- Feb 9, 2019
I agree I also didn't expect CK3 to have the same amount as content as CK2, I am not asking the impossible of the devs. But like I mentioned numerous times, I don't like in what direction the 'depth' has gone. The depth is in the form of skill trees and events, I don't care too much about either of these TBH. Skill trees feel restricted, rail-roaded and forced. It is kind of like the national focusses in HOI4 you just wait till you unlock a button so you can do something. Players should DO something to unlock something instead of waiting. Look at the coronation decision in CK2, you actually have to do a mission for the pope before you can be coronated. Why aren't we allowed to actively do something with our character before we unlock new perks? For example winning 3 wars to unlock a perk, in the strategy skill tree. And even though doing something would a significant improvement, it would still be kind of lame because I always know exactly what to expect in every playthrough.
Thank you! From a marketing point of view, I would probably have made almost the exact same decision as the developers. Making the game more simple, focus on weird meme-like events so videos on YouTube will be trending and introducing 3D models so more people can immerse themselves in the experience. Let's be honest, older PDX games are incredibly niche, and I don't know anyone IRL that enjoys CKII or EUIV because it is so hard to learn these games. It would have simply be too much of a risk to make CK3 even more complex and deep than CK2.
But if I had to make the game just for the extremely niche-strategy audience I would have taken the game in an entirely different direction. I am not a game developer so I don't know how realistic my ideas are and how an AI can handle these mechanics:
- First of all, I would have focussed just on Christian Europe for the release version, so we would have had 1 really fleshed out region instead of a very broad map but with hardly any regional flavor.
- I would have introduced an economy and trade system. Trade goods would give you access to certain retinue units similar to Stellaris and IR. Trade would be similar to Civ 6 where you can send merchants to other kingdoms to create trade routes.
- I would have completely reworked the combat system. The new system in IR looks great where you have a combination of levies and retinues. With the trade goods system where you have access to different units, regions would feel entirely different. In Germany, you would have heavy infantry that is slower but tankier and in the steppes you'll have large mobile cavalry armies.
- I would also have reworked the peace deal and cassus belli system. Where peace deals are more similar to EU4, but way more restricted in how much land you can take. Make it incredibly costly to take provinces that you don't have a claim on. Just a system where you are not forced to take an entire nation on its knees for 1 exclave province and were there are actual consequences if your entire country is occupied by the enemy
- I would make the faction system deeper, where new kinds of factions spawn depending on your playstyle. Do you have a lot of merchant republics as vassals? Maybe there will be a merchant faction that 8wants to transform the kingdom into a republic. it would also be great if you could do interactions with factions. Like for example making a deal with factions that supports a pretender, where he gives up his claims if you agree to conquer a neighboring province for him. Make the factions a more dynamic part of the game, that can give you a lot of benefits and headaches, instead of an alternative rebel system.
- I would introduce more options to personalize your kingdom. There was for example a mod in CK2 where you could customize your own palace, why not introduce that into the game? Give us the ability to found military orders, where we can customize them as we wish. You could create your very own Varangian Guard or janissaries. They could then later appear as a faction into the game. Maybe a system where we can place a character into the canon of a kingdom, immortalizing them as a legend. Kind of like mix between the deitify function in IR and the bloodline system in CK2. Too summarize more nation-building functions, so there is more of a sense of personalization, progression and accomplishment in the late game.
Love how always in many forum and in Imperator there are always people complaining about how unoriginal is that Paradox brings a lot of mechanics from older titles making their games inspirational from each other, that is what was the main complaint when Imperator come out, many mechanics were bad executes.
1- Disagree that just Europe need to be the only centre of the game by one year at all, what about the Muslim players, heathens (well North Pagans), Indians, Steppes and African powers? all of them have to play only in Europe? waiting until paradox come years later with a new DLC for every corner? What about the experience that Paradox had with the last DLC for every continent in CK2? it wouldn't have been added?
2-A trade system was something hard to do in the Medieval age, because constant warfare and barely any commercial boat to carry products and materials, to create an economic system, it is required to add resources by baronies, something PD didn't have planned to do.
3- What the combat system needed was one where we could command or the AI have to design the flanks and rear with troops, the same that CK2 but deeper with rear and vanguard (not same that front line), score to Paradox because they at least add dozens of exclusives units base in cultures, something that Imperator lacked, Imperator just did well about having some units require resources.
4-Peace deal indeed that needed an overhaul, but no way to become the same that EU4, the one in EU4 is fine to recreate the stability in borders of the modern states and how little it varied but with years to come it was possible to modern states to annex a lot of provinces in one war. In EU4 warfare is boring because you have to conquer and occupied all enemy provinces to barely annex some provinces, in Imperator still the same and devs are going to address that, in Ck3 if we do how you want, Empires like the Mongols or Turks wouldn't be recreated, in ck2 you always had to wait until the next CB, unless you adopt another religion and go full Deux vult, in CK3 you have more options and you are limited, you cant declare non-stop warfares with casus bellis of the kingdom, you have to manage to marry your children to get in a future the best claim to reclaim.
5- Faction system is so deeper as the characters managed inside the game are, thanks to hooks and many factions in-game, like independence or claimants you have a lot of chance to gain/lost your titles or more, Republics again, were not one of the main points to be brought from CK2, not to mention they were zero replayability in CK2 and you just played them for roleplaying. You won't want that Paradox to do the same mistake that they did with Imperator right? where the Oligarch Republic barely have my difference from a Plutarchy Monarchy.
6-Yes I would like to switch the colours of my realm and its coat of arms too.
7- A lot of that stuff is in the game, based in your dynasty prestige can improve your dynasty, besides those features weren't add to CK2 and Imperator until late.