CK3 - Features I'd like to See in It !

[Atomcreator]

I didn't know there was going to be a ck3. I thought they were going to release dlc for the next 20 years.

 

[lazprune]

There are some neat ideas there, however there's one (only one!) thing I disagree with, and it's your authority system.
First of all, I disagree with the premise.

I don't think it's the right way to look at CK. CK is about the characters. You aren't building a monstruous blob, you're playing as a line of dynasts. And the boredom comes from the fact you characters don't have anything left to do at some point.
So anything that counters blobbing isn't frustrating per se in CK. It's only frustrating when the anti-blobbing mechanics means are boring or tedious.

So the stability of the realm should probably depend on two things.

1. the ruler. You said it, it should be easier for "strong" rulers to handle a big realm. But here's the thing: "strong" has to be defined in terms of gameplay. A diplomatic character will convince his vassals he's the best ruler. An intrigue character will suppress any threat to his power, or manipulate vassals to fight eachother. A martial character will just say "you want to revolt? try. I'll wait." or duel his unhappy vassals. Or you could buy the peace in the realm.
2. the stability of the realm, independantly from the character. This is something that lead to modern states IRL - increasing centralization in the hands of a few people, with a growing power for the advisors/ministers of the realm. It would mean that the continuity of the state wasn't only assured by the ruler. But the thing is that while it makes the state for stable, it doesn't necessarily mean that there are less things to do for characters. Quite the contrary in face. The Renaisse is famous for its intrigues, and it was a time of relatively stable political blobs. Imo what we need for big blobs is increased internal politics. Things such as internal societies/factions trying to gain more power. As a ruler, you would try to avoid losing power to your advisors. You wouldn't wage wars against enemies, because there would already be a war within the realm. The Byzantine Empire already does that to some extent in CK2, and I believe it could be expanded in CK3.

Authority just seems too "EU4" for my taste. Just like stability in CK2 isn't a matter of "points", I don't think authority should be something else than a way to centralize your realm. A low authority empire would be like Charlemagne's. In the early game, yes you can form those huge entities out of nowhere, however they will collapse. Or your power over your vassals will remain very light. In the late game, building durable, centralized empires become possible, but it comes with a cost: you will have to fight with every character in order to maintain your rule. Otherwise your advisors and vassals will do whatever they want. You will have to choose between different factions, make alliances, and sometimes grant rewards to your loyal servants. Or even make deals with external powers just to neutralize some threats from within.
That would also provide more things to do as vassals of powerful realms, especially in times of peace. And it may actually provide an advantage to tryign to spread your dynasty everywhere instead of just gathering all countries within your own hands, because family often means allies for your political intrigues.

First, I like the idea of focus points and every game should have them instead of mana. That's why Victoria 2 has a much better system than Imperator

I do agree though that your Authority is a bit too much EU4 like. Imo it should not be a realm wide ranking and a point race.

I too had some thought about Authority and also the proposed Autonomy, though I am not sure if those can be combined or should be two highly interconnected systems.
So my idea is:

Authority
Authority should in my opinion be between two characters similar to opinion. And while opinion influence what characters will do to each other, authority describes what they can do.
For example, with a high authority you can try to imprison a character immediately like you can do now in CK2. With a medium authority you have to plot to imprison, but you can do that while being in your capital. If your authority is low you need to move your spymaster to where your target is (and have him follow him) and let him do the plot. And if the authority is 0 or close to it then the only real way to imprison him is to wage war, unless you can raise your authority.
Also, the authority you have over your vassals limits what type of vassals they can be. with high authority your vassals can be vassals only in name and you have a lot control over their lands, get most of their troops and money and can enact laws there. With medium authority you have autonomous vassals, which should be the most common type, who work like vassals do now.
If you authority is low, the only type of vassals can be is a tributary. And if it is very low that tributary can simply decide to become independent and does not even need to wage war for it. Instead, you have to declare war to restore it.
But just because you have high authority doesn't mean a vassal will "upgrade" to a better type. That has to be negotiated.

So how do you raise authority? While the base authority would be point based, just for calculation, it would be rather static. It gets influenced by your titles, laws, inventions, stats and attributes. What really changes it are modifiers. And the biggest modifier should be distance. The farther away a character is from you, the less authority you have over him. Other modifiers include favours, debts, blackmail, marriages, guardianships (and hostages), etc.

So when distance lowers authority you can get the idea to hold distant land yourself and give land close to your capital to vassals. Here is where autonomy comes in.

Autonomy (Control?)
Like authority the autonomy is calculated from static modifiers like your stats and decreases with distance (although here the capital matters more than the personal distance) and has several modifiers. In each province several characters are fighting for the control. In Europe that usually includes you (or the feudal lord owning the province), a clergymen or nearby bishop representing the church and a wealthy merchant or guildmaster for the burghers. But it can also include other characters like the spokesperson from a religious minority that lives there or a rebel leader active in that area. Its important that those are not faceless factions you interact with but actual characters, even if they have just been generated for this reason like rebel leaders. That means even the non feudal characters should be active in an area and not just in a single province.
The split between the autonomy of this province determines who gets the money and, if applicable, troops from it. Also, some actions would require a certain minimum of autonomy from you or to have the highest autonomy in this province.
It also influences the success chance of your actions. You might have enough authority to order someone arrested immediately, but when your autonomy score in that province is very low it will likely fail.

Distance/Travelling
With distance influencing autonomy and authority it means CK3 would need a better system. And for me that primarily means no more teleporting. If you want to go somewhere you have to travel there which takes time, money and might potentially be dangerous. Not to mention that the chance for an heir is rather low when you are constantly on the move far away (unless you take your wife with you).
That also means your authority can vary wildly. You can travel in person to a vassal to remind him that you are in control. Just remember that he has likely a much higher autonomy score than you in his own home. Also, when waging long distance wars you have to decide if you rather lead the army for better combat stats or rather stay at home and administer you realm. If you are away on a crusade your authority drops a lot and you can only hope that your vassals like you enough to not get funny ideas while you are away for years or at least that your regent can keep them in check (and is loyal enough to not pull off a Prince John.
Also, as distance, representing communications, are so important there should be ways to improve it. That means inventions and also infrastructure projects like building improved roads through several provinces like a highway, canals or ports. Those things reduce the penalty you get for distance through those provinces and also makes travelling through those provinces faster and less dangerous. But those, like all other things in CK3, should cost maintenance. Money should also be a concern for larger realms. They have a higher income but also higher expenses. Usually that still means they make more profit than smaller realms (unless that smaller realm is highly developed) but when things are not going well it might still be necessary to led roads fall into disrepair because you need the money for other things. That also means land far away might cause a net loss because your autonomy score is so low that you see hardly any tax from it. Better give it to a vassal and tax him instead.
You can also bring technology into it where, if you are a bit backwater, can't maintain better buildings or roads you conquered, or it is more expensive for you.

Inventions
As I mentioned it, my idea for a tech system would be a bit similar to Victoriy or Imperator, just without the mana. You could still have tech levels but the real benefit comes from inventions. And those inventions have to be invented by actual characters. So when you want a new invention you need to hire a hopefully rather smart (although lunatic also works from time to time) researcher (or philosopher or artist. I use the term invention very loosely here), pay him a sizeable wage, put up with his eccentrics and hopefully he will invent something.
Or you can also wait till someone else invents what you want and then the knowledge about this invention spreads to you (which you can help along).
It should also be possible for inventions to get lost if they have not spread far and the owner goes through a crisis).

Other stuff
- Landless characters should be possible. Maybe not in the base game but in an DLC.
- I am not to sure about your ideas for successions. Imo there should still be a lot of differences between different types of successions which is what people in that realm expect and going against it causes unrest. CK3 should support many styles of successions though. From several types of monarchies, electives, tribals and also of course China (although I am perfectly willing to not have it in the base game and wait for a DLC and map extension. But the base game should be made with China and whatever else they want to include in mind)
- Support fantasy mods. A bit of an odd personal request, but there are many good fantasy mods out there and all struggle with having multiple races in the game and the hardcoded marriage logic. Please support races/species in CK3, even if it is not needed in the game.

@Ezumiyr @Ixalmaris Well, Authority IS between two characters and not a realm modifier, if you look at how it works. It only makes empires collaps at a macro level thank to vassals' rebelliousness.

@Ixalmaris I do not agree to put landless characters in a DLC. There is still plenty rooms for DLCs with such a build and landlesses would be such a core mechanic that putting it in a mere DLC would not make any sense and forbid any expansion on it later...
However, I do agree there could be a support for fantasy mods, that would be awesome!
And the idea of inventions (high learning skills characters actually producing techonology boost?) is really nice!

 

[Pied-Noir]

Go back to basics and rip out all the filler and weird irrelevant stuff like Tibet/China and India.

Do a proper game with plenty of depth that reflects the title.

 

[Ixalmaris]

@Ezumiyr
@Ixalmaris I do not agree to put landless characters in a DLC. There is still plenty rooms for DLCs with such a build and landlesses would be such a core mechanic that putting it in a mere DLC would not make any sense and forbid any expansion on it later...
However, I do agree there could be a support for fantasy mods, that would be awesome!
And the idea of inventions (high learning skills characters actually producing techonology boost?) is really nice!

Landless characters is a big deviation to what is CKs core gameplay. So I am ok with CK3 only supporting dynastic rulers in Europe (Christians and Muslims, maybe also Pagans) at start and add the rest as DLC. I actually prefer if they don't try to do everything at once.

 

[lazprune]

Landless characters is a big deviation to what is CKs core gameplay. So I am ok with CK3 only supporting dynastic rulers in Europe (Christians and Muslims, maybe also Pagans) at start and add the rest as DLC. I actually prefer if they don't try to do everything at once.

CK's core gameplay is characters interacting with each other. The OP explains how this would fit a whole new game, adding way more depth.
Besides, I wonder why people whould buy a game that has less features than the previous one...

 

[ray243]

I hope they don't design the game based on French feudalism model. Landed aristocracy is useful, but it only represent one portion of the Eurasian world. They really need to design a CK3 that allows different forms of government and military organisations to be reflected in the game.

I hope they reflect some of Chris Wickham's views about the difference between Western Europe and the Eastern world as a whole. Governorship, military commands are more of a thing in the East, in the Byzantine and and the Arab world.

 

[lazprune]

I hope they don't design the game based on French feudalism model. Landed aristocracy is useful, but it only represent one portion of the Eurasian world. They really need to design a CK3 that allows different forms of government and military organisations to be reflected in the game.

I hope they reflect some of Chris Wickham's views about the difference between Western Europe and the Eastern world as a whole. Governorship, military commands are more of a thing in the East, in the Byzantine and and the Arab world.

Didn't know the man, now interested by his publications. Thanks ^^