The game is released, the reviews are in, and the response so far has been overwhelmingly positive. It's been a long road, and a few of you might be interested to know the dirty secrets of the development process here at Paradox... Also, what we have in store for you in the future. So don't get scared by the wall of text; get comfy, pop a Valium and chill out to the "Tron: Legacy" soundtrack as I tell you the story of Crusader Kings II.

On paper, Crusader Kings II was an 18 month project, the same as Hearts of Iron 3. In comparison, Victoria II and EU:Rome were made in 12 months, and Sengoku eight. With the varying number of team members in different phases of the projects, these figures are a bit misleading but should still give you an inkling of the relative budgets. The idea was simple: take the original Crusader Kings design, cut out the chaff, remake the game in the Clausewitz engine and make it our most polished release ever. (To be clear, we did not port anything from the old code base; we didn't even look at it.) We were very wary of adding more new features than we could handle (*cough* HoI3 *cough*.) Thus, the design document was divided into core, major and minor features. The major and minor features were modular and ordered by priority, so that we could simply start cutting the least important ones if it looked we would not have time to do them properly. In fact, we expected to have to cut some of them, and yes, we thought that some would eventually make good DLC.

Now, there are a lot of negative opinions about DLC among gamers these days. In some cases, it's justified; some DLC material just isn't worth the money. However, I've never understood the argument that "it should have been in the game from the start". Everything should apparently have been in the game, including an onion peeler and a self-aware AI. There are so many obvious problems with long development cycles that anyone should be able to understand that this argument is simply nonsense. It's far better to make a fun and balanced game with all the core features working properly than to either release a buggy bloated mess or a game with a huge budget (and thus a huge risk) and hefty price tag that's already outdated on release after five years of development.

So what did we cut from Crusader Kings II? Basically, this:

• A medieval style chronicle with annual entries
• Trade post holdings built by the republics (Venice, Genoa, etc)
• Hiring ships from the great republics
• Relics that can be found, looted, and used to build cathedrals
• Loads of very rare narrative events (like "The Gates of Hell") with multi-generational effects
• A viceroy/drots/great seneschal council position for each kingdom held
• Cadet branches of dynasties
• Adventures - younger sons raising an army and going off to conquer something on their own

Will all these things become DLC? Probably not, but some likely will, and others might be patched in for free (or, well, basically paid for by those who do buy our DLC.) Note that playable non-Christians, republics and theocracies were never planned (though always considered good material for expansions.)

A few areas of the game went off on a tangent from the original design as development progressed. For example, the map turned out much prettier and more advanced than I had envisioned, thanks to the efforts of Tegus (Fredrik Zetterman.) Also, things like the vassal and dynasty trees, the Wikipedia links and the panning map in the lobby (courtesy of Johan Lerström) were not in the design doc. As always, there are also parts of the game that I am not 100% happy with. Plots could be more dynamic and have a better interface, the marriage interfaces are a bit clunky, the general GUI can be intimidating to newcomers and battles are not interactive. On the whole though, it all turned out pretty much as intended.

So, what are we planning for the future? Crusader Kings II will have many major DLC packs that are actually more like small expansions. Every time we release a major DLC, we will also release a major free content patch. I cannot say exactly when we will be adding what, but here are some things you can expect for free in the coming months:

• Enhanced, more focused Crusades with a "contribution" score
• Causes of Death
• Asking to join an ongoing war
• Lots of more plots and ambitions
• Events, events, and more events
• Improved GUI where it's needed the most (plots, marriages)
• Flexible de jure liege structure
• More de jure kingdoms

Of course, we will also be fixing bugs, plugging exploits and improving the interface, the AI and game balance. Oh, and unleash some DLC...

Thank you all for the positive response and for buying the game, ensuring that we can keep making the games you want to play.

 

[GregElSho]

Most especially, all game mechanics required to make a christian feudal medieval world are not the same it would take to properly depict non-christian feudal medieval worlds.
Which means there is a reason those states and individuals aren't currently playable. It would require more than a few events and polish to make them truly enjoyable, or so I'm told.

 

[unmerged(75409)]

Yeah, absolutely. CK2 would have been trashed in the reviews, if there had been an expectation that non-Christian states would be playable AND enjoyable.

As is, the muslims/pagans are playable but only "unofficially". So there's non expectation that they would be really fleshed out in any form or shape, even though events and plots are really the only thing missing.

 

[barisakbay]

I am perfectly sure that PI can make Christian monarchies and other nations/states/beyliks/principalities very much enjoyable at the same time.
Of course the feudal systems in Muslim countries or the structure of the Caliphate differs from Western states and the Christian Church. However, what I like about their games is that they can simulate things mathematically and make them work in a plausible way. They can arouse imagination without resorting to fancy graphics.
Of course this is my take on the whole thing and I will just wait until this game becomes a true Paradox Interactive game that it is supposed to be.

 

[Jaol]

So what did we cut from Crusader Kings II? Basically, this:

• A medieval style chronicle with annual entries
  ...
• Hiring ships from the great republics
  ...
• Cadet branches of dynasties

The more I play, the more I find I want these 3 things in particular. The ships issue has been debated to death, and it seems like everyone agrees that cadet branches would be great, but I haven't heard much discussion of a chronicle.

A well-done chronicle would be such a great addition to the game, IMO. I understand why they cut it out, since a less developed one with lots of stock language would get old fast, and could even hurt the game if it undermined player's freedom to imagine what is happening. But a good one would be great. And, at the very least, I'd like some sort of history of each ruler in the end screen (EU3 had something like this, IIRC).

What would really put it over the top, IMO, is if the chronicle could be combined with more detailed and descriptive battle reports. The combat system makes every battle a mini-story, but we rarely get to appreciate it. Wouldn't it be cool to get a little write-up of each battle in an annual chronicle?

Perhaps you wouldn't want a full write-up for every battle, but for major engagements (say over 10% warscore) it would be awesome, IMO. Or perhaps the battle report (the thing that lists the casualties, etc.) could have an "expanded view", that would give you a write-up and let you select if you want to add it to the chronicle.

For example, here's how I'm imagining the real battle of Dyrrhachium would read as a CK2 battle:

"On the 18th of October*, the Apulian and Byzantine armies met outside the city of Dyrrhachium. The Byzantine center was commanded by Emperor Alexius Comnenus himself, with the left wing under the command of Gregory Pakourianos, and the right under the command of Nikephoros Melissenos. Duke Robert Guiscard formed his battle line opposite Alexius's, with the right wing under the command of the Count of Giovinazzo, the left under Marshal Bohemond of Taranto, and himself in the center facing Alexius. The Varangian guard was positioned in the Byzantine center, with the Turkish Mercenary Band on the Byzantine right. The Apulian army was composed entirely of levies.

Byzantine archers inflicted heavy loses on the Apulian lines with volley tactics as the armies skirmished, defeating Duke Robert's feints. As the armies met, the Apulian right wing charged forward, but the Byzantine lines held firm and quickly routed the Count of Giovinazzo's troops. The Apulian center was now flanked, but Duke Robert's troops held firm against the Byzantine advance, and Duke Robert led a charge of opportunity against the Byzantine center, breaking the Byzantine lines and causing them to rout. Meanwhile, Marshal Bohemond had forced the Byzantine right wing to retreat, and together he and Duke Robert drove Gregory Pakourianos's troops from the field.

Emperor Alexius and his personal guards resisted as long as they could before retreating. As they retreated, Alexius was separated from his guard and was wounded. The Apuilians continued their siege of the city.

Note: I think you'd want to pick a single date for each battle rather than give the full range of days--I like to think of that as the whole campaign, with the battle itself happening on the final day.