• 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'm really not sure that CK3 does have a deeper and richer religious system than CK2. It does have an expanded version of the Holy Fury build-a-religion, but you've lost basically all of the content for each religion from all the prior expansions.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I'm really not sure that CK3 does have a deeper and richer religious system than CK2. It does have an expanded version of the Holy Fury build-a-religion, but you've lost basically all of the content for each religion from all the prior expansions.
Well, technically both can be true. CK3 could be said to have a deeper religion system, but more shallow religious content to populate that system.
 
  • 2
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
I hear this sentiment a lot, actually, so it's worth taking some time out to address it. I actually went back and played a little bit of CK2 the other day for the express purpose of confirming or disputing my preconceived notions on societies explicitly.

Societies as a concept is actually really solid. Splitting up blocks of characters into the equivalent of interest groups and then tying unique content to them is an undeniably good idea. Giving you a reason to interact with a whole new block of characters you usually don't interact with is neat. This sort of international system adds a sort of depth that's quite welcome.

On the other hand, though, I think with the benefit of hindsight we can say that the implementation left a little to be desired. The mechanics didn't dovetail particularly well with other ones, and the barrier to entry to join them was trivial. As such, players often just found themselves falling sideways into a society in which they were then handed this relatively isolated content. This, combined with the balance - Hermetic was _notably_ powerful, whereas monastic orders were the opposite (unless you were Buddhist) - meant that it resulted in quite a wonky experience a lot of the time. I'm sure I'd have had other thoughts a few years ago, but my brain needs something of a refresher beyond a quick 2 hour CK2 play session!

As a result, when people ask for Societies when I tend to think isn't "ah, they want CK2 Societies" but more "they want all the benefits that Societies offered, including deeper religious gameplay and more things for a ruler to do during peacetime". Now the former is something we almost certainly won't do, because I reckon CK2 Societies simply weren't as good as many make them out to be, but the latter is absolutely something we all want to do. CK3 has a far deeper and richer religious system than CK2 so that's always fertile ground to build upon, and giving the player stuff to do and interact when they're not actively involved with waging wars and stabbing children is something we want to be addressing as soon as possible.

tl;dr Societies not actually that good, the principles of the ideas behind Societies good, want to take those ideas forward whilst leaving Societies in the past

Sorry for this somewhat disjointed post, I was up for an early morning!

Thank you for such a developed and sympathetic response.

I actually agree with everything you're saying, and will be interested to see how you integrate the best parts of societies into CK3 as the game progresses.

There was just something so colourful about your character joining the hermetic society and inventing artifacts or writing books that get inherited through the generations as some sort of great symbol.

I actually played a multiplayer megacampaign where one of my kings became leader of the hermetic society and then recovered the Emerald Tablet, and I then roleplayed this as him being a sort of mystic who believed he had discovered the one true religion. I secretly converted him to Messalianism, as it was secretly spreading throughout Europe at the time, and roleplayed him hijacking this religious development and using his stature in the hermetic society to explain why he would become the prophet of a new religion based on hermeticism and messalianism, with the reformation taking place in Ireland...

His magnum opuses were the original religious texts of the new faith passed down to his descendants.

So I guess what I liked about it was this idea that my guy was clearly one of the great intellects of the medieval world, and was recognised as such atop a hierarchy of medieval intellects, which then let me justify making him a religious reformer.

Which is the other point that you mention: the international nature of societies, and how they can bring people from different kingdoms together. You felt like your character was a part of a group trying to achieve something very directed and had a stronger identity for it (they even wore society garb), though the points you raise rightly demonstrate that this wasn't really earned nor that unique (there weren't that many societies, especially if you played certain religions like the Taoists).

The final thing I loved about them was the (admittedly limited) internal politics and sense of your progression as you worked up the ranks to try and become leader of the society, with the benefits that brought.

I suppose all things considered, you're right when you say that there are other ways to get a lot of this, and realistically, bringing back CK2 societies wouldn't add much to the game, as they were fairly limited, repetitive, and overpowered. Not to mention being something that we've already done (and what other societies could you even add to freshen things up?).

That said, while I'm a bit uneasy about the lack of roleplaying in the process of religious reformation, I actually love the CK3 religion designer, because it was exactly what I wished I had while designing my religion in CK2 through RP, and wonder whether the game would benefit from something similar applied to societies once more pressing development priorities are achieved (customisable with unique internal political structures, membership laws, secrecy, recruitment methods, and the selection of a religion-type tenet or political goal that brings with it an overall objective and a set of artifacts/events/flavour).
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Societies were one of my favourite parts of CK2, and I'm gutted that they won't be making a return.

The stress feature of CK3 actually makes them more viable without being "bonus factories", because society membership might have stress-causing events (or ambient stress) that limits your time to do other things.

What makes them great is that they're the thing I tended to put my focus into when playing peacefully, giving me a sense of achievement and status. Without them, I just feel like I have to map paint until I become emperor of Europe.
I hear this sentiment a lot, actually, so it's worth taking some time out to address it. I actually went back and played a little bit of CK2 the other day for the express purpose of confirming or disputing my preconceived notions on societies explicitly.

Societies as a concept is actually really solid. Splitting up blocks of characters into the equivalent of interest groups and then tying unique content to them is an undeniably good idea. Giving you a reason to interact with a whole new block of characters you usually don't interact with is neat. This sort of international system adds a sort of depth that's quite welcome.

On the other hand, though, I think with the benefit of hindsight we can say that the implementation left a little to be desired. The mechanics didn't dovetail particularly well with other ones, and the barrier to entry to join them was trivial. As such, players often just found themselves falling sideways into a society in which they were then handed this relatively isolated content. This, combined with the balance - Hermetic was _notably_ powerful, whereas monastic orders were the opposite (unless you were Buddhist) - meant that it resulted in quite a wonky experience a lot of the time. I'm sure I'd have had other thoughts a few years ago, but my brain needs something of a refresher beyond a quick 2 hour CK2 play session!

As a result, when people ask for Societies when I tend to think isn't "ah, they want CK2 Societies" but more "they want all the benefits that Societies offered, including deeper religious gameplay and more things for a ruler to do during peacetime". Now the former is something we almost certainly won't do, because I reckon CK2 Societies simply weren't as good as many make them out to be, but the latter is absolutely something we all want to do. CK3 has a far deeper and richer religious system than CK2 so that's always fertile ground to build upon, and giving the player stuff to do and interact when they're not actively involved with waging wars and stabbing children is something we want to be addressing as soon as possible.

tl;dr Societies not actually that good, the principles of the ideas behind Societies good, want to take those ideas forward whilst leaving Societies in the past

Sorry for this somewhat disjointed post, I was up for an early morning!
Hmm... I mean no offense here, yet with all due respect, I don't quite follow your thinking.

If I'm reading you correctly, your analysis is something like this:
1. You hear from a lot of people wanting societies back.
2. You check out societies in CK2.
3. You don't like CK2 societies, though you do appreciate the concept of "international" groups of people interacting with each other who normally wouldn't.
4. You conclude that those people who want societies back don't actually like societies either, and are thinking just like you in a general desire for some sort of international interaction and peacetime and religious gameplay.

While I can't read minds, I think the most reasonable interpretation of somebody saying they want societies, is that they want societies. And not that they're just mistaken, and actually just so happen to want what I/you also want.

Or am I missing something here? :)
 
  • 1
Reactions:
While I can't read minds, I think the most reasonable interpretation of somebody saying they want societies, is that they want societies. And not that they're just mistaken, and actually just so happen to want what I/you also want.

For what it's worth, when I say that I want societies, I don't mean that I want the CK2-Version of societies. I think societies could be done much better than that.
 
  • 5
  • 2
Reactions:
CK3 has a far deeper and richer religious system than CK2 so that's always fertile ground to build upon, and giving the player stuff to do and interact when they're not actively involved with waging wars and stabbing children is something we want to be addressing as soon as possible.

tl;dr Societies not actually that good, the principles of the ideas behind Societies good, want to take those ideas forward whilst leaving Societies in the past

Sorry for this somewhat disjointed post, I was up for an early morning!

That's great to hear and yes, that is exactly what many people (though I can only speak for myself) seem to want. Not old CK2 systems back, but new implementations of old themes.

Societies are perfect for what CK3 focuses on: character interactions. There's almost no better way to bring people together who otherwise wouldn't interact with each other. It also gives you something to do in peace time: climbing the ranks, maybe fighting off hostile societies, investing your money to spread its influence etc.

Makes the world also more interesting, as many people would get a set of hidden ambitions. Can you trust the courtier that someone sent you? And why is your vassal killing seemingly random characters? Is he evil, or does he act on behalf of some society you don't know about?

Would also be great to have the pope as head of several monastic orders, who spread the faith and enjoy his protection in return. Likewise, making a character a monk would also mean more than just getting him a new trait and new clothing. You'd be putting your son in a society and could aid him becoming abbot, bishop or even the pope some day. Who knows.

So I'm glad you won't just port old content 1:1 to the new game, but do it in a manner that is fitting for the new game. More power to you then!
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Hmm... I mean no offense here, yet with all due respect, I don't quite follow your thinking.

If I'm reading you correctly, your analysis is something like this:
1. You hear from a lot of people wanting societies back.
2. You check out societies in CK2.
3. You don't like CK2 societies, though you do appreciate the concept of "international" groups of people interacting with each other who normally wouldn't.
4. You conclude that those people who want societies back don't actually like societies either, and are thinking just like you in a general desire for some sort of international interaction and peacetime and religious gameplay.

While I can't read minds, I think the most reasonable interpretation of somebody saying they want societies, is that they want societies. And not that they're just mistaken, and actually just so happen to want what I/you also want.

Or am I missing something here? :)
Your missing that if the Devs think they can bring back the concepts for societies in a new and improved way we should probably listen.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
It was the "climbing the ranks" in societies that made them feel gamey, like a 90s action game leaderboard. There should be no score to determine seniority.
 
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
For what it's worth, when I say that I want societies, I don't mean that I want the CK2-Version of societies. I think societies could be done much better than that.
Of course if I can get "better" I will always take it, but I think CK2-style societies are better than nothing. :)




Your missing that if the Devs think they can bring back the concepts for societies in a new and improved way we should probably listen.
I did listen (well, read), but thank you none the less for your advice! :)




It was the "climbing the ranks" in societies that made them feel gamey, like a 90s action game leaderboard. There should be no score to determine seniority.
Are you suggesting not having ranks (or at least, not having the player involved in climbing them), or a different way of determining rank?
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
Thanks, maybe you should advertise the game from the beginning, that there will be just simplified warfare and no trade, even in future expansions.

You are 100% correct. I always see games advertised on Steam with long lists of features they DON'T have or are secondary. Marketing 101. Paradox is missing a trick not getting you onboard.
 
  • 6Haha
Reactions:
Thanks, maybe you should advertise the game from the beginning, that there will be just simplified warfare and no trade, even in future expansions.
You are 100% correct. I always see games advertised on Steam with long lists of features they DON'T have or are secondary. Marketing 101. Paradox is missing a trick not getting you onboard.
Wow, just delete you account now dude. No recovery from that roast. In fact, he didn't just roast you, he then left you in the fire for good measure.
 
  • 1Love
  • 1
Reactions:
I hear this sentiment a lot, actually, so it's worth taking some time out to address it. I actually went back and played a little bit of CK2 the other day for the express purpose of confirming or disputing my preconceived notions on societies explicitly.

Societies as a concept is actually really solid. Splitting up blocks of characters into the equivalent of interest groups and then tying unique content to them is an undeniably good idea. Giving you a reason to interact with a whole new block of characters you usually don't interact with is neat. This sort of international system adds a sort of depth that's quite welcome.

On the other hand, though, I think with the benefit of hindsight we can say that the implementation left a little to be desired. The mechanics didn't dovetail particularly well with other ones, and the barrier to entry to join them was trivial. As such, players often just found themselves falling sideways into a society in which they were then handed this relatively isolated content. This, combined with the balance - Hermetic was _notably_ powerful, whereas monastic orders were the opposite (unless you were Buddhist) - meant that it resulted in quite a wonky experience a lot of the time. I'm sure I'd have had other thoughts a few years ago, but my brain needs something of a refresher beyond a quick 2 hour CK2 play session!

As a result, when people ask for Societies when I tend to think isn't "ah, they want CK2 Societies" but more "they want all the benefits that Societies offered, including deeper religious gameplay and more things for a ruler to do during peacetime". Now the former is something we almost certainly won't do, because I reckon CK2 Societies simply weren't as good as many make them out to be, but the latter is absolutely something we all want to do. CK3 has a far deeper and richer religious system than CK2 so that's always fertile ground to build upon, and giving the player stuff to do and interact when they're not actively involved with waging wars and stabbing children is something we want to be addressing as soon as possible.

tl;dr Societies not actually that good, the principles of the ideas behind Societies good, want to take those ideas forward whilst leaving Societies in the past

Sorry for this somewhat disjointed post, I was up for an early morning!
A solution to that might perhaps be found in orders of knighthood, related to a specific faith and/or culture.
Especially in the 14th century there was an increase in such orders, such as the Supreme Order of Christ, with membership granted by the Pope to those who had shown particular dedication to the Catholic faith.

I could easily see a mechanism of (strictly limited) titles bestowed on members by a HoF, crossing national borders in doing so.
This would increase the relationship between members, add a certain prestige or piety and lead to some interesting events and might come with expectations regarding character behavior (or risking it being revoked and having the members reject you if you fail to live up to standards).

As there were also monarchical orders (such as the Order of the Garter), the system might perhaps be extended to other rulers (with naming conventions based on culture groups?) and bestowed upon a select group of loyal followers.

This would also REALLY tie in with the chivalry-based traditions and provide wonderful rewards for following the traditions of your culture or religion.
Warlike cultures spawn warlike orders, which promote warlike behavior and require warlike traits (and taking part in wars) to obtain/keep membership, etc.

Besides, I can see myself as a member of the Order of the Dragon, ruling Wallachia with an iron fist ;)
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
Got 400 hours into CK3 already and enjoy the game immensely!! Also love the Friends and Foes expansion pack. Getting friends constantly gives so many RP opportunities, and I honestly love giving titles and council positions to my incompetent drinking buddies instead of random noble XYZ. It might seem like a very small thing, but it honestly improved the game considerably.

I have been thinking a lot about CK3 and future expansions, and I think Medieval Total War 2 had some things that could bring value to CK3. I do think if you have a character who wins loads of battles it would be nice if your characters got special RP titles, or even stats like they did in Total war ME. Does feel weird to win countless battles and wars in a row and not getting some title like conqueror. Also odd that being some Medieval Cesar / Napoleon does not change the way others view you. I get maybe not wanting players to snowball out of control with martial stats from winning easy wars, but just some sort of attractive option and minor + modifier for defeating multiple kingdoms / family claimants and repelling Viking invasions would be nice!! Feels like my legendary family members don´t really get the respect they deserve!! Same goes for something more trivial like getting a title if you murder / torture your way through the world, playing as a truly evil and vile person should give you a reputation as such and not just through the temporary ´dread´ stat.

Lastly I thought that ´Medieval Total war 2´ adding events like the plague, the sudden appearance of gunpowder in Europe, as well as the discovery of the Americas were all things that kept the game fresh even after you had put 200-300 years into a game. Knowing that even if you played tall you could ´´colonize´´ / invade America as a sort of end-game adventure would give a reason to keep playing. Not saying they should bring in the entire Americas of course, but just the eastern parts could be interesting in a DLC down the road. After all if you had generations of genius learning rulers from 860-1300 then who is to say you should not technologically be at a place where you could go west early?

Anyways just wanted to spread some positivity since I really enjoy the game and am very excited to see what you have been working on with regards to new expansions!!
 
Last edited:
  • 3
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Hmm... I mean no offense here, yet with all due respect, I don't quite follow your thinking.

If I'm reading you correctly, your analysis is something like this:
1. You hear from a lot of people wanting societies back.
2. You check out societies in CK2.
3. You don't like CK2 societies, though you do appreciate the concept of "international" groups of people interacting with each other who normally wouldn't.
4. You conclude that those people who want societies back don't actually like societies either, and are thinking just like you in a general desire for some sort of international interaction and peacetime and religious gameplay.

While I can't read minds, I think the most reasonable interpretation of somebody saying they want societies, is that they want societies. And not that they're just mistaken, and actually just so happen to want what I/you also want.

Or am I missing something here? :)

His job as a "game designer" is actually to do exactly this, figure out what is actually fun out of given ideas/requests/etc.

People may literally want secret societies back, but that doesn't mean that adding them is the best outcome for the game. There might be some features in secret societies that are actually good (in this case interactions) which is why it's being requested but the rest might be bloat that water down the fun or clashes with other systems and loops in the game.

Careful, critical design usually results in a better experience, even if requests end up unfilled.
 
  • 8
  • 1
Reactions:
Are you suggesting not having ranks (or at least, not having the player involved in climbing them), or a different way of determining rank?

Yes I think so. Should it not be relationship based? Maybe there is a vote for positions once another member dies or becomes unavailable. Opinion of you determines whether you get it.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
My main problem with societies was they were immersion breaking. It made no sense for an Emperor to be a monk hiding in a monastery or on missions to assassinate people around the world. Absolutely makes sense for courtiers but not rulers.

I would prefer a system where you can be a patron or benefactor for organisations or societies. Many mechanics stay the same but you gain benefits based on contributions financial or otherwise.
 
  • 5
  • 2Like
Reactions:
One thing I shall really like and that has always been missing in CK2, is being able to play outside of the “nobility” house.

CK is the perfect time period for religion, be it the rise of the Papal States, its influence in European affairs, or famous orders such as the Templars, Teutonic Order, Livonia Brothers of the sword…
Give me an expansion allowing to play a clergy state, with a different goal than to perpetuate your dynasty (instead perpetuate your order), different laws, and you shall make me very happy.

Given that CK is about characters and roleplay, it would make a very different and unique experience to play outside of the nobility faction, like playing a merchant republic does.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1Love
  • 1
Reactions:
One thing I shall really like and that has always been missing in CK2, is being able to play outside of the “nobility” house.

CK is the perfect time period for religion, be it the rise of the Papal States, its influence in European affairs, or famous orders such as the Templars, Teutonic Order, Livonia Brothers of the sword…
Give me an expansion allowing to play a clergy state, with a different goal than to perpetuate your dynasty (instead perpetuate your order), different laws, and you shall make me very happy.

Given that CK is about characters and roleplay, it would make a very different and unique experience to play outside of the nobility faction, like playing a merchant republic does.
I want to see those domains be playable, but I want to see it as part of dynastic play, seeking to keep your dynasty members (who you may or may not play as directly, depending on circumstances) in possession of ecclesiastical titles, as (for example) the Wittelsbachs did with the Electoral Archiepiscopate of Cologne. It's cardinal-nephews all the way down!

nd
 
  • 6Like
  • 1
Reactions: