• 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:
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.
It's not intended to be the 90% focus. All the other systems are currently either too shallow, or too passive to counteract the fact that currently mappainting is the game. And while I am very grateful the devs have laid out their plans, and that they acknowledge this, my big concern, and it's one I've had ever since I played to end date in Northern Lords, is that to fix all of those shallow systems will take many literal years of development, and DLC specifically targeting every current system in the game one by one.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
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.
My games aren’t 90% warfare. They’re more like 25% warfare when I play Vikings, and that’s including raiding.

There are multiple play styles. It’s fine if yours is warfare heavy, but the game is not that inherently war driven.
 
  • 11
  • 2
Reactions:
It's not intended to be the 90% focus. All the other systems are currently either too shallow, or too passive to counteract the fact that currently mappainting is the game. And while I am very grateful the devs have laid out their plans, and that they acknowledge this, my big concern, and it's one I've had ever since I played to end date in Northern Lords, is that to fix all of those shallow systems will take many literal years of development, and DLC specifically targeting every current system in the game one by one.
I think their biggest priority at the moment should probably be making there be more to engage with in peacetime. Currently, most objectives are conquest-centric, alliances are only for warfare purposes, there isn't any trade to engage with, etc. I think the Struggle mechanic helps with this a bit but that's only in a tiny corner of the map atm
 
  • 5
Reactions:
My games aren’t 90% warfare. They’re more like 25% warfare when I play Vikings, and that’s including raiding.

There are multiple play styles. It’s fine if yours is warfare heavy, but the game is not that inherently war driven.
But outside doing wars, gameplay isn't that much fun. So they need to introduce more things like trade, economy, espionage, religion...
 
I think their biggest priority at the moment should probably be making there be more to engage with in peacetime. Currently, most objectives are conquest-centric, alliances are only for warfare purposes, there isn't any trade to engage with, etc. I think the Struggle mechanic helps with this a bit but that's only in a tiny corner of the map atm
Even a lot of the things you do during peace time now are ultimately in service of war. You build buildings to make your army stronger. The biggest impact of negotiating a marriage is that it gives you soldiers via alliances. The main thing you spend gold on is men at arms and army maintenance. Managing your domain and partition is primarily necessary to maintain your military strength. Even factions only really interact with you via war - they do literally nothing until the day they threaten war.

Many of the game mechanics ultimately funnel back to war.
 
  • 15
  • 2
Reactions:
I really enjoyed this DD, and I hope you guys do these roadmaps more often. I also think it's great that you guys are thinking up original ideas and not just hitting the old CK2 expansion beats. It's the interesting developments that keep me coming back to the game.

As for warfare, I think the problem goes much deeper than stacked modifiers. The issue, rather, is that small elite armies of Knights and MAAs are the tactically superior choice in almost every instance. Once you get to the early medieval era tech and can max out the size of the MAAs, and can keep a positive gold balance, there's no reason to use anything else. Whether or not you use stacking modifiers, an all MAA army with a decent commander will beat anything else out there at this point. Most of the time you won't even need to bolster your forces with levies, when you do you only need to pull up a fraction of them. This has a distorting effect on warfare mechanics that should matter: all of a sudden the amount of levies you have access to is irrelevant, the reinforcement rate is irrelevant, and you never have a vulnerable moment where your forces are depleted, unless you also run out of gold.

My sense is that by "not focusing on warfare" you mean to say that you don't want to make the mechanics behind battles overly complicated. I have no problem with that at all, I would just like to see some of the risk and thoughtfulness behind the practice extend past 100 years or so into the game. I don't think it would require an overhaul of the whole system (though I would be open to that), just reduce the MAA reinforcement rate, or implement real drawbacks to using an all MAA army, or require policies and laws to centralize your army so the player can make more of a strategic choice around it. The way rally points work might be a little too convenient as well, since you can basically teleport your army all over the map as long as you do it in between wars.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
Even a lot of the things you do during peace time now are ultimately in service of war. You build buildings to make your army stronger. The biggest impact of negotiating a marriage is that it gives you soldiers via alliances. The main thing you spend gold on is men at arms and army maintenance. Managing your domain and partition is primarily necessary to maintain your military strength. Even factions only really interact with you via war - they do literally nothing until the day they threaten war.

Many of the game mechanics ultimately funnel back to war.
What you do during war time now are ultimately in service of peace time.
=equally=
Even a lot of the things you do during peace time now are ultimately in service of war.
 
Last edited:
  • 3
  • 2
Reactions:
As for warfare, I think the problem goes much deeper than stacked modifiers. The issue, rather, is that small elite armies of Knights and MAAs are the tactically superior choice in almost every instance. Once you get to the early medieval era tech and can max out the size of the MAAs, and can keep a positive gold balance, there's no reason to use anything else. Whether or not you use stacking modifiers, an all MAA army with a decent commander will beat anything else out there at this point. Most of the time you won't even need to bolster your forces with levies, when you do you only need to pull up a fraction of them. This has a distorting effect on warfare mechanics that should matter: all of a sudden the amount of levies you have access to is irrelevant, the reinforcement rate is irrelevant, and you never have a vulnerable moment where your forces are depleted, unless you also run out of gold.

I agree 100%. I've tried playing a lot of games where I "self-nerf" and don't build buildings to stack MAA modifiers and MAA are still ridiculous. Something about the math playing out with combat width and just how many times more powerful heavy infantry (as an example) are compared to levies makes small MAA units really powerful against levy dominated forces.

There's a few other related problems:
1. the immense cost of raising levies compared to MAA (AKA 1 levy is slightly cheaper than 1 MAA but 1 MAA is many times more powerful than the levy)
- this has a secondary distortng effect where the player runs around and wipes thousands of levies, AI go bankrupt raising them all and thus have fewer MAA to contend with the player
2. Fast reinforcement rates make even faster reinforcement rates for mercenary units pointless (and make mercenaries an uninteresting investment)


This makes me wonder if things might be better if levies had much lower (or no) upkeep when raised, but have a dramatically lower reinforcement rate. In this case one might start using them because they are "free" and they might as well, but they are expend when suffering casualties. Mercenaries become more interesting in this case as a fill-in for depleted troop counts. AI might also have finances for MAA.

This still doesn't solve that combat width makes weak levies a liabilty to small MAA/knight units, nor does it make military buildings interesting without buff stacking MAA to absurd levels. So still lots of things to think about.
 
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
But outside doing wars, gameplay isn't that much fun. So they need to introduce more things like trade, economy, espionage, religion...
Do you think I spend 75% of my time not having much fun? Look, I’m a boring fool, but please don’t think I’m that much of a boring fool.

Don’t get me wrong, I want more stuff, which is why I really loved the event pack DLC (I want more of them) and why I use mods. Even then, I’ve played more vanilla CK3 than modded, and I really enjoy that 75% peace time.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
To be honest the discussion around MAAs being broken is a little bit out of line with my own experience thus far because, when it comes to modifier stacking, the number that I've found to be by far the biggest culprit is Knight Effectiveness. There are so many buildings and artifacts that allow you to easily stack 300+% knight effectiveness; not to mention how Only the Strong is one of the best cultural pillars in the game with no downsides whatsoever.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Role play and warfare are linked. Even if there is no desire to properly overhaul the current system, there are plenty of ways the character driven focus could be sustained to enhance warfare.

Counties can enter factions in their own right. Popular opinion etc is a really good feature which is one way CK3 blows CK2 out of the water. MAAs should have a similar mechanics. Various factors already present in game (marshals, events etc) could increase or decrease this sentiment.

Going further, the court titles system could be integrated into the military system where the character with this title grants whatever boon XYZ the game can do. There can be real incentive to have this commander title. However the caveat is this individual essentially is in control of the MAAs*. Meaning they can attack their liege with them. The character role play, strategy and historical gaming opportunities for this could be limitless. It would be a very broad and reasonable way of replicating countless military systems in the CK3 time frame.
Appoint a loyal but dim commander or chance it with a military genius whom may or may not be trusted? Have many Turkic vassals? They demand one of their own have the position. Others likewise in turn make the same demand. Don't want all your MAAs under the command of one man? Have multiple titles splitting control of the regiments.


*These are not automated. A bad idea. You as the player still control them as you do now. It's just that their loyalty can be to their commander not you in worse case scenarios.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Peace gives money and an army.
War gives territory and vassals.
Peace > War > Peace > War > ...
It is interconnected, they develop each other.
Yes, I agree with that. As your diagram shows, War is a core component of the gameplay loop. Without, it many systems are orphaned.
 
I think you've got it wrong.
This is a military "diagram" only.
You can get territory and vassals without war.
You can, but the game makes very clear that you are better off going to war. Compare the time and uncertainty required to secure a title by marriage and inheritance to how easy and fast it is to conquer it through war.

But suppose we decide that we are going to play the marriage game, and not expand through war. Why do I build buildings? Why do I need gold? Why do I even need more vassals at all? These questions are left unanswered if you're not going to use these systems for war.
 
Even a lot of the things you do during peace time now are ultimately in service of war. You build buildings to make your army stronger. The biggest impact of negotiating a marriage is that it gives you soldiers via alliances. The main thing you spend gold on is men at arms and army maintenance. Managing your domain and partition is primarily necessary to maintain your military strength. Even factions only really interact with you via war - they do literally nothing until the day they threaten war.

Many of the game mechanics ultimately funnel back to war.
Yes, I agree with that. As your diagram shows, War is a core component of the gameplay loop. Without, it many systems are orphaned.
You can, but the game makes very clear that you are better off going to war. Compare the time and uncertainty required to secure a title by marriage and inheritance to how easy and fast it is to conquer it through war.

But suppose we decide that we are going to play the marriage game, and not expand through war. Why do I build buildings? Why do I need gold? Why do I even need more vassals at all? These questions are left unanswered if you're not going to use these systems for war.
If you judge by these your posts.
Developers say they will develop everything except the war, roughly speaking, it turns out that the army will be developed too, along with other mechanics.
It turns out there is no problem, what questions to the developers?
 
If you judge by these your posts.
Developers say they will develop everything except the war, roughly speaking, it turns out that the army will be developed too, along with other mechanics.
It turns out there is no problem, what questions to the developers?
No, I don't agree with that. Developing mechanics that feed into war is not the same as improving war mechanics themselves. Just because buildings make your men-at-arms stronger doesn't mean that a more intricate building construction system will improve the actual experience of fighting a war with your men-at-arms.

That's my core point - if the purpose of buildings is to make your army stronger, but actually using your army is a frustrating experience, what good is a more in-depth building system?

That isn't to say that the war system needs to be more *intricate* or *complicated* - I'm certainly happy for it to be significantly more simplified than in games like EU or HoI. But it does need to work well in its own right, since so much of the rest of the game drives towards it. It isn't merely a side system, disconnected from the rest of the mechanics.
 
  • 4
Reactions: