Serving Two Masters, or Plurality of Homage in the Middle Ages and its Potential Application in CK3

[Pyoro]

I can guess why Paradox tries to keep it simple - from more casual players to AI handling to multiplayer balance - but frankly I think they are missing a bit of a trick here with looking at the gaming landscape of examples like Dwarf Fortress* or Rimworld and the likes. Players actually like twists to what's going on, instead of classic, static games that are essentially entirely predictable, with the situation developing in a linear fashion. Surprises are part of the PDX appeal and probably also why CK2 is so successful. People love talking about the crazy stuff that happened in their games, doing stories about it, making let's plays where they laugh about funny situations and so on. It doesn't necessarily mean that it has to be super complicated, but just offering the option would change so much. And a more flexible loyalty system could hit all those boxes and be historically ... well, essentially a necessity, let's be honest.

But obviously I'm biased since this sort of stuff is exactly what I like about games

*I know there aren't really any numbers on how many people play this game; but keeping in mind that it's in so many ways utterly niche - graphics, UI, difficulty, and so on - and has almost 3000 patreons, well. What's a reasonable estimate? That 1 in 10,000 players gives money? 1 in 100,000? 1 in a million? Either way it's a lot for such a crazy game. Clearly its hitting some nerves.

 

[Torngasuk]

Well, this thread made a comeback.

This could also have interesting repercussions inside a single kingdom, perhaps with counts - say a duchy is destroyed, and then reformed, does a count who has become vassal to the king (or another duke) have the option of being under the original duke.

In this scenario, it would depend, I think, on whether the king grants the duchy along with its de jure vassals: if he does, then the vassal is transferred, if not, then the count remains a vassal of the king. It's not an ideal representation historically, stripping them of what the HRE would term immediacy, but unavoidable as long as the current hierarchy of titles and de jure system remains as it is.

I can guess why Paradox tries to keep it simple - from more casual players to AI handling to multiplayer balance - but frankly I think they are missing a bit of a trick here with looking at the gaming landscape of examples like Dwarf Fortress* or Rimworld and the likes. Players actually like twists to what's going on, instead of classic, static games that are essentially entirely predictable, with the situation developing in a linear fashion. Surprises are part of the PDX appeal and probably also why CK2 is so successful. People love talking about the crazy stuff that happened in their games, doing stories about it, making let's plays where they laugh about funny situations and so on. It doesn't necessarily mean that it has to be super complicated, but just offering the option would change so much. And a more flexible loyalty system could hit all those boxes and be historically ... well, essentially a necessity, let's be honest.

But obviously I'm biased since this sort of stuff is exactly what I like about games

I think the whole "casual player" thing is overdone, sometimes. There are a whole host of games out there to satisfying anyone just looking to paint the map in their national color. Crusader Kings II is a niche product to begin with: the complexity, randomness, and depth of the world are what attract people to it: those are its core defining features. Take the screenshots people upload to Steam, and share with their friends: they're sure not about how much of the world they've conquered, they're about how they made a horse their chancellor or how they married their own grandmother. Just look at the original PC Gamer review (87/100):

None of these situations were scripted. They all sprung spontaneously from an astoundingly rich and yeasty depiction of medieval Europe. Utilising the turn-spurning Clausewitz engine last seen in Sengoku, CK2 dares to model the feudal system in all its backstabbing, nepotistic glory.

People like having more stuff like that in their strategy games: remember when Total War: Rome II cut out family trees, but ultimately patched them back into the game for free by popular demand, and kept them in succeeding games? By all means, make Crusader Kings III more approachable, but I don't think anyone's going to complain about giving its mechanics a greater depth and breadth as long as they're presented logically. That's going to be the best way for the sequel to succeed: taking what we had, and making it better and even more interesting than it is already.

 

[julianfreeman]

I completely agree with this and think there must be a way to add this in (albeit in a simplified way). I think it would immeasurably improve CK3 having now played it quite a lot (and enjoyed it!). Even though I think the developers have done a really good job in almost every other area, something about the succession rules still does not feel super historical and leads to horrifying border gore which ultimately takes me out of the historical experience. I think at the very least they should introduce a new exclaves game rule (total plus) to release exclaves that are not close enough to the nearest contiguous part of the realm even if there is a naval path to that province (eg. Lappland in one of my games had parts of byzantium and corsica through inheritance which made literally no sense).