usrnme_h8er said:
For HoI3 Johan has said this
CK2 (if it comes) will have a 3d map and I hope one which will look like a medieval map
-
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.
For HoI3 Johan has said this
CK2 (if it comes) will have a 3d map and I hope one which will look like a medieval map
That would be awesome, adding much to the atmosphere and visual pleasure of the game. Hope the artists are to the task.Veldmaarschalk said:
Can you post an example of what you think the map should be based off of?
No, I don't have a specific map in mind.
Though these EU2-maps (alpha-stage) made by Birger also look excellent
Though these EU2-maps (alpha-stage) made by Birger also look excellent
Yes, but your reward is in heaven, not on earthEnewald said:Well, but doesn't it say that the Pope will forgive your sins if you join the crusade?
Isn't babdboy a sin too?
I think that Crusader Kings 2 should be made, because i love history and particulary the time that is represented in the game. I leave here some sugestions, if paradox decide to do it, I think that the game should be more historically realistic, and i'm talking in particulary about the rulers and their lineage in the iberian peninsula (County of Porto particulary, the birthplace of the GREAT KINGDOM OF PORTUGAL). I think that the rulers should be differentiated, and probably could have epithet. Ex: Richard IV Foot Pig. And one more, we should be able to see all our family tree, it should be easier than clicking in every portrait to see our family. It´s only sugestions that i particulary like.
Is CK really Paradox's worst seller? I honestly would have thought it was Vicky or even possibly (once the initial hype passed) Rome. I think the EU3 IN decision system could be very powerful if successfully intergrated with an improved CK dynasty system. Not to mention the HRE could be more accurately depicted, the influence of the pope and his controller more intricate. And hopefully no more landlocked Scandinavian provinces ruled by the Fatimids. I'm a bit divided over the 2d/3d things, but as long as it looks nice (pleasing colours and design nice, rather than 70343X309834 resolution and DirectX 24 nice) I won't be too fussed
ComteDartois said:
I agree in some regards. Like I've stated before, I would love a game with dynastic focus in EU3's time frame, as it would be very interesting times for noble and royal families.
Also, I really want to play as Louis XI, similar to how people want to play as Robert de Hauteville or William the Conquerer.
I was just thinking about something I really miss from CK-DV
more Vassal interaction.
As it is now, rarely do any events handle relations with specific vassals.
It could be fun to have more intrigue, not only in court, but also among various vassals.
Let's say I grant my second cousin some land in my mighty kingdom ... he then becomes paranoid and crazed ...thus opening for all the wonderful crazy events. But none have effect on me as a ruler. It could be fun for more events that have effect on a vassal or liege's realms.
If my crazed cousin is creating problems, other vassals might ask for decisive action from me, the liege ... then what should I do ... assassinate him?+ .. protect my family member ... give the offended vassal free hands to deal with it??
Also it could be great if f.x. rebellious vassals conspired together, so instead of having my 5 disloyal northern vassals rebel at random times, thus making it easy for me to quell the rebellion ... they could conspire against me and rebel at the same time, all in an alliance to overthrow me.
They could conspire against each other and try to gain favor with the liege, as protection, or maybe a weapon against a rival vassal.
Demands by vassals about granting rights or territory they believe is part of their domain etc. could be cool too.
So I need to be more involved in my vassals, and not only have intrigue at court.
*still crossing fingers for a CK2*
more Vassal interaction.
As it is now, rarely do any events handle relations with specific vassals.
It could be fun to have more intrigue, not only in court, but also among various vassals.
Let's say I grant my second cousin some land in my mighty kingdom ... he then becomes paranoid and crazed ...thus opening for all the wonderful crazy events. But none have effect on me as a ruler. It could be fun for more events that have effect on a vassal or liege's realms.
If my crazed cousin is creating problems, other vassals might ask for decisive action from me, the liege ... then what should I do ... assassinate him?+ .. protect my family member ... give the offended vassal free hands to deal with it??
Also it could be great if f.x. rebellious vassals conspired together, so instead of having my 5 disloyal northern vassals rebel at random times, thus making it easy for me to quell the rebellion ... they could conspire against me and rebel at the same time, all in an alliance to overthrow me.
They could conspire against each other and try to gain favor with the liege, as protection, or maybe a weapon against a rival vassal.
Demands by vassals about granting rights or territory they believe is part of their domain etc. could be cool too.
So I need to be more involved in my vassals, and not only have intrigue at court.
*still crossing fingers for a CK2*
an Active pretender system for rebellions. So that the duke of northumberland for instance would rebel not to place himself on the throne but in the athelings name. Maybe one or two active pretenders to the throne at any one time chosen by the computer as either two claimants with the highest prestige or possibly some system to differentiate between legitimate claims from grabbed ones.
a rebellious vassal of your rival
Here is an event I'd like to see in CKII:
If your rival has a rebellious vassal, and that vassal declares war on his liege, he should (sometimes) invite you to join his war and help him out. This happened all the time in the Medieval era, both in Christian and Muslim lands. This would allow you to declare war on your rival even if you didn't have a claim. And if the rebellious vassal wins the war with your help, there should be a chance for you to become friends with him.
Here is an event I'd like to see in CKII:
If your rival has a rebellious vassal, and that vassal declares war on his liege, he should (sometimes) invite you to join his war and help him out. This happened all the time in the Medieval era, both in Christian and Muslim lands. This would allow you to declare war on your rival even if you didn't have a claim. And if the rebellious vassal wins the war with your help, there should be a chance for you to become friends with him.
viclibet said:
There are events in CK that represent this, you can give him money or buy 'mercenaries' for him. And your friends can also do it for you, when you are at war
At this point, do we think CK2 even has a shot to be made? It would make sense for it to come after HOI3 since Paradox could build off the Rome's map, character system and EU3's HRE model somewhat. But considering the DV patch has been in limbo for forever I'm thinking that Paradox is just gonna let the CK series die and so they can shovel out more EUs and HOIs.
Dagda said:At this point, do we think CK2 even has a shot to be made? It would make sense for it to come after HOI3 since Paradox could build off the Rome's map, character system and EU3's HRE model somewhat. But considering the DV patch has been in limbo for forever I'm thinking that Paradox is just gonna let the CK series die and so they can shovel out more EUs and HOIs.
I am being optimistic ... especially when you look at the advancement of the character system in Rome-VV.
They could build off that for CK2.
The reason nothing much is happening with DV patch is probably that it seems to be Johan's pet project, and the lack of subjected data to let him find the last causes of CTDs.
Just because they are not pouring manpower into CK, doesn't mean that we would never get a CK2.
I personally think they are using Rome to see if there is still a market for a character-driven game. And from what I can gather from the VV-reactions so far, it is one of the areas people enjoy the most.
I also think that they are building up Rome to follow with CK2.
(Well I am hoping at least)
(Well I am hoping at least)
It'd be nice to be able to leave some one independent but still have them pay you tribute money to not invade and things of that nature. Different degrees of vassalage.
More succession laws, or the ability to choose parts of a succession law to create one, or use it to model specific systems (who can inherit by gender, religion, etc., in what order by primogeniture, tanistic election {your current ruler's cousins, brothers, father, and uncles are as viable as his sons to be the next ruler, probably more so}, division of land, etc., patrialinical/matrialinical lines). Succession was very complex and varied depending on where it was, and what the title was. Different laws for each title one possesses being possible has been mentioned before I'm sure, which would be real nice.
More succession laws, or the ability to choose parts of a succession law to create one, or use it to model specific systems (who can inherit by gender, religion, etc., in what order by primogeniture, tanistic election {your current ruler's cousins, brothers, father, and uncles are as viable as his sons to be the next ruler, probably more so}, division of land, etc., patrialinical/matrialinical lines). Succession was very complex and varied depending on where it was, and what the title was. Different laws for each title one possesses being possible has been mentioned before I'm sure, which would be real nice.
Somairle said:
Oh yes. The game is pretty damn good as it is - but if CK II was made, it would definitely need something new so that it can stand out from the crowd. Not just CK reloaded in 3D.
What kind of game could a new CK II be?
A wonderful such change would be to move the game's time span from 1066-1453 to, say, 732-1399. Linking it up with EU3 rather nicely.
A successor to CK II could build upon all that was great in CK, and extend gameplay to the earlier periods if some aspects about inheritance laws, vassalage and nomadic peoples were included. (These being, in my opinion, the things that the CK engine cannot handle.)
What would set CK II apart from CK I, and what would be the new concepts for this game?
One goal should be to give the game a bit of a "Civilization II/IV feeling", i.e. the player should notice (from music, artwork, and gameplay) that he is actually moving through different eras. The first era would be around 732-950, starting with Europe endangered by nomads and Arabs, and witnessing the formation of Slavic kingdoms, as Christian culture makes its inroads into those lands. This era would end when the last migratory peoples in mainland Europe are settled (Magyars, Normans, Bulgars) and kingdoms start to stabilize. The time point would be dynamically determined within the game. The next era would go from around 1000 to 1250, and it would witness the establishment of the full blown feudal system throughout much of Europe. It would also see crusades if applicable, and much cultural development. It would end when cultural and demographic development stall, and at that point the Mongols would be let loose on Europe. The player would, again, notice this from a popup screen and some changes in music similar to how it is done in Civ IV. He would also notice that his manpower does no longer increase as much as it did, and gameplay coudl be modified a bit. (I.e. new diplo or laws options become available). The last era would go from there to 1399 and this would be the era where new administrative techs lead to a continuous strengthening of royal power and some new gamepla options.
About the mechanisms needed to extend CK into earlier timeframes: New concepts, and concepts from EU:Rome
1) Election of kings and emperors
In particular, a specific mechanism for the elective law realms would be great. A mechanism by which the son of a king may not be elected king upon the death of his father, but still keep his other titles.
And a mechanism which would model realms in which the dukes elect the king/emperor, based on who likes whom, who is ambitious, who is loyal, whose goal is to rule and whose goal is to be left alone, etc. (Like in Rome, as I understand it.) This would be excellent for the HRE as well as England pre-1066.
2) Modeling of the roaming barbarian peoples
Also if you go to the pre-1066 era (a good starting point would be the time when Rollo became duke of Normandy, or when Otto I. restored the German Empire) then you could gain a lot if nomadic tribes were brought in as a sort of new player - they would not be territorial realms, but nomadic, so they would have armies and hosts and stuff but their court would be in the province where their main host is. Kind of like roving barbarians. They could spawn a horde, somewhere in the Ukraine, leave the lands there, and migrate into, say, the Carpathian basin and found a territorial realm there.
(Magyars anyone? Who would not love to play such a roving nation, and be able to choose his new lands?)Same with the Vikings and Normans, they would have home provinces but from those home provinces a new roving host could spawn which would invade some shore province and set up shop there. The roving host would already have a leader, a court, advisors and so on, and some regiments, and you could do diplomacy with them, and when they conquer a province then the ruler and his court would settle there "on top" of the established sedentary culture. Or they might just loot the province of its wealth and move on until they either are stopped or hit a province that is so rich that they decide to set up shop there.
Every province would have two kinds of populations - sedentary population, and nomadic population. They would be of different culture but over time the nomads would change into the sedentary culture and then they would disappear and their manpower would be added to the sedentary manpower value. Each province would only have one sedentary culture, and one or no nomadic culture. Nomads would have no tax value however, so if you are playing as, say, the King of the Franks, and you conquer provinces with Avar nomadic population, then all you can use the Avars for would be as warriors. The Avars would be visible as a warrior symbol in the province screen, instead of the soldier symbol that stands for the regiment formed from the sedentary population. It would be in your interest to keep these for border security, however if you don't want to keep unruly Avars then you would want to assimilate them as quickly as possible into the sedentary pops so you get more tax revenue.
Also it would be great if nomadic rule would cause provinces to slowly lose tech levels. 200 years of Germanic or Avar rule, and you're not going to recognize Lombardy any more. The Arab conquests in some parts of the world could also be modeled in some parts as takeover by a roving host.
3) Transition of power through usurpation
Also some kind of transition of power through usurpation should be possible. I.e., some character in your court who may or may not be related to the current ruler can take over the kingdom and the capital province by event and current king would either be exiled or die. (Quite a bunch of Byzzie emperors were strangled, poisoned, stabbed, and instead of the actual heir taking over, the murderer would marry the empress and become emperor himself. Again this might be something where CK could adopt mechanisms from Rome, right?)
If this happens to your dynasty then it would of course be incredibly nasty - you would lose your king titles and your capitol province, and unless you have other provinces where your murdered ruler's closes relative could rally his forces, it would be game over for you. On the other hand if you are a powerful duke, and the current king is murdered by an usurpator, then you could seize the opportunity and either snatch the defeated dynasty's remaining lands or take up arms against the usurpator.
I would absolutely love to play the period of, say, 732 (Poitiers) to 1066 in this sort of game.
Last edited:
I'm not too concerned with changing much if they make a CK2. Off the top of my head I can't even really think of anything that would really make the game better for me. The main appeal of the game for me is the attachment to characters I get when I play, as opposed to HoI or Vicky or really any other strategy game where the people really don't matter at all.
The stories that crop up during even a short play session are what makes it interesting to me.
The stories that crop up during even a short play session are what makes it interesting to me.
Leviathan07 said:I would absolutely love to play the period of, say, 732 (Poitiers) to 1066 in this sort of game.
Why exactly Poitiers? Why not start from the demise of Visigothic Kingdom?
It's an arbitrary pick... you could just as well pick any other year between the Muslim conquest of Spain and Charlemagne. The point is, it should start off after the main wave of Muslim expansion into Europe has stopped so that the initial setting is more or less fixed. And you would want people to play CharlemagneMRAKoris said:
That's what all fans think - I don't want the game changed, only the bugs fixed.codeblue said:
However unless your previous game was a mega seller like Civilization or SimCity then it's better for promotion and PR and sales and outreach to people who haven't played CK1 if you make something new, rather than just re-doing the old game.
CK1 is from 2004, there are many people who were 13 or 14 at the time and didn't catch it, even though they might love it. You want to reach those people, too, not just the old fans.
And we all want Paradox to make some money off of this, don't we?