Why do so many people want a ck3?

[matgopack]

The main reason a possible CK3 would be nice is to get around aspects of the current system that are limited. Hardware wise, I'm sure there are optimizations that can be made if making the game from the bottom up that they can't do with the current game.

For gameplay, CK2 has a few limiting factors. There's a lot that's hard coded - merchant republics and nomads as an example - that are limited in how they can be implemented. It also struggles to show centralized governments - the system used for Byzantium is essentially trying to staple on to the base model of the game to make something closer to what was in use there.

Personally, the main aspects I would like to see in an eventual successor to CK2 is to address aspects that the current version can't do well. So for me that'd mean ways of modeling non-feudal governments better, letting you play as unlanded characters of certain types (eg - adventurers or mercenary captains), a better granularity to the map (Imperator's map is *gorgeous* IMO). There's also other little things that could maybe work nicely - eg, holdings not being just castle/city/church, but maybe including others like fields/farms.

They might be able to do a more detailed form of vassalage in it too - helping to make internal politics a bit more interesting. In the medieval world, borders were fairly fluid, and I think plots/factions could reflect that. Finding a way to detach vassalage from the character, and stapling it to a title could be a workable approach to model situations like the English king being a technical vassal of the french king for their possessions in France, or how vassals on the periphery would often work with foreign states to invite them into plots or rebellions. An example there would be the dukes of Flanders and Burgundy - in the battle of Bouvines and its leadup, you had an internal french vassal (duke of Flanders) ally with the HRE and England in a war against his liege. Burgundy is well known for its power in the later period of the game, and how a lot of what it did straddled both the french and holy roman borders.

Something like that could also help to add another angle to internal politics, and make big realms less stable. Maybe you could handle your external enemies easily - but them plotting with your vassals or being invited into a faction could suddenly flip it into something you can't handle. There's a lot of little things that could be added in as well that could be fun - kings trying to centralize more power, working directly with cities as a way to gain control/leverage/power over the great nobles, and so on.

Oh, and I would like to see playable holy orders. It is *crusader* kings, and the knightly orders kind of function as a dynasty in their own right if we squint hard enough. They'd be a fun inclusion for sure, even if playing the Pope would probably be pretty bad.

Just my two cents on the subject. There's great potential in a new base for the game, with a lot of design choices that they've learned for. At the same time, a lot of what's currently in CK2 would obviously not be in the new game at launch, so there's some amount of wariness there. Paradox has yet to release a sequel to one of their games with the DLC model - it'll be interesting to see how that gets handled.

Edit - Oh, and they could do a revamp of the combat system too. It's very obtuse right now, and the actual minutia of it makes some of what seems like it should be good (eg, heavy cavalry) pretty poor/useless. There's a lot of ways to go there, but it would be interesting to have a rework of it.

 

[mrinku]

"Hard Coded" as has been already mentioned, just means "unmoddable by design". Paradox have full access to the source code and can change everything about Republics or Theocracies that they like. It doesn't have much bearing on a CK3 discussion, although including features from later DLCs into the core game does.

Of all the arguments *for*, I think that one is the strongest. As it stands, even if Paradox would like to strip a feature from one of the DLCs and make it part of a free patch (which is occasionally done), they have to be careful or they might make it pointless to buy said DLC.

Rebooting, they can build a core game with as many of those features as they like, and plan out the expansions a bit better.

 

[LukeCreed13]

Personally I'm intrigued at the prospect of a CKIII, although only after a Victoria III. I'd really love if they focused more on internal management of a realm, relations with character that aren't necessarily nobles (= merchants, peasants, bishops, etc.), more relevance and interaction to the Pope authority (although this could be done in a CKII DLC, with something similar to the Grace system of Jade Dragon), a banking system for the late game, etc.

But most importantly, I want relevance on the where and when of your character.
Examples of where: If you're leading troops, you shouldn't be able to impregnate your wife, unless she's also a commander, so you could have events about love in your military tent. Or if you're trying to assassinate a vassal who's leading the troops with you, you could have specific assassination events where said vassal can be killed while sleeping in his tent. Rulers should also be able to visit the fiefdom of their vassals so to keep them in check, improve relations, seduce their wives/daughters, etc.
Examples of when: if I'm around the VIIth, VIIIth Centuries, we should have events about the rise of the feudal system, with modifications to economy, trade, relations, etc; if I'm around the XIth, XIIth Centuries we should have specific events related to Crusades/Jihads/Holy Wars, e.g. relations between different faith rulers, so you can choose to be hostile, receiving additional morale and spawned troops against infidel rulers, or be friendly so to improve economic and trade relations, etc.; if I'm around the XIIIth, XIVth Century, we should have special events about the rise of the bourgeoise in the most economically developed regions on the map, with conflicts between the old feudal nobles and the new merchant class that wants more and more power, with potential bonuses and maluses in regards to trade, income, levies, relations with feudal/city vassals, etc.

One last bit: I want a bit more... "theatricality". For example, I'd love if CKIII has full body models for characters, which coincidentally would be FANTASTIC for the artifact system. So when you open the artifact page, you see your character in full ceremonial robes, scepter in hand, crown on his head; or If he's leading troops, you see him with his longsword in hand, helmet on his head, full plate armor, on his fully barded horse; also, I'd love to have specific sound/text/video effects and events when I declare/win/lose a war, a rebellion starts/wins/loses, a plot succeded/failed, the Pope dies/a new one is crowned, if my character dies or is crowned. During my current CKII playthrough where I declared war to an incredibly huge (and slightly stronger than me) France, I'd have liked to have specific sound, text and possibly video elements that mark the start of this conflict which is surely destined to be epical. Instead, I just pressed a button and a small person on a circle appeared on the bottom right of the screen. Don't tell me it's not anti-climactic. When I kill my ambitious uncle who wants to overthrow me, I'd like to see the video of the assassination itself, with the modeled uncle character getting bit by the snake on his bed.

 

[cristofolmc]

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 miss this SO much. Most of the medieval time period was much about social revolutionary changes in the economy, society, etc. And much involved the peasantry and burgers, which dont exist in this game at all, or city and trade development. As of now CK2 feels like 1/3 of the medieval experience, as you only get to interact with the top nobles of the realm. The rest, anything else matters. Thats why it surprises me so much too that most people say there is nothing to add to a CK3, and that CK2 is perfect, so why bother.

I'd like a medieval game in which I dont only have to interact with the high nobolity, but with the growing cities, the peasants, the increasing burger class, needing to call gatherings of the three estates of the realm (Diets, Parliaments, Cortes, General Estates, etc, depending where you are in the kingdom), etc. As of now, the meek and petty representation of this by your council members is quite poor for a PDX game. And just their crusade overhaul proves even in CK2 they could represent this parliaments of the estates much better than just a vote from your council memebers.

Now, citiy development, the deep social and economic changes, that would be much harder not to say impossible to rework in CK2, so thats another reason for CK3. And I'd be VERY disappointed if they stick to the same formula of erasing 75% of society and sticking to only interacting with the nobel elite side of the game. The game should bring in the increasing tensions between the king, nobility, peasantry and above all the tensions with the ever growing burgher class, that demanded their own privileges in order to grant money to the monarch, noble, etc. As of today, cities are just a gold mind you never pay atention to. A couple events and thats it. Thats all the interaction you have with the vivid ever changing society you are ruling.

And for this we also need a good trade system that engages and involves everybody, not just a couple merchant republics.

 

[mrinku]

I'd like a medieval game in which I dont only have to interact with the high nobolity, but with the growing cities, the peasants, the increasing burger class, needing to call gatherings of the three estates of the realm (Diets, Parliaments, Cortes, General Estates, etc, depending where you are in the kingdom), etc.

I agree that a bit more meat in regards to these things would be good, but it's unfair to lump them in with the agricultural peasantry who made up the bulk of the population, and whom the merchants or artisans had little in common. Non-landholding men, and all women were typically unable to represent at any level, so your 75% figure seems a bit inflated. It's also something that develops fairly slowly over the timeline, and differently by region and culture.

In practice, merchants were also a privileged minority, alongside the nobles and clergy (never forget the FIRST estate! The nobility were merely the second). Estates general were normally called to authorise extra taxes and not much else; normal revenue worked pretty much as the game does it, from the ruler's fixed desmense and various already established taxes, often trade duties. Parliaments, when called were still basically gatherings of nobles - the third estate was outnumbered by the first and second, and typically only mattered when the aristocrats and church were at loggerheads on an issue.

Parliaments would also tend to be a late game feature, though proto-representation features earlier. On the other hand, gangs of rulers (be they Noble, Clerical or Mural) putting the hard word on the ruler for something they want IS already well represented through the faction system.

 

[Knotz]

I wouldn't necessarily want/need a direct sequel but I love what CK2 is and does and there should be more games in this vein, plus there could definitely still be some fundamental improvements at the design and infrasructure level. Personally I'm hoping the new game they announce at their convention is an alt-reality CK2 with magic.

 

[Willem IV]

I do need a CK3 game, as CK2 is 32-bits only and I can't run those anymore next month.

 

[Ixalmaris]

Why I want a CK3?
Because CK2 has imo reached the limit of what it can do and suffers from hardcoded design decisions as it was never intended to become this big, for example the focus on a specific feudal succession system.

A CK3 could be designed from the ground up to support all the government types we we currently have in ck2 and more.

 

[Legion141]

I agree that a bit more meat in regards to these things would be good, but it's unfair to lump them in with the agricultural peasantry who made up the bulk of the population, and whom the merchants or artisans had little in common. Non-landholding men, and all women were typically unable to represent at any level, so your 75% figure seems a bit inflated. It's also something that develops fairly slowly over the timeline, and differently by region and culture.

In practice, merchants were also a privileged minority, alongside the nobles and clergy (never forget the FIRST estate! The nobility were merely the second). Estates general were normally called to authorise extra taxes and not much else; normal revenue worked pretty much as the game does it, from the ruler's fixed desmense and various already established taxes, often trade duties. Parliaments, when called were still basically gatherings of nobles - the third estate was outnumbered by the first and second, and typically only mattered when the aristocrats and church were at loggerheads on an issue.

Parliaments would also tend to be a late game feature, though proto-representation features earlier. On the other hand, gangs of rulers (be they Noble, Clerical or Mural) putting the hard word on the ruler for something they want IS already well represented through the faction system.

I think representation of the peasantry would be best achieved through a very simple pop-system (as memey as it is to say), with perhaps only three pop types (peasants, burghers, and nobles). That way the massive impact of plagues, of lost productivity due to warfare (recruitment and casualties, raiding, etc.), of climatic events and the seasons, and so on would have a far greater and more apparent impact on gameplay as the peasantry, responsible for growing food and fighting in your armies, grows and diminishes throughout the game. Plus such a system would provide a much better framework for other systems like trading, religious and cultural change, rebellions, economic management, demographic change over the course of the game as technology develops, etc. etc. Probably not very likely though, unfortunately.

 

[Arona]

Why I want a CK3?
Because CK2 has imo reached the limit of what it can do and suffers from hardcoded design decisions as it was never intended to become this big, for example the focus on a specific feudal succession system.

A CK3 could be designed from the ground up to support all the government types we we currently have in ck2 and more.

much better would be that rulers and players could tailor their country and society by laws and decreets. Give power to cetain classes in society, like clerics, nobles, peasants or merchants or tranfer their kingdom to republic or any other governent or hybride, so no goverment is 100% same. And certainly id like to have visible map like one descibed in first page.

 

[cristofolmc]

Parliaments would also tend to be a late game feature, though proto-representation features earlier. On the other hand, gangs of rulers (be they Noble, Clerical or Mural) putting the hard word on the ruler for something they want IS already well represented through the faction system.

Agreed with most of what you've said (which doesnt contradict my point, but contextualise them), but not with this one. Parliaments is more of an early game thing. As time passed, the crown managed to have more and more power. Then you have england, but thats the exception. In the rest of europe, technology and the little power of the king limited his ability to enforce his will and thus relied a lot on his nobles, through parliament or not. I mean, yes, its a thing that began in Leon in 1188, which could be considered mid game, given how the timeline has been expanded so much backwards. But even though you have a point, in the case I know (Hispania), parliaments met a fair amount of times. Once every 2-4 years minimum. Sometimes they were less important, which is why they arent taken into account, but meeting they did. But still, even accepting your point, I think this could be represented in a more glamorous way than just your 5 council members. It would be cool if all the nobels, clergy, and many of the city mayors could be called upon and cast their votes. A bit more like it was before Conclave, where all the nobility counted, not just your council, which is a lame representation of those parliaments.

Regarding your other points, as I said, I mostly agree. But yeah, things like peasant revolts, the increasing social mobility and increasing freedoms of the peasantry, growth of cities and trade...yes that happened slowly overtime, of course, but it should still be represented so the society of 1066 has little in common to the society at the end of the game in the 15th century. And you'd have to deal with the challenges and opportunities of that time. And yes, the merchant was a very little portion of the peasantry and a privileged class, but not through birth right, but their own merits. Thats not repreented. And as I was trying to point, you dont get to interact with that increasingly powerful small privilege class.

In fact, not even the clergy is that important in this game. I always choose to piss them off over the noblity, as pissing them off doesn't have such bad consequences. I'd also like an increased importance of the role of the church during this time. Only the Popes power seems well represented, the church doesn't seem to matter all that much as a political entity like the nobility.

Anyway, I feel like Im going off topic. Our point was the there is MORE than PLENTY of material and stuff to improve and add to the game to have a CK3 that brings whole new stuff on to the table. So I dont understand the disregard for the idea as if CK2 was a perfect completed game. That sounds little ambitious. I get CK2 is one of the best games ever made and people might be afraid that CK3 might not be as good, but I dont share that feeling if the same team does it, and as long as most of the important cool content is in CK3, the game can only improve if they deepen and expand on the simulation of medieval society, that goes well beyond just the intrigues between noble families.

And based on the content they've been releasing for the past few DLCs, they seem to have reached a cap on what they can add, and keep adding cool flavour and improvements, but nothing too big or revolutionary like they did with Republics, Way of life, or Conclave. They themselves admited it in an interview, that the current engine is limiting, and they'd like to work on another one to be able to do new stuff that they can't do with the current limitations. That was an interview with the former CEO, talking about a posibility of Ck3, and he seemed inclined to it, so its not such a crazy idea, thankfully.

 

[DominusNovus]

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.

Could you cite them saying that? They’ve committed to upgrading their other games to 64bit, especially because the next version of MacOS will drop support of 32but applications entirely. Granted, they could be much more transparent about everything (such as which games, if any, they will not upgrade).

 

[cristofolmc]

I think representation of the peasantry would be best achieved through a very simple pop-system (as memey as it is to say), with perhaps only three pop types (peasants, burghers, and nobles). That way the massive impact of plagues, of lost productivity due to warfare (recruitment and casualties, raiding, etc.), of climatic events and the seasons, and so on would have a far greater and more apparent impact on gameplay as the peasantry, responsible for growing food and fighting in your armies, grows and diminishes throughout the game. Plus such a system would provide a much better framework for other systems like trading, religious and cultural change, rebellions, economic management, demographic change over the course of the game as technology develops, etc. etc. Probably not very likely though, unfortunately.

