• 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 glad to see Expand the Map is an ambition. That eastern ragged edge just feels wrong, and the absence of China is a huge, sucking void that makes playing in the region feel odd. That, and I would dearly love to have a crack at ancient Japan.

My hope is that when you add it in, you add it in all at once. Just get it over and done with, focus on the key regions for whenever you do if fleshing them all out at once is too much but I would wager if you took the alternative and added the regions piecemeal, you'd have to go back and update them once you added in more of the east and had to think about how the new new regions would interact with the old new regions.

And thankyou for this dev diary. While the road ahead has twists and turns ahead and we don't know where exactly we are going quite yet, having an idea of what is ahead is definitely something to be grateful for.
 
  • 5Like
  • 2
Reactions:
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.

That's a great start. I'd love to see stipulations, demands and concessions not only when forging alliances, but also when concluding wars. Kinda just as it is with vassal contracts now, I'd like to be presented with different sets of obligations from both parties and to be able to play around with them to determine and finalize certain agreements. Anything more than one click of a button really. More diplomatic negotiations.
 
  • 6Like
  • 2
Reactions:
Thank you so much for your open communication here and since the last days I general. It is a tremendous and - at least to me - extremely important change to the way you interact with us :)
Might be the best DD so far. Love it.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
ere i have a question actually. there are certain behaviours in ck2 that are not present in ck3, but ought to be (spouses, for instance, tended to be better at staying in the same location in ck2 than they are in ck3 - i made a whole thread about it). how much of the code in ck2 is salvagable and able to be repurposed for ck3? its easy enough to say "why not simply do it the same way you did it then" but, you know, i dont know how to use a computer, it could be far more complex than all that for all i know

i ask because i think the playerbase, myself included, tends to vastly underestimate the difficulty involved in implementing a "simple" change. i notice this dev diary talks a lot about some of the things ye would like to do better in this game than the previous iteration (which is great, dont get me wrong) but not a whole lot about things that could be brought forward, and i think there are a few, even if just temporarily until something more in-depth could be sussed
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
great news but please continue to fix well known old bug like the bug in form the great duchy of austria and the bug in the coat of arms detail screan.it is also the little things that make the game worth replaying and bug that destroys your ability to get achievment and make decisions are extremly anoying.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
So... I've learnt three things from reading this and its comments:
1. I am absolutely correct to be allergic to the word "emergent";
2. This text gives precisely one timestamp for any plans: a free update before end of the year, presumably Christmas (unless you count negative timestamp of "the next expansion is not going to be trade, republic, imperial, or nomadic");
3. All those guys who claimed there's deliberately place left for the rest of the Old World on the map were right.
I have to say, a bit little for so long a Dev Diary (especially as point 1 was certainly not intended).
 
  • 6
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Thanks so much for this DD, it's great having a look into the plan for the future of the game.

I'm interested in how future "passion project" updates like Friends & Foes fit into this. Will they always be event packs?
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
how much of the code in ck2 is salvagable and able to be repurposed for ck3? its easy enough to say "why not simply do it the same way you did it then" but, you know, i dont know how to use a computer, it could be far more complex than all that for all i know

i ask because i think the playerbase, myself included, tends to vastly underestimate the difficulty involved in implementing a "simple" change.
I’m pretty sure, other than database entries and maybe localizations, that the code is different enough that it isn’t straight up portable.

Just based on my minimal goofing around under the hood, things are drastically different. For one thing, most things were based on a mean time to happen variable. For another, a lot of the way events are scripted has changed drastically.

Generally, if you don’t know how to code, the rule is “if it sounds easy to you, it isn’t”.
 
  • 10
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I just want to toss in that I love to hear the focus on characters, stories and making sure the grand strategy connects back to that. You all could always take the easy way out and steal systems directly from other games but instead you choose to take the harder path and design new systems focused on character. I absolutely love this and personally feel this is what makes CK3 special.

Thank you!
 
  • 3
  • 1Like
  • 1Love
Reactions:
I’m pretty sure, other than database entries and maybe localizations, that the code is different enough that it isn’t straight up portable.

Just based on my minimal goofing around under the hood, things are drastically different. For one thing, most things were based on a mean time to happen variable. For another, a lot of the way events are scripted has changed drastically.

Generally, if you don’t know how to code, the rule is “if it sounds easy to you, it isn’t”.
figured as much! history files are pretty much the only thing i ever go near bc theyre the only thing my tiny little old man brain can work out, and those all look about the same, so i dared to hope despite my better judgement. alas

cheers for the info man, handy to know for the future
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Thanks for this roadmap. It does feel really good to hear about the general direction the game will be going. I do wish that the systems-heavy DLC weren't planned to be so back-loaded, but at least when the next role-playing heavy expansion is announced I'll know that the stuff I care most about is eventually coming.

Also, I'm glad that you're taking a character-based focus to trade/republics when the time comes to implement them. It sounds like you'll be better representing the sorts of "levers" that medieval statesmen had the ability to pull, which are more about managing relationships with key players and less about micromanaging trade goods and flows.

I'm also glad to hear that emphasis will be put on vassal play in empires. I've posted some thinkpieces here on vassal play ideas for China and the Byzantines (with ministries and career titles as key components), and they continue to be the future growth ideas that excite me the most. I'd also love for more council and regency mechanics for both empires and regular realms, as those give great opportunities for vassals to influence the realm and possibly become the power behind the throne.

Also, there were a couple big medieval themes that I was hoping to see something about, but didn't (or at least the section of the post on religion didn't give me the feeling this was in the works). The first of these is Catholic/papacy mechanics, and the other is Orthodoxy and the schism. I think having processes like the investiture controversy and the schism playing out over time would be a good way to make different eras of the game feel different, and would also add a good dose of historical feeling to at least the European part of the game. Is there any room in the roadmap to flesh those things out?
 
Last edited:
  • 5Like
Reactions:
This is something that I really missed from CK3 team - communication about future plans <3.

Ngl, everything you have said (both in DD and in the comments) looks very interesting. The only thing I would like to ask is a way to choose as which character you should keep on playing (regardless of inheritance) so one could rise to the throne once again! Maybe even make it possible at the moment of the birth, so the Player will be able to see all these childhood events outside of these few rare cases...
Just play without ironman and you can.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
No Italy on that map makes me sad, not gonna lie. The richest and most populous region in Medieval Europe, with an urbanization rate that was only equaled by 1820 England, birthplace of the Renaissance, main theater of the fight between Pope and Emperor... and it's not even in there.
 
  • 5Like
Reactions:
It's great to see the devs responding to player requests for some guidance (vague though it must unavoidably be) about the future of the game.

Most of the strategic picture laid out in this DD gives me confidence in the devs. Three cheers for the future of CK3:
  • Yes! CK3 is distinctive in PDS' portfolio because of its roleplaying aspect and it's great to see that kept central.
  • Yes! A Byzantine DLC deserves a Major Expansion to begin to do justice to the special features of a thousand-year empire and society.
  • Yes! You need to announce at least the Major Expansion if you want players to buy an Expansion Pass.
I am also pleased that many of the things that I am personally most interested in (mainly role-playing) are high on the team's priority list, even though I know that must be a disappointment to others.

The one big decision where I would disagree with the devs is the decision to further expand the map to the whole of the Old World. There are four reasons why I think this would be a suboptimal outcome.

Firstly, I worry that it will be difficult to keep faith with the existing Minimum Requirements. When I built my current PC, I allocated my budget around the CK3 system requirements. Since my lowspec CPU is also doing duty as an iGPU, its dinky cache is already busy, busy, busy. :eek: Unlike many forumites, I'm not worried about lag (I never play the game higher than speed 3) or fps (I played with 8 fps with HoI4 on my last PC!). But more map inevitable means data to process. There are visible judders when I go into the Royal Court. Even allowing for some huge optimizations,I worry about whether the game will stay playable, because more map surely means more characters. Which raises another difficulty.

How do you fit Southern African into a character-based game? The region must have contained fascinating people and rich cultures that would provide a very entertaining experience for CK3 players. Unfortunately, historians badly lack information about individuals south of the Congo basin until the very end of the CK3 era. I would love to be corrected if anyone knows better, but I don't think we know the name of a single person in the Mapungubwe kingdom that was the dominant power in the 11th and 12th centuries. In the Congo basin we have Kongo king lists, but only from the 14th century. I think. Archaeologists have done a great deal to reconstruct these societies and you could borrow a lot from the oral traditions of the Bantu and Khoisan peoples (e.g. for name lists), but not to the level of individuals. You would also have to make some very big assumptions about the mental and cultural life of people in these places. And there was almost no interaction between these societies and the rest of the map (with the important exception of the Swahili towns). The same points could be made about almost all of what we now know as eastern Siberia and the Russian Far East as well.

And staying in the East, East Asia doesn't fit into the CK3 framework. It's the opposite problem to the previous one: we know a huge amount about the people and society of China in particular during this era. As a Chinese speaker, I would dearly love to play a CK game set in East Asia and I loved CK2 Jade Dragon, but the existing mechanics, events & art of CK3 just don't match up at all. CK3 is built around a warrior elite of landed dynasties, which are very different from the civilian elite of scholar-officials that emerged as the norm in most of East Asia during this period. And how are the powerful eunuchs of imperial China going to be adequately represented in a dynastic game that doesn't even have a Mameluke mechanic yet? I would encourage you to keep nurturing your East Asia ideas and do them justice by pitching to the PDS management a plan for a spin-off game. All Under Heaven: A Crusader Kings Game , now that would be a dream come true!
6ymPsbs.png


Finally, the existing map could be exploited so much more. Adding Mamelukes, merchant republics, Magdeburg charter cities, monastic orders, nomadic peoples, Silk Road trading towns, camel-based Saharan societies, post-Roman Empires.... at one Major Expansion a year, there are enough different character-focused experiences to keep the team busy for at least the rest of the decade.

I'm sorry this post ended up being focused on the one area of disagreement, but that's because I like so much of the vision that you set out in the OP!
 
Last edited:
  • 8
  • 7Like
  • 4
  • 3
  • 1Love
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.
I think that they made it quite clear from the development phase that CK3 was going to be pulling away from that Grand Strategy focus, and encourage much more of the Role Play. Frankly I found CK2 confusing because it seemed to want to be both equally, and they pulled against each other so many times it was frustrating for me. I would try to play it as a Role play and found it fairly vacant and out of my control, and on the other hand I tried to play it strategically and found it too full of randomness to allow me to focus on my strategic goals.
 
  • 5
  • 3Like
Reactions:
Incredible, really looking forward to the future! I have just one question, you mention expanding the map east a few times, but are you also considering expanding south? We probably don't need all of Africa, but I'd love to get more of the Swahili Coast and Kongo, plus pushing south could make Indonesia fit a bit better.
 
  • 6
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions: