting bonuses, with some of them being represented with 3D models on the map.

That’s it for this time! Stay tuned for the next DD, where we will tell you about the new scheme mechanics!
 
  • 5Like
  • 3Love
  • 2
Reactions:
I think buildings should be linked to population size. Development should attract the AI to settle in 'natural capitals', but could veer off for political reasons and at a cost of having to develop a new capital. I also hope there is a bottom-up approach to growing and developing cities, rather than just top-down monetary investments. Would also like to see a granular faith system, where holdings (of whatever kind) can be multi-religious.

All these factors would make 'land' more politically interesting and dynamic - swaying the populace as a (deeper) political dimension (not just nobles and other elites).
 
Last edited:
Well, i didn't see this mentioned in the thread.

I'm glad there's an incentive to hold to your home capital. It always felt strange how easy it was to move your court and capital in ck2.

But it is absolutely correct and historically accurate. It was called Itinerant Court. I don't know why Paradox whant to transform a brillant medieval simulation (CK2) to a cheap gamey "Middelages Sims"? Where is the clou?

Greetings.
 
But this could be my viewpoint of playing CK2 more 4X-style, where I feel I should be upgrading yearly, if not monthly (when possible). Decades between upgrades is pretty suffering to someone like me.

Crusader Kings is not and never should be a 4X game. It *should* take a long time to upgrade a holding.

Anyway, some DD questions:
  • Will there be development prerequisites to build certain holdings? Because with terrain being important now, it's going to be a little silly if you can just plop down a new city in some undeveloped swampland.
  • Any chance we'll be able to mod in buildings for empty holding slots, representing remote monasteries or caravanserais?
  • Add me to the chorus of people disappointed by the immovable de jure duchy capitals. I'd hoped CK3 would be a chance to escape that sort of nonsense.
 
This all looks quite good, but I can’t help but want for a more tangible mechanic regarding the tax and levy output of baronies. It would be nice if each barony had a population; where their levy output would be a percentage of the population and their tax output would be a function of the population. This percentage and function would vary depending on the holding type. The population may not even need to be represented by pops, it could just be a number that grows over time to a maximum somewhere in the tens/hundreds of thousands (depending on the terrain and the improvements made in the barony).

To me, ‘development’ by itself seems a little too abstract. However, I do admit, it does make sense and completely replacing it would be a mistake. The development of a county could therefore do something like complement the populations of its baronies by increasing the percentage of their population available for levy and by applying a percentage increase to their tax output. This would make for some interesting county configurations across the map: high development high population areas (like Constantinople), and low development high population areas (maybe tribal areas?), etc.

This way we could have populations that grow and die organically over the course of the game. They naturally experience growth but also experience devastation during times of disease and wartime (mainly from sieges and famine I’d imagine). This would have the added benefit of applying a bit more strategy in the form of an incentive to defend one’s own territory during wartime. It’s nice to feel like we need to protect our people during situations like these rather than just abandoning them to go siege crucial enemy territory.

It’d be good for newly constructed baronies as well, as the population would have to grow in the new holding before you start to reap any of its rewards. This same principle could be applied to those ‘Crop Fields’ and ‘Pastures’ type buildings seen in this dev diary too. Instead of applying an instant increase to tax when they are complete, they could instead increase the population capacity of the barony. That way, you would have to wait until the population grows to fill its maximum (and hence fill up that building) before you get to see any of the pasture's benefits. Seems a bit convoluted, but I think it’s good for immersion and really sells the idea that you are making an ‘investment’. It also works well in the sense that if you have a barony in a county that has recently been devastated by war and has only 1/10 of its maximum population, building a pasture in that barony wouldn’t be a very good investment at that time. This is because, theoretically, that pasture wouldn’t be filled up until that population grows back to its (former) maximum capacity anyway.

Last but not least, having a population number for baronies could assist in designing culture melting pots!

