I really hope for CK3

[Trunting]

While there are no signs of CK2 coming to life again even after the end of the holidays, we have to guess that CK3.is in development, wich is good news, I think. CK3 could have implemented:

- a better religious system, where traits of religions change over time
- cultures with changing attributes
- a better technology system
- a better way to represent commoners
- trade mechanics with trade goods
Internal mechanics: factions aside, vassals could plea for titles, demand revocations of titles from others etc
Reworkeds Muslims and Hindus

 

[cristofolmc]

All I want from CK2 is a deeper or at least existent economic-trade system not just for republics but for all, to represent the growth of the cities and the agricultural revolution, and deeper politics and factions mechanics and more character interactions, less fantasy and social focused, and more intrigue and politics focused.

 

[C.N.]

I expect a CK-like game to be announced at PDXCon, due to several signs, I hope it's not CK3. It's too early for CK3.
None of the features listed in the opening post would require a CK3, and neither would any one be something that would make me switch from CK2.
CK3 would require a real killer feature, that would make it feel like a new game, rather than CK2++.

 

[vandevere]

The only reason I can think of for a CK3 would be a new, and better Game Engine. Until then, CK2 is absolutely fine...

 

[Shadoon4]

While there are no signs of CK2 coming to life again even after the end of the holidays, we have to guess that CK3.is in development, wich is good news, I think. CK3 could have implemented:

- a better religious system, where traits of religions change over time
- cultures with changing attributes
- a better technology system
- a better way to represent commoners
- trade mechanics with trade goods
Internal mechanics: factions aside, vassals could plea for titles, demand revocations of titles from others etc
Reworkeds Muslims and Hindus

CITATION NEEDED

 

[Castios]

I, on the other hand, really hope for no ck3 in near future. Why would I want to buy dlc-less and very basic ck game instead of a game developed for many years with loads of content?

All I want to spend my money on is more ck2 content.

The last thing I wanna see is the-sims style of "add next number to the name of the game and start releasing dlcs with almost exactly same content and slightly changed name"

 

[Metanetwork]

I hope that there is at least two future DLC for CK2, and I hope that one of them expands Islam and heresies.

 

[Cardolam]

[...]CK3 would require a real killer feature, that would make it feel like a new game, rather than CK2++.

CK2++ with 10% of the content as it would come without DLCs...

 

[aantia]

What I want to see in CK3 is a rework of the claims and de jure system. This is something that's core to the game (unlike, for example, a deep economic simulation), but in its current state struggles to represent common historical situations, where lords don't just have an excuse to go to war, they actually call themselves by that title - and would receive at least some of the respect due to a lord of that tier.
In addition, the way every county belongs to a duchy, to a kingdom, and to an empire, and none of these overlap, is very ahistorical, and leads to ahistorical goals like 'form the empire of Brittania'. Why is there a de jure empire there when no such legal construct existed?
By all means let an incredibly prestigious and powerful ruler proclaim a new empire, but if any of these kings had been asked "What empire, if any, does your realm legally belong to," they'd have said the Roman Empire, which is why we had the HRE, the ERE, the Sultanate of Rum, and the Latin Empire - and no others (discounting the Magyars and others who weren't plugged into the European Christian cultural and legal bloc).

 

[jade rat]

I would wait until PDXCon until we consider if CK2 is finished or not.

 

[Pomeranian]

I'd like more stuff for the Orthodox and the Shia. Both feel like placeholders atm despite being really important in the game's timeframe.

 

[Castimirr]

Developer hasn't posted for five minutes..... game is deeeeeaaaaaaaddddddd!!!!!!!!

WTF, seriously. Chill out. We didn't need one thread for this. We really don't need one or two a day.

 

[Silversweeeper]

There was a dev diary gap for just shy of six months between RoI's last dev diary (2014-03-18) and the first CM dev diary (2014-09-17), which is quite a bit longer than the time that has passed since the last IC dev diary. There was a dev diary gap that was just over five months (2014-12-10 to 2015-05-12) between WoL and HL. There have been several gaps that have been over two months, and several periods where we only got filler dev diaries for a good amount of time (which people grumbled about enough that filler dev diaries might not be considered worthwhile any longer). I wouldn't worry particularly much at present, particularly not with PDXCon just around the corner.

 

[Vivs]

What I want to see in CK3 is a rework of the claims and de jure system. This is something that's core to the game (unlike, for example, a deep economic simulation), but in its current state struggles to represent common historical situations, where lords don't just have an excuse to go to war, they actually call themselves by that title - and would receive at least some of the respect due to a lord of that tier.
In addition, the way every county belongs to a duchy, to a kingdom, and to an empire, and none of these overlap, is very ahistorical, and leads to ahistorical goals like 'form the empire of Brittania'. Why is there a de jure empire there when no such legal construct existed?
By all means let an incredibly prestigious and powerful ruler proclaim a new empire, but if any of these kings had been asked "What empire, if any, does your realm legally belong to," they'd have said the Roman Empire, which is why we had the HRE, the ERE, the Sultanate of Rum, and the Latin Empire - and no others (discounting the Magyars and others who weren't plugged into the European Christian cultural and legal bloc).

Pretty much this, along with some other stuff. The only logical way for Paradox to do a sequel to CK2 is by reworking a lot of the core mechanics, like you mentioned here. The game is way too complete and polished to just give it a facelift, tweak a few aspects and call CK3. I think PDS knows this too, which is why I think CK3 is probably going to take a little longer.
Having said that, nothing is impossible, and we could get a surprise during PDXCon. I sure hope we still get two or three more DLCs/expansions for the current game before they leave it for good, though. The game needs that.

 

[_Perun_]

Developer hasn't posted for five minutes..... game is deeeeeaaaaaaaddddddd!!!!!!!!

WTF, seriously. Chill out. We didn't need one thread for this. We really don't need one or two a day.

Hello,
just wanted to ask: who is "we"?
Cordially

 

[aswitz87]

The only way I would want a CK3 is if the base game came with nearly as many features as we already have. If it is a step back to CK2 release, then I’d rather not, even if it means giving up a few bits of my wishlist.

 

[LeChacalPuant]

There are many ideas I could think of to make the game deeper.
But what I really want to see is an interface to manage titles and vassals. Giving/revoking a lot of titles is a real hassle as of now. I don't play nomads anymore for this reason. And I tend to avoid winning GHW as a non-catholic (with the old system I was even avoiding catholic crusades).
What I do now to avoid the hassle is giving all my titles to a single vassal and let him deal with the creation of 50 counts. There are already hundreds of situations where you will need to dumbly click around. Currently giving a county is at least 3 clicks a county. It would already be boring if it needed only one when you have a lot of provinces to give out, so why would I bother ?

The game is awesome as it is, but there are so many useless clicks. I'm not even talking about repeatitive events (most players probably don't read them anymore... what's their point ? an event is supposed to be an evolution in your character or your realm existence, as of the actual state of the game a lot of events are just an invitation for you to make them disappear ASAP cause you know what it is since the first word), lack of shortcuts (SERIOUSLY PARADOX ? Why does the "c" shortcut to confirm actions is missing from so many decisions ? This single thing could make pillaging as nomad way more smooth) or confused shortcuts (oh, you're trying to assault this holding as fast as possible ? Here, I just raised your vassal fleet because you own a holding here, now you can press c again to confirm you read another siege report, and now you can press c to assault, you welcome)

Actually none of these complains need CK3, cause you could think of a title management system with events (things like when you ask a vassal to give out titles for you, except that you could chose to give each holding to a different holder with a single owner, making some titles not being considered by the events, so in like 3 clicks you would have given all those titles you don't even care as long as you have them). But there should be a dedicated interface to give titles and transfer vassals, and as titles were thought to be handled one by one, I think a CK3 is needed to see any improvement.
As there should be a more detailed view of militaries forces in the country. There is no way to find out how many troops your liege can get from you at any moment. Goddamn, I'm the guy providing troops, if I can say how many levies I raise precisely for myself, I should be able to know how many troops my liege can raise from me. He knows, but I don't. What the hell ?
I would like in CK3 that unless you spend resources in it, you could never really know how many men you're raising. The margin error should be bigger as you grow, unless again you keep a track of it with your resources. Maybe a councillor mission ?
Now, same for vassal levies raising : how can it be that if I give all my titles to a single man, whether he gives them to vassal or not, I'm able to raise his 300k+ troops anywhere in the empire as long as the lands belong to him ? BUT if I demobilize half his troops, I can not mobilize them again unless I demobilize everyone ? I understand this is for game management, but this makes no sense.

Globally, I think too many things limit the player to prevent him from exploiting the game. That's not how you should think such a grand strategy game with a RP aspect. Whether you build a good system that don't need you to limit the player's action, whether you just accept that there are failures in your system and you don't put unconsistent limitations to make those failures less visible. Taking an hour of micromanagement that could have been done in less than a minute with a better system is acceptable when you play CK2. But there's nothing as frustrating as not being able to do something because it doesn't do well with another mechanic that does not make sense according to reality and is only here for GP reason.

If there was to be a CK3, I won't buy it unless it's a true sandbox game. CK2 is awesome since its beggining but was thought for catholics kingdoms (and even for those kingdoms there are still gameplay limitations that are not consistent). This needs to be changed. A CK3 would need to focus more on RP, specifics governements (or genereal governments that could evolve), in one word it would need to be way more flexible on any aspect of the game. I don't even care about DLC policy, I would gladly spend 500 bucks in DLCs for another thousands hours of epicness.

By the way, a smarter AI would be really cool. Though I most of the time am satisfied with AI management (well, I'm not talking about bordergores or stupid wars here, there is consistency for that), I think the vassal management is not really good, unless we're talking about historical realms that seem to do an OK job with their vassals, but nowhere near what a player can do.

Empires management should also be greatly enhanced. I think RIRSEI is way more consistent for that, but is limited by the game's mechanics, which is kind of sad as there were great ideas behind what they've done.

 

[Emir of Aleppo]

Vicky 3 should be much higher on Paradoxs priority list!

 

[Ezumiyr]

less fantasy and social focused, and more intrigue and politics focused.

Honestly I'll probably be the contrary, whether we like it or not. Or more precisely, it will likely have more fantasy and more RPG-focused, which means more social but also more politics... not sure what you mean when you oppose "social" with "intrigue" and "politics" anyway because they are all basically synonyms in this game, just like they were in medieval times. The separation of the private and political sphere among the elite is a modern thing.

It's likely that "CK3" (which may not even be called "crusader kings") will feel even more like Game of Thrones. Artifacts, fancy religions, societies and other similar features will probably become part of the core game. Historicity is clearly not a priority here.
It's a good thing, because Paradox absolutely doesn't have the capabilities of making an interesting management/strategy game, and it would only appeal to a very small niche of players anyway. And rightfully so, because if you want to make it historical, then it will be incredibly boring.

 

[MrParadux]

I, on the other hand, really hope for no ck3 in near future. Why would I want to buy dlc-less and very basic ck game instead of a game developed for many years with loads of content?

All I want to spend my money on is more ck2 content.

The last thing I wanna see is the-sims style of "add next number to the name of the game and start releasing dlcs with almost exactly same content and slightly changed name"

Absolutely. I dread the day, because it most certainly will be like that.

I remember talking to my sister recently who enjoys the Sims series a lot. She said she misses some features Sims 3 had that the newer Sims 4 no longer has.

As I said in another thread about CK3 (there seem to be a lot of those at the moment) that even if (when?) CK3 would be barebones and in an unfinished state (looking at you, Imperator), CK2 wouldn't go away. The main problem would be that it most likely would mean that CK2 wouldn't get any support anymore and that would suck majorly.