Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries
Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Crusader Kings II 69868 Bug Reports 19707 User Modifications 10588 Suggestions 5969 Tech Support 6361 After Action Reports
Previous dev diary Next dev diary
Show only dev responses
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
 
Click to expand...
Sort by date Sort by reaction score
Tegus said:
We'll see. Just like we add mapmodes for different gameplay mechanics when needed, political mapmode will be there if we feel a need for it. If we however manage to improve terrain mode so much that you don't want/need to play in political mapmode, it might be removed. Time will tell :)
Click to expand...

Please, don't!!! Political map mode performs a very important function: it gives you a tool for admiration of what you have accomplished. It allows you to lean backward after you game session and in a classical map mode style look how the world have changed and be proud of your achievements (or interestingly look what different path history might have taken).
 
Trying to attract new people with a mainstream graphics is a double-edged sword. Because some of them will base their purchase decision, indeed, mainly only on the appearance of the screenshots and game's visual resemblance with some other hit on the market. Taken into account Paradox games' true nature, some of those buyers will end up being really unsatisfied customers whose expectations wouldn't be met at all. They might even feel "betrayed". Which sometimes can result in player reviews like quoted below (particular funny one is from Gamespot). People like him will be onetime customers who can do a lot of damage with their bitterly disappointed and anti-advertising complaining in web.

"You can choose people who you want to govern cities, research, armies, etc. Combat is an abyss. THERE IS NO COMBAT. ITS JUST WATCHING TWO FIGURES STAB EACH OTHER AND DO DAMAGE LIKE AN RPG GAME. There is no combat element like Rome:Total War. I've lost many battles I should have run because of dice rolls that control combat like Risk. If you DO manage to get far in this game, your computer will lag out on you eventually, I guess because of the endless unit spamming. If that doesn't make you quit, the annoying messages and monotony of having to fight 3+ nations at a time will. Honestly, don't buy this game. Get Rome: Total War."

Markus_cz said:
Look at this boardgame picture someone posted before - it's primitive, but the varied and interestingly shaped forests and the roads make it work.
Click to expand...

By the way, Montjoie! is actually developed by Paradox France (AGEOD). That game has a certain character, like it a lot.
 
The map looks awesome. I can't wait. By the way, for everyone complaining about the 3d map, since the topography is controlled by a grayscale map - if I read correctly - it seems like it would be possible to mod it all the the same shade on the grayscale to make a flat map. Maybe its more complicated than that, so I might be corrected. The point is stop complaining here about 3d, b/c its completely unrealistic to go back to a 2d engine, and what we see here is the map with a year's worth of improvements to go. Looking forward to the next Dev Diary. It'll have to be my lifeline b/c a year seems way too long to wait.
 
Tegus said:
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.
Click to expand...

Aaw :( (Programmer)

Anyway, I really liked the map from V2 but hopefully you can make this nice too. It does look promising but simplicity can be good as well.
 
I really like this new map.
One of the best 3D maps I have seen in games.
But to be honest, I liked all 3D maps from Paradox, except for the goosegreen HoI3 atrocity.
Oh, I especially like the coat of arms!



What I would like:

1. this is very important! Please, no rivers splitting provinces into 2!
(not on map at present) Even if that produces unhistorical provinces! Since this has an influence on battle outcome, I want to know if I am about the cross or already crossed the river at an attack. In HoI3, this thing (not knowing on which part I am) made an offense irritating, to check every province one by one. So please, no rivers crossing provinces!


2. not map modes, but map layers!
I would love to be able to see the mountains, but it would be good to view country colours on top of them. (not brown-green based on topography, but all black if HRE, all white while zooming onto Portugal, etc.) The same would be with religion layer (not green-brown on topography, but silver with catholic, copper with orthodox, gold with muslim), etc.


3. It would be good to have an additional duchy layer to see what we miss, or what we have to conquer (missed this in CK1). Maybe as a layer, maybe as in Vicky 1 states...
 
galuska said:
I want to know if I am about the cross or already crossed the river at an attack.
Click to expand...

Can't you see it easily by looking where does stand the enemy army or where end the movement arrow?
If your arrow cross a river or if the enemy army stand to the other bank, then you'll cross a river. Am I wrong?
 
I don't want to be rude but...
I don't give a rodent's bottom to how map looks like, especially if it is an alpha version (yes, improvements has to be made, it's looking desperately plain - and TW's better - , but I guess that this is just because it isn't complete).
It's the GAMEPLAY I want to see improved. And, until now, I have to admit that Paradox has almost realized my dreams :)
 
MistMage said:
Aaw :( (Programmer)
Click to expand...

:D i just wanted to say that too...


i got a question will there be PTI or wastelands?

anyway beautiful map! 3d maps are the best for me. i hope next engine will have globe map, you know... world aint flat.. :)

EDIT: looks like wasteland in last screen shot, YAY!
 
Last edited:
I miss the beautiful 2D maps of EU1&2, Vicky 1 and CK1.
 
Captain Frakas said:
If your arrow cross a river or if the enemy army stand to the other bank, then you'll cross a river. Am I wrong?
Click to expand...

Sadly, you are wrong. The HoI3 map:

hoi3game20100410225218702.jpg


If you are going from Fuenlabrada to Alcala de Henares, are you already across or you are going to fight a river crossing battle? You have to check the 2 provinces manually to see what provinces they border with a river! And if there is a unit on it, you cannot view it.
I found only this with google, but the situation is much worse in the soviet union.
 
The unit sprites look great!

I do like the map. It generally looks nice, but is it just me or does everything look kinda shiny? Like check out the tops of the mountains and the slopes of the hills in Arabia. IDK, its just kinda weird, like the whole world is made out of colored glass or something.

But as others have said, I always play at least 90% of the time in the political map modes in CK, I just check the terrain every now and then when I'm planing a closely-matched war in an unfamiliar part of the map (which is pretty much nonexistent for me!) So really I couldn't care less what the terrain map mode looks like!
 
galuska said:
Sadly, you are wrong. The HoI3 map:

hoi3game20100410225218702.jpg
Click to expand...

I've never played HOI, but those rivers look very clearly being organized near province borders. alcala de henares has river-borders with 3 lower provinces and clear borders with upper 3.

Now Eu3 has that problem:
eu3river.jpg

River going straight in middle of roma and verona province might be historical, but they aren't functional at all.

Maybe adding blue or other signaling color to borders that have rivers "inside" them would help planning routes.
Or just fudging the historical part a bit and moving all rivers closer to province borders.
 
King said:
To be quite frank we are going to ignore calls to go back to a 2D map. Not out of spite but for a very solid reason. First please read this article http://tleaves.com/2010/12/31/a-battle-lost-through-attrition/

We've all read that there is not a huge market for historical strategy games, this is a small niche. Yet think how people watch the history chanel for example. There is a huge interest in history but not in historical games. The article I linked gives you a very clear reason why. Historical games in look and interface a very poor mainly through trying to please there existing fans and not reaching out to new ones. We need to embrace new technologies and concepts in order to keep our games looking current and reach out to new players. New players is good news for you, because if we sell more we get bigger development budgets meaning we can give you, our existing fan base, more AI, more features, longer testing all for the same price we charge we now. We want to give you better games and if a 3D map is the way to do it then we will ignore your call for a 2D map for your own good.
Click to expand...

King, I think you are mistaken on what we are asking for. We're not calling for a reversion to the 2D engine but rather a 3d map that looks more like a historic map rather than a Google Earth map. With an emphasis on simplicity and aesthetics rather than extraneous detail.

Take the amazing success of Minecraft. It is 3d, but its success is perhaps because of its graphical simplicity rather than the complexity a 3d engine could provide. Even die hard FPS players love it.

It doesn't matter what technology you use, but the art direction and the useful display on important information is key for long term playability.

The map doesn't have to look like Google Earth to make sales. The map can look good in 3d and still look like a classical map.

And yes please use the 3d engine because they are way more modable than the old maps and the development costs are not as much as the old 2d games.

Darkrenown said:
No, I think you'll find the majority of players can play DW just fine.
Click to expand...

Yes, DW has a lovely map, but I suspect it was influenced by mods like Magna Mundi and Theatrum Orbis Terrarum ;)

EU3 vanilla on the other hand... Not so hot which is why everyone installed ToT.

Please don't get me wrong, as far as 3d projections of maps goes, the CK2 one looks nice, but everyone is trying to make it a clear point that we want a period piece map and interface style in the game and that we all play in political or relationship map mode.
 
This is sort of what I imagined (modified screenshot).

ck2troopexample.jpg


Each soldier could represent 5,000 soldiers. So 4 soldier figures would equal 20,000 soldiers, 3 soldier figures would equal about 15,000 soldiers, 2 soldier figures would equal 10,000 soldiers, etc. I also tossed in a burning town for fun. :p
 
telesien said:
But there must be a reason, why TW series is doing so well when you compare it with other games and given the nature of that games I seriously doubt it is in the tactical combat, because that one is enjoyable and manageable only early in the game when armies aren't that numerous. And still people play these games quite a lot. Why is that? The gameplay is not nearly as good as it can be, the AI is dumb at best. So why?
Click to expand...

People aren't buying the TW series for the strategic map. They are buying for the battles and the detailed 3d world you are in when you are in that mode.

Actually the same thing could be said about Mount and Warband. The map just happens to be there mostly for the single player, but you spend most of your time in the battle maps.
 
Darkrenown said:
If you think the CK2 map looks ugly I don't know what to say. Maybe it's because I've seen it in motion rather than just a screenshot, but the map is gorgeous and I have no idea how you can say it looks like EUIII.
Click to expand...

This.


I don't know why people say it looks bad... It's almost excelent considering pre-alpha. (Textures do need work, but that was expected)
 
Tegus said:
We'll see. Just like we add mapmodes for different gameplay mechanics when needed, political mapmode will be there if we feel a need for it. If we however manage to improve terrain mode so much that you don't want/need to play in political mapmode, it might be removed. Time will tell :)
Click to expand...

If the borders are visible on the terrain map, using the nation colours as was suggested, I can finally play in terrain instead of having to use political. The shading would need to be bright at the very edge of the border and then fade out further from the edge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back