If you were in charge of designing CK3...
- Thread starter DominusNovus
- Start date
-
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.
Would prefer AD 500 to AD 1500
To mostly miss the Roman stuff and capture the hundred years war
You know, I really like the idea of delving into the mechanics of holdings a bit more. Somewhat similar to your idea, I'd like to propose a slightly different take that I'm brainstorming as I write this:
(assume, for the moment, the current system, unless otherwise specified)
Levelling up holdings. Basically, as you develop a holding, with increased buildings, it would grow into a higher tier of holding, with new options. The most rudimentary level of holding would be the unoccupied holding, representing an area that is sparsely populated. This could have a terrain type associated with it (forested, grassland, hilly, mountainous, coastal, desert, for example), which could influence the way that holding can develop (a coastal holding could be an economic powerhouse potentially, and it could hold out against sieges for longer, as well, even if its just a city).
From an unoccupied holding, a 'Tribal Village' could be founded (I'm sure someone will be able to come up with better names for my holdings). This would be analogous to the current tribal holdings, representing small unorganized settlements; the lowest tier of development. It wouldn't be worth too much, but there'd be advantages, such as the ability to migrate. As that tribal village develops, it could upgrade into a 'Permanent Village,' representing the typical small rural settlement that was the basis of most of sedentary civilization throughout history. More defensible, and more economically productive, but no longer able to be abandoned like a tribal village would be.
Now, things get interesting. The next tier of development will be more familiar to us. Similar to how the tribal holdings of Charlemagne can develop into either a city or a castle, permanent villages could develop into either a 'Town' 'Minor Castle' or 'Cathedral' (obviously, there will need to be some religious and/or cultural localization as appropriate). These will be similar to CK2's current holdings, so no more needs be said about them.
Except, of course, that that they can level up into even better versions: 'City' 'Major Castle' and 'Basilica' respectively. The utmost level of development for the respective holding type, and representing the pinnacle of civilization.
All well and good, you might say, but what about the odd-man out? The Trading Post? Never fear, they're still around, and better than ever! Rather than just having the potential of one trading post per coastal county, each holding, regardless of type, will have the possibility to have a 'Minor Holding' (or support holding, or whatever you want to call it). Remember the brigade system from HoI3, where you could attach a specialist brigade to a division? Think of this system as comparable to that, where each holding can be specialized beyond its normal 'burgher, noble, clergy' development. They can be developed either by the ruler of a particular holding, or by another character, as appropriate.
Some basic general ideas I have for minor holdings:
Any standard holding will need some sort of 'Minor Holding' to progress to the next tier.
Minor holdings might be restricted by terrain.
Minor holdings might be governed by someone other than the ruler of the holding to which they're attached.
What sort of minor holdings might there be? Glad you asked.
Tribal Villages:
- Missions. Missionaries have sought out your small tribal settlement and hope to convert your people to their faith. Economic and diplomatic benefits abound, but you're likely tying your destiny to that religion.
- Hunting Ranges. Hunting will help feed your people and give you a steady supply of skilled archers and other warriors.
- Pastures. If you want to be a nomadic warlord, you're going to need somewhere to put your vast herds.
- Caravan Post. Sure, you could make a living off attacking those soft merchants, but you could also reap the benefits from letting them pass through your lands unharmed.
- Tribal Shrine. Forget that nonsense the missionaries are spouting. This land is sacred to <insert your generic sky god here> and your co-religionists flock to pay their respects. Why would you want to discourage them?
(possibly, those tribal minor holdings might get absorbed into the main holding when it upgrades)
Permanent Villages:
- Manor. Your local lord has to live somewhere.
- Fortress. This site is a key part of the defense of the realm at large.
- Parish. Your people are longing for a place to worship, all of their own.
- Local Shrine. A local saint's brother's favorite hunting dog died here after choking on a chicken bone. Here come the pilgrims!
- Trade Post. The merchants in the region have come to rely on your village as the premiere spot in the region to sleep without being robbed.
- Cottage Industry. Your village is a key player in the production of uncomfortable brown textiles.
(as you may have guessed, Manors and Fortresses will start you down the path to a Castle, Parishes and Shrines to Cathedrals, and Posts and Cottages towards Towns)
Final Two Tiers of Holdings:
- Port. Situated near the coast, your holding has a wonderful harbor, and the local merchants are taking full advantage of that.
- Citadel. The existing defenses of your holding are not adequate. A proper citadel will solve that.
- Monastery. A monastic order has decided to build their next chapter near your holding.
- Regional Shrine. A genuine miracle occurred right on the spot where your holding's patron saint was brutally martyred.
- Manufacturing Center. Looms? Check. Waterwheels? Check. Canals? Check. Your holding is a focal point of the medieval industrial revolution.
Specialized Minor holdings (will be very restricted):
- Royal Hunting Lodge. The King prefers to hunt here above anywhere else in the realm.
- Major Holy Site. You know, Jerusalem, Rome, Constantinople, Mecca, Medina, these are the places that people will travel to from the other side of the world if need be.
I'm sure I could come up with more, but I think thats more than enough for now.
- 1
True. This is my only true wish with every new patch
Though to be honest I can think of NO game except Skyrim right now that offers such significant modding possibilities.
That's why I like this game, and Paradox :wub:
Minecraft, Oblivion, Morrowind, Half Life 2 / Counter Strike, Fallout 3, Fallout New Vegas, Pokemon, Stalker ?, Medieval 2 Total War, ArmaTrue. This is my only true wish with every new patch
Though to be honest I can think of NO game except Skyrim right now that offers such significant modding possibilities.
That's why I like this game, and Paradox :wub:
Well, for some games it offers not that much like Skyrim, but more than CK2.
And more moddability will sadly not happen since Paradox can't milk it's cash cow with proper mod addons. Noone would buy these crappy half baked DLCs if there were mods that do much much better. The only bad thing would be mod compability and patches.
I agree ofc .. ^^
THIS. +Elevensies.
Every time I fire up CK2 the art of playing lures me in, then as the night wears on the anesthetic of rifling thru the endless stats eventually lulls me to sleep.
I LOVE the game, but often it's got a little too much connect-the-dots work between raw stats, with no assurance that my hunch as to why something is what it is, actually is. Or something. It's often more like I'm playing against the UI than the AI.
Not your first sob post. If you hate the game, feel free not to play. Feel free to delete the paradox site from your bookmarks so you aren't tempted to browse the forums either.
In fact I encourage you, it will make many people happy.
Trade mechanics
Population mechanics
Completely moddable succession laws, based on actual systems and laws
Customizable models, UI, frames, etc.
Attached titles (a.k.a. The HRE automatically becomes king of Germany and Italy upon succession)
Support for modding fictional versions of all the above
Less hardcoding
Ability to play as landless
True tribal mechanics, republics, theocracies, and holy orders
Tributary systems
Completely customizable peace treaties, alliances, marriage arrangements, etc. It should be more than "You marry my kid, and we fight together." The ability to create custom diplomatic arrangements would be sweet.
Diplomatic alliance and marriage rules not hardcode restrained to culture or religion.
Super lo-res mode for crappy PCs (counters instead of models, smooth map, no trees or buildings, etc.)
Extremely revamped and buffed plot and intrigue system
"Historical mode" where the game uses the history files to change the rest of map outside of your direct purview (Perfect for "what-if" scenarios, like, What if Godwinson won, but the rest of world stayed the same?)
Population mechanics
Completely moddable succession laws, based on actual systems and laws
Customizable models, UI, frames, etc.
Attached titles (a.k.a. The HRE automatically becomes king of Germany and Italy upon succession)
Support for modding fictional versions of all the above
Less hardcoding
Ability to play as landless
True tribal mechanics, republics, theocracies, and holy orders
Tributary systems
Completely customizable peace treaties, alliances, marriage arrangements, etc. It should be more than "You marry my kid, and we fight together." The ability to create custom diplomatic arrangements would be sweet.
Diplomatic alliance and marriage rules not hardcode restrained to culture or religion.
Super lo-res mode for crappy PCs (counters instead of models, smooth map, no trees or buildings, etc.)
Extremely revamped and buffed plot and intrigue system
"Historical mode" where the game uses the history files to change the rest of map outside of your direct purview (Perfect for "what-if" scenarios, like, What if Godwinson won, but the rest of world stayed the same?)
.png){kind=avatar}
Map presence for characters. No more teleporting your ruler to the holy land to get the crusader trait and then teleporting him back, you have to march your way down there together with your army. And then try to get home safely if you army breaks.
Joining your armies for war would mean you're in for the long haul, your character will either be travelling with their soldiers or hanging out in castles of vassals or allies. Even if you change your mind and want to go back home and rule safely from your capital, you would need travel time to get back and bring soldiers as an escort.
And you would have to decide whether to stay in your capital when enemies are approaching it. If you get besieged you either have to sneak out or be ready to get captured when the enemy army takes the holding. Taking a holding should give the attacker a much bigger chance of taking most or all of the characters residing in the court captive, except ones who manage to escape, and if a character escapes they would need travel time to reach safety somewhere else.
That's the one big system I think the game needs, would bring more focus to playing as your character and open all kinds of interesting decisions.
And a more flexible war negotation system like the one in EUIV would be cool.
Joining your armies for war would mean you're in for the long haul, your character will either be travelling with their soldiers or hanging out in castles of vassals or allies. Even if you change your mind and want to go back home and rule safely from your capital, you would need travel time to get back and bring soldiers as an escort.
And you would have to decide whether to stay in your capital when enemies are approaching it. If you get besieged you either have to sneak out or be ready to get captured when the enemy army takes the holding. Taking a holding should give the attacker a much bigger chance of taking most or all of the characters residing in the court captive, except ones who manage to escape, and if a character escapes they would need travel time to reach safety somewhere else.
That's the one big system I think the game needs, would bring more focus to playing as your character and open all kinds of interesting decisions.
And a more flexible war negotation system like the one in EUIV would be cool.
I feel free to play from time to time and check the new DLC out, since there might be something new changing the game to better, yup. I don't hate the game, I'm just disappointed. I played EU4 too and imo the gameplay is more fluent, realistic etc. and ofc I need to keep this site in check for information on updates for both games and upcoming other games etc. Wouldn't make sense not to go on this forum anymore. Oh, and you're wrong, this board is not on my bookmarks.
I've been holding off on EU IV after seeing what CK 2 is going through. Might just hop into it when AoW comes out. Also, my patience is wearing a little thin.
If I was in charge of designing CK3? I'd have all the characters drawn ANIME AND MANGA style. This should get you less complaints about ugly Mediterranean portraits.Also, you might be able to market this to Japan.
(Didn't read the thread)
Things I would prioritize in a CK3 game design:
-Better combat system, more tactical, better attention on the battles. In many cases, a single battle should be more decisive and not a prelude to an infinity of sub-battles.
-More different things to do, a richer management, like in Europa Universalis.
-More History put in the simulation, more evolution of things. The game feels like its system goes nowhere, just nobles killing each others and making wars for who knows what. And the people feels absent. Ideologically, the game suggests more or less two old ideas: 1) Middle Ages where stuck with no real human progress (who considers seriously the Tech tree ?) 2) History is made by the great historical figures. Both of which being wrong. People have a strong impact on history and the world was completely different between 800 and 1200.
Things I would prioritize in a CK3 game design:
-Better combat system, more tactical, better attention on the battles. In many cases, a single battle should be more decisive and not a prelude to an infinity of sub-battles.
-More different things to do, a richer management, like in Europa Universalis.
-More History put in the simulation, more evolution of things. The game feels like its system goes nowhere, just nobles killing each others and making wars for who knows what. And the people feels absent. Ideologically, the game suggests more or less two old ideas: 1) Middle Ages where stuck with no real human progress (who considers seriously the Tech tree ?) 2) History is made by the great historical figures. Both of which being wrong. People have a strong impact on history and the world was completely different between 800 and 1200.
Also I'd keep in the new startdates.
I don't like how Eu4 wiped Eu3's 1399 start date and went back to 1444.
If Ck3 went back to 1066 it'd be crappy for non-Muslim/Christians
I don't like how Eu4 wiped Eu3's 1399 start date and went back to 1444.
If Ck3 went back to 1066 it'd be crappy for non-Muslim/Christians
I'm a noob to this great game, but I already know what I'd like to see:
The ability to make more money from trade and to have region-specific trade goods (like in Total War games) would be a fantastic addition.
Also, more focus on tactics and strategy for battles, meaning a smaller force - properly managed - has a chance of beating a larger one, which is barely the case at present.
The ability to make more money from trade and to have region-specific trade goods (like in Total War games) would be a fantastic addition.
Also, more focus on tactics and strategy for battles, meaning a smaller force - properly managed - has a chance of beating a larger one, which is barely the case at present.
Actually, I got rather negative opinions from Japanese CK2 players when I suggested them anime portraits in my Sengoku/CK2 Japan Mod.
Crusader Fortress. "Urist McKing cancels make heir: contracted syphilis."
And about new start dates... 936. Gorm the Old as King of Denmark, Anglo-Saxon Kingdom of England and, most importantly, Otto I becomes King of Germany.
EDIT: A cross between the mostly pagan world of the Old Gods and the christian Europe of 1066.
Yeah, I don't think demographics of CK2 players heavily intersect with anime fans, even in Japan.
Glad you took the time to read my (rather rambly) post
My main point, though, is that if you're making CK3, you'd want it to feel substantially different from CK2 - and trying to separate the temporal/spiritual power split from the physical map, while tying the characters to the map to prevent insta-teleporting, would tick those boxes for me.
That's why I don't agree with the idea of keeping the holding system as it is. Also:
- it's just too immersion-breaking for me to have to siege down some random single castle before I can start pillaging the rich cities/temples that might also exist in the province - no matter which direction you come from into the province (by all means allow for the castle levy to sortie and try to attack you while you're pillaging/trying to occupy those cities, but why require to have the castle sieged down before you can take the pickings of the rich lands around it?)
- equally, it's bizzare to have "churches" as single holdings, outside the cities. St Peter's is in the heart of Rome, and the Hagia Sophia was in the heart of Constantinople - fo a good reason (shared protection together with the rest of the city).
- also, the current system requires the capital holding of a republican province to be a city, which is (usually) much easier to take than a castle holding. This, too, is pretty immersion-breaking. Same goes for having to, e.g., give away one of the richest Duchies to the holder of a temple holding if you want to have either an Archbishop of York or the Archbishop of Canterbury in your game.
Really like your idea of "attached holdings" though, and the idea of developing your holdings over time. Also:
This genuinely made me LOL. Well played
Yep, completely with you on this one (see my post, page 3
)