Crusader Kings 4

[Prairie_Doggin]

If I was granted one wish for what I want to see most when I open up Crusader Kings 4 for the first time in 10 years, it would be this: A much smaller map with a return to the roots of the project.

I truly believe that the scope of the game, primarily in terms of the vast size of the map, has already far exceeded what makes logical sense for this title and is actually making the game worse at this point. Instead of using development resources to spread a thin sheet of shallow, marginal content across the entire known world from Ireland to India, I would personally trade that for a deeper, more immersive, and richer experience within a much smaller playable area. That area should be Christendom, North Africa & the Middle East, with the overarching theme of the game being the lead up to, the launch, and the conclusion of the Crusade era.

 

[HotTeaLemonJuice]

I'm actually sad that Crusader Kings 3 doesn't include China as well, maybe an update will. Imagine playing with the Mongols from the start.

Why would that make the game worse beside sacrifcing a deeper, more immersive, and richer experience? which I don't think is the case. You can have both.

The real question is how. Say you are the team developer of Crusader Kings 4, what game mechanics would you create that would make CK4 a deeper, more immersive, and richer experience? because I think the devs have done a pretty good job with CK2 and CK3. The last DLC of CK2 especially was just amazing. I find some EU4 DLCs kind of meh, some HOI4 updates I actually hate, but in CK2 and CK3 the updates were always amazing. The team is on the right path if you ask me.

The crusades are the "main event" of the game, Crusades and Jihads, which are basically an all-out war. But CK2 & CK3 aren't games about Crusades in spite of its name. They are games about feudalism.

The core idea of the game is that if you play with the Byzantine Empire, you don't play with the Byzantine Empire, you play with the Byzantine Emperor, as the Byzantine Emperor, the person who owns the title "Emperor of the Byzantines". And your goal is to:
- Not run out of money
- Make sure not all lords under you hate you or at least not a majority
- And/or have a strong enough army so that you can stand toe to toe with them
- Win wars and conquer lands if you want, conquer lands to other more sneaky means like alliances or assassinations
- Make sure someone doesn't assassiante you.
- Make sure some other kingdom around you isn't stronger because then he'll try to take your land.
- MAKE SURE YOUR KID DOESN'T GROW UP TO BECOME AN IDIOT (I wish a lot of real life rulers kept this in mind, especially the great ones like Catherine the Great, it's almost like if you take the "great ruler" perk you have to give up the "great parent" perk, like HOI4 mutually exclusive focuses)
- Make sure you deal with the plague or other calamities that may arise.
- Make sure you deal with random events well.
- Play with religion, prestige, personal focuses, holy orders, adventures, mysterious people, etc. (I dislike the perk system because it's kind of cheap, but meh)
- Make sure you develop your castles and your regions under your rule so you will have better army.
- Make sure you get to have the best territories in the kingdom as you can.
- Building new towns and churches in the best territories you control.
- Picking a good council but make sure you don't get others especially powerful lords to hate you in the process, so you have to compromsie power/efficiency.
- Take care of the laws inside your kingdom especially taxes, inherance, crown authority, etc.
- Make sure the other members of your family don't want to take your titles at the same time make sure your family doesn't die.

The idea of CK2 and CK3 is that it's difficult to keep all these under control. You can't have big army and big chests at the same time. You can't have big taxes for the lords and laws that say that the lords contribute a lot with their army in your wars & have the lords love you at the same time. You have to strike a balance. Between them not hating you and you getting something out of them. And because it's CK2/CK3, bad things will always happen, it's a random chance away from bad stuff happening like your lord dying randomly on the battlefield or of plague. Stuff like that happened in medieval Europe. Stuff that ruin all your plans. You can't have inheretance laws that say only the first born gets everything and not have your other children get upset.

Admittely, CK2 was more difficult which is why I like it more in this regard, but CK3 kept the same spirit of careful management alive, and also giving a clear example why feudalism was doomed from the start, it's a guarantee of in-fighting with flexible laws and everyone vying for power.

That's the whole idea of CK2 and CK3. That's what it's all about. The crusades are just a big event in all of that, but not the main thing.

 

[Dunerat]

CK4 is forgettable i'm playing CK5 Beta right now and i'm maining Japan. I got all giggly when the special Tsunami Event fired and it actually btfo'ed the Mongols trying to land on my isles but then again i'm farming Shinto piety so maybe there was a hidden correlation??


Signed: not a time traveler

 

[klopkr]

Nothing would make me abandon the game faster.

