SGO: Succession: What if the family is from a Germanic (i.e. Lex Salica) area?
Is descendance through the maternal line then forbidden? While its conceivable
that any king could have tried to pursue the Pragmatic Sanction this early, it’s
pretty unlikely it would have failed (or at least allowed everyone and their
cousin an opportunity to jump in with their rival claims to whatever’s being
inherited, as in real life). There should be contention and (severe) loyalty
tests/adjustments ANY TIME the succession isn’t simply father to eldest son.
Paradox: Indeed, the laws of succession can differ a bit between the countries
(and can be altered by the player within limits), but as you say, if the eldest
son is dispossessed there will usually be trouble (unless he happens to be a
complete vegetable – and sometimes even then).
SGO: Counties: what is the penalty for a King who doesn’t appoint new counts
to counties? It seems that would be a very advantageous thing to hurl your
counts into every little battle until they die, and then take it over as a royal
demesne – you don’t lose any taxes and there’s no risk of a failure of
loyalty.
Paradox: There is a ratio between the vassal provinces and the demesne provinces you can hold without penalty. Early on you may hold one demesne province for every three vassal provinces you have, but this ratio could change with events over time to simulate the expansion of the State Government. The penalty for having an unacceptably large royal demesne is a large loyalty decrease among your remaining vassals and the noble class. This eventually leads to rebellions, defections and loss of Prestige.
SGO: Dukes: what’s the incentive to the King to inserting another layer of
bureaucracy into the system? Is there a limit to the number of entities a King
can control?
Paradox: Dukes are a convenient way of mobilizing a good-sized “task force”
without having to raise the entire realm to arms. A Ducal force can be given
general orders and be relied upon to take care of itself, for example during a
Crusade. They also manage their own vassal Counts to the best of their ability,
leaving the King free to deal with other matters. Lastly, each Duke grants
Prestige to the ruler, since only a powerful country with many provinces can
have Dukes.
SGO: Power: I noticed that each of the different social classes in a region has
a power value – what is this good (or bad) for?
Paradox: The “Power” of a social class is simply used to determine how much
of the total tax value of a province that it controls. The clergy and nobility
are hard for a ruler to tax (requiring special and very unpopular laws), so he
will usually aim to take away power from them and give it the burghers and
peasants instead. However, this is difficult and will not be received well by
any noble, bishop/patriarch or religious head (Pope or Byzantine Emperor) in the
game.
SGO: A meta-question about the subject in general: There haven’t been many
Medieval games in general, and certainly few political ones. It seems strange
but on reflection it makes some sort of sense. Each of the oft-gamed periods
have a ‘great conflict’ – the Napoleonic Wars, WW2, Civil War, etc. You
can either play the dominant force, or the ones who resisted the dominant force,
but there’s always an overarching point, something you’re trying to
accomplish. Some of the criticism of the EU games was beating around this
without coming out and saying it – what’s the pull for gamers here? EU2
acknowledged this with the mission engine system – will something like that be
in CK as well? Saying “a bunch of nobles skirmished inconclusively” could
sum up the Middle Ages as a whole, so actually accomplishing anything might be
seen that the system promotes ahistorical results. Comments?
Paradox: EU and EU 2 were all about the experience of rewriting history; of
getting the feeling that you were making a difference, perhaps even a better
world (the more or less latent nationalist inside all of us was of course
thrilled). The games also provided a traditional empire building challenge in a
historical context (“can you make the Byzantine Empire great again”, etc.)
CK will be different. Instead of empire-building jingoism we aim for that greedy
feeling of amassing power and wealth that was so masterfully evoked by Sid Meier’s
“Pirates!”. Furthermore, the Prestige and Piety values will be much more
integrated into actual game-play that the victory points ever were in EU 2. The
AI behavior will be highly influenced by the prestige and piety of other
dynasties.
SGO: It would seem that the Crusades are the main event, but most reasonable
strategy gamers would veer from embarking on such a retrospectively futile
effort as establishing colonies in the Holy Land, at the end of a tenuous supply
line and with medieval technology. Clearly, there will be huge prestige values
for accomplishing such a thing, but it seems that balancing huge rewards against
huge risks fairly can be problematic. Either the reward’s not enough to get
anyone to try it, or the reward is so great the rest of the game isn’t
important enough to overcome the (luck) of the one guy that tries it. How do you
plan to induce players to make what, in most theoretical strategy planning
sessions, would be considered a huge blunder for something as intangible as
religion?
Paradox: If you disregard the potential gains in Prestige and Piety, the
Crusades are really more of a burden than an opportunity for the Catholic rulers
of Europe. (Here is an important reason for having Dukes on hand.) However, they
are not completely hopeless ventures; the cities in the Holy Land are rich in
plunder and it is never wrong to add a few extra provinces to your domain. The
supply problems are magically handled by the Church, so that Crusading armies do
not have to disband come winter. Also, let us not forget the “other”
Crusades in Iberia and the Baltic, which are especially juicy affairs for
neighboring Christian states, or the potential Crusades against rampaging Mongol
Hordes. Speaking of which, the Mongols are an important aspect of the game that
bears mentioning. Let’s not forget the Eastern European principalities and
kingdoms that were so brutally crushed by the Horde. Those states are also
playable, and in CK the Mongols do not necessarily halt and turn around when
Khan Ogadei dies…
End of interview.
Thank you very much Henrik and Joakim!
Wow. There is no question that the same company that built EU is working on this
game, is there? The depth of their answers echoes the early stages of EU’s
development, and we all saw how that turned out. It is quite clear that not only
have they thought comprehensively about the history that they want to simulate,
but they’ve thought hard about mechanics behind those systems that will induce
the players to behave historically, but not simply ape history.
This is an exhaustive exploration of the system as designed thus far. There are
a lot of things that they haven’t entirely nailed down yet, and I’m sure
there are things that are going to change from this very early stage to what
ends up in the box. Knowing the EU forums as well as I do, the members there too
will be serious participants in the design and construction of CK.
It’s not ad-copy hyperbole to say that EU2 is the greatest simulation of its
type of all time. Knowing the skill and dedication of the programmers who were
so instrumental in making it so, suggests to me that we can safely have pretty
high hopes for Crusader Kings. If they accomplish what they set out to do, it is
going to be just as good if not even better. (I just hope my piety is high
enough to get to review it too!)
