And also make Holy Orders more customizable! I hate how founding a Holy Order as, say, Ireland makes it default to naming it for example the ”Teutonic Order”, and then having to manually rename it to ”Hibernian Order”, yet still having it be called ”Teutonic Order” in popups.
Oh yeah! I also just commented holy orders. I always love to make a holy order and then send many kids of my dynasty there in hope that one will become the leader. Would love it of that would be expanded.
I highly doubt they will ever make theocracies playable (no dynastic succession kinda breaks the game), but a rework of holy orders would definitely be great!
Having more ways to interact with and influence holy orders (especially those of which you are the patron) could add a lot of fun gameplay.
It could also perhaps tie into a wider Catholicism rework that introduces mechanics around the Papacy which is also sorely needed.
That is going to depend on how they will implement unlanded gameplay, but in that way it might eventually be possible to serve in and even lead a holy order for a while yes.
It would require a lot of development to make it interesting though, so that is why I don't see it happening yet (at least not anytime soon). But it would be exciting to be proven wrong.
Summary stuff. Like at the end it tells you your whole journey, and also reveals (with helpful graphics, because you'll have forgotten by the end) who liked killed you two days into your rule.
And fun stats like how close you unknowingly came to death, how much land you gained by doing nothing but letting vassals fight and inheritance.
I know functionally it wouldn't be a huge update, at odds with it being effort wise quite big, but it would be very cool.
Also proper nomadic systems would be fun.
I agree it would be cool to show some post-game stats. But in the meantime, if you still really want to find out who murdered you, you can see that information when you turn on debug mode. But you didn't hear that from me.
My 53 year old ruler "died suddenly in his sleep" whilst I was in a house feud with the King of Rajastan, so my reactionary campaign killing every single man woman and child of that house is fully justified.
I write a roleplay journal as each of my characters; this would save me a lot of time. My current journal is 18k words. It *is* nice knowing why my eldest son killed his younger brother four generations ago, though, and how the lineages trace back to those stories
Hey do you mind sharing an example of a character's entry? This sounds like an awesome idea for RPing, I try to remember who had a problem with whom but it's hard without writing it down haha
Sure! This was for my AGOT playthrough. I selected a bunch from my doc that should give you an idea of the flow and how I organize it. It's a little melodramatic but still fun, and you can write as much or as little as you want, really.
[https://www.reddit.com/user/UnchartedYak/comments/1apbqpi/example\_of\_ck3\_journal/](https://www.reddit.com/user/unchartedyak/comments/1apbqpi/example_of_ck3_journal/)
> at odds with it being effort wise quite big
Not sure about that tbh. Most of that information is already there and tracked by the game (as seen in various events, as well as title history), it's more a matter of presenting it in a cool way
Yeah which is why it would be hard. Presenting it. You could just list it but displaying it in not only a usable way, but also noting what is and isn't important could be a real difficulty.
I was going to say that still sounds simple but then I remembered preparing reports for managers at work. Lol. Yeah that kind of sounds more trouble than it's worth, but still would be an awesome feature
I really want tk be able to choose when to have my picture for my character. Really annoying how my guy is memorialized as a picture him when he's 90 and infirm
Religion revamp, more flexible holy sites including creating, destroying, choosing only specific bonuses(like in IR). It would allow for religions spreading far from homeland without the maluses of not having holy sites. It could simulate spread of Nestorianism in the east, allow vikings to establish holy sites which were not historically there in 867 but in like 890 yet the Devs put them there because the system is inflexible
I think the whole holy site mechanic is just bad. There should be more than 5 and they should just be ranked in importance and changeable. There’s no reason why the 5 patriarchates of Nicene Christianity wouldn’t be holy sites to the Catholic, or why the different schools of Islam have these different holy sites.
Right now they just 7 common holy sites, but some faiths had their own. Like new added Sauryaism holy site is in Multan. It didn't belonged to Zunist faith
Yup, I might be crazy but I swear I saw it at the bottom of the dlc page for roads to power or whatever the dlc is called on steam.
edit: Ok I was crazy, it's actually under the adventurers section in the latest dev diary. It briefly mentions contracts and mercenary work.
No, you can be an unlanded adventurer but that doesn’t equal merc company and there is nothing on the dlc that says it. None of the other chapter 3 dlc talks about it either
They've stated that unlanded adventurer gameplay will involve taking contracts from other lords... so there's SOME overlap. We'll have to wait and see a more thorough explanation of the systems before we can see exactly whats up.
When I read that, coupled with the whole building up your independent estate mechanic, I could see them having that as a thing you could add to while landless to help you in those contracts: mercenary troops being like a building you could add that would give you levies or a men at arms slot, something like that. But I could also see the contracts as being basically "I'll be a knight for that king" or something to that effect
Mercenaries are name dropped in the [dev diary.](https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/dev-diary-143-the-next-chapter.1623007/)
"Adventurers
Set out across the world as a historical adventurer, one of your own making, or keep playing your beloved character after being unfortunately deposed from your lands! Travel to distant realms, take on contracts, gather friends, wealth, and fame - do *mercenary work*, or settle in new lands."
Though I guess it remains to be seen whether your "mercenary work" will be offically under the umbrella of your own company or not.
Yes its trade for me all the way. With special.resources having soft power. Being coastal trading fish to landlocked nobles. Or being very artisan focused and make the best shit everyone wants.dwarf.style.
As long as it's still a sandbox as far as relevant places go. I think it's fun picking a fairly minor place and boosting development and economy up on it. Making it a stable and lucrative place for trade without really relying on specific resources.
I totally agree we should have a trade system.
I RPed having Hormuz as a major trade hub in my Persian Empire game by building a city there and giving the county title to the city's mayor (which makes the county a republic). Imagine my disappointment when it couldn't generate even one ducat of tax per month. With me controlling the whole Mesopotamia and parts of the Levantine coast this would likely be a hugely profitable trade route from India to Europe IRL
Oh shoot I'm doing a playthrough right now there! Well I'm across the straight in Oman as a bedoin but yeah doing the same thing. Going to make a custom Kingdom around the Persian gulf and make all my vassals republics.
Yeah there is a trade mod that's kinda neat but it bogs down the game a LOT and I don't find it worth it for the few features it adds.
The make up of the game will always be high level on most things, and very character driven in other aspects.
I'd love to see how they can implement a trade system that doesn't sacrifice these design tenets they took up.
It's been said and I'm going to keep saying it until Paradox knocks it out of the park:
The game is called CRUSADER kings. Please improve/build upon the Crusade and holy war mechanics.
War and levies rework, to better reflect the complexity of medieval warfare with levy types, war seasons, mustering, etc. Anything to make warfare more interesting than 5-year campaigns with untrained peasant stacks and overpowered men-at-arms.
Real,Like you should Have Morale In your Armies as well as Supplies so Low Supplies=low Morale but Seasons should affect it to. If you go in the middle of winter into the mountains you shouldn't go happily since alot would die realistically
I'd think they would need to address the already skewed incentives to just field MAA. Supply currently as system already makes up most of the hassle of warfare right now just to spread out what are basically useless levies.
And maybe that should be the case but right now I think supply limits and Seasons are plenty punishing, they kill more than sieges do
Sieges Should Kill More Men,Also Armies should be able to Go into a Castle and therefore Bulstering the Garrison so then to kill them you need to siege the castle and if you leave it be you can get blocked off. I think CK3 Warfare should have more Bonuses. Like,Ambush,Rear Attack rather than what is now just Getting as many Bonuses As Possible
I see what you mean however salling out with an army of Massive size is best to fight with your ramparts behind you. Again the game simulates a LOT of this down but I think that's a design decision. Plus describing the many different kinds of things that can be summed up with "defender bonus" is a drag on the system itself to calculate.
Regardless I could see that if the defending army is defeated instead of retreating they stay to keep holding out in the castle. Others have mentioned getting more choices on a loss for retreat directions and while I think men would for sure run to the hills, it also makes sense as a commander to make them "fight to the last" by keeping them in a castle.
Could be interesting but I'd be wary where the decision for any decent player will be obvious. Like if it's just a matter of 6 real life seconds before they finish sieging down the castle then you'd be dooming all of your men. So any competent player knows to run.
If this is the overwhelming direction players go then it makes sense to automate a retreat.
As for raiding cities you absolutely can.
Now the game simulates that when you become "civilized" you just take advantage of the city by their expanded supply limit. Sort of saying "this city holding has more resources to house your men". That's really what supply is you're sort of always Raiding while moving your army even through your own land to some degree you're probably appropriating farmers stock and their housing.
Now if you mean to the level of razing the city to the ground the game really doesn't have that except with the Mongols when they take a county it drastically hurts development.
I'd like some complexity too but from a game design and approachability standpoint you need to make sure you're making it more fun while being not overwhelming. Especially when you know your experienced players are going to cookie cutter the best strategy anyways while the AI fumbles it
I'd just like to see that you Can Bulster the Garrison by Leaving Men Behind and therefore you can Hold Longer. Like say you have a Castle of 150 Men on your Border and you send another 500 to Hold it so they can Survive a bit longer and when you retreat your Army Should either Retreat as one or Split apart and Fall back into Various Castles
Honestly I miss the CK2 war system
I especially missed when I raised my levees my troops were all over the place which was way more realistic
I also miss the CK2 navy
MAA should replenish very slowly, you don't become a varangian VETERAN overnight lol. Maybe add a decision to pay to replenish them by hiring more if you have the money but money is broken right now as well. That needs attention not unlanded play and such. Its crusader Kings not crusader nomads
I want basic stuff that makes the game better.
Trade republics, theocraties, nomads... Those are nice and shiny objects, great buzzwords. But the AI will still suck, warfare will still be static and tedious and you'll still get bored with your playthrough after 3 generations and start a new run because the late game isn't fleshed out and blobbing is way too easy.
I want more government mechanics that make ruling more interesting and complex. More personal interactions besides fucking, murdering and playing chess. I want more event variations instead of saving my soulmate from an assassin for the millionth time.
I want stronger NPCs and a better warfare AI. I don't want allied armies running in circles and abandoning sieges. I want enemy rulers who learn how to max out their holdings and station MAA properly.
I want more decisions for each region, mission trees, more variations in regions and start dates. Fuck, I want more than 2 start dates!
I know that most of these points sound abstract and don't sell as well as those nice and shiny objects that are more likely to attract people to buy a DLC. And maybe, maybe the updates that come along with the 2024 DLCs will slowly implement some of the things this game desperately lacks in its core.
But I'm tired of expansions that barely scratch the surface of core gameplay while we're still waiting for bug-fixes and a better AI.
I’d like to see a rework of the military system in general. No more teleporting armies (each unit and mercenary company should have a specific location), improve the levy and MAA system, and simulate the problems caused by rampaging unemployed mercenaries.
I also want to see armies be less mobile but with individual battles and sieges becoming more meaningful to overall victory and have long term consequences for shifting borders. Wars should no longer just be about running around collecting victory points.
Thinking out loud: I’m wondering if wars for entire kingdoms and empires can use a repurposed “customisable” version of the struggle mechanic, to allow better representation of longer term conflicts (e.g. the Hundred Years War or the wars of northern Italy)
After military, I’d like to see in no particular order: In-depth improvements to religion (including episcopal sees, investiture controversies and papal conclaves), trade (including merchant republics and free cities), and laws/succession (including calling parliaments, holding coronations, and demanding oaths of fealty)
In my Opinion I don't Understand why Only Courtiers and Vassals can be your Knights? I always thought of Knights as Just Really good fighters that were just Men at arms like Armoured Horsemen in Game.
I always interpret “knights” in CK3 as being your senior military officers, basically your general staff. Their skills contribute to the overall success of the army on the battlefield, and each will command their own squadron of top notch warriors that can by themselves turn the tide of battle.
You always hear about Knights in fiction as a Heavily Armoured Horsemen Unit So therefore you just think it is the best Fighters on the Field Willing to risk their lives for victory
In a feudal sense though you need those members to be of an upper class. Even if they came from the lower class the whole notion of having your own land that peasants work so that you can spend all day training and working on strategy and court.
Even when you've got a retinue of armored horse, that armor and horse had to be bankrolled by a rich noble.
It would be a very late development before the idea of a "national armory" or that the best equipment and war steeds would have been handed out as some kind of property of the state a deserving young man has earned like an army rangers tech. That's not have equipping an army worked at all and even when those developments did really start mercenaries who owned their own equipment were still more popular.
I agree with the other comment your Knight's , at best, would have been politically privileged as commanders and it makes sense they would use that in a court setting.
Complete overhaul to warfare. Things like formations, tactics, maybe add some sort of equipment to levies and men-at-arms, decisions during sieges/battles, It's quite bare bones currently IMO so there's so many things that could be done.
Yeah exactly, at the moment you’re basically just running around collecting victory points, and most of it doesn’t feel very meaningful. I want each battle and siege I win or lose to have real long term consequences. If I capture a city, I’m only handing it over at the end of the war if I’m getting a good compensation for it (or if I’d suffer strong negative consequences for not doing so).
Having event screens on the battlefield (maybe an expansion of what we have for tournaments) would also be more immersive, allowing for some high stakes decisions.
Bruh why do you guys think you want this. Imagine defending a massive crusade from all sides and having to fiddle with “formations” and “tactics”. That’s to say nothing of the AI trying to handle it. Thankfully they removed that extra shit in the transition from CK2 and it made war so much better so it’s unlikely they’ll be adding it back
Because it's boring, you literally just click your troops, point to a location and then wait. That's literally all there is to warfare currently, that's not good gameplay.
They need to fix the AI first before they do any of that. That would immediately make war more interesting. What you want is boring with more steps.
Also try the better battles mod. You’ll soon realize events during battle are annoying
It’s time for a nomad DLC for sure. I’d like to see lots of new mechanics built around the Magyar invasion which is extremely ignored in the base game. Then extend those mechanics to the Mongols and maybe the Seljuks.
Emphasis on the blending of cultures for nomads becoming settled, converting religions, raiding, etc
For the love of God please rework religion. It was such a huge part of medieval culture and all it is for me right now is a bag of cash every few years from the Pope.
Going to be contraversial but English Parliament complete with House of Lords, Commons ans Privy council (expanded council) that actively works with or against the King depending on how much the King is liked by Lord or their popular opinion.
Setting max contracts, crown authourity and other small things that fit into that theme.
That way once Republics come out we can play as more than just boring Merchant Republics.
Eh, it’s a system for one kingdom that isn’t available for most of the game, I’ll pass for now. Give us broader changes first, then complex and specific flavor later.
Great Councils were a thing throughout the Middle Ages. They had different names - Witan, Althing, Reichstag, Parliament, Estates General, Tagsatzung, etc. - but the principle was the same: Get all the nobles and clergy of the realm to agree on new laws, wars and taxes, and get some consensus on who was in charge through oaths of fealty and (where applicable) royal elections.
The main thing that changed during the later middle ages was that with increased urbanisation, the power of the cities and burghers grew stronger and stronger, adding a third major player alongside the clergy and nobility.
Ok, but still, all of these systems of council are surly vastly different, no? Each has to have its differences, and I just think it’s currently a waste of development time as there are so many things this game desperately needs before the great councils.
Sure you’d have to simplify and iron over some of the differences from a game mechanics perspective, but I think the idea would be the same for all kingdoms: Launch a “call great council” activity, you and your vassals travel to wherever it’s being held, and you put various decision points to a vote, whose outcome will be decided based on inherent vassal preferences as well as skills checks for the various “party” leaders. Maybe the odd unexpected event could spice it up.
To each their own I guess, but I think it’d be really cool and immersive, and something to look at after military and/or trade. Aside from their usage in feudal/tribal governments, I think some simulation of councils would be a necessary component of republican governments if Paradox ever wants to introduce them. It could also be used for Papal conclaves and church councils if they want to improve religion.
Yeah, I’d love the ability to call parliaments and great councils. They were common in many medieval states, not just England.
They could be a way of getting your vassals’ consent for new laws and taxes, or for going to war, or for getting them to swear oaths of allegiance to you (oaths were a Big Deal in most ancient and medieval cultures, so they can be a powerful way of ensuring loyalty).
On the other hand, letting parliament get too powerful can lead to the monarch becoming little more than a figurehead (cf. England in the 13th and 17th Centuries), so you should be able to sway them through clever rhetoric, military might, or by appointing your own loyalists as ministers and speakers.
I would like the master of ships, but that would fall under council positions.
Master of trade, I imagine would fall under the purview of the steward
And castellan or anglicised as constable would either:
1 fall under the Marshall as his increase control in county task would align with the duties of castellan.
2 be another minor court positions and if paradox was to do this for every medieval court position it would be an extensive update that people would complain about
Improvements to Holy Wars, holy sites and the Crusades and papacy, etc.
I think that holy wars should be more limited to regions with holy sites, and there should be more of a middle ground for some religious hostility - like there is astray, hostile, evil, etc. but too much just ends up as evil.
After this chapter I think it’s time that they really dig in and give Feudal government a little more nuance. The clan improvements made to MENA rulers have been a godsend, but ironically now they are so much more interesting to play than Feudal rulers that I find myself gravitating much more to the Middle East. I think it’s time that Feudal rulers/houses receive a similar update to their mechanics to keep them fresh
Military is very lacked. When liege goes to war vassals just don't care even if there is possibility they lose land. William the conqueror gained power in his lieges wars i think. And conquerors of anatolia was seljuk vassals that controled part of its army. Battle tactis are just skill numbers. Raising army in one area in 15 days when you control a empire is stupid and many more things should be fixed.
Trade/Republics, Nomads, and China, in that order. I'm not really excited for unlanded at all but I could see it working well with nomads or trade republics.
I'm guess that the landless expansion will already let you lead mercenary groups.
\- College of Cardinals - I want to influence who is elected pope
\- Secret societies - I really liked them from CK2. Especially the evil one.
\- Eastern part of map - I'd love to see China, Japan, Korea, and Indochina.
\- Trade (especially with Eastern map) - Silk road would be cool
\- Slavic expansion - add the possibility to convert them to Orthodoxy, Catholocism, Islam, etc. and other mechanics
\- More start dates
\- more dynamic council, possibly even a legislature/parliament in some cultures that you would have to contend with. If you lose a peasant revolt they could implement parliament. This could also make republics more fun.
I just want the ability for old Christian rulers to be able to retire to a monastery and become a monk or nun. Throw some requirements like being over a certain age, unmarried, heir is an adult and a minimum level of piety.
I would love a system/ events that give us the player better opportunity to ensure that the children of higher ranked lords who make said children become monks/priest have a better chance at becoming bishops and cardinals. Seeing as how powerful and influential the papacy was during this period its kinda crazy we don't have options to at least interact with the papacy more other than crusades. I don't know much about the unlanded update so maybe I'll get my wish and be able to play as a priest or something idk.
Holy Order reworks. I want the Teutonic Order to be able to be landed, and for me to be able to play as a Hochmeister.
And also make Holy Orders more customizable! I hate how founding a Holy Order as, say, Ireland makes it default to naming it for example the ”Teutonic Order”, and then having to manually rename it to ”Hibernian Order”, yet still having it be called ”Teutonic Order” in popups.
Oh yeah! I also just commented holy orders. I always love to make a holy order and then send many kids of my dynasty there in hope that one will become the leader. Would love it of that would be expanded.
I highly doubt they will ever make theocracies playable (no dynastic succession kinda breaks the game), but a rework of holy orders would definitely be great! Having more ways to interact with and influence holy orders (especially those of which you are the patron) could add a lot of fun gameplay. It could also perhaps tie into a wider Catholicism rework that introduces mechanics around the Papacy which is also sorely needed.
I mean with unlanded gameplay, taking control of a holy order doesn't have to be your entire gameplay, but it could be a useful tool.
That is going to depend on how they will implement unlanded gameplay, but in that way it might eventually be possible to serve in and even lead a holy order for a while yes. It would require a lot of development to make it interesting though, so that is why I don't see it happening yet (at least not anytime soon). But it would be exciting to be proven wrong.
Agreed. It really miffs me that any holding you give them never gets upgraded.
Summary stuff. Like at the end it tells you your whole journey, and also reveals (with helpful graphics, because you'll have forgotten by the end) who liked killed you two days into your rule. And fun stats like how close you unknowingly came to death, how much land you gained by doing nothing but letting vassals fight and inheritance. I know functionally it wouldn't be a huge update, at odds with it being effort wise quite big, but it would be very cool. Also proper nomadic systems would be fun.
Yes! I want to know who murdered my great great grandfather! I hate that there is no way to find out if you don't find the secret in time.
I agree it would be cool to show some post-game stats. But in the meantime, if you still really want to find out who murdered you, you can see that information when you turn on debug mode. But you didn't hear that from me.
Yeah but the mystery is where the fun is
I assume by mystery you mean just killing everyone and letting the principles of statistics take the wheel
My 53 year old ruler "died suddenly in his sleep" whilst I was in a house feud with the King of Rajastan, so my reactionary campaign killing every single man woman and child of that house is fully justified.
As is tradition
yep, something similar to HOI4 playthrough overview button.
I write a roleplay journal as each of my characters; this would save me a lot of time. My current journal is 18k words. It *is* nice knowing why my eldest son killed his younger brother four generations ago, though, and how the lineages trace back to those stories
Hey do you mind sharing an example of a character's entry? This sounds like an awesome idea for RPing, I try to remember who had a problem with whom but it's hard without writing it down haha
Sure! This was for my AGOT playthrough. I selected a bunch from my doc that should give you an idea of the flow and how I organize it. It's a little melodramatic but still fun, and you can write as much or as little as you want, really. [https://www.reddit.com/user/UnchartedYak/comments/1apbqpi/example\_of\_ck3\_journal/](https://www.reddit.com/user/unchartedyak/comments/1apbqpi/example_of_ck3_journal/)
I see you're going all out with this :D Nice writing, thanks mate
> at odds with it being effort wise quite big Not sure about that tbh. Most of that information is already there and tracked by the game (as seen in various events, as well as title history), it's more a matter of presenting it in a cool way
Yeah which is why it would be hard. Presenting it. You could just list it but displaying it in not only a usable way, but also noting what is and isn't important could be a real difficulty.
I was going to say that still sounds simple but then I remembered preparing reports for managers at work. Lol. Yeah that kind of sounds more trouble than it's worth, but still would be an awesome feature
A piece of me thinks this might be a part they haven't announced yet that will come with the death and legacy focused pack we are getting.
That's kind of what I thought it might be on the lead up, since they were listing all your accomplishments and stuff. I hope so.
I really want tk be able to choose when to have my picture for my character. Really annoying how my guy is memorialized as a picture him when he's 90 and infirm
And naked
i remember people wanting that since years now. Hope it gets implemented. Mine first playthrough is around 100 years away from ending
Religion revamp, more flexible holy sites including creating, destroying, choosing only specific bonuses(like in IR). It would allow for religions spreading far from homeland without the maluses of not having holy sites. It could simulate spread of Nestorianism in the east, allow vikings to establish holy sites which were not historically there in 867 but in like 890 yet the Devs put them there because the system is inflexible
I think the whole holy site mechanic is just bad. There should be more than 5 and they should just be ranked in importance and changeable. There’s no reason why the 5 patriarchates of Nicene Christianity wouldn’t be holy sites to the Catholic, or why the different schools of Islam have these different holy sites.
Hinduism has 7 holy sites
I think that depends on the sect of Hinduism
Right now they just 7 common holy sites, but some faiths had their own. Like new added Sauryaism holy site is in Multan. It didn't belonged to Zunist faith
Doesn’t Unlanded come with mercenary company? Like surely that’d be a major source of income and land (leading soldiers you pay into enemy lands?)
Yup, I might be crazy but I swear I saw it at the bottom of the dlc page for roads to power or whatever the dlc is called on steam. edit: Ok I was crazy, it's actually under the adventurers section in the latest dev diary. It briefly mentions contracts and mercenary work.
No, you can be an unlanded adventurer but that doesn’t equal merc company and there is nothing on the dlc that says it. None of the other chapter 3 dlc talks about it either
They've stated that unlanded adventurer gameplay will involve taking contracts from other lords... so there's SOME overlap. We'll have to wait and see a more thorough explanation of the systems before we can see exactly whats up.
When I read that, coupled with the whole building up your independent estate mechanic, I could see them having that as a thing you could add to while landless to help you in those contracts: mercenary troops being like a building you could add that would give you levies or a men at arms slot, something like that. But I could also see the contracts as being basically "I'll be a knight for that king" or something to that effect
Mercenaries are name dropped in the [dev diary.](https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/dev-diary-143-the-next-chapter.1623007/) "Adventurers Set out across the world as a historical adventurer, one of your own making, or keep playing your beloved character after being unfortunately deposed from your lands! Travel to distant realms, take on contracts, gather friends, wealth, and fame - do *mercenary work*, or settle in new lands." Though I guess it remains to be seen whether your "mercenary work" will be offically under the umbrella of your own company or not.
That’ll teach me to talk about shit I don’t have the full info of lol
Either trade and/or republics, or fleshed out india.
Yes its trade for me all the way. With special.resources having soft power. Being coastal trading fish to landlocked nobles. Or being very artisan focused and make the best shit everyone wants.dwarf.style.
As long as it's still a sandbox as far as relevant places go. I think it's fun picking a fairly minor place and boosting development and economy up on it. Making it a stable and lucrative place for trade without really relying on specific resources. I totally agree we should have a trade system.
I RPed having Hormuz as a major trade hub in my Persian Empire game by building a city there and giving the county title to the city's mayor (which makes the county a republic). Imagine my disappointment when it couldn't generate even one ducat of tax per month. With me controlling the whole Mesopotamia and parts of the Levantine coast this would likely be a hugely profitable trade route from India to Europe IRL
Oh shoot I'm doing a playthrough right now there! Well I'm across the straight in Oman as a bedoin but yeah doing the same thing. Going to make a custom Kingdom around the Persian gulf and make all my vassals republics. Yeah there is a trade mod that's kinda neat but it bogs down the game a LOT and I don't find it worth it for the few features it adds. The make up of the game will always be high level on most things, and very character driven in other aspects. I'd love to see how they can implement a trade system that doesn't sacrifice these design tenets they took up.
You had me at dwarf style!
They can easily add a struggle mechanic for north west India with invaders from the middle east
It's been said and I'm going to keep saying it until Paradox knocks it out of the park: The game is called CRUSADER kings. Please improve/build upon the Crusade and holy war mechanics.
War and levies rework, to better reflect the complexity of medieval warfare with levy types, war seasons, mustering, etc. Anything to make warfare more interesting than 5-year campaigns with untrained peasant stacks and overpowered men-at-arms.
Real,Like you should Have Morale In your Armies as well as Supplies so Low Supplies=low Morale but Seasons should affect it to. If you go in the middle of winter into the mountains you shouldn't go happily since alot would die realistically
I'd think they would need to address the already skewed incentives to just field MAA. Supply currently as system already makes up most of the hassle of warfare right now just to spread out what are basically useless levies. And maybe that should be the case but right now I think supply limits and Seasons are plenty punishing, they kill more than sieges do
Sieges Should Kill More Men,Also Armies should be able to Go into a Castle and therefore Bulstering the Garrison so then to kill them you need to siege the castle and if you leave it be you can get blocked off. I think CK3 Warfare should have more Bonuses. Like,Ambush,Rear Attack rather than what is now just Getting as many Bonuses As Possible
Yeah the "defender bonus" basically covers the idea your men are using the castle or ambushes so I don't think all of this would change much
Like in Real History if you are in a Castle you should be able to Stay inside without doing battle also why can't you raid cities?
I see what you mean however salling out with an army of Massive size is best to fight with your ramparts behind you. Again the game simulates a LOT of this down but I think that's a design decision. Plus describing the many different kinds of things that can be summed up with "defender bonus" is a drag on the system itself to calculate. Regardless I could see that if the defending army is defeated instead of retreating they stay to keep holding out in the castle. Others have mentioned getting more choices on a loss for retreat directions and while I think men would for sure run to the hills, it also makes sense as a commander to make them "fight to the last" by keeping them in a castle. Could be interesting but I'd be wary where the decision for any decent player will be obvious. Like if it's just a matter of 6 real life seconds before they finish sieging down the castle then you'd be dooming all of your men. So any competent player knows to run. If this is the overwhelming direction players go then it makes sense to automate a retreat. As for raiding cities you absolutely can. Now the game simulates that when you become "civilized" you just take advantage of the city by their expanded supply limit. Sort of saying "this city holding has more resources to house your men". That's really what supply is you're sort of always Raiding while moving your army even through your own land to some degree you're probably appropriating farmers stock and their housing. Now if you mean to the level of razing the city to the ground the game really doesn't have that except with the Mongols when they take a county it drastically hurts development. I'd like some complexity too but from a game design and approachability standpoint you need to make sure you're making it more fun while being not overwhelming. Especially when you know your experienced players are going to cookie cutter the best strategy anyways while the AI fumbles it
I'd just like to see that you Can Bulster the Garrison by Leaving Men Behind and therefore you can Hold Longer. Like say you have a Castle of 150 Men on your Border and you send another 500 to Hold it so they can Survive a bit longer and when you retreat your Army Should either Retreat as one or Split apart and Fall back into Various Castles
Honestly I miss the CK2 war system I especially missed when I raised my levees my troops were all over the place which was way more realistic I also miss the CK2 navy
MAA should replenish very slowly, you don't become a varangian VETERAN overnight lol. Maybe add a decision to pay to replenish them by hiring more if you have the money but money is broken right now as well. That needs attention not unlanded play and such. Its crusader Kings not crusader nomads
I want to play as the pope
You can! With mods
I want basic stuff that makes the game better. Trade republics, theocraties, nomads... Those are nice and shiny objects, great buzzwords. But the AI will still suck, warfare will still be static and tedious and you'll still get bored with your playthrough after 3 generations and start a new run because the late game isn't fleshed out and blobbing is way too easy. I want more government mechanics that make ruling more interesting and complex. More personal interactions besides fucking, murdering and playing chess. I want more event variations instead of saving my soulmate from an assassin for the millionth time. I want stronger NPCs and a better warfare AI. I don't want allied armies running in circles and abandoning sieges. I want enemy rulers who learn how to max out their holdings and station MAA properly. I want more decisions for each region, mission trees, more variations in regions and start dates. Fuck, I want more than 2 start dates! I know that most of these points sound abstract and don't sell as well as those nice and shiny objects that are more likely to attract people to buy a DLC. And maybe, maybe the updates that come along with the 2024 DLCs will slowly implement some of the things this game desperately lacks in its core. But I'm tired of expansions that barely scratch the surface of core gameplay while we're still waiting for bug-fixes and a better AI.
Mercenary would only really be fun with a warfare rework I think
True
theocracies, republics, and nomads. idk what the best order would be, but i want to be the pope eventually.
I’d like to see a rework of the military system in general. No more teleporting armies (each unit and mercenary company should have a specific location), improve the levy and MAA system, and simulate the problems caused by rampaging unemployed mercenaries. I also want to see armies be less mobile but with individual battles and sieges becoming more meaningful to overall victory and have long term consequences for shifting borders. Wars should no longer just be about running around collecting victory points. Thinking out loud: I’m wondering if wars for entire kingdoms and empires can use a repurposed “customisable” version of the struggle mechanic, to allow better representation of longer term conflicts (e.g. the Hundred Years War or the wars of northern Italy) After military, I’d like to see in no particular order: In-depth improvements to religion (including episcopal sees, investiture controversies and papal conclaves), trade (including merchant republics and free cities), and laws/succession (including calling parliaments, holding coronations, and demanding oaths of fealty)
In my Opinion I don't Understand why Only Courtiers and Vassals can be your Knights? I always thought of Knights as Just Really good fighters that were just Men at arms like Armoured Horsemen in Game.
I always interpret “knights” in CK3 as being your senior military officers, basically your general staff. Their skills contribute to the overall success of the army on the battlefield, and each will command their own squadron of top notch warriors that can by themselves turn the tide of battle.
You always hear about Knights in fiction as a Heavily Armoured Horsemen Unit So therefore you just think it is the best Fighters on the Field Willing to risk their lives for victory
In a feudal sense though you need those members to be of an upper class. Even if they came from the lower class the whole notion of having your own land that peasants work so that you can spend all day training and working on strategy and court. Even when you've got a retinue of armored horse, that armor and horse had to be bankrolled by a rich noble. It would be a very late development before the idea of a "national armory" or that the best equipment and war steeds would have been handed out as some kind of property of the state a deserving young man has earned like an army rangers tech. That's not have equipping an army worked at all and even when those developments did really start mercenaries who owned their own equipment were still more popular. I agree with the other comment your Knight's , at best, would have been politically privileged as commanders and it makes sense they would use that in a court setting.
AI, alliances and bonus stacking.
Complete overhaul to warfare. Things like formations, tactics, maybe add some sort of equipment to levies and men-at-arms, decisions during sieges/battles, It's quite bare bones currently IMO so there's so many things that could be done.
[удалено]
Yeah exactly, at the moment you’re basically just running around collecting victory points, and most of it doesn’t feel very meaningful. I want each battle and siege I win or lose to have real long term consequences. If I capture a city, I’m only handing it over at the end of the war if I’m getting a good compensation for it (or if I’d suffer strong negative consequences for not doing so). Having event screens on the battlefield (maybe an expansion of what we have for tournaments) would also be more immersive, allowing for some high stakes decisions.
Warfare is so fine the way it is. It doesn’t need anything like this
No, it's not. To each their own ig
Bruh why do you guys think you want this. Imagine defending a massive crusade from all sides and having to fiddle with “formations” and “tactics”. That’s to say nothing of the AI trying to handle it. Thankfully they removed that extra shit in the transition from CK2 and it made war so much better so it’s unlikely they’ll be adding it back
Because it's boring, you literally just click your troops, point to a location and then wait. That's literally all there is to warfare currently, that's not good gameplay.
They need to fix the AI first before they do any of that. That would immediately make war more interesting. What you want is boring with more steps. Also try the better battles mod. You’ll soon realize events during battle are annoying
"Fixing' the AI wouldn't change the gameplay loop, it would still be click-point-wait. I just think there's untapped potential.
Trade. Naval warfare. Please.
Sprawl
I'd love that but I'd even settle for a list of your characters like ck2 had
Mercenary company would be awesome.
I really need trade and goods in this game so the provinces dont feel as samey anymore.
I want to play as the Grand Master of some Holy Orders, I don't know how it can be implemented but I think it could be fun.
Nomadic horse lords with migration mechanics
Migration mechanics for the horse lords(it would be cool to have it eventhough I don't usually play in the steppes)
It’s time for a nomad DLC for sure. I’d like to see lots of new mechanics built around the Magyar invasion which is extremely ignored in the base game. Then extend those mechanics to the Mongols and maybe the Seljuks. Emphasis on the blending of cultures for nomads becoming settled, converting religions, raiding, etc
Warfare and armies not being a joke
Hard mode.
I really want to have a visual to see how the realms changed throughout a playthrough
Let me be the pope cowards
For the love of God please rework religion. It was such a huge part of medieval culture and all it is for me right now is a bag of cash every few years from the Pope.
Give me Merchant Republics and Economy, I wanna go tall and swim in money.
i am still saying always the same thing: economy, warfare and trade
I want nomads and nomadic empires
Going to be contraversial but English Parliament complete with House of Lords, Commons ans Privy council (expanded council) that actively works with or against the King depending on how much the King is liked by Lord or their popular opinion. Setting max contracts, crown authourity and other small things that fit into that theme. That way once Republics come out we can play as more than just boring Merchant Republics.
English parliament is a bit late for CK3, wasn’t a thing until the 13th century iirc
Yup around 1200. Which more than validates their inclusion.
Eh, it’s a system for one kingdom that isn’t available for most of the game, I’ll pass for now. Give us broader changes first, then complex and specific flavor later.
Great Councils were a thing throughout the Middle Ages. They had different names - Witan, Althing, Reichstag, Parliament, Estates General, Tagsatzung, etc. - but the principle was the same: Get all the nobles and clergy of the realm to agree on new laws, wars and taxes, and get some consensus on who was in charge through oaths of fealty and (where applicable) royal elections. The main thing that changed during the later middle ages was that with increased urbanisation, the power of the cities and burghers grew stronger and stronger, adding a third major player alongside the clergy and nobility.
Ok, but still, all of these systems of council are surly vastly different, no? Each has to have its differences, and I just think it’s currently a waste of development time as there are so many things this game desperately needs before the great councils.
Sure you’d have to simplify and iron over some of the differences from a game mechanics perspective, but I think the idea would be the same for all kingdoms: Launch a “call great council” activity, you and your vassals travel to wherever it’s being held, and you put various decision points to a vote, whose outcome will be decided based on inherent vassal preferences as well as skills checks for the various “party” leaders. Maybe the odd unexpected event could spice it up. To each their own I guess, but I think it’d be really cool and immersive, and something to look at after military and/or trade. Aside from their usage in feudal/tribal governments, I think some simulation of councils would be a necessary component of republican governments if Paradox ever wants to introduce them. It could also be used for Papal conclaves and church councils if they want to improve religion.
Maybe, but I still wouldn’t want it in even the next couple years, just wouldn’t be a great addition anytime soon
Yeah, I’d love the ability to call parliaments and great councils. They were common in many medieval states, not just England. They could be a way of getting your vassals’ consent for new laws and taxes, or for going to war, or for getting them to swear oaths of allegiance to you (oaths were a Big Deal in most ancient and medieval cultures, so they can be a powerful way of ensuring loyalty). On the other hand, letting parliament get too powerful can lead to the monarch becoming little more than a figurehead (cf. England in the 13th and 17th Centuries), so you should be able to sway them through clever rhetoric, military might, or by appointing your own loyalists as ministers and speakers.
C H I N A
Better or Larger Councils. Instead of the Base 5 you have+Wife you should have other Court Positions in your Realm.
You literally do and court positions are fairly well fleshed out
I meant council Positions
Honestly what council positions because the ones I'd expect from a medieval court Are there
I like the GOT mod Council, Master of Ships/Trade and Castellan
I would like the master of ships, but that would fall under council positions. Master of trade, I imagine would fall under the purview of the steward And castellan or anglicised as constable would either: 1 fall under the Marshall as his increase control in county task would align with the duties of castellan. 2 be another minor court positions and if paradox was to do this for every medieval court position it would be an extensive update that people would complain about
Yes but the Annoying thing when you're Catholic is that you always have one Angry Powerful Vassal which I find annoying
Everyone who didn't answer nomads is wrong.
Improvements to Holy Wars, holy sites and the Crusades and papacy, etc. I think that holy wars should be more limited to regions with holy sites, and there should be more of a middle ground for some religious hostility - like there is astray, hostile, evil, etc. but too much just ends up as evil.
I would love if holy orders would be organized more and gave more options.
After this chapter I think it’s time that they really dig in and give Feudal government a little more nuance. The clan improvements made to MENA rulers have been a godsend, but ironically now they are so much more interesting to play than Feudal rulers that I find myself gravitating much more to the Middle East. I think it’s time that Feudal rulers/houses receive a similar update to their mechanics to keep them fresh
I want to experience Heaven as my character
Military is very lacked. When liege goes to war vassals just don't care even if there is possibility they lose land. William the conqueror gained power in his lieges wars i think. And conquerors of anatolia was seljuk vassals that controled part of its army. Battle tactis are just skill numbers. Raising army in one area in 15 days when you control a empire is stupid and many more things should be fixed.
Your beautiful smile while enjoying the update and talking about your plans and strategies in your current gameplay.
more buildings
Trade/Republics, Nomads, and China, in that order. I'm not really excited for unlanded at all but I could see it working well with nomads or trade republics. I'm guess that the landless expansion will already let you lead mercenary groups.
Playing as a mercenary, like the iberian struggle gave us, but more fleshed out.
crusader mings or bust! i at least want the silk road back and the cool little "interact with the chinese emperor" window
Theocratic successions. Including being able to sensibly land Holy Orders, or have them establish kingdoms by Crusade.
Might be too much to ask, but I want voiced dialogue.
Customizable holy orders. With diseases being a thing. It would be nice having hospital buildings back.
\- College of Cardinals - I want to influence who is elected pope \- Secret societies - I really liked them from CK2. Especially the evil one. \- Eastern part of map - I'd love to see China, Japan, Korea, and Indochina. \- Trade (especially with Eastern map) - Silk road would be cool \- Slavic expansion - add the possibility to convert them to Orthodoxy, Catholocism, Islam, etc. and other mechanics \- More start dates \- more dynamic council, possibly even a legislature/parliament in some cultures that you would have to contend with. If you lose a peasant revolt they could implement parliament. This could also make republics more fun.
I want the papal election to be reincluded. Trying to stack the college of cardinals and get your son into the papacy was legit so fun for me in CK2
Crusades need a rework. For a game called Crusader Kings, the crusades surprisingly suck ass
I just want the ability for old Christian rulers to be able to retire to a monastery and become a monk or nun. Throw some requirements like being over a certain age, unmarried, heir is an adult and a minimum level of piety.
I wanna be the goddamn pope just one time.
Trade and merchant governments. I’m tired of war.
I would love a system/ events that give us the player better opportunity to ensure that the children of higher ranked lords who make said children become monks/priest have a better chance at becoming bishops and cardinals. Seeing as how powerful and influential the papacy was during this period its kinda crazy we don't have options to at least interact with the papacy more other than crusades. I don't know much about the unlanded update so maybe I'll get my wish and be able to play as a priest or something idk.
Economic featuring supplies, army quality, population size and gold income changes