• 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.

CK3 Dev Diary #17 - Governments, Vassal Management, Laws, and Raiding

Good afternoon, everyone. I’m Magne “Meneth” Skjæran. You might know me from the CK2 dev diaries or the Paradox Wikis, but for the last couple of years I’ve been working on CK3 as a programmer. Today we’re going to cover a number of topics closely related to government types: governments themselves, vassal management, laws, and raiding.

Let's start off with a familiar concept from CK2: governments. For the player, we have three playable governments: Feudal, Tribal, and Clan, which each have some significant differences in how they play.

The Feudal government type is based on European feudalism, and is heavily based around the idea of obligations: you owe service to your liege, and your liege owes you protection in return. It is the most common government form in the game. Feudal realms play pretty similarly to CK2, focusing on claims and inheritance more so than the other government forms.

A new addition in CK3 is Feudal Contracts. Every feudal vassal (except barons) has an individual contract with you, rather than obligations being set realm-wide. These contracts have three levels; Low, Medium, and High, with Medium being the default. High will provide more levies and tax at the cost of an opinion hit, while Low provides less but improves opinion. Higher levels are usually better (though perhaps not if you’re at risk of your vassals revolting), but cannot be imposed unilaterally.

You’ll need to have a hook on your vassal in order to increase their obligations unless you’re fine with all your vassals considering you a tyrant, but you can always lower them. As a result this means you can significantly increase your power if you’re able to obtain hooks on your vassals; perhaps a bit of judicious blackmail might be in order?

Feudal Contract.png

[Modifying a Feudal Contract]

Furthermore we have the Clan government form. This government is the rough equivalent of the Iqta government in CK2, though in CK3 it does have a more Feudal bent than it did previously.

The Clan government type is used by most Muslim realms. This government puts more emphasis on the family rather than the realm, with most vassals being members of your dynasty. Obligations are heavily based on opinion rather than being contractual, with happy vassals providing significantly more taxes and levies than unhappy ones. A happy family is a powerful family.

Clan governments also have access to the Clan Invasion casus belli, which can be used once in a lifetime at the highest level of Fame to invade a kingdom, providing a powerful boon for a well-established clan ruler.

Finally we have Tribal realms. Much like in CK2 these have their own Tribal holding type, providing more troops but less tax. Additionally, most tribals are able to go on raids, which you can read more about below. Tribal realms are unaffected by development, and cause non-tribal realms to have lower supply limits in their lands, making them a tougher nut to crack, but reducing their influence as the years drag on. Tribal realms also pay for men at arms using prestige rather than gold, allowing smaller realms to punch above their weight.

Tribal rulers base their obligations on levels of Fame rather than on contracts or opinion; the more famous your ruler is, the more troops and money your vassals will be willing to provide for your pursuits.

Finally, Tribal rulers have a once-in-a-lifetime Subjugation casus belli, allowing them to forcibly vassalize an entire realm.

As the game goes on, you can eventually reform out of Tribalism, becoming a Clan or Feudal realm instead.

Vassal Overview.png

[The vassal management tab]

To get an easy overview of your realm, we in CK3 have the Realm screen. Let’s start with the Vassals tab of this screen where all your vassals are shown. This gives you a clear overview of where your levies and taxes come from, who might be a threat to you, and allows you to renegotiate feudal contracts.

This is also where you change your crown authority (or tribal authority), which I’ll talk more about later in this dev diary.

Lastly, the screen shows your Powerful Vassals. Much like in CK2’s Conclave DLC, your realm will have some powerful vassals; these expect to be seated on the council, and will make their displeasure known if that is not the case.

Domain overview.png

[The Domain Tab]

Then we have the Domain tab. This lets you easily inspect your domain, showing where you’re earning money and levies, and where you can build more buildings. It also shows the level of development and control in the counties you personally hold, letting you easily tell where you can make improvements.

Finally we have the Succession tab. Due to being a bit of a work in progress, I’m afraid I can’t show you a picture of it right now. Here you can change your succession laws, see your heir(s), and check what titles, if any, you will lose when you die. If you hold any elective titles, you’ll be able to easily get to the election screen from here.

Now with all these mentions of laws, let's go through what laws exist. We’ve trimmed down the number of laws from CK2 as much of what used to be law is handled on a more individual level now, but some still remains.

Like in CK2, we have crown authority for Feudal and Clan realms, and tribal authority for Tribal realms. Higher levels of authority unlock mechanics like imprisonment (for tribals, the others start with it), title revocation, restrictions on internal wars, and heir designation. However, increasing these levels will make your vassals unhappy. Tribal authority is significantly less powerful than crown authority, representing how Tribal governments over time gradually got supplanted by Feudal and Clan governments.

Succession Laws.png

[Changing succession law]

Then there’s succession laws. To no one’s surprise, Gavelkind is making a return, though we’ve renamed it to Partition to make it more obvious what it actually means. This is the default succession form of most realms in both 867 and 1066.

For added fun, there’s now three variants of Partition. We’ve got regular Partition, which functions like Gavelkind in CK2; your realm gets split roughly equally between your heirs, and any heirs that end up a lower tier than your primary heir becomes a vassal.

However, many realms start with a worse form, especially in 867. This is Confederate Partition, which will also create titles of your primary title’s tier if possible. So if you as Norway have conquered all of Sweden but destroyed the kingdom itself, it will get recreated on your death so that your second heir becomes an independent ruler. Tribals are typically locked to this succession type, with some exceptions.

Finally we have an improved version of Partition: High Partition. Under High Partition your primary heir will always get at least half your titles, so it doesn’t matter if you’ve got 2 or 10 kids; your primary heir will get the same amount of land.

We’ve also done a lot of tweaks to the internal logic of who gets what titles, which tends to lead to far nicer splits than in CK2; border gore will of course still happen, but to a lesser degree than before.

Then we have the other succession forms. There’s Oldest Child Succession (replacing Primogeniture), Youngest Child Succession (replacing Ultimogeniture), and House Seniority. A notable difference from CK2’s Seniority Succession is that under House Seniority, the oldest eligible member of your house inherits, not of your entire dynasty.

We also have a number of variants on elective succession, ranging from Feudal Elective, to Princely Elective (HRE succession), and a handful of cultural variants. Each of these have different restrictions on who can vote, who can be elected, and how the AI will select who to vote for.

Additionally, we’ve got a full suite of gender laws, corresponding to the gender laws in CK2. These are: Male Only, Male Preference, Equal, Female Preference, and Female Only.

Finally, we have raiding. If you’re a Norwegian like me, sometimes you feel your Viking blood coursing through your veins, the noise of it drowning out everything else. Times like this, there’s only one solution: go on a raid.

Fans of Pagan gameplay in CK2 will be glad to hear that not only have we implemented raiding in CK3 as well, we’ve made some improvements to it to make it more fun to play with, and less unfun to be on the receiving end of.

The core system is very similar to CK2. If you’re a Pagan or Tribal ruler, you have the ability to raid other rulers’ lands. To do so you raise a raid army, and march or sail over to your target. Only the Norse can raid across sea; other raid armies will simply be unable to embark.

Rally Point.png

[Raising a raid army]

Once at your target your army will start looting the barony they’re in. This is a pretty quick process, but during it your army will be unable to move, preventing you from running away from any counter-raiding force. This change makes it a lot simpler to deal with raiders if you’ve got enough men and can raise them quickly enough, as the AI won’t just immediately run away.

Raid Lindisfarne.png

[A raid in progress]

While in CK2 raiding was done on a county level, in CK3 it is on a barony level. Another difference is that in CK3 raiding no longer uses the siege mechanics directly, but rather a similar system where things like siege engines do not have an impact since you’re raiding the countryside, not a heavily fortified castle.

Another significant change is that if you beat a raid army, you receive all the gold they’re carrying. This means that even if you cannot respond instantly to a raid, it is still very much worth it to beat up the raiders. Like in CK2, you also become immune to raiding by that enemy for several years.

Just like in CK2, a raid army is limited in how much loot it can carry based on the army size. Loot is deposited once the army is back in friendly lands, after which you might either disband or go raiding once more.

On the quality of life side, we now show on the map what provinces have already been raided when you have a raid army selected. This makes it easy to see what places to avoid. Hovering over a province will also tell you how much loot raiding it would provide.

Raid.png

[Northern England in its natural state]

That’s all for today, folks. Tune in next week to learn more about how war functions in Crusader Kings 3.
 
Last edited:
  • 18Like
  • 9
  • 6
Reactions:
I actually really dislike the simple English replacements for terms like "gavelkind", "ultimogeniture", etc. CK2 was extremely educational for me and many others, and by not using these terms at all, you are denying new players that education. All it takes to explain what they are is a simple tooltip, and past that, everyone knows what term to use.
Plus, it's just a hell of a lot easier to say "Ultimogeniture" than "Youngest Child Succession".
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Thanks for the good response and great feedback! Feel free to write more or PM me later if you think of other stuff!

I will disagree with this part of the statement I quoted though that a rude response is better than no response, a rude response is not something our team should have to put up with and will likely just get removed, because we are all people here to and having someone write out a paragraph saying how awful/malicious/incompetent/whatever you and your team are is not useful and demotivates people so is not beneficial to anybody involved. It is our job to make a game, not to put up with angry online messages :p

A big red number of disagrees going up conveys the same dislike of a feature but does not have the targeted salt/anger at the team in word vomit form.

One can easily make a post saying "I dislike this feature as I think it is too simplistic, I don't have any specific ideas to fix it though" and we are totally fine with that! You can even use a bit more colorful language as long as you don't break any forums rules ;) But the second it gets aggressive or toxic about our developers its just gonna be ignored by us cause we don't have to read rude posts and quite likely removed by forum moderation as it probably breaks rules.

To be clear, I'm not making a value judgement on whether such invectives are better. I'm saying they provide you with additional information that is not provided by a simple downvote or even a "Here are my 95 theses on the problems with the de jure map system" such as just how strongly they feel about this and how much it is making them angry. That is useful knowledge for a company to have. If you remove yourself from the equation and consider another company, such as EA, being swamped with people calling them the most evil company in the world in every venue possible, well, whatever you think about the merits of their tone or substance, they're certainly conveying a lot more information than downvoting an EA trailer on youtube. Heck, even the fact that the forum dictates civility means that incivility still carries additional information: that the customer is so upset they're willing to violate the rules of the forum in order to express just how angry they are.

I'm glad you appreciate my ideas. I do think that there's something to be had in runnig a bureaucratic realm in a quasi-North Korea mode. It could even play into the strengths of feudal realms, by way of a contrast: a feudal realm is inherently decentralized, which means that, for some threats, it is better equipped to confront them. Raiders along the border? Well, if that border is ruled by a feudal duke, that is their problem, and they're right there, so they'll likely deal with it. They'll raise troops from that region to fight off raiders, and then they'll build up their defenses against raids. In a bureaucratic realm, such a raid might go unpunished, because the central government is too focused on other issues. Which would be represented by the fact that, in a NK style of play, everything is handled by the monarch and their councillors.

Conveniently, when the Byzantines historically were expanding their borders once more, they usually co-opted local rulers as feudal vassals, which made their own borders much stronger, as they could focus on running their core territories like a proper Empire, and let the locals on the border lands do things the way they wanted (and deal with raiders in a more timely fashion than the Imperial government ever could).
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I am not happy about this changing of primogeniture and ultimogeniture to Wikipedia style "Simple English" phrasing. What is simply sufficient is a well-detailed toolbar to help the player understand what those historic terms mean, and I know I needed help early on while playing Crusader Kings II, but those tool tips helped to explain their meanings well. As a longtime player of the famous modification Europa Barbarorum (Often abbreviated as EB, as in EB1 and EB2) since the 2000s, I have come to appreciate greater levels of historical details in strategy games, pertaining to the names of military units, buildings, policies, and the inclusion of historically accurate names for people, such as Livius for a Roman, rather than Livy, and Iulius instead of Julius (EB takes it further, and turns the letter "U" to "V"). I suspect that most people awaiting the arrival of Crusader Kings III will understand what primogeniture implies, and for those that do not, they may do well enough with a well-written tool bar that shows the player everything they need to know about how it functions.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I actually really dislike the simple English replacements for terms like "gavelkind", "ultimogeniture", etc. CK2 was extremely educational for me and many others, and by not using these terms at all, you are denying new players that education. All it takes to explain what they are is a simple tooltip, and past that, everyone knows what term to use.
Plus, it's just a hell of a lot easier to say "Ultimogeniture" than "Youngest Child Succession".
Furthermore, "oldest child succession" might unintentionally be misleading, because it implies oldest living child will inherit, which would be the proximity of blood concept, primogeniture isn't just "oldest child succession" it's the lineage of the oldest child, meaning even if the oldest child dies and leaves a son, that grandson will come before his uncles.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I am not happy about this changing of primogeniture and ultimogeniture to Wikipedia style "Simple English" phrasing. What is simply sufficient is a well-detailed toolbar to help the player understand what those historic terms mean, and I know I needed help early on while playing Crusader Kings II, but those tool tips helped to explain their meanings well. As a longtime player of the famous modification Europa Barbarorum (Often abbreviated as EB, as in EB1 and EB2) since the 2000s, I have come to appreciate greater levels of historical details in strategy games, pertaining to the names of military units, buildings, policies, and the inclusion of historically accurate names for people, such as Livius for a Roman, rather than Livy, and Iulius instead of Julius (EB takes it further, and turns the letter "U" to "V"). I suspect that most people awaiting the arrival of Crusader Kings III will understand what primogeniture implies, and for those that do not, they may do well enough with a well-written tool bar that shows the player everything they need to know about how it functions.
Another EB Player? Nice. :)
 
I was hoping to get:
- new laws (who doesn't like to have his vassals being exploited/productive?), maybe mix of Conclave and EU4 vassal management
- lots of unique forms of government
- fancy names for laws ("vassals curtailed" instead "high crown authority" or something)

I got complete opposite.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I actually liked the original law names. I had no idea what they meant until I looked them up but learnt something new. And they remain the correct terms, I'm sure someone will mod them back into the game
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I'm sure people would have managed with the original terminology for different succession types. This renaming/dumbing-down feels a tiny bit patronising.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Conveniently, when the Byzantines historically were expanding their borders once more, they usually co-opted local rulers as feudal vassals, which made their own borders much stronger, as they could focus on running their core territories like a proper Empire, and let the locals on the border lands do things the way they wanted (and deal with raiders in a more timely fashion than the Imperial government ever could).

Not really, or more accurately you're only telling half the story. The Byzantines would let the current ruler live out his life as a client. After his death, the land was willed to the emperor who assigned a governor in charge of planning defense (typically with local troops) and collecting taxes. This new province/theme would eventually get reconfigured as needs changed, not necessarily following the borders of the traditional kingdom.

This is broadly similar to how the Romans built their empire in the first place. They didn't "paint the map" so much as bring in clients by conquest or diplomacy and then annex + Romanize them over generations.

This model was mainly followed in the Armenian highlands. Bulgaria was annexed as it was conquered by John Tzmiskes and Basil II. Antioch and Cilicia were treated similarly. Other Arab reconquest were left as vassal buffer states between the empire and the Caliphate or Mamluks.
 
Not really, or more accurately you're only telling half the story. The Byzantines would let the current ruler (let's say, of Tao) live out his life as a client. After his death, the land was willed to the emperor who assigned a governor in charge of planning defense (typically with local troops) and collecting taxes. This new province/theme would eventually get reconfigured as needs changed, not necessarily following the borders of the traditional kingdom.

This is broadly similar to how the Romans built their empire in the first place. They didn't "paint the map" so much as bring in clients by conquest or diplomacy and then annex + Romanize them over generations.

Well put! And, of course, it would be a very viable way to represent my suggestion for how to play, in-game: subjugate border feudal rulers, and try to incorporate them into the imperial system after a generation. Rinse, wash, repeat.

That said, they did maintain a comparatively light hand in Armenia in the long term, simply due to the terrain.

Gameplay-wise, this also makes a Bureaucratic empire a very appealing target for feudal realms, as if they conquer any land from such an Empire, its almost as good as a holy war CB in CK2.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Well put! And, of course, it would be a very viable way to represent my suggestion for how to play, in-game: subjugate border feudal rulers, and try to incorporate them into the imperial system after a generation. Rinse, wash, repeat.

That said, they did maintain a comparatively light hand in Armenia in the long term, simply due to the terrain.

The Romans originally governed with a light touch in Anatolia back in antiquity. If they hadn't lost everything Armenia after Manzikert, we'd have probably seen the region normalized.

Something that should also be pointed out, is that sometimes the emperor would assign Armenian or Bulgarian nobles to posts on the opposite side of the empire from the subject's homeland. This was to break up power bases, as well as put competent managers in places where their skills were needed.

Being able to uproot a subject almost at whim is simply not something you can easily do in a feudal simulator which assumes the governor of an area is also the owner of the territory. It has a lot more in common with how CK2 handled councils or commanders.
 
Interesting stuff! Though I hope the 'Game Rules' feature from CK2 is carried over to allow wider use of the raiding features. Tying it to specific cultures, religions, and government types is not only arbitrary but ahistorical.
 
The Partition Succession description has a bit of ambiguous wording because you flip between "Eligible Children" with intentional capitalization and "children" without.
"Other Eligible Children will be given secondary Titles starting with those of the same Rank as the Primary Title, if none are available they will instead be given lower-ranking Titles. To preserve this balance, children can not be preemptively granted Titles they do not stand to inherit."

Is it referring to children in the sense of minors? Or is it actually Eligible Children, referred to in a slightly different manner? I assume the latter, but it would be easy for someone who doesn't understand gavelkind succession to assume the former.

Muslims under Clan governance, could be good or not. There wasn't enough about the specific implementation to tell either way. But if you're going for culture-neutral naming, please stop calling them "knights" in Islamic realms.

Anyway, I am somewhat disappointed that the feudal obligations are being simplified compared to CK2. Individual contracts are great, love it. But not being able to tinker around -- at cost of tyranny, owning favors, horse-trading responsibilities, etc. -- seems to strip out an interesting layer and send the whole thing into the realm of two steps forward, one step back. I am also disappointed that the HRE gets special succession mechanics but the ERE does not.
 
Finally, we have raiding. If you’re a Norwegian like me, sometimes you feel your Viking blood coursing through your veins, the noise of it drowning out everything else. Times like this, there’s only one solution: go on a raid.

Could you give us a story of your raids and exploits when your viking blood has caused you to go on a blood rage?





It seems like the system of individual contracts and gathering hooks will increase micromanagement whereas the prior system was realm wide. It seems like the reason vice royalties were removed were because the group desired to reduce micromanagement. The reason vice royalties were used in CK2 was because it heavily cut down on the need to micro vassals.

Having said all this it seems like some micro has been added and some micro perhaps removed.

My question for the group then is controlling a empire the size of the Roman Empire more or less micro in CK3 in comparison to CK2?
 
Jumping in with the people who dislike the "simple English" terms. I'm okay with changing Gavelkind to Partition, that's fine. But I'd like Agnatic/Cognatic back, as well as Ultimo/Primo(geniture). I mean, "Male Preference Oldest Child Inherits" vs. "Agnatic-Cognatic Primogeniture"? Literally no contest which one is better. People can read tooltips and learn.

Individual Feudal Contracts are nice, too! I'd prefer two sliders for levies and tax (corresponding with appropriate Opinion Bonuses/Maluses), though.
 
Too bad ‘High Partition’ will only be unlocked later in the game. I agree, that most should not start with it, but IMHO it should be reachable. In contrast to ‘Primogeniture’, which for most should be late game.
In fact High Partition seems to approximate early Primogeniture for a bit.
 
Feudal government
Actually feudalism did not exist in the medieval period as the Word comes from a later time period, a more correct term of the useage of vassals would be vassalage, so maybe you should consider to rename that government type? Also the role of vassals are probably more complicated than how they are represented in the game so maybe it is Worth to make some research here which could be used to expand the number of contracts and make relationship between liege and vassal more interesting.

It is similar to stuff like the name "Byzantine Empire"which is also from a time period outside the game.
 
Actually feudalism did not exist in the medieval period as the Word comes from a later time period, a more correct term of the useage of vassals would be vassalage, so maybe you should consider to rename that government type? Also the role of vassals are probably more complicated than how they are represented in the game so maybe it is Worth to make some research here which could be used to expand the number of contracts and make relationship between liege and vassal more interesting.

It is similar to stuff like the name "Byzantine Empire"which is also from a time period outside the game.
I say take a leaf out of the successions and use simple English for it, King bosses you around, Chief bosses you around and Clan leader bosses you around
 
I say take a leaf out of the successions and use simple English for it, King bosses you around, Chief bosses you around and Clan leader bosses you around
Don't know about clan and tribes but feudal is an incorrect term for the time period. A system that use vassals would be called vassalage or something like that in English. Feudalism is about a whole social structure thus alot more than just the use of vassals and that social structure was not that prevalent in Europé during the time period.