Crusader Kings III

Another thing would be to have very distant vassals have an opinion penalty, or have very distant territories have a control or public ofder penalty.
You can conquer things half way around the world, but it's harder to control and rebels more often then your core areas.
 
China would need a good Imperial system so that the internal dynamics work to keep it balanced. Of course so does the Byzantines so by having a good imperial system for the Byzantine Empire. So by doing that for the Byzantine Empire, major ground work for China is being laid down.

Another thing would be to have very distant vassals have an opinion penalty, or have very distant territories have a control or public ofder penalty.
You can conquer things half way around the world, but it's harder to control and rebels more often then your core areas.
This would be great in general, not just China and help to promote internal conflicts.
 
Tribal Realms are basically unplayable leaving the novel feature of faith reformation 50% uselessness: you won't be able to reforme pagan religions which are most interesting to reform.
No they're not, I've had a quite succesful game as the Borjigin duke in 1066, claiming my ruler's title, deposing him, and a few generations later, reforming the Tengri faith and establishing the Mongol Empire through the decision (which has High Federative succesion, which is great). The only thing bad about tribals is that you lose all your buildings after switching to feudalism, which completely tanks your economy and military. CKII handled that better.
 
Last edited:
China would need a good Imperial system so that the internal dynamics work to keep it balanced. Of course so does the Byzantines so by having a good imperial system for the Byzantine Empire. So by doing that for the Byzantine Empire, major ground work for China is being laid down.


This would be great in general, not just China and help to promote internal conflicts.
You can have the Whole Tributary system that the Ming and Yuan had.
 
So something I am wondering is what would people think of having the religions broken down by provinces not stopping at county level. So for example or example take Navasarika, you could have the city of Navasarika following Svetambara Jainism, the castle of Akrursevara following the Digamabara Jainism, the empty holding of Bharuch, Rajpipla, and Nandurbar following Shaivism. This would likely have the impact of slowing down conversion, as the provinces themselves are converted, but I see that as a good thing.

Curious what others think of this idea? :)
 

Rosenheim

Donor
I would like it if, depending on culture/religion/terrain, some provinces are just bad to hold. Actively sucking up cash and manpower, encouraging you to release them/not take them unless you have a lot of resources. If you are a Spanish king for example, holding interior North Africa should be a money pit until you convert the local populace.
 
I think having a pie chart/very bare bones "pop" system would be better.
I think the devs have said they don't want a pop system, so this might be the best we can get. Not to mention the code is all there from what I can tell.

I would like it if, depending on culture/religion/terrain, some provinces are just bad to hold. Actively sucking up cash and manpower, encouraging you to release them/not take them unless you have a lot of resources. If you are a Spanish king for example, holding interior North Africa should be a money pit until you convert the local populace.
How do you think that should be repersented exactly? as in what would make those provinces hard to hold exactly?
 

Rosenheim

Donor
I think the devs have said they don't want a pop system, so this might be the best we can get. Not to mention the code is all there from what I can tell.


How do you think that should be repersented exactly? as in what would make those provinces hard to hold exactly?
The easy solution would be, rather than providing you with wealth, they actively drain wealth. You would still be "collecting taxes", but it would be offset by 1) the costs of garrisoning a very unruly populace and 2) the difficulty in actually taxing a populace that can disappear into the desert or etc. One of the things that the HIP mod for CK2 did that I really like is put a lot of negatives on a "recently conquered" province, which could be replicated.

Thus, for like the first 10 years the interior African province is a huge money pit, for another 10-20 it's still sucking a bit of money, then after that it has a low tax base. This can be changed by the populace converting culture and religion.

It's not a perfect solution, but there is a reason why it was difficult for the Iberian (and southern Italian) kingdoms to project force into North Africa over a sustained period. I would be concerned with it being an unfair malus on non-feudal realms in culturally diverse areas (Central Asia, Russia, etc.) so maybe have the system be much less severe for chiefdoms/khanates to represent their less direct control.

EDIT: The other major concern would be the AI, of course, as I would not expect it to understand that non-stop conquering is bad.
 
Last edited:
The easy solution would be, rather than providing you with wealth, they actively drain wealth. You would still be "collecting taxes", but it would be offset by 1) the costs of garrisoning a very unruly populace and 2) the difficulty in actually taxing a populace that can disappear into the desert or etc. One of the things that the HIP mod for CK2 did that I really like is put a lot of negatives on a "recently conquered" province, which could be replicated.

Thus, for like the first 10 years the interior African province is a huge money pit, for another 10-20 it's still sucking a bit of money, then after that it has a low tax base. This can be changed by the populace converting culture and religion.

It's not a perfect solution, but there is a reason why it was difficult for the Iberian (and southern Italian) kingdoms to project force into North Africa over a sustained period. I would be concerned with it being an unfair malus on non-feudal realms in culturally diverse areas (Central Asia, Russia, etc.) so maybe have the system be much less severe for chiefdoms/khanates to represent their less direct control.

EDIT: The other major concern would be the AI, of course, as I would not expect it to understand that non-stop conquering is bad.
I meant more how would you check if a county is difficult to hold for another region?
 
I meant more how would you check if a county is difficult to hold for another region?
Distance from the capital holding. It worked that way in Medieval 2 Total War, and that was like, what, 20 years ago? CK could pull it off. They already calculate distance for diplomatic interactions and vassals breaking away when over the vassal limit in CK2, after all.
 

Rosenheim

Donor
I meant more how would you check if a county is difficult to hold for another region?
This is off the top of my noggin, so not fully formed thoughts:

1) Type of terrain. A desert should be much harder to hold than a fertile valley.
2) Combo of religion and culture. A Welsh Catholic province shouldn't necessarily be a money pit for say an English Catholic king, but it should be a bit less manageable. In comparison Norse religion and culture province should be a huge pain.
3) Perhaps distance from capital region.

Certain religions might also be able to hold regions better than others. Like a more tolerant one has less negatives to their rule over a differing religion populace, though again, hard to balance.

EDIT: Another possibility is that appointing a ruler to the region of that culture/religion could also reduce the negatives.
 
Last edited:

Pen

Banned
Hey, nice, the game is for sale in Australia now.

Now I've gotta work out where 70 bucks is gonna come from.
 
I've been looking through the religion mechanics for CK3 and I kind of feel that Jizya Taxes could have been better dealt with as a Doctrine rather than a Tenet. Partly because it means that a lot of Muslim faiths don't have it when they arguably should, due to the 3 Tenet limit, and also so it could reflect the different attitudes People of the Book throughout the Muslim world. Instead I would give Muslim faiths a Special Doctrine called Dhimmi Status with different options to choose from.

Not Recognised: This faith doesn't recognise the concept of Dhimmi status. Fundamentalism or Zandaqa and not Pluralist is a requirement to choose this option.

Strict Interpretation: Only Christians, Jews and Sabians are recognised as People of the Book.

Broad Interpretation: All Non-Muslim Abrahamic, Zoroastrian and Gnostic faiths are recognised as People of the Book.

Open Interpretation: All Non-Muslim Abrahamic, Eastern and Reformed Pagan faiths are recognised as People of the Book. Pluralism or Zandaqa and not Fundementalist is a requirement to choose this option.

Any faith that is recognised as Dhimmi cannot be regarded as Evil, their counties are subject to the Religious Taxation modifiers and they might also have a resistance to conversion. Those that aren't recognised might have an opinion malus and maybe a bonus to conversion.
 
Last edited:
I also think that there should be a Tenet that makes you view other Faiths in your Religion as Evil, unless they have the requisite special doctrines that make them Astray or if they're both Gnostic in which case they are just regarded as Hostile. Possibly also cancels out the effects of Syncretism too.
 
Enjoying the game so far, but I have some criticisms about certain choices made regarding religion and culture. Also, I hope we get naval combat in due time.
 
Top