Johan did post saying that they were dealing with requests into the thousands, and it's taken a very long time to sort through the submissions, so unfortunately I think it's all a waiting game.
-
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.
Johan did post saying that they were dealing with requests into the thousands, and it's taken a very long time to sort through the submissions, so unfortunately I think it's all a waiting game.
Agreed. Unfortunately, I do not think Paradox put a high priority on the project. I can understand why considering it is untested, and the financial rewards may not be much. However, many executed projects could bring these games and this community to amazing new heights.
I believe that one of the major fault in CK is the role of the church and religion in the game. We all know that having excommunicated or heretic rulers is a bad thing as it leads to revolts and rebellious vassals, but is it enough?
The pope in the game is a pathetic pawn, often from "strange" places such Norway (most of the popes in Middle Ages came from Italy anyway, and later France) , without a proper papal name and without any real power. The pope wasn't always a puppet that was controlled by some foreign ruler, most of the time he was a powerful ruler himself who pursued his own goals. Just think of Innocent III and his feudal power: he was probably the most powerful man of Europe in his time. Also there can't be a real investitures controversy between the Pope and the Emperor, as there are not real heresies. The game cannot recreate the crusade against the Cathars, and it cannot recreate situations like that of Boniface VIII and his conflict with Philip IV king of France and the infamous slap from Sciarra Colonna. There is no possibility to have the Pope in Avignon (or some other places) to have him under your control as there is no possibility to make an anti-pope and have a schism. Popes also had some influence over Emperor elections in Germany, and they supported their preferred candidates.
If you want to have a true medieval game you can't deny these aspects. EU too doesn't give too much attention to the pope.
So. in CK 2 I would like to be able to be the Pope: I want to establish the Inquisition and the monks orders, to proclame crusades and to excommunicate people, and finally to ensure Church's absolute power and domination over Europe, as this was the ultimate goal of many Popes. And even is there is a CK 2 and the Pope isn't playable, still make him realistic and historical and, most important, CHALLENGING.
The pope in the game is a pathetic pawn, often from "strange" places such Norway (most of the popes in Middle Ages came from Italy anyway, and later France) , without a proper papal name and without any real power. The pope wasn't always a puppet that was controlled by some foreign ruler, most of the time he was a powerful ruler himself who pursued his own goals. Just think of Innocent III and his feudal power: he was probably the most powerful man of Europe in his time. Also there can't be a real investitures controversy between the Pope and the Emperor, as there are not real heresies. The game cannot recreate the crusade against the Cathars, and it cannot recreate situations like that of Boniface VIII and his conflict with Philip IV king of France and the infamous slap from Sciarra Colonna. There is no possibility to have the Pope in Avignon (or some other places) to have him under your control as there is no possibility to make an anti-pope and have a schism. Popes also had some influence over Emperor elections in Germany, and they supported their preferred candidates.
If you want to have a true medieval game you can't deny these aspects. EU too doesn't give too much attention to the pope.
So. in CK 2 I would like to be able to be the Pope: I want to establish the Inquisition and the monks orders, to proclame crusades and to excommunicate people, and finally to ensure Church's absolute power and domination over Europe, as this was the ultimate goal of many Popes. And even is there is a CK 2 and the Pope isn't playable, still make him realistic and historical and, most important, CHALLENGING.
We'll probably see either as HOI3 is about to be released or the game after HOI3 (if it isn't CK2) is about to be released.
Who need Crusader Kings when they should make Conquering Khans! Live the life of the Great Khan Genghis! Hehehehe, no CK2 would be very nice especially if they allowed for some ahistorical things like female succession >you could alwasy turn it off for people that hate the thought< it would be neat to be able to play as a Knightly Order, I'm sure they could find a way if they wanted to, to let you do it, actually they could establish a seperate Dynasty tree for them, and you just view the Grandmasters or something. Playing as Pagans and Muslims are most definately needed as well!
It would be nice to find out which vassal has declared independence when that event fires.
just like in Rome? that could work. there you have monarchies/chiefdoms etc...
I really hope they will make CK2
Yeah a Vicky2 would need some improvements. But the whole historical events thing would work well with the decisions from EU3 that are helping to replace historic events in HOI3. For instance, now we might see a very succesful Germany form earlier than historically possible instead of having to wait for a victorious war with France.
But I like both CK and Vicky, so either one would be good for me.
I don't know if this has been said, but I want prestige for marrying into other prestigeous families... the more power, prestige and titles the dynasty has, and the closer a relation the married has to my ruler, the bigger a bonus I want... but it should although also be harder to marry into the prestigeous families!
You already get more prestige from arranging a marriage with a prestigious ruler.
Yeah, I think it'd be great if they could link historical coats of arms to families, not regions. Of course they'd have to be able to distinguish between different branches, which would make it more difficult, but doable I think. (with options to take coats of arms if you want, aka adopting William the Conqueror's COA if you usurp his throne.)
You can still do this now, though it does require renaming a few of CoA files. But quite easy to keep your old County CoA as a Duke if that is what you wish.
There is even a CoA request thread where you can have your own made up by some graphics wiz' to use in your game. Some like to make CoAs combined from their king titles.
I think the Crusade mechanism would be helped along if units across Christianity left your regions and gathered to form mixed armies (led by courtiers who leave courts - former nobles who lost land, third, fourth sons, ect) and would attack the Crusade target on their own (creating independent kingdoms). This would make kings who want to crusade act quickly lest the land they want is taken by these landless nobles.
Perhaps the formed army would create a new court/faction that is led by the strongest courtier drawn to crusade and set off from Italy (or wherever the Ai would have as a gathering point).
Also you'd have events if nobles from your court tried to leave to crusade (you can gain piety by letting them go or whatever).
Perhaps the formed army would create a new court/faction that is led by the strongest courtier drawn to crusade and set off from Italy (or wherever the Ai would have as a gathering point).
Also you'd have events if nobles from your court tried to leave to crusade (you can gain piety by letting them go or whatever).
Three things that I think would be nice:
Some kind of 'empire' superregion mechanism. Like duchy/kingdom delineations, just bigger. For example, the kingdoms of Burgundy, Italy, and Germany might fall together under one Holy Roman Empire region, while Norway, Denmark, and Sweden (and possibly Finland) might be a Scandinavian region. When you rule all (or maybe just 2/3 of) the kingdoms in an empire you can create yourself Emperor of that region, though nothing else would be changed (you would function like a king, except you would be an emperor and have the Imperial primary title). It might be helpful in focusing AI activity as well (something along the lines of, fight primarily/mostly in this particular empire).
Some way to "mark" people of interest, especially underage people. This "marking" would cause event-style pop-ups to appear whenever a number of important events in their life occurred, eg. getting married, having children, coming into the marriage pool. A number of times I've identified some juicy duchy or county where the ruler has only underage daughters, planned to marry off one of my heirs to one of their daughters to get a joint heir, but forgotten about it by the time those daughters can be married! This would help fix that problem, hopefully.
Finally, a "husband page" analogous to the present bride page. When I'm marrying off my daughters/nieces/cousins/whatever, I want to see everyone eligible, not having to rely on clicking around, courtiers, and luck to find husbands.
EDIT: Of course, being able to play as pagans, Muslims, republics, or bishoprics (including the Papacy) would be quite nice as well.
Some kind of 'empire' superregion mechanism. Like duchy/kingdom delineations, just bigger. For example, the kingdoms of Burgundy, Italy, and Germany might fall together under one Holy Roman Empire region, while Norway, Denmark, and Sweden (and possibly Finland) might be a Scandinavian region. When you rule all (or maybe just 2/3 of) the kingdoms in an empire you can create yourself Emperor of that region, though nothing else would be changed (you would function like a king, except you would be an emperor and have the Imperial primary title). It might be helpful in focusing AI activity as well (something along the lines of, fight primarily/mostly in this particular empire).
Some way to "mark" people of interest, especially underage people. This "marking" would cause event-style pop-ups to appear whenever a number of important events in their life occurred, eg. getting married, having children, coming into the marriage pool. A number of times I've identified some juicy duchy or county where the ruler has only underage daughters, planned to marry off one of my heirs to one of their daughters to get a joint heir, but forgotten about it by the time those daughters can be married! This would help fix that problem, hopefully.
Finally, a "husband page" analogous to the present bride page. When I'm marrying off my daughters/nieces/cousins/whatever, I want to see everyone eligible, not having to rely on clicking around, courtiers, and luck to find husbands.
EDIT: Of course, being able to play as pagans, Muslims, republics, or bishoprics (including the Papacy) would be quite nice as well.
I'd like to see a fourth 'Emperor'-tier, and a system of 'flexible Kingdoms', where someone (both the player as the A.I.) can declare a kingdom if they have a sufficient amount of provinces in a given region and enough prestige to get away with it.
I know... Some kingdoms did not exist in medieval times, but this is alternative history here!
I know... Some kingdoms did not exist in medieval times, but this is alternative history here!
I would definitely love seeing CK2 on the shelves !!
Besides suggestions already made on multiple vassalage and on papacy on which I agree, I would also suggest some new features:
1. An extended timescale to include 9th-11th centuries. Of course, the feudal system isn't yet set up in these times, but Karolus Magnus' Missi Dominici can be emulated by counts with limited powers and named by the Emperor. Step by step they will be granted count status. Barbar kingdoms could then be played mostly using the gavelkind laws and historic event could occur to transform them into classical kingdoms. It would be great to see the split of Charlemagne empire into Francia Occidentalis and Orientalis, or to see Wisigothic kingdom becoming Aragon and Navarra. The muslim conquest can be played in a similar way the mongol conquest is centuries later, as well as Viking expeditions. And conversion of pagan lands can now be side objectives, giving more depth to religious operations, which are today restricted to sole crusades.
2. More diplomatic options, not limited to assassinations or marriage.
3. Season management. The host was mobilized only from March to late fall (AFAIR). Winter not only increases attrition, but also vassal reluctance to lend or not dismissing troops.
4. Church management as a different and complementary layout besides the feudal one. For example the emulated role in cultural diffusion and economic power of Clunisian abbeys would bring a lot depper experience to the game, even by allowing the player to make member of his dynasty ascending the power scale of the church : prior, bishop, abbot, chef-abbot, grand-master of an order, pope (doctor of the church for extra honour?) in a less hierarchical way, and not directly linked to a province or to feudal lords.
Besides suggestions already made on multiple vassalage and on papacy on which I agree, I would also suggest some new features:
1. An extended timescale to include 9th-11th centuries. Of course, the feudal system isn't yet set up in these times, but Karolus Magnus' Missi Dominici can be emulated by counts with limited powers and named by the Emperor. Step by step they will be granted count status. Barbar kingdoms could then be played mostly using the gavelkind laws and historic event could occur to transform them into classical kingdoms. It would be great to see the split of Charlemagne empire into Francia Occidentalis and Orientalis, or to see Wisigothic kingdom becoming Aragon and Navarra. The muslim conquest can be played in a similar way the mongol conquest is centuries later, as well as Viking expeditions. And conversion of pagan lands can now be side objectives, giving more depth to religious operations, which are today restricted to sole crusades.
2. More diplomatic options, not limited to assassinations or marriage.
3. Season management. The host was mobilized only from March to late fall (AFAIR). Winter not only increases attrition, but also vassal reluctance to lend or not dismissing troops.
4. Church management as a different and complementary layout besides the feudal one. For example the emulated role in cultural diffusion and economic power of Clunisian abbeys would bring a lot depper experience to the game, even by allowing the player to make member of his dynasty ascending the power scale of the church : prior, bishop, abbot, chef-abbot, grand-master of an order, pope (doctor of the church for extra honour?) in a less hierarchical way, and not directly linked to a province or to feudal lords.
I would like to see an extended vassalage system. Besides the four systems in CK, you should also have "oriental despotism" and "bureaucratic centralism" as government forms. Oriental despots would inherit all their vassals when they die (which is AFAIK the way it was expected to work in the muslim lands) and hand out the lands again to other courtiers. Bureaucratic centralism would be what the Byzzies had in their heyday - no feudal system with hereditary positions, but instead you would appoint (and eventually recall) governors to their themes and provinces. The more remote a province is, the less likely though is the governor to obey... and over time all governors (except the loyalists) will try to convert your system to a feudal one. Just like the Carolingian comes all fought hard to make their fiefs hereditary in the families.
For you, the king, hereditary positions would make the governance of the provinces more efficient (since the comes and strategoi now look more to the long-term development of their lands rather than instant enrichment). Also the provinces would suddenly field much larger regiments. And the governors being able to defend their lands without you having to order an army to their rescue would greatly alleviate the burden on the crown. However you get all trouble that come with feudalism - feuds, rebellions, no more direct control over province taxation, greedy vassals demanding that you recognize them as peers rather than servants, and so on and so on.
However if you can afford to keep defense and tax collection centralized, then maybe you can avoid slipping into feudalism? You would have to hire armies of mercenaries, or levy the people under your own command, in order to put up a defense against the Vikings and Magyars. Very expensive, and stressful if they invade more than once every few years. On the other hand, you keep things under control, and if you can successfully guide your realm into the renaissance, you will reap the benefits of having taxation and governance all under the control of the crown...
For you, the king, hereditary positions would make the governance of the provinces more efficient (since the comes and strategoi now look more to the long-term development of their lands rather than instant enrichment). Also the provinces would suddenly field much larger regiments. And the governors being able to defend their lands without you having to order an army to their rescue would greatly alleviate the burden on the crown. However you get all trouble that come with feudalism - feuds, rebellions, no more direct control over province taxation, greedy vassals demanding that you recognize them as peers rather than servants, and so on and so on.
However if you can afford to keep defense and tax collection centralized, then maybe you can avoid slipping into feudalism? You would have to hire armies of mercenaries, or levy the people under your own command, in order to put up a defense against the Vikings and Magyars. Very expensive, and stressful if they invade more than once every few years. On the other hand, you keep things under control, and if you can successfully guide your realm into the renaissance, you will reap the benefits of having taxation and governance all under the control of the crown...
Well, sorry, but here are requests 5001 and 5002:
1) Expand the role of kidnapping and hostage-holding in the game, as this was a huge feature of medieval politics.
For example, create an event that if you pass through the territory of a rival, he might try and hold you hostage. Richard the Lion Heart, for instance, on his way back from a crusade, was captured by his rival the Duke of Austria and held for ransom.
2) Make it possible to owe money after a peace. Typically, the loser in a peace settlement would promise to pay a big indemnity even if they didn't have the money yet. It doesn't seem fair that you crush the Duke of Venice and get no money out of it just because he happens to be broke at the moment. You should be able to tell him that you want 5000 shinies as soon as he can raise them.
Historically, if a lord owed a big indemnity, maybe he would try and raise the money by taxing his people. And WHOOPS! Stability in the toilet and revolts all over the place. Or maybe he would try to take money from the church. WHOOPS! Excommunicated. Or maybe he would borrow the money from the Jews or the Italian bankers. WHOOPS! Can't seem to get out from under those interest rates.
Or maybe he would just seize the money from a vassal (another option I'd like to see).
This feature means more than just events, it would change the mechanics of the game.
2A) Make it possible to send or receive hostages as a condition of a peace treaty. People often promised to pay money and then sent hostages as a guarantee. If you sent your son and heir to an enemy court as a hostage to guarantee payment of an indemnity, well, you would pay the indemnity wouldn't you, rather than see your son's head get cut off? Or maybe not . . . Would be fun to role play. Or maybe the hostage would be a major vassal or your marshal, etc. etc.
This might require creating "hostage" as a new character trait.
3) Create mercenaries run amuck. This was a huge problem in the 14th century (and earlier) but is missing from the game. What happens is the following:
(i) You raise a regiment to fight in some war. The regiment has an anonymous commander.
(ii) After the war, the regiment refuses to disband and then starts wandering around the country looting and pillaging.
(iii) The anonymous leader of the regiment morphs into a character, a mercenary captain acting on his own behalf, who is probably angling for a title somewhere.
(iv) You have to raise a force to crush this "free company," or else buy off the leader to go away, or else win over the leader by giving him a title and making him a vassal, or else call a crusade and get him to march off to the Holy Land . . . If you don't, every last province of your realm will end up looted
Sound like fun?
But having said that, I would just like to see CKII, no matter what features actually make it in . . .
Whoops, I see that there were thousands of submissions for HOI, not CK.