• 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
 
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.

There's no way to change the localization files that way. Titles are based on tier and culture. So if you want an ethnic Russian ruler of Finland to be a Grand Duke you're gonna have to make all Russians of that tier Grand Dukes.

Why do you think it would be ahistoric for a Russian who conquered Livonia, Karelia, parts of Novgrod, Finland, and Estonia to have a major advantage over his peers?.

He's certainly gonna be more prestigious then some Princeling whose barely managing to hang on to Chernigov, and he'll doubtless have other advantages. Given the difficulty of figuring out what actually happened in this region (even it's famed Rota System has been questioned by some historians) the desmene advantage and ability to vassalize Russian Princes doesn't seem like an unreasonable way to simulate the advantages that a guy who crushed multiple pagan tribes, and brought vast tracts of land to Christ, would receive.

BTW, prestige-gain is more complicated then you're thinking. Our Prince started out a Prince and conquered 3-4 Finnish Duke-level areas so he's got four or five Duke-titles in total. Since each Duke-title is worth 2.5 prestige a year he's getting 10-12.5 prestige a year. The promotion to King means he no longer gets prestige from subsidiary Duke-titles, and he's only got the 5 from his Royal crown, so he gets less total, but he can get more prestige from Duke-level vassals (2.5 per vassal), and he can actually get a net benefit if only keeps one Duke-title.

Nick
 
Why do you think it would be ahistoric for a Russian who conquered Livonia, Karelia, parts of Novgrod, Finland, and Estonia to have a major advantage over his peers?.

He's certainly gonna be more prestigious then some Princeling whose barely managing to hang on to Chernigov, and he'll doubtless have other advantages. Given the difficulty of figuring out what actually happened in this region (even it's famed Rota System has been questioned by some historians) the desmene advantage and ability to vassalize Russian Princes doesn't seem like an unreasonable way to simulate the advantages that a guy who crushed multiple pagan tribes, and brought vast tracts of land to Christ, would receive.

Livonia and Estonia were more populated and could indeed give a Russian prince an advantage, but they're not Finland. Conquest of Karelia, Bjarmland, and Finland would be ahistorical because these lands were pretty much worthless, with low, dispersed population, and bad climate. Other princes would rather laugh at such conqueror announcing himself to be a king of such wasteland, than bend their knees before 'elevated one'. At a stretch it could be comparable to situation of some Iberian king conquering parts of Sahara inhabitated by few Berbers, Tuaregs.


BTW, prestige-gain is more complicated then you're thinking. Our Prince started out a Prince and conquered 3-4 Finnish Duke-level areas so he's got four or five Duke-titles in total. Since each Duke-title is worth 2.5 prestige a year he's getting 10-12.5 prestige a year. The promotion to King means he no longer gets prestige from subsidiary Duke-titles, and he's only got the 5 from his Royal crown, so he gets less total, but he can get more prestige from Duke-level vassals (2.5 per vassal), and he can actually get a net benefit if only keeps one Duke-title.

Thus it would be better to keep Finland 2nd tier, I think.
 
Livonia and Estonia were more populated and could indeed give a Russian prince an advantage, but they're not Finland. Conquest of Karelia, Bjarmland, and Finland would be ahistorical because these lands were pretty much worthless, with low, dispersed population, and bad climate. Other princes would rather laugh at such conqueror announcing himself to be a king of such wasteland, than bend their knees before 'elevated one'. At a stretch it could be comparable to situation of some Iberian king conquering parts of Sahara inhabitated by few Berbers, Tuaregs.

Why would anyone expect a Russian to bend knee to a Finnish King? That's just not relevant to the discussion at hand. It's like saying England should be Duke-tier because the Count of Anjou didn't immediately pledge allegiance to William. As for Bjarmia, that's also irrelevant -- it's part of Russia by default.

The provinces you seem so convinced are worthless (the inland provinces actually inside the Kingdom of Finland) are only 30% of the country:
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...ll-Duchies-Kingdoms-for-CK-1.05-and-Deus-Vult

The other 12 provinces are coastal, or in Livonia and Estonia.

Thus it would be better to keep Finland 2nd tier, I think.

And what's the third tier title for the area?

