• 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:
No to make CK3 like Victoria. I'm saying this for all those pop clusters proposals and so.
I absolutely agree with this, Crusader kings is an individual character game, thus i see no reason to add mechanics so complex that they reduce the focus on the characters themselves. Not even to consider the amount of time it would take to implement such features.
I would much rather see more features and actions you as a character can take, for example expanding on the current law system, maybe make succession laws that actively destabilize your realm but make your dynasty more prominent
or what about adding additional ways of intrique? Maybe even straight out contract experienced councilors to infiltrate an enemy realm and affect their politics that way.
 
Let's keep the focus on the personal. CK2 wasn't your typical RTS, and neither should CK3...
 
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!
Will it be possible for development to decrease as well?
Through sieges, raids, etc?
Constantinople itself suffered a lot through the centuries after the fourth crusade, by the 15th century it was a mere shadow of its former self, hardly worthy of the title "City of the World's Desires" any longer.
 
Question: I noticed that a possible building being considered in the "Dutchy Building" list is "Create Strategic Marches." Does that mean that it may now be possible to integrate in a noble rank into the game: Marquee, Marquis, Margrave, ect?

As CK3 is under development, the developers are in a unique position to create the possibility for special titles to go with provinces and demenses, perhaps provided they are developed in a particular way. Perhaps a strong non-capital barony in a province could become a Viscounty, and the ruler a Viscount or Viscountess. Likewise, a county could be developed in a particular way to become a Marche ruled by a Marquess or Marchioness, or a Palatinate ruled by a Count Palatine or a Countess Palatine.

I believe "Bishop Palatine" was a real historical title as well.
 
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.

Yea why don't we just make the game as easy and dumbed down as possible so everyone can play it without having to think.

Sounds like fun.

Oh wait, they did that with Imperator already...
 
Yea why don't we just make the game as easy and dumbed down as possible so everyone can play it without having to think.

Sounds like fun.

Oh wait, they did that with Imperator already...

EU4 is quite easy to play, but regardless Crusader Kings is about characters and dynasties of the medieval period, not nations.

you do not play as the Kingdom of Scotland, as you would in EU4 for instance, you play as King Bruce of Scotland.

The gameplay should reflect this first person aspect of the theme of the game.

Lets say the Lecherous Mad old King Bruce here wants new clothes. Naturally only the finest vestments will do for a proud King such as himself. If King Bruce does not have immediate access to a good tailor in his realm, he does not pass a law and wait 50 years for the tailor class to grow. He would likely die within that time period. He sends a royal representative to a place that has renowned tailors with a purse (or crate) of gold or other valuables.
 
promoting the use of ‘local lords’, vassals of the local culture/faith

Does this mean it's going to become less obnoxious to recruit people not of your exact culture and religion? CK2 has always been infuriating in this regard, as you can only recruit people of your own culture, even if there's no reason you can't just go to random peasant #55 of the local culture of any province under your control and say "here you're in charge now"; other than that your only option is inviting to court, which is unreliable. As it stands (for CK2), I'd happily eat prestige penalties or whatnot in exchange for being able to maintain proper cultural rulership, so if this is going to be improved in CK3 I'm pretty happy for that.
 
About the duchy capitals, wouldn't it be easier if there were a historical capital (aka where the AI would try to build the duchy buildings) but let anyone - including the AI - build them elsewhere in the duchy? And then you would only be able to move the capital if you destroyed the duchy buildings in the current one.
 
EU4 is quite easy to play, but regardless Crusader Kings is about characters and dynasties of the medieval period, not nations.

you do not play as the Kingdom of Scotland, as you would in EU4 for instance, you play as King Bruce of Scotland.

The gameplay should reflect this first person aspect of the theme of the game.

Lets say the Lecherous Mad old King Bruce here wants new clothes. Naturally only the finest vestments will do for a proud King such as himself. If King Bruce does not have immediate access to a good tailor in his realm, he does not pass a law and wait 50 years for the tailor class to grow. He would likely die within that time period. He sends a royal representative to a place that has renowned tailors with a purse (or crate) of gold or other valuables.
And therefore its best to arbitrarily decide that, say, clothing from Paris is the best with no attachment to the game state?

The reason why I'd like some additional granularity with regards to the population is because it increases the 'points of conflict' that can exist within the game. Obviously, it's hard to say what future DDs will bring (and I'm keeping my fingers crossed), so I'll just say that:
Being character focused and having some kind of state granularity are not mutually exclusive ideas. There should be some kind of acknowledgement to the bodies that make up a barony's development, that make up the barony's loyalty. For a game that sells itself in intrigue and dynasties and the ability to have the most powerful of houses in a world that's as fleshed out as it could be under circumstances, it feels like a totally missed chance to abstract away the biggest source of bodies and simply rely on events and triggers to handwave a fleshed out world.
(At the very least give us a system where a barony can have percentages of cultures. England could probably use that.)

Like...Crusader Kings, for me, has two main gameplay loops:
1) The 'short term' that focuses on the events of the currently active character and their personal quest for whatever they want, and
2) The 'long term' that focuses on the strength of a dynasty that spans a few hundred years, represented by the land they hold.

Getting land is party 1, developing that land is part 2, and the reason why I don't play EU4 all that much is because taking turf never felt impactful beyond redrawing borders. It never really felt impactful in CK2 either, so I kinda want a little more 'oomph' behind taking a chunk of clay and the people that live on it.

...
Though I suppose that, before I start ranting some more, I should get the opinions of people who played CK2 for longer than me.
Question: How long is your average game of CK2? (In game years).
When did you consider your game to be over? (As in, "I did everything I wanted to" and you're therefore either waiting or just start a new game")
 
And therefore its best to arbitrarily decide that, say, clothing from Paris is the best with no attachment to the game state?

The reason why I'd like some additional granularity with regards to the population is because it increases the 'points of conflict' that can exist within the game. Obviously, it's hard to say what future DDs will bring (and I'm keeping my fingers crossed), so I'll just say that:
Being character focused and having some kind of state granularity are not mutually exclusive ideas. There should be some kind of acknowledgement to the bodies that make up a barony's development, that make up the barony's loyalty. For a game that sells itself in intrigue and dynasties and the ability to have the most powerful of houses in a world that's as fleshed out as it could be under circumstances, it feels like a totally missed chance to abstract away the biggest source of bodies and simply rely on events and triggers to handwave a fleshed out world.
(At the very least give us a system where a barony can have percentages of cultures. England could probably use that.)

Like...Crusader Kings, for me, has two main gameplay loops:
1) The 'short term' that focuses on the events of the currently active character and their personal quest for whatever they want, and
2) The 'long term' that focuses on the strength of a dynasty that spans a few hundred years, represented by the land they hold.

Getting land is party 1, developing that land is part 2, and the reason why I don't play EU4 all that much is because taking turf never felt impactful beyond redrawing borders. It never really felt impactful in CK2 either, so I kinda want a little more 'oomph' behind taking a chunk of clay and the people that live on it.

...
Though I suppose that, before I start ranting some more, I should get the opinions of people who played CK2 for longer than me.
Question: How long is your average game of CK2? (In game years).
When did you consider your game to be over? (As in, "I did everything I wanted to" and you're therefore either waiting or just start a new game")

Indeed character focus and a more indepth game state are not mutually exclusive, and i indeed am in favor of more in depth mechanics. The problem i see with mechanics like population is that they are very performance intensive, especially in the scale of crusader kings where we are simulating singular baronies and not whole countries or nations themselves, thus i do not see this as a feasible option.

I do think there should always be meaningful interactions with their own demense and their realm, thus removing the need to constantly expand.
I think every part of the game should be made with a passive and an active component in mind for in CK2

Religion has:
Moral authority, this is a passive component of the religion
Conversion of provinces is pseudo active, as in you actively choose to convert something but this require very little to no input from the player
The college of cardinals for christians, arguably the most active system for religion currently, as you are actively trying to win the favour of the pope.

Your realm:
Demense, this again is pseudo active, most of the time you choose to build economic structures and then just forget about it, essentially a build & forget system
Vassals, this is arguably the most active part of your realm, you are always trying to be in best terms with every vassal of your realm
Laws these i would almost class as passive as this tends to coincide with the relation of your vassals, and there an arguably you are just increasing the current laws. conclave arguably made this a better more active system by you actively choosing to balance taxes & levies, but i still think this is very lackluster.

These are just a few examples and i wholeheartedly believe that by making at least a single active system for each part of the game would improve the experience by a considerable margin, this is just my opinion feel free to disagree with me.

...
To answer the questions you posed in your post
-I have played ~1000 hours of CK2
-My average game length of CK2 is 500 ingame years
-I consider the game to be over once some of my own arbitrary conditions have been met, these are usually in the realm of "My dynasty owns all provinces (Including baronies), of a certain region, or if playing nomad i tend to burn everything (Which is insanely laborious by the way)
 
On the pops idea, I'd say pops simulated as deeply as in Victoria is a bad idea for a game not supposed to be about deep simulation of macro elements, but characters.
On the other end a lighter system can (and should imo) be considered to improve these aspects compared to CK2, and make things like conversion mechanics less based on sudden changes themselves based on random rolls.

What I'd consider is a simple, not necessarily represented by a precise number of "citizens", evaluation of population (ie : 5 levels going from depopulated to overpopulated, impacting taxes, levies, etc...), with population of baronnies not having suffered from wars/epidemics increasing a level every 10 years or so, and those regularly pillaged or suffering from epidemies decreasing, then some simple migration mechanism redistributing population between baronnies (ie : if pop is supposed to go above max level in one, the pop of a neighbour is increased instead).

And an as simple minority system, using % (ie : if a province is on its way to be converted population would be described as x% religion x, y% religion y) for religions and cultures. So instead of religions/cultures suddenly changing with random rolls you'd be able to see for example that your chaplain efforts start to take effect, or detect that an heresy is progressing in a county before it's the majority and act about that. But I wouldn't make it as deep as Victoria one, by grouping secundary minorities in an "others" group with a % that would only decrease, as they'd be the first converted by the main ones (ie say a germanic province with a slavic minority has been conquered by orthodoxs who started to convert them, the slavic minority would become "others" and the first group decreasing until orthodoxs (or some germanic revival) convert all of them, before reducing the germanic % ; then if the province is conquered by catholics the biggest group from germanic or orthodox would remain as religious minority, and the other be now described as "others" and only reduce over time). Such a system would allow some depth, like having resilient minorities making easier to convert back provinces, or able to revive old religions/cultures, etc... through events making the dominant group lose influence, without going into the insane complexity of Victoria pops mechanisms (and all the useless data kept to keep track of every 15 people converted jew group, or make separate ones for every combo of culture/religion and social classes).

Also as the game is about characters, it would also allow to make these minorities represented by leaders, making them available targets for actions before they become revolters. Say you own that catholic county with a cathar minority, you'd be able to interact with the most influent cathar family, inviting their leader to your court and giving him a position to try to buy peace with that minority (at the price of offending your own church, and eventually helping him to spread catharism), or in contrary imprisoning/burning him, pleasing your church and helping your religion spread but increasing religious tensions a lot for a period.

Finally about social classes, if it's represented (not sure it should), it may by a simple % as well, splitting population between say serfs, free peasants, burghers, low nobility and clergy (more likely at county or duchy level than at barrony one, as base numbers would be based on the number of barronies of each type, and not going into Victorian details like what the dominant culture of each class is).
Essentially high % of serfs would be the best for agriculture based economy output but reduce levies morale as quasi slaves don't make reliable troops and favorise revolts, high% of free peasants would be the best for military as they give levies with higher morale but being less exploited would reduce their lord income from fields, burghers the best for developpment and towns economic buildings output but too high numbers would impact supplies production/increase risks of famine as they don't produce food, and low nobility/clergy would increase the quality of nobles/priests you can find through the 'invite' intrigue actions and affect things like religious/cultural conversions for clergy and non levy troops quality for nobles but be the worse for economy, especially having a lot of small nobles not producing anything (and being taxed according to noble rules).
Then you may add to that a system (a bit like the one of CK1 except you would actually change population repartition instead of only social class happiness) where you can increase the % of one of these groups in detriment of others through a simple action (but unlike in CK1 make it usable only one time every x years instead of allowing to click 15 times on favorise nobility in 3 seconds and end with a county suddenly seeming to have only knights as population).

TL DR : it's possible to have a population system with *some* depth but not going as far as Victoria's one.
 
Last edited:
Indeed character focus and a more indepth game state are not mutually exclusive, and i indeed am in favor of more in depth mechanics. The problem i see with mechanics like population is that they are very performance intensive, especially in the scale of crusader kings where we are simulating singular baronies and not whole countries or nations themselves, thus i do not see this as a feasible option.

I do think there should always be meaningful interactions with their own demense and their realm, thus removing the need to constantly expand.
I think every part of the game should be made with a passive and an active component in mind for in CK2

Religion has:
Moral authority, this is a passive component of the religion
Conversion of provinces is pseudo active, as in you actively choose to convert something but this require very little to no input from the player
The college of cardinals for christians, arguably the most active system for religion currently, as you are actively trying to win the favour of the pope.

Your realm:
Demense, this again is pseudo active, most of the time you choose to build economic structures and then just forget about it, essentially a build & forget system
Vassals, this is arguably the most active part of your realm, you are always trying to be in best terms with every vassal of your realm
Laws these i would almost class as passive as this tends to coincide with the relation of your vassals, and there an arguably you are just increasing the current laws. conclave arguably made this a better more active system by you actively choosing to balance taxes & levies, but i still think this is very lackluster.

These are just a few examples and i wholeheartedly believe that by making at least a single active system for each part of the game would improve the experience by a considerable margin, this is just my opinion feel free to disagree with me.

...
To answer the questions you posed in your post
-I have played ~1000 hours of CK2
-My average game length of CK2 is 500 ingame years
-I consider the game to be over once some of my own arbitrary conditions have been met, these are usually in the realm of "My dynasty owns all provinces (Including baronies), of a certain region, or if playing nomad i tend to burn everything (Which is insanely laborious by the way)
Topic: Performance
I'm definitely not advocating for a pop-kind of representation for much of the same reasons: too expensive for no good gain, which is why my thoughts tend to go into clusters. I would still posit that the strength of a barony is its people rather than some nebulous idea of a title, but that opens a can of worms not worth discussing about, especially in the context of a game that needs some form of structure to its organization.

I will note that my current idea of population cluster depiction is on a COUNTY level rather than a BARONY one, if only because after thinking about it baronies exist to support counties, and you can't play baronies, so...

Topic: Systems with regards to Religion and Realm
I would love to have CK3 put some of its shiny new processing power into modeling countries with a bit more granularity, but basically it boils down to: let's have more numbers.
Like, give me religion problems where the needs of my county priest clashes with the needs of the local population on more than just a 10% basis, and that replacing a local priest through a carefully planned balcony would actually cause problems with the population because the guy was popular with the people on more than just a religious basis. Give me social problems where the mayor's carefully walking a tightrope between the city's poor and its rich, and then new management shows up and everything goes to pot.
Like...give me blobbing that can't stop, not because the PLAYER doesn't want to stop, but because internal fervor for new land is so high that the player can't help but keep going, because his vassals are themselves propped by public support and is riding high on their fervor to help pay off their own bad management decisions.

Now, granted, I don't think CK exists in a timeframe where public opinion counted for much, but at the very least there should exist a system where an army can keep itself on the field for longer* if the meatshields of the army liked the dudes in control better.
 
I absolutely agree with this, Crusader kings is an individual character game, thus i see no reason to add mechanics so complex that they reduce the focus on the characters themselves. Not even to consider the amount of time it would take to implement such features.
I would much rather see more features and actions you as a character can take, for example expanding on the current law system, maybe make succession laws that actively destabilize your realm but make your dynasty more prominent
or what about adding additional ways of intrique? Maybe even straight out contract experienced councilors to infiltrate an enemy realm and affect their politics that way.

What about Crusader Kings but with Stellaris pop mechanic? Depopulation from epidemic outbreaks might work pretty cool o_O
 
What about Crusader Kings but with Stellaris pop mechanic? Depopulation from epidemic outbreaks might work pretty cool o_O
Wasn't there a minor depopulation feature in reaper's due? like with prosperity and then depopulation... It would be neat to see population play a bigger role than just for epidemics.
 
Wasn't there a minor depopulation feature in reaper's due? like with prosperity and then depopulation... It would be neat to see population play a bigger role than just for epidemics.
Like siege workshops, bastions or pasture buildings unmanned due to outbreaks.