The problem with Sims Medieval was that it wasn't actually a sims game in a Medieval setting. I would have played that to death.
-
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.
The problem with Sims Medieval was that it wasn't actually a sims game in a Medieval setting. I would have played that to death.
I feel like CK3 should add all the most important things: POPs, a dynamic World Market, colonisation, industrialisation, battles of influence, revolutions, and elections.
Vic3 ist is
For CK3 I want the same density of provinces shown in Imperator. This way we could enjoy a deep local gameplay, with relatively "slower" pace of expansion in geographical terms, but still have a map that spans from Ireland to Ceylon and possibly beyond.
If and when there is an CK3, I want playable inland republics with proper elections AND non-feudal, centralized bureaucratic empires like those of Byzantium, old Persia and India to be in the game.
And more proper relatives titles. With things like "second cousin", "half-aunt" and "great uncle-in-law" and so on.
Also, ability to pay for ships to transport your army even if you lack seaside counties, just like in CK1. Maybe even naval battles, since they happened rarely in Europe but in eastern Mediterranean and Asia they were the rage, with giant thalassocratic empires like Song Empire or the Chola Empire getting established.
And of course, Cadet Houses and better bloodlines.
And more proper relatives titles. With things like "second cousin", "half-aunt" and "great uncle-in-law" and so on.
Also, ability to pay for ships to transport your army even if you lack seaside counties, just like in CK1. Maybe even naval battles, since they happened rarely in Europe but in eastern Mediterranean and Asia they were the rage, with giant thalassocratic empires like Song Empire or the Chola Empire getting established.
And of course, Cadet Houses and better bloodlines.
One more thing I'd really like to see in CK3 is more interactive and decisive battles. Medieval wars were usually settled on the battlefield, with most wars ending after a short series of decisive battles/sieges, rather than by occupying the entire enemy realm as in CK2. Rather than battles just being this computer simulation running in the background, have battles (and sieges) be a major part of gameplay, with you as the commander having to make all sorts of decisions about the battlefield, your formation, when to attack, how to attack etc. It'd basically be some sort of tactical minigame within the larger game.
I'd also like to see a more dynamic system for negotiating with other characters. That could be used for issuing demands prior to war and negotiating peace terms, but also for negotiating marriages, alliances etc. in a way that is more involved than in CK2.
And another thing that I just thought of: child portraits. Currently all children use the same static placeholder portrait until they come of age. It would be nice if they actually had unique portraits and you could watch them grow up. It would make your family feel more like an actual family.
I'd also like to see a more dynamic system for negotiating with other characters. That could be used for issuing demands prior to war and negotiating peace terms, but also for negotiating marriages, alliances etc. in a way that is more involved than in CK2.
And another thing that I just thought of: child portraits. Currently all children use the same static placeholder portrait until they come of age. It would be nice if they actually had unique portraits and you could watch them grow up. It would make your family feel more like an actual family.
CK is in many ways best when it is a game that can simulate history, but doesn't have to. So basically I agree with the OP that CK3 should be, at it's core, very historically accurate. However, the DLC and add-ons should allow for both fantasy and other types of ahistorical play. Preferably with dragons... (After Snowcrystal posted a certain image, I realized how much CK2 needs playable dragons).
Interesting. For me, Holy Fury sounds exactly like 'the thing Paradox should have been done two years ago to keep me totally hyped', especially because it put the game more into 'historical simulator' area.
That would be repeating CK2 mistake. CK2 started as game about christian feudal lords, and then evolved to include everything, from pagans to nomads. End result is that core mechanics proved to not be elastic enough to represent that totally different forms of government.
If anything, CK2 should start with big set of playable characters (lets say, feudal lords, merchant republics, nomads and tribes of every religion) and then try to stick with them.
I'm really not complaining about CK2 at all, it's one of my favourite games, and the direction it has taken is a lot of fun. The same exact formula doesn't need to be repeated, but I can see why it could be short-sighted if the timeline and map were focused too much. I like what some others have suggested here: deeper local gameplay; interactive and decisive battles (without turning it into a mini RTS); generally more depth rather than breadth. Both are good, but the base game for a sequel can't have everything in it that CK2 has with all of its expansions while making it a substantially new game — or can it?
This is actually a question I've always wanted to ask the Paradox directors. As their current business strategy is very good for the long term, but how will it work when it's time to make a squeal for Ck in 10 years or whatever. If you push the bar to far up, you'd be expected to at the least have everything from before (assuming it still works with the updated system.) Otherwise you'll have a case of the Sims where every base game has a pets expansion which I'm sure no one wants.
In re: the Sims and Pets? Yeah, it's one of the "big two" of expected EP releases with every version of the Sims. (The other is Seasons.) And there's always a lot of expectation when a new version is about to come out that it will have base game pets and weather. That answer has always been "No." (And I suspect that will continue to be the case if there's ever a Sims 5.)
I want to second this. The most important improvement CK3 could make is baseline support of different non-Feudal governments. I would personally switch if feudal Europe, imperial Byzantium, sultanates, tribes, etc all had distinct mechanics that felt different, even if none of them were very deep or feature dense to start out with.
CK2 is a bit like Age of Empires II in my eyes. It's great in itself, I don't need a sequel, and a CK3, when it's made, will probably take years to reach 2's level of depth anyway.
The only thought I'm playing with is it would be neat to have a game where actually walk around and interact with people instead of just right-clicking portraits. Something like the Elder Scrolls or Warband games, I suppose, but with CK2's engine for interacting with other people and factions. And a map screen for the strategy part of the game, I suppose.
This is perhaps sort of what @Orphalesion envisions, too.
The only thought I'm playing with is it would be neat to have a game where actually walk around and interact with people instead of just right-clicking portraits. Something like the Elder Scrolls or Warband games, I suppose, but with CK2's engine for interacting with other people and factions. And a map screen for the strategy part of the game, I suppose.
This is perhaps sort of what @Orphalesion envisions, too.
I think maybe instead of adding China they could change the setting entirely and have China be the centre of the map.
A fully immersive (open world) RPG would be a fun spin-off; but I think a CK sequel should still be primarily a grand strategy wargame, with enhanced character/family/dynasty development. There's no need to physically move a character around as an avatar in a fully 3D gameworld, that would just create a lot of unnecessary movement time (think about how much time is spent just moving around in some games). I would like to see more ability to zoom into the game map though, so that we can see counties divided into cities, temples and baronies. Let me see the prosperity or destituteness of a county actually reflected in graphic detail. If this game is a few years away at least, hopefully the technology will be seamless enough to add detail for the different levels of maps. For battles, I'd like to be able to see it happen with more detail, without adding unnecessary micromanagement.
Eh, no, those kinda games (Elder Scrolls, Warband) aren't really my thing, so no that wasn't what I was envisioning. I was really more thinking of a mixture between Crusader Kings and Sims. You know, build your castle, pall around with your character's family and friends, throw parties/balls/feasts, see to it that they eat enough and go to the privy, dress them up, maybe go on some hunting/pilgramage/wahtever events, hold court and while your doing that you are also playing Crusader Kings on the overmap.
Not sure whether it'd work next to each other, probably would be a bit awkward in combination. But as a Baron you wouldn't do much of the overworld stuff anyway.
So maybe playing a Baron in this manner could be a sort of spinnoff, if Paradox ever (please, please please) considers going into Life Simulations.
The only kind of CKIII that I could see getting away with less content than CKII is one that let you play as landless characters (specifically adventurers, but also perhaps landless spouses and dowagers being the power behind the throne) as well as dynasty members that aren't in position that has hereditary succession, like priesthoods and Mercenary/Holy Order captains.
In my dream CKIII, instead of being forced to play as the next in line to your primary title, you get to play *any* dynast that has gameplay that goes with it. Give me that, and I'll be willing to wait for a DLC that let's me play as a brother in an authentic Turkish succession, the Norse raider who takes the offer to settle and convert, and the landless satanist leader ready to lead the world into chaos.
In my dream CKIII, instead of being forced to play as the next in line to your primary title, you get to play *any* dynast that has gameplay that goes with it. Give me that, and I'll be willing to wait for a DLC that let's me play as a brother in an authentic Turkish succession, the Norse raider who takes the offer to settle and convert, and the landless satanist leader ready to lead the world into chaos.