DLC ideas for CK3.

[McDanny]

I want an expansion on Church/Religious hierarchies. It should include:

• a College of Cardinals
• Councils where existing faiths may change their tenet & doctrine sets under the command of their head
• Schisms
• Antipopes and Anti-Caliphs (and the same for other religions)
• Investiture conflict
• a single head may rule over multiple faiths (eg. the Sunni Caliph)

All of this. The devs have said that they will probably look into adding ecumenical councils in the future, which is my number one most wanted feature.

 

[SMiki Lorebringer]

It'd be decent for Iceland characters (or Greenland/Kamchatka if map is spread further west/east) to have more fun with Native Americans until the actual invasion. Maybe if you don't annoy Skrælings, you get, let's say, random Native courtiers popping up from time to time and possibility to open ahistorical trade routes boosting your income via buying cocoa and selling horses. On the other hand, if you act hostile, Cree or Haida adventurers could try to take your land.

If the map is spread south, same mechanics could be applied to some quasi-Zulu peoples for Zimbabwe or Swahili players. If it's spread southeast, Australian Aborigines and/or quasi-Maori for Indonesia players?

Now that I think of it, existence of these off-map cultures might allow to expand the timeline a couple decades further. End date could be 1521 (fall of the real Aztec empire), marking the de facto beginning of age of colonization. (Let's face it, fall of Constantinople didn't have much impact on how feudalism worked in other areas; cosmic influx of gold from New Word did.) Late game goal would be then to conquer given off-map power, something akin to conquering/pillaging China in Jade Dragon. When you reach proper tech, you can send explorers, followed by missionaries, diplomats, and eventually your army.

 

[McDanny]

Now that I think of it, existence of these off-map cultures might allow to expand the timeline a couple decades further. End date could be 1521 (fall of the real Aztec empire), marking the de facto beginning of age of colonization. (Let's face it, fall of Constantinople didn't have much impact on how feudalism worked in other areas; cosmic influx of gold from New Word did.)

Huh, I assumed 1453 was chosen because it was the end of the Hundred Years' War. Either way, I'd be happy with an extended timeline. I love the early colonial period but never got into EU4 because it's so nation- rather than character-focused.

 

[PillowWillow]

Huh, I assumed 1453 was chosen because it was the end of the Hundred Years' War. Either way, I'd be happy with an extended timeline. I love the early colonial period but never got into EU4 because it's so nation- rather than character-focused.

You are aware, that you can continue playing the game past 1453 by the simple press of a button, right?

This feature has been confirmed by the developers (sorry, but I'm not in the mood for searching around the Forums for that quote, besides - as a wise man once said - "... Mood's a thing for cattle or making love or playing the baliset ...". Moreover, its half past eleven, nearing midnight in where I live).

 

[Despotism]

I love the idea, but I'm not sure how well it would work. The game is so focused around landed characters for the player that you're basically asking for an entirely new game. Not only that, but you'd only need that until you conquered somewhere and then you're back to playing the normal game. I'd guess that if you're decent enough at building an army, you'd be playing the normal game within 50-100 years or less. The amount of work involved for such a short span of time is probably not worth it. As I said, I love the idea as it gives you even more of a sense of accomplishment to start out landless and work up to king or emperor than doing so from a count. It's just a ton of work for one or two generations in a game that can have a dozen or more generations.

I mean, I'm sure it is more complicated than I think it is, but I do think it would be worth it. Without a playable adventurer system, how could a player replicate the Norse and Norman conquerors of the period, and especially the adventurers from the Steppe where that phenomenon was very common as well.
To be able to do this is definitely something I wanted in CK2, and I don't think I'm alone in that. CK3 will need to introduce some form of playable landless characters anyway whenever they add playable republics, and when they revamp Byzantium or when they add China.

 

[SMiki Lorebringer]

You are aware, that you can continue playing the game past 1453 by the simple press of a button, right?

I am aware, but what I mean is a flavorful way to play further – with events concerning on-map and off-map exploration and mechanics related to Renaissance.

 

[Alratan]

I want an expansion on Church/Religious hierarchies. It should include:

• a College of Cardinals
• Councils where existing faiths may change their tenet & doctrine sets under the command of their head
• Schisms
• Antipopes and Anti-Caliphs (and the same for other religions)
• Investiture conflict
• a single head may rule over multiple faiths (eg. the Sunni Caliph)

Even more than this, I'd like a much better interaction with the clergy in-general:

• Theocratic hierarchies to represent Bishops & Archbishops aside form the secular titles they old or serve, with ecclesiastical politicing going on which secular rules can influence and be influenced by
• Incentives to have relatives become Bishops for your own personal standing/prestige
• Ways to simulate the relationship of Pope to Kaiser and Patriarch to Basileus (for emergent Guelph & Ghibellines crisis rather than a pre-scripted event)
• Representation of religious authority within a realm (backed up by the laws/nobility), which is more localised than just moral authority/fervour
• Religious interactions, tolerance and minorities having an impact within realms - particularly in melting pots like the Levant and Iberia

 

[ArVass]

Even more than this, I'd like a much better interaction with the clergy in-general:

• Theocratic hierarchies to represent Bishops & Archbishops aside form the secular titles they old or serve, with ecclesiastical politicing going on which secular rules can influence and be influenced by
• Incentives to have relatives become Bishops for your own personal standing/prestige
• Ways to simulate the relationship of Pope to Kaiser and Patriarch to Basileus (for emergent Guelph & Ghibellines crisis rather than a pre-scripted event)
• Representation of religious authority within a realm (backed up by the laws/nobility), which is more localised than just moral authority/fervour
• Religious interactions, tolerance and minorities having an impact within realms - particularly in melting pots like the Levant and Iberia

I would also love to add monasteries and abbeys, having a wide variety of functions such as prostelyzing, providing medical help for rulers or disease-struck counties, providing different high-learning monk characters to help out as a teacher or a councillor, etc.

 

[zbyrne]

Tell me what are the DLC's that you would definetly buy for this game , meaning their idea and features.

For me I wish they make a DLC about warfare , a total revamp and adding tons of new features like for example a scorched earth tactic similar to EU4 , so that smaller nations can stand a chance against larger massive empires.

Alos adding a supply lines system with the ability to attack those lines and force some additional attrition upon the enemy , and those features can also work on the player in order to balance the game a little bit. so that players would think twice and strategically before declaring war even upon the smallest of foes.

Mate, come on the game isn't even out yet, by already saying let's get DLC you're basically asking PDX to realise an unfinished game...

 

[zbyrne]

I'm assuming big expansions.

DLC: Expanded content for city states, including political game with neighbouring powers and fleets.
Update: Expanded contracts that allow a larger spectrum between proper feudalism and similar systems, allowing each state to change dynamically from or toward feudalism.

DLC: Expanded content for the steppes, including nomadic alliances mechanics, where everything from religion to marriages and military power works a bit differently. Nomads also have a different "presence" on the map.
Update: New ethinicites all over the map, and new religion mechanics that allow minority religions and cultures in each county (works great to represent the diversity within nomadic hordes, but opens new opportunities in other parts of the world as well).

DLC: Libraries and artifacts. But unlike CK2, this time it's only about the really rare stuff (so no "common swords", every ruler is able to afford that stuff...). Additionally and over the course of the game, each dynasty will build a dynastic library. It would work like the Legacy, but instead you'd build a library and fill it with books. Books can work in different ways: stat boosts, but also by replacing a specific trait when it's needed in an event. They can also open new opportunities by spending lifestyle points in reading them instead of spending them in unlocking lifestyles, like unlocking new traits or providing powerful boons. Artifacts work in a similar way - they don't just provide basic stats, they also alter the way you play with them. But people expect certain things from someone wearing a proud and fancy crown, so expect to get some stress if you don't behave like people expect your character to do. Artifacts are tied to characters and not dynasties.
Update: Some lifestyles stuff?

