CK3 should be different

[EvilTom]

I'm British, so I have a bit of a Britain-centric view...
I'd rather have it start at the fall of the roman empire or something. I'd want to cause/stop the christian schism, or see/cause/stop the rise of Islam, or take advantage of a collapsing Roman Empire, be(come) King Arthur, or maintain the Roman Empire in different regions as pocket empires or utterly wipe it from Europe entirely!
In Britain I'd want to see druidism or people fend off the Angles and Saxons, or further spread Christianity.
There was a major climactic change during the end of the Roman Empire which caused migration of people, so that would be an interesting challenge and scenario too.

 

[Shauneyboy68]

What I’d like to see in CK3 is something akin to Baz Battle’s videos on YouTube with the ability to zoom out to a map of Europe and zoom in to a scale of say 5 miles covering the length of the screen. Armies tactically at this level and battles resolved using troop experience, equipment, terrain, leadership, condition, etc.

For character interactions, I’d like for them to do away with the number system for like dislike and make it more organic, allow for the AI to decieve and be deceived based on the character’s abilities. I’d also like the skill points to be hidden as well. It should take time to find good councilors and commanders, not just be able to recruit them from the other side of the world. Basically a lot more hidden information.

 

[LizardCommander]

Honestly, I don't think that they could do better with CK3, than CK2, *if located within the same region*. Why? Just like with Civ 6 vs Civ 5, inevitably a game with as many expansions as CK2 has, and the sheer amount of development time, from pre-release development, to post-launch support, would mean that it couldn't be economical to put in similar development (maintaining comparable content, while utilizing new technological developments, and creating new mechanics), in order to merely be on par with CK2, let alone exceeding it. New systems, better visuals, ultimately it would seem to be inferior than the project that came before it.

This is why, I would suggest changing the location. Hire some Historians, preferably those with significant back-histories in Asian-Cultures, and then base a game there. It would be a different area, allowing for it to not directly compete with its predecessor, while still offering something new and cool for players to explore. It could add all sorts of content that is not present in the game, and allow for significant expansion in its own right. Taking what they learned from CK2, their base mechanics would be upgraded, as could graphics, general content, while still giving tons of new material for expansion. Then there's always the interesting potential additions (European Religions, Cultures, integrated into "CK3" by either DLC, or 'foreigners' coming to Preach, Invade, or Raid (Norse raiding China)).

Just my thoughts.

 

[Maphibo]

What I want to see in CK3:

- Dynamic battles, where you make the tactical decisions yourself

- A dynamic map, where you actually see what happens in your country... you see the new buildings being built, or the countryside being ravaged and looted by a raid, etc. Also a map with the frontiers of the different realms fluctuating instead of being static throughout the span of the game

- Completely unique types of government, instead of simple variations of the feudal system

- Much more fleshed out cultures (and some religious heresies)

- Cadet branches

- Some sort of naval battles

 

[Orphalesion]

I'm British, so I have a bit of a Britain-centric view...
I'd rather have it start at the fall of the roman empire or something. I'd want to cause/stop the christian schism, or see/cause/stop the rise of Islam, or take advantage of a collapsing Roman Empire, be(come) King Arthur, or maintain the Roman Empire in different regions as pocket empires or utterly wipe it from Europe entirely!
In Britain I'd want to see druidism or people fend off the Angles and Saxons, or further spread Christianity.
There was a major climactic change during the end of the Roman Empire which caused migration of people, so that would be an interesting challenge and scenario too.

That made me think of one thing they could really do in CK3; proper Nomads and uninhabited provinces. And they wouldn't just be useful for migrations, but also for simulating deserted regions after the Black Death and things like that.
And another thing might be to un-link culture and ethnicity, so that Mali doesn't turn white if I conquer it with a European nation. I want my multi-ethnic court, dammit.

 

[The Spartan]

Crusader Kings III could certainly benefit from more focus and detail.

-Provinces at the barony level (looks like Paradox is finally getting it with I:R that more provinces = more dynamic and interesting game = more replayability)
-Timeline that starts in the early Middle Ages
-Elements of Romance of the Three Kingdoms 10 (be a character WITHOUT ANY TERRITORY)
-Mildly fantasy quests and such to go with the above
-*NO* playable pagans or Muslims EVER (they should be treated like the movie 300 for FLAVOR)
-Focused DLC's, not adding a TERRIBLE off-map China for god's sakes.

 

[reedrosa]

Why do you want recycled games? CK2 is great! Lets see something new and different. Sequels scream lack of imagination and creativity. Dare to think and dream and build something new.

 

[Jaang]

I want a CK3 where I can start as a landless nephew of a merchant in Genoa, travel along the silk road to China, join Kublai Khan's court, become a governor/general of a Chinese province for the Khan, stash away a bunch of wealth, sew it all as jewels into my clothes, and return home to Genoa and start a dynasty of merchant princes using the wealth I brought back from China. (See Marco Polo.)


Or a CK3 where I can start as a farmer in Scandinavia, raid as a Viking in the Baltic, seize the county I live in from the old Count/Earl when he turns down my idea of raiding to the West, and end up sacking Paris before I die, and have my brother Rollo end up as Duke of Normandy.


Or a CK3 where I can start as a simple slave soldier, and end up as the Emperor of Delhi.


Also, starting in 5,000 BC and ending in 2200 AD would be nice... so Civilization Kings 3: Crusading Adventurers with Hearts of Iron reaching for the Stellaris.

 

[Justafan]

One thing I felt was woefully overlooked in CK2 was the Great Schism between Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Even when DLC starts take place before the official schism, East and West are portrayed as separate branches of Christianity.

Similar to how HF allowed us to influence pagan deformations, I feel a future CK game (or maybe DLC for 2) should allow us to try to prevent the schism, or guide East and West in different directions if we are powerful enough in game.

 

[Friedrich von Deutschland]

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

I expect all of Eurasia will be there with baronies and counties becoming respectively equivalent to the cities and provinces in Imperator. Ideally there would be Vicky 2/3 esque pops and economy too but I was disappointed by imperator already and won’t raise my expectations.

 

[Ixal]

Imo CK3 should have:

- No teleporting and characters actually travelling the map with weekly/monthly events based on where they are and whats going on.

Support for more government forms than feudal right from the beginning, including China and Japan, even if they are not on the map at first. The groundwork should be there.
Depending on the era CK3 covers even some parts of America is possible

- The biggest change, support for playing unlanded characters within reason, both for covering Chinas meritocacy system and also to let you play the conquering adventurers or famous traders or explorers Marco Polo.
Also, non noble dynasties like the Fugger would be interesting.

- A better integration of societies and internal struggles not only with vassals but also with guilds, the church etc.

- Trade and exploration you can participate in yourself if you want

- A better tech system, possibly centered around inventions and inventors instead of a sterile progress bar.

 

[zafarnama]

One thing I felt was woefully overlooked in CK2 was the Great Schism between Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Even when DLC starts take place before the official schism, East and West are portrayed as separate branches of Christianity.

Similar to how HF allowed us to influence pagan deformations, I feel a future CK game (or maybe DLC for 2) should allow us to try to prevent the schism, or guide East and West in different directions if we are powerful enough in game.

If we go by the 769 start date for Charlemagne, the last Byzantine Pope of Rome had only died in 752 and the Duchy of Rome ended in 756. It's not like all that influence and political capital suddenly vanished.

Also whilst reading about these Byzantine Popes of Rome and their contemporary Patriarchs of Constantinople, apparently they were vetted and even directly appointed by secular authorities ie by the Emperor himself (the Emperor being God's representative on earth), it's a shame that we don't see this kind of intrigue in ck2. Also to note some of these popes were even iconoclasts which is amusing.

I think the Byzantine Emperor should have the ability to appoint new patriarchs in controlled seats upon their death or retirement (do incapable patriarchs even retire in game like they did IRL?)

Also religious laws independent of secular laws should be a thing, like celibate priests which east and west diverged on, as well as forbidding holy orders to be involved in usury among other things.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Papacy

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_of_Rome

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinisext_Council

 

[Glarder]

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.

You should check out the games in the Guild series

 

[uihysxc]

I think the only way to have a successful CK 3 is reinvision the game.
I'd start with court managment and dynasties
2 Aspects that probably wont be changed very much but Arent really good reflextions of history:

currently wether you have a court of 100 People or one of 10 makes little difference to your game
However : each member of the court should cost Money ( you have to at least feed and Cloth him, also depending on the amount of Money you spent your court should generate Prestige for you), they should have ambitions they go after : so far the People in your court hardly matter in the great scheme of Things: they will rarely go on an Adventure or have coherent plans for what to do (aside from some Special Things like having multiple marriages and the wives trying to get their son to be the next heir, stuff like that should be more common).
Wether or not People join your court should also very heavily depent on the Prestige of your court and not just the rank. People should also leave more willingly if they dont get a court Office - those should by the way have way more meaning.

Dynasties should also be different : Cadet branches for one , but also more dynastic infighting within but more significant help towards the outside. currently the Question of who is the head of a dynasty is basically irrelevant, but the head should have some Controll over his or her dynasty while the dynasty should also have an easier time plotting against the head : it is not unheard of that a royal Uncle as regent is a very bad idea cause he might seize the Crown for himself (btw. i think regents while beeing regent should act as Monarch in case of a Regency, Options to abuse their Position included).
Or if a mainline dies out Cadet branches should be Fighting each other over succession.
In Addition Family should be MUCH more Angry if they dont get land or big amount of Money for themselves. It was quite normal even after the middle ages to Award lands (either as souvereign or as a "vasall") to Family members and even illegitmite Children would usually at least get money.



another place that should really be addressed is the economy System : the most important part of pre industrial economy is agriculture which has no representation whatsoever in the game.



by integrateing Things like that, which aren't really possible at the Moment i'd buy a ck3

 

[BeyondExpectation]

Dynasties should also be different : Cadet branches for one , but also more dynastic infighting within but more significant help towards the outside. currently the Question of who is the head of a dynasty is basically irrelevant, but the head should have some Controll over his or her dynasty while the dynasty should also have an easier time plotting against the head : it is not unheard of that a royal Uncle as regent is a very bad idea cause he might seize the Crown for himself (btw. i think regents while beeing regent should act as Monarch in case of a Regency, Options to abuse their Position included).
Or if a mainline dies out Cadet branches should be Fighting each other over succession.

I agree that it the game should pressure you to land dynasty members much more; bad AI, decadence and the near total lack of benefits means players rarely do, unlike the almost constant dynastic landing of reality. Nonetheless, I know of few examples of what you describe; the only one that closely matches I'm aware of is Richard III's taking of the English throne from his nephew, which required the intersection of two rare circumstances: the questionable legality of Edward V breaking his betrothal on one hand and the anarchy caused by the last regency on the other.

By contrast, I can name many examples of strife being caused by landed relatives; the power base that allowed them to have gave them the ability to threaten the senior branch of their dynasty.

In the end, the only way I can think of making landing relatives a good idea is a major prestige penalty for adult male dynasty members without land. (Doing so would require a major rework of prestige so that emperors don't have a pool of it that's as good as endless.)

In Addition Family should be MUCH more Angry if they dont get land or big amount of Money for themselves. It was quite normal even after the middle ages to Award lands (either as souvereign or as a "vasall") to Family members and even illegitmite Children would usually at least get money.

I agree, but since they're not landed, it's pretty hard to see how there would be any major consequences for the liege the vast majority of the time, as they have no followers to threaten him.

 

[uihysxc]

well I think the main problem is that unlanded people cant really do anything like starting a faction.

e.g. Henry (brother of Otto I./the Great) plotted against his brother on a regular basis his main claim to the throne over his Brother was that Henry was named after the Father (Henry I.). He was able to gather support cause Otto was much more assertive with his royal power than his father. Henry probably promised the Nobility that he would rule more like the Father.
And this is one of the main problems with rebellion currently: you cannot make promises to people supporting you (or the ai cant).

Yes landed Family could also be a Problem (lake Ottos eldest son later on),but unladed Characters were at least as problematic. unlanded Characters need more Options like looking for help abroad ( as prince Alexios Angelos did before the 4th crusade), or at least need to look for new ways to have a career : a lot of anglo saxon nobility joined the varangian guard after the norman conquest.
But as the game is at the moment an unladed character is very unlikely to even leave the court of someone.

 

[EU3NOOB]

So basically OP, you want PDX to pull an EA and strip features from CKII to form CKIII and then sell those features back to them in DLC later?

Why didn't you think that this would be unpopular?

Stripping away features is NEVER a good idea, in fact it's a terrible idea.

OP, you really need to realize that your wants and desires are not necessarily the wants and desires of the fan base.

 

[TinWiz]

So basically OP, you want PDX to pull an EA and strip features from CKII to form CKIII and then sell those features back to them in DLC later?

Why didn't you think that this would be unpopular?

Stripping away features is NEVER a good idea, in fact it's a terrible idea.

OP, you really need to realize that your wants and desires are not necessarily the wants and desires of the fan base.

Keep in mind the OP was back in September and it was a loose suggestion for how CK3 might be an interesting sequel without being a copy+GUI update. That idea might be better as a spin-off. There have been some interesting posts here and I'm racking up some sweet disagreement points.

 

[Bismark776]

The thing about not landing family members is that, historically, whether you gave your Demesne to family or not, it was still not controlled directly by you. You'd have to have some kind of bureaucracy and administration in place. So basically the choice shouldnt be direct control vs proxy control, but proxy via family vs proxy via non family. In that context, its a much bigger question because often, family has a stronger vested interest in the continued success of the dynasty, though not always.

 

[Stratagyfan101]

How about a friendship/rivalry mechanic that is actually part of the game.

Also, make plots useful. Murder, fabricate claim, revoke title. Why are these the only plots? Why is murder the only plot I can have on people outside my realm? Why can't I plot to create a faction in a rival realm? Why carry out a claim war with only my forces, when I can use my rivals disloyal vassals against him. Now that there is a favor system, it can add favors to these vassals, which means now they might get more privileges and I get more prestige. Or I could backstab them and risk them rebelling on me.

For a game that is about medieval politics, it lacks a lot of medieval politics.