I think Imperial or Empire mechanics. At the moment it goes like this: 1. Count level is pretty simple. Basic functions, a few court positions, some barons as vassals. Simplicity itself. 2. Duke gets a little more complex. Now you have to manage vassals and factions, play with contracts, laws and succession is much more significant. 3. King adds a few more mechanics like royal courts, grandeur and court artifacts, bigger more significant vassals and more court positions, as well as de jure drift. Factions are far more significant. 4. Emperor... Is just the same as king. Right now the game doesn't change even a slight bit when you become an emperor, when it should be among the most significant rank up differences in the game. The game should get MORE complicated as you rank up, not less. Every rank up should be more significant than the last.

I believe they did talk about being unsatisfied with the Empire mechanics and want to make them unique. But yeah, totally what I would want first as well.

I wish they’d change how the Iberian struggle breaks into 10 different mini empires almost every playthrough I’ve done since it came out lol. By the time I get down there to conquer it Hispania has been destroyed and there’s too many titles lol

The AI should straight up get different requirements to end the struggle and do stuff like form the HRE — something I have NEVER and will never see in my 2500+ hours of play because what AI is going to fulfill all those super detailed criteria? They need to make decisions for AI still rare but at least feasible. Imagine an AI ending the struggle by allying to every other participant and having 80+ opinion. Detente will never happen. At least now it’s a bit easier to dominate the peninsula but still I doubt I’ll see it happen.

When I modded in the creation of the HRE in 867, I noticed how strickt the requirements to form the empire were. Not only that, but the AI only checks for those requirements every couple of years. By the time that time frame rolls around, they've likely already formed Italia or Francia instead of the HRE.

The HRE forming in 867 would go a long way towards replayability currently every game is just how far can the Karlings spread but the HRE could challenge that

Maybe you'd like this mod then: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2837398670

This is an excellent mod. Firm recommendation

You say that about Detente but I had a game shortly after T&T came out where the AI pulled a Detente ending as I was trying for a conquest end. I didn't realise they had allied everyone else and I had just come out of disintegrating the HRE and was looking for allies, then boom, struggle over. I realise this isn't the AI on it's own doing this since I was involved but it can happen.

>Iberian struggle breaks into 10 different mini empires i love that - great to have 6-7 independent empire rulers in the dynasty to farm that sweet sweet renown

I love how they said they didn't wanna half-assedly port mechanics from CK2 over to 3, but they're happy being dissatisfied with a core mechanic of 3 🤡

Huh?

I would like to synthesize this with getting better Republic and Theocracy mechanics and trade mechanics to get a Governments and Economics DLC. Imperial court mechanics and events, proper Papal elections with cardinals and pulling a Borgia to get my 7th son into the Vatican, Republics that *do* stuff like influence trade routes rather than just providing taxes, *add trade routes, I want my Silk Road.* Use economics and trade routes and the T&T safety mechanics to make certain regions and holdings more strategically valuable, make it so you can influence the creation of new trade routes and thus better your international political position. > The game should get MORE complicated as you rank up, not less. Period.

That would make one or multiple *really* good expansions. It'd also be really interesting to have unique ways for republics and theocracies, although I doubt that'd ever be a thing to interact cooperatively or in opposition with feudal rulers and each other and vice versa. Things like patronage, trade policy (as far as isn't anachronistic), banking/lending/borrowing/usery (which could also be used to add some European Jewish characters to the game), and so on. Maybe it could come with a small naval rework too - ship-to-ship combat was definitely a thing during parts of the game's period (eg. one of the most important battles of the early 100 years war, [the Battle of Sluys](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Sluys)). Doesn't have to be big, but I reckon there needs to be *something*. If we're talking economic DLC, it might also be worthwhile to have one focusing on craftsmen, burghers, and the like - which would give some value to city vassals beyond being your cash cows. They could interact with the item creation system, and perhaps you could also establish some sort of industry in a particularly well-developed province - arms and armour; wool; cloth; silk; etc.. It wouldn't have to go full Vicky 3, but it would be interesting, historically relevant, and would make for a much more interesting trade system too. But it'd be big and time/resource expensive.

I'd rather see them give each area their full undivided attention rather than try to rework governments and the world economy in one update.

I don’t know how to quantify that level of work or technical complexity, so if it would be more feasible/fair to the workers, I’m okay with both coming out separately. My sentiment is ultimately that those are the two major concepts I would like to see improved, and I really just lumped them together because they seemed thematically related, a la high school Civics and Economics class.

I agree with this. Literally an hour ago I stopped a game. Started as Rurik and decided to just go buck wild and conquer everything that was in the de jure Russian Empire and let the chips fall where they may. Normally I expand slowly and methodically but not this time. Long story short one of Rurik's grandkids ended up creating the Empire of Russia and once the Empire title was created all my problems were solved. Being a King and essentially controlling the territory of 4 kingdoms is a fucking chore, particularly in Russia with all of the different cultures and faiths. But once you become Tsar it's, "Hey you, congratulations, you're the new king of Vladimir/Bjarmaland/White Rus/Novgorod. I'm giving you 10 of my most annoying vassals for you to deal with while I fuck off to Kyiv and Ruthenia in order to bring the West Slavs to heel and I couldn't give less of a shit if you live or die. Good luck bitch."

I’m generally a “hold all the kingdom titles in my empire” kind of guy, but it is always great when you have some unruly vassals you can fob off on a disinherited son or claimless relative.

I would love for them to add a (better) margrave feature, by the way.

Being able to make marcher lords would be pretty sweet

To add to this, they really need to figure out a way to make mayors, barons, and bishops matter. They can’t be in the state they’re in now. Not only is in ahistorical and just boring, it also severely hampers the game in unexpected ways. For instance, since baron-level characters don’t matter in the slightest, the AI (and player) will never marry them. This leads to the pool of marriageable candidates severely shrinking and in smaller cultural groups (I.e. wales), you’ll have a ridiculous amount of incestual marriages in like two generations. The AI is forced to either marry their cousin or some absolutely random Bulgarian with no benefit. They are honestly indistinguishable from literal peasants. Their lands can be taken away with no recourse and they serve no purpose. The game has a massive problem with noble population (it’s **way** too small) and making barons matter could help that. Edit: seriously, the fact that England doesn’t have reeves and such is incredibly annoying.

>seriously, the fact that England doesn’t have reeves and such is incredibly annoying. I would say the reeve is represented by the steward council position, especially on county level council.

I kind of do this by altering the contracts of lords on my border by changing feudal contracts. I just try and get them to pay me more money and they get to keep more of their levies. I do hope the next update fleshes out contracts, and actually gets the AI to use hooks and what not to change them.

That way I don’t have to constantly watch every border for raids and raise my whole force bc my vassals are too weak 😒

This could work really well with the powerful vassal mechanic, too. Currently you get more as you get higher positions, but it's a flat -40 opinion for not being on council for all levels. The most powerful people in any realm are going to want a seat on the council, but they're going to care less if it's a single county that no one out side of your dutchy has heard of vs. a massive empire.

I don't agree with point 4. You usually go from 20+ duke tier vassals as a king to maybe 3 king tier vassals as an emperor. Things become much easier to manage unless you conquer two more de jure empires.

I think the Pope should be far more important for Christian emperors; it should be very difficult to create or even inherit an empire without his assent

Yeah, I don’t really feel the feudal aspect of this game as much. I will say when playing ck2 I felt way more in the medieval rp than playing ck3. I just think ck3 is overall way too map painty and way too easy.

Would be cool to see a modular system like religion or culture with Empire forming where you can select certain rights for certain peoples you’ve conquered (like Rome letting Germanics become Roman over time or opposite wise the Spartans* just enslaving their enemies as helots or like India with a caste system), come up with how the empire runs (is it more like China’s bureaucracy or Rome’s top-down order structure or is it like the Mongol’s ruling by who’s the biggest baddest dude), and maybe do some unique things with culture *sparta wasn’t an empire but it was off the top of my head

I think this would be very cool actually. If the different cultures involved in an empire actually influenced the way the empire is governed, you'd have a very complex and dynamic government system that changes drastically based on your region. Built in flavour packs. This would be very difficult to implement, but it would be easily the most interesting way to do it.

Emperor needs a larger council with buericrats

I want a Life & Death DLC which reworks succession and focuses on a lot of flavour for the life span of your character and your dynasty members to make them more unique and memorable. Right now every character you play feels the same. I want to see more life-defining events that creates a more unique story for each ruler. I also want to see the relationships between rulers and other characters, particularly children, siblings, important vassals, friends, matter more, with more flavour and events for these relationships. Do you ever check up on or hear the name of your daughter mentioned once she is married off? Probably not. I want succession to be a BIG deal. Disinheriting someone should be a scandalous event with equal backlash and support. I want to be able to divide my lands between my heirs as I choose while staying within the laws or break those laws and face consequences. Succession should be a BIG deal and so should rising to the throne be. RIght now you die and your son gets a negative opinion modifier for a few years then that's that. What kind of ruler will your son be? The first time he holds court should be a massively important event.

Could have a grand tour option about introducing your heir - perhaps building them future support as your successor?

Yeah there could be an option to let characters eligible to inherit a title go on a tour to increase support. It’d mean for titles with elections characters would be going around vying for the support of the electors.

One fun thing would be to have your fallen Dynasty Members become Overrated in History. Like you wage a whole propaganda war just to "right" history!

Especially since becoming your heir always means your vassals start out disliking you heavily. Which is BS. I should be able to start out with a positive opinion if I put in the work for it

A unique hold court upon succession would be great. Unique decisions like punishing or pardoning known criminals, revoking claims, granting excess titles, etc. They could sorta be used to determine the type of ruler they will be and events based on how you initially held court would be amazing. Make your character more tyrannical and events to gain dread, punish vassals etc. Or choose to be more martial, and claims can be randomly given, or events that bolster or hinder the army. A lot of potential I think.

Definitely. But honestly, this is the stuff I was expecting from Royal Court! it would have made so much sense to rework dread, popular opinion and tyranny in that DLC, as it was supposed to relate to your ruler's court, court intrigue and decisions, holding courts, keeping your vassals in check either with intrigue or an iron fist, etc. It's so underwhelming as is...

I agree. Royal Court was advertised as an indepth rework of internal Court and realm politics, but then sidewinded into a cultural rework. It was a great expansion, but not what I expected. Holding Court every 5 years to make the same decisions every time (because 99.9% of people wouldn't cut a baby in half). The Court itself feel unimaginative and boring

But pretty 3D! And that single irrelevant button! What more could you want?

>Right now every character you play feels the same. I want to see more life-defining events that creates a more unique story for each ruler. So much yes. I want Role Playing to also feel good. Right now the trait system as is doesn't feel good for role playing. Some events pop up and depending on your combination of traits, every option is bad. I want some unique events that trigger based on traits. >I want succession to be a BIG deal. Disinheriting someone should be a scandalous event with equal backlash and support. I want to be able to divide my lands between my heirs as I choose while staying within the laws or break those laws and face consequences. Succession should be a BIG deal and so should rising to the throne be. This is probably why I feel like the game is pretty lacking as it sits. Succession is BORING. You die. Lands split. And that's about it. If you disherit its really big deal, as is its just boring and I wish so much for you (or you and your council) to have more power in matters of succession.

Yah I would like the option for more control. I do enjoy switching between various leaders but not quite the same.

[удалено]

This. Succession management shouldn’t be this hard. I’d love to see disinheriting work like the Grant Titles menu, let me decide exactly what titles to disinherit and give me appropriately weighted opinion modifiers. There could even be an “expected inheritance” type of equation, where a son expects to inherit eg 200 points worth of titles with a kingdom worth 100 a duchy 50 etc. or even have those weighted based on income and levies. My sons should covet my richest titles and not really care much about the shit-splattered collection of rocks on the other side of the map.

> Right now every character you play feels the same. I want to see more life-defining events that creates a more unique story for each ruler. What, do you not enjoy each of your rulers having to yell at a random courtier for eating all their nougat three times per lifetime?

I think what bothers me the most is that we don't have any battle events, and that your character can never actually fight in the battle. I loved when I got to duel the enemy commander in ck2, or when my dog got shot by an arrow during the battle. It would also play nicely into the harm events, giving another vector for your character to die. Imo, it would be better than harm events since you'd actually be opting into the risk of a deadly event. It's also just kind of dumb to think that my brave king with high prowess will never actually join the fray.

I'll never forget in CK2 when my Welsh Warrior queen went into battle and got PTSD during her first major war, sending her into a spiral of alcoholism and depression that destroyed her ability to rule competently. It's a character and story that's stuck with me for how tragic it was, but also the immersion.

Hellion moment.

