• 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:
Since Feudal contracts are now individual to each vassal, would it be possible to use them to recreate the Duchy of Normandy under King William of England paying tax to King of France thing?
No. They've said they won't allow that, unfortunately.
 
It is pretty funny because I think that the terms primogeniture and untimogeniture are pretty transparent for us who speak a Latin-derived language.

One would think so, but initially I kept confusing primogeniture with seniority succession. Imagine my surprise when at long last I get rid of gavelkind, only to have another old guy become heir instead of my oldest son.
 
I mean Imperator's engine is based of CK3's so the chance is that it's the same. As such any modding probably nixes ironman which means no achievements. That's a very present issue for a non-issue

The whole thing is a non-issue to begin with.

As an alternative to making a mod (if you're the kind of person who gives half a shit about Ironman and achievements, which considering like 15% of players have the ck2 achievement for getting married...), you could just suck it up. The phrasing of one particular option in one particular sub-screen is not your preferred phrasing? Boo hoo, deal with it.

Again, this is a stupid thing to get worked up about.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
The whole thing is a non-issue to begin with.

As an alternative to making a mod (if you're the kind of person who gives half a shit about Ironman and achievements, which considering like 15% of players have the ck2 achievement for getting married...), you could just suck it up. The phrasing of one particular option in one particular sub-screen is not your preferred phrasing? Boo hoo, deal with it.

Again, this is a stupid thing to get worked up about.
Counterpoint: It's very noticeable all the time and is so easily fixed getting upset about it doesn't feel like a useless endeavor.
Upset about how vassals are set up? OK, but what is it exactly that I would fix? Would I be sure that what I think I'm suggesting will be interpreted the same way by the devs? Is what I want the same thing others want? etc etc etc. vs
Fixing this issue is literally as simple as replacing these words with these other specific words, no one who doesn't like the simplified text has differing ideas on what the text should be, there's no possible way I mean one thing while the devs think I mean another thing, what "fixing it" looks like is incredibly clear so we'll definitely know when it's been fixed, etc etc etc.
If I'm going to die on a hill, I'd like to have a definite idea of what that hill actually is and what "victory" looks like. [Although it's not like I have a limit on the things I'm able to care about and that picking one small thing means I'll be out of "cares" when I come across something you think actually is worth caring about.]
 
  • 1
Reactions:
The whole thing is a non-issue to begin with.

As an alternative to making a mod (if you're the kind of person who gives half a shit about Ironman and achievements, which considering like 15% of players have the ck2 achievement for getting married...), you could just suck it up. The phrasing of one particular option in one particular sub-screen is not your preferred phrasing? Boohoo, deal with it.

Again, this is a stupid thing to get worked up about.
While I do agree with you about achievements in that they honestly don't matter the forums tend to be the place where a lot of the "higher" players aggregate and they do care about achievements. The reason they're complaining now is they don't want to "suck it up". It's kinda rude to say "hey your concerns about a product you're going to hopefully pay money for are annoying me, please stop". If they don't raise concern now when should they. And if you think they shouldn't, as paying customers like you they have the same exact consumer rights.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Since Feudal contracts are now individual to each vassal, would it be possible to use them to recreate the Duchy of Normandy under King William of England paying tax to King of France thing?
I don't think so. You'd need title based lieges, not character based. Everything we've seen implies that it's still based on the characters and each has one liege. Though admittedly it would be really nice if they changed to title specific obligations, so someone could be given low obligation boarder lands while they also hold high obligation close crown lands.
 
I love the changes to raiding, and even though raiders being unable to move once the raiding begins is a bit ahistorical, it makes the gameplay so much better, especially in MP. And holy cow, being able to regain loot by killing the raiders is also great. Overall, great DD!
It's not that ahistorical: when an army's looting, it's spread out all over the place and weighed down with the loot. Getting everyone back together and moving would take a long time. Also, in-game, if you have a ship or another army in the right place you can see the raided party getting troops together to attack the raiders, but IRL the raiders wouldn't know when reinforcements were coming.
 
It's not that ahistorical: when an army's looting, it's spread out all over the place and weighed down with the loot. Getting everyone back together and moving would take a long time. Also, in-game, if you have a ship or another army in the right place you can see the raided party getting troops together to attack the raiders, but IRL the raiders wouldn't know when reinforcements were coming.
The obvious reason for the change is to make raiding more risky and avoid hunting down raiding armies, so to reduce the Micro for a defender.
 
While I do agree with you about achievements in that they honestly don't matter the forums tend to be the place where a lot of the "higher" players aggregate and they do care about achievements. The reason they're complaining now is they don't want to "suck it up". It's kinda rude to say "hey your concerns about a product you're going to hopefully pay money for are annoying me, please stop". If they don't raise concern now when should they. And if you think they shouldn't, as paying customers like you they have the same exact consumer rights.

People had the same reaction when Stellaris was getting it's 2.0 rework, or going further back when the non-steam versions of CK2 and EU4 got deprecated; always couching some molehill in the language of mountains, "consumer rights" and lawsuits and the like. As if I'm oppressing your rights by calling this "concern" overblown!

And in the end the result is always the same, despite all the noise and declarations of consumer rights, the entire issue is forgotten a week later because guess what? It turns out the unimportant thing was unimportant after all. Remember all the sound and fury surrounding "Deus Vult"? This is that all over again but somehow stupider.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
It's not that ahistorical: when an army's looting, it's spread out all over the place and weighed down with the loot. Getting everyone back together and moving would take a long time. Also, in-game, if you have a ship or another army in the right place you can see the raided party getting troops together to attack the raiders, but IRL the raiders wouldn't know when reinforcements were coming.

Although wouldn't they at least have enough discipline to not start looting until permitted? I mean sure, it happened where raiding just broke out, but I would think if planned part of the discipline would be that on some occasions you don't loot right away, like if there is still some enemies to be chased down or recon to do. Manually initiating looting sounds fair. Idk if it worked this way or not.

Also, flip side of the coin: the party being raided wouldn't know they have been raided instantly either, so completing the raid without interception would have been easier anyway.
 
Although wouldn't they at least have enough discipline to not start looting until permitted? I mean sure, it happened where raiding just broke out, but I would think if planned part of the discipline would be that on some occasions you don't loot right away, like if there is still some enemies to be chased down or recon to do. Manually initiating looting sounds fair. Idk if it worked this way or not.

Also, flip side of the coin: the party being raided wouldn't know they have been raided instantly either, so completing the raid without interception would have been easier anyway.

Looting was pretty much a constant you couldn't stop - giving your men express permission to do so pretty much guaranteed rampant excess.
 
Looting was pretty much a constant you couldn't stop - giving your men express permission to do so pretty much guaranteed rampant excess.
It do depend alot on how good the army is, armies lacking in training and discipline would be much easier to lose Control over than armies that enforce strict discipline and harsh punishment for breaking orders. Also looting was also often about food, not wealth as armies could not Always find food in other ways.
 
People had the same reaction when Stellaris was getting it's 2.0 rework, or going further back when the non-steam versions of CK2 and EU4 got deprecated; always couching some molehill in the language of mountains, "consumer rights" and lawsuits and the like. As if I'm oppressing your rights by calling this "concern" overblown!

And in the end, the result is always the same, despite all the noise and declarations of consumer rights, the entire issue is forgotten a week later because guess what? It turns out the unimportant thing was unimportant after all. Remember all the sound and fury surrounding "Deus Vult"? This is that all over again but somehow stupider.
I never said you were "oppressing my rights". I said that everyone else had as much right to complain as you do. If they don't raise objection now when should they? Also, the "Deus Vult" issue didn't just go away. They had to ban all talk of it on the forums and would later lock the megathread for cleaning which they haven't opened 3-ish months later. To that end, I'll also stop talking about it. I have to ask you what else would you rather see be "complained about"?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Right now we know nothing about how stuff will actually work in the game, Everything is just a big guess and likely lead to wrong conclusions. Things such have played other paradox games mean absolutly nothing here, it wont help you make better conclusions about CK3.
 
I never said you were "oppressing my rights". I said that everyone else had as much right to complain as you do. If they don't raise objection now when should they? Also, the "Deus Vult" issue didn't just go away. They had to ban all talk of it on the forums and would later lock the megathread for cleaning which they haven't opened 3-ish months later. To that end, I'll also stop talking about it. I have to ask you what else would you rather see be "complained about"?

He'd much rather you just be quiet and buy CK3 and all its ensuing DLCs without complaint like a good consumer should
 
  • 2
Reactions:
He'd much rather you just be quiet and buy CK3 and all its ensuing DLCs without complaint like a good consumer should
In such case don't buy CK3 and its dlc if you don't like it. Don't like, don't buy.

I think chances are that CK3 will be an easy and thus boring game, just like the other paradox games, I don't really know how they can solve their games issues when it come to snowballing and it is not fun to restart just 50 years into the game because it have become too easy at that Point.

However I don't want to destroy other peoples expectation about the game but the above is the main issue I have with paradox games as well as many other games.
 
Last edited:
In such case don't buy CK3 and its dlc if you don't like it. Don't like, don't buy.

I think chances are that CK3 will be an easy and thus boring game, just like the other paradox games, I don't really know how they can solve their games issues when it come to snowballing and it is not fun to restart just 50 years into the game because it have become too easy at that Point.

However I don't want to destroy other peoples expectation about the game but the above is the main issue I have with paradox games as well as many other games.

One way to deal with this problem is to have a really robust Game Rules Section, with everything from IWin Buttons at one end, and ILose Buttons at the other end.

That way, it is to be hoped, people who liked easy games can have that, while those who want never ending struggle can have that too...

Bear in mind the Game Rules were a relatively recent addition that the Devs tacked onto CK2 because one section of the playerbase kept on asking for nerfs to literally everything, whereas the rpers, and those who wanted easier games in general, were beginning to feel left out in the cold. In spite of the fact that it was more of an emergency add-on, the Game Rules were, in my opinion, a rousing success.

For CK3, if the Devs bake the Game Rules right into the initial Game, they'll be able to add all sorts of things to allow for a truly individualistic gaming experience...
 
Will there be universal, modular additions you can add to succession laws? Like if you have High Partition, you can pick if the country is just evenly split in half between two sons, or let your vassals vote on who gets the main partition, ect?
 
Will there be universal, modular additions you can add to succession laws? Like if you have High Partition, you can pick if the country is just evenly split in half between two sons, or let your vassals vote on who gets the main partition, ect?
It sounds like it will be about the same in CK3 but if you get to choose which will be your primary heir in multiple heirs or not is not clear in the text.
 
In such case don't buy CK3 and its dlc if you don't like it. Don't like, don't buy.

I think chances are that CK3 will be an easy and thus boring game, just like the other paradox games, I don't really know how they can solve their games issues when it come to snowballing and it is not fun to restart just 50 years into the game because it have become too easy at that Point.

However I don't want to destroy other peoples expectation about the game but the above is the main issue I have with paradox games as well as many other games.

Really? More than any other game I have found that CK2, at least, tends to be the best at destroying me when I am a complete juggernaut compared to most games. Most games have a point where once you get so far, you have basically won and it is just waiting for the game to recognize your win. In CK2, though, I find that I can have a very powerful dynasty, have almost all of Britain in my realm (and in the particular game that comes to mind, Norway as a crusader state is also under my dynasty and I think one other country), and then because politics and having my army in the wrong place, and maybe a few other issues that flew under my radar, a pretender rises up and dethrones me, and my attempts to rise against the pretender end up tearing the realm apart.

From what is described so far, it looks like CK3 will have those same mechanics.

I don't really have any complaints about CK3 myself as much as "why would I bother?" CK2 is such a solid game already. The hooks and favors are a nice addition, but in themselves wouldn't be worth buying a new game to me. Only thing would be if they did more with ships, then I'd be sold.
 
  • 1
Reactions: