Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

An article revealed a few features of CK3!

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Crusader Kings III 21061 Console 365 Suggestions 6371 Bug Report 5034 Tech Support 2665 User Mods 1983 Multiplayer 171 AARs (After Action Reports) MP Open Beta Feedback 27
using piety and prestige to level up could go either way. it could either be a great sink for those resources that opens up new ways to play that evolve as you build up over generations or it will just become a min-max strat with an optimum path
 
Zhetone said:
Forming religions sounds genuinely awful
Click to expand...
As a fantasy element, it's great, as it's one way the Hellenists can sate their desire, able to make their religion with their own (re)founding prophet. For realism, though, yes, agreed about it being fairly awful, as I cannot think of many religions that came about whole cloth in the CK-era, or even the centuries following, only heresies or reformations off of pre-existing faiths. I do hope it'll be a game rule with an ability, like pagan reformations, to make it either player-only or fully disabled.
 
The features described sound great!

Cadet branches are handled intelligently, with high achieving members of a dynasty able to found their own branch while still being part of the same overall legacy.

Dynamic heresies sound cool and allow you to push towards changes to the religion with align with your worldly goals. If you focus on piety you could even found one yourself, so that is pretty neat. As long as the cost of changing too radically from the main faith is high enough, they should stay fairly close to their roots but can still deviate alot if driven by a particularly powerful "prophet".

"Levelling up" prestige and piety sounds a little too gamy for my tastes, but it does allow them to have more significant impact as you go from nobody to legend and from sinner to saint.

The "Men-at-arms" system is exactly how I hoped retinues would end up. They are raised as levies but you specify their troop composition so you have some sort of cohesive center to your armies, while regular peasant levies just provide cannon-fodder light infantry to fill out the ranks. I just hope having named character Knights which "are very potent in battle" does not mean we get super-soldiers that can take on hundreds of peasants on their own. Having them perform the current role of commanders would be sufficient to impact combat without making them an actual "unit".
 
Cadet Branches and Dynasties having more mechanical usages will make playthroughs more memorable I think and could add interesting choices as to whether you want to act in your own interest or play the long game and build up the dynasty.
 
Andrzej I said:
As a fantasy element, it's great, as it's one way the Hellenists can sate their desire, able to make their religion with their own (re)founding prophet. For realism, though, yes, agreed about it being fairly awful, as I cannot think of many religions that came about whole cloth in the CK-era, or even the centuries following, only heresies or reformations off of pre-existing faiths. I do hope it'll be a game rule with an ability, like pagan reformations, to make it either player-only or fully disabled.
Click to expand...

To be fair, if we take the earliest start date of CK2 into account 769, it was only about 150 years since the forming of Islam by Mohammet. So *technically* it's not too far off to allow players to become prophets and form their own religions in my opinion. The last historic example of this happening wasn't too far back.
 
If each barony is represented on the map, I wonder if it will make minority religions and cultures much more interesting and much better at being represented. It will certainly make the Levant a MUCH more interesting region, that's for sure.
 
Dsingis said:
To be fair, if we take the earliest start date of CK2 into account 769, it was only about 150 years since the forming of Islam by Mohammet. So *technically* it's not too far off to allow players to become prophets and form their own religions in my opinion. The last historic example of this happening wasn't too far back.
Click to expand...

Also, they talk about maxing out your "faith" focus to get to prophet level, and that how far you deviate from the main church will increase some sort of cost. So my guess is that only the most successful "faith" focused characters will get to form heresies with a lot of different "features" and enough staying power to actually catch on in any meaningful way. Most heresies will probably still be limited in scope and largely similar to their roots.

Guthix said:
If each barony is represented on the map, I wonder if it will make minority religions and cultures much more interesting and much better at being represented. It will certainly make the Levant a MUCH more interesting region, that's for sure.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Andrzej I said:
do hope it'll be a game rule with an ability, like pagan reformations, to make it either player-only or fully disabled.
Click to expand...
Very much agree on this one.
 
There's no reason why there could have been more new religions during that time period, so I'm far from opposed to the system. If anything is ridiculous, it's that (for example) the Protestant reformation is inevitable 500+ years before it happened. Anything can happen that might or might not cause such a fracture.

But I agree with everyone else that it makes me skeptical. It'll depend on how it's included and what you can do and so on, I guess. For example if you have those massive wars and widespread devastation and no religion really gaining an upperhand, I could go with a narrative that says "...some sort of new religion found fertile ground here and became a major factor". If it's just "pay 500 gold and 100 prestige and you can have your own religion" then ... nope.
 
Joel M Bridge said:
I'm definitely not a fan of the Prophet mechanic I do like the idea of how the heresies works but so not a fan of Prophet. mechanic is just silly and unrealistic
Click to expand...

Is it the use of the term "Prophet" or the whole idea of heresies being started by a single guy? The first I am not too keen on either, since I don't think many leaders of the various heresies described themselves as such. "Heresiarch" is a more historical term, though that is of course something the main church would call them and not what they considered themselves.

Heresies were generally started by a single individual though. Nearly always an influential member of the clergy. So it makes sense that these movements would also in CK3 stem from individuals with a theological focus.

I don't get how the current system of rolling the dice and having some random Scottish priest try to start the Fraticelli revolution is any more accurate. It would make more sense that the heresy took its roots in the traditions of the local clergy and spread from there.
 
Will the thing is to like heresy is for a long time they weren't dealt with violently it was normally squash doubt through council's. It was the evolution of the papacy and its need for control that push this violence with Heretics. And it honestly has to start for a reason that's organic it's normally starting from a reaction or a theological debate. 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. We're here in the west you have this judicial theology this developing Theology and the raw opulence and temporal secular power of the Bishops. And even looking at the Holy Roman Empire during the example because it would so married to the Imperial ministration that Bishop all came from nobility it was very rare that it was some Parish priest at rose up. And because they weld secular power and they had Mistresses it was fairly common actually incredibly so of you know paying a tax for clerical concubine. So other words you're going to have to come up with these heresies await also respond to the decadence in the the church.
 
Joel M Bridge said:
Will the thing is to like heresy is for a long time they weren't dealt with violently it was normally squash doubt through council's. It was the evolution of the papacy and its need for control that push this violence with Heretics. And it honestly has to start for a reason that's organic it's normally starting from a reaction or a theological debate. 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. We're here in the west you have this judicial theology this developing Theology and the raw opulence and temporal secular power of the Bishops. And even looking at the Holy Roman Empire during the example because it would so married to the Imperial ministration that Bishop all came from nobility it was very rare that it was some Parish priest at rose up. And because they weld secular power and they had Mistresses it was fairly common actually incredibly so of you know paying a tax for clerical concubine. So other words you're going to have to come up with these heresies await also respond to the decadence in the the church.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? Eastern Orthodoxy DID have heresies!

Have you ever heard of Iconoclasm?
 
TheKingofWinter said:
So there will be no retinues at all then? Well theres one reason never to buy this game.
Click to expand...

There will be "men-at-arms" in stead. They sound like retinues (high quality troops whose unit composition you can choose), but are raised like levies. So closer to how armies of the era functioned, with vassals supplying a certain number of troops equipped a certain way in times of war, but not having them be a standing army.

Perhaps the Knights will have honor guards that are always "raised", but so far we don't know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back