 

[DenRødeFlag]

Think demands to decrease the size of the map basically ignore the reason for the map expansion, i.e. that playing on the very edge of the map often makes little sense. Basically wasn't a problem when you could only play as Christian rulers, but once they added playing as Muslim rulers you immediately hit the problem of playing in Persia making little sense because instead of India it borders a hard boundary

 

[Orphalesion]

Think demands to decrease the size of the map basically ignore the reason for the map expansion, i.e. that playing on the very edge of the map often makes little sense. Basically wasn't a problem when you could only play as Christian rulers, but once they added playing as Muslim rulers you immediately hit the problem of playing in Persia making little sense because instead of India it borders a hard boundary

Exactly, and I say it's still an issue when you play African and Asian kingdoms; you are liable to suddenly get a border that leads into nothingness. So I'd actually like it if they'd expand the map further.

Now I know they can't put the whole Earth into the game since that would rise the scope of the game too much, but I would like to see, at least, all of Eurasia, and a more natural border for Africa.

 

[Wokeg]

My pitch would actually be that you start the game in Mesoamerica, build the Aztecs up, and then invade a Europe that's been playing itself off-map for the whole game. A bit like a reverse TW2.

 

[EarlKonrad]

My pitch would actually be that you start the game in Mesoamerica, build the Aztecs up, and then invade a Europe that's been playing itself off-map for the whole game. A bit like a reverse TW2.

Sunset Invasion 2 confirmed?

 

[grommile]

A much smaller map with a return to

... either Iranian gameplay making no sense because India isn't there, or Mesopotamian gameplay making no sense because Iran isn't there.

... a third-rate, overly gamified representation of one of the most important events of the late middle ages: the Mongol invasions of Eastern Europe and Central-and-West Asia.

... etc.

 

[Oliverjack]

Giving a simplified example of the importance of expanding the map to Asia: The Silk Road was very important for several Tribes, nomadic tents, merchant republic, kingdoms and empires and it had a certain importance in several historical events in that period.

 

[Vityviktor]

Let's go deeper.

In fact, the game map should only include the Holy Land.

 

[Leonello d'Este]

I truly believe that the scope of the game, primarily in terms of the vast size of the map, has already far exceeded what makes logical sense for this title and is actually making the game worse at this point. Instead of using development resources to spread a thin sheet of shallow, marginal content across the entire known world from Ireland to India, I would personally trade that for a deeper, more immersive, and richer experience within a much smaller playable area. That area should be Christendom, North Africa & the Middle East, with the overarching theme of the game being the lead up to, the launch, and the conclusion of the Crusade era.

The only appreciable thing in this choice, as far as I'm concerned, is that it would allow us to focus on a small number of cultures, which would therefore be easier to differentiate and make truly unique and different from each other.

Right now, in CK3, every culture develops in the same way, with the same innovations, the same dynastic and heraldic characteristics, the same law of succession, the same social order and so on.

 

[4matic]

While I agree, the devs have mentioned in the past it's their intention to expand the map further.

Although I would prefer to play a deeper game to a wider one, I totally understand the decision from a business perspective, and would make the same one if I were in their shoes.

 

[Pigposting]

Not to enable PDX's silly DLC practices, but starting with only Europe+North Africa+Arabian Peninsula then expanding the map with each focued DLC couuuuuuuuuuuuuld be good thing. Sure beats dropping a half-baked Siberia and India and leave the regions to rot for years. That way we can ensure each new region won't feel samey if they all have specific content that cater to them.

However, I don't think there's any point speculating for Crusader kings 4 because I literally spent my younger days playing CK2 and I'm an old man now. Honestly, with the pace with their going I don't even think I'll live long enough to see CK3's crusade AI fixed.

 

[grommile]

Not to enable PDX's silly DLC practices, but starting with only Europe+North Africa+Arabian Peninsula then expanding the map with each focued DLC couuuuuuuuuuuuuld be good thing.

The problem with that is, well.

Have you looked at a map of the Great Seljuk Empire's borders in 1092?

 

[Maxwell Tornado]

The problem with that is, well.

Have you looked at a map of the Great Seljuk Empire's borders in 1092?

Honestly? Looks like every Persian empire ever.

 

[grommile]

Honestly? Looks like every Persian empire ever.

That's kind of what I was talking about in my very first response to this thread; the Seljuks' eastern border is a significant distance east of Masqat, and doesn't lie along a nice neat north-south line.

 

[MateuszS]

And I patiently wait for Crusader Catgirls.

 

[Orphalesion]

And I patiently wait for Crusader Catgirls.

I want fairies. They could put Tír na nÓg on a couple islands somewhere south-west of Ireland and from there armies of fairies and goblins can invade Europe.

 

[Flockingbird]

I want fairies. They could put Tír na nÓg on a couple islands somewhere south-west of Ireland and from there armies of fairies and goblins can invade Europe.

Oh no, now I want a mod that does exactly this!