Yeah but I think they can add Myanmar and a few other southeast asian areas piecemeal before then.
- 6
- 2
Far East Expansion?
- Thread starter Mezlabor
- Start date
-
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.
The Asian markets for videogames are absurdely huge to be ignored by a company like Paradox....i mean, just imagine how many people would play CK3 if they expand the map further east. Indonesia and Vietnam are interesting places and Japan would attract a lot of western Otakus 
But the problem right now is that the game lacks depth, it would be disrespectful to expand the map before adding new governments, mechanics and flavor....but i would like to play in the far east in the future.
But the problem right now is that the game lacks depth, it would be disrespectful to expand the map before adding new governments, mechanics and flavor....but i would like to play in the far east in the future.
- 10
- 1
- 1
What? Japan absolutely does. This falls smack into the Kamakura period, which was they heyday of the samurai under the shogunate. The upper stratum structure of Heian Japan would actually work really well with CK3's core structure. Emperor = Emperor. King = Shogun. Duke = Daimyo. Count = Bushi. Bam.
- 9
- 3
- 3
- 1
But Japan during the time period is unique in that the Emperor did not hold and de facto power, with the Shogun holding all the power. But you and everyone else already know this, so I don’t see your idea of how Japan can fit into the current system.
Also, a shogun would not be a king, as shogun literally means a general, a Japanese king would not style himself as a shogun. It is also debatable whether or not Japan should have multiple kingdoms as well, considering Japan being united for over two hundred years in the 867 start.
- 5
- 1
- 1
While CK3 runs faster than CK2, most players (and very likely the devs) will be using a previous CK3 version as the benchmark moving forward, particularly as some of them will not have played CK2 (or at least not to any significant extent) and as the "Faster than CK2" benchmark being used by the devs would be an invitation to be sloppy with regards to performance until it drops to such an extent that that they risk failing to meet that benchmark. Unless the devs already have screwed up massively when it comes to optimization and manage to fix that then adding somewhere around 40 % more counties (1k on top of 2.5k; the 1k ballpark figure is not pulled out of thin air, by the way) and assorted flavour and mechanics will be noticeable (this does not necessarily mean "Constant stuttering", "Autosaves take forever", or the like; people will notice things like the average year taking a few more seconds even if the game runs pretty smoothly), regardless of whether the game still clears the "Faster than CK2" benchmark or not.
Now, you might be fine with the resulting performance loss, I would almost certainly be fine with it (given that I'm already quite willing to accept "Worse performance than vanilla CK2" for something similar there), and anyone else that would like to see the Far East could conceivably also be fine with it (assuming their computer can handle it), but the average person that's very much not in favour of the Far East is extremely unlikely to be willing to accept as much of a performance loss as the average person in favour of it (and the average person that's got no strong opinions about the Far East is also unlikely to be willing to accept as much of a performance loss as someone in favour of it). Even ruling out the people that would want performance to be unchanged or improved there would be people that truthfully could say "This would cost more performance than I would consider acceptable", meaning performance is not a non-issue for those people, and even if we assume that the devs (or, rather, the Game Director or Creative Director, seeing as they'd make the call rather than individual devs) aren't ruling out the hypothetical map expansion for another reason (the amount of work needed, difficulty of implementation for missing functionality, balance issues, a strong preference for something else, a dislike of the whole idea of adding anything further east, or something else) and would be fine with performance getting somewhat worse it is uncertain if they'd feel it was likely to be within acceptable bounds, particularly as something they'd personally be fine with still might be poorly enough received that it is risky from a business standpoint.
- 5
- 2
- 1
- 1
Sure that adding an event slows the game in some way and you are talking with someone that in the past actively and detailedly gauged the impact of events on the clausewitz engine. I spent countless hours doing just that, checking which event pools caused more lag, which scopes and triggers were more costly, modifying my code and pointing to the code of others that worked with me to improve performance and much more in the same vein.
What I also do know about the Clausewitz engine is that adding provincies, baronies and characters massively to the game will cause a huge performance hit. Final point. It is true the engine was much streamlined in the latest iterations and that it runs signifcantly faster than before but I am not so sure about adding the huge amount of content needed for a detailed simulation of China and all the associated rigmarole of entities will not make the game much slower, thus in need of a significant increase in minimum and recommended specs, thus decreasing the potencial number of buyers, thus creating problems to CK3 owners who are neutral or oppose the inclusion of China, thus creating a dilema for Paradox about if it is worth it in the end.
However, much more important than that and as someone who has the luxury of having a top machine specifically bought to run just two games (CK3 and EU4), I find it is much more pressing in the following several years to add content to the huge map already presented, detailing regions separately with hosts of new flavour events, adding much more events to each game mechanic the game includes thus adding a narrative to their concept or adding forms of government that are representative of some areas and/or entities already present in the map. In sum, adding much needed depth to a game that in its detailed content - not mechanics - is 1000Km wide and 1cm deep.
Finally and while I recognize China and its neighbours are a big market for gaming - or any other comercial activity, for that matter - I suppose it is not so relevant as you claim, otherwise and after more than 20 years of activity, Paradox already should have released a game starting centered in the region of that market.
Last edited:
- 7
- 1
True, but then an emir wasn't always a king either. I was merely establishing that the structure could be transplanted. Certainly, some unique mechanics would need to be implemented (for example, as you say, to give the shogun more power than the emperor). But then, what would we be buying DLC for if not unique mechanics?
- 5
- 1
There were no daimyo under the Kamakura shogunate - the closest they had were the shugo, which in the time period was more of a provincial constable role. Control over land and revenue was split with civil rulers. (And with aristocrats in their private capacity and elite temples, which is another can of worms.) It's part of what makes the Kamakura era fascinating, but it really would require special flavor mechanics to do justice. And while I roll my eyes at the persistent drumbeat of the Europe first/only crowd here, they have a point that the existing map is sorely lacking flavor and needs attention.
- 4
Then call them shugo, and have a late era innovation that shifts their role to that of daimyo. The more we discuss it, the more intriguing it sounds.
- 5
Perhaps at least try to make a distinction between a people and their government.
- 3
- 3
- 1
Shogun could probably be turned into a pope like figure to maybe show his lack of secular power? And have him only hold kyoto?
- 1
- 1
Sure, but thinking about how to do this shows that it would involve reworking game concepts to make work. Probably not impossible, and you and I would enjoy it, but meanwhile England, Poland, and Sri Lanka would all play the same and lots of players would resent it.
As a thought exercise, here's how I would do it - each county gets a civil governor who is a vassal of the imperial court, and a shugo who is a vassal of the shogunate. Also, go back to the ck2 rule where baronies can be vassals of someone other than the county holder, and then many baronies will be held by ck2 republic-style courtier dynasties (like the Fujiwara) and by duchy tier theocracies representing temples like Kofukuji and Enryakuji.
Governors get most of a province's tax, and shugo get most of its levies. The shogunate and imperial court are in tension with each other (with a unique set of laws and faction dynamics to let this play out) and if the shogunate comes out on top the shugo get more access to tax revenues too. (And conversely they can be weakened to the benefit of the civil governor if the imperial court is winning, or expelled entirely.) If the Shogunate is totally dominating, the shugo can become daimyo, which act like feudal vassals - they are hereditary, don't share control with a governor, and can seize control of the holdings in their province that aren't already vassalized to them directly.
- 4
- 1
You mean emperor. While the emperor in the Imperial Japan era did serve as the head of faith, the emperor at this time was not considered divine since Shintoism at this time was more or less unreformed, being a pluralist polytheistic faith with no leader(compared to Shintoism in Imperial Japan, a highly-organized fundamentalist faith the emperor as the “leader of gods”). While the emperor certainly can be represented as a head of “faith”, that still wouldn’t fit Japan quite well, especially since the emperor theoretically and historically can only be passed down through the emperor’s heirs.(There was a period when there was two emperors, similar to the antipope situation) If paradox choose to do not mechanic update whatsoever with the update, the emperor would probably be represented this way, but Japan should definitely receive its own imperial mechanics(and so should China).
- 4
- 2
CK2 proved that you can add a ton of provinces and still fix it to run faster than ever before in the end.
People just have a horrible memory of RoI because it was slow as a snail but it turned out the major reasons was Byzantines considering whether or not to castrate everyone in the world every day and now they misapply it as a turthism.
People just have a horrible memory of RoI because it was slow as a snail but it turned out the major reasons was Byzantines considering whether or not to castrate everyone in the world every day and now they misapply it as a turthism.
- 9
- 4
- 2
- 1
I'm not Byzantine but I too ponder the thought of castrating everyone in my game world every day. Maybe that is why I get nothing done in my life.
- 2
.png){kind=avatar}
Right, exactly.
Here's the early CK2 map:
And here's the latest version:
Not only the map expanded significantly, but the original map bounds got quite a bit more provinces.
As of the game's latest version, there are some 1349 provinces in total. I don't really know the original number. If someone is willing to count, be my guest.
I'm not asking for the same increase for CK3. I'm not even that much enthusiastic about adding China. But I'm pretty sure that a game on a newer engine would not horrifically suffer in performance, if a few hundred extra provinces were added.
- 5
- 5
- 3
Right, exactly.
Here's the early CK2 map:
And here's the latest version:
Not only the map expanded significantly, but the original map bounds got quite a bit more provinces.
As of the game's latest version, there are some 1349 provinces in total. I don't really know the original number. If someone is willing to count, be my guest.
I'm not asking for the same increase for CK3. I'm not even that much enthusiastic about adding China. But I'm pretty sure that a game on a newer engine would not horrifically suffer in performance, if a few hundred extra provinces were added.
Even in CK2 I think the devs said it was too hard to add China from a mechanical standpoint, and performance was a lesser issue.
- 7
- 3
- 1
Yeah
And this would be a good opportunity to implement imperial bureaucratic government. It is a "fresh" game engine, plus the devs now have experience with mistakes made in CK2.
I want to assume the only obstacle for China expansion is just the sheer task of developing this much content.
- 6
- 2
- 1
- 1