• 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 a little confused by the direction CK3 intends on taking. It sounds like Trade and warfare aren’t priorities in a Grand Strategy game? I understand that CK3 is character driven game but the draw foe me is playing as the actual ruler in a Strategy game. Emphasis on the strategy. If the intention is to make CK3 less and less like CK2, EU4 or IR, then that’s a bit disappointing, I am sad to say. I have argued time and again on forums test CK3 just needs time to develop the Grand Strategy systems that CK2 had but it kind of looks like that may not be true. I hope I am just misunderstanding the floor plan and dev diary.
 
  • 18
  • 12
  • 1Like
Reactions:
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…

Just to throw something in real quick, most people don't just mean the few historic merchant republics when they're talking about expanding republics in general. While nice to have, you're absolutely right that their scope is just very limited and not that attractive to the majority of players.

However, nearly every county on the map has a city, which has the republic government form. Yet those republics feel and behave like any other feudal ruler, only with much more RNG in the background (i.e. when republics 'choose' a successor). I'm a huge fan of republic gameplay in the game, and my realm is usually focused on them as subjects. This is why I want republic goverments and cities to be fleshed out much more. I don't care so much for Genoa or Venice, but I do care about republics in general.

That towns were the center of trade is just an added bonus, but not necessarily a factor that automatically has to turn every republic ruler into a merchant republic. That being said, sitting for example on the Silk Road should have considerable effects on your economy, treasury and the costs of buying certain amenities for your court. Why does the Abbasid Caliph has the pay the same for spices and silk as the King of Scotland? Doesn't make any sense.

When people talk about trade, it's almost never about wanting to trade. It's more about having a living economy in the game, one that gives you incentives to interact with other rulers and/or owning certain ressources on the map. Right now everyone has equal access to everything (horses, iron, gold, furs, wine etc.), and that makes the economic side of the game very shallow.
 
  • 34
  • 5Like
  • 3
  • 2Love
Reactions:
Is the addition of secret societies a possible thing in the future as for CK2?

As well as as in CK2 more fanciful events?
As long as there are no Real-Life Dark Powers (TM)...

I prefer my Secret societies to be at least somewhat reality based
 
  • 18
  • 1Like
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
Refreshing at 1.30 works! :D
You cheeky little so with your well-spoken “first!” I see you:p

What a fantastic future ahead. I was a bit worried with the negative backlash of reviews concerning the prices that CKIII had a short run. But this message surely is ambitious and then some for years to come! Great news and seen that this is my first Paradox game i'm looking forward to many years of CKIII!

If this is your first PDX game, I’m sorry to inform you that this is simply how it goes with reviews. Fortunately, CK3 appears to be doing better than CK2 did over its life, so we’ve hoy years yet for the game to grow and change.
 
  • 3Like
  • 1Love
Reactions:
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.
Okay then...
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.
"If" we make an epidemics expansion? My brother in Christ, are you really saying you would consider not releasing anything to do with the black death for your medieval video game? Whether it's free or not is immaterial to me--it should be a big fat "when" and only "when", not "if"!
I think it’s quite obvious that I eventually want to Expand the Map, to include the rest of the Old World.
Right on. Thanks for confirming.
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…)
You might be describing something that isn't really broken. While you seem to acknowledge that the extra clicks it took to gain a full-fledged alliance after a non-aggression pact resulting from a betrothal/marriage in CK2 are not missed in CK3, it's still hard for me to not think of the old adage "if it ain't broke don't fix it." Even the parenthetical you have here is, in my opinion, describing a good and well-balanced cycle of the game.
Spitball: maybe you can constrain these sorts of alliances to vassals, particularly in a Byz expansion. Because I really don't want extra clicks on a fundamental aspect of defense in the game.

Tusen takk for the update!
 
  • 15
  • 1
Reactions:
Very nice, very ambitious and detailed.
This should also have the added benefit of finally quieting down the people who have been running around yelling "Game is dead!" for the past 6 months.
 
  • 6
  • 3
Reactions:
Excited about potential AI improvements especially around the Crusades. I get the idea that Crusades were not the most organized military effort in history, but the AI being braindead is not a fun way to balance them. It is never fun to watch the AI Crusade participants constantly embark and disembark and get systematically wiped out every time lol. I think it would be fun to make the Crusades more flavorful too. They could use mechanics similar to Norse adventures and have participants abdicate for a time to go on Crusade, and the Crusade could be a new tag where it's army size and quality is based on the power of participants and how much money was donated. I am sure the team has plenty of ideas, but these are just some of my thoughts.
 
  • 5
  • 2Like
  • 2
Reactions:
you should contact these people

 
  • 1Like
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
At this point, I'd guess these are the best guesses as to what "reinforcing the connection between map and character" means.

Either showing the impact of your character on the map - which would suggest your character having a direct impact on the buildings etc. that can be seen on the map - or the location of your character on the map - which would suggest tournaments, tours of the realm etc that your character can attend.
Yeah, I mean tournaments and tours as well as maybe diplomatic visits could lead to a lot of political implications from character interactions. Nobles meeting which maybe normally don't and by their interactions spicing up relations between realms. Could be a great interjection between map an characters.

Also maybe personal-cbs? Like being able to declare war on your neighbor because they killed your sister (which maybe was their wife or something)?
 
  • 11Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Yes yeeeessss keep speculating, it fuels me :cool:

My speculation for what "reinforcing the connection between map and character" could mean:
-> The location of characters on the map could matter more, due to a system that models travel times. Maybe we can't just instantly switch commanders according to who has the best traits for the current situation anymore? Maybe getting invited to feasts on the other side of the continent would be a bit rarer?
-> Maybe it could become more difficult to have rome, constantinople, jerusalem, bagdad and paris as part of your personal domain, by making the distance between you and the lands you rule actually important somehow? The real life reason for feudalism was in large part about having a ruler locally available after all...
-> Maybe touring the realm and visiting your vassals might actually be a thing? After all, the notion of a "realm capital" was a not less rigid in the time period than it is today.
 
  • 6Like
  • 6
  • 2
  • 1Love
Reactions:
Excited about potential AI improvements especially around the Crusades. I get the idea that Crusades were not the most organized military effort in history, but the AI being braindead is not a fun way to balance them. It is never fun to watch the AI Crusade participants constantly embark and disembark and get systematically wiped out every time lol. I think it would be fun to make the Crusades more flavorful too. They could use mechanics similar to Norse adventures and have participants abdicate for a time to go on Crusade, and the Crusade could be a new tag where it's army size and quality is based on the power of participants and how much money was donated. I am sure the team has plenty of ideas, but these are just some of my thoughts.
Thank you for your bold comments :)
 
  • 37Haha
  • 2Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
As long as there are no Real-Life Dark Powers (TM)...

I prefer my Secret societies to be at least somewhat reality based
Look.

Look.

I understand the whole “no magic unless I, with my modern eyes and modern context can come up with an explanation that makes sense to me”, and that it’s the philosophy the devs have taken (for now, at least, but who knows when I finally find the weak link I can bribe with a whole $20) but the past is a different country. Magic existed for people back then.

The Enlightenment hasn’t happened yet. You keep your modern, Western epistemology away from my shapeshifters and animists ;)
 
  • 15Haha
  • 10
  • 6
  • 2Like
  • 2Love
  • 1
Reactions:
Without revealing too much we’re focusing in large parts on reinforcing the connection between map and character.

Thanks for the long DD, I'm glad to hear that we can look forward to many years of CK3 content. I don't quite understand though what "reinforcing the connection between map and character" could mean in concrete terms. Is it about providing flavor so that gameplay feels very local? Or is it literally about the map? Will you be adding a living map as in Victoria 3? :oops:

Talking of the map and Vic 3: Victoria 3 seems to show the terrain with borders as the standard map mode, which I really like. CK3 has a similar map mode when zoomed in close. However, I usually play at a level of zoom that is slightly above that, so instead of the "near map" I get the "mid map", which shows the independent realms and therefore colors the counties in the realm's color. Is there any way you could give us the option to adjust the zoom level at which the switch between map modes happens so I can enjoy the terrain and the holdings even when zoomed out a bit more? I think I would feel more grounded within the map if I saw more of the concrete terrain rather than the political colors (but as it's a matter of taste and others probably disagree with mine, just adding the option would be fine).
 
  • 2Like
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions: