Adding a game rule that gives you random heir - you get to play as a random heir (that does not trigger a game over). Would make gavelkind really fun
-
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.
That game looked like fun though I never played it. If CK3 could add some of that graphic and mechanical depth — but much more "macro-level" — to counties that would add a lot of entertainment value, I think. It also adds the possibility for more historic details and shows how playable barons could be fun as the most basic level ruler to start from. Show a player the rubble of conquered cities and then let them build their Umayyad mosque towering over the Seine to give them a feeling that they're actually changing the map, not just colouring it. Make culture and religion shape not only how counties look but the mechanics of governing their populations with more than superficial changes. Victoria 2 is great for showing depth in areas, though it's only abstract (POPs).
viCKtoria 3 confirmedI feel like CK3 should add all the most important things: POPs, a dynamic World Market, colonisation, industrialisation, battles of influence, revolutions, and elections.
My personal preferred guide to make CK3
Step 1 plan game
Step 2 make a new engine
Step 3 copy CK2s code into the new game
Step 4 update the game code to fit with new engine
Step 5 add new features and replace old ones
Step 6 DLC
Step 7 let it run on really good smartphones
Step 1 plan game
Step 2 make a new engine
Step 3 copy CK2s code into the new game
Step 4 update the game code to fit with new engine
Step 5 add new features and replace old ones
Step 6 DLC
Step 7 let it run on really good smartphones
I'm wondering whether it's possible to design the CK3 map from the get go in such a way as to lessen the need for frequent map updates? With the HF changes the CK2 map will look very solid already.
I mean the threads calling for map changes won't stop, in part because there will always be some people who feel that their country/their ancestors/whatever is under/misrepresented and should be given half of Europe in this start date or that, by I mean actual, necessary map updates.
I mean the threads calling for map changes won't stop, in part because there will always be some people who feel that their country/their ancestors/whatever is under/misrepresented and should be given half of Europe in this start date or that, by I mean actual, necessary map updates.
CK 3 will be VR, and resemble the youtube commercials (7-sins). It may or may not be a mmo, were you enter the game by being "born" to an existing player or NPC.
Crusader Kings 3 will be more completed from beginning because I hope as we can play with Byzantines and Russians without need DLCs, also Novgorod as playable faction.
I have to say, i'm honestly impressed. This is by far the worst suggestion I've ever seen.
I hope you get the game you want but not at the cost of CK.
I hope you get the game you want but not at the cost of CK.
Yeah, I have a lot of learning to do to be a "Chief suggester."
Although I do think that expanding the depth of the game mechanics couldn't hurt, and I assumed that would mean the base game couldn't incorporate all the breadth of CK2 with its expansion packs by doing that —maybe it can. That would be better, obviously. I think the suggestion to begin again with a focus on Catholic rulers (read: Crusader Kings) seems, ironically at this point, unnecessarily limiting. I was waiting for this thread to die but it keeps getting bumped....
Would you rather have them take the SEGA approach of carving up previously accessible content in separate DLCs (each costing 60 euro).
Day 1 base game: french counts only
Day 1 DLC1: unlocks french dukes
Day 1 DLC2: unlocks french king
Month 2 DLC: unlocks german rulers (requires duke dlc and king dlc)
Year 5 DLC: republics unlocked
Year 10 DLC: pagan rulers
Year 20 DLC: extended into 16th century with america unlocked
You get the point.
In all seriousness, it can be expected and is acceptable that some ck2 stuff is cut, like the dark ages stuff.
However, releasing ck3 with the same limits as ck2 had on launch (or worse) would cause a serious outrage.
Thinking about it. What I think they should have as playable at start for CK 3 would be: Catholics/Western Europe. Ortgodox/eastern europe. Muslims/North Africa Spain middle East. And maybe pagan/north European tribal.
A lot of stuff while cool are not something. Saying that Judaism and z9rastrianism isn't normal seems wrong. Maybe niche would be better. vEentually they should be added of course, maybe at a slightly faster Pace with the basic ideas of how they would function being in the game perhaps and conversion being allowed from the start. Then have a religious themed dlc that expands on several at once.
I think India and steppe nomads could wait a little while. It would be nice if nomadic Muslim groups got a thing like the dlc suggestion somewhere in the forum.
For republics, maybe move the general focus of the game a bit more towards family politics. Which is actually an interesting idea imo. Because if you are the leader of a family instead of a territory things like Judaism and cadet branches become easier to make interesting. So cadet branches can come into existence through internal rebellion say a nephew wants more independence ind splits off. So then you might get into a fight to bring them back in the fold by military might or cloak and knife. While a Jewish family night have difficulty directly ruling territory but could still struggle to survive as a community and maintain internal cohesion even through times of crisis. And religious groups could work by effectively adopting people to the institution.
A lot of stuff while cool are not something. Saying that Judaism and z9rastrianism isn't normal seems wrong. Maybe niche would be better. vEentually they should be added of course, maybe at a slightly faster Pace with the basic ideas of how they would function being in the game perhaps and conversion being allowed from the start. Then have a religious themed dlc that expands on several at once.
I think India and steppe nomads could wait a little while. It would be nice if nomadic Muslim groups got a thing like the dlc suggestion somewhere in the forum.
For republics, maybe move the general focus of the game a bit more towards family politics. Which is actually an interesting idea imo. Because if you are the leader of a family instead of a territory things like Judaism and cadet branches become easier to make interesting. So cadet branches can come into existence through internal rebellion say a nephew wants more independence ind splits off. So then you might get into a fight to bring them back in the fold by military might or cloak and knife. While a Jewish family night have difficulty directly ruling territory but could still struggle to survive as a community and maintain internal cohesion even through times of crisis. And religious groups could work by effectively adopting people to the institution.
I thinks as in CK3 battles will be reworked for allow more tactical options. Many hope better AI in CK3, but Paradox not will spent days for please veterans and masters. CK3 have better graphics than CK2(I not care so much for graphics) A pop system will be welcomed but levies depending on population rather province and realm size
Sorry to post again so soon with more thoughts. If the game shifted more towards family/corporate body the basic idea would be on a basic level focusing on holdings rather than territory. Territories would still exist though. Holdings would derive their income from where they are and how much power a group has in an area.
So castles would derive income from land and have more access to manpower. Town holdings compete for trade and have high income but have a harder time leveraging troops because the town might not agree with your interests. Churches, for normal Noble families religious holdings would be lucrative but hard to control.
Also "adoption" would be a big thing in my ideas. So you could poach relatives from cadet branches to reassert more control and non dynastic entities would work solely through recruitment. This would be one reason why religious holdings are slippery. A bishop could be autogenerated and act more like a vassal, or you could take action to put a relative in charge or a favored candidate to have them more under your control. But in either case their is the risk of them tying themselves to a religious institution and then things can get complicated.
So castles would derive income from land and have more access to manpower. Town holdings compete for trade and have high income but have a harder time leveraging troops because the town might not agree with your interests. Churches, for normal Noble families religious holdings would be lucrative but hard to control.
Also "adoption" would be a big thing in my ideas. So you could poach relatives from cadet branches to reassert more control and non dynastic entities would work solely through recruitment. This would be one reason why religious holdings are slippery. A bishop could be autogenerated and act more like a vassal, or you could take action to put a relative in charge or a favored candidate to have them more under your control. But in either case their is the risk of them tying themselves to a religious institution and then things can get complicated.
I think what people are forgetting is that they can reuse a lot of history and files from ck2 the same way they did with eu3 to eu4. Heck I think half of Europe is based on old eu3 provinces and history.
This would then make the work of the map a lot easier and they could easily include most of the current game world into a new game but completely alter the mechanics.
Of course they can then still lock India behind dlc or together with ck2 India or discounted India for those that own it in ck2 whatever. And then later dlc can add the entirety of China and Africa and maybe reworked earlier startdates.
This would then make the work of the map a lot easier and they could easily include most of the current game world into a new game but completely alter the mechanics.
Of course they can then still lock India behind dlc or together with ck2 India or discounted India for those that own it in ck2 whatever. And then later dlc can add the entirety of China and Africa and maybe reworked earlier startdates.
Why reinvent the wheel? Instead build/upgrade to a new engine, transplant the features already in CK2 into the new engine, making the last CK2 DLC the ' upgrade' DLC. Weed out the bad keep the good and build from there. So you are building ontop instead of taking years to get to the same level as CK2 featurewise. I dont feel like buying into another CK3 DLC run if its down to rebuying the same features already in CK2.
I think Paradox might find itself in difficulties if it decides to release any CK3 game with the original timeline. The genie is out of the bottle, as many fans of the game love the earlier starts, which have added a lot of things such as pagans in the west, & the world being so much more diverse. The only way they might be able to get around this is by releasing a game that added the period before the middle ages of around 1066.
I personally would like to see all their games reviewed timewise. I would have a dark ages game until 1066, starting after fall of Rome, with Imperator before that. I feel the standard CK2 end time is to late, & should be in EU. EU should start around 1399 or 1356 as in Meiou & taxes & end before revolutionary period. Bringing the industrial age from around 1789 into a Victoria type game, which could end after first world war period. HOI could then start around 1920 to its present period. Obviously, this my opinion, but EU in particular needs an overhaul, as hardly anyone plays the late game
I personally would like to see all their games reviewed timewise. I would have a dark ages game until 1066, starting after fall of Rome, with Imperator before that. I feel the standard CK2 end time is to late, & should be in EU. EU should start around 1399 or 1356 as in Meiou & taxes & end before revolutionary period. Bringing the industrial age from around 1789 into a Victoria type game, which could end after first world war period. HOI could then start around 1920 to its present period. Obviously, this my opinion, but EU in particular needs an overhaul, as hardly anyone plays the late game
I partially agree with you, but there is a lot of actually cool medieval stuff they could put in a CK3.
They could focus on improving the high middle ages (which I personally think should be the core).
Or they could shift it more to an rpg style game (take inspiration from Mount and Blade and Defender of the Crown II).
Alternatively, they could shift the focus to strategy and tactics and make it more like Medieval Total War.
I think Ck2 just tries to do way to much and does not do justice to the era and regions it covers.
Focusing could improve that a lot. Other aspects could be made into separate game if there is demand for it.
I'm not a fan of the idea to portion every couple of centuries off into it's own game. I like to continuously build an empire through a long period of playtime, that would be impossible if they did that. I'd take some historical inaccuracy over that any day.
Besides there's a good chance that a "dark ages" game would lack the RPG elements that I like about CK2. Something that keeps me away from Europa Universalis and makes me wish that the timeline CK2 extended further into the renaissance.
Besides there's a good chance that a "dark ages" game would lack the RPG elements that I like about CK2. Something that keeps me away from Europa Universalis and makes me wish that the timeline CK2 extended further into the renaissance.