Why do so many people want a ck3?

[Finnway]

Okay. I really think you're just nit-picking my post.

Untrue. It is perfectly possible to update existing software to be 64bit. In fact, many software companies do exactly that. Paradox just doesn't want to invest the time in doing so for CK2.

Exactly. A problem that would be fixed if they made a CK3 because it presumably would be 64bit from day 1. I:R is 64bit. Stellaris recently dropped 32bit support.

This has nothing to do with engine limitations. Theocracies being unplayable is a conscious design choice, because the game is supposedly about dynasties.

Last I heard, it is hard-coded in the game. Which is the reason why modders haven't been able to do it either.

A new engine if anything will only worsen performance, because it hasn't been profiled and tweaked for as long as CK2's to extract the best performance. You will have to start the profiling and tweaking effort all over again.

Yes, but over the long term it will be faster. So my point still stands.

 

[Andrelvis]

Okay. I really think you're just nit-picking my post.

No. You have made several points which are simply wrong, and can clearly be seen as such for anyone with experience in software development.

Exactly. A problem that would be fixed if they made a CK3 because it presumably would be 64bit from day 1. I:R is 64bit. Stellaris recently dropped 32bit support.

You said that changing CK2 from 32bit to 64bit "could only be fixed by building a new engine".

If existing software can feasibly be changed from 32 bit to 64 bit, your statement is simply incorrect.

Last I heard, it is hard-coded in the game. Which is the reason why modders haven't been able to do it either.

Yes, it is hardcoded. Paradox has the source code, however, so it is absolutely no impediment for them to change that if they wanted to. But they don't - they have stated many times that it conflicts with their vision for the game. This is not an engine issue, it is an explicit design choice.

Yes, but over the long term it will be faster. So my point still stands.

No, not really, you have no basis on which to say that. Why would it be faster long-term? If anything with CK3 they will get *more* leeway with not having to optimize as much, because they won't need to keep performance good for players using old PCs.

 

[Finnway]

No. You have made several points which are simply wrong, and can clearly be seen as such for anyone with experience in software development.

Ah, yes, well, I am a human and humans make mistakes. At least I had you to correct me . Most people aren't software developers, so I am sure most posters here didn't mind too much.

That said, the purpose of my post was to illustrate reasons I have seen given over the years as to why people wants CK3. I think the essence of my post stands, even if some of the details were muddled. I am not a journalist, nor do I have hours to research a post before writing. I merely post as a layman, and I expect others to interpret my posts as such.

 

[Patriarch of Bub]

Yes, it is hardcoded. Paradox has the source code, however, so it is absolutely no impediment for them to change that if they wanted to. But they don't - they have stated many times that it conflicts with their vision for the game. This is not an engine issue, it is an explicit design choice.

Wait, why do they hardcode stuff like this? A mod is by definition a different take on the game, so nothing to do with Paradox vision.

 

[killerbee256]

I want ck3 for a proper representation of the great schism and to have China, Japan and South East Asia on the map.

 

[klopkr]

I don't want crusader kings 3 I want crusader kings 2 remastered.

The only benefits I'm seeing in the new games are all aesthetic and technical.

 

[Krajzen]

One gigantic way CK2 fails and CK3 would be needed to introduce it and decent degree is, how to describe it, medieval society beyond adventures of noble ruling class.

What am I trying to say. CK2 has nonexistant or barely existing systems of economy, trade, infrastructure, society, internal politics beyond ruling elite etc. The development of cities is poor, there is no dealing with peasantry (taxes, revolts etc), there is no merchant class, there are no internal politics other than - noble dynastic interpersonal conflicts.

I am honestly surprised almost nobody seems to care about this. Yes, I know CK2 is different from other Paradox games and character focus is what makes it amazing. Still, I am pretty convinced that aforementioned mechanics could be greatly developed without overwhelming players.

Another area in which CK2 fails is lack of flavor and gameplay difference between cultures, regions and states (when then share government and religion). There is no difference between playing in Poland or France, Al-Andalus or Egypt or Iran, Bulgaria or Kievan Rus. I honestly miss some sort of eu4 national ideas but not tied to nation states (it ofc makes no sense in ck2 context) but to cultures instead.

If I had to tailor ck2 development to my personal tastes , then I would remove Sunset Invasion, Charlemagne and Monks and Mystics from its development cycle. Possibly Jade Dragon too because its content doesn't matter at all for like 80-90% of the map. Hell, I am still not even convinced about the addition of India and Rajas of India, seeing how isolated it is from rest of the game's world, and I say it as Indiophile who loves medieval Indian history. And all development resources which went into those ~3-5 DLCs would be instead invested into regional/cultural flavor, actual economic system and internal politics dealing with cities and peasantry.

 

[Immortal88]

One gigantic way CK2 fails and CK3 would be needed to introduce it and decent degree is, how to describe it, medieval society beyond adventures of noble ruling class.

What am I trying to say. CK2 has nonexistant or barely existing systems of economy, trade, infrastructure, society, internal politics beyond ruling elite etc. The development of cities is poor, there is no dealing with peasantry (taxes, revolts etc), there is no merchant class, there are no internal politics other than - noble dynastic interpersonal conflicts.

I am honestly surprised almost nobody seems to care about this. Yes, I know CK2 is different from other Paradox games and character focus is what makes it amazing. Still, I am pretty convinced that aforementioned mechanics could be greatly developed without overwhelming players.

Another area in which CK2 fails is lack of flavor and gameplay difference between cultures, regions and states (when then share government and religion). There is no difference between playing in Poland or France, Al-Andalus or Egypt or Iran, Bulgaria or Kievan Rus. I honestly miss some sort of eu4 national ideas but not tied to nation states (it ofc makes no sense in ck2 context) but to cultures instead.

If I had to tailor ck2 development to my personal tastes , then I would remove Sunset Invasion, Charlemagne and Monks and Mystics from its development cycle. Possibly Jade Dragon too because its content doesn't matter at all for like 80-90% of the map. Hell, I am still not even convinced about the addition of India and Rajas of India, seeing how isolated it is from rest of the game's world, and I say it as Indiophile who loves medieval Indian history. And all development resources which went into those ~3-5 DLCs would be instead invested into regional/cultural flavor, actual economic system and internal politics dealing with cities and peasantry.

I couldn't agree more. I'd probably always favor adding meaningful, interesting and fun depth and mechanics over expanding the map or adding more cultures and startdates. Thing is, developing meaningful mechanical expansions that actually hook well into the base game is REALLY hard with a modular dlc model. That's why I think putting the base game on a great but very flexible mechanical base that actually allows the later addition and further development of in-depth mechanics is so important. Incidentally, that's also why I believe that Imperator can't really be morphed into a game that I would enjoy playing without gutting and rebuilding half of the engine, which won't happen and which is why it will probably always be a dumpster fire.

I mean it's basically what you saw with EUIV. The trade and economy systems could be done so much better, they could be more fun and make actual sense but it will never be overhauled in a meaningful way because it has layers and layers of minor dlc shit tacked on top by now. There's no way to meaningfully improve on it at this point because they simply aimed too low when designing the vanilla trade system. They should have gone all-in from the get-go and made a basic "realistic" simulation of trade and economy that can serve as a sensible base that can then always be refined in terms of balance and cpu performance and smaller additional mechanics that tweak the existing main system. If you have a strong base then over time can give players more ways to influence and interact with a system in more detail that was already there and working "in the background" all along. And what you get instead of that is an extra button on your one-dozen-button naval interface that lets you raid a coastal province for slaves if you are one of three cultures under very specific circumstances. Seriously.

A great example of how to do it would be Victoria II and how the Popular Demands Mod was able to improve upon very solid base systems (population and economy) which were already there and had sufficient depth, complexity and "realism" to begin with.
If I was in charge I would build systems with the mindset that I am building a simulation and the "fun gameplay" part should be all about which parts of the system I want to expose for the player to see and fiddle with. And ideally, you simple give the player control of how deep they want to go and how much they want to fiddle with the system vs. how much they want to automate it. Again, Victoria II is a great example: Want to micromanage everything and build each factory on your own? Guess you'll go communist. Don't want that level of micromanagement and instead automate it? Go capitalist and let the AI pops figure out what kind of factories they should build - it's genius!

Imperator is basically the antithesis to Victoria II. All mana, no mechanics, no simulation, mashing buttons for mana to upgrade pops. Sad doesn't even begin to describe it.

 

[Baron of Red]

Just Imagine, ck3 with a huge massive map as imperator. still though, i feel we have some time before we are in need of ck3

 

[DanCav]

I agree with most posts, and I'd love to see CK3, with many, many more features though not all mentioned. I wonder however if isn't possible to flesh out some parts that are already there. such as the trading. Not huge problems (the way I see, who knows) such as trade routes. Inability of destroying a trade post in your empire, made by your own vassal republican duchy. Inability to interfere in in republican duchies or kingdoms elections, just like you do with the curia. More complex (maybe even secret) alliances. Meaning to resources needed or luxury, unrest if you lack some.
Possibility of improving your capital trade post (example, started as county, conquered poland, 30 years later after poland got the wendish empire. Took longer because I was eating Carpathia bit by bit with their endless civil wars, and bit of saxony... Long story short bulgaria fell slavic union formed, byzantium conquered - very gamey, no console but I took a shower after playing, but my capital is Krakow. And a hub of commerce it isn't. my great palace notwithstanding. Point is not only the trade hubs don't improve, the silk route is static. and small. As I begin to reform the reform the roman empire (long story off topic) I'm bigger than china is, and I produce salt in my capital. And no routes come there to sell, I mean they didn't go to constantinople why krakow. They stop in tana. which is mine . No extension to Kiev and then Krakow. Make it dynamic.
Make currencies matter and products.
Make a very very simple naval warfare system.
Make a CK2.5
A lot of you won't agree with what I mentioned, but contributors have already made a lot of changes that closely resemble some of the possible improvements, and some are quite good. adapt. It doesn't have to be New such as the currency I mentioned, but improve what we have. While you ponder a CK3 in 2021, improve what you have, hell YOu will get new ideas for CK3 just doing that..
Sorry if I sounded sour, wasn't meant to. Love the game as it is. Of course, I want it better. (which is a matter of opinion, meaning 99% might disagree with me, and 1% not care)
Cheers guys
Dan

 

[josefrees]

They should release CK3 ASAP so that it will be up to snuff five years post release. Otherwise we are going to be waiting around for a game that’s gonna come out that can’t reasonably meet expectations.

Otherwise we are talking probably a decade from now before you get a next level CK game that has the substance of CK2

 

[mrinku]

One old issue that years ago was causing them to think they'd need a reboot to CK3 were limitations to the then version of the Clausewitz engine. This was pre-Stellaris - I remember a lot of discussion in that vein.

However, that hurdle has largely been jumped, they've modernized a lot of the events, improved optimization A LOT, and could continue to clean even more of them up. What we have now is quite different under the hood than it was 3-4 years ago.

Even if (as I'm starting to suspect) we have now seen our last paid CK2 DLC, and the game is essentially "complete", continuing sales will justify maintenance and cleanup work (with the odd new Patch feature) from a smaller team.

 

[Svennie 135]

I really would like if they put the baronies on the map and make them playable. It would make the map more realistic (+extra bordergore I know) BUT then when you move troops from one county to another it's not for half a month in one and then Fwoops into another one. It would only take a few seconds to move. The downside of that is that it is a lot harder to catch an enemy in a battle. (I know that putting every single barony into a province in the map takes a LOT of work). Also I agree that when you raise troops they come from every single barony (like in real life) but when you disband your army they should return there too (actual moving)

Besides that I would really like a CKIII. But I absolutly got no clue about what I would like to have in CKIII. (Besides above)

 

[danest]

I am horrified at the thought of ck3. A fresh start with no dlcs -- probably just Christian Europe? I can't think of _anything_ that ck3's engine would offer that would make losing all those dlcs worth it. Not by a long shot. And I just don't believe that they'll include anywhere near all that content on the base game, I just don't believe it.
Mods can "fix" almost anything in ck2. I'll take my huge collection of dlcs and mods over a base game with a smoother engine, hands down.
If by some crazy miracle the full decked-out game of ck2 is included in the sequel, I'll change my mind, but right now that sounds like a fantasy.
The issue of teleporting characters can be at least partially solved by putting a time limit on switching jobs/armies/etc, so that a commander can't just instantly blink across the land back and forth. They already do something like that with counselors, that after assigning them a job, there's a waiting period before you can move them again.
Make it so that the court physician is the character's only job -- the physician can't also be a councilor. Now the physician can't instantly blink to the lord's side from the other side of the map where he was studying technology or whatever. If there's one person you want to have always available at your side, it'd be the doctor.
The pregnancy issue is obviously solvable too by moving the wife with the husband, or adding a penalty when they're apart. Mods can fix so many of the things that leave people wanting a sequel.
Mods are free, replacing hundreds of dollars of expansions is not free.
If I had money, I'd bet it that ck3 will start off a flawed, absolutely bare-bones experience with a lot of potential years down the line. Every shred of evidence I've seen says that's how paradox works.

 

[IEMK]

There's no need for a CK3 as long as the devs can work on CK2 and make it even better than it already is.

 

[BuddyLove]

Obviously there's no reason to make CK3 until they are ready to do a whole world map with playable Aztecs and North American tribes and Australians at the start.

 

[Franxiscus]

If you want CK3, you must expect barebone game, just like eu4, stellaris, and imperator first launch.
You must lower your expectations or you will be disappointed.

 

[ChaosOnline]

Obviously there's no reason to make CK3 until they are ready to do a whole world map with playable Aztecs and North American tribes and Australians at the start.

I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not, but I'm not sure why you'd want this. Or even think it was possible.

Unlike other regions that are commonly requested like India, Southeast Asia, or China, the Americas and Australia had very few, if any, contacts with the existing map. There was no real conquest, trade, or alliances between the Americas, Australia, and Afro-Eurasia. To be historically accurate, the Americas and Australia would be completely separate games that just happened to be running at the same time as the Afro-Eurasian game.

Beyond that, Crusader Kings is a character focused game. A place is only playable if we know the names of the rulers in charge of that place at that time. When it comes to most of the Americas and Australia, we don't really have that much specific data on what nations and rulers were in charge of any given area at any given time. We might have a broad idea of what cultural groups occupied an area, but no written, or even oral, records of their specific histories or rulers. The only real exception is Mesoamerica, where there are a few written records of the names of the rulers of various city states (Although, oddly none of them would be Aztec until very late in CKII's timeframe).

While I would love to see a grand strategy game set in the pre-colonial Americas or Australia, it probably wouldn't be able to use Crusader Kings style character mechanics. And while a game that had the entire world map would be interesting, it would probably be set in a different time period than Crusader Kings, just so that there could be more interactions between the various parts of the map.

 

[Masternachos]

Beyond that, Crusader Kings is a character focused game. A place is only playable if we know the names of the rulers in charge of that place at that time. When it comes to most of the Americas and Australia, we don't really have that much specific data on what nations and rulers were in charge of any given area at any given time. We might have a broad idea of what cultural groups occupied an area, but no written, or even oral, records of their specific histories or rulers. The only real exception is Mesoamerica, where there are a few written records of the names of the rulers of various city states (Although, oddly none of them would be Aztec until very late in CKII's timeframe).

While I would love to see a grand strategy game set in the pre-colonial Americas or Australia, it probably wouldn't be able to use Crusader Kings style character mechanics. And while a game that had the entire world map would be interesting, it would probably be set in a different time period than Crusader Kings, just so that there could be more interactions between the various parts of the map.

CK2 already has plenty of places where, at least for certain start dates, they have zero information on ruler names. Heck, if you look at the history files, a lot of characters have developer notes along the lines of #Fictional and #Completely made up. And that's ignoring the provinces who have no one assigned to them at all and just have someone generated at game start.

 

[grommile]

If by some crazy miracle the full decked-out game of ck2 is included in the sequel, I'll change my mind, but right now that sounds like a fantasy.

I would expect CK3 to be written by folding all DLCs (except possibly Sunset Invasion ) into the base game, then cutting things they don't want to keep and adding new things.