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 69867 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
LordofSaxony said:
Although I like Roman numbers, I disagree that they should be used. Not everyone knows what the numerals mean in the numbering system.


Could just use a flag measurement system, ala Total War. I was originally going to show just a rectangular cells (instead of chevrons), I wouldn't mind that either.
Click to expand...

Well I'd say those who can't read roman numerals should learn to do so if they play historic games, and a game is a way to do that (not saying all games have to be educational, but little educational elements aren't bad). Note that we will also have roman numerals for rulers now, so it will be in the game anyhow. Also it would be a limited number of signs to learn to give a rough indication of strength, something like I to XXV at most, so I for 1, V for 5 and X for 10 is all that's needed. Plus the basic notions that IV is 5-1, IX 10-1 etc.

P.S.: Of course the problem is not new. This thread here actually made me buy Matrix's (Gary Grigsby's) War in the East. The latest beta patch there now introduced historic german corps numbering, historic as in the historic mistake of numbering the 48th Panzer Corps not XLVIII but XXXXVIII. At some point early in the war some official had noticed those errors and an official directive was issued how to write those numbers, regardless German corps numbered in the 40's continued to be labelled alternatively XXXX- and XL-, sometimes in the same correspondance...
 
Balor said:
Its just.. why make the models 5-6x as complex just to show "an army", instead of a single unit where you can actually see DETAIL and INFORMATION about who's army it is, and what tech it has?
Click to expand...

Tech will be represented on the models?! :eek:
 
I have a feeling that the developers are only thinking about the schedule. She does not play a major role in global strategies. Why make such water? to the brakes and all the terrible lag ever? Graphics should be in last place. While I was disappointed and very unfortunately (((((((
It would be better talked more about the system, economy, military action.
Information is extremely
 
LordofSaxony said:
Although I like Roman numbers, I disagree that they should be used. Not everyone knows what the numerals mean in the numbering system.



Could just use a flag measurement system, ala Total War. I was originally going to show just a rectangular cells (instead of chevrons), I wouldn't mind that either.
Click to expand...

I was joking about the Roman numbers, of course.

But not about the Secession War-style chevrons. Chevrons on shields, very good. Chevrons like in a Dixie uniform, bad call.
 
WolfSS said:
I have a feeling that the developers are only thinking about the schedule. She does not play a major role in global strategies. Why make such water? to the brakes and all the terrible lag ever? Graphics should be in last place. While I was disappointed and very unfortunately (((((((
It would be better talked more about the system, economy, military action.
Information is extremely
Click to expand...

The guy making the map isn't necessarily able to work on code, either. It just shows off the work from different departments, much like the HOI 3 sprite packs.
 
Caranorn said:
Well I'd say those who can't read roman numerals should learn to do so if they play historic games, and a game is a way to do that (not saying all games have to be educational, but little educational elements aren't bad). Note that we will also have roman numerals for rulers now, so it will be in the game anyhow. Also it would be a limited number of signs to learn to give a rough indication of strength, something like I to XXV at most, so I for 1, V for 5 and X for 10 is all that's needed. Plus the basic notions that IV is 5-1, IX 10-1 etc.

P.S.: Of course the problem is not new. This thread here actually made me buy Matrix's (Gary Grigsby's) War in the East. The latest beta patch there now introduced historic german corps numbering, historic as in the historic mistake of numbering the 48th Panzer Corps not XLVIII but XXXXVIII. At some point early in the war some official had noticed those errors and an official directive was issued how to write those numbers, regardless German corps numbered in the 40's continued to be labelled alternatively XXXX- and XL-, sometimes in the same correspondance...
Click to expand...

Yup, I know they have Roman numerals for rulers, I was one of the advocates behind them using it. But, I highly disagree that they should use numerals to represent unit strength. I think that would put off some people who just want a simple number or graphical representation, but instead would have to pick apart and analyze roman numerals just to get the rough idea for unit strength of a particular army.

Cèsar de Quart said:
I was joking about the Roman numbers, of course.

But not about the Secession War-style chevrons. Chevrons on shields, very good. Chevrons like in a Dixie uniform, bad call.
Click to expand...

To each his own, like I said earlier I don't mind what they use. If they use rectangular cells, a flag system, whatever, it's cool with me.
 
Cèsar de Quart said:
This style of chevrons and stars doesn't suit a Medieval game at all. For Vicky they would be perfect.

I prefer numbers. Roman numbers :p
Click to expand...

Dear god no, please not so many numbers :( It's a medieval game, they shouldn't be doing numbers so much, regardless of the numeral system used.

I actually like the chevrons. Makes me think of arrows in a quiver. Many arrows = many troops, few arrows = few troops.

Or little sword symbols, instead of chevrons... filling up yellow from bottom to top, like the chevrons in LordOfSaxony's picture.

In CK1 they used to have little regiment flags, right? AI armies who never merged their regiments into one stack always had those really dense clusters of flags fluttering in the wind, I liked that too :)
 
Golwar said:
3D isn't the problem per se. If I would like the map and the world it reflects, I could care less if it's 3D or 2D, if I can rotate it or not.
But the point is, your current teasers and screens look outright as ugly as EU3 did at its very first days. You remember how thankful everyone was when the first improved map mods arrived?
There had been several EU1 and EU2 veterans among my friends, who bought EU3 blindly and droped the game after some few attempts to enjoy it. Their major reasoning: not the lack of historic events etc., it was just too damn ugly. And just when it seemed that you finally improved in this regard, as proven by Vicky 2 and DW, you offer us CK2 which seems to be a major step backwards.

So the article that you linked is all about the barricades that a clunky interface creates, that prevents a direct access to all the fun the hardcore games can deliver. So true - and PI did quite well with constantly improving its UI.
But what part plays 3D in this? Whatfor do I need to see the underwater topology? In other words, I miss any relevance of what you said that you want to achieve and of what you actually do. All that we see is an unnecessary technical option with no gameplay value, that costs us flair. And if there is something that you shouldn't underestimate, than it is flair.

Maybe I can't imagine yet what intentions you have to improve UI and accessibilty by this steps, who knows maybe I'll be in for a huge surprise. Maybe the map is pre-alpha and will indeed look so much better at the end. Just ... I doubt both.
I've been here long enough and never ever did the final game differ too much from the first screens and teaser you offered. The only reason why I might believe that it's different this time, is the enhanced development period.
Click to expand...

I... really cannot fathom wha you're saying. This map looks like a step backwards? :wacko: It looks great to me. I was quite annoyed at the lack of topography in the newer games. All flat and hard to tell what the terrain looks like. This map reminds me of the EU Rome map, which is easily the best looking one Paradox has produced.
 
Garak said:
I... really cannot fathom wha you're saying. This map looks like a step backwards? :wacko: It looks great to me. I was quite annoyed at the lack of topography in the newer games. All flat and hard to tell what the terrain looks like. This map reminds me of the EU Rome map, which is easily the best looking one Paradox has produced.
Click to expand...
"What the terrain looks like"?

That's just not a priority for most posters. They want a map with lots of information that's useful in-game, or that creates an atmosphere. A photo-realistic 3-D map with perfect terrain does neither job well because a) it does not look Midieval and b) it's cluttered with information you can't use in-game.

Let me put it to you this way:
I have played CK for hundreds of hours. I have never, once, thought to myself "Did they put too many fjords in Norway?"

Several times I've thought "If only I could change the colors used in the political map-mode in-game so I'd stop confusing the Danes with the Pechenegs," or "Clicking the King's desmene counties are a pain. If I only I could just click some random Duke's counties in Relationship map mode, and instantly see which Counties belonged to him, which were in his King's desmene, which were owned by his vassals, which ones were directly held by other Dukes, etc."

Heck pre-DV I'd have traded my left arm for a map-mode telling you which courts had unmarried girls between the ages of 16 and 20.

I'm not saying I think they should scrap it and go back to 2-D. But I am surprised you "cannot fathom" the reasons some folks don't love this map.

Nick
 
Nick, what you said makes sense. It's constructive criticism, whereas many have said that the map is "ugly" and similar things. Tegus said that they are working out other map issues and improving lighting (which was my major issue off the bat). So in the end it will probably look like EU Rome, hopefully with a variety of optional overlays. If you notice, the minimap on the screenshots says physical map, and like you I hope that the relational map (or several relational maps) will be the focus of their work. This would serve some of the other features of the game, such as showing marital alliances and the like. But I think that it is too early to pass judgement. The main points of the DD so far as I can tell are to show off the tabards (of which the devs seem to be proud and rightly so) and Aerie's work on converting satellite data to a 3D map. Lighting, topographical features, and political names will all come later, as I am sure you are aware.
 
Nick B II said:
"What the terrain looks like"?

That's just not a priority for most posters. They want a map with lots of information that's useful in-game, or that creates an atmosphere. A photo-realistic 3-D map with perfect terrain does neither job well because a) it does not look Midieval and b) it's cluttered with information you can't use in-game.

Let me put it to you this way:
I have played CK for hundreds of hours. I have never, once, thought to myself "Did they put too many fjords in Norway?"

Several times I've thought "If only I could change the colors used in the political map-mode in-game so I'd stop confusing the Danes with the Pechenegs," or "Clicking the King's desmene counties are a pain. If I only I could just click some random Duke's counties in Relationship map mode, and instantly see which Counties belonged to him, which were in his King's desmene, which were owned by his vassals, which ones were directly held by other Dukes, etc."

Heck pre-DV I'd have traded my left arm for a map-mode telling you which courts had unmarried girls between the ages of 16 and 20.

I'm not saying I think they should scrap it and go back to 2-D. But I am surprised you "cannot fathom" the reasons some folks don't love this map.

Nick
Click to expand...

So far, all we've seen is the terrain map mode. My comments were specifically about that. I don't see how the concern about information relates to this. Terrain mode in most Paradox games is borderline useless in terms of mechanical information, anyway. And regardless, the person I was responding to wasn't complaining about a lack of information on the map. He just said he didn't like it in general.
 
The truth is, that in all the Paradox games I have, the very first I do after loading a game is changing the map mode to political. The only exception is HoI series where I occasionally switch back to terrain mode in the simplified version. That makes the 3D variant the most useless thing in the game.

Sadly I don't think there is anything that can be done about it, because it doesn't offer any special information and for the general situations, nothing can beat the helpful simplicity of colorful political map.

So screenshots like this are good eye-candy, but not meaningful for any productive discussion.
 
telesien said:
The truth is, that in all the Paradox games I have, the very first I do after loading a game is changing the map mode to political. The only exception is HoI series where I occasionally switch back to terrain mode in the simplified version. That makes the 3D variant the most useless thing in the game.

Sadly I don't think there is anything that can be done about it, because it doesn't offer any special information and for the general situations, nothing can beat the helpful simplicity of colorful political map.

So screenshots like this are good eye-candy, but not meaningful for any productive discussion.
Click to expand...

Spot on!
 
Garak said:
So far, all we've seen is the terrain map mode. My comments were specifically about that. I don't see how the concern about information relates to this. Terrain mode in most Paradox games is borderline useless in terms of mechanical information, anyway. And regardless, the person I was responding to wasn't complaining about a lack of information on the map. He just said he didn't like it in general.
Click to expand...

I think that discussions concerning terrain map are somewhat emotional because of those two developer comments:

Doomdark said:
AlexanderPrimus said:
Like many players, I spend about 90% of my time in political mode. So while I like the new topographical map a lot, I'm really curious/anxious/excited to see some more screenies of the political map, since that's what I'll likely be staring at for hours on end. Please? :)
Click to expand...
Yes, most players (including me) tend to use the political map mode all the time. That is a shame and not really the way forward, IMO. The ambition is to make the terrain mode more useful, with enough political information that a separate map mode is not really needed.
Click to expand...

Tegus said:
Zechariah Zevi said:
Does this mean that there will be no political map mode?
Click to expand...
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...
 
My primary concern is the provinces of the map, how many there are and how they are drawn and shaped. Allot of work had gone into redrawing the map more accurately, and adding much needed missing provinces in Wales, Ireland, Brittany, and Scotland, as well as elsewhere. I sincerely hope that these considerations will be taken into account.
 
Drachenfire said:
My primary concern is the provinces of the map, how many there are and how they are drawn and shaped. Allot of work had gone into redrawing the map more accurately, and adding much needed missing provinces in Wales, Ireland, Brittany, and Scotland, as well as elsewhere. I sincerely hope that these considerations will be taken into account.
Click to expand...

IIRC, there will not be additions to the number of provinces in the area covered by CK1: the new provinces will be in the trans-Ural region, in Persia, in East Africa, etc. I like what the devs are doing overall with the map (they have obviously put a lot of thought and effort into this work and deserve considerable encouragement), but I am thinking that there will be map mods changing some things and adding provinces: in fact, I would encourage map modders to make smaller-scale maps, that is, you could make a map just of the British Isles + some other nearby lands like the northern littoral of continental Europe. Or maybe the devs could release a map pack with different campaign maps.


I take this from earlier in this thread (see the stickied developers' comments thread that Veld has been maintaining):
-How many provinces in the map?

-910, if I remember it correctly. 1013 with the sea provinces.

-What is the status of province drawing on the map? Is this far advanced now, and if so how has it been researched? Will you be requesting accuracy feedback on the province set-up?

-It is pretty much done, don't think we'll change anything now. It's mostly the old provinces from CK1 with a couple more added. The betas will and have commented on the accuracy of the map.

-That's kinda disappointing to hear, I gotta be honest. The province set-up in CK1 was pretty problematic, as far as historical accuracy goes. Pretty much the whole life of CK1 we were told it was impossible to fix the map, and a lot of research from various people on the boards went into improving it recently for map mods. Now you seem to be saying "well, we ignored it and you'll be stuck with the same map for the sequel".

-Changing province borders is trivial, and I expect further corrections will be made once the Alpha phase kicks off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back