-
Crusader Kings III Available Now!
The realm rejoices as Paradox Interactive announces the launch of Crusader Kings III, the latest entry in the publisher’s grand strategy role-playing game franchise. Advisors may now jockey for positions of influence and adversaries should save their schemes for another day, because on this day Crusader Kings III can be purchased on Steam, the Paradox Store, and other major online retailers.
Well, after the "development" diary I thought it's good enough already, but this...this is brilliant.
- 1
Adding new peacetime mechanics and depth is really, really great news, but this bit worries me slightly:
"If there is no current debate, nor any active benefits of an issue, you will slowly lose legitimacy & republican tradition."
Considering how the goal of the monarch should be to not have to rely on parliament for support and to rule of his own accord, it seems counter-intuitive to punish the player for being able to act in that way, at least with legitimacy which is something very valuable and hard to replace. Then again, if this is only something that comes up every ten years then that's a very reasonable timeframe in which to operate. But if this kind of system is ever to be extended to the rest of European monarchies, one should remember that Louis XIV didn't lose legitimacy for not calling upon the estates-general.
Basically, I think that instead of punishing the player for not using parliament with legitimacy decreases, it should just be harder to get support from them the longer it's been since the last time you asked. Use parliament often and accept their demands frequently and those demands will stay small, but go a long period without making any concessions or consulting them and when they finally get the chance they'll push you for every last concession they can get.
I say this because it seems like what this game mechanic is representing is extraordinary demands by the monarch from parliament, which was not something that parliamentarians wanted to deal with. The English ideal was always for the king to live off of his own incomes and not have to come to them asking for more. Not asking for extraordinary taxes (i.e. not using this mechanic) would increase legitimacy, if anything.
However it goes, I'm very happy to see Paradox focusing on depth, and I'll buy this expansion for sure, whatever it is.
"If there is no current debate, nor any active benefits of an issue, you will slowly lose legitimacy & republican tradition."
Considering how the goal of the monarch should be to not have to rely on parliament for support and to rule of his own accord, it seems counter-intuitive to punish the player for being able to act in that way, at least with legitimacy which is something very valuable and hard to replace. Then again, if this is only something that comes up every ten years then that's a very reasonable timeframe in which to operate. But if this kind of system is ever to be extended to the rest of European monarchies, one should remember that Louis XIV didn't lose legitimacy for not calling upon the estates-general.
Basically, I think that instead of punishing the player for not using parliament with legitimacy decreases, it should just be harder to get support from them the longer it's been since the last time you asked. Use parliament often and accept their demands frequently and those demands will stay small, but go a long period without making any concessions or consulting them and when they finally get the chance they'll push you for every last concession they can get.
I say this because it seems like what this game mechanic is representing is extraordinary demands by the monarch from parliament, which was not something that parliamentarians wanted to deal with. The English ideal was always for the king to live off of his own incomes and not have to come to them asking for more. Not asking for extraordinary taxes (i.e. not using this mechanic) would increase legitimacy, if anything.
However it goes, I'm very happy to see Paradox focusing on depth, and I'll buy this expansion for sure, whatever it is.
Last edited:
- 20
- 2
Surely you can find a more generic name for it? Parliamentary Monarchy or something? It would be a bit silly to form Germany and have as the government form "English Monarchy"
- 4
Presumably it'll be only limited to England the same way Dutch Republic is limited to Netherlands.Surely you can find a more generic name for it? Parliamentary Monarchy or something? It would be a bit silly to form Germany and have as the government form "English Monarchy"
- 6
With Nation Designer you could be not Netherlands but still with Dutch Republic
- Dec 14, 1999
- 18.099
- 29.694
- Dec 14, 1999
- 18.099
- 29.694
- Dec 14, 1999
- 18.099
- 29.694
- Dec 14, 1999
- 18.099
- 29.694
- Dec 14, 1999
- 18.099
- 29.694
That is the game-design concept we work on. Everything in our games involves "clicking a button and something will happen". either directly as you accrued resources, or over time as you resources go directly to it.
- 4
- 2
- Dec 14, 1999
- 18.099
- 29.694
No. The sejm just doesnt translate to a parliament. It would have to have entirely other mechanics.
- 2
- Dec 14, 1999
- 18.099
- 29.694
The government USA will have when they exist, will have a Parliament.
- 14
- Dec 14, 1999
- 18.099
- 29.694
1) Each increase country-wide costs for your nation
2) Did i not mention that some actions required to convince seats scale with the development of the provinces.
- 5
- Dec 14, 1999
- 18.099
- 29.694
- Dec 14, 1999
- 18.099
- 29.694
Will each seat have multiple aims? Cos from that UI it looks like if I want Yorkshire's vote, I have to lose legitimacy, or lose military tradition for Lancashire. This seems really simplistic as any debate would cost, say, x gold, y prestige and z legitimacy all the time, so you'd always have insane boosters on.
- 3
STOP! COOKIE TIME