• 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:
Personally the secret societies in CK2 felt very off. It was simply a stats ladder?

Yeah there wasn't a lot to them; I've just been reading a bit about W. African secret societies and they sound very interesting. Based on @Wokeg 's remarks it doesn't sound like there's any plans for them so I guess I'm free to mod to my heart's content. :)
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Another example is the regencies, which I believe and someone will have to correct me if I'm wrong: they just blocked you from doing things, nothing really interesting about it.
They had one extremely important use: Your regent's skills would be used instead of yours, so your realm wouldn't self-destruct while playing as a baby with 0 Diplomacy, Martial, Stewardship, and Intrigue.

It doesn't happen often in CK3, but when I'm stuck playing a child with low Stewardship and have to give away personal domain, I do miss having a regent.
 
  • 8
  • 2Like
  • 2
Reactions:
100% our intention. This game is not Victoria; trade is explicitly not something we want to sit there and go crazy in-depth with from a numbers and resources standpoint. That game is much more well-suited to that!
I do agree that a revised CK3's trade system should not shift the focus away from roleplaying... Surely there is a middle ground between Victoria's depth and the total absence of trade from CK3?

The way you are talking about trade, it sounds like it would be a matter of content and events more than a system integrated in the gameplay.

That would be a missed occasion. Without trade or any representation of goods, most provinces in ck3 feel basically interchangeable - at least, that is my impression. Implementing even a basic trade/goods system will allow for more flavour, and therefore richer gameplay.
 
  • 5
  • 4Like
Reactions:
I would agree to a hybrid model, where it is possible to have control if you yourself are leading the army , but you if you have the army led by someone else the result is in their hands. Seems the most realistic for the time period, and leads to a strategic And role playing choice on your part, how much do you trust others to lead your armies?
This would also encourage the player to risk their character's life by placing them in control of armies, which currently they are discouraged from doing outside of roleplaying as there is little benefit and it makes for one of the rare instances where your character faces a genuine risk of dying prematurely.

On a related note, your character refusing to involve themselves in wars directly while being a member of the military aristocracy—as most if not all playable characters are—should really carry heftier penalties, or any at all.
 
  • 8Like
  • 2
Reactions:
Another example is the regencies, which I believe and someone will have to correct me if I'm wrong: they just blocked you from doing things, nothing really interesting about it. "Oh you want to send a gift to someone? Nooooooo..."

While I definitely think Regencies in CK3 should be more than a blocker to your ruler's actions, even that could have tie-ins to the character-driven approach that the game takes. A child whose regent stands in the way of them doing what they want could develop certain traits and build a relationship accordingly with that regent. That seems like good fuel for a rivalry (or even a dynastic feud, if the child grows up to be Wrathful, Vengeful, Paranoid, etc.).
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
How about improving Game Saves? One of the things I absolutely loved about CK2 was that I could play multiple different play throughs. Each play through had its own Save, so I could switch back and forth between play throughs as the mood took me. You can't really do that in CK3.

Here's the Save List in CK2...


607ABB03919186DFBE631F6420F7BC714396D4FA
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Pete0714 said:
I would agree to a hybrid model, where it is possible to have control if you yourself are leading the army , but you if you have the army led by someone else the result is in their hands. Seems the most realistic for the time period, and leads to a strategic And role playing choice on your part, how much do you trust others to lead your armies?

it is a new approach but interesting as liege select which areas to conquer, with slider of campaign cost forecast and time indicator (also defend, chance to revamp this current annoying (unrealistic) raiding system) etc. and click do and see what happens, would help ck3 to diversificate from the eu4 and current hoi4 mechanic of manually conquering etc.
 
  • 4Like
Reactions:
Though I would like to see expanded secret faith mechanics in CK3 (our current stuff is very lacklustre, IMO), I'm honestly not a big fan of societies, and don't really want to see them make a return, at least in anything like the same format. Devil worshippers and overt magic aside, they just felt extremely samey. The way they were structured and thus how they played meant that their content was churned through extremely quickly, and though it was generally very memorable the first time you fought a bear, broke into your opponent's lab, or obtained a pistol, that also happened every time you got involved with a society, and because of their structure adding new content for them was frustrating very partially because events would be churned so quickly that content always felt like much less than was actually added.

Unless you were the chill open religious orders, I guess, but then you didn't really do much of anything anyway.

There was also not much of a cost to being in a society as early as you could and everything to gain, so the gameplay impetus was to always to get into one, and get your kids into one, AQAP, and the demand always there for everyone to have access to every society type so that you could always access every type of bonus available. The whole thing just felt... like a neat idea in theory but a bonus factory in practice. I honestly think there's much better ways to approach what they were trying to do, non-governmental groups and diegetic missions, than re-implementing even an improved version of societies.
I do generally agree with this take on the societies, though I would like to point to the secret religious cults as a positive exception. This society type had the best connection to the map, since you use it as a vehicle to get secret followers for your marginalized faith, with the hope of bringing along some territory and rulers with you once you go public. If you were playing as a vassal, there was risk associated too, since your activities could you exposed and then your liege could punish you. When Monks and Mystics was released there was a tuning problem because whole swaths of the map would regularly flip to secret religions, but that was ironed out and I think the implementation was interesting as a system.

From another angle, the structure of societies has some features that I think are really ripe for implementation in a different context. They have a discrete group of members, progressive ranks that you climb over the course of your character's career, powers that unlock as you rank up, and assigned missions. I've written about this before, but I think this is an excellent framework for ministries in a Confucian bureaucracy to enhance vassal play. You might be one player in a huge empire, but the ministry you join gives you a smaller subset of the characters in the realm to work with and scheme against. It also makes the central government a bigger and more involved part of the realm, and can tie into existing mechanics by having the heads of each ministry simultaneously be the emperor's councilors.
 
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
How about improving Game Saves? One of the things I absolutely loved about CK2 was that I could play multiple different play throughs. Each play through had its own Save, so I could switch back and forth between play throughs as the mood took me. You can't really do that in CK3.

Here's the Save List in CK2...


607ABB03919186DFBE631F6420F7BC714396D4FA
Not exactly what you asked for, but if you’re looking for this sort of stuff at the moment, you can use the save manager “PDX Unlimiter” (or something like that). It’s useful for people like me, who are unrepentant save scummers and restarters, but it also is useful for just plain old save game organization. You can even label each save!
 
  • 2
Reactions:
This would also encourage the player to risk their character's life by placing them in control of armies, which currently they are discouraged from doing outside of roleplaying as there is little benefit and it makes for one of the rare instances where your character faces a genuine risk of dying prematurely.

On a related note, your character refusing to involve themselves in wars directly while being a member of the military aristocracy—as most if not all playable characters are—should really carry heftier penalties, or any at all.
The more I think about it, the more I think of the possibilities. If your general you sent off does well, perhaps they get a promotion or a title or something made for them. If they do not do well, perhaps demotion or prison or death if you are wrathful. What if it is your heir or family, how do you react to a failure?
 
  • 4
Reactions:
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.
I really wish Ecumenism was a little bit more dynamic. The idea of a Christian ruler taking the decision "Mend the Great Schism" by controlling the Pentarchy feels off.

Wouldn't a struggle be more suited to measure the unity between Orthodoxy and Catholicism?

Catalysts could be:
  • Catholic rulers refusing to answer the call of the Basileus to defend a de jure Byzantine territory against an evil faith;
  • Crusaders targeting Constantinople instead of liberating Jerusalem;
  • Greek theologians refusing/forgetting to invite their Latin peers to a Council...
  • Or Latins declining their invitation;
  • Ecumenical Councils ending in a consensus or not;
  • Catholic rulers making syncretic concessions to pagans, in order to speed up their mass conversion (converts might become Arians instead of Catholics), thus betraying the consensus of Ecumenical Councils;
  • Or anything simulating the Filioque disagreement;
  • The Byzantine Emperor controlling Catholic counties and wanting to appoint bishops;
  • The personal diplomacy between the Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople...

Then during a phase of hostility, a chain of events between the most important characters involved in this struggle could end up in the Great Schism. Or may be even having the opportunity to unify/merge the two main Churches, during conciliation phase.

Instead of a struggle, it could also be an Ecumenical balance, ranging from -100 to +100 with 0 being the usual "Considers faiths with the same doctrine to be astray". -100 would trigger the "Mend the Great Schism" chain of events, and +100 would trigger the "Unify Roman and Eastern Churches" one.
 
  • 4Like
  • 1Love
Reactions:
The way they were structured and thus how they played meant that their content was churned through extremely quickly, and though it was generally very memorable the first time you fought a bear, broke into your opponent's lab, or obtained a pistol, that also happened every time you got involved with a society, and because of their structure adding new content for them was frustrating very partially because events would be churned so quickly that content always felt like much less than was actually added.

This sounds like an equally apt description of CK3's lifestyle events. You pick the same bonuses from the trees and churn through the same events over and over. What's the difference here?

Whilst I think calling warfare broken is hyperbolic (it works, it just doesn't work the way you or I might want it to), I can certainly agree that it's opaque in a way that disadvantages new players whilst disproportionately advantaging (and so making things trivially easy and thus boring for) veteran ones.

Wanting to downplay warfare as a primary focus isn't wanting to do nothing with it, it's saying that we don't want to add complications in the way often clamoured for by people who remember CK2's warfare. In my opinion, at its core, CK2's warfare essentially had the same problem you're describing for CK3 here (as well as many of the literal points). It wasn't more medieval in character, it wasn't more newb-friendly, it wasn't even particularly complex in an interesting way (though I'll concede that, aside from knights, it was more flexible for modding purposes), it just had lots of hidden details, secret rules, and things you could do to optimise stuff in a way that was fundamentally just short/long-term micro but which would add up if you could be bothered to sit down and do it all the time, every time.

For CK3, we did away with much of that, and tried to make a more accessible version of the same system that lost the micro but retained the key points. This, naturally, sucked for people who actually did like the micro, as well as for people who had learnt it/did it automatically and now just felt its absence. Unfortunately I think the more key thing here is that that system with less micro isn't a fundamentally different system, just a less frustrating/less gamey one, and it hasn't actually removed many of the hidden implicit rules or metas of warfare or, most importantly, made war more immersive and medieval in flavour.
It is hard for me to understand how someone can watch their AI allies abandon all their sieges every time the player dares move their army a single step and think that that is *less* frustrating than CK2. Or click to move their army and find that the pathfinding wants to spend a hundred gold on boats to avoid walking a few extra counties. Or watch two armies run past one another to siege their opposing capitals and see who captures who first. Or click through having to raise and then dismiss a horde of useless levies at the start of every war. Or watch the AI try to chase down enemy stacks of a few hundred soldiers when it's already capped its warscore from battles. Or be the only one in an entire crusade conducting sieges and receive the entire kingdom as a result. Or try to attack a slightly larger enemy with the support of your allies, and lose the battle because your AI ally insists on standing in an adjacent province and doesn't arrive until the battle is already decided.

CK2's warfare had it's share of problems, but it was never as frustrating as CK3's. I feel like we must be playing completely different games if you don't think CK3's warfare is "broken".
 
  • 11
  • 4
Reactions:
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!
Petition to acquire as many "Respectfully disagrees" on this post so as to further the cause of giving all CK players carpal tunnel syndrome
 
  • 2Haha
Reactions:
On the theme of religion, is there ANY chance that there might be something in the works about the Papacy? Even something as simple as a College of Cardinals that actually gave us some input as to who the Pope and Cardinals are, would at least be SOMETHING. As it stands, it feels like the only real difference between the Pope and a local bishop is that they can call crusades and excommunicate you. The modding community has already done a great job with the Catholic Trinity mod that solves a lot of these issues, but this is something basic that's really needed in the base game.
 
Last edited:
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Its glad to know there is a map expanding plan there.

Anyway,diffrent parts of the world were very isolated in those days,it might not that"Crusader Kings"when i am playing China characters,right?
 
Last edited:
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Whilst I think calling warfare broken is hyperbolic (it works, it just doesn't work the way you or I might want it to), I can certainly agree that it's opaque in a way that disadvantages new players whilst disproportionately advantaging (and so making things trivially easy and thus boring for) veteran ones.

Wanting to downplay warfare as a primary focus isn't wanting to do nothing with it, it's saying that we don't want to add complications in the way often clamoured for by people who remember CK2's warfare. In my opinion, at its core, CK2's warfare essentially had the same problem you're describing for CK3 here (as well as many of the literal points). It wasn't more medieval in character, it wasn't more newb-friendly, it wasn't even particularly complex in an interesting way (though I'll concede that, aside from knights, it was more flexible for modding purposes), it just had lots of hidden details, secret rules, and things you could do to optimise stuff in a way that was fundamentally just short/long-term micro but which would add up if you could be bothered to sit down and do it all the time, every time.

For CK3, we did away with much of that, and tried to make a more accessible version of the same system that lost the micro but retained the key points. This, naturally, sucked for people who actually did like the micro, as well as for people who had learnt it/did it automatically and now just felt its absence. Unfortunately I think the more key thing here is that that system with less micro isn't a fundamentally different system, just a less frustrating/less gamey one, and it hasn't actually removed many of the hidden implicit rules or metas of warfare or, most importantly, made war more immersive and medieval in flavour.

So, to my mind, consider that section not as saying "we don't want to do warfare", but more that we don't want to return to adding lot of optional-but-effective army management stuff. Especially not when, as noted in the DD, we already kinda have issues with that in the form of modifier stacking for MaA. Warfare in CK is a huge part of the game and a massive part of any roleplay experience, but the type of niche tactical and long-term logistical choices that some folks want just aren't what many of us would like to do with it, and, per Rageair's words, won't ever be a primary focus for the title.
You're right about the hyperboli, it seems most players aren't as frustrated as I am. But personally it is the one mechanic that gives me the most rage quits and bad "I don't wanna play CK3 anymore" feelings. Mostly for those tricky secret rules you guys are aware of. I think it's not just warfare but generally any time a player feels like there was some unknown condition that made them lose when they thought they were winning is always the biggest kneecapper to any game systems fun.

I think I understand where you guys are coming from. I too don't really care about the deep micro to get modifiers to stack into space marines. It's the macro of warfare and its rules, known or unknown, that are my big concern and it looks like it's in the docket. All QoL when it comes to warfare is super much appreciated to me and probably the biggest thing to keep me in the game.

I'm sure you guys have your own ideas but I want to point at some of the things other paradox games do that improved warfare clarity as good examples of what kind of meta aspects of war can lead to some smoother play, not that I think they need to be in CK3, just that they are good at teaching concepts to new players:
  • In EU4 you need to get military access to move places, when a new player encounters this they quickly realize that it applies to the AI too. In a way it brings the whole concept of neutral countries and the possibility of the AI using them to the new players mind during war.
  • In EU4 you have the peace treaty system which has a lot of mechanics around the length of the war, how much you get, the risks of losing a war, etc. It reinforces in new players the total amount of risks, the relative sameness of offensive and defensive wars in terms of risk, and encourages the player to peace out for quicker gains or stay in for more gains later at a higher price. It's good for teaching the meta of war length and cost.
  • In Imperator you had the often underused option to automate your troops. Very useful for giving the player ideas of different roles troops can take on (although the main feature of actually automating them was underused by everyone but me).
  • In HoI4 you have the loved/hated naval invasion sound and warnings that really help you stay aware of naval troops and respond to them. You do have the raiding info in CK3 but more awareness to troops naval landing or leaving would be useful.
Finally a suggestion from me: A mega alert notification for your capital being sieged with clear text saying (you or your family may be captured and lose this war). I think that would teach that mechanic to noobs, and really help even veterans, because this can really catch you by surprise and end your war or run in a loss.

I think the clearer the rules the better warfare in CK3 will be for everyone! So keep up the good work, I can't wait to get back into things later.

P.S. on the topic of porting things from CK2. Get us a new Joan D'Arc event some day, that one was the best!
 
  • 4Like
  • 2
Reactions:
...I know it might not be possible but look into it if you can - is if/when the map gets expanded; give us a game setting to only have part of the map exist. While some games I might want to play with the whole map, I can very much see it slowing down the speed at which the game runs. As such, if I'm planning to play a game as Spain and never leave Europe, I don't need intrigue in China running in the background and making the game run slower. Similarly, if I'm playing in the far east then maybe I'd like to disable the entirety of Europe and North Africa from spawning if I only intend to reach as far west as India or the steppes. I don't think a lot of people care about this, but if it's possible, please consider it since the game has a tendency to run slower and slower as more expansions are added... Think of it as future-proofing for those of us with slower PCs.
Is it possible to use Level Of Detail for this? So the farther away from the player's land you look, the less detail in both graphics and npc decisions, but if your character suddenly inherits land off on the edge of your 'known world' map, the game provides the graphics details and starts generating the full range of npc decisions for your expanded 'known world' area?

@vandevere
How about improving Game Saves? One of the things I absolutely loved about CK2 was that I could play multiple different play throughs. Each play through had its own Save, so I could switch back and forth between play throughs as the mood took me. You can't really do that in CK3.
I play on Steam, and I save my files locally (no need for a mod). I can and do name each of my saves with notes for my next game session. So, 'TrothGsn,' or 'HeirBride16June5' so I can switch to a slower game speed in late May and marry the pair off the moment she turns 16 (seems to help a bit with those instantaneous lovers they can otherwise get). And yeah, I go through my save files periodically, prune out the excess, and save the rest in a folder outside CK3's access (sorry, haven't played in awhile and don't remember the file structure precisely), labelled with the title I gave that playthrough.

Hope that's helpful.

(edited for grammar & clarity)
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I do agree that a revised CK3's trade system should not shift the focus away from roleplaying... Surely there is a middle ground between Victoria's depth and the total absence of trade from CK3?

The way you are talking about trade, it sounds like it would be a matter of content and events more than a system integrated in the gameplay.

That would be a missed occasion. Without trade or any representation of goods, most provinces in ck3 feel basically interchangeable - at least, that is my impression. Implementing even a basic trade/goods system will allow for more flavour, and therefore richer gameplay.
I have to agree with this. The idea of Kings or Dukes not personally doing the trading is an obvious historical fact. But the lack resources was very much something they had to worry about. Oh no, I need more weapons for my army, but my realm is not importing enough iron. I need to find a merchant who can import a larger amount. Kings didn't just sit on their rump stuffing their faces all day. At least, not all of them. Many of them still had to or chose to manage a realm. There is obviously more to managing a realm than collecting taxes.
 
  • 10
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Meh CK3 has the focus problem like EUIV where by you have three or four ways to tackle the game but after that is just not fun or engaging enough to keep you going. No system deep enough to dive in and no mechanic complex enough to sink your teeth in. And for the constructive part of my critique: No more RP - more Mechanics and systems. Make a small Economy simulation for example.
 
  • 13
  • 4
Reactions: