Dev Diary #116 - Agrarian Research Techniques

[Theshove]

I'm not sure who the first guy is, my best guess is Oberto Oberthengi

number two is Rasa, the mother of the Fatimid sultan

number three is Kol Sverker, the father of the Duke of Ostergotland

Rasa and Kol are both ambitious parents who are members of their landed childrens courts, I'm assuming the first guy might be similar? And not sure how it does (or doesnt) connect to the fourth, though I'm pretty sure thats the regalia for the Duchy of Poitiers

 

[Silens]

Honestly, I'm actually really pleasantly surprised with the small but notable number of people here who've said they'd genuinely really like more agricultural content. It's always good to be able to point to this type of thing when discussing future plans, and though I'm definitely not in the Add Pops to CK3 camp that's occasionally chatted about on the forums, I am pretty interested in the type of thing you're talking about here - mechanical consequences to agrarian societies for lengthy wars, a more flexible representation of prosperity than the development system currently gives us, and economics that are a little more detailed without going full trade-sim.

I've also always felt that, especially for minor land-owners where it would be a more pressing concern, it'd be neat to have more content related to bad or good harvests sweeping the realm, boons from the advance of agricultural techniques, changing global temperatures, and so on. ^^' Though I don't think we'd ever do a DD on agrarian science research, I wouldn't be complaining if I was in a position where I had to write a DD on a handful of new agricultural mechanics and events.

While agriculture itself might not sound that exciting, it touches on a subject that is far more important for the game: things to do during peacetime. Which is an ongoing issue with many people complaining about the lack of content.

Currently, we can only build 3 or 4 buildings per holding, then you're just upgrading it for the next 500 years. That's about all the active development you can do.

Otherwise there's only one single reason to fight wars, and that is for titles. Be it a holy war, a fabricated claim or conquest, it's just war for titles. I think the Struggle, raiding in general and feuds are so well received because they offer more reasons for conflict beyond just painting the map.

The same would probably be true if the game suddenly had agriculture, among other things. Just imagine, fertile land, food and winter supplies, resources (iron, coal, wood, silk etc.) and trading with them, that would give the game something meaningful to do beyond just fighting. Though it would also offer much more reasons to go to war in the first place. Needing food for your growing provinces, needing iron for heavy infantry, all that would go a long way in giving more choices and encourage peaceful relations (or helping someone in a war just to keep your important trade routes open).

Agriculture would be a good step in that direction: wine, wheat, vegetables, livestock, dairy, even wool from sheep, I see so much potential here. Just turning plains into farmland over a timespan of 100 years would be a good start.

Fight the good fight for agriculture (and other economic peacetime content) and know that you have players behind you in this.

 

[johnty5]

The decline of serfdom in Western Europe is pretty interesting

Totally. I just mean that that a pop system would be overkill to represent stuff like that.

A think pops are a great system for representing really granular societal change and conflict (Victoria and, to a lesser extent, Imperator) or a universe populated by wildly different beings (Stellaris), but I don’t think CK needs them for the slower, less multi-dimensional demographic change it’d want to show.

 

[SeraphAscending]

I think the Struggle, raiding in general and feuds are so well received because they offer more reasons for conflict beyond just painting the map.

I never considered that line of thought. But you're right. That is a major issue for me, since i often don't care about building large empires.
It's part of my reason of embracing Confederate Partition on a Kingdom-Level, because i find large empires as they currently work rather bothersome. I conquer territories, build my realm and when succession hits, i'll do the same, but in a new territory and have something to do again. Once you are an overpowering blob of an empire there is really nothing to do anymore. No one can harm you if you do things efficiently at that point.

 

[Silens]

I never considered that line of thought. But you're right. That is a major issue for me, since i often don't care about building large empires.

Like you, I can say "been there, done that" about big empires. No real reason to get one, I can become wealthy and powerful if I stay confined to a realm size of 100. No need for more, I have no urge to paint the map.

But once the main reason for conflict is gone, suddenly there's not much to do. My holdings are developed and I have to wait 100 more years for the next innovation to get two more levels for my existing buildings. I have no more wars to fight (save for the rare succession war), so I start collecting artifacts, messing with people through hostile schemes and running my trait breeding program. Or just creating drama with my vassals.

Not that I want to complain about the DD, but reading the word "agriculture" got my hopes up that we might see more economic options. Again, I'm not complaining about getting regency and I like the DD here, but I had really hoped to get agriculture.

 

[johnty5]

Might just be a loading screen or event background image, though. They add a variety of those with every DLC after all.

I actually deleted that part of my reply as I realised it was an old loading screen - not a new picture.

I agree. I would like a lot more economic and sociological impact of decisions you make (i.e. raising levies, significant casualties, etc.), but i don't want CK3 to be a trade-sim.

100%

 

[johnty5]

While agriculture itself might not sound that exciting, it touches on a subject that is far more important for the game: things to do during peacetime. Which is an ongoing issue with many people complaining about the lack of content.

Currently, we can only build 3 or 4 buildings per holding, then you're just upgrading it for the next 500 years. That's about all the active development you can do.

Otherwise there's only one single reason to fight wars, and that is for titles. Be it a holy war, a fabricated claim or conquest, it's just war for titles. I think the Struggle, raiding in general and feuds are so well received because they offer more reasons for conflict beyond just painting the map.

The same would probably be true if the game suddenly had agriculture, among other things. Just imagine, fertile land, food and winter supplies, resources (iron, coal, wood, silk etc.) and trading with them, that would give the game something meaningful to do beyond just fighting. Though it would also offer much more reasons to go to war in the first place. Needing food for your growing provinces, needing iron for heavy infantry, all that would go a long way in giving more choices and encourage peaceful relations (or helping someone in a war just to keep your important trade routes open).

Agriculture would be a good step in that direction: wine, wheat, vegetables, livestock, dairy, even wool from sheep, I see so much potential here. Just turning plains into farmland over a timespan of 100 years would be a good start.

Fight the good fight for agriculture (and other economic peacetime content) and know that you have players behind you in this.

I'd rather avoid adding too much resource management to CK3 - as I don't think that's its USP.

That said, I 100% agree that the game could do with more reasons to go to war. CK2 had a thing with coronations where the pope sometimes wouldn't coronate you until you'd fulfilled a request to beat one of his enemies in a war (usually a heretic realm). The opinion penalty for being uncoronated gradually rose over time, forcing you to fight that war eventually or face ever-increasing realm instability. It'd be interesting if CK3 replicated that: maybe through opinion penalties for a lost dynasty banner that rise over time - forcing you to eventually go to war to reclaim it - or gradually increasing opinion penalties for not rescuing/avenging family members who've been killed or captured? The dynasty rivalry mechanic from Friends & Foes could be part of that too.

 

[johnty5]

Once you are an overpowering blob of an empire there is really nothing to do anymore. No one can harm you if you do things efficiently at that point.

I'd like to see it made much more difficult to hold an empire together over the long term - maybe almost impossible in the early game (you could use mid-to-late-game tech to make it a bit easier towards the end). When you get so big that external threats drop off, it'd be nice if the game started throwing other problems at you. Maybe partition not protecting empire tier titles - and always leading to empires fracture into kingdoms on succession?

Obvs there'd need to be something that allowed the empires that exist on startup to survive - France, the Abassids etc - but I'm sure some kind of cultural mechanic could work to do that.

 

[WestuHal]

I'd rather avoid adding too much resource management to CK3 - as I don't think that's its USP.

That said, I 100% agree that the game could do with more reasons to go to war. CK2 had a thing with coronations where the pope sometimes wouldn't coronate you until you'd fulfilled a request to beat one of his enemies in a war (usually a heretic realm). The opinion penalty for being uncoronated gradually rose over time, forcing you to fight that war eventually or face ever-increasing realm instability. It'd be interesting if CK3 replicated that: maybe through opinion penalties for a lost dynasty banner that rise over time - forcing you to eventually go to war to reclaim it - or gradually increasing opinion penalties for not rescuing/avenging family members who've been killed or captured? The dynasty rivalry mechanic from Friends & Foes could be part of that too.

Would love to see coronation mechanics return…seems it was a very important part of legitimising a monarch’s rule, and also applies to the monarch’s spouse upon marriage. With regency mechanics on the way, we could also see regents taking an active role in preparing coronation ceremonies for their wards…

Also, with the increased emphasis on the connection between map and character, we could see the importance of securing safe passage to the site of the coronation, particularly if the relevant title is disputed…think Henry VI of England travelling, at the age of ten, to Notre Dame in Paris for his crowning as King of France even while the Dauphin was militarily contesting his claim.

 

[johnty5]

Would love to see coronation mechanics return…seems it was a very important part of legitimising a monarch’s rule, and also applies to the monarch’s spouse upon marriage. With regency mechanics on the way, we could also see regents taking an active role in preparing coronation ceremonies for their wards…

Also, with the increased emphasis on the connection between map and character, we could see the importance of securing safe passage to the site of the coronation, particularly if the relevant title is disputed…think Henry VI of England travelling, at the age of ten, to Notre Dame in Paris for his crowning as King of France even while the Dauphin was militarily contesting his claim.

I'm kind of hoping that the "connection between map and character" stuff that's been trailed will be characters moving around the map to attend coronations, baptisms, marriage proposals etc.

Kind of like holding court - but in a specific place on the map to make specific choices around a marriage, a coronation or whatever.

That'd fit with the "expansion will lean towards roleplay" and the "character's connection with map" stuff as well as fitting with the trailed regency mechanics.

 

[Silens]

I'd rather avoid adding too much resource management to CK3 - as I don't think that's its USP.

Resource management might be the wrong word here. Aside from food (and famine), I think we have enough resources already.

But resources as means of having access to certain things? That's not resource management, but strategic options for you and everyone else. Cutting someone in the desert off from food trade or iron imports should hurt, likewise having access to said resources should provide bonuses others have not.

My favorite example is spices; why does the King of Alba pay the same money for spices as anyone who is sitting on the Silk Road? Without any system in place, which tracks where certain resources come from and which way they go, everyone in the world, from Iceland to the deepest desert of Africa, has equal and instant access to anything and lacks for nothing.

With that there's no incentive to go and conquer stuff for resources, or to keep friendly relations to ensure safe trade routes. Cities as centers of craftmanship and trade have no place in a world without trade. They're just funny looking castle holdings, more or less identical in functionality.

It's not about managing resources, but about strategic options, about the decision to develop your local resources to engage in trade, or to throw your money into the military and just take what you need. It's about taking tolls for trade that goes through your county, about market rights (which was a huge thing) and creating access to something you need to get certain innovations, make certain weapons etc. For example, Wootz Steel was traded from India and used in Damascus for many years. But right now only India has Wootz Steel, and nobody else can use it. You can't buy it, you just have to make a hybrid with someone who has the innovation. So trade and resources is also about realism to a certain extent.

Even within a realm I can see much potential for court events: two vassals with access to iron accuse each other of tapping into the other's deposits, your father gave the market rights in a county to a city for 50 years, now the time is over and three mayors try to gain it from you, or you as ruler hold the rights to certain resources (like gold/silver mines) despite your vassal owning the land, and now he's accused of stealing from you.

Events and strategic options, reasons for war and reasons for playing it nice. That's what I see when I talk about resources.

 

[Flockingbird]

For better or worse, here's my take on it:

View attachment 949687

The ones among your guesses that are very character-interactiony are "revoke title from ward", "swear allegiance" and "disinherit".

I think one of the ~three is Steal from Treasury. Not sure about the others (too many candidates!), though I ‘d note that ‘Release Prisoners’ fits better than ‘Return Hostages.’

Edit: Wokeg ‘hearted’ this, so perhaps Steal from Treasury is indeed correct! Kudos to @Silens for figuring it out!

Also, thank you, @Wokeg, for the emoji-hints!

 

[johnty5]

Resource management might be the wrong word here. Aside from food (and famine), I think we have enough resources already.

But resources as means of having access to certain things? That's not resource management, but strategic options for you and everyone else. Cutting someone in the desert off from food trade or iron imports should hurt, likewise having access to said resources should provide bonuses others have not.

My favorite example is spices; why does the King of Alba pay the same money for spices as anyone who is sitting on the Silk Road? Without any system in place, which tracks where certain resources come from and which way they go, everyone in the world, from Iceland to the deepest desert of Africa, has equal and instant access to anything and lacks for nothing.

With that there's no incentive to go and conquer stuff for resources, or to keep friendly relations to ensure safe trade routes. Cities as centers of craftmanship and trade have no place in a world without trade. They're just funny looking castle holdings, more or less identical in functionality.

It's not about managing resources, but about strategic options, about the decision to develop your local resources to engage in trade, or to throw your money into the military and just take what you need. It's about taking tolls for trade that goes through your county, about market rights (which was a huge thing) and creating access to something you need to get certain innovations, make certain weapons etc. For example, Wootz Steel was traded from India and used in Damascus for many years. But right now only India has Wootz Steel, and nobody else can use it. You can't buy it, you just have to make a hybrid with someone who has the innovation. So trade and resources is also about realism to a certain extent.

Even within a realm I can see much potential for court events: two vassals with access to iron accuse each other of tapping into the other's deposits, your father gave the market rights in a county to a city for 50 years, now the time is over and three mayors try to gain it from you, or you as ruler hold the rights to certain resources (like gold/silver mines) despite your vassal owning the land, and now he's accused of stealing from you.

Events and strategic options, reasons for war and reasons for playing it nice. That's what I see when I talk about resources.

Yeah, I get all that. I just don't want to see it in the game.

I don't want a CK3 playthrough to be about ensuring I've got access to Iron or worrying about the price of spices or being incentivised to go to war for either of them. I've got Victoria 3 and EU4 for that. I'd rather keep CK3's character focus.

 

[Blodhevn]

They all are in the throne room. Does it have anything to do with courtiers interactions, like influencing the inner life of the court ? Maybe courtiers will now play a bigger role, which would synergize well with Royal Court. Court scheming was an important part of powerful kingdoms and has a lot of RP potential. Unlanded characters with no perspective of owning land should still have more agency. These mechanics would be specially important in regencies where it's never clear cut who is actually in charge.

Oh my god you genius! they are going to let us see our ingame throne room in the lobby!

 

[WestuHal]

I'm kind of hoping that the "connection between map and character" stuff that's been trailed will be characters moving around the map to attend coronations, baptisms, marriage proposals etc.

Kind of like holding court - but in a specific place on the map to make specific choices around a marriage, a coronation or whatever.

That'd fit with the "expansion will lean towards roleplay" and the "character's connection with map" stuff as well as fitting with the trailed regency mechanics.

That would be great - although sadly I note that yesterday one of the devs (PDS) scotched the idea of coronations in particular returning just yet when they were mentioned in another thread:

Post in thread 'Are there CK2 features you want back in CK3'
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...es-you-want-back-in-ck3.1569743/post-28782954

 

['Ciusi]

That said, I 100% agree that the game could do with more reasons to go to war.

While I agree with your interesting suggestions about the coronation and that it would be interesting to have more reasons to go to war, I don't think more reasons to go to war is exactly what the game needs. On the contrary, the game needs some interesting activities for times of peace, for rulers who are dedicated to the prosperity of their realm instead of conquest. Something to make the game not just about conquest and intrigue, but to offer some activities and benefits for playing as a peaceful ruler.

 

[Silens]

‘Release Prisoners’

My thinking was that prisoners require you to have a court you own, and that releasing them is already part of dungeon management. So I thought it unlikely that an already existing interaction would suddenly go to personal actions, while all the other interactions from the dungeon (negotiate release, ransom, execute) would not.

The only thing a regent might do here could relate to people at court, like political hostages. They're not in the dungeon, but they're at court and can't leave at will (shackles symbol hints at that). There's no ransom or execution, their value lies in them being there. The only interaction would then be to release them back home.

But "Steal from Treasury" opens the door to something much bigger: a split between personal assets and national property/treasury. That also places more importance on the court itself and lets others (like courtiers, vassals, council members etc.) influence it and its assets. For me that alone would be a huge step in the right direction, with many new options opening up.

 

[Nuclear Elvis]

If you have a Steam account, you may want to venture over there to the Steam announcement of this Dev Diary to see the compounding negative commentary. It's over 90% Negative, especially since it's not Paradox controlled as a message board. While some comments are mean-spirited, there are useful comments that Paradox leadership should pay more attention to.

 

[Flockingbird]

My thinking was that prisoners require you to have a court you own, and that releasing them is already part of dungeon management. So I thought it unlikely that an already existing interaction would suddenly go to personal actions, while all the other interactions from the dungeon (negotiate release, ransom, execute) would not.

The only thing a regent might do here could relate to people at court, like political hostages. They're not in the dungeon, but they're at court and can't leave at will (shackles symbol hints at that). There's no ransom or execution, their value lies in them being there. The only interaction would then be to release them back home.

But "Steal from Treasure" opens the door to something much bigger: a split between personal assets and national property/treasury. That also places more importance on the court itself and lets other influence it and its assets. For me that alone would be a huge step in the right direction, with many new options opening up.

Oh, I meant it fit the physical, blanked-out space better!

I did wonder if maybe this is a list of assorted actions players will be able to take as members of their liege’s council (including as Regent)? Stealing from the treasury is something the steward might do...but that doesn’t seem to fit the other hints we’ve received, so I’m very doubtful. That said, I am eager to someday be able to actually do something when I’m on my liege’s council, and I will be very happy when this feature is added, even if it’s not in the next release.

 

[Comrade_Boris]

If you have a Steam account, you may want to venture over there to the Steam announcement of this Dev Diary to see the compounding negative commentary. It's over 90% Negative, especially since it's not Paradox controlled as a message board. While some comments are mean-spirited, there are useful comments that Paradox leadership should pay more attention to.

Steam community anything is a well known cesspool and as such it would be unwise to weigh responses there heavily. It is pretty much just used for meme posts and venting negative opinions on anything and everything.