• 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.

Dev Diary #109 - Floor Plan for the Future

Greetings!

A long time in the making, this diary is dedicated to plans, and what we have in store for CK3. From more present matters to musings and thoughts ranging into the far future. Crusader Kings is a unique game series, and one that has been close to my heart for a long time - the focus on characters as the driving force, emergent narratives, and player freedom make it truly stand out.

Ever since I took the reins of the project I’ve continued to follow the original vision, which some of you might remember from the very first Dev Diary: Character Focus, Player Freedom and Progression, Player Stories, and Approachability. As you can see, the points correspond fairly well with my initial sentiment, and I do not intend to deviate too far from these points - that said there are always things we can do better or differently within them, and I think that we could do even more to, for example, improve the cohesion of player stories or the sense of progression. I am a firm believer in that everything in the game should help you in making stories (while not necessarily being explicitly connected).

Internally we’ve always worked with the premise “Live the life of a Medieval Ruler”, which means that we want the game to be uniquely true to how life was during the period. We want to attribute more than just ‘death, suffering, and war’ to the era we portray. Highlighting things that you might not see elsewhere, such as family, or the challenges of rulership, is important to us. Going forward this will remain a priority, though it is important to note that we do exaggerate and romanticize a lot - it is a game after all!

thinking_ani.gif


This all leads me to the next point; what are we doing?

As a project, we aspire to have a cadence of roughly four releases per year, not including post-release support in the form of patches or hotfixes. During this year we’ve released Royal Court, Fate of Iberia, Friends & Foes, and as mentioned previously we’re aiming to have a free update out before the year is over. We want to have a steady stream of new content, while also maintaining the game by acting on feedback. For next year, our ambition is to have somewhere around four updates (barring unforeseen circumstances).

Going even further (long-term) we have the ambition to shorten our cycles, so we can get more content and updates out. The project is (by Paradox Development Studio standards) still young, and has a long future ahead of it. There’s so much to do, and so many ideas still to explore. Though as I mentioned this is an ambition and not a promise - it might be complicated to get everything in place, but rest assured that we’re always evaluating what we can do to achieve this.

Of course, we’re also watching initiatives that other studios are driving, such as the Stellaris Custodian Initiative, with interest. While we’re not organized in a way where we could adopt a similar structure today, it’s something that’s worth investigating - again, this is a long-term thing, and it’s very possible that we would find another setup that works better for Crusader Kings.

For next year we want to do something similar to Royal Edition again, an Expansion Pass with a bundle of intriguing content. One drawback of the Royal Edition was the fact that the main beat, the Major Expansion, came later in the cycle. For the next one, we want to either start off the cycle with the Major Expansion, or make it obvious what the theme is going to be from the start. This should make it much clearer what you’re actually getting in the package as a whole. We’re also exploring what formats and formulas of expansions could make up a future Expansion Pass, as the ‘1 Expansion, 2 Flavor Pack’ formula is not set in stone.

In addition to this, we also aim to do experiments now and then. For this year, the experiment was Friends & Foes; a smaller content format that was born out of the minds of the team. We’re looking into a few different experiments for the future, which I can unfortunately not share right now. Though something we can share is that we’re looking into more community involvement.

But what are we doing? What’s the next Expansion about?

As I’ve mentioned before, it’s too early to reveal the theme. However, the next Expansion is leaning towards the roleplaying side of the game. Without revealing too much we’re focusing in large parts on reinforcing the connection between map and character. The theme is not one that has been the subject of an expansion in previous iterations of CK - to make things extra clear; we’re not doing trade, imperial/byzantine mechanics, nomads, or similar this time.

That said, I know that many of you are also hungry for more systemic expansions, and that’s understandable! Of course, the next Expansion isn’t devoid of systemic changes or mechanics just because it’s leaning heavily towards roleplaying. CK, like all GSGs, requires systemic content to remain true to what they are. There will be plenty of systems, both as part of the Expansion and the free update that comes along with it. For Flavor Packs we’re also going to aim to have systemic content as part of the formula - Fate of Iberia proved that a combination of flavor (events, clothes, illustrations, etc.) and a central systemic feature (the struggle) served to elevate the experience as a whole.

As of now, we have a team of designers that is unlike anything we’ve had before - it’s not only a large team, but they’re also highly skilled and competent. This, in part, is why we’ve chosen to do an Expansion focusing on the roleplaying side of things, and it’s also the reason why we had the capacity to do the Friends & Foes experiment.

My aspiration is to shift focus towards more systems-heavy expansions after the next one, and we’re gearing up the team to be able to do just that. I’m of the opinion that there must be balance, and as we’ll have had two roleplay-focused expansions in a row, by then it’ll be time for the scales to shift towards the systemic side. We’ve expanded our team of programmers significantly, so the future looks bright for those of you that crave new and exciting systemic content…

Looking toward the future, what will we be doing over the coming years?

Now, there are a lot of areas that I want to explore in the future! Please note that anything I write or list here is not in any way chronological, and they’re not explicit promises. Great ideas come along at any moment, from any direction, and we want to stay flexible with our plans.

The current formats of Major Expansions, Flavor Packs, and Event Packs I believe let us cover every style of content we want to do, and we intend to keep these formats (while maybe tweaking the formulas a little bit here and there!).

Flavor Themes
Starting off with Flavor Packs; the regional focus is great and allows us to deep-dive into the history of a particular area - but as fun as it is to hit the books on a specific region, it’s possible that we’ll also be looking into non-regional Flavor Pack variants. Anything can be possible as long as there’s a central system where flavor can be woven in. That said, at least the next Flavor pack is likely to remain regional in nature.

A long-term goal is to revitalize and create diverse and varied gameplay throughout the map. Something we want to do is to explore regions outside of Europe, as both of our Flavor Packs so far have been within the region. We want to show how much fascinating history and intriguing gameplay can be found around the world. Examples with a lot of surprisingly deep history include regions such as Tibet, Persia, the Caucasus, and North Africa, to name only a few.

Of course, in due time we also want to explore regions within Europe that are very popular for players, some examples including Britain, France, and the West/East Slavic lands. It’s likely that we’ll alternate a bit, especially if someone on the team is extra passionate about a theme. Also one final thing; a lot of you are asking for a Byzantine Flavor Pack, but I know for a fact that the scope of a Flavor Pack wouldn’t sate your ravenous hunger for East Roman content… when we eventually get to them, it’d more than likely be as the part of a Major Expansion!

As for non-regional, there are some ideas floating around; further exploring governments such as the Tribal Government, or building flavorful systems around for example Epidemics (which is a system that would, foundationally, be free if/when we make it), etc. A benefit that this format would have is that we’d be able to make systems that don’t fit the larger theme of a Major Expansion, but that we still feel would be great for the game.

Just to reiterate; don’t take anything I say here as a statement that we’re doing one of these themes right now!

Ambitions for Expansions
There are already years worth of ideas for what we could do for Expansions. I’ll go through a handful of the areas I’d like to explore in the future, focusing on some of the topics commonly seen around the community. Note that these are not necessarily standalone Expansion themes, some might be combined, others divided. While there are some themes that I think are more important than others, there’s really no saying what we’ll look at first or in what order.
WIPdeck.png


Trade & Merchant Republics is something I hear a lot about - and it’s something that I really want to get to in time. However, I found the CK2 implementation in The Republic to be incredibly lackluster; in a game with thousands of interesting starts, it added only a handful more, and it didn’t actually have that much to do with trade. For CK3 my vision would be different - medieval rulers didn’t trade, per se, and noble rulers didn’t regularly barter resources with each other, so while that’s not a thing I’d want, there are a lot of interactions that could be added around trade and the people who did the trading. A system for CK3 would be character-driven, and there’s definitely an opportunity for new playstyles that aren’t as limited as the ones in CK2…

Imperial Mechanics, especially in relation to the Byzantine Empire, is another common topic. Empires are generally not very exciting, essentially having the same mechanics as a king does. I believe that there’s an opportunity not only for emperors, but to be part of an empire. In many cases, such as in Byzantium, the Abbasids, or even the HRE, being a part of the empire should be as interesting as ruling it. There are many ways of going about this, but ideally, I’d want to get a lot of differences in there - no two empires were ever really the same, after all.

Laws were another system that was lackluster at best in CK2. While they allowed a degree of customization and mechanical impact, the implementation was static and fairly uninspired. Conceptually laws were a huge part of being a ruler and being part of a realm, and while we do have vassal contracts (which I’d like to revise at some point, too) there’s room for more. For CK3, a law system would be deeply driven by characters, rather than confined to a static setup. Dynamism and evolution would be two keywords for the vision here.

Religion in CK3 took a great step up from previous iterations, but there’s always more we can do. There are a plethora of ideas floating around, and as religion was such a common part of everyone’s lives by this point in history, it’s hardly surprising. It’s hard to nail down exactly what I’d like to do here as there’s just so much, but CK3 is uniquely suited to simulate all the drama that happened between everyone involved within the sphere of faith, be they Pope, Grandmaster, or simply an influential ruler. There’s also a lot of potential around crusades, and all the happenings before, during, and after them. I’d also really like to get faith to play a larger part in the everyday lives of rulers, as it’s much too easy to ignore as it stands.

Nomads are just one part of the whole; the Steppe. This region is unique, and we’ve never done it real justice. In CK2 every ruler on the Steppe was a Genghis-in-the-making, with little focus beyond war. In reality, the Steppe was like an ocean - and the nomads were the only ones who had mastered it. I’d like to make the Steppe as a region stand out with mechanics of its own, and I’d like a large part of nomadic life to be about moving, focusing on the dynamism of the place and the people within.

The Late Game is another area that I’m very interested in expanding, as the game currently plays very similar across the entire timeline. Sure, there are some differences, primarily in how easy it is to rule, and how much you’re able to claim in wars, but the differences could be more fundamental. This is one of those topics where there are a million things we could do, but an ambition I have is that the game should stay interesting for longer than is currently the average play session (around 200 years or so). Looking at Eras and their effects on the game is one venue, so is taking a look at holdings, economy, and other fundamental components of the game.

I think it’s quite obvious that I eventually want to Expand the Map, to include the rest of the Old World. If we’d do it all at once or in segments is still up in the air, but regardless of what approach we take, it’s imperative that the area feels different to play in from the western half. While it’s obvious that the area would require a lot of unique art, I’d also want it to work differently from a mechanical standpoint - governments, faiths, etc. It’s an ambitious goal, but one I wish to tackle eventually.

Floorplan.png

An incredibly rough floor plan for the future.

General Areas
Of course, there are also areas of the game that I want to revisit, rework, rebalance, or expand in general - it’s not all about expansions or flavor, existing systems, and core loops must be revisited now and then to keep the game in a good state. Of course, this would be done in free updates, either free-standing or as part of a bigger release. Here are some of the things that I’d like to get to within a reasonable timeline, some more important than others. This is not an exhaustive list.

Alliances
are too binary as they stand, while it’s true that it’s easy to understand how they work, it also results in a lot of unwanted busywork when you have to fight in wars you’ve no interest in (or you have to take a big prestige hit…) - at the same time, it’s much too easy to get a lot of allies that, at a moments notice, are ready to drop everything in order to help in your wars. I’d like to see a pact-based system where you have to negotiate more, without making it annoying to find and get the alliances you need. You should, for example, never be fooled into a marriage hoping to get an offensive alliance, where it turns out you simply can’t. Exactly how/what we’d do is still in the works, but it’s high up on my list.

Clans do not feel unique enough, while they have some mechanics that simulate the sphere’s tendency for spectacular rises & falls, there’s more we can do to show the differences from Feudal. I’d like to explore what made Clan realms so different historically and draw upon that for a more flavorful set of differing mechanics. I definitely also want to make the Clan, as in the group of people, matter more in the government bearing its namesake.

Warfare is not and never will be a primary focus for CK3, that said it’s not as character-driven as it could be, outside of commander advantage and the occasional great knight. There’s also a real problem with delivering content (usually in the form of events) during times of war, as the player more often than not gets interrupted by something appearing in the middle of the screen while maneuvering units. I’d eventually like for us to be able to deliver content in a way that doesn’t interrupt warfare, and use that system to highlight characters and heroic acts (Battle of Agincourt, anyone?). I’d also like to rework the major annoyances of warfare, such as supply.

Modifier Stacking is becoming an issue in some places, especially for Men-at-Arms modifiers (primarily from buildings) and Building Cost Reduction modifiers. While some issues can be solved by tweaking numbers (we’ve for example reduced prestige sources in the past) others require a redesign/revisit of the underlying problem. For example, I’d like to take a long, hard look at MaA modifiers, seeing as the player can very easily destroy AI armies with little work. I’d like to not only rebalance the sources of MaA boons but potentially also create new options for fun management.

AI is an enigmatic beast, with aspects that are incredibly diverse. One of them is warfare AI, where Crusades stand out as an area in need of improvement - on one hand, historical crusades were incredibly disorganized, but on the other, we don’t want the player to feel like they’re hopeless endeavors. No matter what we decide to do, we’ll have to strike a balance - if the AI played perfectly optimally, crusades would steamroll everything, and I don’t want that. There are of course other aspects of the AI where I want to see improvements, such as the marriage AI, but we’ve at least made some good strides with the economical AI over the last few updates, so that’s not a priority. We eventually want personalities to shine through every aspect of the AI, and we have some plans for that, which will likely come in steps.

Community & History
As I touched upon earlier, we’d like to invite you in the community to take part in some of the things we’re doing in the not-too-distant future - my guess would be within Q1 of next year (though still TBD). Without spoiling too much it’d have something to do with the content we’ll be making…

While not directly related to the game, an (at least if you ask me) incredibly cool initiative that we’ll be driving is to have more collaborations with historical media - this goes hand-in-hand with what I mentioned early on in this diary, regarding us wanting to show how medieval life actually was! This means that you’ll be seeing even more podcasts, videos, etc., about themes close to the game. Who knows, we might even get historians or professors to be guests or consult for our upcoming content.

For those of you playing on console there will be a post later this week, answering some of the questions you have.

That’s it for now! I invite you all to discuss what you see here - share your thoughts about the themes, ideas for what you’d like to see, suggestions on how things could be done, and so on!
 
  • 262Like
  • 113Love
  • 46
  • 19
  • 9
Reactions:
Gd, the only way I can imagine modeling the shift from Heian period to Kawakura period is by way of a change in character like the option given in a Crusade. It would make sense to add a start date for the Genpei War in 1180. Or, no, a couple decades earlier, with the Heiji Rebellion in 1160. Then you could play as either the Gen (Minamoto) or the Hei (Taira) of the Genpei War, with the Minamoto clan off licking their wounds in exile and the Taira getting getting soft in court life.

You wouldn’t have to use historical clans, though. If you started in 867, it would be ... well largely a court based game where you fight for which clan supplies daughters to the Imperial family so you can grandfather emperors.

The Emperor would be a character like the Pope, who would demote distant relatives to the aristocracy, making them founders of clans (like the above Heike and Genji clans). You could then, through quite a lot of event chains, recreate the Hogen and Heiji Rebellions in the 12th century.

In that case, the game would be stacked against whichever clan you were playing the court life game with, as the Heian period was great for art and peach blossom water scented sleeves in the moonlight and all, but for economic development? Ehhhh, not so much.

There would be a chance to come out on top of all this upheaval as the aristo family (maybe a game rule determining how bad the odds are), but the player would be given a chance to switch over when the first de facto military dictatorship is established, as either their allied benefactors living in court with them (alt-Heike) or the exiled rivals prepping for round two (alt-Genji).

Great, now I have to pull out my Classical Japanese class notes from a decade ago.
 
Not sure you can reasonably expect the game to reflect a change in government for a culture. Or at least not one unique just to that culture. Because the same arguments can be made about Europe and the feudalism doesnt accurately represent reality everywhere at all times from 867 to 1453. Compromise is needed.
It’s a pretty big difference. The ruling class switched from aristocratic to warring class.

There is honestly a pretty sharp divide.
 
So the playerbase is perfectly used to it. Jokes aside, I have no doubt it would massive. Would shogunate not used similar mechanics to feudal?

Technically, yes, but there are a few big things to take into consideration:

- Though some Kamakura Shoguns were from the Imperial Family and would not be covered by this, not all were. If you are not from the Imperial Family, you do not usurp the Chrysanthemum Throne under any circumstances; while CK3 can go silly and ahistorical in various ways, treating this as anything other than a firm rule would be on the level of treating "The Pope is Catholic!" as anything other than a firm rule. This means that regardless of whether you model the Shogun as the Tenno's liege or as a special vassal of the Tenno you have to make sure that sort of thing does not happen, which means the normal assumptions about what you can do to a liege/vassal aren't quite true, and this would also affect fellow vassals and/or foreign rulers in some ways.

- Excepting Minamoto no Yoritomo (the first Kamakura Shogun), all Kamakura Shoguns had a Shikken (regent), who was the true power in Japan... except he, as a member of the Hojo clan, sometimes took orders from the Tokuso (the head of the Hojo clan; the name would probably be differerent if it was modelled, seeing as the title is derived from the personal name of Hojo Tokimasa, who wasn't around in either start date). This means the Shogun, while nominally granted extensive authority by the Chrysanthemum Throne, actually was yet another figurehead, so "The Shogun is the de facto ruler" would not be a valid assimption.

- At the same time, the Tenno possibly has to contend with a Fujiwara-descended Sessho/Kampaku (regent; they were around even when the Tenno would have been capable of ruling alone for most of the era) -- historically fairly weak by the Kamakura period (but efectively running the country in 1066, and around in 867), but still around, and possibly one or more Daijo Tenno (retired emperor), seeking to influence things in various ways detrimental to both the Tenno and the Shogun. This would not be well covered by feudal mechanics.

- A random nobody usurping the Shikken (or the Sessho/Kampaku) would be pretty out there, particularly as they came from a distinguished family (the Hojos claimed Taira descent, and thus Imperial descent, and also were close allies and in-laws of Yoritomo, and the Sessho/Kampaku was a Fujiwara or from the Hokke Fujiwara-descended Five Regent Houses, and thus the elite of the (non-Imperial Family) court elite and were generally both in-laws and maternal relatives of the Tenno).

- Also, while Japan historically became quitw feudal during the era, it wasn't particularly feudal in either current start date, and though a Japan that's left alone by the player probably should be likely to slide towards feudalism that would not really be in the interests of the Tenno (or his regent or any retired emperors, if applicable), so designing Japan around it being feudal all the time or around everyone in Japan wanting it to become more feudal would be pretty wrong.

I could go on and on about this (and have done so elsewhere...), but I'll refrain from doing so here for the time being.
 
  • 5
Reactions:
- Also, while Japan historically became quitw feudal during the era, it wasn't particularly feudal in either current start date, and though a Japan that's left alone by the player probably should be likely to slide towards feudalism that would not really be in the interests of the Tenno (or his regent or any retired emperors, if applicable), so designing Japan around it being feudal all the time or around everyone in Japan wanting it to become more feudal would be pretty wrong.
Yeah. For one thing, you’d have to have a whole ‘nother system dealing with peasants that the player likely wouldn’t have access to in order to model the gradual shift from yearly contract workers to shumin that live on the land and then donate their land to monasteries.

Also, the ending of conscription by one of the emperors and the way that privatizes fighting forces.

Playing in Japan would be a very different game where, at our two current start dates, the player has to respond to the setting but would have very little power to drive it. An interesting game would be slowly acquiring control over the map not in territory but in ability to interact and rule.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
- At the same time, the Tenno possibly has to contend with a Fujiwara-descended Sessho/Kampaku (regent; they were around even when the Tenno would have been capable of ruling alone for most of the era) -- historically fairly weak by the Kamakura period (but efectively running the country in 1066, and around in 867), but still around, and possibly one or more Daijo Tenno (retired emperor), seeking to influence things in various ways detrimental to both the Tenno and the Shogun. This would not be well covered by feudal mechanics.
And this doesn't even get into Emperor Go-Daigo's revolt and brief restoration of direct imperial rule in the fourteenth century, or the ensuing split of Japan into two rival courts for almost sixty years, one controlled by the Muromachi Shogunate and another made up of Go-Daigo's successors.

Obviously, we are talking about what would be at most one imperial title among many, so I wouldn't advocate so much for unique flavor as for generalizable mechanics able to represent niche situations like this one. A more modular government system would make it easier to represent not just Japan but, for example, Byzantium's evolution during this period. Some kind of regency system would be great all around, and titles with rival claimants that last for more than a couple years would fit situations like the English Anarchy or the Papal Schism of the Late Middle Ages.

But like I said, it's just fun to ponder what a playable China or Japan would look like, so I'd definitely like to get into that more in its own thread. While the two would have to be pretty distinct, my impression is that a system for China could also apply fairly well to Korea and Vietnam at this time, though I'd have to do more reading on the latter to test that hunch.
 
  • 2Like
  • 2
Reactions:
I know next to nothing about medieval Japan but to me this sounds like there's a lot of knowledge here but a few of the complications brought up already exist in game in Europe and are either ignored (EX changes in the peasantry, Western Europe saw shift from serfdom to a more mobile peasantry - doesn't really need to/should change the game on a macro scale) or handled by technology (EX increasing privatization of armies - handled by more MAA in later eras).

I think this begs a simpler, less complex solution more representative to how other regions (particularly Europe) are already simplified. My idea, Emperor is a theocratic head of faith (need to enable hereditary inheritance of course, like caliph), shogun is a feudal ruler. You can use events to help facilitate dramatic changes, like the splitting of Norse already present in the game.

If you know your European history, the Catholic head of faith is effectively the western roman emperor (partially why the orthodox church didn't like him) and only on rare occasions has granted that power away (Charlemagne, HRE). This doesn't seem too different to the Shogun/Emperor debate in my opinion.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
I know next to nothing about medieval Japan but to me this sounds like there's a lot of knowledge here but a few of the complications brought up already exist in game in Europe and are either ignored (EX changes in the peasantry, Western Europe saw shift from serfdom to a more mobile peasantry - doesn't really need to/should change the game on a macro scale) or handled by technology (EX increasing privatization of armies - handled by more MAA in later eras).

I think this begs a simpler, less complex solution more representative to how other regions (particularly Europe) are already simplified. My idea, Emperor is a theocratic head of faith (need to enable hereditary inheritance of course, like caliph), shogun is a feudal ruler. You can use events to help facilitate dramatic changes, like the splitting of Norse already present in the game.

If you know your European history, the Catholic head of faith is effectively the western roman emperor (partially why the orthodox church didn't like him) and only on rare occasions has granted that power away (Charlemagne, HRE). This doesn't seem too different to the Shogun/Emperor debate in my opinion.
Shogun doesn’t exist as Fuedal Guy in Charge until the late 12th century, and even then, control gets yanked by Houjou regents shortly afterwards.
 
While all of these ideas about systems for China and Japan are very interesting, I think we have to be realistic. Paradox has already shown us what level of detail map extensions come with. We'll be lucky if China is anything more than feudalism with an emperor and no vassals.
 
  • 3
  • 2
Reactions:
So the playerbase is perfectly used to it. Jokes aside, I have no doubt it would massive. Would shogunate not used similar mechanics to feudal?
Well functionally I imagine the difficulty would be representing the idea of there still being an Emperor in Japan as an important part of the country's politics in spite of the fact that landed power exists in the hands of the shogunate; although yes, it was still feudal - but nonetheless, China would need a COMPLETELY different approach. It would be even more bad than the current government of the Byzantines if they were just "feudal".
 
Shogun doesn’t exist as Fuedal Guy in Charge until the late 12th century, and even then, control gets yanked by Houjou regents shortly afterwards.
That is one extra wrinkle for Japan - not only did the emperor's powers end up getting controlled by a regency, but so did the Kamakura shogun's. Whatever else gets implemented, Japan would be a good showpiece for when regency mechanics get introduced.
 
Last edited:
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Over the past few decades in academia, there's been a realization that the Kamakura shogunate didn't dominate Japan to the extent traditionally thought. They certainly brought the warrior class to the table of power, but compared to the Ashikaga and Tokugawa shogunates they left a lot of power and wealth in the hands of the courtier aristocracy and the established temples. For instance, the shogunate imposed warriors into a "jito" post in each estate and public lands district, but the jito only got about 1/6 of the estate's surplus and the rest still went to the aristocrat or temple proprietor. And the shogunate appointed a shugo official to each province, but these were more like police constables in the Kamakura period. It wasn't until a 1350s crisis that the Ashikaga started allowing the shugo to take a portion of the province's income, putting them on the path to become regional warlords.

All this to say, Japan could be interesting to implement in ck3, but complicated to do justice, especially if you're trying to implement a shogun. There'd ideally be both courtier and feudal warrior characters that are playable, with a balance of power between court and shogunate.
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
I am very keen to see east and south-east Asia represented in the game. My personal feeling is that if the devs want to avoid the notable weakness of CK2 in having multiple more or less unconnected systems for different governments, they need to lay their groundwork carefully.

Properly developed systems for partially bureaucratic government and forms of delegated rulership like regencies should underpin the specific expressions of those systems in merchant republics, in Byzantium, in China and Vietnam, and in Japan. Different weightings in events, different localisations, different regional struggles, and different cultural innovations would make those things likely to play out in ways matching the historical model, but there could be opportunities for players to nudge things in alternate directions.

While I have historically been opposed to idea of landless play in CK2, I think that some of this might best be achieved in CK3 through playable landless characters. Ideally, it should be possible to play as a Byzantine strategos, a Florentine oligarch, a circuit-regent under the Liao or Song emperors, a mandarin under the Lý dynasty, and any of the Tenno, Kampaku, Shogun, Shikken, or Daijo Tenno in Japan. If such a system also eventually let you play a pope or cardinal, so much the better.

You could then have regional struggles to drive changes to these systems - the conflict of the Guelphs and Ghibellines, the Investiture Controversy, the Komnenian Restoration, the Xining Reforms, the lapse of the Taiho Code and the rise of the insei system.

The more that each of these local situations is the working-out of an underlying general model, the better.

nd
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
That is one extra wrinkle for Japan - not only did the emperor's powers end up getting controlled by a regency, but do did the Kamakura shogun's. Whatever else gets implemented, Japan would be a good showpiece for when regency mechanics get introduced.
Yeah. I imagine China, too, but I don’t know as much about China during this period. My only knowledge of Imperial China is Romance of the Three Kingdoms (waaaay too early).

I don’t envy the devs. Japan is so unfuedal for most of the timeframe of the game that it’s going to be a headache no matter what.

Knowing now that they plan on expanding the map, I suspect one of the reasons we didn’t get a regency system yet is due to the fact they’ll have to come up with something completely different than CK2’s to account for the fact that regencies/advisors that essentially serve as regents make up a major part of East Asian court histories.

Haha, good luck, y’all. That’s a loooot of work ahead of you. Coincidentally, I did a year at university in Classical Japanese, if you’re ever hiring researchers :p
 
Yeah. I imagine China, too, but I don’t know as much about China during this period. My only knowledge of Imperial China is Romance of the Three Kingdoms (waaaay too early).
I've read a fair amount of Tang through Song history, and I don't think regencies are a standout feature for China. Even court eunuch influence was at a low point through the centuries of the CK timeline.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I've read a fair amount of Tang through Song history, and I don't think regencies are a standout feature for China. Even court eunuch influence was at a low point through the centuries of the CK timeline.
My impression is that in Tang, Song, and Liao, what we'd mostly be seeing is something like what Byzantium also needs: duchy/kingdom-tier viceroys.

nd
 
  • 1
Reactions:
If we consider how the feudal system is represented in Europe i.e. vassals are not called to war with their knights... I think everyones expectations regarding Asia should be suitably tempered.
 
Last edited:
  • 4Like
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
That said, I know that many of you are also hungry for more systemic expansions, and that’s understandable! Of course, the next Expansion isn’t devoid of systemic changes or mechanics just because it’s leaning heavily towards roleplaying.


My aspiration is to shift focus towards more systems-heavy expansions after the next one, and we’re gearing up the team to be able to do just that. I’m of the opinion that there must be balance, and as we’ll have had two roleplay-focused expansions in a row, by then it’ll be time for the scales to shift towards the systemic side.

I think that role-playing-focused vs systemic DLC is a false dichotomy.

Role-playing unfolds on the basis of mechanics, such as the trait mechanics of CK3 that are crucial for role-playing our own characters and how the AI "role-plays" the rest of the characters. Therefore, a Byzantine Empire expansion could focus on expanding role-playing possibilities just as much as any other DLC. I'm not familiar with the goings-on at the Byzantine court, but there's certainly endless potential - especially with regards to palace intrigue. One of today's meanings of the adjective "byzantine" actually is "Of a devious, usually stealthy, manner or practice", so a "Byzantine DLC" could be much more than just a "Byzantium DLC".

For instance, the Varangian guard could just be a buff for some MaA regiments together with some special recruitment mechanisms or something like that. But it could also allow for intrigue and role-play: if you are an ambitious vassal in the Byzantine Empire, maybe you can convince the head of the Varangian guard to be your friend and look the other way when you revolt...?

I don't know to which degree the palace intrigue view on the Byzantine Empire is historically accurate, or whether it is a projection of how laypersons imagine the Empire to have been. But for all I know, an eventual Byzantium expansion could be the biggest role-playing expansion to ever be released for CK3.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
I think that role-playing-focused vs systemic DLC is a false dichotomy.

I have to agree with this but maybe what the Devs mean is that many of the systems in CK2 were put in for their own sake and did not add to roleplay. So they only want to add a mechanic if it can meaningfully add to RP. They don't want anything to become a minigame by itself.
 
I have to agree with this but maybe what the Devs mean is that many of the systems in CK2 were put in for their own sake and did not add to roleplay. So they only want to add a mechanic if it can meaningfully add to RP. They don't want anything to become a minigame by itself.

Sorta true? The bit that's right there is that we definitely don't want to just add some isolated features just for the sake of them being in. Dovetailing features in with pre-existing ones is exactly what we're aiming for. Lots of small minigames helps little, after all.

Where I think I'd disagree is the bit about only adding RP-heavy mechanics. I think there's a lot to be said for increasing the roleplaying side of things, but we do have to strike a balance in this hybrid-genre game. I play CK3 extremely roleplay-heavy, but not everyone does, so we need to ensure as many sides can be catered for as possible without compromising design principles or playability.
 
  • 5
  • 4Like
  • 2
  • 1Love
Reactions:
Warfare is not and never will be a primary focus for CK3, that said it’s not as character-driven as it could be, outside of commander advantage and the occasional great knight. There’s also a real problem with delivering content (usually in the form of events) during times of war, as the player more often than not gets interrupted by something appearing in the middle of the screen while maneuvering units. I’d eventually like for us to be able to deliver content in a way that doesn’t interrupt warfare, and use that system to highlight characters and heroic acts (Battle of Agincourt, anyone?). I’d also like to rework the major annoyances of warfare, such as supply.
--

I am not a programmer and I don't know how your engine works or its limitations but this game is 90% of doing wars and expanding. And then I am reading that warfare will never be a primary focus is quite shocking at least.
 
  • 5
  • 3
Reactions: