Project Caesar and future Commerce in CK3

  • 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.

ZéMalta

Second Lieutenant
35 Badges
Sep 13, 2022
136
563
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Imperator: Rome Deluxe Edition
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
Through the exciting and excellent Tinto Talks, we see that a (very probable) trade-centric game is on the works.

Project Caesar development is probably parallel to the production of the spread-mechanics, based on routes and ports on the map, that were implemented on CK3 Legends of the Dead.
Not that these systems and mechanics will be transplanted, but certainly the teams of paradox can exchange notes, come-up with interesting solutions and formulas.

So, I'm thinking we will be seeing some interesting parallels between trade systems in Project Caesar and future CK3 trade related DLC. Even if only in some very core structures.
CK3 isn't about commercial empires, nor globalization, colonization, etc., but trade is politically, socially, diplomatically and culturally paramount in the shaping of the kingdoms and empires of the time (to not say much of the Mediterranean history).

I'm hoping my hypothesized parallel development (which does not pressuposes a strict and rigid connection between both developments) just gives both teams more material, more thought, experience and different plans for such mechanics. That which I think enriches both games, even if with totally different results. In my mind, trade in CK3 make some nobles and clerics particularly powerful, guides conquests and raids, dynamizes Cultural and Faith relations, opens the way for different courtiers and patrons, and gives some good clout to Republics.


So, what you people think? Will there be exchange between both games teams? How will CK3 trade take shape? (I don't see any space for micro-management of goods, or more than simple trade nodes, but that's me)
 
  • 8
  • 5Like
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
Mm, unlikely. I don't think EU5 (which, let's be real here, is what Project Caesar is) will be focused on trade like you imply - and I doubt that CK3 is going to adopt Pops. So I'm not sure how well the mechanics are going to transfer.

CK3 is still largely about noble houses playing Game of Thrones, and in the Default Western European Paradigm that CK tends to both take as reality and expand across the entire map, when it wasn't even really true in Capetian France, nobles aren't supposed to have much to do with trade except tax it.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Mm, unlikely. I don't think EU5 (which, let's be real here, is what Project Caesar is) will be focused on trade like you imply - and I doubt that CK3 is going to adopt Pops. So I'm not sure how well the mechanics are going to transfer.

CK3 is still largely about noble houses playing Game of Thrones, and in the Default Western European Paradigm that CK tends to both take as reality and expand across the entire map, when it wasn't even really true in Capetian France, nobles aren't supposed to have much to do with trade except tax it.
How interesting would it have been if it was an entirely new title.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Mm, unlikely. I don't think EU5 (which, let's be real here, is what Project Caesar is) will be focused on trade like you imply - and I doubt that CK3 is going to adopt Pops. So I'm not sure how well the mechanics are going to transfer.

CK3 is still largely about noble houses playing Game of Thrones, and in the Default Western European Paradigm that CK tends to both take as reality and expand across the entire map, when it wasn't even really true in Capetian France, nobles aren't supposed to have much to do with trade except tax it.
Don't need that much focus on trade, but trade routes should appear on map. And holding those trade routes should increase income and development.
 
  • 10
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Mm, unlikely. I don't think EU5 (which, let's be real here, is what Project Caesar is) will be focused on trade like you imply - and I doubt that CK3 is going to adopt Pops. So I'm not sure how well the mechanics are going to transfer.

CK3 is still largely about noble houses playing Game of Thrones, and in the Default Western European Paradigm that CK tends to both take as reality and expand across the entire map, when it wasn't even really true in Capetian France, nobles aren't supposed to have much to do with trade except tax it.
Not at all, I don't see CK3 using Pops in no way. Trade isn't limit to Pops either.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
It's still mostly about noble houses playing Game of Thrones in CK3. In the Default Western European Paradigm—which CK tends to both accept as fact and expand across the entire map—nobles aren't supposed to do much with trade except tax it. But that's not really the case in Capetian France.
 
I would really enjoy if trade played a much greater role in the gameplay loop than at present (it plays none). I am also a big fan of Republics and certainly would love to play Venice. I hope one day CK3 will give more importance to trade and implement Republic play.
 
  • 4
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
You see an element of cross-pollination among PDX games, with language and concepts debuting n one and then eventually transferring to others in some dimension. So yes I hope CK3 finds a way to integrate some dynamic trade/commerce into the game, and yes it’s a realistic expectation, although I would not expect a revolution.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Mm, unlikely. I don't think EU5 (which, let's be real here, is what Project Caesar is) will be focused on trade like you imply - and I doubt that CK3 is going to adopt Pops. So I'm not sure how well the mechanics are going to transfer.

CK3 is still largely about noble houses playing Game of Thrones, and in the Default Western European Paradigm that CK tends to both take as reality and expand across the entire map, when it wasn't even really true in Capetian France, nobles aren't supposed to have much to do with trade except tax it.
Ck3 is definelty ai doing game of thrones but ck2 wasnt so future ck3 doesnt have to. Having trade be a more major factor rather than money all coming from agriculture would help make the world more immersive and conquests change
 
  • 6
  • 2Like
Reactions:
I see any form of Trade in CK3 being about what CK3 is about.
Characters, Culture, Legitimacy, Grandeur and Development. Creating interesting interaction between Republican characters and their lieges, as well as different Rulers amongst themselves.

Rulers didn't do trade yes, but they sponsored crafts in a form of power projection (emulating different powerful cultures as to say 'see, I have that great thing too'), and it was also their job to keep order and justice for deals. If there isn't dependable laws and enforcement, anybody can bail debts, not pay what was owed or sell fraudulent goods.

That doesn't mean they love peace, a world of virtuous rightful people, nobles want their lands and power guaranteed, burghers want their freedom to trade, and the guarantee of their rulers that their contracts and deals will be kept. Doesn't matter if you need to repress peasants, break one promise to fulfill another, nor punish way more severely small criminals than 'war criminals'.
But surely trade flourishes when rulers maintain infrastructure that supports commerce, both with institutions of law and bureaucracy, and roads with well-spread outposts.

So, more relevancy to Republican characters. Even more prominence to map-based mechanics, like pilgrimage and trade routes creating rich towns and interesting events (as well as nexus of different Cultures and Faiths).

I imagine Project Caesar will have something of the sort, at the very least I hope, we after all have Legends and Plagues spreading from certain origins, and travelling land and water, reacting to more developed (populous) regions, and all that. Which could've been a case-study or at least interesting reference for it's own mechanics.
 
  • 4
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Also, I was thinking on Monks and Merchants, for both are different Orders of the Theological and Republican respective systems.

Abbeys were so full of land, taking over Bishops and Holdings, in a bit of an expansion of what Holy Orders do.
Guilds, Communes and Leagues made investment, went beyond realm boundaries linking different towns, besides becoming rich and free of other realm laws.

Giving lands to Monks should give Fervor, Development or Popular Opinion boost.
Similar to giving foral charts or ruler-immediacy to Towns. Though I see cities as being Cultural instead of Religious.


So instead of Monks and Mystics, we could get Monks and Merchants, and have some forms of religious and secular societies (that rulers take no part in).
 
I'm not sure we can really discuss the implementation of features from other games that aren't even released yet. We don't know if we enjoy EU5's trade system, we don't know how translatable to other games it might be.
Also, I think that EU5's autonomous estates is something that might be more interesting for CK3. We could have something like that representing actors that aren't dynasts in CK3, like monasteries, holy orders, guilds etc. It could be a much more interesting and historical mechanic than the societies of CK2, that would have their own agenda and that we could interact with on a personal level.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Sometimes one Pdx game adopts ideas from other Pdx games, but I wouldnt count on it. EU is developed by a different studio than CK, I wonder how much communication there is between them.
 
Sometimes one Pdx game adopts ideas from other Pdx games, but I wouldnt count on it. EU is developed by a different studio than CK, I wonder how much communication there is between them.
Yep, that why this is a thread discussions, not an investigation, we are theorizing, dreaming up possibilities.
What IS here isn't as important as what CAN be.

Yes, EU is different from CK, just as charcoal is different from onyx, but the thread is about possible overlaps, synergies or innovations that could benefit both teams even if ending up in totally different results.


So, how different/similar you think possible Trade or Trade Routes systems would look in both games?