A simple pop system like the one in I:R but with the parameters and variables proper of the middle ages, could work very well, with four classes, Nobility, burghers, artisians/city dwellers, and peasantry. That way you can better simulate the transformations of the medievla society and go beyond than just simple abstractions like tax base and province modifiers from events.

 

[Andrelvis]

Could you cite them saying that? They’ve committed to upgrading their other games to 64bit, especially because the next version of MacOS will drop support of 32but applications entirely. Granted, they could be much more transparent about everything (such as which games, if any, they will not upgrade).

My point was merely that that isn't an engine limitation, and that if Paradox wished to devote the resources to it that it would be doable. People often erroneously judge such things to need a new game for technical reasons, but that usually isn't so.

 

[ChaosOnline]

I'm not sure I *want* a CKIII per-se, but if we got one, there are some things I'd like it to have before I got it. It would at least have all the things CKII has. So playable Islam, India, pagans, West Africa, etc. Because if I can't play as all my favorite areas, what's the point of getting the new game.

Beyond that, I'd also love to see it expanded to include China and Southeast Asia. Since apparently those areas can't be in CKII for technical reasons.

 

[DominusNovus]

My point was merely that that isn't an engine limitation, and that if Paradox wished to devote the resources to it that it would be doable. People often erroneously judge such things to need a new game for technical reasons, but that usually isn't so.

But thats not what you said at all. You said they don't want to do that for CK2.

 

[danest]

Ok, ok, how many people would still want ck3 if it came out without the dlc material, and it all had to be re-purchased all over again?
I don't see any evidence that ck3 would not need a million dlcs. It's absolutely how paradox makes their money on so many of their games. Their games end up needing a huge collection of dlcs before they reach their true form and potential.
Almost everything people are asking for, paradox could add to ck2 -- they're the programmers, they can turn the game into anything they want. If they aren't doing it, it's because they want it the way it is. They want merchant republics to be the way they are. So sequel or expansion, we have to deal with the fact that they chose to make republics they way they made them, and have made choices to leave it the way it is. They like it the way it is -- unless they're writing a dlc or patch to change it.

 

[mrinku]

Well, if people want a revamped, polished up and redesigned game WITH all the existing DLC... you'll be waiting quite a while. These things take time, and thus money, and I'm not sure paradox can afford to go that path, even if they wanted to.

I'd rather a revamped, polished up and redesigned CORE game that we might see released sooner than later. I would expect it to have Islam and some pagans, and better treatment of heresy. Maybe Mongols. I would not expect India, Imperial Rome, early starts or playable Republics.

 

[ranbir]

I'm just worried CK3 will start out with less features/content that CK2 has now; especially the QoL improvements that always seem to reset/vanish in future games and then need to be put back in later like oh look we learnt something.

 

[Patriarch of Bub]

I don't think Ck3 is a good idea right now. I can't speak for others, but as someone who invested a significant amount of money into Ck2, I wouldn't be willing to do the same with a new game. If development was to stop I'd simply turn to mods.

I interpret the recent HumbleBundle discounts, as a way to get newer players caught up with the rest of us veterans. Meaning they can start new DLC development for a broader audience. My sister bought for herself what she was missing.

The dev team that brought us HF, showed us new ambition and vision for the game. HF, Great works, patches... Whom amongst of us could have forseen such changes to old Ck2?

No, the time of ck3 is nowhere near us. Ck3 might never even be made.
Aside from the 32/64 argument which I'm sure is very valid, just take a look at the suggestion forums! People have suggested improvements, additions, changes for years! Some of them really good and fitting and the majority of them are working with the current game setup, with its vision and abstractions.
There are suggestions on trade, slavery, goverments, mechanics... Take your pick!

Ck2 could be that good. Ck2 could be "made" into Ck3 if Paradox had money and time to do so. I expect great new improvements from this current dev team, they are great. Even someone like Snowcrystal which isn't even on ck2 anymore has contributed so much, if i understand correctly in his spare time.

I think ck2 is in good hands and look forward to see it getting better and better.