DLC (or stand-alone): Tales of the Summer Court - a bit like the world randomizer of CK2, but with fantasy content. The map will be filled with appropriately medieval-themed fantasy races - so no orcs and goblins, but Irish Sidhe and Fomorians, german kobolds, djinns, nordic elves and giants etc. The base game mechanics are exactly the same, but with a different skin.
Free update:?

Or maybe they could just include that in the base game...

 

[SMiki Lorebringer]

maybe they could just include that in the base game...

Do you realize that the release date is already set in stone?

 

[zbyrne]

Do you realize that the release date is already set in stone?

I get that, but I am growing skeptical of PDX's model - I think it encourages them to throw out empty base games and then spend years adding crucial gameplay features to it which we pay extra for. and personally, seeing people already calling for DLC a month pre-release disheartens me because it suggests the community supports this, instead of expecting a better base game.

I have to say it, I have liked some parts of the CK3 DDs, but some parts look like there has been no serious improvement on CK2, and there seems to be lots of places they have left the game ripe for future DLC exploitation (intentionally). And I am of the opinion that that is a bad starting point from a design philosophy (not just because of the financial aspect of the base game price will multiply over the years), but also because there might be a sense of 'doesn't matter if this system is not very good at launch, we can "fix" it in later DLC'. I've been playing CK2 since 2013, I've seen lots of broken systems be replaced with other broken systems. Same for EU4.

Anyway, I suspect that will get lots of downvotes, but I don't agree with the general vibe of this thread, and felt like making my feelings heard.

(EDIT): I've just looked up the post launch thread, and they have already said that their major expansions will be $30 a pop, with the base game $50. The fact they already know they will do at least one expansion - game's not even out yet! - says their thinking is in the wrong place... But how substantive will the major expansions (of which there will be at least half a dozen, possibly double that) to justify a price tag of 60% of the base game?? Alot easier to justify such a cost if the major expansions add so many features because the base game is so feature lite.

Anyway, I've said my piece.

 

[McDanny]

I get that, but I am growing skeptical of PDX's model - I think it encourages them to throw out empty base games and then spend years adding crucial gameplay features to it which we pay extra for. and personally, seeing people already calling for DLC a month pre-release disheartens me because it suggests the community supports this, instead of expecting a better base game.

I have to say it, I have liked some parts of the CK3 DDs, but some parts look like there has been no serious improvement on CK2, and there seems to be lots of places they have left the game ripe for future DLC exploitation (intentionally). And I am of the opinion that that is a bad starting point from a design philosophy (not just because of the financial aspect of the base game price will multiply over the years), but also because there might be a sense of 'doesn't matter if this system is not very good at launch, we can "fix" it in later DLC'. I've been playing CK2 since 2013, I've seen lots of broken systems be replaced with other broken systems. Same for EU4.

Anyway, I suspect that will get lots of downvotes, but I don't agree with the general vibe of this thread, and felt like making my feelings heard.

That's fair. Personally I haven't seen anything which indicates (to me) that the base game will be lacking, and it's interesting to speculate where the game could go post-launch, but concerns about PDX's DLC model are not unreasonable imo.

 

[ShadyGuy_SuspiciousGoal]

I hate it when people look at base CK and say that it is feature-lite. Like mate, check the text files and tell me it is not complicated.

This game is complicated. It has a lot of features. It is basically Total War and The Sim combined. This is why the game will never be complete. The devs chose a set of features and implement them, because obviously adding everything will take years. And what if you took 10 years to make it and it flop? Big risky investment right there.

• Grand Strategy fans want more in depth war, more resources to manage, in-depth building system et cetera.
• Sim fans want more hats, hair style, traits, more customizable for the character, furnitures et cetera.
• RPG fans want more events, more choices, more interactions, more interesting characters, professions, magic et cetera.

You will never be able to satisfy everyone.

So what's the best way to do it? Choose a set of features as core to release, and every expansion we add some more! We can earn money and people will have what they want! Everybody will love this idea right? Right??

But then you got chastised for being greedy and "split" the "already complete" game into smaller parts and sell them one by one. Like you had it all but won't give them.

*Sad PDS noise*

 

[PillowWillow]

I am aware, but what I mean is a flavorful way to play further – with events concerning on-map and off-map exploration and mechanics related to Renaissance.

That's why mods exist, my friend.

 

[SMiki Lorebringer]

That's why mods exist, my friend.

I'm not saying my proposition is a must-have, but this thread shouldn't be restricted to proposing things already present in CK2 Besides, it's never bad to give the player more endgame goals to spice up final decades.

 

[zbyrne]

I hate it when people look at base CK and say that it is feature-lite. Like mate, check the text files and tell me it is not complicated.

This game is complicated. It has a lot of features. It is basically Total War and The Sim combined. This is why the game will never be complete. The devs chose a set of features and implement them, because obviously adding everything will take years. And what if you took 10 years to make it and it flop? Big risky investment right there.

• Grand Strategy fans want more in depth war, more resources to manage, in-depth building system et cetera.
• Sim fans want more hats, hair style, traits, more customizable for the character, furnitures et cetera.
• RPG fans want more events, more choices, more interactions, more interesting characters, professions, magic et cetera.

You will never be able to satisfy everyone.

So what's the best way to do it? Choose a set of features as core to release, and every expansion we add some more! We can earn money and people will have what they want! Everybody will love this idea right? Right??

But then you got chastised for being greedy and "split" the "already complete" game into smaller parts and sell them one by one. Like you had it all but won't give them.

*Sad PDS noise*

Hey man, you can think that if you like. But I'd say (completely understandable) CK2 base game back in 2012 had way less features because they spent 8 years building it up. That's fine, I used to like the CK2 model, and get super excited with each new update. I've played CK2 for something like 900+ hours I think.

But looking at CK3 and the DDs, I'm convinced they have left lots of gaps so they can roll out DLCs over the the next 5-8 years and rather than try and develop the game in full; I am under the impression they have gone for 'we'll lay the foundations, but walls, windows, doors and furniture etc. - that'll come later and cost extra', and I don't agree with that approach.

If they had said 'every feature which was in CK2 in 2019 will be in the base CK3 and we will add extra stuff in on top of that and improve lots of systems, and only once we have done ALL of that in the base, will we even think about DLC', I'd be cheering them on, but it doesn't seem like that to me, looks like lots of gaps have been left to be filled in later and I just don't support that, because that does feel greedy to me. I mean, they have already announced there will be a major expansion (pre-release, they are already saying, there's all this extra content we will add later!), and even though they haven't said what it will be, but they already know it'll cost $30. Which is a lot, given the base game is $50.

As I said, I love CK, and have played CK2 to death. And when CK3 came out, I got super excited, but I've lost some of that excitement because CK3 doesn't feel like a major new departure from CK2, just a minor update and you get the "full game" when you pay an extra £250 over the lifetime of the DLC cycle. There are lots who share my view, but you are entitled to yours.

 

[ShadyGuy_SuspiciousGoal]

Hey man, you can think that if you like. But I'd say (completely understandable) CK2 base game back in 2012 had way less features because they spent 8 years building it up. That's fine, I used to like the CK2 model, and get super excited with each new update. I've played CK2 for something like 900+ hours I think.

But looking at CK3 and the DDs, I'm convinced they have left lots of gaps so they can roll out DLCs over the the next 5-8 years and rather than try and develop the game in full; I am under the impression they have gone for 'we'll lay the foundations, but walls, windows, doors and furniture etc. - that'll come later and cost extra', and I don't agree with that approach.

If they had said 'every feature which was in CK2 in 2019 will be in the base CK3 and we will add extra stuff in on top of that and improve lots of systems, and only once we have done ALL of that in the base, will we even think about DLC', I'd be cheering them on, but it doesn't seem like that to me, looks like lots of gaps have been left to be filled in later and I just don't support that, because that does feel greedy to me. I mean, they have already announced there will be a major expansion (pre-release, they are already saying, there's all this extra content we will add later!), and even though they haven't said what it will be, but they already know it'll cost $30. Which is a lot, given the base game is $50.

As I said, I love CK, and have played CK2 to death. And when CK3 came out, I got super excited, but I've lost some of that excitement because CK3 doesn't feel like a major new departure from CK2, just a minor update and you get the "full game" when you pay an extra £250 over the lifetime of the DLC cycle. There are lots who share my view, but you are entitled to yours.

Alright, I see your concern. And to some extern, yes, I also agree with you that decision is probably driven by financial interest.

But I absolutely did not agree that it is solely because they want to add cash grab. You only feel that they intentionally left some stuff out because they chose to focus their time on newer things such as DNA, focus tree, 3D portraits, stress, UI redesign, map expansion etc. That was not in the old game. The new game is more RPG and sim like. Like yeah, it may also be financially motivated too but it's not like they didn't spend their time doing stuff and was lazy.

You should know that a commitment like "we'll remake everything we have in CK2 in CK3 and then only then we will start pumping out DLC" is not realistic. Not only because financially they gain nothing from it, but also because of the logistic of it: every feature in the game needs to be designed and tested. You want the game to be better than the previous version, you don't copy designs that your players complained about, like imperial, nomads, and merchant republic. So you can spend all this time testing new implementations for ALL that is in the game in 2019 (which has been in development for ages) or you can focus your time and budget on the base concepts and make them as good as you can and release the game earlier.

Then, you focus on adding new mechanics one by one. The amount of time spent doing that will be compensated by the players buying your new expansion. And better yet, you would want to make it as good as possible because if you don't, your customer won't buy it. Like the Aztec one. I see no problem with that.

And I don't think the base game will be unplayable or not worth its price. If you spend like 300 hours in a game I'm pretty sure you should give the devs their share. You want a big game you pay the big prize. LOL players are out there paying for cosmetics, and they spend wayy more.

 

[LukeCreed13]

My dream: Inventory and outfit system. Imagine setting up your character with your armour, your scepter, your crown and not just pre-defined ones the game decided to give you. It would be a roleplayer's paradise. Also, imagine seeing the holy relics, the books, the weapons, etc. not just in a tiny box with a barely discernible 2D art, but with an actual 3D representation of it. Granted, it would take a huge amount of work, I know, but I would be ready to wait for it as much as it takes, because it would really be a significant improvement to the whole immersion factor.

Other than that, I'm really curious how will they tackle the Nomad and Imperial government systems.

 

[zbyrne]

Alright, I see your concern. And to some extern, yes, I also agree with you that decision is probably driven by financial interest.

But I absolutely did not agree that it is solely because they want to add cash grab. You only feel that they intentionally left some stuff out because they chose to focus their time on newer things such as DNA, focus tree, 3D portraits, stress, UI redesign, map expansion etc. That was not in the old game. The new game is more RPG and sim like. Like yeah, it may also be financially motivated too but it's not like they didn't spend their time doing stuff and was lazy.

You should know that a commitment like "we'll remake everything we have in CK2 in CK3 and then only then we will start pumping out DLC" is not realistic. Not only because financially they gain nothing from it, but also because of the logistic of it: every feature in the game needs to be designed and tested. You want the game to be better than the previous version, you don't copy designs that your players complained about, like imperial, nomads, and merchant republic. So you can spend all this time testing new implementations for ALL that is in the game in 2019 (which has been in development for ages) or you can focus your time and budget on the base concepts and make them as good as you can and release the game earlier.

Then, you focus on adding new mechanics one by one. The amount of time spent doing that will be compensated by the players buying your new expansion. And better yet, you would want to make it as good as possible because if you don't, your customer won't buy it. Like the Aztec one. I see no problem with that.

And I don't think the base game will be unplayable or not worth its price. If you spend like 300 hours in a game I'm pretty sure you should give the devs their share. You want a big game you pay the big prize. LOL players are out there paying for cosmetics, and they spend wayy more.

You raise some good points, so I will hold out judgement obviously, and given I have a love for the series, I will obviously buy and probably play it a lot. I'd be OK with a few (3-4) really meaty expansions, and then a couple of flavour packs, but not sure I'd be on board with arriving at a point now where you go to the Steam home page, click add all to basket and all the DLC amounts to like £400! I've played lots of games for hundreds of hours, but not sure it should cost that much!!