What Total War could use from Crusader Kings II
Having spent some 150 hours thus far on Crusader Kings II (my first paradox grand strategy game), 600+ hours previously on M2TW and its various mods, and 60+ hours on Shogun II (as well as time spent on Napoleon & Empire), I have come to see the strengths of both forms of game play. I greatly enjoyed expanding my borders and establishing my dynasty in, well, both Total War and Crusader Kings 2, to say the least. Given the forum I am posting in, I assume my readers are familiar enough with both titles that I can skip giving a detailed synopsis on the similarities and differences between Crusader King’s II grand strategy and Total War’s turn based / combat rts hybrid platform. There have been several posters that have suggested that simply merging the two game types into one game would produce the one strategy title to rule them all, by which the sweeping campaign emphasis of Crusader Kings involved the option to engage in the massive 3d battles that are currently the trademark of the Total War series. To say nothing of the technical challenge of such a feat, I believe this to be an entirely wrong assessment.
That is not to say there is not some potential in melding the game play aspects of the two genres, but even then it is not a two way street. Crusader Kings 2 (and Paradox’s other grand strategy games, I presume), is defined by and at its best when you are making moment to moment decisions that have a lasting impact along a fluid length of game time. Just throwing in large set piece 3d battles with all the micro that entails would simply be a jarring break in the pace of the original game play that would only serve to detract from the overall experience. On the other hand, Total War is defined by and arguably at its most enjoyable when prior preparation and strategy results in an epic confrontation where decisive victory in the battle map nets you the upper hand in your struggles on the campaign map.
Yet I believe there are elements that Total War could lift from paradox’s grand strategy games (to a degree) that would serve to add depth and game play options without distorting the core premise of the franchise. As an example of this belief, I am going to talk about how some elements from Crusader Kings 2 could be interwoven into a similarly themed Total War game such as, oh, I don’t know, Medieval 3. These elements include, but are not limited to:
- Casus Belli
- The Levy System
- Vassalage of Landed Nobles
- Relationships
Keep in mind that I don’t mean that these features be lifted in whole from their source. For those who may not be familiar, Casus Belli is defined as the reason you go to war. In game term, that means that for you to go to war against someone to take their territory, you have to have a reason. I have read that in Victoria II that you could forgo having a Casus Belli and take territory anyway, but that this amasses infamy, making you seem warmongering and potentially dangerous enough that your neighbors would have just cause in return for invading you.
This has the effect of spacing out conflict and allowing smaller states to reasonably get by even if they are bordered by veritable superpowers. Rather than a potential anathema to battle loving Total War fans, the implementation of a Casus Belli system would serve to make ‘rolfstomping’ assimilation of all the smaller states less inevitable, requiring more thought and preparation on the part of the player (and his enemies) for the next big conquest. How easy it is to issue a Casus Belli (which should be easier in a Total War game anyways) can add a game play dynamic all on its own as you realize that finding a good reason to invade your fellow friendly catholic neighbor is a lot more difficult than finding one for the warmongering pagans bordering one of your provinces. In a medieval game where the foundation for your power lies in the multitude of vassals serving you, it makes sense that you’d best have a justifiable reason for raising their levies and sending them off to war.
This brings me to my second topic; the Levy System. One thing that I found both realistic and immersive in Crusader Kings II was that each province you held sway over supplied you with part of its garrison during times of war should you request it, which would typically be led by the noble that headed that province. Levies from all the provinces under your control would be massed together into one or more larger forces to serve the needs of conquest or defense. Raised levies require upkeep, or at least more than while they are on standby during peace time, so you would only want them for just as long as you needed them. You could not declare war while your levies were raised, if only to prevent border massing tactics for the game play’s sake, and how much of the garrison was given over to you was based on your authority and relationship with the provincial nobles. Development of military infrastructure and general prosperity of the province increased the amount, variety, and value of the levies available. Levies, when you are done using them, are typically disbanded, returning to the province from which they originated from. Raised levies that suffer heavy casualties take time to recover to full numbers. Finally, levies are ultimately loyal to the noble of the province, and if that is not you, than you could end up fighting them yourself if the noble decided to rebel!
Perhaps an odd feature to want implemented given the normally free form nature of Total War’s unit recruitment, but there are several reasons for it. Certainly this is not a feature I would like added in for feature’s sake; this levy system would prevent border massing then war dec tactics, add a veritable monetary cost for wartime, add importance on infrastructure investment, provide landed Nobles with a reasonable power base of their own, and add context to the units you are using. If we are going for a more historical bent, this would also enforce a more realistic ratio for the forces typically available to warlords at this time (a lot of peasant levies, mercenaries, some men at arms, and a few knights) with wiggle room to spare based on your investments and other choices.
In Total War terms, what this basically equates to is having provinces/castles/cities generate a number of military units based on their prosperity, military infrastructure, and culture type. A low level English town, for example, might generate up to six militia units that act as its garrison, and provide 2 spear levy units and 1 bow levy unit for the use of its liege in times of war. These units, after being used in war, would be disbanded and return to the city to recover their numbers, bringing back with them the experience they accumulated during the war (unless none make it back alive to tell the tale!). A high level English castle, however, would generate a better garrison as well as 4 units of men at arms, 3 units of longbow men, 2 units of mounted sergeants, and 1 unit of feudal Knights led by none other than the Duke of Winchester himself.
Which now leads me to my next topic: vassalage of landed nobles. The implication of the feudal system and the checks and balances that it entails is pretty much the entire premise of Crusader Kings II. I would like to start off by saying, once again, that I am not advocating whole sale lifting of this feature from Crusader Kings to Total War. However, landed titles were such an important feature of the time period that some M2TW mods (most notably stainless steel) have implemented their own attempts at representing landed titles through the limited framework of the ancillary system. Though lacking in recent entries in the series, in M2TW generals also doubled as governors in peace time, providing bonuses to growth and income based on their personal traits. It only makes sense that this aspect be expanded upon officially.
In Crusader Kings 2, every character had a basic set of motives and ambitions depending upon their traits and current position in the realm. It goes without saying that keeping everyone important under you happy with your rule was a basic imperative, but even then the independent and variable nature of all the different actors caused… well, interesting things to happen, to say the least. Total War fans more used to tight control over the state of their territory would probably appreciate less randomness and management of personal affairs of their vassals (marriages, claims, inheritance), so I would personally advocate a rather straight agnatic primogeniture system where lack of an immediate heir causes inheritance to fall back to the liege who can then dispense with the land as he sees fit.
Players are then dealing with the landed nobles for each county in a predictable enough fashion, and if they bring enough vassals under their command that it starts becoming troublesome to keep track of all of them (in addition to penalties in having to many vassals), the players can start breaking off small groups into duchies under the authority of one of the counts of the region who then becomes a duke. The player will then only have to deal with the duke, but in exchange the duke becomes more powerful and gains some of the tribute from the other counts that would have gone to you. Also, as in Crusader Kings II, players would be able to own a number of counties as part of a personal demesne, where they always get 100% of the taxable income and levies, as well as being able to mobilize the garrison should they need to, giving you more numbers but leaving your holdings virtually undefended.
So far it seems that the player is not getting much out of this aside from a few new headaches, but hear me out. In the spirit of Shogun II’s rpg system, nobles could gain experience and levels, and from that points that can be spent on talent trees. Add in some random traits (as in Crusader Kings II, Medieval II) for good measure, and you can have nobles that are skilled administrators, brave generals, or pious leaders. Nobles could affect several factors of the provinces they oversee, from the taxable income to the veterancy of the levies raised there. Point being, there is a lot of potential depth with the inclusion of such a system, though there is a chance of oversaturation if the player has to keep track of too many characters. The important thing would be to allow for the players to be able to compress the amount of factors they have to keep track off while allowing for more difficult and rewarding play should they choose it.
Finally, I would like to go over relationships. Along with factional opinions as in Shogun II, there is already a factor in Total War that measures how beholden a general is to you; Loyalty. Loyalty in Total War measures the reliability of the general to resisting bribes, but expanding upon that and tying it to the landed system would add significantly more depth. Keep your vassals loyal to you and they will offer their full support come thick or thin, but offended or deceitful vassals may be tempted to rebel against you or offer their allegiance to your larger neighbor for promises of gold and power. Players can revoke vassal titles to prevent such an event, but be wary, as revoking titles without due cause is seen as an abuse of the lord-vassal relationship, causing a loyalty hit to all your other vassals in turn. Like in Crusader Kings II, keeping vassals satisfied should be paramount, and you could do this through (among many other things) gifts and the endowment of landed or honorary titles.
Now if you tie this with some sort of infamy system, you could have deceitful vassals that could be vulnerable to being bribed, but who won’t be nearly as concerned when you commit infamous acts as would your chivalrous vassals. With a comeback of the Dreadful - Chivalrous (or Honorable) General Traits and the inclusion of an infamy system, you could be an infamous King using his dreadful dukes to smash apart the weak armies of smaller nations, expanding with every turn while earning the enmity of all his neighbors. Alternatively, you could be a pious ruler using his chivalrous generals to drive back the forces of that infamous warlord and earn much prestige (and quite a bit of land) because of it.
Let’s go ahead and summarize this post really quick:
1. The implementation of a Casus Belli and Infamy system will mandate that more thought and preplanning be given when trying to expand, but it should be easier than in Crusader Kings II and players should have more options to keep land they occupied during wars.
2. A levy based army system (Total War style) allows for more realistic and immersive accumulation and deployment of martial force, while discouraging border massing tactics and giving landed nobles a powerbase of their own. Levies take time to recover, so lose your levies, and you lose the war (unless you can call up lots of mercenaries). This would make decisive battles far more significant.
3. Landed nobles should be the foundation upon which players build their power. Without them, the player is nothing, but together they are greater than the sum of their parts.
4. Maintaining a manageable relationship with your vassals is as important as defeating your enemies on the battlefield, and play style should reflect as such. Players must consolidate their territory into smaller power blocks as they expand, leaving suitably dangerous internal forces that must be balanced and appeased.
5. The infamy system, combined with a revision of the Chivalry and Dread system of Medieval 2, could combine to form two extremes of play styles; All or nothing conquest (think the Mongolian Horde), or honor bound stewardship. Infamy would be used to allow 'rule breaking', as it were. Players (and the AI) could still raise levies, mass them on the border, then declare an unprovoked war, but it would cause a sizeable spike in Infamy.
Combine all of that together, and I believe that you end up with an addition to the Total War franchise that breathes new life and strategic depth into the overall campaign without infringing upon the core game play. I have tried to keep all of my ideas interconnected throughout, but if I stumbled towards the end with my thoughts, it’s because it was difficult trying to tamp down all the hypothesizing going on in my head. Thanks for reading this far if you have, and I hope to hear your opinions if you have any. I certainly have not thought of everything, to say the least!
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2
It's just that back as recently as RTW, the Total War series' tactical map and diplomatic/economic options weren't that backwards...Paradox was very minor still then (although I was actually playing EUII back then) and Civ had a different style of play. Nowadays the non battle part of TW is glaringly backwards and is a restraint upon the games getting more depth and being better all round games. TW could learn a whole lot from CK, or EU.
games after the mess that was Sword of the stars 2.
