It's just a matter of waiting. When Vicky 2 is out, they will come back to the Middle Ages. At some point, they will, for sure. But it can be in 3 years. Still, it will happen.
-
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.
Actually, I think that EU:Rome is the logycal consequence of CK characters system. It keeps track of someone's deeds, shows his family tree, his titles.
Add the familiar and feudal stuff to EU:Rome and you'll have Crusader Kings II. So simply.
Add the familiar and feudal stuff to EU:Rome and you'll have Crusader Kings II. So simply.
EU:Rome should have been a good step forward, implementing the CK character system and EUIII's revised gameplay. However, Rome turned out to be a disappointment with, in my opinion, a character system that seemed a little boring and less functional than CK. For CKII (or any new version a la For the Glory), I would like to see a character system similar to that already in CK but made more versatile to incorporate a (hopefully) better AI.
The problem will always be that the AI cannot fully recreate the actions and reasoning behind man's drive for war/peace/money/power/intrigue etc. The AI will do what it is coded to do and anything that tries to suggest otherwise is a facade.
The problem will always be that the AI cannot fully recreate the actions and reasoning behind man's drive for war/peace/money/power/intrigue etc. The AI will do what it is coded to do and anything that tries to suggest otherwise is a facade.
Very logical and reasoned process. I have to agree with everything you've submitted thus far. All would be a great improvement to an otherwise awesome game.
~Hawk
EDIT: I am referring to Alexandru H. since the threads have been merged
~Hawk
EDIT: I am referring to Alexandru H. since the threads have been merged
Last edited:
I like some of Alexandru H. ideas, especially those at the No.2. Civil war to replace the king and not to separate province, nice. Although in a way we already have that scenario in some cases, maybe just to rework the idea in more details. I'm just afraid that it will lock down player, so if I'm the count who want separation from Prince or King it may be harder to gain it than now. Still that could make more fun.
This I like also. What Veld said. It’s more realistic and better than my proposal how to improved war tactic and management>>
Quote Velmaarschalk:
What I would like is some more direct influence on the unit-types you can built, now it is to abstract in my opinion.
Two more:
I would like that each character trait have more influence on your own game. So that you cannot act the way how your personality as a PC player want, but to be limited somewhat. For example: You as a ruler cannot wage war against your Friend as the other ruler even if you have claim on his land, unless your ruler have traits like Reckless and/or Decisive.
And also I would like if somehow chosen advisors at your court have even more influence to ability of a ruler and destiny of land.
PS - I had to repeat a cry to developers: Please don’t change it too much, but rather improve it.
This I like also. What Veld said. It’s more realistic and better than my proposal how to improved war tactic and management>>
Quote Velmaarschalk:
What I would like is some more direct influence on the unit-types you can built, now it is to abstract in my opinion.
Two more:
I would like that each character trait have more influence on your own game. So that you cannot act the way how your personality as a PC player want, but to be limited somewhat. For example: You as a ruler cannot wage war against your Friend as the other ruler even if you have claim on his land, unless your ruler have traits like Reckless and/or Decisive.
And also I would like if somehow chosen advisors at your court have even more influence to ability of a ruler and destiny of land.
PS - I had to repeat a cry to developers: Please don’t change it too much, but rather improve it.
Those overseas empires only came into being long after CK's timeframe. (Great Britain and Spain didn't even exist until after CK's end date.) Anyway, a map of the whole world would be... odd. Historically, there was no contact with certain areas, such as the Americas, and this was true for various reasons. So unless you tossed all those out the window, you'd end up with a game where half the map never comes into contact with the other half in any play-through.
Yeah, I pretty much agree. By mid-game I really don't care much about what traits do I get since most of them only affect the stats of the king.
I would go as far and place two types of traits: personal and statesmanship. Leave the personal as they are (influencing the stats and the human relationships) but make the statesmanship ones count in ruling of the state. A modest, religious guy would get the "Unambitious Saint" trait (great for losing badboy points, great for diplomacy with other christian rulers, very bad in dealing with war organization etc.).
Another nice point would be not being able to see the stats and traits of the other characters, just some general description.
I think Rome was a first step forward. On paper it seemed like a great idea with dealing with all the characters of your realm. But for some reason it came across as bland and half-done.
But there were some intriguing new stuff, like having different people back different heirs, granting money, triumphs and honorary titles to courtiers to buy their loyalty etc.
I am sure that this initial step can be taken much further in a new CK2, by building upon the good stuff in Rome, and change/expand the bland and not so great things.
The way Rome was made would even make it alot of fun in a Republic, or playing as a pagan or muslim. The possibilities are there.
I expect that a CK2 will be based on the EU3 engine, as seen in EU:Rome. But in Rome characters were mostly useless: it needs better dynasty management and characters need to play a bigger role. Of course the various laws need to be introduced as well (hopefully this time around fully moddable).
I am waiting to see what improvements Paradox will bring to the upcoming EU3 expansion Heir to the Throne as well.
I just hope we get a CK2 after the new Vicky. Hopefully it will sell well!
I am waiting to see what improvements Paradox will bring to the upcoming EU3 expansion Heir to the Throne as well.
I just hope we get a CK2 after the new Vicky. Hopefully it will sell well!
NOoooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!! The 3D graphics since EU III lack the charm of the original games, not to mention they screw over anyone who has Intel chipsets, i.e. most laptop owners or people with lower-end desktops!
Much prefer EU3 style graphics to the old '95esque sprites. Which for me don't hold charm.
I strongly agree with you, the 3D models are simply ugly (in HoI3 too!).
However, paradox will definietly not make a 2D game, so you have to get used to the idea.
If something, a good CK2 justifies a pc upgrade...
I just got CKDV recently and I love the old fashioned graphics. Reminds me of my teenage days and all the great games of that time 
However I don't think an eventual CK2 would come out with 2D graphics. So we can only hope that Paradox will try to preserve the CK feeling and style.
However I don't think an eventual CK2 would come out with 2D graphics. So we can only hope that Paradox will try to preserve the CK feeling and style.
The new engine is infinitely more moddable. Creating a new tag in EU3/Rome is a simple matter, and even with my severely limited graphical skills it took me almost no time to add new provinces to the EU3 and Rome map.
Compare that to the old Europe engine.. impossible to add new tags, religions, etc., and map modding requires knowledge of High Arcana and virgin sacrifices just to get a crappy mod going.
As for the new engine being ugly -- there are mods for that.
Compare that to the old Europe engine.. impossible to add new tags, religions, etc., and map modding requires knowledge of High Arcana and virgin sacrifices just to get a crappy mod going.
As for the new engine being ugly -- there are mods for that.
I hate the obsession with straight lines of the new engine. I don't want to see a CK2 in which provinces are simple squares...
I have never been hung up too much on the graphics in these kind of games, because I don't find them important to game play.
ofcourse all the various maps needs to be clear and give a good overview, but whether they are in 2D or 3D, or whether the provinces are a bit "squarish" or perfecty resembling the province in real life, is no big deal to me.
What is important is the game underneath the graphics, the feel of the game and how it runs. And with PI games, modability is always a big wish. I can't mod much myself (only changed a few CoAs and some names lists), but the easier it is to mod, the more great work people like Veld and Jord can do for us
The thought of a MMP'ish mod for CK2 just makes me drooooooool!!
ofcourse all the various maps needs to be clear and give a good overview, but whether they are in 2D or 3D, or whether the provinces are a bit "squarish" or perfecty resembling the province in real life, is no big deal to me.
What is important is the game underneath the graphics, the feel of the game and how it runs. And with PI games, modability is always a big wish. I can't mod much myself (only changed a few CoAs and some names lists), but the easier it is to mod, the more great work people like Veld and Jord can do for us
The thought of a MMP'ish mod for CK2 just makes me drooooooool!!
This 2D versus 3D debate seems to have no end.
As far as I understand, there are 2 main aspects in disagreement which tend to get mixed up sometimes when users emphasise their personal preferences:
1) aesthetical aspect – which of the two graphics is visually more pleasant and appropriate for the game like Crusader Kings.
2) practical aspect – which of the two engines is more flexible, economical etc.
Surely, at the end, the personal choice is made by weighting the 2 considerations against each other and it appears that the second aspect carries slightly more weight (at least from the developer’s point of view).
(But IMHO, similarly to computer chess - in which I never choose to play with the most colorful and futuristic 3D pieces and board there are in options - the 3D shall rather distract and ruin the role play feeling in CK. Although I hope, I’m wrong and will be pleasantly surprised.)
As far as I understand, there are 2 main aspects in disagreement which tend to get mixed up sometimes when users emphasise their personal preferences:
1) aesthetical aspect – which of the two graphics is visually more pleasant and appropriate for the game like Crusader Kings.
2) practical aspect – which of the two engines is more flexible, economical etc.
Surely, at the end, the personal choice is made by weighting the 2 considerations against each other and it appears that the second aspect carries slightly more weight (at least from the developer’s point of view).
(But IMHO, similarly to computer chess - in which I never choose to play with the most colorful and futuristic 3D pieces and board there are in options - the 3D shall rather distract and ruin the role play feeling in CK. Although I hope, I’m wrong and will be pleasantly surprised.)
This 2D versus 3D debate seems to have no end.
As far as I understand, there are 2 main aspects in disagreement which tend to get mixed up sometimes when users emphasise their personal preferences:
1) aesthetical aspect – which of the two graphics is visually more pleasant and appropriate for the game like Crusader Kings.
2) practical aspect – which of the two engines is more flexible, economical etc.
Surely, at the end, the personal choice is made by weighting the 2 considerations against each other and it appears that the second aspect carries slightly more weight (at least from the developer’s point of view).
There's also the matter of the publishers trying to appeal to a wider audience by making the jump to 3D, even if older fans don't find it to be as attractive. Since they think 3D is inevitable for all games of the genre, they will go with it if they believe more will buy the game even if something may be lost in the process.
Personally, if CK2 looks like HOI3 or EUIII I'm not going to bother. I really can't see that engine looking medieval in the same way CK does.
Well, same here probably. I didn't even bother to buy EUIII or play its demo. It was too much like poisoned candy. Unbelievable visual experience. I dare to say that EU2 and CK are both games (already) good enough that I'm ready to miss all the possible enhancements of the sequels if the developers are convinced that EUIII had a look they are satisfied with and that they are going to keep "in the name of pleasing broader client base". (Sorry for this personal grumbling.)