Oh man I love these threads. I know it's incredibly sadistic of me to say, but I 100% binge-read these discussions and compare them against actual plans and discussions to see who's most on point, or who's completely wrong but for very good reasons. ^^' Sometimes share highlights around the office and everything when they're especially good.
Loved your last one, Scrambles, even if it was a bit left of the mark. Hope you keep up the tradition (we'll make it one damn it) in future!
I would like to have more narratively focused, or at least travel-led, crusades, but I don't know if it'll happen. It'd be a pretty big change to how they currently work, and though I'm sure some folks would love the authenticity of the Medieval Lads On Tour Kickstarter Shenanigans & Holy War Fun Time, I think a lot of people just like using GHWs as big land-grabs. Certainly the complaints I usually see about them are less to do with their historicity and more to do with AI management. On the one hand, what people know they like shouldn't be a barrier to us giving them something new they might also like, on the other hand, it's a pretty hard sell for an overhaul, not least because (much as we might wish we were blessed with Stellaris' neutral name) "crusade" is in the title - any replacing system would need to be extremely robust to even be countenancable making adjustments to the current one.So uhhh. Write a letter to your local MP demanding more historically authentic and less gamey GHWs in CK3, please. Thanks for your support.
As for EUIV-style peace deals: though I can't strictly guarantee it (we have a long dev cycle and who's to say what the team'll be like in 4-5 years?), I cannot personally ever see us implementing these. Doing so would be a fundamental overhaul of warfare, UX, and AI, as well as just the core design of how the title operates - if we're ripping out warfare completely like that, I'd much prefer to focus on making the new system more medieval and less EUIV-style Early Modern. That said, I think Blackwhitecavias has about hit the nail on the head; reparations, maybe, hostages, maybe, tributaries, maybe, negotiations you can tick for acceptance to end a war in some configuration... quite possibly at some point, but those'd all sit nicely alongside the current implementation and design.
Though I strongly suspect future bontent packs will be up for the community to decide, I have killed before and will do so again.
Whenever we get around to imperial play, I can (basically) guarantee you two things:1) Tweaks, potentially even an overhaul, to the dissolution faction.
2) We will not be importing Holy Fury's imperial gameplay style, we will be doing something more involved.
This is an interesting point - one of the actual tragedies of development is that, the earlier something is done in the DLC cycle, the less integrated it tends to be with later stuff. If we did nomads next, they'd likely end up a bit disjointed from trade. If we did trade next, it'd likely end up a bit disjointed from nomads. If we did imperials next, it'd be a bit separate from nomads or trade. That's not to say that we don't try to link features together, but it's just a practical reality that it's somewhat easier to hook something fluid that you're currently developing around existing finished features than it is to update finished features (especially complex systems) to integrate new content.
I have no particular opinion on map extension (nor do I get to decide which DLCs we work on), honestly, but to my mind the longer it's left, the better it essentially gets, because it can take advantage of prior DLCs and systems more easily. It also gets to be a larger and large task, of course, but it's already kinda monumental. The inverse to this'd be asking what the minimum we'd need to do East Asia is, and there I think the answer is pretty simple. We make do without trade or nomad mechanics in the West and Middle East currently, we could probably make do across the rest of Asia. It wouldn't be the perfest solution, but perfect is the enemy of good and all that. We do, however, get enough stick about the Byzzies as-is without adding feudal China, so I can't see us adding East Asia without some kind of workable imperial system to base them on.
On crusades: I think it's basically a guarantee that GHWs would be bundled with a hypothetical religious update. The only way that wouldn't happen, maybe, would be if some regional flavour pack absolutely demanded it (e.g., we did the actual Crusader States) and the rework was rock-solid and mid-scope, or potentially if we did a warfare DLC. And honestly, if we did do warfare, there's so much other stuff I'd want to pack into it that I don't know if working on GHWs would be the best use of time - that's something we could always justify elsewhere, whereas something like playable knights, army commander personalities, or more involved siege mechanics would only ever really get the one chance to be done.
We somewhat agreed with this, which is why CK3 is developed on Jomini, not Clausewitz, an engine that's a frankly colossal improvement in essentially every way. Clausewitz is still integrated into Jomini to an extent, but Jomini is very much Clausewitz's bigger, beefier, better supported brother. I'm sorry to say that this does mean we have no plans of shutting down development on CK3 any time remotely soon, AFAIK. You're stuck with us.- 24
- 12
- 3
