CK3 should be different

[TinWiz]

While we're waiting for Holy Fury, I thought about looking ahead. Crusader Kings III doesn't have to completely cannibalize everything CKII has done. It can update and enhance in a unique way, while keeping that blend of RPG and Grand Strategy that we all enjoy. I was thinking the base game could return to the original focus on Catholics in Europe only: the First Crusade and its aftermath, from the Council of Clermont in 1095 to the Fall of Edessa in 1144. Make that base game as deep and awesome as possible. Then build DLCs from there.

What do you think?

 

[Orphalesion]

Well I have basically no desire whatsoever to play Catholics, so I can't agree.

 

[TinWiz]

Well I have basically no desire whatsoever to play Catholics, so I can't agree.

That might be unduly narrow; so how about both main sides in the base game, Catholics and Muslims, and focus on the first two crusades, ~1095 to [Saladin's capture of Jerusalem] 1187. OP was driving more at keeping it on a tighter timeline so it can be built with lots more depth (playable barons, inland republics, theocracies?) and keep lots of room for broader content.

[Edit: Might as well include the first three crusades until the treaty between Saladin and Richard ~1192]

 

[Taran14]

If they ever make CK3, they will have to add loads of new features. Otherwise, why play CK3 when CK2 has more features and content? It would really hurt CK3 reviews and sales, even if CK3 would be eventually fleshed out with DLC (and then cue people raging for having to "re-buy" features that were already in CK2).

 

[shiro the bushi]

While we're waiting for Holy Fury, I thought about looking ahead. Crusader Kings III doesn't have to completely cannibalize everything CKII has done. It can update and enhance in a unique way, while keeping that blend of RPG and Grand Strategy that we all enjoy. I was thinking the base game could return to the original focus on Catholics in Europe only: the First Crusade and its aftermath, from the Council of Clermont in 1095 to the Fall of Edessa in 1144. Make that base game as deep and awesome as possible. Then build DLCs from there.

What do you think?

As the devs said on several occasions Crusader Kings is just a name, a brand. Crusader kings is more about the medieval world than just west europe and the middle east. It would be one of the worst things they can do if they cut back the map size in ck3

 

[TinWiz]

If they ever make CK3, they will have to add loads of new features. Otherwise, why play CK3 when CK2 has more features and content? It would really hurt CK3 reviews and sales, even if CK3 would be eventually fleshed out with DLC (and then cue people raging for having to "re-buy" features that were already in CK2).

Right, if it was substantially the same game. But then it's just CK2 with a GUI facelift, which doesn't really seem worth it, at least not for a very long time. If it was deep enough and expanded the RPG elements enough while not neglecting the importance of the grand strategy at its core, then it could enhance the CK experience such that it wouldn't have to make CK2 obsolete right away while still adding a substantial new addition to the franchise. Then again maybe most of us really just want a prettier CK2 [eventually].

This idea might work better as a spin-off than a true sequel, sort of like how the mobile game focuses on one particular story: do that on a much grander scale for the PC.

 

[Susanna]

For CK3, I think they actually add China. Probably all of Africa, as well. (I don't see either happening in CK2.)

 

[Orphalesion]

That might be unduly narrow; so how about both main sides in the base game, Catholics and Muslims, and focus on the first two crusades, ~1095 to [Saladin's capture of Jerusalem] 1187. OP was driving more at keeping it on a tighter timeline so it can be built with lots more depth (playable barons, inland republics, theocracies?) and keep lots of room for broader content.

[Edit: Might as well include the first three crusades until the treaty between Saladin and Richard ~1192]

Still not ewnough for me; I want the whole thing. Catholics, Islam, Orthodoxy, Pagans, Zoroastrians, Eastern Religions. I don't wanna downgrade.

And with the timeline....why start in 1095 and stop in 1192? That's just a hundred years. Can't do all that much empire or dynasty building in 100 years....That's potentially as few as 3-4 rulers you get to play...

Unless they make this a full-fledged Medieval Life Simulation (which, granted, I would play the heck out of) I don't really desire to play barons. Don't really enjoy Republics either, so Inland Republics wouldn't be a good trade-off for me. And even theocracies aren't really something that interest me or that would make me willing to trade in all the other stuff we have right now.

I can understand that the basegame of CK3 might lack some features that are now present in CK2, but a game stripped down to what you describe would not be my thing.

I can understand and respect that you would like it, but I can't agree with it. So yeah it maybe really better as some sort of side game.

 

[HamHamJ]

This seems to me the inherent problem of CK3. Putting in as many features as a game with years of DLC is impossible. It needs to innovate on the core features in a compelling way that gets people to buy it before it catches up to the previous version.

 

[Moonshadow101]

Honestly, they should probably change the name of the franchise.

The reality is that "Crusader Kings II" is a somewhat vestigial name for a game that has grown to represent so much more than just the Crusades. A hypothetical CKIII which "zooms in" on the crusades cannot, in my view, be anything other than disappointing. What could you possibly add that would justify cutting away everything that isn't catholics and muslims?

They should call it Medieval World or something and just accept the expanded scope of the project.

 

[Taran14]

Honestly, they should probably change the name of the franchise.

The reality is that "Crusader Kings II" is a somewhat vestigial name for a game that has grown to represent so much more than just the Crusades. A hypothetical CKIII which "zooms in" on the crusades cannot, in my view, be anything other than disappointing. What could you possibly add that would justify cutting away everything that isn't catholics and muslims?

They should call it Medieval World or something and just accept the expanded scope of the project.

They'd be stupid to change the name now. Crusader Kings is by now an established name, changing it would lead to confusion and decreased market exposure. And "Crusader Kings" is just a catchy name, it does not mean in any way that the game is limited to or even focuses on the crusades (just like Europa Universalis is not limited to Europe or Total War: Attila is about more than just Attila the Hun). An overly generic name like "Medieval World" would be horrible.
They need to keep the Crusader Kings name, and for the next installment really focus on overhauling the core mechanics of the game, adding in all kinds of features that are now simply impossible in CK2 (much more interesting (perhaps even interactive) combat and sieges, more interactive management of your realm, actual culture mechanics, more complicated and realistic feudal structures, that kind of stuff). That would probably bring customers, even if many areas of the map will not be as fleshed out yet as they are in CK2 and some cultures/religions may be lacking in mechanics. However, it does mean that we probably won't be seeing a CK3 for many years, not until Paradox has a new engine (or a massively overhauled version of the current one).

 

[TinWiz]

I guess my line of thinking isn't too popular. The recent expansions for CK2 have turned it into a "choose-your-own-religion and wage medieval war" kind of adventure --- actually more of a fantasy game than a historical simulator. I thought that could just be CK2's thing (or added in updates for a sequel later), but that I'd prefer to see a really impressive historical game again.

 

[1muflon1]

I think a problem with CK III would be that I actually like the complexity of CKII, I can't imagine vanilla CK III delivering more than CK II unless it will bring completely new mechanics and better visuals. Although I love the support and continuous updates of all recent paradox strategy game I really feel that it limits the scope for releasing new games. I honestly prefer CK II to just roll into CK III by patch 3.0 - maybe paradox is even planning to do so.

I think that most paradox fans love the complexity of paradox grand strategies and their complexity and uniqueness is what opens our wallets to the barrage of DLC's they produce. Really there is no way that vanilla CK III just delivers anything close to the complexity and nuance of CK II without either major overhaul and deepening of everything probably using new engine, or just rolling CK II into CK III via continuous updates.

 

[Taran14]

I guess my line of thinking isn't too popular. The recent expansions for CK2 have turned it into a "choose-your-own-religion and wage medieval war" kind of adventure --- actually more of a fantasy game than a historical simulator. I thought that could just be CK2's thing (or added in updates for a sequel later), but that I'd prefer to see a really impressive historical game again.

CK2 never was a historical game. It has always been an alternate history game. In real life, pagan religions kinda died out and were replaced by the big Abrahamic religions. But in the game you can prevent that and reform them. It is only logical that you should then have a hand in shaping the development of that religion. Surely, in a game where you can become a Satan-worshipping Fylkir Saoshyant, that is one of the least ahistorical aspects.

 

[Orphalesion]

I guess my line of thinking isn't too popular. The recent expansions for CK2 have turned it into a "choose-your-own-religion and wage medieval war" kind of adventure --- actually more of a fantasy game than a historical simulator. I thought that could just be CK2's thing (or added in updates for a sequel later), but that I'd prefer to see a really impressive historical game again.

Oi, now don't start like that. "My taste is superior because I want it to be historical!" never really worked for CK.
Even before the reformable pagans, even before the Satanists, the immortal horses or the invading Aztecs it already was a "what if" game, because the minute you unpaused the game real life history gets taken behind the barn to be put down.
All the additional stuff does is adding more options to the mix, which, imho, is a good thing.

A lot of the "fantasy" stuff will never/almost never happen without the player forcing it. I have never seen the A.I. reforming any of the various Pagan faiths, for example and the Sunset Invasion is a simple option on Game Start, unselect it and the ahistorical Aztecs never show up.

 

[Susanna]

I've seen AI reform Tengri, but that's it.

 

[TinWiz]

Oi, now don't start like that. "My taste is superior because I want it to be historical!" never really worked for CK.
Even before the reformable pagans, even before the Satanists, the immortal horses or the invading Aztecs it already was a "what if" game, because the minute you unpaused the game real life history gets taken behind the barn to be put down.
All the additional stuff does is adding more options to the mix, which, imho, is a good thing.

A lot of the "fantasy" stuff will never/almost never happen without the player forcing it. I have never seen the A.I. reforming any of the various Pagan faiths, for example and the Sunset Invasion is a simple option on Game Start, unselect it and the ahistorical Aztecs never show up.

Sure and that's a lot of fun in CK2, I just thought CK3 could try something a bit different and more focused --- at least to start with. I like that CK2 has all the options to turn things off. The Aztecs were fun at first, but now I always turn them off, and I always turn off pagan reformations.

 

[vyshan]

full-fledged Medieval Life Simulation .

curious what you mean exactly by this.

 

[Orphalesion]

curious what you mean exactly by this.

Basically where you play the Baron (or Count/Duke/King/Emperor) and their family like in the Sims and build their castle. That's a game I'd play the heck out of and the only way I can think of to make me want to play a Baron.

Yes, there is an old, old game called "Sims Medieval" but that didn't have families and it didn't allow you to build a castle. It was pretty much a whole game centered around those fetch-quests in WoW.

 

[Riotkiller]

I feel like CK3 should add all the most important things: POPs, a dynamic World Market, colonisation, industrialisation, battles of influence, revolutions, and elections.