Constructive criticism: For a "character" based game, the gameplay in CK2 is shallow

[yezhanquan]

Well, how are they simulating trade without trade goods? I've read the diaries and I'm going along, but trade without trade goods seem a little off.

 

[Hackworthy]

I disagree, I don't want to deal with things like exploration or trade or naval warfare. If you want those things I'm sure EUIII or Vicky II will provide for you but let those of us who don't care have our game please. Why do people insist on every single aspect of the game being changed? Nothing is EVER good enough, if they added everything you wanted you'd ask for more. I don't want to manage naval tech or FoW or complex finances. I want dynastic intrigue and politics on a personal level and am very content with the way things currently are. The only thing i'm afraid of is how much PI listens to the forums, sometimes too much, and then you have minorities dictating changes to the game.

 

[yezhanquan]

I can accept it if trading posts become just another form of holding (which I think they are). My main issue is lack of events, that is all.

Dynastic intrigue and politics on a personal level: We can always have more, and I will pay for a boost in that area.

My stand is that CK2 needs time to grow, and I know I'm a bit impatient, but we haven't reached the 1 year mark, and CK2's success has made me a little high, so to speak.

 

[Lorehead]

For the record, I’d like to see a bit more focus on trade (maybe trade routes, if not trade goods) but think the devs were right to ignore naval warfare. Although, if the representation of fleets is as attenuated as in the game, it would’ve been better to stick with the CK1 system and just pay for transport fleets as necessary, rather than micromanage rallying and merging all your levied galleys.

 

[Wallain]

Well, how are they simulating trade without trade goods? I've read the diaries and I'm going along, but trade without trade goods seem a little off.

I somewhat agree. Right now they seem to be simulating it based on province tax, however I would rather see it moved towards a system like in EU3 or perhaps EU4.

I disagree, I don't want to deal with things like exploration or trade or naval warfare. If you want those things I'm sure EUIII or Vicky II will provide for you but let those of us who don't care have our game please. Why do people insist on every single aspect of the game being changed? Nothing is EVER good enough, if they added everything you wanted you'd ask for more. I don't want to manage naval tech or FoW or complex finances. I want dynastic intrigue and politics on a personal level and am very content with the way things currently are. The only thing i'm afraid of is how much PI listens to the forums, sometimes too much, and then you have minorities dictating changes to the game.

Trade and naval warfare are very important aspects to facilitate a game based on dynastic intrigue. Without it the intrigue is hollow and without meaning or purpose. Why would you bother to take that harbour if there is no trade flowing through it? How would you fight a war as a naval kingdom if you cannot block narrow straits with a fleet? These things are important because people want a game built around dynasties and because they want context to the conflicts. Some things are good enough, but everything can always get better. If you want a game with politics, you also need the things that your policies will affect.

 

[Mattobro]

In my opinion, trade and playable republics should of been a lower priority on the dlc agenda. I think heathens and pagans have desperately needed a dlc for some time now, with a earlier start date, atleast 50-100 years earlier, with a shaky England and viking raid events of some sort. Pagans were a bigger part of medieval Europe then Venice and Genoa IMO. They only started being big players with their private armies and sacks of gold around the renaissance era. I honestly think the majority of people moaning for a republic DLC only wanted it so that Game Of Thrones mod got the extra island...

 

[Hector of Troy]

I also don´t think naval warfare is a matter of priority. I would prefer to see the interpersonal dynastic game elements (pagans playable, more events, better game balance) being further developed instead.

Regarding trade, I believe the next DLC will possibly make it interesting enough, but, again, trade too is something I would not devote too much time thinking about, as I don´t believe the essence of this game is making trade in general too complex a thing.

 

[Zireael]

I agree that naval combat isn't that important. However, the republics and trade are important too. I'd guess the Pagan DLC should be the next.

 

[unmerged(99452)]

I hear you. Crusader Kings is a very good character based game, but the best I have played so far is Romance of the Three Kingdoms VIII. On the other hand that game is turn based so maybe it is easier to implement certain RPG-related things. Anyway, I highly recommend that game if you have not played it yet. You can start as a nobody, form your own gang at the tavern, recruit other officers to your cause, revolt and become a ruler, have other people do your bidding for you, improve your city/cities, lead a company or the whole army, make friends or enemies for life, hold feasts, improve your skills by training, embezzle money. Plus alot of character based events with various consequences and multiple endings. You can go rouge or stay loyal to a warlord, the possibilities are endless.

However some of these mechanics that make RotTK VIII into such a good chracter based game can be added to CK2 I think. For example, the ability to play as a landless character(or baron) of your dynasty. If you are landless then you will become a vagabond who travels from court to court(like a hedge knight) lobbying the nobles to fight for your cause(your claim on a title) or asking them to grant you a small estate or a holdning(barony). In order for this to work there must be alot of events that only happen when your chracter has fallen this low. Let me give you some examples:

Scenario:
You have completely lost your last holding. You get a message that its over and that you must move to a court for employment, your character loses alot of prestige, most of his gold(he cant carry many coffers of gold around) and there is a risk that he might be stressed or depressed. Now every diplomacy option for every character on the map is blank(unclickable) except one "move here"(or something similar). You decide to move to your brother in law, who is a duke, hoping that he might give you a county or atleast a barony or perhaps even press your claim on your former duchy in a war. You get another event that you are moving and luckily you did not get robbed(you choosed to spend alot of money on security and safe but expensive taverns during your travel).

You arrive safe and sound at your brother in laws court. He reluctantly accepts you(he is your brother in law, he must accept you, right?, right?). However he does not want to press your claim nor does he have any holdings to give you. Another event pops up, you must decide where to live. Since you now dont have any income, you choose the cheap apartment in the city rather than the large manor in the countryside. However the apartment turns out to be windy and cold and sadly you get pneumonia. As the months go by you get several mundane day to day events, like peddlers selling wares at your front door, lice in your bed, conspiracies at the court, crime in your neighbourhood, a raviging fire in the city, arguing at the marketplace etc.

Another example of these kind of events:
As you observe the people on the street from your apartment in *insert city name here* you wonder what you are going to do today.
1. I will try to make a good impression at the court ( Duke Xs relation of Y changed by 10+)
2. I will pray to God Almighty for advice (gain 25 piety)
3. I will bury my sorrows at the tavern with the help of alcohol and a pretty woman (10% chance "you have gotten into a barfight!", 50% chance "a bastard named Z is born to Y)

And like all other events, your characters trait will have a big influence. For example if you have the trait "drunkard" then perhaps the only option who is avaible to you is number 3.

But suddenly things are changing, your brother in law has granted you the honorary title of being the Master of Horses. Not only are you given an income that can help you relocate to a home that has a better standard of living (the manor perhaps?) but now you are also subjected to the events related to the castle stable( you are the master of the horse after all). This means you are closer to the court and this may help you befriend the Duke. After a while the Duke declares war, and you decide to help him out in the battlefield. He wins and takes a piece of land which he gives to you. You are now a count and back on track.

I understand these major changes would probably require a DLC, but damm I would pay much for that DLC, because it adds a new layer, more character depth. Maybe you should not be able to start as a courtier but I think it shouldnt be Game Over if you become one. Even if you never recover, just the story it would be hillarious. The former Ex-Duke died drunk in a barfight, suffering from several venereal diseases, having sired several bastards one of them with the Dukes wife.

So what do you think? I am alone in wanting to see this idea implemented in the future?

 

[yezhanquan]

In my opinion, trade and playable republics should of been a lower priority on the dlc agenda. I think heathens and pagans have desperately needed a dlc for some time now, with a earlier start date, atleast 50-100 years earlier, with a shaky England and viking raid events of some sort. Pagans were a bigger part of medieval Europe then Venice and Genoa IMO. They only started being big players with their private armies and sacks of gold around the renaissance era. I honestly think the majority of people moaning for a republic DLC only wanted it so that Game Of Thrones mod got the extra island...

PDS has already slipped GoT stuff into the game before, "divine blood" being the biggest one.

Pagans and the Italian Republics were important issues at different parts of the Middle Ages. But, as money is never out of fashion, they make the cut first.

 

[lolciokuba]

Im quite optimistic about the development of the game so far. Every patch seems to be an improvement in terms of immersion and i think a lot of events have been added so far (or maybe i just played more since 1.06 and got them) and i like how combat is definitely more reliable on Personality of the leaders then numbers alone. I wont be surprised if we get another major content patch soon with loads of new events.

 

[nijis]

Trade and naval warfare are very important aspects to facilitate a game based on dynastic intrigue. Without it the intrigue is hollow and without meaning or purpose. Why would you bother to take that harbour if there is no trade flowing through it? How would you fight a war as a naval kingdom if you cannot block narrow straits with a fleet? These things are important because people want a game built around dynasties and because they want context to the conflicts. Some things are good enough, but everything can always get better. If you want a game with politics, you also need the things that your policies will affect.

I very strongly agree. It's a lot more fun to achieve something when you can use it as a tool to achieve something else -- ie, if you scheme to inherit a strategic port that provides a bit of gold, that's something, but even more fun is to use that port to extend your naval power into another part of the map.

I don't think a medieval-based game should ever force a player to consider their navy, no more than it should force them to use assassinations (much rarer historically, btw). But both be should tools in the kit -- assuming that it's cost-efficient to code and bugtest them.

 

[Wallain]

I very strongly agree. It's a lot more fun to achieve something when you can use it as a tool to achieve something else -- ie, if you scheme to inherit a strategic port that provides a bit of gold, that's something, but even more fun is to use that port to extend your naval power into another part of the map.

So you don't essentially disagree that naval combat is important? I mean how would you 'extend your naval power' if there was nothing there to extend?

I don't think a medieval-based game should ever force a player to consider their navy, no more than it should force them to use assassinations (much rarer historically, btw). But both be should tools in the kit -- assuming that it's cost-efficient to code and bugtest them.

And why not? To an East Roman emperor or a Danish king the navy was a real consideration. Without ships you could not get around, without ships you were defenceless.

 

[Thure]

In my opinion, trade and playable republics should of been a lower priority on the dlc agenda. I think heathens and pagans have desperately needed a dlc for some time now, with a earlier start date, atleast 50-100 years earlier, with a shaky England and viking raid events of some sort. Pagans were a bigger part of medieval Europe then Venice and Genoa IMO. They only started being big players with their private armies and sacks of gold around the renaissance era. I honestly think the majority of people moaning for a republic DLC only wanted it so that Game Of Thrones mod got the extra island...

Pagans more important for the middel ages then Republics? The only important pagan state in this time was Lithuania. Some others had the change to surevive... Yes they need a rework that Pommeranian aren't kill untill 1100... But Republics are in this time really important. Especially the Italian ones. The Italian maritime Republics were important BEFORE the renaissance start.

 

[Ratlegion]

Seconding the Romance VIII mention. It only had 100 events, but it was well beyond any character based idea they've put into CKII. And yes, you had friendships, mortal enemies, and many hundreds of different characters with different personalities, any number of which are more memorable than CKIIs cardboard cutouts.

 

[nijis]

So you don't essentially disagree that naval combat is important? I mean how would you 'extend your naval power' if there was nothing there to extend?

I do agree!

And why not? To an East Roman emperor or a Danish king the navy was a real consideration. Without ships you could not get around, without ships you were defenceless.

Ships were never a reliable defense, because the chance of intercepting an enemy and bringing them to combat was always very dicey. But with a good leader, a fleet could be a very very cost efficient weapon.

Conceptualize it this way: you pay 50 gold (for a navy), you have a 1-in-3 chance of stopping a sea crossing cold and/or inflicting a bunch of war damage on coastal provinces. It's like an assassination -- no guarantees, but in some circumstances high payoff.

 

[unmerged(2609)]

The criticism in the OP is fair, in that the game feel sterile, but I think the character interactions are at least an improvement over CK1, and I think the main deficiencies in the game are the "all holdings are equal" aspect, and the reduced number of buildings and less interesting technologies. With regard to buildings and tech CK2 feels like the version 1 game and CK1 feels like the version 2 game.

CK1 had the best province improvement and tech system of any of the Paradox games (aside from the tech systems in the modern period games).

Being able to make roads that spread tech faster was really cool, and who doesn't like tile factories?

 

[unmerged(379546)]

Playing as a muslim ruler, my heir picked up four wives and I gave him a title. Only his first wife joins his new court. Only my heir's first wife popped out 4 kids. The other three sit in my court doing nothing. Paradox can't get stuff like this right, what's the chance they'll implement detailed character interaction similar to that of koei games?

 

[Wallain]

Ships were never a reliable defense, because the chance of intercepting an enemy and bringing them to combat was always very dicey. But with a good leader, a fleet could be a very very cost efficient weapon.

Conceptualize it this way: you pay 50 gold (for a navy), you have a 1-in-3 chance of stopping a sea crossing cold and/or inflicting a bunch of war damage on coastal provinces. It's like an assassination -- no guarantees, but in some circumstances high payoff.

Ships can be used to defend straits, to transport troops around and so on. That is what I meant when I said they were important for defence. I am not arguing in favour of big naval battles in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. I would much rather have open oceans have a small (but noticeable) risk of having fleets clash (the bigger the higher risk) and straits having a 100% risk of having fleets clash. I do not want more than two types of ships either. Just something simple, but I want it there. The game feels lacking without naval combat.

 

[yezhanquan]

Playing as a muslim ruler, my heir picked up four wives and I gave him a title. Only his first wife joins his new court. Only my heir's first wife popped out 4 kids. The other three sit in my court doing nothing. Paradox can't get stuff like this right, what's the chance they'll implement detailed character interaction similar to that of koei games?

Your secondary wives can have kids. More to the point, their purpose is to decrease the prestige gain of Muslim rulers (or increase gain, if you marry 4 wives as a count or duke), and to cause problems with catfights and succession issues. If your prestige gain is ok, go ahead and take only 1 wife.