• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Hello everyone, I'm Tegus, one of the programmers working on Crusader
Kings II. Welcome to the fifth dev diary for CK2 and the first one written
by me. In today's dev diary I'm going to talk a bit about the map and why
we've chosen to implement a new one in CK2.

As you all know, in our games the map is an important tool for both
displaying information and setting the mood of the game. In HoI3 we had a
grayish map that we felt was appropriate for a war game. We took this map
and altered it slightly when making Victoria 2, but this time the map was
drawn with vivid colors to portray the progress of the era. The next game to
use the map was Divine Wind because we all felt that EU3 was in need of a
graphical face lift. While this map technology looked good in the
mentioned games, there were certain technological limitations which we
wanted to improve upon or get rid of.

With CK2, we have devoted time to rewrite the graphics code for the map
from scratch. We are back to a pure 3D map similar to the one used in EU3:
Rome. We have visible topology and you will be able to rotate the world
around the way you please. While neither the technology nor the art assets
are in any way final, we do feel that the new map already has great
potential and is a big step in the right direction towards our visual
goals. Hopefully this new tech will also span multiple games, so we
can steadily improve it.

crusader_kings_2_devdiary_5_ss1.jpg

To be fair, if I would describe what we have done with the map so far, it
would just be sentence after sentence of technical mumbo-jumbo, so I'll
spare you the details. Let's instead focus on what visual details that
have been improved and what we want to add before the game is shipped.

We've improved the looks of the water significantly and added refraction
so you can actually see topology under the ocean surface. Aerie has taken
the time to find real-world topology data(although we've exaggerated it
somewhat), it definitely gives a cool feel to the terrain. Borders have
also gotten some love and now use a new system which enables us to make
them much smoother. Much of the previous jaggedness is gone. We've also
begun to implement and test a more detailed lighting model, which we will
continue to improve upon until we release the game. Another cool
feature(which isn't really part of the map) are the units, whose tabards
now show the heraldic flag of the unit leader.

crusader_kings_2_devdiary_5_ss2.jpg

But there are still some things which we're missing. We need trees and
rivers. We need to add province names and realm names, which exist in all
our latest games. I'd like to add more information to borders, so borders
between two realms are colored by the realms' respective colors. There are
of course lots of more things we want to do, but I won't spill the beans
just yet.

crusader_kings_2_devdiary_5_ss3.jpg

All in all, we are very happy with the way the new map is coming along.
Hopefully you will enjoy it as well once you get to play the game!

Fredrik Zetterman, Deluxe programmer, currently working on Crusader Kings
II
 
Would Denmark be a good name for a nation that included Sweden and Norway into it? Probably not.

No, the good name for that is "Scandinavia" or such if going by the division of Scandinavian dialects/languages. The Finland region is Finno-Ugric, though, and I can't really think of a snappy name that would encompass that. Although Finnish is already included in the overarching name. I suppose you could jump back a step to just Ugric ("Ugria" or something) but that's both confusing as hell and would include large areas of Russia.
 
No, the good name for that is "Scandinavia" or such if going by the division of Scandinavian dialects/languages. The Finland region is Finno-Ugric, though, and I can't really think of a snappy name that would encompass that. Although Finnish is already included in the overarching name. I suppose you could jump back a step to just Ugric ("Ugria" or something) but that's both confusing as hell and would include large areas of Russia.
Finland could perhaps work, but it would carry the same stigma that a king of Denmark would have when ruling Sweden. There is cultural ties, but it is not entirely the same culture. I just do not think Finland is the right name for such a kingdom and thinking up an appropriate one up is difficult.
 
The thing with Finland is not that it shouldn't be an entity, but that it shouldn't be 3rd tier entity. There is no reason why it couldn't be 2nd tier, and Baltics be 2nd tier, without them being in the same (or any) 3rd tier.

It would make much more sense that these 2nd tier Duchies would be ruled by local Princes or Swedish Dukes instead of them belonging to a Fantasy King.
 
Finland is just too big geographically to be a single duchy. Finland is a distinct cultural and geographical area, I don't see anything particularly "fantasy" about a finnish kingdom, it could easily have happened historically if one of the finnish tribes had gained supremacy over the others, and then converted to christianity.
 
Finland is just too big geographically to be a single duchy. Finland is a distinct cultural and geographical area, I don't see anything particularly "fantasy" about a finnish kingdom, it could easily have happened historically if one of the finnish tribes had gained supremacy over the others, and then converted to christianity.
How is it too big? In real life it was a duchy.
 
Would Denmark be a good name for a nation that included Sweden and Norway into it? Probably not.

Yep it would not be but the name of the language group of that has all scandinavic languages doesn't have anything that can be linked to danish on its name. When finnish, estonian and all the rest of the languages that are related to finnish are in a language group thats name is finno-ugric and the branch where all those languages belong in that group is named Finnic. Oddly similar name.
 
How is it too big? In real life it was a duchy.

It was only a duchy when the western shore was owned by Sweden. It became Grand Duchy that included most parts of current day Finland and little parts of current day russia. I would not say that the Duchy of Finland would be equal to the Grand Duchy of Finland or Grand Principality of Finland as it was also called. Not to mention that the Grand Duchy had quite vast autonomy in its matters.
 
Yep it would not be but the name of the language group of that has all scandinavic languages doesn't have anything that can be linked to danish on its name. When finnish, estonian and all the rest of the languages that are related to finnish are in a language group thats name is finno-ugric and the branch where all those languages belong in that group is named Finnic. Oddly similar name.
Arbitrary names to collect a certain group of languages is not a good way to justify calling something, that includes several cultures that differs on the same basis that Danish, Swedish and Norwegian does, Finland. You might as well call the entire kingdom for Estonia, Karelia and Sameland then.

It was only a duchy when the western shore was owned by Sweden. It became Grand Duchy that included most parts of current day Finland and little parts of current day russia. I would not say that the Duchy of Finland would be equal to the Grand Duchy of Finland or Grand Principality of Finland as it was also called. Not to mention that the Grand Duchy had quite vast autonomy in its matters.
I am not against Finland being either of those.
 
It was only a duchy when the western shore was owned by Sweden. It became Grand Duchy that included most parts of current day Finland and little parts of current day russia. I would not say that the Duchy of Finland would be equal to the Grand Duchy of Finland or Grand Principality of Finland as it was also called. Not to mention that the Grand Duchy had quite vast autonomy in its matters.

I hate to repeat myself but that's greatly anachonistic as the Grand Principality of Finland existed 800 years later. In the 11th century (and in fact the whole timeframe of CK2) Finland was unimportant and had only a tiny population. In fact, it would make a good desing decision to include only the coastal provinces and keep inner and nothern Finland terra incognita much like Sahara.
 
I hate to repeat myself but that's greatly anachonistic as the Grand Principality of Finland existed 800 years later. In the 11th century (and in fact the whole timeframe of CK2) Finland was unimportant and had only a tiny population. In fact, it would make a good desing decision to include only the coastal provinces and keep inner and nothern Finland terra incognita much like Sahara.

I say this without knowing what numbers you're actually talking about with this mighty difference in population sizes compared to the rest of the north, but with that caveat I'll presume it was radically different from Sweden and Balticum: It clearly can support similar sized populations as the other areas up north, so how is this not something better simulated by simply having fewer Settlements and less buildings & basetax? Why make Scandinavia ugly for it (and put forests and massive amounts of fresh water on the same level as Sahara..)?
 
I say this without knowing what numbers you're actually talking about with this mighty difference in population sizes compared to the rest of the north, but with that caveat I'll presume it was radically different from Sweden and Balticum: It clearly can support similar sized populations as the other areas up north, so how is this not something better simulated by simply having fewer Settlements and less buildings & basetax? Why make Scandinavia ugly for it (and put forests and massive amounts of fresh water on the same level as Sahara..)?

Because Finland at that time didn't exist in any sense. It was simply a chunk of wilderness known as Österland, inhabited by a handful of pagan tribes. It had no cities until 13th century. Even then practically everyone lived in the coastal area as inner Finland was mostly inaccessible and uninhabited. It's not until much later that the tribes became somewhat civilized and agrarian.

In addition to Finland being way too insignificant to be a Kingdom of its own, there's the fact that when Österland was conquered, it was considered a constituent part of the Swedish kingdom.

As the plausibility of a Kingdom of Finland or even Kingdom of Österland during the timeframe is CK2 is zero, I think the best choice would be to have a Duchy tier title cover Finland (titled Duchy of Österland) and make it part of no Kingdom to allow it be something Swedes and Russians can fight over.
 
Last edited:
I hate to repeat myself but that's greatly anachonistic as the Grand Principality of Finland existed 800 years later. In the 11th century (and in fact the whole timeframe of CK2) Finland was unimportant and had only a tiny population. In fact, it would make a good desing decision to include only the coastal provinces and keep inner and nothern Finland terra incognita much like Sahara.
I disagree. It think the area should at least be covered, does not matter if they only have one settlement. It would annoy me to no end when playing if I could not make a damn city there just because it first spawned 200 years after CK2 starts, mind those 200 years are still within the time frame of the game. However, I do agree that Finland should by a duchy and not a kingdom.
 
Yeah it would be pretty weird to have 3rd tier kingdom of Finland vassalising Novgorod for example, given huge disproportion of both in terms of population, potential and development.
 
You hate seeing a Grand Principality of Finland because it's unrealistic? Wait till you see the Kingdom of Arabia!

Kingdom of Arabia is slightly different because it would have happened if the Crusaders had pushed that far. While it's unhistorical, it's plausible.

Kingdom of Finland, on the other hand, would be both unhistorical and unplausible. Admittedly, it would have been possible hundreds of years later but absolutely not during CK2's timeframe.

edit: I'm done arguing here.
 
Last edited:
Kingdom of Arabia is slightly different because it would have happened if the Crusaders had pushed that far. While it's unhistorical, it's plausible.

So is kingdom of Finland as there was points in history where it might have been possible to create. That doesn't anyway differ from your own reason why Kingdom of Arabia could be there.
 
Kingdom of Arabia is slightly different because it would have happened if the Crusaders had pushed that far. While it's unhistorical, it's plausible.

Kingdom of Finland, on the other hand, would be both unhistorical and unplausible. Admittedly, it would have been possible hundreds of years later but absolutely not during CK2's timeframe.

edit: I'm done arguing here.
The core problem here is that you just never played the game.

For example, you seem to be extremely worried some Finish Chieftain will conquer Finland and proclaim himself King. That never happened in my games, largely because all Finnish Chieftains were pagan. Even when they did conquer Finland, they couldn't proclaim themselves King because heathens could not create titles. In fact generally only human players did it, and very few of them started at King-level because that would have removed what little challenge there was in creating the title.

You're seriously overestimating the level of economic development required to have a province. In all of Europe there is no Terra Incognita. That only comes into play in the Sahara and Asia. And in some places there are three provinces between the Mediterranean and the Terra Incognita. If anybody (literally anybody) lived there it's part of a province.

The way places like Finland were simulated was large areas (several of the Duchy's five provinces were comparable to Denmark or Wales in land area), low tech, Basetax 1, and no province improvements. A Count of Kola or Stakunta has 50 troops and it'll take him 20 years to save up enough money to build a forestry. Which he doesn't have because his 50 men and no castle are easy meat for the guy whose just realized his 6 sons will all want land, and even Satakunta counts as land.

BTW, it should make you happy to know that 5 of the 6 provinces in the Duchy of Finland are coastal. The entire Kingdom has two landlocked provinces, one province bordering the Arctic ocean, two with access to the Arctic and Lake Ladoga, 11 on the Baltic, and a single province with Lake Peipus-Pihkva.

Nick
 
Another problem with kingdom of Finland, would be a case where some Russian prince could conquer it, upgrade himself to 3rd tier, which in result would give him big advantage over other princes of Rus' (larger demesne limits, more prestige, ability to have 2nd tier rulers as vassals). Such scenario would make no sense, so IMHO Finland should be 2nd tier, that could be called Grand Duke/Prince or even king, but only in localisation files, not in game terms.