• 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:
No, I will not give up this dream and Samo's Kingdom. But fair enough I guess there are only a handful of people who actually want that and there are other more important priorities and there I agree.
I count myself among those who would love to play a Dark ages game and timeline...
But at the same time, I totally want the game NOT to be character driven storytelling CK3.
 
I do think that warfare could do with being more fleshed-out. The current system isn't terrible, but a lot of the time wars can be boring as they basically just devolve into a race to "headshot" each other with capital sieges.
 
  • 8
  • 3Like
Reactions:
Sounds great. Regarding map extension, a bit more of Africa would be appreciated too, mainly the East African coast to make my Somali games a little less isolated. I do appreciate that getting sources is an issue though.

Confirmation of China and, my personal favourite, Vietnam, is excellent news though, and I look forward to those eastern expansions, whenever they might come.
 
  • 7Like
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?
The more I think about it, the better an idea I think this is - really reinforces the idea that you’re playing as a character rather than the disembodied spirit of the nation!
Another mechanic that could be added to make warfare more interesting would be campaigning seasons, i.e. your levies need to return to the fields to bring in the harvest, and so you need to carefully manage summer offensives with your armies before the seasons turn…
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
I do think that warfare could do with being more fleshed-out. The current system isn't terrible, but a lot of the time wars can be boring as they basically just devolve into a race to "headshot" each other with capital sieges.
I think the balance issue of capital sieges is threefold:

1) You might just win the war outright by capturing the enemy king, even if you're likely to lose the war if you were to fight battles.

2) Even if you don't capture the king, you get a *lot* of warscore for capturing close family members, compared to what you get for even holding the war goal.

3) Even if you don't get enough warscore to win the war, you get a lot of money for ransoming captured characters. In the early game, this can more than fund your entire war effort.

Each of these three things is logical enough - capturing the enemy king wins wars, capturing members of the royal family is a huge bargaining chip, and capturing other high-ranking characters leads to valuable ransom. But from a game balance perspective, they all sort of compound on one another.
 
  • 3
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Religion should be more important as mentioned.
I've played Tibet and it is quite interesting but getting boring write fast.
I think 3 religion base factors should not be fixed, it should have 2 or 4 for example to make a religion really matter.

Domain buildings. I think village shops be built first, and castle should be always near village. To make village important, it should be source of money like church. No village - you lose money and quality of your arm my in that castle. As I see even on twitch streams devs say that there is no sense to build smth else than castle.

Professions. I would like not to be a ruler sometimes and to be a good healer or blacksmith. To have a generation wide profession should have an option to change even family tree to show your profession. I would like to travel through the world and produce amazing swords for kings for instance.

Religion profession should be very deep with ability to become a pope in very rare case. And by the way I would like to become a king much harder than now. It's way too easy to become a king from a courtier.

Clans are a bit boring, witchcraft is almost not developed at all. I would prefer to remove it right now unless you want to develop.

Reaper dlc in CK 2 was amazing, I wish epidemy would be much scarier and important than now.
 
  • 4
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Warfare is not and never will be a primary focus for CK3
This wrong, very wrong. Politics always revolve around war, especially in this period of time with so many history defining battles.
No need for complex battle mechanics, but all other systems and mechanics in the game feel shallow and for nothing, just because you can roll through entire world with your army disregarding plots, personal relations, economy etc.
To address this there's a need for some simple population mechanic tied with army replenishment war exhaustion - because now best choice is to spend as little time between wars as possible to maximize gain.
If you take your army half across the world to fight and leave your lands defenseless, there should be a real threat that you might get invaded as it was the case in history.
As it is now just because of lackluster warfare mechanics the whole game looks very beautiful but is very very shallow and boring.
 
  • 14
  • 6
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Excited to hear when I might be able to benefit from the Royal Court expansion I purchased (in full) on Xbox going on 4 months ago now.

And some people bought it over nine months ago, with a release date nowhere in sight and likely to be in 2023.

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

I'm not sure, should I be happy that Paradox even deigns to mention the filthy "c word" in a development diary? Looking forward to a spectacular console-focused development diary this week. At least, I hope it's spectacular. I keep hoping/expecting that Paradox will make the commitment to become a proper cross-platform developer, and I keep getting disappointed.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
This wrong, very wrong. Politics always revolve around war, especially in this period of time with so many history defining battles.
No need for complex battle mechanics, but all other systems and mechanics in the game feel shallow and for nothing, just because you can roll through entire world with your army disregarding plots, personal relations, economy etc.
To address this there's a need for some simple population mechanic tied with army replenishment war exhaustion - because now best choice is to spend as little time between wars as possible to maximize gain.
If you take your army half across the world to fight and leave your lands defenseless, there should be a real threat that you might get invaded as it was the case in history.
As it is now just because of lackluster warfare mechanics the whole game looks very beautiful but is very very shallow and boring.

Indeed, I too was quite concerned about that section. It seems Paradox is losing the plot, as it were. Crusader Kings is still, last I checked, a Strategy Game. It is in fact listed in the Strategy Game section of Steam. The games tagline is "Strategy requires cunning". I keep reiterating this point and people can keep being mad if they want to, but this is not The Sims Medieval and I'm quite tired of everyone trying to act like it is.
 
  • 10
  • 4
  • 2Love
Reactions:
Creative developers have creative roadmaps.
Probably the bigger the room, the higher the priority.

If you read carefully, uncreatively it goes like this:
Alliances, Warfare, Crusades, ➡️ Clans, ➡️ Republics — next, confirmed.
AI, Modifier Stacking — next and later, confirmed.
North Africa — next or 2023, confirmed.
Britain or France or West/East Slavic — next or 2023?, confirmed.

Byzantine Major Expansion — 2024, if Major Expansion is about Imperial Mechanics.
If not — 2025 or later (because no room).
 
  • 6
Reactions:
Are there any plans to apply the struggle mechanic to other areas? I still have this crazy idea that it could work for the HRE region in 867; giving more structure to the chaotic region and more impetus for the AI and player to actually form the HRE.
 
  • 2Like
  • 2
Reactions:
With the Map Expansions it's been stated to include the rest of the Old World, but I'm a bit different on what I'd like to see, which is Greenland. So, is Greenland in consideration for a map expansion? I get that 867 would be a harder start to figure out since the Tuuniit/Dorset culture would be the only one on Greenland and there is very little documentation prior to Norse arrival in the 10th century, however it would work perfectly for 1066. This could potentially introduce a Norse divergence called Greenlandic and two cultures (Tuuniit and Inuit, which doesn't show up in Greenland until the 13th century but did exist further west). I get I am likely in a small minority but having Greenland in the future would be very lovely and likely easier to show up compared to the hunter-gatherer societies of the Khoikhoi and San people of Southern Africa which is apart of the Old World.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Wow nice to hear about all this good news :) the next update will be focus on "reinforcing the connection between map and character" Can we Expect have access to a randomize world, be able to choose the duchies capital and finally have the possibility to build great monument in our country capitals ? Also can we Expect to have a bit more choice in our building composition ( like multi decision choice when we update a building or just more different building giving different bonus. May we also expect to have dynamic holy site that allow the faith which are on a big part of the map to be more strong that little or divergent faith. And finally in the ruler personalization will we have access to the horse inside our inventory because it was something really important for a lord to have a good horse

thank in advance for the answer we will have ( if you are allow to give some) and many thanks for this DD really interesting and open to your community
 
  • 1
Reactions:
One thing I would love to see you revisit is the Silk Road, and trade in general. If you want to expand it to an economic-sim subgame where you grow your economy, that would be fine, but it could be as simple as, there is an amount of “trade” passing through a network between nations off the map to the East, and nations on the map out west.
  • You can expand the capacity of your nodes so more passes through
  • Richer provinces generate more trade through the network
  • You can tax trade more, but that will cause more of it to flow around you (unless, of course, your realm cuts the network so trade has nowhere else to go)
  • You can cut off other realms, but this gives them a casus belli
  • There are advantages to having more merchants pass through your realm
  • Maybe bring back local prosperity and some of the interactions with an off-map China
That seems like it gives players some nice strategic goals.
 
  • 5
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Its glad to know there is a map expanding plan there.

Anyway,diffrent parts of the world where very isolated in those days,it might not that"Crusader Kings"when i am playing China characters,right?

This for me. While I don't have an issue with including East Asia given no development resource constraints... well there are resource constraints.

You also see people asking for less blobbing, more realism in difficulty managing a large realm etc. Those are contradictory goals. If you have the latter, West and East will be even more removed from each others playing experience.

Devs must just be clear why they are doing it. East Asia for the sake of East Asia. It cannot add much to the current West playing experience if both parts function "realistically". At least not in anyway that cant be efficiently abstracted.

It will be a separate game within a game because if there is much influence between West and East it will be down to blobbing and lack of depth and mechanics in those areas.

Can we have both? Which should come first? These are the questions I wrestle with at night.
 
  • 3Like
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Great Dev Diary, I appreciate I lot! Imho there should be implemented somewhere in the future three contents:
1) Societies and secret societies with supernatural -> Angels, demons, vampires, werewolves, and true holy\demonic relics
2) Fantasy pack (dwarves, dragons?, elves, orcs,...). It can acts as a framework for fantasy mods but also adding contents like roleplaying as a "fanatic purifier" and midgame\endgame crisis
3) A pack that lets you become a landless person and rise through the ranks

Everything should be customizable before starting the game (especially for those who would want the societies but not the supernatural)
 
  • 14
Reactions:
Haven't read through the whole discussion, but in regards to alliances- perhaps it could be used to make marriages more important? In the current game, the easiest way to get advantageous marriages is to use them as non-aggression pacts, to breed for traits, or to marry your sons to a small family's daughters (or matrilineal equivalent thereof) to try and get an inheritance. I think making marriage more of a negotiation, with more immediately-obvious benefits- and costs- might help a lot with that. For example, while I can't find details on how Crusader Kings playable characters would do it, a marriage between British barons would involve trades of land and money. Perhaps drawing negotiations closer to feudal contracts would work, and make the right of divorce more important for how your religion plays? I think another advantage to making the system deeper would be that a lot of interesting gameplay- eloping, for example- is often cut off by 'marry ASAP' being the default assumption!
 
  • 2
Reactions:
''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.''

But why? I can't speak for everyone, but looking at the achievements it's obvious Europe, North Africa and the Middle East are quite popular, but India, China and Africa clearly are not.

I certainly have zero interest in going even further east or south. The map is already way too large as it is, slowing down the game in later years. Please reconsider and just focus on the Christian and Islamic worlds.

''There’s also a lot of potential around crusades, and all the happenings before, during, and after them. ''

Well, I'm glad you think there is ''also a lot of potential'' since this game is called Crusader Kings. I would really appreciate it if Paradox does not lose sight of that.
 
  • 18
  • 6
  • 1Love
Reactions: