• 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 will be honest in here. The DLC going to be one of the most unliked DLC of all of times. It won't sell well. Royal Court wasn't great but it was a their first mistake. Now they did same mistake with this one too. I can't even imagine steam dislike ratio.

They are wasting their time for nothing. Fans waited for a year and now they have a expensive empty DLC. Now people have to wait for one more year. Empire mechanics, Trade Republics, Laws, Steppe Nomads... wake me up when September ends.
 
  • 17
  • 3Like
Reactions:
I will be honest in here. The DLC going to be one of the most unliked DLC of all of times. It won't sell well. Royal Court wasn't great but it was a their first mistake. Now they did same mistake with this one too. I can't even imagine steam dislike ratio.

They are wasting their time for nothing. Fans waited for a year and now they have a expensive empty DLC. Now people have to wait for one more year. Empire mechanics, Trade Republics, Laws, Steppe Nomads... wake me up when September ends.

Think how much better nomads and merchant republics underlying systems will be now characters are localized and have to physically travel the map. Sooth your hurt my friend, all will be ok hahh.
 
  • 4Like
Reactions:
wake me up when September ends.
The Eternal September is generally agreed to have ended a few years ago. USENET – what's left of it – is actually usable again.
 
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
I can understand that. The things I'm looking forward the most are the regencies and the vassal, building and MAA overhaul. Seems I'm more of a mechanics man than a roleplay/character/flavour man too.
 
  • 3
  • 2
Reactions:
Hello, I would love to see you guys doing more systemic work on faith, I believe that it has so much more potential to it. Also I really do like your idea of making the map and characters feel more connected, which I believe is the right move and that you're achieving it quite well, and based on that I'd like to suggest some ideas I have on religion/faith mechanics, especially Christianity, and it is that you could create some kind of a Church system with a local dynamic hierarchy of priests, bishops and archbishops, and even patriarch based on how dioceses work in real life (making it another map mode of the game) and, in some way, reflecting it dynamically on the already existing realities of temples, cathedrals, monasteries and holy sites. In this way there wouldn't be one bishop per baronies, as these men would be priests/presbyters in charge of local parishes/temples who would be under one bishop whose rank, in the local Church hierarchy, is similar to that of an in-game Duke and this bishop would get to oversee and legislate over the dioceses' presbyters being able to appoint them and replace them as he likes, because he can't be at all times at all places (which makes sense of the idea that everyone has a real location on the map now), going forward the local Church would be the totality of all these duke-like Bishops in the Realm (them being unlanded or theocracies —which due to all these mechanics you could consider turning it playable—), the Archbishop are no different than the Bishops, the word just means old Bishop and so it's more of an honorary title than anything else, and so this could be more static and you, Paradox, could get to choose those bishops from historical important areas, where there's a metropolis, to be Archbishops. Last but not least, is how being part of the clergy works, a monk don't have to be ordained to be such, he or she could be a brother/sister in a monastery without having to be part of the clergy, so I suggest it is the bishops who ordains people to be priests, so they have a say on the people who wants or that you want to get in the local Hierarchy. These things would open a lot of possibilities in the replaying aspects of the game. Imagine: creating councils, excommunicating provincial bishops and all the priests who follows him from the local Church, or him leaving himself provoking schisms; severing relationships with other Realm's local Churches through Ecumenical Councils, leaving one communion and joining another with all of the priests under you or those who agrees with your stances. Thank you.

PD: This could help you as well reinvent the way Christian communions work, instead of the Righteous, Astray and Evil parameters that we have right now, with this Church mechanic we could have degrees of autonomy within certain particular local churches, so they can have under one single denomination, let's say Catholicism as an example, multiple traditions and ways of governing themselves (a patriarchate, per example: maronite, melkite) so this would avoid the duplications in communions and would permit local Hierarchy who leaves other communion (Orthodox to Catholic) join another with their own structures, traditions and vestments.

PD2: Let me explain what I mean when I say duke-like Bishop, let's use as an example the Kingdom of Anatolia in the Byzantine Empire, it has five duchies so there would have to be at least one Bishop per Duchy and this would make up five Bishops in the entirety of Anatolia, the one in Anatolikon could probably be the archbishop as it is the Capital of the Kingdom, and the rest of the bishops are his suffragan bishops.
 
Last edited:
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
About a year later, when looking at this Diary, how does the production team evaluate your work?

We're definitely looking back at the year and the work we've done so far, even if the year isn't quite over yet. We plan to discuss this at length in the near future, so keep an eye out.
 
  • 15Like
  • 9
Reactions:
We're definitely looking back at the year and the work we've done so far, even if the year isn't quite over yet. We plan to discuss this at length in the near future, so keep an eye out.
You guys should do another telemetry data diary. We haven't had one of those in forever. You know, a fun diary with stats about how people play the game.
 
  • 4Like
  • 2
  • 1Love
Reactions:
We're definitely looking back at the year and the work we've done so far, even if the year isn't quite over yet. We plan to discuss this at length in the near future, so keep an eye out.
I would love for you to do another dev diary like this one above. This year is almost up and a roadmap would be nice to see.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I would love for you to do another dev diary like this one above. This year is almost up and a roadmap would be nice to see.
Agree. Plus the earlier they get customer feedback on planned development points the better.

Just took a look at the old plan. AI development needs to be a whole level of its own. Game is far too easy, even w/o min/maxing. My current empire spans from Iceland to Persia and includes most of playable Africa.

Edit: Is old school Ironman-style, before y’all ask.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Hello, I would love to see you guys doing more systemic work on faith, I believe that it has so much more potential to it. Also I really do like your idea of making the map and characters feel more connected, which I believe is the right move and that you're achieving it quite well, and based on that I'd like to suggest some ideas I have on religion/faith mechanics, especially Christianity, and it is that you could create some kind of a Church system with a local dynamic hierarchy of priests, bishops and archbishops, and even patriarch based on how dioceses work in real life (making it another map mode of the game) and, in some way, reflecting it dynamically on the already existing realities of temples, cathedrals, monasteries and holy sites. In this way there wouldn't be one bishop per baronies, as these men would be priests/presbyters in charge of local parishes/temples who would be under one bishop whose rank, in the local Church hierarchy, is similar to that of an in-game Duke and this bishop would get to oversee and legislate over the dioceses' presbyters being able to appoint them and replace them as he likes, because he can't be at all times at all places (which makes sense of the idea that everyone has a real location on the map now), going forward the local Church would be the totality of all these duke-like Bishops in the Realm (them being unlanded or theocracies —which due to all these mechanics you could consider turning it playable—), the Archbishop are no different than the Bishops, the word just means old Bishop and so it's more of an honorary title than anything else, and so this could be more static and you, Paradox, could get to choose those bishops from historical important areas, where there's a metropolis, to be Archbishops. Last but not least, is how being part of the clergy works, a monk don't have to be ordained to be such, he or she could be a brother/sister in a monastery without having to be part of the clergy, so I suggest it is the bishops who ordains people to be priests, so they have a say on the people who wants or that you want to get in the local Hierarchy. These things would open a lot of possibilities in the replaying aspects of the game. Imagine: creating councils, excommunicating provincial bishops and all the priests who follows him from the local Church, or him leaving himself provoking schisms; severing relationships with other Realm's local Churches through Ecumenical Councils, leaving one communion and joining another with all of the priests under you or those who agrees with your stances. Thank you.

PD: This could help you as well reinvent the way Christian communions work, instead of the Righteous, Astray and Evil parameters that we have right now, with this Church mechanic we could have degrees of autonomy within certain particular local churches, so they can have under one single denomination, let's say Catholicism as an example, multiple traditions and ways of governing themselves (a patriarchate, per example: maronite, melkite) so this would avoid the duplications in communions and would permit local Hierarchy who leaves other communion (Orthodox to Catholic) join another with their own structures, traditions and vestments.

PD2: Let me explain what I mean when I say duke-like Bishop, let's use as an example the Kingdom of Anatolia in the Byzantine Empire, it has five duchies so there would have to be at least one Bishop per Duchy and this would make up five Bishops in the entirety of Anatolia, the one in Anatolikon could probably be the archbishop as it is the Capital of the Kingdom, and the rest of the bishops are his suffragan bishops.
you are right. Both Ck2 and Ck3 lack the monasteries which historically had an important cultural role. In the game there is also confusion between the abbots who led the monasteries and the bishops who presided over the cathedrals. Furthermore, cathedrals were very widespread, there were only those of Cologne, Paris and Westminster. I would establish that each county has a basilica that can be transformed into a cathedral and then I would give the possibility of founding a monastery which would guarantee bonuses with piety, or could provide clergy, perhaps it could be useful if we want some of our children to take vows . Another aspect is that the church did not pay taxes and therefore the money went to the curia of Rome which between 1000 and 1500 enlarged its bureaucracy making it truly ramified and this, in particular during the Avignon period, led to reforms aimed at more rationalizing the papal finances. In this case we could take up the curia mechanism of EU4 and delve into it even more together with that of Ck2.
 
you are right. Both Ck2 and Ck3 lack the monasteries which historically had an important cultural role. In the game there is also confusion between the abbots who led the monasteries and the bishops who presided over the cathedrals. Furthermore, cathedrals were very widespread, there were only those of Cologne, Paris and Westminster. I would establish that each county has a basilica that can be transformed into a cathedral and then I would give the possibility of founding a monastery which would guarantee bonuses with piety, or could provide clergy, perhaps it could be useful if we want some of our children to take vows . Another aspect is that the church did not pay taxes and therefore the money went to the curia of Rome which between 1000 and 1500 enlarged its bureaucracy making it truly ramified and this, in particular during the Avignon period, led to reforms aimed at more rationalizing the papal finances. In this case we could take up the curia mechanism of EU4 and delve into it even more together with that of Ck2.
I believe that the generic "Temple" holding deliberately subsumes all that complexity and can refer to either monastery or cathedral in your classification. As for finances, I believe that's what the CK3 realm priest system is trying to emulate.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
I feel like most of these suggestions regarding religion would have required different design decisions before the game was released. They went wide, not deep, and differentiating religions is going to be trickier now.
 
  • 3
  • 2
Reactions:
I feel like most of these suggestions regarding religion would have required different design decisions before the game was released. They went wide, not deep, and differentiating religions is going to be trickier now.
Wasn't this kinda debunked? I remember a dev saying that modular religions basically have little to no impact on actual development on features for developing and differentiating religions.

Found the quote:
Not really? I see folks mention that a lot, but tbh, it has vanishingly little impact on actual feature design in my experience. Event content gets harder to write, for sure, but features don't hurt at all. If it's in script then you can turn it on for one thing as easily as for a hundred, at least as long as you know that when you start scripting.

The College of Cardinals isn't in because it was, frankly, bland, and it's not worth porting something you know is definitely going to be lacklustre at the cost of things which shouldn't be. I wasn't at the company when it was made, but I've not met anyone from that era who was especially happy with how it turned out in the long run, and of course I have my old CK2 fan opinions on the subject. CK3 design culture has historically regarded it as one of the features from CK2 whose heart was in the right place but whose actual implementation was very lacking. It was there, but it didn't really do much (its only selling point was getting a relative on the papal throne, and it didn't do anything fun with that), and we can and should do much better. :) Ecclesiastic politics are fascinating and they deserve something with which they can shine.

Bishop nomination I think we hoped would be made less vestigial than CK2 by doing more fully whenever we got to the religious DLC, and then the religious DLC didn't happen for at least 2.5 years. Honestly, in retrospect I wish we'd had it, but hindsight is 20:20. Sainthood we don't have because it came in with Holy Fury, the last DLC, and CK3 was just too far along to crib a lot of stuff easily - ironically the reverse wasn't true, which is why there's some stuff Holy Fury has that looks a bit like CK3.
 
Last edited:
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
Wasn't this kinda debunked? I remember a dev saying that modular religions basically have little to no impact on actual development on features for developing and differentiating religions.

Found the quote:
ck2 is very nice. But he too has his shortcomings. There are no naval battles. The political, legal system is too static and the economy is also very static. Historically, the Middle Ages experienced "economic eras" that were different even by continent. Here in Europe after the fall of Rome until the year 1000 there was a general shortage of money. The economy of Ck2 is however better than that of Ck3 because the mechanics of the "prosperity" of a county are present, which can be interrupted by sieges and plagues. Yesterday, I read the comment of a guy who had made a very interesting proposal: basing the Ck3 economy on a mix of the economic models of the EU and Victoria. In itself it would be the most suitable one to represent the complexity and evolution of the medieval economic world.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
Yesterday, I read the comment of a guy who had made a very interesting proposal: basing the Ck3 economy on a mix of the economic models of the EU and Victoria. In itself it would be the most suitable one to represent the complexity and evolution of the medieval economic world.
It wouldn't be a good idea to represent much economic complexity though, because, y'know, different gameplay centering. CK3 is "roleplay over a map", not an economic simulator, and one would have to take care about not getting too swindled by the details.
 
  • 3Like
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
It wouldn't be a good idea to represent much economic complexity though, because, y'know, different gameplay centering. CK3 is "roleplay over a map", not an economic simulator, and one would have to take care about not getting too swindled by the details.

The problem with the economy in CK is that it is not simulated from the perspective of a ruler. With most of the game you are directing the actions of your ruler, or people working for your ruler in your court or as councilors. For building your demesne and army that is not the case, the game works along different principles in design there.

Complexity is not, in and of itself, the issue. If the economy remained focused on the kinds of things that it's focused on now, complexity would be a detriment. But if the economy was to be reworked to focus more on the things that a ruler would be personally caring about complexity could be a boon. The map vs. character binary is not some essential thing that has to be the way it is, it is the product of specific design decisions that can be different.

Traveling with the Lance update, for example, works to break down the segregation of map vs characters, just more on the side of making buildings useful for characters to use as a part of activities rather than on the side of building up and maintaining the demesne.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
The problem with the economy in CK is that it is not simulated from the perspective of a ruler
That is absolutely correct. Y'know why? Because feudal (and quasi-feudal Islamic, whatever we call them) rulers mostly had little understanding of exactly how their demesne delivered goods and money (Gold is an abstract measure of all that). The non-responsive, highly abstract economy only sometimes touched upon by events is most likely part of the plan to reflect that.
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions: