• 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.
I hoped for more depth in dealing with christian (catholic/orthodox) religion. The fight between the clergy and monarchs etc and stuff. I would also rather like to adapt into changing world rather than changing the world and religion to my taste. I am still hoping for a playable clergy. Dynasties are fun, but not being able to play bishops was really missing in crusader kings.
 
"Unlike Crusader Kings 2, all rulers on the map will be playable from day one instead of having to wait for DLC to unlock specific religious groups and government types."
o_O

About the Men-at-Arms thing, I'll wait to see how the Byzantines work to give an assessment.
Hoping the Byzantines will have almost exclusive (but much larger than feudal rulers) pools of these soldiers, and their "Knights" (obviously localized to a Greek equivalent) will be very influential and provide some interesting court intrigue.

I wonder if this means they are either doing away with the castle/city/church split, or we are getting something like the zone of control of forts in EU4. Otherwise you lose the utility of castles as a bulwark against having your cities and churches plundered.
Very much hoping for ZoC as well.
It does not sound fun at all to have my cities in ruins at all times because some damn Vikings can't be bothered to come siege my castle.
 
Another possible limitation would be that you must have a (hidden) trait that you gain randomly on birth. It could also be related to mental ilnesses, hearing voices, etc. Something that not every character fulfills. I mean how many sane persons found a religion in their free time?

I hope they do not lock the feature behind a hidden trait.

You want to make a major feature which players will seek out something incredibly rare for no good reason.

The AI will probably only form religions in specific circumstances. Players will need piety. This is the appropriate way to implement it.
 
What are you talking about? Eastern Orthodoxy DID have heresies!

Have you ever heard of Iconoclasm?

Iconomachy (the correct term) wasn't a heresy per se. However Orthodox church had numerous heresies at that time that's true.

The reason that Orthodoxy doesn't really go through heresy and it doesn't especially by the beginning time for the game is because they have so clearly laid out the dogma and the theology. Also you see this with the Eastern Church fathers is that it's not this judicial idea of salvation but this idea of returning to life to be fully Alive to be fully human and it is ongoing process throught theosis.

Just to the core of the Byzantium had to deal with Coptics, Nestorianism, Arianism, Origen, Monothelitism, Monophysitism, Bogomils,
Also had the ones coming from it's borders like Paulicians, Tondrakians.

Also Iconomachy, still churches exist in Greece from that period.
All these are derivatives of the Orthodox Church.
 
Last edited:
Well... "Prophet" is just another bad expression to describe the dynamic religion system. In fact it is rather "aggressive" considering that there were very few somewhat-successful religious leader to called himself as a new prophet, although there were quite a few people who claimed that they found or re-discovered new doctrines .
 
Ok, the guy that wrote the article on USGamer posted this comment on Reddit:

BONUS ROUND (Stuff that didn't make it into the article):

* There will be five unique graphics sets for clothes at launch: Western (European), Middle Eastern, Sub-Saharan, Indian, and Steppe. Everyone else uses whatever is the closest match. In terms of physical appearance, the new DNA system can represent all ethnicities, so we probably won't see face packs again. No era-specific clothing at launch.

* Clothing is partly based on rank. A Western Count and a Western Duke might wear a similar style clothing, but one wears linen and one wears silk and you will be able to see that difference.

* No more static event pictures. Events will feature the actual character models posed against some kind of background, and they can have props like knives, crucifixes, etc. Currently they don't animate to actually interact like getting into a fight.

* Tutorial is described as "Stellaris-like", and they've improved the ways the game can give you suggestions on what you want to be doing. More approachable, but not dumbed down.

* Custom religions you found can have Holy Orders. Not ready to talk much about that.

* The tech system is more tied to characters than it was in CK2, but not ready to talk about it yet.

* Councilor jobs like Steward are now an "office" that is placed on the map instead of a person, so you don't have to re-assign it when the councilor dies. The office itself can even still keep working without a holder, just at a very reduced effectiveness.

* The new Doctrines and Tenets are being used to represent more historically accurate versions of real heresies like Catharism. The AI will found these, and they are weighted to appear at the place and time they did historically. The AI will stick to founding historical heresies and won't abuse the system to create random weird ones. That's the player's job.

* Zoroastrians can still have incest, naturally, and you can reform any religion to allow it now.

* Historical events like the Mongol Invasion are in. Dynamic epidemics from Reaper's Due are not in, as they didn't feel that feature worked very well. No word on how the plague will be handled.

* Characters still get sick and are treated by Court Physicians.

* Provinces now have Development, which is like civilization value in Imperator. Tribes don't care about it but feudals get more taxes from it.

* Revolt Risk has been replaced by Control, which is going to work a bit differently.

* If your heir when you die is an old guy who has already invested all of his perks, you can respec his lifestyle tree once if it sucks.

* Splendour is like your Dynasty XP. It's used to buy Legacies, which are kind of like national ideas in EU4 and stay with your dynasty forever. One of these lets you increase the chances of inheriting congenital traits, if you want to create a dynasty of stong genius ubermensch. It's not realistic but it is a playstyle they want to support.

* Foreigners don't care about Dread, only your own vassals.

* Fleets are now handled like CK1. You just pay money to turn into boats. Naval combat is a possibility in the future. Henrik thinks it would be cool, especially for the Mediterranean.

* Vikings can still sail up rivers.

* There is a big dragon hanging out in the Terra Incognita on the Eastern edge of the map and it looks like they've left plenty of room to add China in the future. They wouldn't say anything about it. No Chinese Emperor interactions at launch.

* No plans for a CK3 to EU4 converter.

* You only need to siege the fortified holdings to occupy an entire county. Castles are automatically fortified, but cities and churches are not unless you have built walls in them.

* Factions are back. Peasants can now found factions. One example given was that Norwegian peasants living under a Danish king can found a self-rule faction, and Norwegian culture nobles will join them. Like a combination of a CK2 faction and a peasant revolt, very powerful.

* Henrik is not interested in non-dynastic play (Holy Orders, etc). Playable mercenaries are a possibility, being landless and using your armies to make money. Adoption is also a potential mechanic. Neither one will be in at launch.

* Much more events that deal with interpersonal drama and people important to the player, like family/friends/rivals.

* Events can look back at how the relationship between two characters has developed over many years and generate content for them dynamically.

* Poetry generator that will actually make your poetry better or worse based on character skill.

* Double the number of content designers working on CK3 as CK2 had at its height.

* Direct vassals will always matter. So the previous comment about Barons not being important doesn't necessarily apply if you're a Count.

* No crazy fantasy events (immortality, Satanism, child of destiny) at launch. Undecided if they will be added later, but if they will, there will definitely be game rules to turn them off. CK3 should feel more historical compared to CK2. This was a goal.

* There will be special mechanics for Crusades but they're not talking about that yet.

* Playing pagans feels "significantly different" from CK2.

* You can reform from tribal to feudal.

* Control is more of a short-term thing and Development is more long-term. For example, Control in a province is reduced when it changes owners but recovers quickly.

* Religions have degrees of relation. Abrahamic > Christian > Catholic.

* Eastern Religions are still more tolerant of heresies.

* Ecumenism: Catholics/Orthodox/Coptic don't treat each other as heresies for purposes of CBs and stuff. There are steps of tolerance. It's not just "True Faith, Heretic, or Heathen".

* Converting foreign rulers with your chaplain will not be in at launch.

* Investiture system and antipopes will not be in at launch.

* When you found a new religion, some vassals and some provinces will convert. Based on things like opinion modifier and traits (Zealous/Cynical)

* Terrain type has an effect on Development in provinces, but climate currently does not.
 
I am very worried that they are removing the clergy interactions and antipopes. We definitely need a list of start dates they intend to throw out, because I think the only one they can justifiably remove at this stage is the 1337 one.
 
* If your heir when you die is an old guy who has already invested all of his perks, you can respec his lifestyle tree once if it sucks.
That sounds awful. You become some character and from one day to another he's a totally different person.
I'd be okay with having the option to change one perk upon inheritance, but changing everything is just stupid and far too gamey.
 
Good information!

The clothing system sounds nice, to make rank more visually represented.

Dynasty legacies sound fun and as long as they are equally open to all dynasties, should see a lot more dynamic rise and fall of dynasties based on actual achievements.

Curious about the province siege thing. Can cities not be sieged individually? And if they can, what is to stop you from burning them to the ground and leaving the castles intact? Sure, I won't control the province for purposes of warscore, but I could severely cripple my opponents economy by razing all his cities after I have already won the war.

Ecumenism and heresies still sound great. It would be cool to start an early Anglican church and gain "acceptance" by the pope.

That sounds awful. You become some character and from one day to another he's a totally different person.
I'd be okay with having the option to change one perk upon inheritance, but changing everything is just stupid and far too gamey.

Yeah. I would also prefer to have to work with what I was given. Having your heir go off and get himself maimed is annoying, but also part of the charm.
 
i...i dont even know where to start with this.

actually i do.

lets begin with Boats. so you can just pay to convert your armies to boats to transport. ok, thas stupid as hell, and is gonna be a nightmare to balance, but whatever. but then you also note you wanna add in naval combat at some point. what? do.... do you not get that by implementing this kind of system you essentially kill the idea of an actual navy? you know, a thing you would need to actually have if youre going to implement naval combat?

these two things are not compatible. literarly if youre going to mix these two, then the only thing naval combat comes down to is whoever shills out more cash for more boat troops.
 
That sounds awful. You become some character and from one day to another he's a totally different person.
I'd be okay with having the option to change one perk upon inheritance, but changing everything is just stupid and far too gamey.
i agree. one of the things thats so fun about CK2 is that sometimes youre just stuck with a horrible heir, and youre just gonna deal with it. this is essentially a thing to make the game easier and more accessable, instead of forcing you to play with a bad hand like CK2 does.
 
i...i dont even know where to start with this.

actually i do.

lets begin with Boats. so you can just pay to convert your armies to boats to transport. ok, thas stupid as hell, and is gonna be a nightmare to balance, but whatever. but then you also note you wanna add in naval combat at some point. what? do.... do you not get that by implementing this kind of system you essentially kill the idea of an actual navy? you know, a thing you would need to actually have if youre going to implement naval combat?

these two things are not compatible. literarly if youre going to mix these two, then the only thing naval combat comes down to is whoever shills out more cash for more boat troops.
After imperator, did you actually expect them to give you something that made sense? The navy mechanic is begging for a rework, and for a game that is meant to focus on western europe, they sure seem to have skimped on actual western european mechanics (investiture, antipopes, dual lieges) for including...india? A region that I guarantee you will have literally no flavour on release. Are people rioting in the street for india? From what I have seen so far I feel like they have refused to make even a single part of the game where someone can say "this is done and requires no further work" in favour of what appears to be "expect every single mechanic to get a DLC".
 
splendour and legacies. Did you guys learn NOTHING from Imperator rome? we made it clear again and again, that NO, we DONT WANT MORE MANA SYSTEMS!!! We HATE mana Systems, so why in the world would you guys think that adding a mana system to boost an entire dynasty with National Ideas would be a good fit for Crusader Kings? at least bloodlines made some kind of sense in that it had to be passed down, and most of the benefits were from the way characters reacted to the guy with said bloodlines(some exceptions but you get my point).

this is like adding shattered retreat and world coalitions all over again. it has no business being here, but since it worked for EU4 then it must work for CK right?
 
clothing based on rank. so nothing has changed really. one of the things i had really hoped for CK3 was a wardrobe feature so that i could actually choose what to wear, instead of being stuck wearing the less interesting clothes and crowns because thats what emperors/kings wear. but thats the ramblings of a madman i guess.
 
I'm extremely disappointed on what I've read.

No antipope nor investiture ? Damned, it was in CK2 vanilla (or at least in the first DLC) ! Why seriously ? Don't tell me it's due to technical reasons !

Please make the possibility to switch off "Splendours". This feature is a total non-sense. Like the possibility to respec your skill tree (or the skill tree simply) : we're in Crusader Kings, not World of Warcraft.

Non playable theocracies/Holy Order. Hell yeah, you've the opportunities to add a whole new style of gameplay and you refuse to add it.

To be honest, it'll probably the first Paradox game I won't buy day one. Nor year one. Features are removed from CK2 (contrary to what they say), the new are useless, WoW-esque.
 
splendour and legacies. Did you guys learn NOTHING from Imperator rome? we made it clear again and again, that NO, we DONT WANT MORE MANA SYSTEMS!!! We HATE mana Systems, so why in the world would you guys think that adding a mana system to boost an entire dynasty with National Ideas would be a good fit for Crusader Kings? at least bloodlines made some kind of sense in that it had to be passed down, and most of the benefits were from the way characters reacted to the guy with said bloodlines(some exceptions but you get my point).

Well, it does solve the issue where you get a cool perk for doing a few very specific things (my great grandpappy killed 40 people, now nobody likes me) but nothing for ruling the HRE for 10 generations.

I get why instead of coding a million different bloodlines for every conceivable "achievement" and then worry about tracking how that is passed down, they would instead tie it to dynasty. If you are a "de Normandie", you are part of the house of William the Conqueror. Nobles would not ask you to do a DNA test to suss out how exactly you are related to him if you are an established member of his dynasty.
 
i...i dont even know where to start with this.

actually i do.

lets begin with Boats. so you can just pay to convert your armies to boats to transport. ok, thas stupid as hell, and is gonna be a nightmare to balance, but whatever. but then you also note you wanna add in naval combat at some point. what? do.... do you not get that by implementing this kind of system you essentially kill the idea of an actual navy? you know, a thing you would need to actually have if youre going to implement naval combat?

these two things are not compatible. literarly if youre going to mix these two, then the only thing naval combat comes down to is whoever shills out more cash for more boat troops.
Indeed. It's not 100% clear how this boat system will work, but from this one line it kind of looks like they took the bad naval game of CK2 (no combat) and made it worse. Why?

i agree. one of the things thats so fun about CK2 is that sometimes youre just stuck with a horrible heir, and youre just gonna deal with it. this is essentially a thing to make the game easier and more accessable, instead of forcing you to play with a bad hand like CK2 does.
Also, if you have an heir you don't want to play as (bad perks, traits), it creates this interesting situation where you are trying hard to make sure that someone else inherits. So having someone bad inherit, can in some ways be prevented. And if you didn't manage to do this, it's only fair to have a bad ruler once in a while.

If you want the player to have more control over his heirs (in terms of perk focus), why not include a "dynasty perk thing", which allows you (or the dynasty head) to interact with members of your dynasty (or only close dynasty and heir) and make them change their perk focus (if they like you enough). That way, the stupid reset perk thing is not necessary and you have to think about how you want your relatives to be in advance.

Just a little hint to the devs: Remember the whole Imperator Rome debacle with Mana/Instant Actions vs Strategy? A "reset perk button" is an instant action and even worse, without costs (you could at least make it so that it is possible but you pay for it with getting to the maximum stress level immediately). Your community doesn't like such things. They already told you once.