• 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.

Dev Diary #109 - Floor Plan for the Future

Greetings!

A long time in the making, this diary is dedicated to plans, and what we have in store for CK3. From more present matters to musings and thoughts ranging into the far future. Crusader Kings is a unique game series, and one that has been close to my heart for a long time - the focus on characters as the driving force, emergent narratives, and player freedom make it truly stand out.

Ever since I took the reins of the project I’ve continued to follow the original vision, which some of you might remember from the very first Dev Diary: Character Focus, Player Freedom and Progression, Player Stories, and Approachability. As you can see, the points correspond fairly well with my initial sentiment, and I do not intend to deviate too far from these points - that said there are always things we can do better or differently within them, and I think that we could do even more to, for example, improve the cohesion of player stories or the sense of progression. I am a firm believer in that everything in the game should help you in making stories (while not necessarily being explicitly connected).

Internally we’ve always worked with the premise “Live the life of a Medieval Ruler”, which means that we want the game to be uniquely true to how life was during the period. We want to attribute more than just ‘death, suffering, and war’ to the era we portray. Highlighting things that you might not see elsewhere, such as family, or the challenges of rulership, is important to us. Going forward this will remain a priority, though it is important to note that we do exaggerate and romanticize a lot - it is a game after all!

thinking_ani.gif


This all leads me to the next point; what are we doing?

As a project, we aspire to have a cadence of roughly four releases per year, not including post-release support in the form of patches or hotfixes. During this year we’ve released Royal Court, Fate of Iberia, Friends & Foes, and as mentioned previously we’re aiming to have a free update out before the year is over. We want to have a steady stream of new content, while also maintaining the game by acting on feedback. For next year, our ambition is to have somewhere around four updates (barring unforeseen circumstances).

Going even further (long-term) we have the ambition to shorten our cycles, so we can get more content and updates out. The project is (by Paradox Development Studio standards) still young, and has a long future ahead of it. There’s so much to do, and so many ideas still to explore. Though as I mentioned this is an ambition and not a promise - it might be complicated to get everything in place, but rest assured that we’re always evaluating what we can do to achieve this.

Of course, we’re also watching initiatives that other studios are driving, such as the Stellaris Custodian Initiative, with interest. While we’re not organized in a way where we could adopt a similar structure today, it’s something that’s worth investigating - again, this is a long-term thing, and it’s very possible that we would find another setup that works better for Crusader Kings.

For next year we want to do something similar to Royal Edition again, an Expansion Pass with a bundle of intriguing content. One drawback of the Royal Edition was the fact that the main beat, the Major Expansion, came later in the cycle. For the next one, we want to either start off the cycle with the Major Expansion, or make it obvious what the theme is going to be from the start. This should make it much clearer what you’re actually getting in the package as a whole. We’re also exploring what formats and formulas of expansions could make up a future Expansion Pass, as the ‘1 Expansion, 2 Flavor Pack’ formula is not set in stone.

In addition to this, we also aim to do experiments now and then. For this year, the experiment was Friends & Foes; a smaller content format that was born out of the minds of the team. We’re looking into a few different experiments for the future, which I can unfortunately not share right now. Though something we can share is that we’re looking into more community involvement.

But what are we doing? What’s the next Expansion about?

As I’ve mentioned before, it’s too early to reveal the theme. However, the next Expansion is leaning towards the roleplaying side of the game. Without revealing too much we’re focusing in large parts on reinforcing the connection between map and character. The theme is not one that has been the subject of an expansion in previous iterations of CK - to make things extra clear; we’re not doing trade, imperial/byzantine mechanics, nomads, or similar this time.

That said, I know that many of you are also hungry for more systemic expansions, and that’s understandable! Of course, the next Expansion isn’t devoid of systemic changes or mechanics just because it’s leaning heavily towards roleplaying. CK, like all GSGs, requires systemic content to remain true to what they are. There will be plenty of systems, both as part of the Expansion and the free update that comes along with it. For Flavor Packs we’re also going to aim to have systemic content as part of the formula - Fate of Iberia proved that a combination of flavor (events, clothes, illustrations, etc.) and a central systemic feature (the struggle) served to elevate the experience as a whole.

As of now, we have a team of designers that is unlike anything we’ve had before - it’s not only a large team, but they’re also highly skilled and competent. This, in part, is why we’ve chosen to do an Expansion focusing on the roleplaying side of things, and it’s also the reason why we had the capacity to do the Friends & Foes experiment.

My aspiration is to shift focus towards more systems-heavy expansions after the next one, and we’re gearing up the team to be able to do just that. I’m of the opinion that there must be balance, and as we’ll have had two roleplay-focused expansions in a row, by then it’ll be time for the scales to shift towards the systemic side. We’ve expanded our team of programmers significantly, so the future looks bright for those of you that crave new and exciting systemic content…

Looking toward the future, what will we be doing over the coming years?

Now, there are a lot of areas that I want to explore in the future! Please note that anything I write or list here is not in any way chronological, and they’re not explicit promises. Great ideas come along at any moment, from any direction, and we want to stay flexible with our plans.

The current formats of Major Expansions, Flavor Packs, and Event Packs I believe let us cover every style of content we want to do, and we intend to keep these formats (while maybe tweaking the formulas a little bit here and there!).

Flavor Themes
Starting off with Flavor Packs; the regional focus is great and allows us to deep-dive into the history of a particular area - but as fun as it is to hit the books on a specific region, it’s possible that we’ll also be looking into non-regional Flavor Pack variants. Anything can be possible as long as there’s a central system where flavor can be woven in. That said, at least the next Flavor pack is likely to remain regional in nature.

A long-term goal is to revitalize and create diverse and varied gameplay throughout the map. Something we want to do is to explore regions outside of Europe, as both of our Flavor Packs so far have been within the region. We want to show how much fascinating history and intriguing gameplay can be found around the world. Examples with a lot of surprisingly deep history include regions such as Tibet, Persia, the Caucasus, and North Africa, to name only a few.

Of course, in due time we also want to explore regions within Europe that are very popular for players, some examples including Britain, France, and the West/East Slavic lands. It’s likely that we’ll alternate a bit, especially if someone on the team is extra passionate about a theme. Also one final thing; a lot of you are asking for a Byzantine Flavor Pack, but I know for a fact that the scope of a Flavor Pack wouldn’t sate your ravenous hunger for East Roman content… when we eventually get to them, it’d more than likely be as the part of a Major Expansion!

As for non-regional, there are some ideas floating around; further exploring governments such as the Tribal Government, or building flavorful systems around for example Epidemics (which is a system that would, foundationally, be free if/when we make it), etc. A benefit that this format would have is that we’d be able to make systems that don’t fit the larger theme of a Major Expansion, but that we still feel would be great for the game.

Just to reiterate; don’t take anything I say here as a statement that we’re doing one of these themes right now!

Ambitions for Expansions
There are already years worth of ideas for what we could do for Expansions. I’ll go through a handful of the areas I’d like to explore in the future, focusing on some of the topics commonly seen around the community. Note that these are not necessarily standalone Expansion themes, some might be combined, others divided. While there are some themes that I think are more important than others, there’s really no saying what we’ll look at first or in what order.
WIPdeck.png


Trade & Merchant Republics is something I hear a lot about - and it’s something that I really want to get to in time. However, I found the CK2 implementation in The Republic to be incredibly lackluster; in a game with thousands of interesting starts, it added only a handful more, and it didn’t actually have that much to do with trade. For CK3 my vision would be different - medieval rulers didn’t trade, per se, and noble rulers didn’t regularly barter resources with each other, so while that’s not a thing I’d want, there are a lot of interactions that could be added around trade and the people who did the trading. A system for CK3 would be character-driven, and there’s definitely an opportunity for new playstyles that aren’t as limited as the ones in CK2…

Imperial Mechanics, especially in relation to the Byzantine Empire, is another common topic. Empires are generally not very exciting, essentially having the same mechanics as a king does. I believe that there’s an opportunity not only for emperors, but to be part of an empire. In many cases, such as in Byzantium, the Abbasids, or even the HRE, being a part of the empire should be as interesting as ruling it. There are many ways of going about this, but ideally, I’d want to get a lot of differences in there - no two empires were ever really the same, after all.

