• 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 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.
The best way to do it might be a survival grand strategy. Jon Schafer's At the Gates tried something along these lines, but apparently it was bad/he never finished it.
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'm not sure how you can judge China's popularity when the point is that it's not in the game. If they ever add East Asia, I am fairly confident it will become the most popular region to play in outside of Europe. Look at the Total War series: literally their only non-Eurocentric historical titles are both set in East Asia, and I believe the only pseudo-historical faction they've bothered to add in the Warhammer games that's not European in flavor is fantasy China. This stuff is well liked by Westerners and the substantial audience of Chinese PC gamers alike.
 
  • 10
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
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!

View attachment 885523


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.
View attachment 885522

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.

View attachment 885521
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!
I appreciate the clarity of communication here, but what made you think that keeping the Events Packs was a good idea? Are we still pretending that Friends & Foes wasn't terribly received?
 
Last edited:
  • 9
  • 2Haha
  • 2
Reactions:
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.
--

I am very sad to hear this :/
 
  • 9
  • 3
Reactions:
Feeling really excited and hopeful about the game's future. I'm enjoying it so much right now as it is, makes me happy just to imagine how much better it will get. Thanks PDX for this amazing game which keeps my marriage hanging by a thread as I "Struggle" really hard to make time to play while successfully avoiding my loving wife's wrath.

A few suggestions below:
1. Addition of more music, specially unique region / culture / religion / situation specific music. Some metal additions would be awesome. I for one would be happy to pay for music packs if necessary.
2. Ability to build custom special buildings or wonders like CK2 / IR (pardon me if this exists already).
3. Flavor pack for India / Bengal area please, there's a lot of rich history there. I believe addition of at least a few events related to encounters with the man-eating Royal Bengal Tiger found only in Sundarbans (till this day) would be loved by all. I'll be happy to help with the history of this area if you need any.
4. Adding navies / fleets and tying them up with army movement and trade. Right now the army movement by sea feels too gamey.
5. Let the map show the buildings that are built in a holding and show the improvement of the holding visibily as development levels increase.
6. Besides the epidemics or diseases, please consider including the impact of natural calamities such as storms, floods, volcanoes, fires, etc. both in gameplay and also visibly on the map.

Besides CK3, I wish is that you show the same / some love to Imperator Rome if it's still alive in the company books.
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
As long as the HRE and my native Low Countries get some extra attention and rework down the line as well.
In general I support any expansion and rework, even in regions I don’t play in, but since we’re all human you all wish the same for your own favourite region.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Well maybe if merchant republics aren't exactly a thing - or generally what you say that you don't want them to be their own thing - what about simply creating an all-rounded republic government type? An idea I've got is to divide it up into two parts, oligarchic republics (ex. venice) and parliamentary republics/monarchies (ex. english parliament). Oligarchic republics would be similar to the ck2 trade republics in the aspect that there are only a few powerful families who hold actual power in the republic (who knows maybe we could get an early cromwell out of this as well presuming one of them would be to consolidate power). Parliamentary republics/monarchies would of course focus on the parliament with it having a lot of the actual power. The executive or "the Monarch" in a parliamentary republic/monarchy wouldn't have much power and would signify simply which faction or political dynasty (as those would still obviously exist) has the most power in the nation. The process of getting to becoming a republic/parliamentary monarchy could be either through having lost or conceded to a revolt or being a vassal who revolted and decided that keeping themselves in power would be easier/better through reorganising the realm into a republic.

Hope my idea gave something interesting to think about especially as it's my first time posting anything on the forum I believe and if I'd be to have anything else to say what I'd like, it's either nomads or an in-depth black plague spread system whenever it's supposed to fire. Either way, keep up the good work on the game!
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
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.
There's actually a very impressive looking mod for this concept, though it's still in development (and I personally have never tried anything RICE before). Involves a lot of trade and struggle aspects with an off-screen Greenland.
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...sequel-to-cybrxkhans-immersion-packs.1431544/

Reddit link to a dev diary of the North Atlantic pack specifically
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I'm very happy with the move towards being more open. I'm much less happy about the continued focus on character role play. I'd much rather have a systemic focus which in my opinion would help underpin role playing. In any case, hopefully that will come in time.
 
  • 13
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
With Trade and Republics, I think instead trade should have mechanics come with Nomad stuff. Historically, most nomadic empires did not evolve out of a desire to unite around the Everchosen and burn the worlds of men, but rather to control resources and gain sources of income. Nomadic Empires that could not gain control of Trade Routes or get access to markets quickly found themselves collapsing, an an empire on the steppe without trade was quickly impoverished and outcompeted.


I will say that if there is a Byzantine DLC, try not to add too much LARP content. Legions, praetorians, and the old provinces were gone. A restoration of the empire by Byzantium would be fundamentally Greek. What you'd probably see are exarchates or katepanates in regions like Egypt, Africa, and Italy. Restoring the empire would mostly involve expanding these systems to historical Roman lands. Katepanates weren't limited to territories that were far removed from Constantinople - Bulgaria, Macedonia, Armenia, and Antioch (Syria/Mesopotamia) were all under katepanates at one time or another. They were essentially very large civil-military provinces, akin to army commands, that brought together governorates and the forces stationed in them.
This is my biggest fear by far, that a Byzantine DLC will be mainly focused around reviving Roman customs and traditions and basically portraying Byzantium as at best the Eastern Roman Empire just continually existing into the middle ages as it was during late roman times(or even worse, basically Principate Rome) rather than a constantly evolving state. Please add content to flesh out the Empire as it was and as it existed and governed and add content for that, rather than focusing so much on classical roman stuff.

EDIT: This is what I get for posting before finishing reading the thread, was already responded too. Still, the answer has me so happy, so glad Paradox feels the same way.

Also thanks for answering my question on more sudden deaths and setbacks. Would be great for the game's health IMO.
 
Last edited:
  • 7
  • 1Haha
  • 1
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.
Then why you disagree with me on War thing cuz as I can see you want better war system too?
 
  • 1Haha
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
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.
As much as I think laws are the biggest thing CK3 needs, I was really intrigued by this idea. So I’ve decided to post some ideas I had for changes in different eras. Some of these are dependent on other things you want to eventually do like trade and laws.
  1. Districts: As cities get more and more advanced I think they should get districts based on their development, let's say 1 for every 15 development. The new district would have 2-3 building slots for a specific type of building. Districts: Military, farming, merchant (trade and banking), entertainment (popular opinion), noble/royal (prestige and ruler opinion). Then all of your old buildings could be considered a legacy district. This makes highly developed cities much more distinct and can even lead to other cities gaining prominence instead of just the historical ones like Paris, Constantinople, and Baghdad.
  2. Peasants: As time went on peasants starting having more of an impact on society instead of just the nobles. Take the Medici for instance who were bankers. This could lead to more events with peasants, patronizing the arts, and them wanting more rights which could tie into laws. I’m sure there’s a lot more you can do with this, but I just can’t think of any atm lol.
  3. Less Noble Privileges: Rulers eventually started gaining more power and leaving their nobles weaker. This could be reflected on them having less influence and voting power you need from them to change a law (need the law update for this to really matter though). You could also tie access to higher levels of crown authority to era changes instead of tech.
  4. Trade: This is pretty straight forward. Unlock trade at a higher era. I’d recommend 1066 so people can start out with it if they want.
  5. Border Wars: As states become more stable through time we end up with more kingdoms. Resulting in border wars becoming common. Basically just unlock this like we have in Iberia.
  6. Vassal Allies: If you want to flip war on its head then you could unlock raising vassals as allies in war. However, if they don’t like you enough then won’t join. This could also lead to an interesting balance of wanting your vassals strong to fight for you, but not too strong so that they can overthrow you. Not sure if this is historical, maybe the opposite is. In which case you just start out with the ability and then lose it instead.
  7. Alliances: Kingdoms started relying on alliances that weren’t just based on marriage. This could unlock the ability to negotiate alliances.
  8. Different Governments: I think it would be really interesting to see different governments get at least 1 unique era change. So doing things like holding out as Tribal government by the 1300’s would make that country far more distinct and interesting.
 
  • 5Like
  • 1
Reactions:
As much as I think laws are the biggest thing CK3 needs, I was really intrigued by this idea. So I’ve decided to post some ideas I had for changes in different eras. Some of these are dependent on other things you want to eventually do like trade and laws.
  1. Districts: As cities get more and more advanced I think they should get districts based on their development, let's say 1 for every 15 development. The new district would have 2-3 building slots for a specific type of building. Districts: Military, farming, merchant (trade and banking), entertainment (popular opinion), noble/royal (prestige and ruler opinion). Then all of your old buildings could be considered a legacy district. This makes highly developed cities much more distinct and can even lead to other cities gaining prominence instead of just the historical ones like Paris, Constantinople, and Baghdad.
  2. Peasants: As time went on peasants starting having more of an impact on society instead of just the nobles. Take the Medici for instance who were bankers. This could lead to more events with peasants, patronizing the arts, and them wanting more rights which could tie into laws. I’m sure there’s a lot more you can do with this, but I just can’t think of any atm lol.
  3. Less Noble Privileges: Rulers eventually started gaining more power and leaving their nobles weaker. This could be reflected on them having less influence and voting power you need from them to change a law (need the law update for this to really matter though). You could also tie access to higher levels of crown authority to era changes instead of tech.
  4. Trade: This is pretty straight forward. Unlock trade at a higher era. I’d recommend 1066 so people can start out with it if they want.
  5. Border Wars: As states become more stable through time we end up with more kingdoms. Resulting in border wars becoming common. Basically just unlock this like we have in Iberia.
  6. Vassal Allies: If you want to flip war on its head then you could unlock raising vassals as allies in war. However, if they don’t like you enough then won’t join. This could also lead to an interesting balance of wanting your vassals strong to fight for you, but not too strong so that they can overthrow you. Not sure if this is historical, maybe the opposite is. In which case you just start out with the ability and then lose it instead.
  7. Alliances: Kingdoms started relying on alliances that weren’t just based on marriage. This could unlock the ability to negotiate alliances.
  8. Different Governments: I think it would be really interesting to see different governments get at least 1 unique era change. So doing things like holding out as Tribal government by the 1300’s would make that country far more distinct and interesting.
Aside from point 6, let's keep EUIV in EUIV, shall we?
 
  • 6
  • 1
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.

I think a large thing making the edge of the map like India or not Northern Africa less fun is that it is the edge of the map. They are missing interactions with half of their neighboring realms. Playing India or Tibet without China is like playing Byzantium without Arabia on the map.

These regions of course need more flavor too, but these regions will never feel right until they get their actual neighbors in play as well so they can have the regular game dynamics that Europe and the Middle East enjoys.

I genuinely don't understand from a gameplay point of view and especially from a history perspective opposition to expanding the map. The world was interconnected and not just Europe and MENA, what happens in the far east can have echos at the very least in the middle east and that dynamic is important to the game and historically.

Edit: also achievements only tell you what a certain small subset of players do now and say nearly nothing about what the future player base may enjoy to do in the future.
 
  • 6
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
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.
I’m very glad that you all want to eventually work on this. To me, this feels like what the game is lacking the most. If I’m going to form a kingdom I want to feel like I’m actually ruling it and making it distinct. What’s the point of forming Israel if it looks the same as every other kingdom? It also lets a player focus on something other than just blobbing and buildings, which would result in many people playing a campaign longer than just 200 years. Glad you want it character based as well. I assume you would need enough vassal support to make a change and it would lead to far more interaction with your vassals to get the changes you want.

Vassal contracts could also certainly be a lot more interesting. Most of the time I never want to increase taxes or levies from a vassal because getting .05 extra gold isn’t worth the 15 opinion loss. So I think you could focus more on the negative and positives instead of using a hook to change this.
 
  • 6Like
Reactions:
Not going from count to emperor in a single character's lifetime would be a great start.
This has to be possible, because the only reliable way to make it impossible is to have the game mechanics directly disqualify a player's starting character from receiving an Imperial title if they were a Count at game start.

And if it's possible, people will do it, and even write something approximating paint-by-numbers guides to doing it.

Is it too easy? Maybe... but your idea of how hard it should be, and my idea of how hard it should be, and some grognard who's been playing Paradox GSGs since EU1 retail's idea of how hard it should be, are all different. (And heck, if you ask six of those grognards, you'll probably get at least five different answers, at least one of which might plausibly be "eh, it's just fine, if I want the game harder I can get a mod".)
In EU4 you need to get military access to move places,
Unfortunately, in the current state of EU4 this tends to be a formality; the only time it isn't is when there's a country completely separating you from the country you're at war with, and that country hates both of you.

Please reconsider and just focus on the Christian and Islamic worlds.
By the end of CK3's period, the Islamic world stretched all the way from insular and peninsular Southeast Asia, to West Africa.
 
  • 3Like
  • 2
  • 1
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. 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.

The thing is, expanding the map eastward (which obviously you intend to do, and actually support, so long as the game performance doesn't suffer too much), is that if you add any one part of East Asia outside of China you're kind of forced to add in China and the rest of Mainland Asia because that whole region was heavily interconnected. And frankly Weebs would be very cross with you if you don't include Japan.

So realistically, any expansion eastward would be an all or nothing affair. A southward expansion is something else entirely and I would question whether it should be done at all.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
The thing is, expanding the map eastward (which obviously you intend to do, and actually support, so long as the game performance doesn't suffer too much), is that if you add any one part of East Asia outside of China you're kind of forced to add in China and the rest of Mainland Asia because that whole region was heavily interconnected. And frankly Weebs would be very cross with you if you don't include Japan.

So realistically, any expansion eastward would be an all or nothing affair. A southward expansion is something else entirely and I would question whether it should be done at all.
In theory, they could add Southeast Asia first, then East Asia, instead of both at once. Sure, it would be weird to have Vietnam without China for a while, but not much more so than what we've got right now in the eastern edge of the map.
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions: