Worried about the game being too focused on feudalism

[ray243]

One of the recent interviews had one of the devs saying Republics are out of the game because "it's an entirely separate layer of gameplay. It doesn't really interact all that much with the feudal heart of the game."

That is a worrisome thing for fans who enjoyed the non-feudalistic part of the world, and those of us who desired a game that can better simulate the fun of being an administrator in an empire or republic. All the reveals so far have been about "deeping depth" and trying to create a better feudal gameplay.

However, that might make it even harder for them to simulate the non-feudal part of the world. The Byzantine Empire will once again become a feudal empire if the game mechanics are not properly designed.

 

[Arko]

One of the recent interviews had one of the devs saying Republics are out of the game because "it's an entirely separate layer of gameplay. It doesn't really interact all that much with the feudal heart of the game."

That is a worrisome thing for fans who enjoyed the non-feudalistic part of the world, and those of us who desired a game that can better simulate the fun of being an administrator in an empire or republic. All the reveals so far have been about "deeping depth" and trying to create a better feudal gameplay.

However, that might make it even harder for them to simulate the non-feudal part of the world. The Byzantine Empire will once again become a feudal empire if the game mechanics are not properly designed.

If a game centered on feudalism can't achieve feudalism properly, how could it even think doing the rest good ? I mean, one focus at a time, or we'll get a re-enactment of CK2 being forced to come back again and again tweaking or overhauling the same things multiple times (like decadence or adding content years later for shallow-fleshed religions and such f.e. ).
I'd be glad if they wouldn't be too ambitious and provide a proper game at launch, and so a proper base for future content that sure will come.

 

[Denkt]

Perhaps it is better to get one thing right than 3 things wrong, I suspect a reason why they don't added in republics or nomads, is because they don't work the best in CK2 and they plan to remake them in the future, if they have better ideas for them

 

[elvain]

We have so far seen how many, 8 Dev diaries?

I don't think the devs have revealed more than just a fragment of what the game will be about.
Yes, they have decided not to take the systems which were flawed (technically speaking) such as the republics and nomads. But the fact that we have only heard very little to nothing about Byzantine Imperial or Islamic worlds doesn't necessarily mean they are cutting them.
Just in the first 8 dev diaries they have outlined only the most basic stuff. Like @Arko above said, it's only positive that their main goal now is to make feudalism work propperly.

You can interpret the radio silence about other stuff anyway you want, but I wouldn't be so sceptical.

 

[Denkt]

From what I have heard, the only governments that have been specifically mentioned to not be in are merchant republics and nomads (who will be tribal in CK3).

 

[Arko]

From what I have heard, the only governments that have been specifically mentioned to not be in are merchant republics and nomads (who will be tribal in CK3).

Feudality was also feudalitiES in CK2 with iqta form and india's. This covers a lot of the map already. So if those three + tribals are well made it would be great.
Also hoping maybe for some variation between 867 since we have it and 1066 feudalism, and more generally over game era.
Variations in tribalism would be nice too.

 

[ray243]

If a game centered on feudalism can't achieve feudalism properly, how could it even think doing the rest good ? I mean, one focus at a time, or we'll get a re-enactment of CK2 being forced to come back again and again tweaking or overhauling the same things multiple times (like decadence or adding content years later for shallow-fleshed religions and such f.e. ).
I'd be glad if they wouldn't be too ambitious and provide a proper game at launch, and so a proper base for future content that sure will come.

Depicting feudalism should not rely on a set of base mechanics that can only simulate feudalism. It is far too abstract as a game design that limits your ability to depict the medieval world, because feudalism is something that was common only in a relatively small part of the much bigger world.

What you need to do is to go "deeper" by designing the game on a level that allows for different facades of feudal and non-feudal societies to work equally well. For example, instead of making baronies and counties as the basic unit of the game, make estates the primary basic unit of the game.

An estate might be inheritable, but owning an estate does not necessarily make one the lord over the land. An estate might belong to a county or a province, which might see a regular change in governors every few years. But if a state is weak, an estate owner can take advantage of the situation by basically monopolising the governorship of the land and become the de-facto lord of the land. The player can create or demand laws that formalise feudalism.

 

[Arko]

What you need to do is to go "deeper" by designing the game on a level that allows for different facades of feudal and non-feudal societies to work equally well. For example, instead of making baronies and counties as the basic unit of the game, make estates the primary basic unit of the game.

I understand this, but it doesn't seem to be the design chosen for this game. So my extrapolation is based on what we know from the game and i think choices are made already for such core mechanics.

An estate might be inheritable, but owning an estate does not necessarily make one the lord over the land. An estate might belong to a county or a province, which might see a regular change in governors every few years. But if a state is weak, an estate owner can take advantage of the situation by basically monopolising the governorship of the land and become the de-facto lord of the land. The player can create or demand laws that formalise feudalism.

This would be interesting to get such level for molding things.

 

[Ezumiyr]

That is a worrisome thing for fans who enjoyed the non-feudalistic part of the world

Non-feudal societies are still portrayed with very feudal-like structures in CK2. Even nomads have capitals, and tribes are de facto built around "castles" and still de facto work with vassals. Every government type in CK2 is derived from how feudalism is depicted in the game.
So honestly, I really don't think you're missing a lot by not having playable republics and nomads.
On a side note, we also know that there will be at least two tribal types, one of them is clanic (and is active in Scotland).
The nomadic playstyle was appreciated by some players, but it still wasn't great and can effectively be modeled by being a tribe subtype. What we're really losing is republics - and if your complaint is that the game is too feudal-centered, then keep in mind that merchant republics are only an attempt at portraying some of the many largely autonomous Italian cities, that still relied on very feudal-like social structures. If republics relied on derived feudal features in the future, we aren't really losing much.

feudalism is something that was common only in a relatively small part of the much bigger world

That's very debatable, given what parts of the world are on the map. Western Europe had a high population density, and if we add all the different types of feudalism (and related political systems) like Iqta and indian feudalism, we get a very big part of the map - the rest being the ERE, Tibet, nomads and tribes. I know it's quite fashionable to blame eurocentrism and all, but even if it looks small on a map, western europe was still a very important region, and the era covered by CK2 is also the one of the rise and expansion of feudalism. At the end of CK2's timeline, its population is estimated to be between 70 and 100 million people (most of them in western Europe, especially in France and Italy), with the world population being around 450 millions.That's quite a sizable part of humanity, and even if it was about to decrease because of Black Death, it was only the end of a general trend during the middle ages (and we could even extend that trend to the Roman antiquity).

If we also get proper generic mechanics for tribes & nomads, a proper government type for the ERE, and some nice stuff for Tibet, we get most of the map covered.

Let's also keep in mind that CK uses a relatively loose definition of feudalism. We don't actually work with vassal contracts, and we don't really deal with the social consequences of that system. We only play with rulers, very simple vassal mechanics, some buildings and a general army structure. It's not like if we were forced to play with a certain, rigid feudalism type that would be only really valid for a small part of the map.

Which doesn't mean that more government types and diverse gameplay isn't good, but I don't think it's fair to equate a lesser amount of gov types with a less interesting gameplay. You can't just ignore what the devs are saying about republics and nomads and how it didn't interact well with some core game features. You can't say it's poor design. It's a well thought process. CK is about feudalistic societies (including the transition into feudalism from tribal structures), and feudalism isn't just a small part of the map in an ocean of diversity.

 

[Secuter]

Perhaps it is better to get one thing right than 3 things wrong, I suspect a reason why they don't added in republics or nomads, is because they don't work the best in CK2 and they plan to remake them in the future, if they have better ideas for them

That's a nice way to say that they cut them out and serve them as bits and pieces of DLC's.

 

[ray243]

I understand this, but it doesn't seem to be the design chosen for this game. So my extrapolation is based on what we know from the game and i think choices are made already for such core mechanics.


This would be interesting to get such level for molding things.

That is my main worry. If the game core mechanics are "locked in", it will be impossible to create any future DLCs that will give a fun enough representation of the non-feudal empires and kingdoms.

Non-feudal societies are still portrayed with very feudal-like structures in CK2. Even nomads have capitals, and tribes are de facto built around "castles" and still de facto work with vassals. Every government type in CK2 is derived from how feudalism is depicted in the game.
So honestly, I really don't think you're missing a lot by not having playable republics and nomads.
On a side note, we also know that there will be at least two tribal types, one of them is clanic (and is active in Scotland).
The nomadic playstyle was appreciated by some players, but it still wasn't great and can effectively be modeled by being a tribe subtype. What we're really losing is republics - and if your complaint is that the game is too feudal-centered, then keep in mind that merchant republics are only an attempt at portraying some of the many largely autonomous Italian cities, that still relied on very feudal-like social structures. If republics relied on derived feudal features in the future, we aren't really losing much.

I am worried that the game doesn't actually go "deep" enough to allow for a proper representation of the non-feudal realms. I was hoping the lesson learnt from CK2 is to create a new set of core game mechanics that allows for greater diversity of political systems.

That's very debatable, given what parts of the world are on the map. Western Europe had a high population density, and if we add all the different types of feudalism (and related political systems) like Iqta and indian feudalism, we get a very big part of the map - the rest being the ERE, Tibet, nomads and tribes. I know it's quite fashionable to blame eurocentrism and all, but even if it looks small on a map, western europe was still a very important region, and the era covered by CK2 is also the one of the rise and expansion of feudalism. At the end of CK2's timeline, its population is estimated to be between 70 and 100 million people (most of them in western Europe, especially in France and Italy), with the world population being around 450 millions.That's quite a sizable part of humanity, and even if it was about to decrease because of Black Death, it was only the end of a general trend during the middle ages (and we could even extend that trend to the Roman antiquity).

I am not denying it is important. I think western Europe is important in the middle ages, but the system of governance in the region is not something that should be used as the base-game design to simulate most of the wider Eurasian world.

Instead you need a develop a set of game mechanics that offers more flexibility that can depict the feudal world of western europe, but also the more bureaucratic world in the Byzantine East and beyond.

If we also get proper generic mechanics for tribes & nomads, a proper government type for the ERE, and some nice stuff for Tibet, we get most of the map covered.

Let's also keep in mind that CK uses a relatively loose definition of feudalism. We don't actually work with vassal contracts, and we don't really deal with the social consequences of that system. We only play with rulers, very simple vassal mechanics, some buildings and a general army structure. It's not like if we were forced to play with a certain, rigid feudalism type that would be only really valid for a small part of the map.

Which doesn't mean that more government types and diverse gameplay isn't good, but I don't think it's fair to equate a lesser amount of gov types with a less interesting gameplay. You can't just ignore what the devs are saying about republics and nomads and how it didn't interact well with some core game features. You can't say it's poor design. It's a well thought process. CK is about feudalistic societies (including the transition into feudalism from tribal structures), and feudalism isn't just a small part of the map in an ocean of diversity.

What I am saying is if you use feudalims as the core mechanic for designing the game, you'll end up with the same problem CK 2 had, which was the issue of not being able to depict any non-feudal realms well enough.

 

[Dagda]

Not everyone wants a global conquest map painter. Focus is a good thing and why the original CK was amazing.

 

[vandevere]

Not everyone wants a global conquest map painter. Focus is a good thing and why the original CK was amazing.

Like I've said before, just watching the insanity the AI can get up to is worth the price of admission.

 

[ray243]

Not everyone wants a global conquest map painter. Focus is a good thing and why the original CK was amazing.

I'm not really seeing the connection though? Being less focused on feudalism doesn't make it a simplified map painter. I am asking for a level of mechanics that goes deeper beyond using feudalism to apply to every single realm on the map.

 

[Heiliges Thüringens Reich]

It'll come later. Be patient.

 

[PK_AZ]

Depicting feudalism should not rely on a set of base mechanics that can only simulate feudalism. It is far too abstract as a game design that limits your ability to depict the medieval world, because feudalism is something that was common only in a relatively small part of the much bigger world.

Ok, but... who said that CK3 has to depict medieval world, and not, for example, offer interesting feudal lord gameplay?

 

[Pied-Noir]

Feudalism has always been the focus and I hope it remains so.

 

[ray243]

Ok, but... who said that CK3 has to depict medieval world, and not, for example, offer interesting feudal lord gameplay?

When they design a map with playable factions outside of western Europe?

 

[Dagda]

When I buy/play Warhammer I'm expecting Warhammer not Lord of the Rings. Crusader Kings has always been focused on Feudalism and there are a plethora of PDS games that can suit your non-feudalistic needs.

Game design is time/resource consuming and just because you want have everything on the map to have vastly different mechanics/design doesn't make it realistic, plausible or a good idea. Sprawling feature creep can bog down the best of studios.

 

[Vanhal]

It would be nice if devs though of other playstyles than feudal right now, even without them actually being active in game at the release, before they inevitably sell us some DLC that do just this with permanent stopgap measures (and they will eventually, ask this yourself). Also, modding could really use this.