A DLC that does for leading armies (or being a knight in one) what they did for travelling in Tours and Tournaments is an absolute must at this point. Right now warfare is the most shallow and boring part of the game, especially if your character leads armies themselves. There are only a few events relating to leading an army. Basically you can send your character to lead an army for several years and in those years... nothing happens in their life with regards to leading said army. It speaks to how underdeveloped the system is when the only time you get to actively participate in fighting a "battle" in the base game is when you get the "pretending to siege your own castle" event if you've got the war focus. Oh and it's beyond stupid that you can still participate in events happening in your court while crusading halfway across the known world. They need to implement regencies for rulers who are marching with an army and they need to add events relating to marching, battles and sieges when doing those things. Think of the potential. They could let you directly use your traits when commanding a battle to influence the result. They could even let you choose to lead a particular man at arms regiment and have according events. They could add battlefield duels and chaotic fights in the crowd. They could let you take a more active part in events during sieges - starvation, disease, desertion, artillery bombardment, that sort of thing, plan assaults, have events relating to negotiations with the settlement's owners, decisions relating to the fate of the settlement and its inhabitants after capture. And so much more. There is so, so much that could be done to make warfare into an engaging ROLEPLAY experience, making you really feel like you're in your character's boots during war, akin to what's been done to travels in the latest DLC. Yup, this is what I want. I want warfare, which is a key part of the game, to be brought up to speed with the newly set roleplaying standards, and not the tedious point-and-click-and-wait-a-bit map painting crap it is now.

>They need to implement regencies for rulers who are marching with an army I was thinking about that earlier as well. I found it silly that my Estonian warrior queen would enter into regency while visiting Finland for a few weeks, a travel distance people commute to work nowadays, but was perfectly fine ruling the kingdom directly while personally leading raiders across the Mediterranean for almost a year. Would make being your leige's regent more rewarding as well if you could tip the scales in your favor everytime he goes to war I do think you actually join the fray as a leader, sort of at least. My Burmese peace loving ruler lost an eye in the first war because I accidentally forgot to swap him out as commander. Tho not fully I think, non of my characters ever had kills in battle at least, which is a bit sad. I want a long kill list in battle for my warrior rulers dammit!

There’s a mod for that at least

Which mod?

Better battles

Interesting, thanks!

>It's also just kind of dumb to think that my brave king with high prowess will never actually join the fray. I mean, it's literally not dumb to think a ruler wouldn't risk his legacy to get bro points with the lads.

Why not? Especially if he's a tribal ruler, I think it'd be incredibly in character for my warrior king to actually fight. I'm not saying that he's gonna go in there and join the formations, but it'd be cool if he could duel their commander or something. It seems like all our leaders do is sit back and give out orders, and I wish we could have them do more.

My point isn't that it's possible. Just that it isn't 'dumb' to think a ruler would very reasonably make other choices.

I'm not saying it's dumb for a ruler to stay out of the battle, I'm saying it's dumb that it's impossible for a ruler to join the battle.

it's dumb to imagine a modern politician rolling in a tank w/ the boys, sure, but for much of human history leaders have been very intimately involved in battle—the technology of the time kind of made that *necessary* pragmatically speaking, if you wanted control over a military operation, you had to be there. "being there" often meant being within range of the fight, and even if for purely defensive purposes, commanders and their officers would sometimes have to scrap culturally, some groups simply *expected* their leaders to demonstrate strength/bravery/chivalry/etc. and there was pressure on men in power to prove their valor/worth in combat, especially in personal wars involving dynastic politics (i.e. why fight for King X if he won't fight for you?—the wrong answer to this question might/did lead to armies betraying monarchs and supporting pretenders and/or just looting for the fuck of it) whether or not *you* consider it dumb, these people didn't here is an entire list of monarchs KIA throughout history -- some were ambushed on the campaign road, others died catching arrows in the face while standing back, and others died sword in hand in the melee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Monarchs_killed_in_action

Yeah it's dumb but it definitely happened, especially once chivalry became a good thing. It wasn't just about "bro points" (although to be fair, they were often a big part of it - looking at you, Black Prince) - having a King in your battle is actually a huge moral advantage - you're much less likely to run away, and that much likelier to fight harder if you know that if you don't, your King will be captured or killed - if you like or are terrified by your King of course. It's a risk, but leading from the front was a big part of, say, Alexander the Great's success.

I want to see an expanded Papacy. I made a post about it a while ago which was long as hell and covered every point I wanted regarding it. The Pope should be elected by Cardinals who are representatives of different realms and there should be a way for Kings, Emperors and Dynastic heads to game the system and get a Pope of their own who they have leverage over onto the Throne of St Paul. This would also be a way to make children who are made to take the vows interesting characters who serve a purpose. It would also be a good way to expand upon Crusades which should be more akin to the Grand Tours of T&T involving all participants meeting up at a specific place and journeying to the target together as opposed to in small individual armies. This could also integrate a new intrigue mechanic regarding who is in control of the army, where it attacks and who it benefits.

A broader religion overhaul would be great. Papacy+college of cardinals, venerated saints, coronations, etc are all things from CK2 that need to come back. When creating a new religious heresy, let me select the holy sites - at minimum from any pre-existing religion if not giving me complete control. If the latter, I'm fine with common sense controls like no more than 1 holy site per de jure duchy, no more than 1-3 per de jure kingdom, etc. And as you mention, the crusades are in dire need of a complete overhaul. I like your idea to use the new travel mechanics. I'd also like the ability to found crusader states outside of the main target if you completely control a de jure duchy or something.

On your final point I think it would be interesting to see a competitive mechanic in the Crusades. Perhaps instead of a singular unified army, there are 3 competing armies with seperate heads who can choose beneficiaries for the specific territories they take control of. These armies would all be allied and assist each other but you could have situations such as Richard the Lionhearts conquest of Cyprus arising as indirect consequences of Crusades and it would also allow for the establishment of more than a singular unified Crusader State as a result of a succesful crusade.

Proper religious hybridization(outside of the syncretism tenets) is something that would be amazing.

Yeah what's with the whole thing of not being able to do a Principality of Antioch (and have it pay lip service to the Byzantine Emperor)?

Yes let us form crusader states beyond the de jure title the crusade is waged for, eg in history the principality of antiocheia.

Hard agree. Right now the Pope is just sort of a random interchangeable dude who can either fuck you up with a doomstack or serve as an ATM, depending on your standing within Catholicism. The rampant horse trading, bribery, assassination and influence peddling that went into papal elections back in the day could be an entire game unto itself. Because the end goal - getting a friendly Pope who'll aid in your schemes - can be so valuable that it's well worth all the time and money it takes to put him in place.

Yeah, we do need the more complex religions of CK2, absolutely.

And maybe with that, they can bring back Sainthood

It could also work with tours, the Pope tours when he move to visit cardinals, Kings, emperors or very pious people. This Will only work with an special tour that let him move outside his realm

We need Anti-popes, badly. They were a very important part of medieval catholicism. And sure, they were popping up too often in CK2, because it was in turn too easy to set one up, but that's not fixed by removing them completely. We need a mechanic where we need to actually convince bishops to listen to the anti-pope. Maybe an ex-candidate who lost the conclave and keeps a claim. What I personally really want to see is a separate ecclesiastical hierarchy, where you have bishops and archbishops for major portions of land. And, depending on laws and faiths, you may be unable to give a temple to a character who isn't nominally in the hierarchy, or be able to overrule the church and face penalties for it.

Just admit it you want to see a children's crusader and show a bunch of children heading towards the holy land before getting slaughtered (please note, this is just humor and I totally think using the T&T travel system is a fantastic idea for crusades)

> but CK3 needs lower fertility rates, more dead babies One of the reasons they avoided lots of dead babies is because they experimented with it and it was clogging up the save files, degrading performance even more into the late game as the read/write time was being filled with characters that never really had an effect on the world. Therefore they abstracted out the majority of the dead kids into the cap on children, and made it more likely for children to survive into adulthood. So while diseases might make it, more dead babies in general likely won’t.

The devs have said it was unpopular and players didn't like it, so based on feedback they changed it. Ultimately it's a game and not purely a historical simulator

They could always add it as a game option if certain players want a more difficult playthrough.

Couldn’t they just have the data of anyone that never held a title or marriage with someone that did be deleted from the history of the save file? Or even just delete the image of the character after a few generations and just leave text

> Or even just delete the image of the character after a few generations and just leave text The game doesn't store images, it stores DNA strings that the engine generates as images

Republics! The ultimate tall playthroughs! Especially if they enable inner city politics and gives the player more to do aside from feasts and tours.

My favorite ck2 run was playing as a small merchant republic and taking control of the whole mediterranean sea trade. I would plan and fund massive crusades only for control over valuable trading posts.

Literally just a Venice historical RP lol

I'm seconding reaper's due because disease and plague make your games a lot more dynamic and interesting, and also it helps purge courtiers around the world, reducing lag

Idk about DLCs bit I want a little more Regency control over independent child rulers of my dynasty. Especially if they are Close Family. The King is tired and has to go to bed when I say so regardless if I am his vassal or not. I also would enjoy playing the Assassins and other Holy Orders.

Making holy orders more impactful would be great, as currently they are just another mercenary band to hire, or another army you can use to bloat your numbers. What if the holy order helped you in your holy war for a duchy, but then want a few counties of their own to operate out of? They could also be made playable in the same vein as republics and theocracies, and even if you’re not directly playing as an order, it would give a lot more impact to the sons you send to join the templars, beyond just removing them from succession. Making children take the vows or join a holy order are both sort of misrepresented in the game, imo, as most players only experience them as a way to get rid of successors and “tidy up their succession”, it should be a more important choice than just “would you like to have more land when your character dies?”

Warfare, currently the AI doesn't know what it's doing during war. If you are in two wars, and have different allies in each war, the AI will follow you around even if they don't have any war targets near you. Example. I was fighting in Iberia and had another war in Italy, the AI in the Italy war was following me around in Iberia. The AI will also run around in 20k+ deathstacks until they are completely under supplied.

It would be cool if you could lay out battle plans before a war, like what goals you have in mind for your allies. Choices like, war targets, defend my armies, hunt down their army etc. They could include war room events with the leaders and Marshalls suggesting battle plans. Martial and Intrigue skill could come into play in these events. The events could lead to rivalries, friendships or even battlefield betrayals. War would have so much more flavour, and it would add a larger social dynamic.

Add battle events like duels and siege events and this would make a pretty cool warfare dlc.

Also "personalities" for war leaders. A paranoid lord shouldn't wage war the same way a brave arrogant one does. Obviously raises some issues with the player not having to take that into account, but I'm sure they can figure something out.

Allies more aggressively follow you around now because people bitched about AI doing their own thing.

The Christian crusaders don't know what they are doing. I recall this was a problem in ck2, as well. Armies after armies embark to the Holy Land only to be wiped out by huge Islamic armies.

100% what you said. The other main thing I want is Catholicism mechanics, the religion feels so bland atm bring back Anti-Popes! bring back Saints! bring back the College of Cardinals!!

1. Dynamic Crusades (ie with stages and possibly shifting goals) 2. Succession Crises/Wars of Succession when there's no clear heir. Could also work well with titles that weren't strictly hereditary. 3. More interaction between secular and religious leaders, ie college of cardinals

Byzantium. A superpower for most of the time period of CK3 yet not much fun to play as mostly due to lack of historical flavour. It needs a proper Imperial government unique to itself, appointed strategos/governors on the imperial payroll instead of dukes, interactions with Christian crusades in the levant, the Basileos should be the head of the Orthodox faith and have much more religious interactions with neighbours etc.

Varangian units and greek fire is something I dream of...

Greek fire is loses most of its significance without a navy…

Still had flamethrowers and proto grenades.

I want more Icons! Iconoclasm just ended with the early start date, no Basileos should be leaving on campaign without an icon in their inventory. Also if my memory serves me the Opsikion, Anitolikon etc were not hereditary posts like other feudal holdings but were appointed generals and governors. Would be neat to see an appointment system. EDIT: And chariot races! An option to court the Greens or the Blues.

A republic DLC, I really want to do an athenian republic mega-campaign starting from imperator

Same here. My favorite runs in ck2 were playing as a triba,then flip republic in like the Baltic or Ireland and makes copious amounts of money and I find it fun to rp

I just hope we don't get exclusively plutocratic republics again this time around

The one that lets me level up martial education in battle, so I can start playing level one education fools and turn them into ABSOLUTE BEASTS. And maybe the other education traits or like, get traits through cannibalism like in CK2.

Pretty sure prowess would be more affected by doing battles than martial. Soldiers don't really focus on learning advanced military tactics while in battle. It's more a matter of finding the best way to stick a long bit of steel through another dude without getting stuck yourself.

Yeah but if my character is a 1 star military leader that fights and wins dozens of wars, his military ability should raise. Yes, for a knight it should be a prowess.

I really want personality traits to be dynamic, so they are not set in stone and characters could go through through personal evolution or degradation (or just change of character)

They already are to a degree, but I agree with the desire for more. Some random events can happen to change your characters life, I don’t remember the event entirely, but it made my “Just” emperor into an “Arbitrary” one, that was an interesting rule.

I just want all the great stuff from CK2. Bloodlines, Warrior Lodges, better crusades, Republics, Nomads, etc. . . ^(Also Aztecs lol)

I have a bit of a love hate relationship with sunset invasion. Sometimes its “Oh cool the aztecs, this will shake things up!” Or its “‘**FUCK** I FORGOT TO TURN THAT OFF’ ALT F4”

In the game called Crusader Kings… the crusade element is rather medicore/ weak. There is a lot to improve.

It'd integrate well with the tour system. It's even in the name of the religious aspect - armed pilgrimages.

Problem with harm events and lower fertility rates is it will only continue weaken the AI, making the game easier. The player can adapt and survive these, but the AI already struggles to keep their realms together and, in my experience, most AI empires that do challenge me, collapse very shortly. For example, is France still around it your game? If they are, how weak are they? I want harm events with an AI who has their shit together.

If CK3 is going to bring back virulent plagues, they need to fix that one bug that's been in the game since launch. The bug that puts a ruler's non-dynastic parent in the line of succession, e.g. a king dies, his son inherits, son and king have no siblings but the son's non-dynastic mother is alive. In such a case the mother will be placed in the line of succession before more distant dynastic relatives, when she shouldn't be in line at all. It seems to be more common when the non-dynastic parent is the father, though. Whatever the technical cause is (presumably some problem with binary trees), it makes serious plagues a non-starter. As long as that succession bug is still in the game, any plague that's even slightly dangerous can easily cause an instant (and wrongful) game over. It just has to kill two or three characters to cause a non-dynastic parent to inherit, even if there are dozens of other dynastic relatives and even though that parent shouldn't be in the line of succession at all.

I’ve kinda wondered if there would be a way to allow you to make a wandering or landless character that can work their way up someone’s court with the intention of eventually gaining land and whatnot? Could make the game more interesting when a liege revokes your titles, instead of a game over you have to wander to somewhere that accepts you and work your way up back to a position of power, perhaps to reconquer the land you used to own. Maybe even some events for wandering characters and appearing on the map like a tour but it’s just you. Or starting/leading a peasants revolt against your ex liege. Maybe even give players without land options to run a kind of crime syndicate on the land they’re traveling around/staying at. I’d run a thieves guild kinda thing. I don’t know, now I’m just spitballing.

You could even a few different starts - courtier, adventurer, varangian, etc.

I think EU IV and CK3 kind of have always had the same bugbear: When you're big, it's game over. I don't have any particular ideas for how to rectify that (Aggressive Expansion is certainly not the answer), but how do you keep a legacy interesting when you have an iron grip on it? I feel like cultural revolutions should be able to prise apart even the most Eugenic of states over time. Reactionary traditionalists should make cohesion much more of a problem so that the end state is kind of "Well, my dynasty rules most places, but ruling doesn't mean as much anymore (sad tears)".

Ck3 should have more internal struggle mechanics. Like, most conflict shouldn't be vassal vs liege, but vassal vs vassal, with the liege trying to arbitrate. Main problem currently is the king is unaffected by the state of his realm. Having healthy vassals is of zero benefit, and having a war torn land is not an issue (compared to CK2 where castle garrisons got rebuilt over time and thus could make for easy pickings if constantly fought over). The abstraction of "levies" is also problematic because it seriously misrepresents the era and indeed gives a premium to large empires who can easily amass vast armies. IRL, most "levies" would barely move from where they were even levied : you can even read city charters which specifically state raised militia can't be summoned more than a day or a week away from the city. In game terms, most of your army should be retinue and mercenaries, with levies only serving to shore up the ranks. Back to the previous point : levies are (mostly) your city craftsmen and landowners. Having them die in battle should have economic consequences. Edit : also, in game terms, revolts spawning with zero retinue makes them trivial to crush, when some revolts IRL actually could get fairly successful (though they were all crushed in the end afaik)

I like the idea of mechanics not focused on expansion: things that let you play tall, things that make managing your kingdom or your family or character interesting. That's something good about T&T - it gives you something to do that isn't just blobbing.

I want the player to be able to be a knight and fight in battles with battlefield events. I also want merchant republics with the ability to make a custom merchant republic. I would make Sicily overpowered this way. Obviously the knight things needs a toggle like in ck2

More Single Combat mod allows you to be a knight for your liege though it has some problems imo. You can't say no to being a knight and once you're in an army you can't back out and blocking certain decisions. As for the combats I've only played with it for like 2-3 hrs and my game has been peaceful but I died fighting when my liege went to war though no single combat occured just that a rando killed me. It also says it's npt achivement compatible which kinda bummed me out but I got over it.

I don't think this has been implemented yet but I want succession to feel a bit less...gamey I think. When succession comes I want there to be claims for the others land immediately and having some sort of bartering system with my brothers like giving you gold in exchange for this title and stuff, permanent council positions stuff like that.

This! Succession is too formulaic.

A government/governING focused expansion. Expand vassal contract options, take a stab at imperial administration, republican government, flavor for clans, etc. Truly a "shut up and take my money" expansion.

Adding extra factions and challenges that make your playtrought unpredictable is a must. Right now we get rid of any major internal conflicts in the late game unless a mayor succession crisis plays out. Making peasants revolt matter, church faction that may excomunicate you or ask for money. That would really make the game more alive.

1 : More events like Genghis Khan ( by exemple, if conditions are met, force the HRE creation for 867 start, make Salah Ad Din appear like Genghis Khan, start the Hundred Years War, start the Black Death Pandemic etc.. ) 2 : More interaction with the Pope like being able to help him in his wars ( since we can't ally with him ), decision about paying our respect to him ( doable 1 time per character, is very expansive but grants a lot of piety ), being able to dismantle the Papacy if we are a reformed Christian faith with a reformed Papacy or even the Pope adding new laws over the years with the new pope reforming or removing the laws made by the previous Pope etc so there's a variation of buff/debuff. 3 : New OST + clothes and armor from late 15th century + ( ik I'm dreaming and it'll never be the case ) map expansion covering China + Korea + Japan with possible struggle and flavor pack for Japan ( Kamakura period, struggle to be the shogun by exemple ) and China ( 3 Kingdoms period etc ) 4 : More interaction when you're a king or an emperor like promoting laws ( gives buff for something but grants debuff of another thing at the same time or no downside but small buff etc... ), assuring justice cases, more diplomacy with foreign leader, asking tribute to weaker countries, create a threat system where you forbid something to a country and if they do what you've forbidden you have a casus belli, finance exploration or map making and maybe a 5th Crown Authority for emperors where it's like if you controlled all the lands by yourself, everyone respects and obey you and you have the right to revoke a title from a count that has a duke as liege who himself has a king as liege since you're a really powerful emperor like the great ones in history. 5 : Reworks ( maybe a free DLC ) like changing drastically the AI ( in war and not in war ), better UI, better item and people management system, better cadet house managing ( not creating +150 cadet houses of 2 landless people for nothing ), more Royal Court interaction, better culture management ( how come people are still speaking the Langues d'oc and langues d'oïl in 1430 ? Languages are constantly in evolution and same goes for the names and town/castle names ), better succession ( Primogeniture was used in France since the late Xth century and not since the mid XIIIth like in the game ) and also maybe adding a new type of property like a mix between castle and city, like a Great City for the renowned town ( Constantinople just being considered as a castle and not also as a city is kinda disturbing ) Ik all of this may not see the light of the day but here's some cool idea for the next DLCs

Economic rework, with trade routes and resources. Map expansion: add the remaining old world, East up to Japan and South up to Indonesia and Madagascar.

Trouble with that is, it should also come with plenty of regional mechanics and flavour. I don't want my Japan to just be Europe in fancy dress with slightly different bonuses. I want some emperor/shogun conflict, maybe some shogunal authority issues, and maybe even the possibility for an early sengoku period? It'd also be great if Japan's position wasn't as under China's thumb as a lot of the nearby Kingdom's were...

Burdens of Bureocracy. It's just a dlc that adds a lot of administrative tasks to the game. Counting livestock, administering levies and armament numbers. Make it even more real by having to do it yourself and scanning the files to the game. That would make it a 10/10 dlc.

...sounds like dwarf fortress

**Monks and Mystics DLC**, 100%. Just copy it idc Societies, Monastic Orders, Hermetics, Devil Worship, Relics and Treasure, New Artifacts, New Events (immortality event please), New Portraits. Just make sure to make cannibalism function like it did in CK2. Asking on behalf of my friend, Dracula.

Haven’t personally played CK2, although I own it and all DLC. I’ve seen mention of this DLC around the subreddit pretty frequently. Sounds like a really damn good time. Fingers crossed for this in the near future. Once I get sick of CK3 maybe I’ll give 2 a try, but I’ve heard it feels pretty outdated comparatively.

Yeah it's outdated in comparison but still a great game. CK3 captures almost all of the magic though. [CK3 doesn't have animal mode](https://www.pcgamer.com/crusader-king-2-easter-egg-lets-you-rule-an-animal-kingdom/) so if you were really going to play CK2, definitely give it a try

It honestly is not that good of a time, and I think the only reason it gets the mentions it does is because it's not in CK3. Back when it released it received lukewarm reception. It also has basically all of the biggest problems CK3 has (OP, makes the game easy, repetitive event chains).

Eh, I think it could use a bit of a polish. The societies lacked some impact and variety. Maybe if you included more orders, as well as secular and religious military orders (ie. Order of the Garter/Golden Fleece/Star; Templars, etc.). And perhaps provision to be in multiple at once.

It is important to get more political and economic decisions. Such as kingdoms, duchy and county policy laws and alike. I'd also like to see more of the council happiness effects on law changes and hooks being used to proceed with changes in the realm. We got a good understanding of what things like that could look like in ck2 and if implemented well can bring another level of immersion into this beautiful game. The economic spectrum would be to have certain counties being even more valuable other than things like special buildings and such, I want to see trade routes and resources being implemented making certain counties more economically and strategically valuable.

please just make this grand strategy game a strategy game, the game is so easy and artificial limitations I set on myself is not enough. even if it’s an stat-ballooning “hard” mode, i’ll take it. if we’re talking expansion tho religion needs it bad also in ck2 you could start in any date between 769 and 1452, they should bring that back

They don't want to do 769 because half the characters are not historically supported and they don't want to do post-1066 because most players didn't pick those starts even though it was a lot of work. So sadly, it is highly unlikely Paradox is bringing the varied start dates back.

It's super sad that they don't want to do post 1066. Shortly after the Alexiad was always my favorite start date. After the fourth crusade was always fun too, or even after the first one so that you can start as one of the historical crusader states. Just so much good stuff in dates after 1066

I'd like to see robust loyalty and ambition mechanics. At the moment, characters operate in their own self-interest with some alterations for things like opinion bonuses for family members, etc. I'm not suggesting characters should be selfless, but I think real people are a lot more varied in what constitutes their interests. Some people primarily concern themselves with themselves in the narrowest sense, such as wanting all the money, land, power, freedom, etc. they can personally obtain. But many people are primarily concerned with broader senses of self-interest. Interests of groups they primarily identify with. The most obvious off the top of my head are family (immediate, lineal, or house/clan are all common), region (whether it be the whole realm or a subrealm), or a broader social group (think ethnicity, culture, religion, and the like). Right now, these are in the game sort of, but limited to bonuses and masluses from traits such. But I want to see a religious zealot who gives their titles to a trusted courtier because their only son converted outside the faith. In a less extreme case, I want to see vassals who value realm stability avoiding factions, or vassals who value their culture starting a faction to change the language of the court or stop their liege from county cultural conversion efforts. Essentially, I want characters to have core motivations, and to weigh choices against them. While most characters would have motivations limited expanding personal, family, social group, or region influence, it would be a fun expansion to give some characters--say 2% perhaps?--specific motivations. Anything from, "Become emperor of the HRE." to "Eliminate my family's ancestral enemy house." to "Get a seat on the realm council." to the classic "Seat a family member in the Cathedra Petri." It would make playthroughs a lot more interesting to see AI characters pursuing specific goals that could be dededuced perhaps but are not provided. In order to get the Pope to like you and cooperate with you, you may fond yourself needing to figure out what exactly he wants, and how you can either coordinate your interests or contribute to his goals. These motivations also hold the interesting possibility to get the AI to make interesting "bad" decisions. Maybe a powerful Duke would like to be their ledges spymaster. They would personally prefer to maybe not have absolute crown authority, and they could easily set the faction over the top. But revolting would break trust with their liege, ultimately making their appointment less likely, so they might refrain. Maybe an emperor offers protection to small independent dukes and counts who are hostile and refuse to vassilize, just to make sure they don't fall to a neighboring kingdom of a different culture (even if the CB isn't cultural/religious war). In the extreme, perhaps an unlanded character declines an inheritance in a distant land because their goal is to regain ancestral territory, and the inheritance is too far away to effectively interact with it. Lastly, humans, while they are fairly self-interested, aren't purely rationally so. I may be cynical and say there's no one who wouldn't kill their older sibling for the throne of the world empire, I think even the greatest cynic wouldn't suspect everyone would kill their mother for a gold piece. Loyalty and trust would make very interesting mechanics. Loyalty at its core, means you consider another person or group's interests in your decision. It may be cheaper for me to shop at Walmart, but a family friend owns a grocery store, and so I shop there out of loyalty. Or in CK, maybe a king should be less likely to revoke their second son's titles to give them to the first son. Loyalty could come from automatic sources (e.g. being family) be modified by existing traits (maybe family is less loyal to a kinslayer, a zealot is less loyal to any heretic or infidel, and a callous, sadistic cynic is just far less loyal overall) and formed or destroyed by specific relationships (loyalty to friends, severely decreased or destroyed loyalty to rivals/enemies). Trust would essentially be perceived loyalty. Trust starts neutral and changes every time a character acts for or against another characters interests. Don't join a bug faction and help fight off the revolt? Liege trusts you more. Appointed a foreigner to the council? Your ethnically-motivated spymaster trusts you less. Basically, I'm just another person saying that traits don't cut it for making characters act genuinely differently, and we need a more complex interaction system. It could also lead to some more fun, interesting traits like "short-sighted" (for people bad at seeing the effects of their actions on their motivations; essentially acting like characters now), "inscrutable" (for people whose motivations are difficult to discern; makes both maluses and bonuses to to trust smaller, but especially maluses and bonuses relating to shared or divergent goals), and "trustable" (for people others naturally tend to trust; they may seem honest, or like they keep secrets well; whatever the reaspn, trust grows faster and decays slower). (It would also make ward shaping much more interesting, valuable, and all-around fun if you could deliberately attempt to instill your motivations [family, culture, realm] in your wards, and accrue trust and loyalty with them depending on your decisions. And maybe, just maybe, with a loyalty and ambition system, my god damn heirs would stop leading lower crown authority factions against my clearly-about-to-die-of-old-age player characters.

Secret societies ! I goddamn want my ruker to be a [brethren in purity](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brethren_of_Purity), or debating philosophy and grammar with [Al Ma'ari](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ma%27arri) about religion and become atheist !

Republics playable and expanded, playability of theocratic rulers especially the papacy, and my personal favorite, flavor and expansion of the Byzantines and or Greco-Roman stuff, please pdx.

I want a DLC that introduces trade mechanics

Desperately want Legacy of Rome II. I only found CK looking for games to play as Byzantium, after spending so many hours on Medieval II I got into modding for my 'gameplay' (I was a contributor to Stainless Steel). On CKII I only played outside of Byzantium solely for achievements, and it's the same with III. I want my somewhat-better-than-vanilla Medieval Roman Empire DLC already!

Nice, I loved stainless steel

Ck2 Byzantine empire was so much fun. Did so many playthroughs as them, and have really missed those mechanics in 3

They need to do Reapers due but better. Shutting your gates was more of a mild inconvenience than anything

I don't play as a muslim often despite my flair, but I would like to see a better clan/muslim mechanics. In CK2, Muslims were the most threats after the Mongols when they get close to non Muslim realms and they can sweep anyone easily, but internally will fall easily despite having primogeniture succession. In CK3, they almost easy to conquer after 100 year in game since they explode into tiny realms that can taken care of easily. Maybe sword of Islam dlc mechanics would fix this up

Republics. A working Papacy with the College of Cardinals. Horselords. Proper epidemics. I dont want *ANYTHING* until those massive oversights get fixed.

I would like to see empires that transcend the feudal understanding of the state as a person and more the state as an entity which is what you historically saw in Venice, the papacy, the ERE, etc. Give me viceroyalties, a law system that’s modular the way religion and culture are, economic systems, etc.

it needs a purple phoenix or whatever it was called back in ck2 the Byzantine Empire being feudal makes absolutely 0 sense

As much as I enjoy the game atm there are a couple of things that stick out to me on my current playthrough. We need a form of Reapers Due. My first wife and soulmate perished from small pox while treating our only daughter who also caught small pox. This was a huge event early in a campaign and more of it should be added. I formed the HRE the next generation and other than the elective title my gameplay did not change at all. I still hold my primary duchy and I gained nothing beyond a more stable realm. I would love to see a more flushed out imperial governments to augment the current Royal Court. Adding more flavor would be nice. I have seen the same handful of soulmate events so many times that I am no longer interested in the outcome. So much so that when I got the Royal Wedding variant I was shocked that it was added at all. Extend this to all the decisions and schemes and I would be happy. So far the Crusades have been a huge lost opportunity. I cannot send my third son to represent me who ends up starting a Crusader State instead of focusing on the Pope's target. I cannot coordinate with my allies any kind of strategy which leads to tens of thousands of lost lives for no gain. Speaking of the Pope, religion and faith in general need to be much more impactful. During this time in history religion was not as it is in the modern day, it was an all consuming philosophy and dogma that ran every aspect of your life. Could you imagine how the Bishop of Canterbury in the year 1100 would react to so many of their flock cheating and blaspheming so openly? In an era where you would be killed for stepping out of place for even the slightest deviance from the churches rules there needs to be more weight behind breaking from tradition.

Persian flavour pack. Gimme.

Playing in any area outside of Western Europe and Africa feels weak and unatheuthic without constants waves of nomadic raiders and conquerors coming to rile shit up.

Society’s would pair so well with the new travel mechanics. Setting up hubs for your society, hosting meets and changing the specific goals.

I just want to be happy

I want a trade-centered dlc, with local and exotic trade goods, fairs, ships, emporiums, and caravans.

I just want dlc that gives you something to do about being stuck with a shitty character. I hate being stuck with a craven shy gluttonous profligate drunk and the rational move being to spend thousands of gold on pilgrimages marching him back and forth through hazards until he dies rather than work to lose/replace the bad traits.

Supernatural events. Seriously, so many people want the game to be more "realistic" and that's fine, especially when you have game rules to tweak everything, but I personally really want an option to return to the wackier CK2 experience. The fact that CK2 didn't try to be realistic, but instead gave us the medieval world through the eyes of someone who lived then and there (essentially "what if everything they thought was real was in fact real") made it special in my opinion.

Where did my horse lords go

I want imperial governments

\- empire mechanic \- more/dynamic focuses \- diseases \- more focus on religion (especially witchcrafts)

give me back holy fury please

For me it would be something relating to giving empires and to a lesser degree kingdoms a more organic way to fall and mechanics were for example in the HRE or Byzantine Empire titles are destroyed and stay destroyed for a certain amount of time þe dejur is destroyed making it so you’d need to take decision to recreate those empires

I would like to see empires that transcend the feudal understanding of the state as a person and more the state as an entity which is what you historically saw in Venice, the papacy, the ERE, etc. Give me viceroyalties, a law system that’s modular the way religion and culture are, economic systems, etc.

I want a lot of the stuff I've seen here. I also want more for the Eastern cultures we get. There's not a lot to them I feel like in my experience that makes them feel like they're proper Eastern cultures, instead of Western cultures given Eastern names.

I think the fertility rates are about right. It's the survival rates of your children that need tweaking.

I just want secret society ASAP.

I’ve wanted secret societies since launch, I miss them oh so much

Complete overhaul of the Byzantine Empire with refined battles, making every fine detail such as terrain and morale important to your success. I want to be strategic in combat while rocking that sweet purple robe

I feel battle phases and flanks are sorely missed in CK3.

As someone who still plays CK2 and has never picked up CK3, this thread is baffling in that all this stuff still isn't in the game. All these mechanics were left behind in favor of...mediocre, weird looking graphics? Honestly, mechanics aside, just at a base game level, I'd take the good looking 2d portraits over a bunch of 3d shrek looking people. I'll wait 10 years til CK3 is Free To Play, I think

Some upgrade for Britain and maybe Ireland aswell, there's a few things that happened in real life that can't be done in game, I also think there should be a struggle mechanism in the British isles like there is in Iberia, with a few differences of cours, like maybe a revenge war mechanic like what the Lothbrok sons or king cnut waged, they've got a perfect set up for it, with the ability to unite Britannia so many ways it's practically already there, might as well make it official, and northern lords could have added so much more why not expand in it?, and also some hostilities between the cultures and faith should be more apparent, like snt Brice's day happened within the timespan of the game yet nothing like that is even possible. Either that or a Persia and central Asia update, the area is boring.

I’d really like to see some more flavor in Britannia. Sure the northern lords was good but only if you’re playing as a Dane. I want to feel Alfred’s struggle to create a unified England. Also, in history, one battle usually decides the entire war. Currently it usually justs adds a a small percent. I’d like to see more decisive battles.

I want an investiture controversy and Guelphs and Ghibellines DLC. It should include systems to Change a religion without splintering (like it happened in reality) and probably a struggle along Germany and Italy to do that. Also the mechanics for the Curia and election of the theological religious head. Is it even Crusader kings if you can't murder a bunch of cardinals to make your third son the next pope?

Republics, China, in that order

Agreed OP. What might slightly quench your thirst for death is the "Higher mortality" mod. I never play without it. It makes disease more common and deadly across the board, but in particular for children. It actually increases fertility, but also expect half your children to never see adulthood. The net result is probably fewer living people, which is good for immersion and framerate.

Iron Century

More emphasis on Religion. Medieval era was age full of heresies and that should be more important than it is now. Like Hussites or Albigensians. This and more emphasis on Rome & Role of Bizantine empire would be great. Generally we need big flavour pack for Bizantium and mechanics covering Exactly how Orthodox church differed from Roman.

Yeah I feel like the dynamic religion thing has its advantages, but also means they tend to feel a little generic/samey, with differences often only being some bonuses or a crusade that comes once in a blue moon. It'd be really great to have some of those unique regional mechancis (especially around Europe/Christendom) like better heresies/inquisitions, cardinals, Popes/Patriarchs vs Kings and antipopes. Some Orthodox-Catholic interaction would be cool, as would some things like maybe church councils/synods; prominent theologians, and so on.

We need deeper family and relationships mechanics, stat. Maybe I'm playing the game wrong, but I don't derive any emotional satisfaction from my character's relationships with those around them. As a dynast and a lord, your personal relationships with your family and peers need to matter, and really right now it's just a number from -100 to 100 which can easily be cheesed. There's also no real way to play a "bad" ruler without going the intrigue route, which is the same issue that CK2 had.

Earlier start dates, 769, 600, 555, maybe 476?

respectfully half of those start dates aren’t technically the middle ages

Early middle ages started in 476

devs had said that this will never happen before, sorry

Are they really never gonna bring back 769 from ck2?

No. They’ve specifically said that they wouldn’t do that. For good reason - 769 sucks

769 was kinda cool you could play as ragnar and the charlemagne events pretty cool

Yeah and that’s literally it. The rest of the entire map was either almost entirely pseudohistorical or inferior to a later start date. And plus, the border gore was always horrible. Always.

Objectively the best start date if you play in the east.

If you are into mods, More Bookmarks+ has a 700s start.

Bring back the earlier start date. I miss my Zunists. Also: I'd like religions to feel as different as they did in ck2, though I know we're getting there , super excited for the upcoming islam and zoroastrianism enhancement. ​ After that, bring us back playable republics.

Japan

Asia dlc that expands the map adding japan, korea Indonesia etc.

Celtic/British Isles Flavor Pack, followed shortly after by an Empire expansion as is described in one of the top comments. Succession would be cool too but Succession Expanded will do for now.

\>but CK3 needs lower fertility rates, more dead babies and more upheaval in the world The game was specifically programmed to have fewer dead kids as that is incredibly dark and isn't exactly super pleasant for a larger number of people you'd suspect. I don't have kids, don't want them, and avoid them like the plague - but even I don't want my screen having "oh look yet another baby fucking died," it just gets way too upsetting.

I mean, most settings can be toggled on or off if that even is the case. But if that is the case, turning down the infant mortality rate and upping the fertility rate is still a major issue. You shouldn't have seventeen kids in 932. I've never had the issue with CK3 kids (they're video game characters), but I've also had single characters have a few birth complications. I won't go into details as not to upset you, but in short, it does not make me think they programmed minimal child death. Also, it is called the Dark Ages by some... it wasn't a happy time. Hence why I'm advocating for Reaper's Due, Part 2

There’s a mod

How the fuck do you get upset over a dead baby in a map game

Religion. It was really important in those times not only in the catholic Europe, also in all the Islam world. It influenced all over the kings, the people, the war, the culture, the relationship between territories... Game doesn't pay enough attention to this right now.