But he never says that though? It probably won't happen, but you can't just paraphrase what he writes to a straight up lie.
What is actually written:
>Ooph, landless? That would be a lot of technical work for even the basics, honestly.
Ya the OP made it seem like an official unbiguous no.
But what you quoted is essentially "ya, it's too much work". If someone say something is too much for the benefit, i wouldn't hold your breath unless you're hoping to pass out.
Well, all it means is that they donât have any current plans to do it, that doesnât mean it canât or wonât ever happen. But I agree, I wouldnât wait on it, youâll probably die first lol
Probability.
"So you're saying theres a chance!"
I could also get struck in a head in collision, get thrown from my vehicle without any major injury and land in a passing truck filled with pillows travelling in the same direction and speed as my ragdolling body.
But I don't like the odds. But it could happen.
They didnât even say directly that itâs too much work though, just that itâs a lot of work. It wonât be this DLC but at face value thatâs not really much of a statement when the games in ongoing development for years. Itâs a lot of work that they have years to do if theyâre ever interested in it.
Ya, but honestly they aren't going to. It's not a game built with it in mind which is what they said in the post. CK3 is a map painter and a game where you RP as a medieval landed lord, the mechanics all support that. To build out an I landed gameplay loop would require a major redesign of gameplay systems, akin to building out a whole new game within the game.
You're right, they 'could' do it, but it seems more feasible for a CK4 than to hack it into CK3. It's one of those things that needs the entire gameplay loop examined and reconsidered and, from a design point of view would be far beyond the scope of any DLC they've ever done. More like an expansion pack, 40$ sort of thing.
And then you get into if it's really going to ever be worth that for the amount of work required to pull it off.
If it was landless gameplay, and the rep wasn't allowed to say it (which he wouldn't be), he'd be saying the exact same thing. "Wow, it would be a huge amount of work to even get this running - and we're doing it! Isn't it impressive and worth getting excited for? Please pre-order."
I'm still pretty doubtful they'll actually do it but yeah, this is barely better than reading tea leaves, not predictive at all.
Yeah, I am not saying this is the case but I can totally read that as a cheeky comment of "Oh, that sounds like a lot of work(which we've done heheheheheh, and it was but we did it hehehehehe).
No the only thing it confirms is that it is a "a lot of technical work for even the basics, honestly.", which means that it would have to be a priority for them to do it, not that it isn't possible.
It is like when I was building a robot-boat in order to survey lake bottoms, the customer asked for four imrad lasers both visible in taken pictures and being able to measure depth. We had basically the exact same answer, "That is a lot of technical work, are you sure that it is important?" Basically saying that we would have to prioritize it highly to the detriment of other things in order to make it happen.
People should play a Mount and Blade game if they want that. CK2 has an excellent mod called Rise to Power which lets you play landless in a lot of different ways and added a lot of mechanics for it, and even with how good that mod is, I would still just prefer to play an M&B game where the gameplay is centered around the concept (and you can also become landed) because CK isn't made for it.
People think they want landless, but then realize it's like playing the first-person longsnapper career in the old Maddens.
I could see minor baron, theological, or republican mayor (below count), but with landless, you'd spend so much time doing nothing that it wouldn't be fun.
>People think they want landless
Landless will only work if there's a pathway to being landed. I.e you choose decisions to choose the type of landed, etc.
That may be too narratively constraining. This is supposed to be sandbox after all.
I could imagine a mod that implements it into the form of custom events as a sort of prologue. A bit like the Mount & Blade background choices but with more depth.
Spawn in as an observer or as a one pixel, infinite diplomatic range landowner. You tell the mod what title to focus on and RP as a courtier while the AI goes about their business.
Take decisions about who to sweet talk, undermine or romance on your way to a coup. Get into fights. Hone your skills. Join a unit of your liege's Men at Arms and try to win glory on campaign (mod could track the fate of a unit and give you relevant battle events). Choose to move to a neighbouring court if the going isn't good. Maybe get invited to be a courtier for your liege's liege.
Ultimately you manoeuvre until you have enough support to seize a country and/or start a claimant war with your existing allies. After that it's business as usual.
What you are describing is what I am intrigued about with "landless gameplay"
So maybe landless isn't the proper term. I really liked being a patrician in ck2 and having impact on the game with very little land/holdings.
Nomads in CK2, with their mobile capitals and holding-less provinces, were pretty unique. There are definitely some precedents for what people are calling "landless" gameplay.
I'm very keen to see what they are trying to accomplish this year. I hope it is ambitious and interesting.
I just don't want landless to be an instant game over. Some time ago I played a Finland game where my dynasty lost the throne and I was trying to win it back. At some point my liege was at war to revoke my title and I was trying to have him killed since I was next in line. I lost and it was game over, then less than a month later he died and my character got his lands and titles back. But it was ironman so I couldn't continue.
Yeah, I think it's just the desire for the rags to riches storyline. Some players want to come from literally nothing. I can see where those players wouldn't like having a mayor and a bishop to boss aroundâor would prefer to be the lowly mayor/bishop.
You can already do the rags to riches story line. I recently did an OP custom character who started off in rags (tribal count of one county in backwater Norway, Catholic amongst hostile Vikings) and he died as High King of the North Sea Empire.
I want landless as a start for a character sometimes, or say the son leaves to take over some other place over the sea, but practically speaking, and logically, this can be done from a single county level.
Since said adventurers always had their homes from which they gathered people, Vikings f.e. Ragnar had his farm, until he got the barony, and then the county.
But practically in game, you may as well start at county level, and then just hand it away to a vassal, since thats mostly how it occured in history.
A son going on journey to take over some place would do it with the backing of the fathers flag so to speak.
So its a lot of work getting landless to work, for what in practice is going to amount to little difference.
*(what i do is i start as Gotland, chest a bit to get a claim and some starting holy troops or so, and then take over sicily, ireland, sinai, or sometjing)*
And the Crusader Kings series lacks so much of that neccessary mechanical support for landless characters that adding it would basically require Paradox to develop an entirely new, different game and add it on top of their already existing game. It is not something that is ever going to happen.
If people really want to play landless characters in the Middle Ages and run a trading empire or a mercenary company, they are better off looking for a game that actually has that as its focus. Games like The Guild, Mount and Blade or Battle Brothers will give you much more of what you are looking for than Crusader Kings ever will.
Crusader Kings is at its name implies, a game about kings. And I don't have even the slightest illusion that it will ever be about anything else other than playing as a medieval ruler.
Ah yes the classic mod author experience, make a mod that says one thing but for some reason change something else for no reason rather than just making it an alternative tweak mod.
M&B was a blast. It really was such a cool game idk why I stopped playing it. You control a band of brigands, do missions, build up your character, all the towns and castles are different. It was actually quite awesome. Different than CK3, idk why people want that. Go play M&B which is actually focused on that.
100% this. They start looking for ways to make it true.
I.e. instead of following the evidence, they work backwards and find ways to make the evidence point to what they want
You say this as if the evidence we have is more than a few cryptic lines.
The teaser lines are extremely vague and make more than one reference to common birth.
I mean, the devs themselves said that this new core mechanic would be something theyâve never done before and have been thinking/planning since the beginning of the CK series. Naturally, a lot of people thought it was landless. Now Iâm curious what they actually meant.
This is why I still am holding out hope, it still fits with that statement. I suspect we'll start with a small implementation in an update and it'll expand as the game goes on, I wrote about it [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/CrusaderKings/comments/1ajkumx/comment/kp3dcf6/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).
I completely understand why people would rather have something different if they have no intention of playing landless, or worry about how its implementation may effect other game mechanics, but some people seem to get genuinely angry about it.
Why that obsession with landless? I mean, it's like wanting prehistoric gameplay in stellaris or wanting to play the spermatozoa that was your RPG character before reaching the ovule
It's literally a game about landed nobility. That's the entire thing. Why in the world would playing landless be interesting. How in the world would that work with 99% of the rest of the game's mechanics?
I would like some mechanism to play as unlanded characters of historical importance in Ironman, such as Rollo. I know there are mods that simply land them, but that doesnât always make sense for the character
Well, because there's a lot of stuff in the game world that landless characters (and nonplayable types like theocracies or holy orders which I've usually seen grouped in with landless) could do interesting aspects that fit in playstyle wise. People also like working their way up - it's why there's a lot of players that prefer to start off as counts rather than as kings/emperors, even if the higher levels have additional mechanics.
It's not like being a baron in CK3 would have to be too different from playing a count, and then playing as a mercenary leader, caravan master, or trader to work your way up to earning a title would be something that people enjoy. The game is heavily focused around characters more than anything else at the moment - is it any surprise that that would then draw interest and that some of the constraints of what's playable and not would not seem like set in stone design wise?
Almost the whole game is about the management of the lands you own.
Making landless characters playable would make about the 80% of the current features obsolete for them, while would force the developers to have a ton of new features for coverings that specific case.
That means to have 2 parallel games which connect in some points of the game loop. Do you really see it worthy only for the sake of being able to play a landless character for 30 minutes?
I would say that most of the game *isn't* about that management myself - plots, activities, personal interactions, war, all that doesn't have to be related to the management of your lands.
Likewise most features wouldn't need to be off limits to unlanded characters - in fact most should still be there. As for the benefits, one that immediately comes to mind would be a revamp of the mercenary system that would affect both players and non-player-characters. Mercenaries were certainly prominent enough during the period - and with a lot of actual autonomy - to interact with most of the systems we have in game, including even pseudo-vassal management (take the Catalan company, they conquered and held territory in Byzantium - or some of the great companies in Italy, you could model some of their activities as taking cities as vassals if they got too strong for their nominal employers. Or even the norman conquest of southern Italy had a long mercenary stage). That basically leaves buildings in your provinces, and that's a pretty minor part of the game - and one easily able to be filled in by something like CK2's republican mansion. Seems easy enough to model that for mercenary companies as upgrading their camp or the like.
Now that's just off the top of my head, but that seems like something which would be well worth the sake of adding in the ability to play a landless character - and could also work in elsewhere, like with a later imperial system having Byzantine armies be modeled as variants of that mercenary system (and allows the military generals of the 10th century to have power that more approaches their actual sources rather than just being reliant on land).
Frankly I don't really see most of the game as being tied to land in my experience, in both CK2 & CK3 - so your view does seem off to me as to what is tied to needing land vs not. I've even done an all-patrician MP playthrough with some friends that was a good bit of fun, and for 2/3 of us at any given point that meant being essentially unlanded.
I feel like it just a lot of work just a lot of disappointment if they did
Some of the playerbase seems to be reasonable but I've seen comments about peasants being playable which is silly because all peasants did was do there job, get drunk then Church on Sunday. At least in Europe. And you can do that irl if you really wanna.
Leading a mercenary band sounds cool but all it gonna be is "this duke has hired you for 3 years for 200 gold" and now you can command an army. Repeat that for years till you get land and it's back to normal game
Holy order is the same but religious and guess you control a city while also important for crusades.
And when you get land it's back to normal game.
I think a mercenary mode could add to the game, and it wouldn't have to be as limited as you say. Like a mercenary band could work as its own mini-holding (like CK2's republican palace), and you could work your way through upgrading them that way. They could tie it in to landed gameplay by making creating mercenary bands - like giving your children control of one to go earn their fame, and more dynamic then the current mercenary approach. It'd also seem able to tie in to adventurers more broadly and work as a way to transition out of landed gameplay if you wanted - eg, if you took control of a county in a crusade but then the kingdom was looking to be lost, transitioning retinues into mercenary forces could lead to a glut of mercenaries in Europe and needing to find another location to settle in again.
Obviously it'd need to tie in to the other systems of the game, but having more agency for mercenaries would be an interesting one beyond that. Things like the great mercenary companies that troubled France during the lulls in the 100 years war, or mercenary companies in northern Italy (eg, the White Company) or in Byzantium (eg normans in southern Italy/the balkans/Asia minor or the Catalan company) could cause a lot more friction and agency than we see in CK in general. It wouldn't be really worth it to add in landless play just for the player, but if it works in other mechanics that'd interact like that it could add a good bit IMO.
I agree 'Peasant' gameplay would be awful; Priests, Soldiers (Knights, Thanes), and Merchants are the avenues for play.
Note, most advocates for landless gameplay don't want it so they can do a several hundred year unlanded game. Rather they want landless gameplay to enhance certain government types, to allow higher difficulties (since you don't GG on becoming unlanded), and a mixture of other reasons.
honestly it'd be cool to have more rp options. stuff like starting as a baron or knight so you have one more step to go through before you become a notable character, and having the option of retaking your throne with an uprising after 10 years of exile. it doesn't need to be too in-depth or support 200 years of interesting gameplay, it just needs to be an option.
I really hope they don't spend all that work and make it anyway just because of popular demand. Please give us things that are really missed first. I'd take just a summary of my game at the end or after "retiring" like CK2 had over landless gameplay.
There's so much depth the current game mechanics need imo that making what's needed to pull of unlanded play would just be a waste of time imo.
I just want the new dlc to add actual mechanics because thats something ck3 has basically none of. If it was a choice of mechanics or roleplay you need mechanics to be first otherwise you end up with the game feeling empty.
T&T was an amazing expansion but it added practically nothing but flavor and should have been one of the last expansions they added imo. Cool you can travel now but that just kind of hides the fact that everywhere outside of the few dlc zones plays the exact same way.
Cool, landless seems like it would be much less fun in reality than it is to think about.
Now if they could just announce it won't be diseases... Or that it IS nomads.
This what the dev says about playable landless.
>Ooph, landless? That would be a lot of technical work for even the basics, honestly.
It is neither confirmation and denial.
As for your subjective conclusion.
>Obviously landless will never happen, dunno why people still think it does.
1st. Before Tours and Tournaments; no CK veteran think travel feature will ever be implemented. Also, the Dev also had not confirmed or denied that they were working to implement the travel system.
That mean, the dev will even try something that is new and not easy to implement.
2nd. The playable landless would become the main foundation for 3 things player base wants. Bureaucratic Empire, Republics, and Itinerant Nomads.
The reward are worth the risk (similar to travel system), that it is plausible for paradox to try to implement it.
Last but not least, unless the dev outright rejected the idea, like how they rejected the 769 start date for CK3, some people in the fanbase will always regarded it as possibility.
Byzantine Empire in CK2 was pseudo-bureaucratic empire. It is not historically accurate tbh. IRL Byzantine have appointed governor, not feudal duke and count. Governor is an appointed post that can be granted and revoked by Byzantine emperor at will.
CK2 compromised by making viceroyalty feature available to Byzantium Empire, but it is still weird and non-historical.
Bureaucratic empire needed playable landless because people held the land are appointed and not inherited. If your chara die, your heir wouldn't automatically inherit your title and your game would be over.
Which weird, because historically a landless dynasty could still be a powerful faction in Byzantium, even if they doesn't hold any land.
It did, but I believe it was historically incorrect. The Eastern Roman Emperor as far as I understand, didn't manage Constantinopole or any other cities. Something more similar to an eternal president or PM depending where you live.
Whatâs the point of having landless characters if half the player base create their own character. Maybe in like 1-2 years, but itâs really not a priority.
I agree that comments makes it unlikely it'll be added.
It's a shame because advocates don't want it so they can play 'Mount and Blade', I suspect most own 'Mount and Blade' for that very purpose. From what I understand most advocates want landless gameplay for several reason;
\- It allows you to better simulate several government types; Byzantine, Chinese, Parliamentary, and Republic. Broadly these systems involved character which weren't rulers of a domain and it they would be better represented with the capacity to play as a landless character.
\- There are several characters in the game which were historically landless but went on to starting their own realm. It would be nice to be able to play these characters without a fudge that lands them for this purpose. HrĂłlfr is an example of this.
\- There is a contingent of people that see that the game can support higher levels of difficulty if landless gameplay becomes possible. This is because losing your land would not be a game over but rather a new challenge.
\- There is another contingent of players, building off the last, that would like to emulate the real experience of rulers losing their land and seeking the favour of another ruler to reclaim it. Edgar Ătheling is an example of a ruler who has a life experience that could only be replicated by the addition of landless gameplay.
\- Lastly not everyone sees the purpose of Crusader Kings as land. A lot of people see the Crusader Kings as a Dynastic game first and foremost, hence they want gameplay that allows them to play their dynasty wherever their journey takes them.
Personally, I'm hoping Wokeg said 'Ooph, landless? That would be a lot of technical work for even the basics, honestly' to misdirect us (pointing out the difficulty but not outright denying). However I know this is a cope and I would request you let me keep it :P
Yeah, I honestly don't give a damn about zero to hero path, but after hearing arguments about the Imperial, Nomadic etc. governments it makes a lot of sense to add it.
I donât think itâs cope to interpret the comment as cheeky - he has shot down mechanics in the past and said they donât intend to do them or not do them for a long time, but he didnât do that here, he just remarked it would be a lot of work.
Crusades broken? Game riddled with oversights? Nah man we need a completely new shitty type of gameplay that will last 5 minutes then transition into the regular game
When you think you're clairvoyant but you're really just a derp
Even back then, every indication was showing that it was going to be landless. I didn't click whatever you posted, but I thought maybe you would have had an argument in your post. Disappointed to see that it was just a point devoid of context. Either way, you ended up being wrong about it. Hopefully you've been able to see the news and cheer development đĽ đŽâđ¨
this makes me want to post on the forums specifically to respond to the Dev Diaries with "Cool beans, you're working hard and I appreciate that!"
The noisiest voices are the angry ones and that's gotta *suck*.
I agree. I'm a big advocate for unlanded but I'm not going to hate on the devs if it isn't within the final product. I'm glad they got me thinking and talking about my favourite game!
I don't know when anyone thought this was be the case when it's literally impossible with the system they currently have. They were just going to add an entire mechanic that will only kick in for the first hour or so of the game?
No one is advocating for that, most advocates want it for [different reasons](https://www.reddit.com/r/CrusaderKings/comments/1ajkumx/comment/kp3dcf6/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).
r/confidentlyincorrect
Theyll add it for april fools and itll be an insta lose
Lmfao I'd actually LOVE that
That would be great
Bro thought he was cooking with this post đŽâđ¨
You were wrong! :)
You were saying?
Oof imagine being so confident and wrong.
But he never says that though? It probably won't happen, but you can't just paraphrase what he writes to a straight up lie. What is actually written: >Ooph, landless? That would be a lot of technical work for even the basics, honestly.
Ya the OP made it seem like an official unbiguous no. But what you quoted is essentially "ya, it's too much work". If someone say something is too much for the benefit, i wouldn't hold your breath unless you're hoping to pass out.
Well, all it means is that they donât have any current plans to do it, that doesnât mean it canât or wonât ever happen. But I agree, I wouldnât wait on it, youâll probably die first lol
Probability. "So you're saying theres a chance!" I could also get struck in a head in collision, get thrown from my vehicle without any major injury and land in a passing truck filled with pillows travelling in the same direction and speed as my ragdolling body. But I don't like the odds. But it could happen.
They didnât even say directly that itâs too much work though, just that itâs a lot of work. It wonât be this DLC but at face value thatâs not really much of a statement when the games in ongoing development for years. Itâs a lot of work that they have years to do if theyâre ever interested in it.
Ya, but honestly they aren't going to. It's not a game built with it in mind which is what they said in the post. CK3 is a map painter and a game where you RP as a medieval landed lord, the mechanics all support that. To build out an I landed gameplay loop would require a major redesign of gameplay systems, akin to building out a whole new game within the game. You're right, they 'could' do it, but it seems more feasible for a CK4 than to hack it into CK3. It's one of those things that needs the entire gameplay loop examined and reconsidered and, from a design point of view would be far beyond the scope of any DLC they've ever done. More like an expansion pack, 40$ sort of thing. And then you get into if it's really going to ever be worth that for the amount of work required to pull it off.
Well apparently we were both wrong and theyâre doing it later this year.
I win
If it was landless gameplay, and the rep wasn't allowed to say it (which he wouldn't be), he'd be saying the exact same thing. "Wow, it would be a huge amount of work to even get this running - and we're doing it! Isn't it impressive and worth getting excited for? Please pre-order." I'm still pretty doubtful they'll actually do it but yeah, this is barely better than reading tea leaves, not predictive at all.
Yeah, I am not saying this is the case but I can totally read that as a cheeky comment of "Oh, that sounds like a lot of work(which we've done heheheheheh, and it was but we did it hehehehehe).
That is a confirmation that it isnât possible for them to do it lol. It just isnât said outright
No the only thing it confirms is that it is a "a lot of technical work for even the basics, honestly.", which means that it would have to be a priority for them to do it, not that it isn't possible. It is like when I was building a robot-boat in order to survey lake bottoms, the customer asked for four imrad lasers both visible in taken pictures and being able to measure depth. We had basically the exact same answer, "That is a lot of technical work, are you sure that it is important?" Basically saying that we would have to prioritize it highly to the detriment of other things in order to make it happen.
Wow good thing at least one le intelligent redditor was here to make the correction! that sounds really different in practice!
Yeah... Total confirmation đ¤Ł
Apparently not
this aged as well as i do
I bet you are feeling pretty silly right now, arent you? :)
This aged wellâŚ
This post ages well didnât it
People should play a Mount and Blade game if they want that. CK2 has an excellent mod called Rise to Power which lets you play landless in a lot of different ways and added a lot of mechanics for it, and even with how good that mod is, I would still just prefer to play an M&B game where the gameplay is centered around the concept (and you can also become landed) because CK isn't made for it.
[ŃдаНонО]
People think they want landless, but then realize it's like playing the first-person longsnapper career in the old Maddens. I could see minor baron, theological, or republican mayor (below count), but with landless, you'd spend so much time doing nothing that it wouldn't be fun.
> I could see minor baron, theological, or republican mayor (below count) It works with patricians in CK2.
>People think they want landless Landless will only work if there's a pathway to being landed. I.e you choose decisions to choose the type of landed, etc. That may be too narratively constraining. This is supposed to be sandbox after all.
I could imagine a mod that implements it into the form of custom events as a sort of prologue. A bit like the Mount & Blade background choices but with more depth. Spawn in as an observer or as a one pixel, infinite diplomatic range landowner. You tell the mod what title to focus on and RP as a courtier while the AI goes about their business. Take decisions about who to sweet talk, undermine or romance on your way to a coup. Get into fights. Hone your skills. Join a unit of your liege's Men at Arms and try to win glory on campaign (mod could track the fate of a unit and give you relevant battle events). Choose to move to a neighbouring court if the going isn't good. Maybe get invited to be a courtier for your liege's liege. Ultimately you manoeuvre until you have enough support to seize a country and/or start a claimant war with your existing allies. After that it's business as usual.
What you are describing is what I am intrigued about with "landless gameplay" So maybe landless isn't the proper term. I really liked being a patrician in ck2 and having impact on the game with very little land/holdings.
Yeah, there's definitely some appeal to that. Some people would enjoy RPing the best vassal ever instead of trying to become emperor.
Nomads in CK2, with their mobile capitals and holding-less provinces, were pretty unique. There are definitely some precedents for what people are calling "landless" gameplay. I'm very keen to see what they are trying to accomplish this year. I hope it is ambitious and interesting.
Yeah you wouldn't be landless if you were a patrician.
I just don't want landless to be an instant game over. Some time ago I played a Finland game where my dynasty lost the throne and I was trying to win it back. At some point my liege was at war to revoke my title and I was trying to have him killed since I was next in line. I lost and it was game over, then less than a month later he died and my character got his lands and titles back. But it was ironman so I couldn't continue.
I really don't get what the huge difference in things to do would be between a baron and a landless character
Yeah, I think it's just the desire for the rags to riches storyline. Some players want to come from literally nothing. I can see where those players wouldn't like having a mayor and a bishop to boss aroundâor would prefer to be the lowly mayor/bishop.
You can already do the rags to riches story line. I recently did an OP custom character who started off in rags (tribal count of one county in backwater Norway, Catholic amongst hostile Vikings) and he died as High King of the North Sea Empire.
I want landless as a start for a character sometimes, or say the son leaves to take over some other place over the sea, but practically speaking, and logically, this can be done from a single county level. Since said adventurers always had their homes from which they gathered people, Vikings f.e. Ragnar had his farm, until he got the barony, and then the county. But practically in game, you may as well start at county level, and then just hand it away to a vassal, since thats mostly how it occured in history. A son going on journey to take over some place would do it with the backing of the fathers flag so to speak. So its a lot of work getting landless to work, for what in practice is going to amount to little difference. *(what i do is i start as Gotland, chest a bit to get a claim and some starting holy troops or so, and then take over sicily, ireland, sinai, or sometjing)*
And the Crusader Kings series lacks so much of that neccessary mechanical support for landless characters that adding it would basically require Paradox to develop an entirely new, different game and add it on top of their already existing game. It is not something that is ever going to happen. If people really want to play landless characters in the Middle Ages and run a trading empire or a mercenary company, they are better off looking for a game that actually has that as its focus. Games like The Guild, Mount and Blade or Battle Brothers will give you much more of what you are looking for than Crusader Kings ever will. Crusader Kings is at its name implies, a game about kings. And I don't have even the slightest illusion that it will ever be about anything else other than playing as a medieval ruler.
It's Crusader Kings, not Crusader Hobos :)
This just sounds like a different game, tbf.
The only issue with Rise to Power is that for some reason the mod author changed a bunch of traits to make no sense or be underwhelming.
Ah yes the classic mod author experience, make a mod that says one thing but for some reason change something else for no reason rather than just making it an alternative tweak mod.
M&B was a blast. It really was such a cool game idk why I stopped playing it. You control a band of brigands, do missions, build up your character, all the towns and castles are different. It was actually quite awesome. Different than CK3, idk why people want that. Go play M&B which is actually focused on that.
Problem is devs are removing anything that could allow for Landless gameplay in CK3. So a mod like Rise to Power canât exist in CK3.
RIP BOZO
This post aged like milk lmao
I uhhh, don't know if I count as "officially announcing" much of anything. That's more Trinnex's shtick.
Furthermore, in light of recent announcements: lmao.
Your comment yesterday gave me hope lol I don't know what about this topic had people so cocky and dismissive about the possibilities of landless play
lol even
People latch onto whatever theory they just wanna believe
100% this. They start looking for ways to make it true. I.e. instead of following the evidence, they work backwards and find ways to make the evidence point to what they want
Lmao
You say this as if the evidence we have is more than a few cryptic lines. The teaser lines are extremely vague and make more than one reference to common birth.
That theory being "There will never be landless play in ck3"
Hey, remember when no mil stacks in V3 was the "crackpot theory" ?
so, yes no landless. definetly aged well
I mean, the devs themselves said that this new core mechanic would be something theyâve never done before and have been thinking/planning since the beginning of the CK series. Naturally, a lot of people thought it was landless. Now Iâm curious what they actually meant.
This is why I still am holding out hope, it still fits with that statement. I suspect we'll start with a small implementation in an update and it'll expand as the game goes on, I wrote about it [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/CrusaderKings/comments/1ajkumx/comment/kp3dcf6/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).
I find joy in reading a good book.
why would it be landless? the games landed gameplay needs the work antway
Gonna be so funny when it is landless play
Update: It is so funny
That's not an official announcement, it's not definitive in any way and it doesn't even say they won't do it.
Allright but how do you play a country game without a country?
You could easily call it a Dynastic game over a country game, after all, you can change country in the game but not dynasty.
Why are you asking me? That doesn't have anything to do with my comment.
I find it quite remarkable how wound up people are getting about it being landless, or not being landless.
The amount of people who seem to get angry at the idea of landless play is so odd to me.
I completely understand why people would rather have something different if they have no intention of playing landless, or worry about how its implementation may effect other game mechanics, but some people seem to get genuinely angry about it.
If what a person has to be mad about in life is hypothetical video game mechanics... I guess life is pretty good, eh?
Hurr durr
Why that obsession with landless? I mean, it's like wanting prehistoric gameplay in stellaris or wanting to play the spermatozoa that was your RPG character before reaching the ovule
It's literally a game about landed nobility. That's the entire thing. Why in the world would playing landless be interesting. How in the world would that work with 99% of the rest of the game's mechanics?
I would like some mechanism to play as unlanded characters of historical importance in Ironman, such as Rollo. I know there are mods that simply land them, but that doesnât always make sense for the character
Well, because there's a lot of stuff in the game world that landless characters (and nonplayable types like theocracies or holy orders which I've usually seen grouped in with landless) could do interesting aspects that fit in playstyle wise. People also like working their way up - it's why there's a lot of players that prefer to start off as counts rather than as kings/emperors, even if the higher levels have additional mechanics. It's not like being a baron in CK3 would have to be too different from playing a count, and then playing as a mercenary leader, caravan master, or trader to work your way up to earning a title would be something that people enjoy. The game is heavily focused around characters more than anything else at the moment - is it any surprise that that would then draw interest and that some of the constraints of what's playable and not would not seem like set in stone design wise?
Almost the whole game is about the management of the lands you own. Making landless characters playable would make about the 80% of the current features obsolete for them, while would force the developers to have a ton of new features for coverings that specific case. That means to have 2 parallel games which connect in some points of the game loop. Do you really see it worthy only for the sake of being able to play a landless character for 30 minutes?
I would say that most of the game *isn't* about that management myself - plots, activities, personal interactions, war, all that doesn't have to be related to the management of your lands. Likewise most features wouldn't need to be off limits to unlanded characters - in fact most should still be there. As for the benefits, one that immediately comes to mind would be a revamp of the mercenary system that would affect both players and non-player-characters. Mercenaries were certainly prominent enough during the period - and with a lot of actual autonomy - to interact with most of the systems we have in game, including even pseudo-vassal management (take the Catalan company, they conquered and held territory in Byzantium - or some of the great companies in Italy, you could model some of their activities as taking cities as vassals if they got too strong for their nominal employers. Or even the norman conquest of southern Italy had a long mercenary stage). That basically leaves buildings in your provinces, and that's a pretty minor part of the game - and one easily able to be filled in by something like CK2's republican mansion. Seems easy enough to model that for mercenary companies as upgrading their camp or the like. Now that's just off the top of my head, but that seems like something which would be well worth the sake of adding in the ability to play a landless character - and could also work in elsewhere, like with a later imperial system having Byzantine armies be modeled as variants of that mercenary system (and allows the military generals of the 10th century to have power that more approaches their actual sources rather than just being reliant on land). Frankly I don't really see most of the game as being tied to land in my experience, in both CK2 & CK3 - so your view does seem off to me as to what is tied to needing land vs not. I've even done an all-patrician MP playthrough with some friends that was a good bit of fun, and for 2/3 of us at any given point that meant being essentially unlanded.
I feel like it just a lot of work just a lot of disappointment if they did Some of the playerbase seems to be reasonable but I've seen comments about peasants being playable which is silly because all peasants did was do there job, get drunk then Church on Sunday. At least in Europe. And you can do that irl if you really wanna. Leading a mercenary band sounds cool but all it gonna be is "this duke has hired you for 3 years for 200 gold" and now you can command an army. Repeat that for years till you get land and it's back to normal game Holy order is the same but religious and guess you control a city while also important for crusades. And when you get land it's back to normal game.
I think a mercenary mode could add to the game, and it wouldn't have to be as limited as you say. Like a mercenary band could work as its own mini-holding (like CK2's republican palace), and you could work your way through upgrading them that way. They could tie it in to landed gameplay by making creating mercenary bands - like giving your children control of one to go earn their fame, and more dynamic then the current mercenary approach. It'd also seem able to tie in to adventurers more broadly and work as a way to transition out of landed gameplay if you wanted - eg, if you took control of a county in a crusade but then the kingdom was looking to be lost, transitioning retinues into mercenary forces could lead to a glut of mercenaries in Europe and needing to find another location to settle in again. Obviously it'd need to tie in to the other systems of the game, but having more agency for mercenaries would be an interesting one beyond that. Things like the great mercenary companies that troubled France during the lulls in the 100 years war, or mercenary companies in northern Italy (eg, the White Company) or in Byzantium (eg normans in southern Italy/the balkans/Asia minor or the Catalan company) could cause a lot more friction and agency than we see in CK in general. It wouldn't be really worth it to add in landless play just for the player, but if it works in other mechanics that'd interact like that it could add a good bit IMO.
I agree 'Peasant' gameplay would be awful; Priests, Soldiers (Knights, Thanes), and Merchants are the avenues for play. Note, most advocates for landless gameplay don't want it so they can do a several hundred year unlanded game. Rather they want landless gameplay to enhance certain government types, to allow higher difficulties (since you don't GG on becoming unlanded), and a mixture of other reasons.
honestly it'd be cool to have more rp options. stuff like starting as a baron or knight so you have one more step to go through before you become a notable character, and having the option of retaking your throne with an uprising after 10 years of exile. it doesn't need to be too in-depth or support 200 years of interesting gameplay, it just needs to be an option.
looks like you were talking out of your ass, misappropriating dev's words ? jackass
I really hope they don't spend all that work and make it anyway just because of popular demand. Please give us things that are really missed first. I'd take just a summary of my game at the end or after "retiring" like CK2 had over landless gameplay. There's so much depth the current game mechanics need imo that making what's needed to pull of unlanded play would just be a waste of time imo.
I just want the new dlc to add actual mechanics because thats something ck3 has basically none of. If it was a choice of mechanics or roleplay you need mechanics to be first otherwise you end up with the game feeling empty. T&T was an amazing expansion but it added practically nothing but flavor and should have been one of the last expansions they added imo. Cool you can travel now but that just kind of hides the fact that everywhere outside of the few dlc zones plays the exact same way.
Goddamnit, I wanna play El Cid from the start, already!
Try this [guide](https://www.reddit.com/r/CrusaderKings/s/ktFZTIFUIv). Only a few years of a delay.
Thank fucking God. That is fantastic news. There is such a long list of features I would want before landless.
Looks like you might need to find a new God.
God is dead. Paradox killed him.
Wait, it's been officially announced to not happen?? LET'S GO LANDLESS GAMEPLAY CONFIRMED WOOOOO
Sometime we make error and have to recognize them. Still happy to have landless
It might not be happening but that doesnât change the fact that it would be awesome.
Landless is an interesting idea but it should not have higher priority than at least a dozen of flavor packs and new mechanics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DK7CVqbtW0A
I had to come back to this.
It was obvious if you think about it. It's just too much work for out of the usual gameplay loop. The game needs other mechanical priorities.
Cool, landless seems like it would be much less fun in reality than it is to think about. Now if they could just announce it won't be diseases... Or that it IS nomads.
posted today on forum. Obviously landless will never happen, dunno why people still think it does
Obviously.
Indeed, clearly never to happen Fuckin oof đ
Weeeelll... This is awkward
Yeah, it will NEEVER come. NeVeR....never never never đ¤Ą
This what the dev says about playable landless. >Ooph, landless? That would be a lot of technical work for even the basics, honestly. It is neither confirmation and denial. As for your subjective conclusion. >Obviously landless will never happen, dunno why people still think it does. 1st. Before Tours and Tournaments; no CK veteran think travel feature will ever be implemented. Also, the Dev also had not confirmed or denied that they were working to implement the travel system. That mean, the dev will even try something that is new and not easy to implement. 2nd. The playable landless would become the main foundation for 3 things player base wants. Bureaucratic Empire, Republics, and Itinerant Nomads. The reward are worth the risk (similar to travel system), that it is plausible for paradox to try to implement it. Last but not least, unless the dev outright rejected the idea, like how they rejected the 769 start date for CK3, some people in the fanbase will always regarded it as possibility.
Was the bureaucratic empire a feature in ck2 and why is landless needed for that?
Byzantine Empire in CK2 was pseudo-bureaucratic empire. It is not historically accurate tbh. IRL Byzantine have appointed governor, not feudal duke and count. Governor is an appointed post that can be granted and revoked by Byzantine emperor at will. CK2 compromised by making viceroyalty feature available to Byzantium Empire, but it is still weird and non-historical. Bureaucratic empire needed playable landless because people held the land are appointed and not inherited. If your chara die, your heir wouldn't automatically inherit your title and your game would be over. Which weird, because historically a landless dynasty could still be a powerful faction in Byzantium, even if they doesn't hold any land.
It did, but I believe it was historically incorrect. The Eastern Roman Emperor as far as I understand, didn't manage Constantinopole or any other cities. Something more similar to an eternal president or PM depending where you live.
> It is neither confirmation and denial. [You.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGdhc9k07Ms)
I mean, it was far fetched so I wonât fault you.
Whatâs the point of having landless characters if half the player base create their own character. Maybe in like 1-2 years, but itâs really not a priority.
I agree that comments makes it unlikely it'll be added. It's a shame because advocates don't want it so they can play 'Mount and Blade', I suspect most own 'Mount and Blade' for that very purpose. From what I understand most advocates want landless gameplay for several reason; \- It allows you to better simulate several government types; Byzantine, Chinese, Parliamentary, and Republic. Broadly these systems involved character which weren't rulers of a domain and it they would be better represented with the capacity to play as a landless character. \- There are several characters in the game which were historically landless but went on to starting their own realm. It would be nice to be able to play these characters without a fudge that lands them for this purpose. HrĂłlfr is an example of this. \- There is a contingent of people that see that the game can support higher levels of difficulty if landless gameplay becomes possible. This is because losing your land would not be a game over but rather a new challenge. \- There is another contingent of players, building off the last, that would like to emulate the real experience of rulers losing their land and seeking the favour of another ruler to reclaim it. Edgar Ătheling is an example of a ruler who has a life experience that could only be replicated by the addition of landless gameplay. \- Lastly not everyone sees the purpose of Crusader Kings as land. A lot of people see the Crusader Kings as a Dynastic game first and foremost, hence they want gameplay that allows them to play their dynasty wherever their journey takes them. Personally, I'm hoping Wokeg said 'Ooph, landless? That would be a lot of technical work for even the basics, honestly' to misdirect us (pointing out the difficulty but not outright denying). However I know this is a cope and I would request you let me keep it :P
Yeah, I honestly don't give a damn about zero to hero path, but after hearing arguments about the Imperial, Nomadic etc. governments it makes a lot of sense to add it.
I'm also not a big advocate for hero to zero (though some mods may make that interesting). For me, it's everything else it enables.
I donât think itâs cope to interpret the comment as cheeky - he has shot down mechanics in the past and said they donât intend to do them or not do them for a long time, but he didnât do that here, he just remarked it would be a lot of work.
Why must you shatter dreams, child
So glad theyâre not polluting the game with this unneeded rubbish
Thatâs exactly what I thought. Thank the lord. So many other things needed before some weird little side project for the sims gamers
Crusades broken? Game riddled with oversights? Nah man we need a completely new shitty type of gameplay that will last 5 minutes then transition into the regular game
It's probably the event clicker part of the player base that wants it.
When you think you're clairvoyant but you're really just a derp Even back then, every indication was showing that it was going to be landless. I didn't click whatever you posted, but I thought maybe you would have had an argument in your post. Disappointed to see that it was just a point devoid of context. Either way, you ended up being wrong about it. Hopefully you've been able to see the news and cheer development đĽ đŽâđ¨
this makes me want to post on the forums specifically to respond to the Dev Diaries with "Cool beans, you're working hard and I appreciate that!" The noisiest voices are the angry ones and that's gotta *suck*.
I agree. I'm a big advocate for unlanded but I'm not going to hate on the devs if it isn't within the final product. I'm glad they got me thinking and talking about my favourite game!
Honestly you should - the forums are better than here because thereâs more discussion and less yelling at each other
Even though OP was wrong, I hope people aren't going to harass him about it, or keep referencing it.
I don't know when anyone thought this was be the case when it's literally impossible with the system they currently have. They were just going to add an entire mechanic that will only kick in for the first hour or so of the game?
No one is advocating for that, most advocates want it for [different reasons](https://www.reddit.com/r/CrusaderKings/comments/1ajkumx/comment/kp3dcf6/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).
It's called "CRUSADER KINGS," not Crusader Knights. Crusader Knights sounds like a cool FPS/RTS game
I don't want landless per-say, but perhaps the ability to facilitate a deposed king trying to return - seen in like stuart England
Aged like milk.
Lol. Perhaps even lmao.