Laws were another system that was lackluster at best in CK2. While they allowed a degree of customization and mechanical impact, the implementation was static and fairly uninspired. Conceptually laws were a huge part of being a ruler and being part of a realm, and while we do have vassal contracts (which I’d like to revise at some point, too) there’s room for more. For CK3, a law system would be deeply driven by characters, rather than confined to a static setup. Dynamism and evolution would be two keywords for the vision here.

Religion in CK3 took a great step up from previous iterations, but there’s always more we can do. There are a plethora of ideas floating around, and as religion was such a common part of everyone’s lives by this point in history, it’s hardly surprising. It’s hard to nail down exactly what I’d like to do here as there’s just so much, but CK3 is uniquely suited to simulate all the drama that happened between everyone involved within the sphere of faith, be they Pope, Grandmaster, or simply an influential ruler. There’s also a lot of potential around crusades, and all the happenings before, during, and after them. I’d also really like to get faith to play a larger part in the everyday lives of rulers, as it’s much too easy to ignore as it stands.

Nomads are just one part of the whole; the Steppe. This region is unique, and we’ve never done it real justice. In CK2 every ruler on the Steppe was a Genghis-in-the-making, with little focus beyond war. In reality, the Steppe was like an ocean - and the nomads were the only ones who had mastered it. I’d like to make the Steppe as a region stand out with mechanics of its own, and I’d like a large part of nomadic life to be about moving, focusing on the dynamism of the place and the people within.

The Late Game is another area that I’m very interested in expanding, as the game currently plays very similar across the entire timeline. Sure, there are some differences, primarily in how easy it is to rule, and how much you’re able to claim in wars, but the differences could be more fundamental. This is one of those topics where there are a million things we could do, but an ambition I have is that the game should stay interesting for longer than is currently the average play session (around 200 years or so). Looking at Eras and their effects on the game is one venue, so is taking a look at holdings, economy, and other fundamental components of the game.

I think it’s quite obvious that I eventually want to Expand the Map, to include the rest of the Old World. If we’d do it all at once or in segments is still up in the air, but regardless of what approach we take, it’s imperative that the area feels different to play in from the western half. While it’s obvious that the area would require a lot of unique art, I’d also want it to work differently from a mechanical standpoint - governments, faiths, etc. It’s an ambitious goal, but one I wish to tackle eventually.

Floorplan.png

An incredibly rough floor plan for the future.

General Areas
Of course, there are also areas of the game that I want to revisit, rework, rebalance, or expand in general - it’s not all about expansions or flavor, existing systems, and core loops must be revisited now and then to keep the game in a good state. Of course, this would be done in free updates, either free-standing or as part of a bigger release. Here are some of the things that I’d like to get to within a reasonable timeline, some more important than others. This is not an exhaustive list.

Alliances
are too binary as they stand, while it’s true that it’s easy to understand how they work, it also results in a lot of unwanted busywork when you have to fight in wars you’ve no interest in (or you have to take a big prestige hit…) - at the same time, it’s much too easy to get a lot of allies that, at a moments notice, are ready to drop everything in order to help in your wars. I’d like to see a pact-based system where you have to negotiate more, without making it annoying to find and get the alliances you need. You should, for example, never be fooled into a marriage hoping to get an offensive alliance, where it turns out you simply can’t. Exactly how/what we’d do is still in the works, but it’s high up on my list.

Clans do not feel unique enough, while they have some mechanics that simulate the sphere’s tendency for spectacular rises & falls, there’s more we can do to show the differences from Feudal. I’d like to explore what made Clan realms so different historically and draw upon that for a more flavorful set of differing mechanics. I definitely also want to make the Clan, as in the group of people, matter more in the government bearing its namesake.

Warfare is not and never will be a primary focus for CK3, that said it’s not as character-driven as it could be, outside of commander advantage and the occasional great knight. There’s also a real problem with delivering content (usually in the form of events) during times of war, as the player more often than not gets interrupted by something appearing in the middle of the screen while maneuvering units. I’d eventually like for us to be able to deliver content in a way that doesn’t interrupt warfare, and use that system to highlight characters and heroic acts (Battle of Agincourt, anyone?). I’d also like to rework the major annoyances of warfare, such as supply.

Modifier Stacking is becoming an issue in some places, especially for Men-at-Arms modifiers (primarily from buildings) and Building Cost Reduction modifiers. While some issues can be solved by tweaking numbers (we’ve for example reduced prestige sources in the past) others require a redesign/revisit of the underlying problem. For example, I’d like to take a long, hard look at MaA modifiers, seeing as the player can very easily destroy AI armies with little work. I’d like to not only rebalance the sources of MaA boons but potentially also create new options for fun management.

AI is an enigmatic beast, with aspects that are incredibly diverse. One of them is warfare AI, where Crusades stand out as an area in need of improvement - on one hand, historical crusades were incredibly disorganized, but on the other, we don’t want the player to feel like they’re hopeless endeavors. No matter what we decide to do, we’ll have to strike a balance - if the AI played perfectly optimally, crusades would steamroll everything, and I don’t want that. There are of course other aspects of the AI where I want to see improvements, such as the marriage AI, but we’ve at least made some good strides with the economical AI over the last few updates, so that’s not a priority. We eventually want personalities to shine through every aspect of the AI, and we have some plans for that, which will likely come in steps.

Community & History
As I touched upon earlier, we’d like to invite you in the community to take part in some of the things we’re doing in the not-too-distant future - my guess would be within Q1 of next year (though still TBD). Without spoiling too much it’d have something to do with the content we’ll be making…

While not directly related to the game, an (at least if you ask me) incredibly cool initiative that we’ll be driving is to have more collaborations with historical media - this goes hand-in-hand with what I mentioned early on in this diary, regarding us wanting to show how medieval life actually was! This means that you’ll be seeing even more podcasts, videos, etc., about themes close to the game. Who knows, we might even get historians or professors to be guests or consult for our upcoming content.

For those of you playing on console there will be a post later this week, answering some of the questions you have.

That’s it for now! I invite you all to discuss what you see here - share your thoughts about the themes, ideas for what you’d like to see, suggestions on how things could be done, and so on!
 
  • 260Like
  • 113Love
  • 46
  • 19
  • 9
Reactions:
What I would like to know is whether or not there are any plans to revamp or expand thej skill trees. Right now it feels like you're gunning for the same skills with every cahracter, because there are only so few that actually matter. The majority is rather situational and therefor not worth getting.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
I really like what I've read here; it shows an encouraging future for the game. I'm very supportive of the idea to increase regional diversity, and I think tying more systems to cultures and regions (especially using struggle mechanics) will really help to improve that.

Along those lines, I'd like to see mechanics for minority cultures and religions across the map. This would both diversify different regions by adding more variance, and improve the simulation aspect of the game by including historical details that are currently neglected. Manichaeism, for example, was at one point the most widespread religion in the world, and incredibly prevalent in the steppe and in Persia, Transoxiana, and the Tarim Basin. However, this isn't reflected in game, as Manichaeism did not receive royal patronage and was primarily practiced by peasants, so Manichaeism is only represented by the Uyghur kingdoms who officially adopted it as their state religion. A system for minority religions and cultures would better capture this dynamic and give players more options. and Judaism, paganism, and regional heresies would similarly benefit from such a system.

I would only ask that the developers be mindful of event spam, as it was a major problem at the end of CK2, and there are quite a number of events in-game already. More focus on character interactions and major/minor decisions would help here.
 
  • 6
Reactions:
What I would like to know is whether or not there are any plans to revamp or expand thej skill trees. Right now it feels like you're gunning for the same skills with every cahracter, because there are only so few that actually matter. The majority is rather situational and therefor not worth getting.
Which skills you think are those "must have ones"? I heavily roleplay with my characters, so alone because of that nearly each tree gets some attention in my games - but still if I leave that aside for a moment and try to be a min-maxer...I just can't see exactly which skills you mean. Those unlocking abilities like befriending? Something military-related? The intrigue one?
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
You should do something about technology/era.
it's really frustrating to be focusing innovation, but really ahead of anyone. But there is nothing more to seach execpt some useless tech, and then when you have it, you can't search anything for like 50 years.
It's doesn't make sense. it's like you would shot down every lab/university because you discovered everything in 1950, waiting to reopen them in 2000.

Ok the technology design is cool, cultural tech focus is great (even if there is not enough of them). but when it comes for gameplay mecanics, it was better in CK2.

And why lock primogeniture this far in the tech tree??? i know there is multiples ways to avoid partitions. it's easy, that's not the problem. But i m tired of doing them over and over again. I understand it was historical in lot a countries, but not all of them. for exemple, which muslim country was devided between all the heirs?
 
  • 6
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I love everything in the floorplan, but I think you should add a family flavor pack to your list. For a game that's about preserving your dynasty, there's not a lot of ways to interact with your dynastic family (especially your children). I'd love to have your children opinion of you based more off events or decisions instead of just "well you're my child, you must like me". One of the things that could be done is to have a minor decision to spend the day with a close family member with chances to increase their opinion of you, maybe even helping train your heir in swordsmanship or history lessons. On the opposite end you might make them bitter enough because of your neglect that they choose to overthrow you. More events would also help: your sons having a rivalry that causes issues especially after you're gone, your daughter demanding a council position despite it being against your laws, a second son requesting their inheritance now or more of it. All this to say, let's ramp up the medieval family drama!
 
  • 4Like
Reactions:
I don't know if anyone has said this, but here are some changes that I believe would be for the best in a update to the base game mechanics:

1. For Unite the West Slavs, I think that the required Duchy titles that are not apart of a West Slav kingdom should become de jure a part of the Empire of West Slavia.
2. The Heresy system seems kind of off. I have seen Zealous AI start a heresy movement when I think that would be unlikely. There should be a system, maybe like a ranking system that determines, which AI characters are likely to start and join a heresy. Zealous AI should be very unlikely to join or start a heresy movement, while Cynical characters would be the opposite. Having a sinful or virtuous priest could also be factor, as well as opinion of the head of faith. Being excommunicated should come with the faith conversion reduction cost that cynical characters have, though not stack with it. AI opinion could also be affected if they feel that the excommunication was unjust.
3. It would be nice for there to be more player input into help keep fervor up. A recent playthrough of mine had a failed crusade in Spain and another one was not called. The fervor never got high enough for the pope to call for another crusade yet not low enough for a heresy outbreak. This might be tied to a rework Crusade mechanics.

Something else that I would like to see implemented would be the papal schism like what happened in the 14th century.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Zealous AI should be very unlikely to join or start a heresy movement,
Zealous AIs with positive or mildly negative opinion of their HOF should hate heresies, only join one if their bravery is negative, and absolutely never start one.

Zealous AIs with strong negative opinion of their HOF, on the other hand, should consider starting heresies if they think they can get some momentum going, and also consider joining a heresy led by someone they like.

Cynical AIs, by contrast, should almost never start heresies, but should be perfectly happy to join one if it's politically convenient.
 
  • 7
  • 2Like
Reactions:
I love everything in the floorplan, but I think you should add a family flavor pack to your list. For a game that's about preserving your dynasty, there's not a lot of ways to interact with your dynastic family (especially your children). I'd love to have your children opinion of you based more off events or decisions instead of just "well you're my child, you must like me". One of the things that could be done is to have a minor decision to spend the day with a close family member with chances to increase their opinion of you, maybe even helping train your heir in swordsmanship or history lessons. On the opposite end you might make them bitter enough because of your neglect that they choose to overthrow you. More events would also help: your sons having a rivalry that causes issues especially after you're gone, your daughter demanding a council position despite it being against your laws, a second son requesting their inheritance now or more of it. All this to say, let's ramp up the medieval family drama!
This is a great suggestion, and it would also benefit the laws revamp if you could designate how your children could inherit to affect their relations and help manage succession, like how Ferdinand I divided up Spain amongst his heirs.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
So basically more RP (which mods already do better than you and for free) will be added with a new DLC. Brilliant, certified Paradox moment lmao
 
  • 7
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Please remember to make sure you are calm and collected before posting.

Let's keep discussions civil, thank you.
 
Seems to me that there’s zero progress on the mere concept of how CK3 is to handle republics… just a very basic idea that it’s not going to be resources but people… Relatively obvious, but ok.

I myself am a fan of Republics and it was the majority of my playthroughs in CK2… so by all means I’m eager for CK3’s take on merchant republics.

But it seems it will be *years* after release to get even the first iteration of Republucs?

In the dev diary text, you say “…but republics only added a few, among hundreds of starting options”… but then proceeds to fawn over the Steppe region and how it deserves special attention:/

I found this very disheartening. Is Venice less relevant to **Crusader Kings** than Mongols? Is it less urgent?

Also, the Republics did technically add a few starting options in CK2, but one can’t conpare this against the presumed “hindreds of other start options”… which are all the same. It’s not 2-3 republics vs 500 feudal starts, it seems like a logical fallacy. All those 500 are the same. 1 Venice start is significantly different than all the duchy starts put together.

So yeah, I strongly object to the way the dev diary handled the “plans” on Republics for CK3.

Hope to sit behind the Doge’s desk in 2023.
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
Seems to me that there’s zero progress on the mere concept of how CK3 is to handle republics… just a very basic idea that it’s not going to be resources but people… Relatively obvious, but ok.

I myself am a fan of Republics and it was the majority of my playthroughs in CK2… so by all means I’m eager for CK3’s take on merchant republics.

But it seems it will be *years* after release to get even the first iteration of Republucs?

In the dev diary text, you say “…but republics only added a few, among hundreds of starting options”… but then proceeds to fawn over the Steppe region and how it deserves special attention:/

I found this very disheartening. Is Venice less relevant to **Crusader Kings** than Mongols? Is it less urgent?

Also, the Republics did technically add a few starting options in CK2, but one can’t conpare this against the presumed “hindreds of other start options”… which are all the same. It’s not 2-3 republics vs 500 feudal starts, it seems like a logical fallacy. All those 500 are the same. 1 Venice start is significantly different than all the duchy starts put together.

So yeah, I strongly object to the way the dev diary handled the “plans” on Republics for CK3.

Hope to sit behind the Doge’s desk in 2023.
I think it's reasonable to want to play Venice mind you, but a few points:
1. Is the fact that 500 feudal start dates play exactly the same not, in and of itself, an indicator of a bigger issue at hand here? Maybe there should be a system that makes realms more different from one another; then the need to play as a single place on the entire map with a different government type might not be an issue. I don't think giving other parts of the map that are in much more drastic need of attention a bit of love before making a playable republics DLC literally just for Venice would be a bad idea.
2. The Steppe region is not just "the Mongols". Even if you go by the (heavily flawed) assumption that because this is "Crusader Kings" the people who are most relevant to the Crusades should come first in precedence, the Steppes still have an important role to play: the Turkic peoples that ended up taking control of a massive empire by the 1066 start date still, y'know, started as Nomads. These were the people that repelled most of the Crusaders in the first place. Hell, a lot of the Ghilman and Mamluks were nomadic peoples - woefully unrepresented in game though they are. These people, and depicting them at least semi-accurately, should be essential to having a true "Crusader Kings" experience.
 
  • 4Like
  • 2
Reactions:
I think it's reasonable to want to play Venice mind you, but a few points:
1. Is the fact that 500 feudal start dates play exactly the same not, in and of itself, an indicator of a bigger issue at hand here? Maybe there should be a system that makes realms more different from one another; then the need to play as a single place on the entire map with a different government type might not be an issue. I don't think giving other parts of the map that are in much more drastic need of attention a bit of love before making a playable republics DLC literally just for Venice would be a bad idea.
2. The Steppe region is not just "the Mongols". Even if you go by the (heavily flawed) assumption that because this is "Crusader Kings" the people who are most relevant to the Crusades should come first in precedence, the Steppes still have an important role to play: the Turkic peoples that ended up taking control of a massive empire by the 1066 start date still, y'know, started as Nomads. These were the people that repelled most of the Crusaders in the first place. Hell, a lot of the Ghilman and Mamluks were nomadic peoples - woefully unrepresented in game though they are. These people, and depicting them at least semi-accurately, should be essential to having a true "Crusader Kings" experience.
We’re talking about game development triage, though. Sonething has to cone sooner than the other. I argue republics do indeed take precedence, Venice foremost (in the case they want to customize each republic, which I can’t imagine them doing ever). But by all means let the game eventually include everything, and may everyone be happy :D
 
There’s also a real problem with delivering content (usually in the form of events) during times of war, as the player more often than not gets interrupted by something appearing in the middle of the screen while maneuvering units. I’d eventually like for us to be able to deliver content in a way that doesn’t interrupt warfare
It sounds like you're thinking about moving in a direction closer to what Victoria 3 is doing with events, where notifications pop up on the map and in a sidebar. If this is indeed the case, I would like to strenuously request that you reconsider. This approach is one of the (many) ways Victoria fails to adequately deliver information to the player in a clear and timely fashion and would be much the same for Crusader Kings. As someone with an attention disorder, I like having events pop up in the middle of the screen and pause the game, interrupting what I'm doing. Otherwise I will almost certainly miss them (and often do in Victoria).
 
  • 6
  • 1
Reactions:
How far out would possible map expansion go? I've always wanted to see CK expand out to Asia played a mod that stretched the map all the way out east. While cool it largely plays the same as amy other area already in game
 
Societies were one of my favourite parts of CK2, and I'm gutted that they won't be making a return.

The stress feature of CK3 actually makes them more viable without being "bonus factories", because society membership might have stress-causing events (or ambient stress) that limits your time to do other things.

What makes them great is that they're the thing I tended to put my focus into when playing peacefully, giving me a sense of achievement and status. Without them, I just feel like I have to map paint until I become emperor of Europe.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
Societies were one of my favourite parts of CK2, and I'm gutted that they won't be making a return.

The stress feature of CK3 actually makes them more viable without being "bonus factories", because society membership might have stress-causing events (or ambient stress) that limits your time to do other things.

What makes them great is that they're the thing I tended to put my focus into when playing peacefully, giving me a sense of achievement and status. Without them, I just feel like I have to map paint until I become emperor of Europe.

I hear this sentiment a lot, actually, so it's worth taking some time out to address it. I actually went back and played a little bit of CK2 the other day for the express purpose of confirming or disputing my preconceived notions on societies explicitly.

Societies as a concept is actually really solid. Splitting up blocks of characters into the equivalent of interest groups and then tying unique content to them is an undeniably good idea. Giving you a reason to interact with a whole new block of characters you usually don't interact with is neat. This sort of international system adds a sort of depth that's quite welcome.

On the other hand, though, I think with the benefit of hindsight we can say that the implementation left a little to be desired. The mechanics didn't dovetail particularly well with other ones, and the barrier to entry to join them was trivial. As such, players often just found themselves falling sideways into a society in which they were then handed this relatively isolated content. This, combined with the balance - Hermetic was _notably_ powerful, whereas monastic orders were the opposite (unless you were Buddhist) - meant that it resulted in quite a wonky experience a lot of the time. I'm sure I'd have had other thoughts a few years ago, but my brain needs something of a refresher beyond a quick 2 hour CK2 play session!

As a result, when people ask for Societies when I tend to think isn't "ah, they want CK2 Societies" but more "they want all the benefits that Societies offered, including deeper religious gameplay and more things for a ruler to do during peacetime". Now the former is something we almost certainly won't do, because I reckon CK2 Societies simply weren't as good as many make them out to be, but the latter is absolutely something we all want to do. CK3 has a far deeper and richer religious system than CK2 so that's always fertile ground to build upon, and giving the player stuff to do and interact when they're not actively involved with waging wars and stabbing children is something we want to be addressing as soon as possible.

tl;dr Societies not actually that good, the principles of the ideas behind Societies good, want to take those ideas forward whilst leaving Societies in the past

Sorry for this somewhat disjointed post, I was up for an early morning!
 
  • 12
  • 8Like
  • 4
  • 2Love
  • 1
Reactions:
After I have played a little bit of vicky3, I can confirm that interest groups are awesome for fleshing out internal politics. I think that "societies" could be a CK3 version of that: Your vassals could organize into groups that support common goals, like chivalric orders that want you to expand your realm through warfare, religious societies that want to uphold religious laws and values and care about virtues and sins a lot, merchant guilds that want better access to trade routes, etc.

If you are an independent ruler, these groups could then give you bonuses when they are happy or penalties when they are powerful and angry, just like in vicky3. Also, just like in CK2, you could join one of these yourself and increase your standing within the group by doing things that they like, which also gives you bonuses.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions: