I'm totally hyped about the idea of a China DLC! Let me share some ideas I have for it.

[sreckom92]

Why would Paradox expand the steppes into Mongolia and give Tibet the province density of the HRE yet not give them their own court art? What about Sahel courts vs Horn of Africa courts? Byzantine courts? Burmese? Having the entirety of the Muslim world from the Atlantic coast of Morocco to the borders of India and Central Asia have one homogeneous art-style simply kills the fun of the game.

An expansion centered around Mongols could give us features like the Black Death, Silk Road, nomadic tribes, etc.
All of which would directly impact Persia, Arabia, Levant, India and Tibet. Those regions desperately need more content, and such expansion would really spice things up.
This proposed "slight" expansion of the map in the north-eastern corner would not be troublesome, as it would not give too many provinces, but would give Mongols a more interesting gameplay.
In my opinion of course.

 

[Arakrates]

Hello Arctco!

Thank you for sharing your ideas for a potential China-focused DLC for Crusader Kings 3. While it's always exciting to hear about new content possibilities, I must admit that I'm a bit skeptical of some of the features you've proposed.

First and foremost, I agree that the Chinese Imperial Court could be a fascinating setting to explore. However, I worry that implementing it as a "complex web of relationships and allegiances" could potentially lead to overwhelming and convoluted gameplay, rather than the deep and engaging experience we all hope for.

Similarly, while the concept of the Mandate of Heaven is certainly a compelling aspect of Chinese history, incorporating it as a gameplay mechanic may be easier said than done. Balancing the need to maintain legitimacy with the challenge of responding to crises effectively is a delicate dance, and could potentially result in frustrating or unrealistic gameplay.

As for the Silk Road trade, I appreciate the potential for introducing new challenges related to maintaining its security. However, I worry that simply "dealing with bandits, pirates, and rival powers" may not be enough to keep players engaged and invested in the feature.

Regarding dynasty management, I think it has the potential to be an interesting and dynamic aspect of gameplay. However, I would caution against relying too heavily on "sibling rivalries, jealous in-laws, and power-hungry relatives" as potential challenges, as these could easily become tedious or frustrating for players.

Finally, while cultural and religious diversity is certainly an important aspect of China's history, I worry that implementing it in a way that feels realistic and dynamic could be a difficult task.

Overall, while I'm not entirely convinced that an AI-Generated DLC is the best choice for Crusader Kings 3, I appreciate the creativity and enthusiasm you've brought to the table. Just remember that while ChatGPT may be a useful tool for generating ideas, it takes careful and deliberate human design to turn those ideas into a successful and engaging product.

…And speaking of ChatGPT, I have to say, it's impressive how far AI has come in recent years. I however think it's important to rely on good old-fashioned human creativity and expertise to ensure that our games are as engaging and enjoyable as possible.

Thank you again for your post, and we hope to see you on the forums again soon!

PS: If it wasn't clear already, while ChatGPT may have helped me generate this whole response, the charm, and wit are all mine.

 

[Gwydden]

Hello Arctco!

Thank you for sharing your ideas for a potential China-focused DLC for Crusader Kings 3. While it's always exciting to hear about new content possibilities, I must admit that I'm a bit skeptical of some of the features you've proposed.

First and foremost, I agree that the Chinese Imperial Court could be a fascinating setting to explore. However, I worry that implementing it as a "complex web of relationships and allegiances" could potentially lead to overwhelming and convoluted gameplay, rather than the deep and engaging experience we all hope for.

Good god. The robot's getting so pervasive I could recognize its bloviating right away. Thanks, I hate it.

 

[TacticalRetreat]

I would never buy a China DLC, India DLC, or Africa DLC. I just have zero interest in those regions, cultures and people.

I only play in Europe, northern Africa or the Middle East.

 

[adca85]

I would never buy a China DLC, India DLC, or Africa DLC. I just have zero interest in those regions, cultures and people.

I only play in Europe, northern Africa or the Middle East.

Would be nice if they shrank the map down to this for CK4.

