• 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:
It would be a nice upgrade from CK2 if the Holding models (specifically Temples and Castles) could be converted after the conquest of a Barony.

It was quite emersion-breaking in CK2 as a Pagan when you would conquer Christian lands to then appointing a Seer to a large stone chapel adorned with a crucifix. Or as a Tribal nation being penalised for holding established castles.

I would like to see a Holding "upgrade" where you can convert it to the new ruler's Religion and Government Type. This could be balanced with a Negative Opinion time-penalty if the existing Pop is not of your Faith too!
 
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.

But why not have more "capitals"? I would call them palatinates. And why can we not decide on our own where to build them, like Charlemagne did? And why "capitals" could not decay into irrelevance?

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.

Yeah that is cool. But what if you are the greatgrandson of the conquerer and you want glory on your own. And you build a new capital and left the old for decay? Like Constantin the great did with Rome and Constantinople? Why is this not allowed on a smaller scale? I don't see the benefit in gameplay fun?

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.

I would LOVE greater deversity of governal gameplay. I totally agree. Give the Itinerant to the western feudal Lords. Design different things for Iqta, East Feudalism, etc. (keep it for DLCs - i want that paradox earn well deserved money) but make the basegame as complete and historical accurat as it could be. Please!

For itinerant rule i would love to see a kind of vassal loyality "ticker". So the closer your court is the faster and higher vassal loyality grows. Vassals who were far away lose loyality till they revolte. These "modifier" comes ontop of the other regular ones. In the course of time, when "technology" rises, the influence of the court spread further and you can chose a persistant capital. But if your realm expands (or collapses) you may reevaluate your position and move your court again.

With the actual mechanic the way you play the game would be so different compared to real and historical implications that i do not see how CK3 could be an improvement to CK2. I seems to me its a totally different game genre. Not historical simulation but "medieval flavourd roleplaygame". That feels awefull.

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?

Ok i totally agree.

Greetings.
 
Wait so, as far as I can tell, holding types cannot be destroyed once constructed, development doesn't go down from being conquered (but control does) and duchy capital buildings are tied to specific counties (meaning capitals are essentially immovable).
Not too sure about this one paradox. First you remove the link between smalled geographical unit and smallest political unit, and now this? Seems like a poor choice to make up for the unwieldy county system by introducing an equally unwieldy duchy system.
 
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...

I really hope paradox doesn’t listen to the people like you that clearly just wants this game to be their Victoria/EU surrogate.

The CK games does in no way need things like pops or an in depth economic system.
 
Hrm, yeah. Seems like the County<->Barony mechanics are pretty tied up in each other, so messy-border-baronies seems likely to be permanently out. dunno about all the other mechanics. From just reading about them, they come across as a bit too linear and simplistic for my tastes (clearly development shouldn't always just increase. Even if a city prospers somewhere that's no guarantee it's not actually a drain on its surroundings, etcetc).

Oh well. Guess design philosophy is unsurprisingly different than my personal tastes. Unfortunately a lot of that seems to be tied up in presumably pretty fixed core mechanics, hrrrrm.
 
Can you build as many buidlings per holding as you can afford or do you have to make choices (which then rule out other options)?

For example: Does the building of Military schools rule out the construction of Strategic marches afterwards? In other words: Do you have to specialise?
 
I really hope paradox doesn’t listen to the people like you that clearly just wants this game to be their Victoria/EU surrogate.

The CK games does in no way need things like pops or an in depth economic system.

There is no current paradox game (with the possible exception of Hoi4, because Hoi4 really does want to be a warsim) that would not be improved by the simulation of pops. If the player can't influence the pop system except by conquering (i.e. pop development is dynamic as in Victoria) then the simulation provides fun and cool situations of emergent gameplay. The worst you can do is Stellaris, which is a perfectly acceptably popsim for most applications.
 
Last edited:
I don't understand the border gore argument for non county controlled baronies. It should still be possible if strong leaders are able to pass laws designed to rule out inheritances leaving the kingdom. I don't get the rule change.

That being said........ PLEASE ALLOW FOR MULTIPLE DE JURE CLAIMS BEING FOUGHT FOR AT ONCE.

Seriously that's the only real problem border gore caused in previous games. Also having to enter a massive 5 nation war with 300,000+ soldiers for a single county was always stupid.
 
Can i propose a system where the output of the buildings has a plus or minus modefire attacht to it based on in what kind of biom/area the place it is build in is. This first of al would make more sense in a realisme way but would also create dirfrent areas where wich are more specialised in a sence that gras lands and river areas would be able to support a lot of people with farms and such so there you can get a lot of man power/levies while in areas like swamps and mountans farms would gaine a debuf while cattle farms for swamps and quaries for mountains would gain a buff thus becoming more of a money making area. this would then also give more difrent incentives to conquer as kingdoms with a lot of farm land may want to try and conquer land that may solve thier monetary problems and visa versa.
 
if i remember correctly wasn't that a thing in ck2?
Nope, you could push all personal claims against a particular character. Not the dejure claims of your duchy or kingdom.

Which isn't a big deal normally, but it creates these massive wars over a single lousy county which take up like 5-10 years of game time. I think the respective size of both nations should be taken into account with regard to how much can be fought over de jure wars. Or alternatively make it easier to invade a country for dejure claims that comes with a massive threat bonus.

Edit: sorry, also, warscore needs to be less all or nothing as is the case now.

