Crusader Kings II

[EBroegger]

My CK2 wishlist:

The characters should be expanded even more as they are the essence of CK and the players attachment to them is one the main things that makes the game great. It should not be like in EU: Rome where the characters aren't very important and sometimes only a nuisance (even in Vae Victis).

Tons of different events with lots of flavor would give the player more to do in peace time. These events should not just be unimportant annoyances in which the player doesn't want to read the text and just clicks one of the options, which I often find myself doing in EU: R.

The vassalage system as well as the diplomacy should be improved with events and more options.

The names chosen for the characters should be based on both culture and country, so that we won't get Kazimierz Capet as the king of France and other oddities. If a specific name has been used many times in a dynasty maybe it would be more likely to be chosen as the name for newborn babies in that dynasty. I would also like to be able to choose my childrens name myself without editing the save files, or a list could come come up with the available names for my culture and country and I could choose one of them.

More focus on the dynastic aspects of CK would be nice. And the scandinavians should have their fathers name and then "son" ( or "dottir" if its a girl) as their middle name between the first name and the dynasty name. For example Harald Knytling could have a son named Svend "Haraldson" Knytling and Svend could then have a son named Knud Svendson Knytling.

If the time period is earlier than in the original CK many of the characters and realms would be too based on guesses and tales than historical facts as no accurate records of all the different characters, counties and duchies of that time exists, therefore I think that the time period of the original CK is fine.

 

[unmerged(98596)]

And the scandinavians should have their fathers name and then "son" ( or "dottir" if its a girl) as their middle name between the first name and the dynasty name. For example Harald Knytling could have a son named Svend "Haraldson" Knytling and Svend could then have a son named Knud Svendson Knytling.

That'd hardly be unique Scandinavia. Many civilizations used patronyms. Gaels for example have 'mac' (son of), 'ni' (daughter of, if unmarried), and ua (grandson of). Saxons used similar patronyms to Scandinavian patronyms if I recall right. The Welsh had 'ap' and the like, 'son of'. The Bretons used, 'mab' I think? Patronymics were extremely common and that's just the British Isles and Brittany.

 

[Serbon]

That'd hardly be unique Scandinavia. Many civilizations used patronyms. Gaels for example have 'mac' (son of), 'ni' (daughter of, if unmarried), and ua (grandson of). Saxons used similar patronyms to Scandinavian patronyms if I recall right. The Welsh had 'ap' and the like, 'son of'. The Bretons used, 'mab' I think? Patronymics were extremely common and that's just the British Isles and Brittany.

Yeah,Slavs use "Ich" as in Jovanovich = little Jovan,"ov" as in Markov = son of Mark etc.

 

[longlee]

sorry for bumping. This probably has a good chanche of being made because think of all the people who say they just brought deus valt

 

[unmerged(87447)]

sorry for bumping. This probably has a good chanche of being made because think of all the people who say they just brought deus valt

I somehow doubt that would affect the chance of it happening whatsoever. Especially given an at most low-double-digits amount of people is sales-wise statistically insignificant.

 

[WanderingKnight]

I somehow doubt that would affect the chance of it happening whatsoever. Especially given an at most low-double-digits amount of people is sales-wise statistically insignificant.

Nonsence. I disagree.

First, When it's made, it's gona sale more than double than Rome is. Since they invested alot of time making that one (and some other game that were not exactly a bestsalers) why wouldn't they do it with CK2.

Second, You know, not every product you made, make you rich. In another word - they are not gonna just seat and do nothing untill it's time for EU4 or HoI5.

Third, There is more than just a money. Specialy when you re doing job like Paradox creators do. That is enjoyment in what you make - a PC history strategy game. And as I understand, the man no.1, Johan, in that company have a specialy "love" for Crusader Kings. (just like me).

 

[Alexander Seil]

While some people may think CK was a "failure," I have to say that Paradox clearly thinks otherwise. Let's not forget that CK was the first Paradox game that completely removed fixed historical events, and made the entire system completely dynamic. In other words, the major feature of EU3 was around several years before EU3. On top of that, the character system was lifted and re-used in Rome, with VV fleshing it out in ways that make CK pale in comparison. Paradox is bound to eventually cover this period again (probably before it covers the 19th century again), so you'll have CK2.

 

[TempestDK]

I am still very optimistic about a sequel being made for CK. A couple of reason for this:

- Rome already have a character system that can be build upon with a much better graphics engine and AI.

- Rome sold very well (according to Johan)

- Since VV, the one thing most people praise and enjoy about Rome is the character system and the RPG-elements. Which is really what sets that title apart from just being an "EU3 very lite".

So I can easily imagine that many of the people who bought Rome and enjoys that character system, would buy CK2 too ... even if they never tried CK.

I don't think you can judge the future success of CK2 based on the sales "failure" of CK.

 

[unmerged(48470)]

I have no truble with CK/DV and i find a splendid game but i see some "problems" that mey be correct.

- The first of all is the high difficulty to rule a vast empire(75% of the war were internal revolt or secessions)

- The impossibility to play Bishop and Orders and repubblics

- Numerals for king and dinastic names

I belive that if Paradox may create ad addition to CK/DV that could correct those things i belive that we need no CK2

 

[WanderingKnight]

I have no truble with CK/DV and i find a splendid game but i see some "problems" that mey be correct.

- The first of all is the high difficulty to rule a vast empire(75% of the war were internal revolt or secessions)

Exactly. Just like it was in reality. So why would they change that?? I wouldn't like if they change that.

- The impossibility to play Bishop and Orders and repubblics

Where would the special flavour of the game go. I dislike this idea as well. It would be like a EU3 just a diferent periode frame.

- Numerals for king and dinastic names

I belive that if Paradox may create ad addition to CK/DV that could correct those things i belive that we need no CK2

This is a realy small thing and I 100% sure they will change system of naming the kids. Eather by ofering three solution so you can pick one or just let you choose the name, or combination. But that doesn't affect game play at all. Also so many small things to be corrected + stability of the game (as I understand they had a lot of trouble while making this game) and graphic, HOWEVER I wouldn't like any of the basic rules and gameplay that are now in CK change drasticly.

 

[Jayavarman]

sorry for bumping. This probably has a good chanche of being made because think of all the people who say they just brought deus valt

So says a user that does not publicly own Deus Vult.

 

[unmerged(48470)]

As medievalist i know that much of the war fighted in Medieval age were "rebellions" or "crusades" but not all and rebellion should have some reason.
Frederick I fight Henry the Lion for the trone.
CK tells me nothing about reasons that lead my vassals to rebel.
And i hate particulary the vassalization sistem and the possibility to vassals to break free declaring indipendence.

Another thing they can add to game is the possibility for a king to have feuds in another king lands as vassals of that king, as for England and France.

For the other things as i say i'm hppy with CK

 

[Alfred Packer]

I wouldn't mind a HOI3-esque map, with provinces having sub-provinces...

these could be ruled by Barons!

 

[Saithis]

Including Barons sounds brilliant to me, +1!

 

[unmerged(75409)]

I don't know, I don't want to see character overkill. More is not always better.

I would like it if mercenaries came with their own leaders though, and if court members (such as your landless youngest brother) could become mercenaries with their own troops. That means landless characters could rove the map with their own troops and this way you could get an entirely new model of the crusades for example.

Also I would like to see the diplomatic mechanisms overhauled. The system of "declarations of war" is a bit too rigid for the time period in my opinion. It should be possible to have fights between a landed ruler and a landless ruler, for example. Like when a mercenary rebels. Or between a landed duke and a nomad horde.

Also the system of vassality should be more dynamic. It should not be handled as a relationship between countries (as it is now) but really as a relationship between people. So not only the counts and dukes are your vassals, but also your courtiers could be vassals (just without land). And upon the death of a suzerain or vassal the game should handle how the feudal ties would be continued - can the suzerain for example revoke the title of the vassal, as would be common in a non-feudal realm? Emirs and Sheikhs were not always hereditary, and neither were many of the landed positions in the Byzantine nobility. Hell even the counts under Charlemagne were most definitely NOT meant to inherit their titles to their son automatically, although in practise that is what they all tried to achieve. Or was perhaps the vassality not meant to continue to the son, so the son could actually leave the service of his father's suzerain, or become independent if he has any land. During a period of acute weakness of the monarch this is what vassals would want to achieve.

So I want CK to model all the facets of medieval history, and not act as if every realm from Lappland to Egypt and from Ireland to the Volga was a feudal realm on the Frankish model (as it is right now in CK).

 

[unddu]

I simply want Ck2, I have no further demands

 

[unmerged(129932)]

I thought Victoria did worse than CK...

In anycase, I would like to be able to play as a Pagan or Muslim nation. I think they need to implement that if a CK2 ever was realized.

 

[ConjurerDragon]

I think that CK2 should dissociate the states and the rulers. So we will have two layer. The ruler and his dynastie AND the states. It's is not the case in CK1.

So Two different countries could be ruled by one ruler but keep different laws, until the ruler decide to "merge" the two states into one.

The way to jump from one countrie to another ruled by the same character could be similar (in the interface) to the way we can play multiples states in the Great Invasion video game.

And the liege/vassal concept should be linked to the state, not to the ruler. So the kingdom of England and the Dukedom of Normandy will have the same ruler. But the Dukedom of Normandy will be part of the Kingdom of France, while the kingdom of England will be part of... well the kingdom of England.

Then, more laws, more roleplaying factors, more counter powers (like the cities). A concept of factions for the nobility. The possibility to end a marriage under conditions (the historical ones). More diplomatic options...

And perhaps a game into the game : A joust arcade game !

No for that last point we already have Defender of the Crown. But the other stuff sounds interesting

 

[ConjurerDragon]

I definitely dont think so
2d maps are the best and i would hate to see 3d one
games like MTW II have amazingly good 3d maps but take up too much space (almost 15 GB) i would want ck2 to be max 700 MB

Harddrives are cheap nowadays so 700 MB or 15 GB would be no reason to shun a Crusader Kings II for me.

the maps too are not very accurate ( i am an enthusiastic cartographer )

The Crusader Kings map is the first in a Paradox game that has my home town of ANDERNACH in it! How could any map be more accurate than that?

talking of money, money was very valuable in those days (1 english pound in 1264 was worth nearly 550 pounds in 2007). a count earning a monthly income of 1 is absurd.

It could be 1 pound/mark of silver/whatever in currency. Actual currency was very rare in medieval times and the "income" of lords was in natural goods to a large part. Services by the peasantry ("Fronarbeit") or a few eggs from one peasant. I like the scene in the movie Rob Roy before the treacherous man of the Marquis of Montrois hands the bags of coins to the follower of Rob Roy, he collects the "taxes" from the peasants and none of them gives any actual currency.

he also cannot afford to pay to build province improvements which cost a lot (training grounds cost 150 when all you need is a clear flat patch of land)

And men to be sent to the training ground who can´t do something else and need to be equipped and fed and people who are able to train others.

giving gifts to courtiers is useless, they cannot do anything with it.

I agree here. At the very least they should hand out that money again as dowry for their relatives!

also the emperor titles should also be included, especially the HRE title.

The "emperor" trait is there. Just not as a title of higher rank than a mere king

 

[ConjurerDragon]

...
The duke/count hierarchy has never been so rigid, and never been as important as family ties. Direct count/king vasselage should at least be kept when members of king's family are granted count titles, and when someone of the family of a duke has a county in neighboring duchy, I find very logical to see him pledge to the one his family rather than the geographic theorical liege...

Exactly! And especially considering that the game completely ignores the "geographic theoretical liege" when you conquer a county. For example: Heinrich, King of Germany, Burgundy and Italy starting 1066 fights some wars and conquers a lot of counties from his enemies like Mathilda of Tuszien - and all become part of his Kingdom of Germany. Even those in France. Even those in Italy despite Heinrich being also King of Italy.
In that case if he has all the fitting titles THEN the conquered counties should go to the "correct" crown - here to the Kingdom of Italy or Burgundy.