What kind of DLC would you like to see Paradox make for CK2?

[Zzzzz...]

Game engine improvements, such more modding possibilities, instead of superficial content.

I don't know how dumb you are. You're complaining of getting scammed but Paradox already said that improvements will be put into patches not EPs/DLCs. The other examples, modding and fancy stuffs, are perfect for DLCs, it doesn't require you to buy them unlike EPs that you have to buy or else you're game is outdated. e.g. EU3

[flame7926]

I don't know how dumb you are. You're complaining of getting scammed but Paradox already said that improvements will be put into patches not EPs/DLCs.

There will still be new gameplay features in DLC's, like the new Japan and Horde features in Divine Wind, and they have to do with the game engine, changing mechanics of certain things could be in DLC, those will be game engine improvements.

[Zenith Darksea]

I definitely second the calls for Orthodox DLC. Considering that much of the map is Orthodox and that there are a lot of Byzantinophiles out there (including yours truly), not to mention Russophiles, this would be a very good decision for Paradox.

Let me put it another way. Paradox, I've already pre-ordered your game and given you money. Put out an Orthodox DLC, and I'll give you more money.

[olvirki]

Personally I am most interested in a pagan dlc.

Besides making Muslims and Pagans playable, I'd love to see Greenland/Vinland added. They could use an area on the left hand side of the map for it, sort of like how Revolutions under Siege does it.

Having Greenland and maybe even Vinland could be nice.

[Jia Xu]

Having Greenland and maybe even Vinland could be nice.

Being a Newfoundlander, I'm a little biased toward Vinland content myself. However I question how you'd balance it into the game play. If it's in the game, it can get into wars. If it gets in wars, how will those be fought? Do we really want to see the King of Sicily sailing his levies across the Atlantic ocean in order to take the fight right to the Avalon peninsula?

[DreadLindwyrm]

Game engine improvements, such more modding possibilities, instead of superficial content.

Like for example opening up the CoA and character portraits to be easily modified?

A game engine improvement is not likely to be DLC since it is such a change. That's more likely an expansion.


But seriously, DLC should be mostly superficial - variant flags/COA, new faces, new titles and so forth. Things that shouldn't change the RULES aspect of the game so much as the FLAVOUR of the game. If you have a DLC that for example changes the way Holy Wars work it will mean someone who is used to the DLC will have a very different approach to someone who isn't used to it. Thus, when they play MP together the person who has the variant content will have to play in an unfamiliar way since at heart you have to play with the least amount of DLC owned by all players in the game. This contrasts with the portraits and CoA which can effectively be randomly generated on the player without the DLC's side if things got desperate. (I know that in fact you'll just turn it off, but it doesn't affect the crunchy side of the game.)

[Nuril]

Being a Newfoundlander, I'm a little biased toward Vinland content myself. However I question how you'd balance it into the game play. If it's in the game, it can get into wars. If it gets in wars, how will those be fought? Do we really want to see the King of Sicily sailing his levies across the Atlantic ocean in order to take the fight right to the Avalon peninsula?

For the porting of the Mod to 1066 I'm hoping I at least get the ability to give the journey vicious attrition should you try to bring large armies that couldn't be repelled by Vinlanders/Skraelings.

I don't see Alt-history being endorsed as an official part of the game, though, and it probably shouldn't be. What would be excellent would be a mod-friendly patch to allow us to re-introduce Terra Incognita and give "Explorer" traits through various things to have characters brave enough to enter into the lands where there be dragons! Whether it be for Africa, America or India!

[Marquès]

Just one: THE REPUBLICS

Pisa, Genoa and the great Venice played a great role all over the age covered by Crusader Kings 2, and specially during the crusades. I want to play that role!

[Ruwaard]

All of these are good ideas, certainly things I would like to have. Other things on my wishlist:

• African Portrait Pack
• Improved Crusades Mechanics
• Expanded Byzantine mechanics
• Addition of Greenland and Vinland
• An interaction method with off-map countries like China and India
• Trade mechanics
• Historical counts in between bookmarked start dates

The challenge with any of these items is deciding what can be handled by modders, what should be mainline game improvements that come with patches, and what should be DLC. Without too much effort, timeline rollback, dynasty CoAs , Greenland/Vinland, and many other examples could be handled by modders. Others like a character modding assistant, African portraits, and Muslim flavor can be produced with more involved modder commitment. Items like better Crusades, naval combat, and trade will probably have to be done by Paradox.

So should we clamor for all of this to be done by Paradox, even the easy stuff? I guess we could, and I'd probably buy it if it was close to the $2 value. But maybe it's better to rely on unofficial support from the community on those items. Honestly, I would donate to a modder's PayPal account if they gave me something particularly valuable. I'd rather have Paradox do things we can't easily do ourselves, always bearing in mind which situation is appropriate to charge for these improvements. I would argue that certain content, flexible de jure borders in particular, should come with subsequent patches to the base game.

I looked that one up and some counts are also playable between bookmarked dates, but not all of them. So maybe there can come a DLC to expand this (a bit).

[DreadLindwyrm]

I'm sure that once the game launches, if there's one that's been missed you'll be able to pass that information along for inclusion in future content. Most counts should be in if they were findable.

[Kaiserjagen]

Let me put it another way. Paradox, I've already pre-ordered your game and given you money. Put out an Orthodox DLC, and I'll give you more money.

Zenith Darksea pretty much took the words from my mouth.

[Galaahd]

I don't know how dumb you are. You're complaining of getting scammed but Paradox already said that improvements will be put into patches not EPs/DLCs. The other examples, modding and fancy stuffs, are perfect for DLCs, it doesn't require you to buy them unlike EPs that you have to buy or else you're game is outdated. e.g. EU3

I agree.

No need to be rude with that guy, though.

[Sir Garnet]

Ive been thinking about Republics and Theocracies. Youd have factions instead of dynasties, registered by a second dynasty value. And you would play as leader of the faction . . . .

I expect it would look something very vaguely reminiscent of EU Rome but simpler. That game was centered around the Roman Republic, factional politics and intrigue, and foreign challenges. There, the player played the country, not a particular faction unless role playing - the goal was to manage politics to achieve greatness for Rome (though there are factions better in some times than others).

your task to make sure atleast one other landed same-religion theocracy or landed realm republic is held by a member of your faction before you die and then you are 'inherited' by the highest ranking landed member of the faction.

In a Republic factions are potentially mutable, unlike hereditary bloodlines entitled to rule. Naturally successful republicans wouild want to social climib to bask in the reflected prestige of landholding nobility as you indicate. But that would not be the key of the game - lots of maneuvering and grooming people for high office, sabotaging others, directing spending to the "deserving" members of the political class, and hiighly personal retail politics focusing on the votes of whichever group makes the decisions. Foreign powers are also involved with different groups in the republic.

IN CK2 the council is appointed. In a Republic there would be lots of characters scheming to get on the council, whether it is just prestige and a rubber stamp or f it holds real power - thus a whole layer of activity we don't even think about in CK2.

EDIT: Bad cut and paste trying to break down the quotes. I also forgot to add in the political concept of the 3 estates - nobility, clergy, and burghers - with the towns, and of course the impact of the guilds. No need for COTs or refining the economics since the politics is where the fate of the factions is determined.

[Brent15]

Reading the development diaries, I haven't thought of much to improve on. Being able to create your own character and choose a title for him without modding would be nice. I imagine the ideas will start flowing once I get my hands on the game. . .wait its digital download for me.

[Thormodr]

Being a Newfoundlander, I'm a little biased toward Vinland content myself. However I question how you'd balance it into the game play. If it's in the game, it can get into wars. If it gets in wars, how will those be fought? Do we really want to see the King of Sicily sailing his levies across the Atlantic ocean in order to take the fight right to the Avalon peninsula?

Make it so that only viking longboats can make the voyage.

The other European powers weren't capable of sailing to Newfoundland until quite late in CK2's time frame IIRC.

[DukeofHereford]

Hi Guys,

This is my first post (I realize this is hardly relevant ), but I have been lurking around the forums for sometime in guest
mode.

As to the question at hand, I agree with the OP that naval combat would be a good addition to the game. That being said, I think a fun, non-playable way to increase the role of the Merchant Republics would be to make them naval mercenaries.
They could be set up much like the religious orders, and even ask to build a city in a newly conquered territory (like the
knights do with castles). This would be a representation of the "quarters" that they often set up in coastal cities (particular-
ly the Levant). Couple this with a simple overseas trade/supply system and I think it would add another fun, immersive
mechanic to represent the time period.

I'm a new found PI addict (only EU III and Rome so far) and can hardly wait for this one to come out. Thanks for reading !

[Thormodr]

Hi Guys,

This is my first post (I realize this is hardly relevant ), but I have been lurking around the forums for sometime in guest
mode.

As to the question at hand, I agree with the OP that naval combat would be a good addition to the game. That being said, I think a fun, non-playable way to increase the role of the Merchant Republics would be to make them naval mercenaries.
They could be set up much like the religious orders, and even ask to build a city in a newly conquered territory (like the
knights do with castles). This would be a representation of the "quarters" that they often set up in coastal cities (particular-
ly the Levant). Couple this with a simple overseas trade/supply system and I think it would add another fun, immersive
mechanic to represent the time period.

I'm a new found PI addict (only EU III and Rome so far) and can hardly wait for this one to come out. Thanks for reading !

Welcome to the forums. Some good ideas there.

[Orinsul]

The Problem with Newfoundland and Greenland is, if something is on the map and in your religion culture group, than its part of the Unity, its Part of the 'International Community', its a player in the politics and plots and marriages and etc of Europe.
Something being explored or home to small colonies by people from europe is not the same as a place being brought into Europe. Its hard to see Greenland being actively involved in the affairs of the european nobility, its too far away and too sparsely populated whatever you do. Having it in as an event decision chain, maybe, but not an extension of the map.

I expect it would look something very vaguely reminiscent of EU Rome but simpler. That game was centered around the Roman Republic, factional politics and intrigue, and foreign challenges. There, the player played the country, not a particular faction unless role playing - the goal was to manage politics to achieve greatness for Rome (though there are factions better in some times than others).



In a Republic factions are potentially mutable, unlike hereditary bloodlines entitled to rule. Naturally successful republicans wouild want to social climib to bask in the reflected prestige of landholding nobility as you indicate. But that would not be the key of the game - lots of maneuvering and grooming people for high office, sabotaging others, directing spending to the "deserving" members of the political class, and hiighly personal retail politics focusing on the votes of whichever group makes the decisions. Foreign powers are also involved with different groups in the republic.

IN CK2 the council is appointed. In a Republic there would be lots of characters scheming to get on the council, whether it is just prestige and a rubber stamp or f it holds real power - thus a whole layer of activity we don't even think about in CK2.

EDIT: Bad cut and paste trying to break down the quotes. I also forgot to add in the political concept of the 3 estates - nobility, clergy, and burghers - with the towns, and of course the impact of the guilds. No need for COTs or refining the economics since the politics is where the fate of the factions is determined.

Unless you have Factions or parties or something like that for Republics to replace Dynasties, then how does it work from a game play point of view. How do you lose if it doesnt matter who succeed you. Thats the reason for my proposing Factions, not the history but game mechanics. If you need either your successor or another ruler being of your faction in order to survive the death of your character, then that mirrors the dynasty requirement to keep playing.
It would work alot better for Theocracies, as the church is universal so one faction could be felt from one end of europe to the other, so for Republics youd probably need an in the same realm restriction or something like that.

[Jia Xu]

Hi Guys, This is my first post (I realize this is hardly relevant ), but I have been lurking around the forums for sometime in guest
mode. As to the question at hand, I agree with the OP that naval combat would be a good addition to the game. That being said, I think a fun, non-playable way to increase the role of the Merchant Republics would be to make them naval mercenaries. They could be set up much like the religious orders, and even ask to build a city in a newly conquered territory (like the knights do with castles). This would be a representation of the "quarters" that they often set up in coastal cities (particular-ly the Levant). Couple this with a simple overseas trade/supply system and I think it would add another fun, immersive mechanic to represent the time period. I'm a new found PI addict (only EU III and Rome so far) and can hardly wait for this one to come out. Thanks for reading !

Welcome to the boards! Please enjoy your stay and try to assimilate quickly to our culture by making a lot of posts about how [your favourite country here] deserves more special attention than the others.

I really like the idea of naval mercenaries. I still think you should be able to build your own fleets of course, but having naval mercenaries as a back-up force or to serve as a primary force because you can't muster a big fleet on your own (like because you only have one port or something) would be awesome.

[DukeofHereford]

Welcome to the forums. Some good ideas there.

Thanks for the welcome!