How will CK be different from previous titles?

[unmerged(15561)]

Hi,

Id like to ask what features will make CK different from previous titles?

I like what I have seen in the evolution of the game engine from EU2-HoI-Vic. What add concepts and mechanisms will be implemented for this game?

Oh and what methods will prestige be attainable? Are there particular QUESTs (EU dynamic missions) or gameboard objects/cities/persons that as a the leader of your people you must/can attain?

I hope Im not being 2impatient in asking these questions?

Thx.

 

[unmerged(485)]

Hi,

Id like to ask what features will make CK different from previous titles?

I like what I have seen in the evolution of the game engine from EU2-HoI-Vic. What add concepts and mechanisms will be implemented for this game?

Oh and what methods will prestige be attainable? Are there particular QUESTs (EU dynamic missions) or gameboard objects/cities/persons that as a the leader of your people you must/can attain?

I hope Im not being 2impatient in asking these questions?

Thx.

We are all impatient for the game.

Don't know what differences there will be except the big one - a dynamic dynastic model. In previous titles only events changed succession (although in Victoria you can change your type of government). In CK each of the important persons in the game will be different after the starting generation has passed.

 

[unmerged(24560)]

Let's hope the dreaded Paradox slider is finally staked in the heart for Crusader Kings.

 

[Fawr]

The most interesting feature I read about here was the lack of historical characters (and associated events?) after the first generation. This will make the it much easier to replay the same country again.

 

[unmerged(12680)]

Let's hope the dreaded Paradox slider is finally staked in the heart for Crusader Kings.

Huh? What dreaded Paradox slider?

 

[unmerged(24560)]

The sliders that control the budget on every Paradox game.

 

[unmerged(8913)]

The sliders that control the budget on every Paradox game.

well...

Budget sliders aren't bad in and of themselves. I think they have the right idea with Victoria, where you can set all the sliders independant of each other. In fact, I can't think of a better way to represent the desired funding levels in all the different areas in a game.

 

[unmerged(12680)]

well...

Budget sliders aren't bad in and of themselves. I think they have the right idea with Victoria, where you can set all the sliders independant of each other. In fact, I can't think of a better way to represent the desired funding levels in all the different areas in a game.

Agree completely. Especially since some HoI patch introduced locking the sliders by right-clicking!

 

[Nikolai]

You could lock the EU2 sliders too...(I don't remember about EU1)

 

[Jayavarman]

You could lock the EU2 sliders too...(I don't remember about EU1)

...but not by right-clicking.

 

[Nikolai]

No, you double-clicked. Just as easy.

 

[unmerged(12680)]

No, you double-clicked. Just as easy.

Actually the dubble-click system was far from optimal as you had to position you pointer over the exact location of the sliding thing (what do you call that anyway?) or else the first click would move it.

BUT in any case I hardly think a Medival game will feature very much bugetary work anyway, so the point is probably moot.

 

[unmerged(24980)]

Force Mobilization

I would imagine that the whole mechanism for raising armys would be changed. During the Middle Ages, raising troops was largely by means of calling in feudal obligations. Typically, anyone owed their feudal superior a certain amount of manpower (typically 1/3 of their total, including that owed them by their inferiors), for typically something between 60 and 120 days per year.

For example, a farmer might owe his lord (whether a simple land-owning knight or the King of the realm) 60 days labor per year. A landed knight would owe the services of himself, his squire, a serjent, and a handfull of footment. A town might owe money, labor, or use of the civic militia. A baron might be owed the services of twenty knights an their concommitent support troops, and might have another twenty knights directly supported by himself. When called by his overlord, he might be required to provide fifteen knights and appropriate support troops.

As time went on, it became more an more acceptable to pay money sufficient to hire troops instead of troops themselves. As another twist, obligations were increased (up to 100% of the levee) when defending one's lords lands.

Army's in this period were often quite small. Hastings had between 4000 and 8000 men on a side (compare this to a 2nd century Roman legion of 6000 men accompanied by several thousand auxillia.)

 

[Nikolai]

I would imagine that the whole mechanism for raising armys would be changed. During the Middle Ages, raising troops was largely by means of calling in feudal obligations. Typically, anyone owed their feudal superior a certain amount of manpower (typically 1/3 of their total, including that owed them by their inferiors), for typically something between 60 and 120 days per year.

Your assumtion is correct AFAIR.

 

[unmerged(12680)]

Yup. Your army will consist of troops contributed by your various vassals, probably supported by some mercenaries.