 

[Gwydden]

Okay, serious answer that wasn't written by a digital parrot:

In theory, I'd love to have East Asia added to the map. However, I agree what's already on the map should take priority. Accounting for the pace of development (at best, one expansion, flavor pack, and event pack each year), and CK3's likely lifespan (CK2's was 7-8 years, as I recall), I doubt there will ever be time for it.

Jade Dragon was unironically one of my favorite CK2 expansions, though, so I'd be fine with an expanded version of those mechanics as a compromise.

While we're at it: Paradox, make Sengoku 2/Shogun: Japan, you cowards.

 

[ClavintheGreat]

Hello Arctco!

Thank you for sharing your ideas for a potential China-focused DLC for Crusader Kings 3. While it's always exciting to hear about new content possibilities, I must admit that I'm a bit skeptical of some of the features you've proposed.

First and foremost, I agree that the Chinese Imperial Court could be a fascinating setting to explore. However, I worry that implementing it as a "complex web of relationships and allegiances" could potentially lead to overwhelming and convoluted gameplay, rather than the deep and engaging experience we all hope for.

Similarly, while the concept of the Mandate of Heaven is certainly a compelling aspect of Chinese history, incorporating it as a gameplay mechanic may be easier said than done. Balancing the need to maintain legitimacy with the challenge of responding to crises effectively is a delicate dance, and could potentially result in frustrating or unrealistic gameplay.

As for the Silk Road trade, I appreciate the potential for introducing new challenges related to maintaining its security. However, I worry that simply "dealing with bandits, pirates, and rival powers" may not be enough to keep players engaged and invested in the feature.

Regarding dynasty management, I think it has the potential to be an interesting and dynamic aspect of gameplay. However, I would caution against relying too heavily on "sibling rivalries, jealous in-laws, and power-hungry relatives" as potential challenges, as these could easily become tedious or frustrating for players.

Finally, while cultural and religious diversity is certainly an important aspect of China's history, I worry that implementing it in a way that feels realistic and dynamic could be a difficult task.

Overall, while I'm not entirely convinced that an AI-Generated DLC is the best choice for Crusader Kings 3, I appreciate the creativity and enthusiasm you've brought to the table. Just remember that while ChatGPT may be a useful tool for generating ideas, it takes careful and deliberate human design to turn those ideas into a successful and engaging product.

…And speaking of ChatGPT, I have to say, it's impressive how far AI has come in recent years. I however think it's important to rely on good old-fashioned human creativity and expertise to ensure that our games are as engaging and enjoyable as possible.

Thank you again for your post, and we hope to see you on the forums again soon!

PS: If it wasn't clear already, while ChatGPT may have helped me generate this whole response, the charm, and wit are all mine.

What a long essay to say that you don’t want to challenge the player in any way…

 

[NoUsernamesHere]

What? Imperator worked best for the Greek model where x is just hercules of the persians

As I've covered much of the topic in a post before, I will merely quote it here:

Sorry I haven't replied sooner, I have been very busy. I'll give a quick run-down of my thinking on this:

So, to start with, the fundamental way that religion works in Imperator is based around religious identities, something which is conspicuously absent in the religious landscape of most of the period. Most of the religions on the map simply did not form the basis for distinguishing between ethnic groups.

The aesthetic manifestations, those being opening a map mode just to see clearly delineated religious identities painted on the map or looking at characters/states and seeing a particular religious identity or state religion associated with them, aren't very impactful but do make it more difficult to immerse yourself into, say, 3rd century BC European religion.

More mechanically impactful are things like the diplomacy "true faith" bonus. Thankfully, Paradox steered clear of maluses, and the bonus is pretty minor, but it still falls prey to the same anachronistic logic; ancient Greeks, Romans, and Etruscans sure as hell wouldn't see each other as sharing any kind of identity based on some idea of "religion", nor would Romans and Samnites, nor an Egyptian and an Ethiopian.

The character and pop maluses to loyalty and happiness are egregious for similar reasoning.

Almost the entire incentive structure promotes a very medieval Christian landscape of interreligious dynamics; an emphasis on religious conformity with inappropriate mechanics like "religious unity", "pop conversion", "dominant religion", "forced conversion", and so on, in stark contrast to the pluralistic religious landscape that marked the period.

Additionally, small flavor elements just scream "designed to represent medieval Christianity and not classical religion" and completely take me out of the experience. Things like the religious attribute and it's associated flavoring being named "zeal", an attribute which would be more likely derided as superstition than an element of correct religious observance; having "religious conversion" laws and policies; an entire national idea dedicated to "institutional proselytism"; and legions being given a (rather beneficial) distinction titled "pia" (Latin for "pious, devout") for desecrating the holy site of another religion. I shouldn't have to explain that such a thing would likely be taken as a rather impious act by the general populace of most nations in this time period, or at best would be merely tolerated. The prevailing worldview at the time certainly would have no room for the phrase "Zealousness is strong in this legion, which has brought down the edifices of foreign gods in enemy lands".

It's all just... very wrong, and a shockingly poor representation of the period to anyone who has even a basic understanding of religion in antiquity. And that's not even touching on the things that can't really be described as "accurate" or "inaccurate" but are just design preferences, like static religion modifiers (which I hate with a passion).

And these criticisms apply even to later periods—see paganism in Crusader Kings as just one example—but they are extremely egregious in a game that takes place hundreds of years before Christianity even existed, and ends before its birth.

Additionally, the "God-Gacha" mechanics they added are a pretty poor representation of the practice of interpretatio (what you refer to as "the Greek model"), and the way in which you conceive of the role and extant of interpretatio in antiquity is limited with regards to actual history.

 

[greywulfos]

I'd love to see China, and I know we will at some point. However, it won't work unless some very fundamental systems are implemented:

• Trade, specifically the Silk Road (with silk and spices as trade resources)
• Nomads and Steppes, because the constant threat played a huge role for China's stability and politics
• Imperial Government, since it would physically hurt me to see Western European feudalism in China

Then, and only then, would China make sense. Otherwise we'd just have more of the same, and that would be a big injustice here.

Even then, the government of China was SUBSTANTIALLY different to the government of any existing country on the map.

I think it's really difficult to add China to the game specifically because so much crazy stuff that CK3 currently just can't model happened there over this time period.

 

[Silens]

Even then, the government of China was SUBSTANTIALLY different to the government of any existing country on the map.

I think it's really difficult to add China to the game specifically because so much crazy stuff that CK3 currently just can't model happened there over this time period.

Mechanically speaking, it might not be as different as it might sound at first.

To put it in CK3 terms:

It's an absolute monarchy, but it would not be your spouse assisting in ruling, but the mother, who held more power. Women were always expected to keep out of politics, but a mother could (and would) always advise her son. Better, filial piety in Buddhism put the mother above the spouse and in some cases above the Emperor. But I'm sure you know that, so I won't go into that here. But that's a dynamic that would need some development, so that the mother could assist in ruling and give court events, maybe even be the head of her own faction within the court.

The government would also be very similar. Maybe not the council of five, but 3 department heads recruited from your court, with their sub-ministries under them (maybe reflected in unlanded titles or court positions). The titles weren't hereditary, in that the Chinese were fairly similar to the ERE and its Exarchs or the Iqta system, which also worked on a by-appointment basis. But appointing all those people by hand wouldn't be fun, not in realm with 200 of them. So that's where I would expect much work to make the whole thing as painless as possible. However, that's not something exclusive to China alone, so here it could profit from Imperial mechanics of an ERE expansion.

There were also powerful king-vassals with hereditary titles and their opinion mattered. In that it's not different from many other courts around the world. That is probably the only thing that already has a fairly accurate representation in the game.

A major part of politics was the Imperial Harem, the clan and rank of a concubine mattered. There were certainly more than 2 or 3 concubines, so that's something they'd have to work on. They had their own staff, tried to influence the emperor in favor of their own clan (subtly). There I see the biggest exclusive content for China.

Also how the Imperial Heir is chosen. Factions at court also played a much bigger role. But those things are also similar to other empires, so we have synergy with Imperial mechanics in general.

If you ask me, I can see it work.

Edit: And what, my dear @FishieFan, do you exactly disagree with? Do you dislike the idea of China in general? Or is it something more specific? The post is long, so I'd at least expect the decency from you to engage in the discussion. I consider leaving a disagree without further explanation bad manners.

 

[sreckom92]

Even then, the government of China was SUBSTANTIALLY different to the government of any existing country on the map.

I think it's really difficult to add China to the game specifically because so much crazy stuff that CK3 currently just can't model happened there over this time period.

To be completely honest, if we are going for complete historical accuracy, even the current map plays completely different compared to how it looked like in real history.
So, yeah... there's that.
That is actually the biggest argument AGAINST China right now.
The existing gameplay on the map needs to be improved for better historical accuracy.
In my opinion, it's not much of a problem to represent China in the game. Rather, I would say there are more pressing matters to attend to.

 

[Lazy Sorcerer]

There still aren't proper mechanics for feudalism, but given the current state of Paradox there will likely never be. So sure, whatever, why not.

 

[Treybor]

I’m down for adding China one day but there is sooooo many other things that need fixing first and the rate of development is really slow

 

[ValhallArchitect]

Crusader Kings as a series is incapable of representing most of Asia, due to the priorities of the devs and the basics of the system. Even something as simple as the fact that every province has one religion and one culture makes it practically impossible to have any sort of immersion in India or China--the culture problem is already baffling in many European provinces, but religion in particular as a mechanic--both provincial and personal--in CK is downright incompatible with non-Abrahamic faiths. The idea of a province being "a confucian province" vs "a buddhist province" vs "a chinese folk province" is so unbelievably grating to me that it's like nails on a chalkboard to even think about it. India is already stomach churning in CK3, and I suspect subsaharan Africa is less so for me only because I know less about it.

"Pray to Samsara" as a pop-up option you get every 5 seconds makes me want to pull my teeth out. Hearing something like "In the name of the Heavenly Emperor we will defeat Confucius' worshippers!" would be just as bad.

Unless they represent it as a unified Confucianist region like they did for EU4. Actually, although different religions coexist IRL (Buddhism with local worship), Confucianism represents some sort of syncretism between a Buddhist religion and a Confucianist philosophy. CK3 religion system is pretty adapted to that, since you are able to design your own “heresy” based on an existing religion by just changing a few key elements .

I get your point though, and agree with it. obviously representing religion or culture as unified in every province doesn’t make any more sense to me than it does to you… but that’s what they decided for this game, and in this regard I don’t think that east China is represented any better or worse than Europe.
In fact, to give an example, the Iberian peninsula in this period suffers the same issue : during the conquista and reconquista, until the expulsion of the moors in 1492, it was a mix of different Christian religions (Catholics and remnants of wisigothics Christians), Muslims and Jews.
CK3, like EU4, only represents the majority of the province, even if it’s only 51% of Christian or Muslim.

After playing some games like Total War Empire / Total War Rome or even Total War Warhammer ; or in a genre closer to the franchise, Age of History II, I believe there would be a better option, especially since CK3 and EU4 both use a percent missionary chance. Representing these numbers as percentage instead of unified religion and culture.

We could get 55% Muslims, 40% Christians, 5% Jews instead of a unified 100% Muslims. And instead of converting 100% Muslims to 100% Jews in 100 months with 1% monthly missionary strength, we could have the % of Christians increasing monthly by 1% while the numbers of Muslims and Jews would decrease proportionally (that, multiplied by development, as obviously, larger pop takes more time to convert )

Likewise for culture, as it’s the case in Age of History II. Cultural minorities could be represent with the same percentage, and when you conquer Scania as Sweden, you could chose to slowly assimilate, or rather settle 1% swedes monthly in the province, until it represents a majority

 

[FishieFan]

Unless they represent it as a unified Confucianist region like they did for EU4. Actually, although different religions coexist IRL (Buddhism with local worship), Confucianism represents some sort of syncretism between a Buddhist religion and a Confucianist philosophy. CK3 religion system is pretty adapted to that, since you are able to design your own “heresy” based on an existing religion by just changing a few key elements .

I get your point though, and agree with it. obviously representing religion or culture as unified in every province doesn’t make any more sense to me than it does to you… but that’s what they decided for this game, and in this regard I don’t think that east China is represented any better or worse than Europe.
In fact, to give an example, the Iberian peninsula in this period suffers the same issue : during the conquista and reconquista, until the expulsion of the moors in 1492, it was a mix of different Christian religions (Catholics and remnants of wisigothics Christians), Muslims and Jews.
CK3, like EU4, only represents the majority of the province, even if it’s only 51% of Christian or Muslim.

After playing some games like Total War Empire / Total War Rome or even Total War Warhammer ; or in a genre closer to the franchise, Age of History II, I believe there would be a better option, especially since CK3 and EU4 both use a percent missionary chance. Representing these numbers as percentage instead of unified religion and culture.

We could get 55% Muslims, 40% Christians, 5% Jews instead of a unified 100% Muslims. And instead of converting 100% Muslims to 100% Jews in 100 months with 1% monthly missionary strength, we could have the % of Christians increasing monthly by 1% while the numbers of Muslims and Jews would decrease proportionally (that, multiplied by development, as obviously, larger pop takes more time to convert )

Likewise for culture, as it’s the case in Age of History II. Cultural minorities could be represent with the same percentage, and when you conquer Scania as Sweden, you could chose to slowly assimilate, or rather settle 1% swedes monthly in the province, until it represents a majority

So what you're saying is pops? As long requested by fans

 

[ValhallArchitect]

So what you're saying is pops? As long requested by fans

Nope. at least not as VIC pops, which are a combination of one culture- one class-one religion for each pop.
Although I’m not against, I am not sure the VIC pop would be the best for a CK game, and I believe this is another way to achieve sufficient granularity for minorities representation without having to require pops, only slightly adjusting the existing game mechanics…
The devs have regularly argued against this as a huge game engine change, hence why I’m proposing this alternative path which would, I believe, achieve a similar result without having to rework the foundations of the game

 

[FishieFan]

Nope. Although I’m not against, I believe this is another way to achieve sufficient granularity for minorities representation without having to require pops, only slightly adjusting the existing game mechanics…

Not even IR pops?

 

[ValhallArchitect]

So what you're saying is pops? As long requested by fans

Not in the way pops are designed in VIC for example, as a one-culture-one-class-one-religion POPs
This has been designated as too much of a change to the game engine and thus regularly rejected by the devs.

This would be another way, more in line with the current mechanic and not requiring too many changes as the game already uses such mechanics as percentages (and percentage conversion strength)
What I’m proposing is, as stated, to just use percentage to represent the proportion of each minority in a province, and to use the missionary / assimilation strength to gradually increase your religion or culture (by 3% each month for example) instead of doing it straight (in 33 months from 100% catholic to 100% orthodox)

Here are a few captures of how it works in Age of History II








As you can see, there is no « POP », but just an overall population (abstracted in CK3 / EU4 as development) and a fraction of which (in percent) is ottoman/ greek/Albanian…
Age of History II does not differentiate from religion, only culture. But we could have the same thing for catholic/orthodox/Jewish in Poland, Catholic/orthodox/Sunni in Ottoman Empire or in Spain…

Now if you click Assimilate, there is an associated cost in Ducats, and an estimated time. The percentage gradually shifts over time until your culture becomes the majority (and the unrest decreases).
Unrest here would represent the combined tolerance / intolerance of each accepted or non accepted culture / religion, with their relative strength (hence a 90% pagan religion would cost you a lot more than a 5% non accepted cathare heresy)
But unlike the current game engine, instead of reaching 100% before becoming effective, unrest gradually decreases every month as your culture / religion increase. And if for some reason, you recall your missionary, it doesn’t magically revert to its original state.

 

[ValhallArchitect]

Not even IR pops?

I don’t know what IR pop is

 

[Swamphill]

InfraRed pops, can only be seen with special glasses, or pops as implemented in Imperator: Rome