Having a mechanic like this would, like others have said, make it feel like we are ruling over a living, breathing realm rather than just over our lords and ladies. My enjoyment of a game is directly proportional to how immersive it is, and I think lots of other players are the same way. Sorry, I've said some of this before in a previous dev diary, I couldn't help myself haha. I just think it'd be such a cool idea.


Also, I have a question regarding development. If we have a highly developed county adjacent to another ruler’s realm, would its development spread to their realm as well? Or just ours?
 
Last edited:
Holdings system look very promising with more impact on gameplay and meaningfull building types but i have few questions.

1) Are the holding types hardcoded or can new holding types be added/modded to the game alongside the 3 core ones to have more variety?

2) Are the number and type of Holdings (castle, temple, city) final or will you add additional before game release if you find a good system for them?
It would be great if each government type would have an aditional holding type unique to it to add more flavour and depth to it.
Feudal system for example was known for its manor system which was granted many times in governship to the knights in exchange for military service and also provided important income and supply in terms of food.. (Manor holding would in terms of game present something betwen a castle and a city with providing levies, knights and supply limit?
Iqta system could on the other side use Caravanserai as uniqe holding which was historicaly something betwen a military outpost and a city which safeguarded trading betwen settlements.

3) Is the development of the holdings represented with a dynamicaly changed model on the map or are holding models different only in termes of region?

4) Are there any buildings that exist out of traditional holding system like in ck2 (hospitals, trade posts, fortifications)

5) Is there any plan to incoroporate roads as special upgrades inside holdings that are seen on the map?

6) Will holy orders use the same holdings or will they have special ones to represent better their function like for example Templar chapterhouse instead castle holding ( instead providing levies they could have significantly higer men at arms count and avalible knights to represent their historical formation.)?
 
Last edited:
But it is absolutely correct and historically accurate. It was called Itinerant Court. I don't know why Paradox whant to transform a brillant medieval simulation (CK2) to a cheap gamey "Middelages Sims"? Where is the clou?

Greetings.
Maybe i didn't explain myself well. I meant that by allowing your capital duchy to construct special structures it represents developments in the current capital, developments that you don't keep with you if you trade away your capital for another duchy.

Or if you conquer the crown to a kingdom, locating yourself in the old king's capital will allow you to find previously built structures.

I followed the link (thanks btw), it does explain the phenomenon, though as far as wikipedia goes, it seems to have been a thing for western Europe and Germany.

Can we agree that even if itinerant courts were used in Western Europe for feudal purposes, it is not the reason for which a player would change their capital in ck?

Anyways I'm sure we'll be able to move our capital around, but i like the incentive of working hard to develop a strong capital. It gives a nice sense of belonging and will provide rewards!
 
Tl;dr:
Restraining the choice of the player (by not letting him chose its capital, for example) in a game that wants to highlight its role-playing aspects is a... Paradox.
You are aware that duchy/kingdom capitals are already fixed in CK2, right? If you select the duchy mode and hover over certain capitals, it will say "duchy capital," and if an AI duke doesn't hold said capital personally, he will want to revoke it. Likewise for kingdom capitals.

The only difference is that in CK2 the capitals mean nothing other than for the AI (and technically for the player, in that you can move your capital there more easily), whereas for CK3 they will also be the place you click to build duchy-specific buildings.
 
Are the "unique and interesting bonuses" of the special buildings largely limited to the top level liege that owns them (like great works are in CK2,) or are they also unique and interesting for any vassals who happen to have one in their demense?
 
You are aware that duchy/kingdom capitals are already fixed in CK2, right? If you select the duchy mode and hover over certain capitals, it will say "duchy capital," and if an AI duke doesn't hold said capital personally, he will want to revoke it. Likewise for kingdom capitals.

The only difference is that in CK2 the capitals mean nothing other than for the AI (and technically for the player, in that you can move your capital there more easily), whereas for CK3 they will also be the place you click to build duchy-specific buildings.

Always felt to me this was a way to force the ai to conduct war, intrigue, or rebellion. Now Lords will be weaker if they do not hold court at an arbitrary location. Which will be a great many if inheritance sillyness and bordergore remain similar to CK2. Which they should.

In CK2 I see a lot of Kings and dukes who hold a great deal of land, either as a vassal or independent lord, and not one bit of it in the de jure location.
 
This all looks pretty interesting, I like the new elements like Public Opinion. I am curious, though, how Development spread works with different levels of neighboring Development. Let's say a county has 10 Development and its neighbors are a 1 Dev county and a 5 Dev county. Assuming terrain, number of cities, etc. are the same, would Dev spread quicker to the lower Dev county, the higher Dev county, or would it spread at the same rate?
 
So... does our control of counties gradually increase as time passes or do we have to use our Steward/construct Temples to increase our control of our counties? Do we have to spend some sort of points (gold, or prestige, or piety, or the new "renown") alá EU4 to magically make them 100% under our control? This was the mechanic I most hated in EU4, using Monarch points to magically turn a province into a core province.
 
One remark on the UI, I think it would be nice to have a collapsible menu for the buildings screen so that it looks more like the menu in CK2 and allows for minimal scrolling. That way, a player can expand a particular building to get more info on it but otherwise keep the build UI compact.
 
How does development affect building availability? Do buildings require a certain development to be built (so you can't build wooden barracks until you reach development 2)? Can you only build a few buildings per development (so if you have development 5 you can only have 15 buildings in each barony)? Or does development not interact with building availability at all?
 
A small suggestion: tie in building production with either Renown or Dynasty Splendor.

I've always found buildings in CK2 to be a huge investment, with very little short to medium term gain. It was really a long-term investment, contrary to many other strategy games. By tying it in with benefiting your Dynasty it becomes explicitly a long-term investment mechanic.

The way I would do it is that even if the building is in a county that is controlled by a different Dynasty than the one that built the building, the Dynasty that built the building is the one that continues to receive the bonus Renown / Splendor, assuming that Dynasty still exists. This way there is also a (small) incentive to improve the holdings of your vassals (and there should be other incentives for that as well).
 
Last edited:
Seems like there is no resource system this time either which is sad to see.

It all boils down to the same boring gameplay as CK2 where everything is about money, and when you have more than you need you will be unstoppable. Geographical location matters little when every area is largely the same.

Was hoping for some more trading and resource management to build buildings and units this time around. Oh well... hopefully you are working on Vicky 3...
 
Seems like there is no resource system this time either which is sad to see.

It all boils down to the same boring gameplay as CK2 where everything is about money, and when you have more than you need you will be unstoppable. Geographical location matters little when every area is largely the same.

Was hoping for some more trading and resource management to build buildings and units this time around. Oh well... hopefully you are working on Vicky 3...

CK3 is a character simulator, not an economy simulator like Vicky. One game shouldn't try to do everything.

Having said that, my biggest issue with what this Dev Diary reveals is a lack of synergy between the building system and character system.
 
The duchy buildings will all be constructed in a specific barony. For example, the buildings for the duchy of Essex will have to be constructed in London.

London isn’t in Essex in the Medieval period. It just isn’t - it may have been during the pre-Alfred days of the kingdom of Essex, but by 1066 this was not the case. London was in the county of Middlesex - by 1066, Westminster would be the church holding and after 1066 the castle holding should be the Tower of London (not sure what you’d call it before then).

Essex didn’t have a city for the majority of the Medieval era - the closest you get is Chelmsford, which first becomes a market town in the 1100s - however there was an earl of Essex (and later a Duke of Essex) who was not in charge of London.

I admit that there was no earl of Middlesex until much later and that London really had a relative degree of independence in terms of its governance, due to its influence over trade. The county of Middlesex should be owned by the king, to replicate its role as the capital and the royal palace at Westminster. Alternatively, London could be a merchant-republic esque town under the control of the English king, which would properly show its status during this period.
 
I think that the castles have to provide also an important amount of control, in order to have a more realistic game. I know that the control that provide the churches is important to balance the game but I think that the control of the nobles have to be represented also. A very interesting dev diary!