Edit 2 (lol sorry): so to clarify relative size mattering.... kings can fight over a single duchy. An emperor can can fight over 2. In this way the defending title holder can stand against a usurper quite well, but once the balance shifts he's likely to lose his independence. Whereas kingdoms and emperors stand to lose more, but keep nations more intact than otherwise might be.
 
Last edited:
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 is held by Baron X and he is vassal of Duke Y, but Duchy of Essex is held by Duke Z. Who will then get a bonus from duchy buildings and who can build them?
 
Based on the terrain of the province, each Holding has access to a number of buildings.

This sounds a bit ambiguous so just to be sure: does this mean the terrain determines the maximum amount of buildings we can build in a province; or that there's a number of buildings that can be buiit depending on the terrain?
 
London is held by Baron X and he is vassal of Duke Y, but Duchy of Essex is held by Duke Z. Who will then get a bonus from duchy buildings and who can build them?

Is it possible for baron X to be a vassal of Duke Y if Duke Y is not also the holder of Duchy of Essex? I thought they said Baronies are permanently attached to their Duchies.
 
Is it possible for baron X to be a vassal of Duke Y if Duke Y is not also the holder of Duchy of Essex? I thought they said Baronies are permanently attached to their Duchies.
They said that Baronies cannot leave County, but they never said that County cannot leave Duchy. That Baron can be also Count of London area of course, but i hope he can be under different duke, if else whats the purpose of the game at all?
 
Very interesting thus far.
I myself am i player that likes to play tall. And often tend to gravitate towards playing a merchant republic or tribal (For that sweet gavelkind action), and on that front i am yet to be convinced with CK3.

The game still lacks an incentive to actively engage with your holdings, and has really has no other mechanics to extend your power, than war (of course there is diplomacy but if this is implemented like in CK2 it tends to mostly lead to marry & forget situations or options that ultimately just lead to a CB)

What i would like to see is more interactions, for example:

Upgradable buildings
Essentially just like CK2, buildings can be upgraded for more bonuses, but instead of capping these upgrades, i'd like to see infinite upgrades. These upgrades would become less effective the more of them you buy (The effectiveness could be tied to development of the province), also by doing this you could always invest into a holding which could then translate into a wealthy more developed province, but at the same time these upgrades would be tied to the development of the province, as you don't really want to be throwing all of your income into upgrading something that does not return the investment in the period of the game.
For example, you construct a crop field and gain an income of 0.5/month
Then you expand said crop field and this increases your income to 0.94/month
Then you expand said crop field again and the income increases to 1.31/month
Now the development increases and the income from the said crop fields increases to 1.32/month

New non-conquest CB's
Religious tension (A neighboring realm of a different religion has disrespected your religion) - If you win the war then your religion gains moral authority, or its equivalent
Dynastic disrespect (A neighboring realm has shown disrespect towards your dynasty by executing/banishing someone) - By winning you DIRECTLY increase your dynastic prestige.
Etc...
 
Without going into the weeds on mechanics that haven't been show yet:

1) Having the duchy capital be fixed in terms of where the buildings show up feel like a compromise against having buildings that teleport along with a decision to move a duchy capital. While my initial reaction against this was negative, after thinking about it I'm not sure if I even understand the problem enough to be angry about it, so let's see.

I suppose the Duchy of Essex is made up of multiple Counties, let's say, 3.
Let's say that players A and B are in contention of Essex.
Player A holds 2 of its counties but not London, and player B holds London as well as the title.
Going by the currently described methods, player B will built its Duchy buildings in London while player A will...what? Be unable to build Duchy buildings in Essex at all?

Because if it is the case that player A can also build duchy buildings in Essex, then, going by the currently admitted to mechanic:
those buildings will vanish or replace the ones that exist in London, since "building in Essex will have to be in London".

2) I kind of do want some kind of acknowledgement that we as rulers can seriously ruin the day of the peasants that live in our territories, and the move into incremental mechanics of development and what is essentially a right to rule makes me happy.
That said,
While I am in the 'it'd be nice to have pops' camp, I'm a lot less interested in having raw numbers-it's a lot of work for no real purpose.
Instead, I'd like to see something like 'relative population wealth' or something similar, where, let's say...each population is registered as a 'cluster'.
So, for example:
A City would have a cluster of:
City peasants
City artisans (of the workshop variety)
City rulership
Rural peasants
Rural artisans
Rural rulership
The distinction being cities as the people who live in and directly support the city, versus the unmodeled villages and smaller towns that indirectly support the city within the barony.
And then each one of these population clusters would have an "average wealth" metric. Peasants would be too unhappy if their wealth falls too low below the other two classes of their category (city vs rural), while the rulership would be unhappy if they're unable to maintain their top status. Basically, a reason for the march ever upwards to create its own problems that needs to be handled.

...And also because I'm a bleeding heart who really wants to see peasants get paid more.

(Maybe also have like a 'population fill' metric in percentage, where it goes below 100% in times of war to represent deaths and murdering, while going above 100% to...do people mass migrate in this time frame?)

Finally, I'd like to say that the number one mechanic that got me back into playing CK2 was the ability to build hospitals, so I do wish that CK3 give levels of attention to the fact that players in the role of nobility not only have to deal with other competitors in nobility, but also the peasants on the ground. A nation is its people, after all, no matter how much noise the select few on the top make.