Crusader Kings III

[saskganesh]

Guy I know who was a history post grad, also had a gamer blog. He did good work there, networked it and was eventually hired by a certain Swedish game company that does niche historical computer games. He writes, edits and does PR for them. 

[The Brain]

Guy I know who was a history post grad, also had a gamer blog. He did good work there, networked it and was eventually hired by a certain Swedish game company that does niche historical computer games. He writes, edits and does PR for them.

DICE?

[garbon]

This first diary doesn't point to a fabulous direction. More of the nonsense around dynastic abilities (in vein of chromey divine blood)...now powerful heads of house and The Dynast?

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/ck3-dev-diary-1-dynasties-houses.1270519/

[Syt]

I don't mind them adding something like EU4 ideas to the game ... however, in the CK3 context it would make a lot of sense if you could lose those as well if your dynasty is going through a decline (could be a trade off - get rid of a few traits to help recover in a different area).

[Tamas]

Yeah, I mean, overall it is promising and I have no doubt by release day the hype machine will catch me completely, but what it does seem to be is the now true-and-tried (and rather tired) model of theirs of having you rake up a whole bunch of different points so you can click on buttons to unlock things to rake up unlock points quicker. Except the context here will be more pretend-RPG instead of pretend-historical-strategy.

[garbon]

Yeah, I mean, overall it is promising and I have no doubt by release day the hype machine will catch me completely, but what it does seem to be is the now true-and-tried (and rather tired) model of theirs of having you rake up a whole bunch of different points so you can click on buttons to unlock things to rake up unlock points quicker. Except the context here will be more pretend-RPG instead of pretend-historical-strategy.

Agree with all of that.

[jimmy olsen]

This first diary doesn't point to a fabulous direction. More of the nonsense around dynastic abilities (in vein of chromey divine blood)...now powerful heads of house and The Dynast?

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/ck3-dev-diary-1-dynasties-houses.1270519/

Cadet branches and dynamics for them have been a long term of the fan base.

[garbon]

Cadet houses sure, that weird a historical gloss to them?

[garbon]

How are you all feeling about the dev diaries so far?

[Josquius]

Any sign of moving away from the paint the map pink that is the paradox norm?

A big issue with CK was the break with realism in a Swedish duke inheriting Norfolk...and suddenly Norfolk is part of Sweden. It should be possible to have titles within different kingdoms.

[Valmy]

It wasn't part of Sweden, it still would follow Anglo-Saxon law. But yeah there was no way to have the King of England also be a vassal of the King of France as Duke of Aquitaine.

[The Brain]

Thanks for the casual racism.

[Valmy]

Thanks for the casual racism.

It's progressive for the dark ages

[dps]

I think that there are some promising things so far, but overall I'm getting a bad vibe about CKIII.  There are a lot of things that don't seem to make sense.  For example, baronies will now be directly on the map, but will always be part of the same county.  How does that make sense?  It would have made more sense for them to always be part of the same county in CKII, where they aren't on the map.

[The Minsky Moment]

However, we do have a concept of leasing baronies to other rulers, such as Holy Orders. This effectively gives them control of the holding along with the income it generates, without it "leaving" your real

That seems OK to me, assuming it includes all relevant feudal rights, including the right to call the levies.