The devs have made a Game Design decision that a) all Europe has provinces and b) all provinces have default Kingdoms. You can make a new Kingdom, or add the territory that is now in Finland to other Kingdoms, but you cannot make those provinces have no default Kingdom unless you're modding.

You have the right to mod all you want, but this isn't a mod thread. lt's a what Paradox is doing thread, and they ain't doing a mod.

Nick
 
I don't think being 'king' of the current finnish realm would be something peers would laugh at. There's plenty of pagans and conversion to be done.

Not to mention it's in a bit of a land-grab position, taking the majority of it and dealing with it's economic and religious problems is a difficult task.
 
Settlements and provinces are renamable. Renaming a province results in the renaming of the county title. I don't think Duchies or Kingdoms are renamable, but I don't think it's been mentioned yes/no.
 
Hopefully I'm not too annoying :), well at least it is the right thread;).

It's about something I've noticed from the most recent screenshots, first of all the terrain looks brilliant. However what can be seen about something cosmetic yet important for the game immersion, the province borders, is rather mixed. Certain regions seemed to have had a total revision, I love the new set up in France, other regions still seem to use CK 1 borders, like Germany on the right bank of the Rhine from Brandenburg, Brunswick, Thuringia to Austria.
I'm just curious whether these 'cosmetic' things are still in development or that a mod will be needed.

I hope this is not problematic, however, even though I did make a (small) remark about this in another thread, I agree that this shouldn't derail other threads, but this is the thread for questions and remarks about this matter.
 
Last edited:
They are reworking the provinces. They have done this to France as you noticed and Poland too. There might be more changes as the version that the reviewers are using is older than the beta version. I would think that Germany will be on the "to do list".

They have still three months to work on the game so they have time to finalize the province borders.
 
They are reworking the provinces. They have done this to France as you noticed and Poland too. There might be more changes as the version that the reviewers are using is older than the beta version. I would think that Germany will be on the "to do list".

They have still three months to work on the game so they have time to finalize the province borders.

The map is pretty much set in stone now. Changing maps this late in a project is not something you'd ever want to do.
 
The map is pretty much set in stone now. Changing maps this late in a project is not something you'd ever want to do.

That is a good policy! I have a question though: If one is happy with the number and general placement of the provinces, and would like simply modify their shape here and there, will that be as simple to mod as in EU3 (i.e: in a graphics file)? Or will that be a more complicated undertaking?
 
The map is pretty much set in stone now. Changing maps this late in a project is not something you'd ever want to do.

I can understand that this is annoying; I just noticed that province borders in certain regions were revised and others were not (I like HRE and French games, hence I noticed the difference (so a bit disappointed regarding the first region and very happy regarding the second region)). OTOH in the end it is more cosmetic and more part of the immersion; and a map mod probably will be possible.
So the map (or more precisely province borders) as seen in the latest reviews is the final version or have you finished it after that?
 
Last edited:
I have already expressed my opinion on the map in another thread, but not in this one, so I hope that I will not be deleted for doing it now.
I like the looks and the terrain and everything else about the map very much,

BUT:

I agree 100% with Runwaard,
The provinces of present-day Austria need to be redrawn. They are the same as in CK1. I could not force myself to play the Duchy of Austria in CK1, because it was just too annoying to look at its territory.

you can check really any map to get my point:

http://www.deutschland-im-mittelalter.de/bilder/landkarten/landkarte-mitteleuropa-mittelalter.jpg

http://www.deutschland-im-mittelalt...en/landkarte-deutsches-reich-hohenstaufen.jpg


thanks for reading
 
As Johan said, the map is not going to be changed at this point.

Ruwaard: The recent press copy should have the final map, yes. Although someone pointed out one of the recent previews was using old screenshots, as could be seen from the lack of demesne limit in the top corner etc.
 
As Johan said, the map is not going to be changed at this point.

Ruwaard: The recent press copy should have the final map, yes. Although someone pointed out one of the recent previews was using old screenshots, as could be seen from the lack of demesne limit in the top corner etc.

Thanks for the reply (with the expected, yet not wanted, answers ;)), so I won't get any hopes up.:)
(Just in case) I'll be preparing myself for 'mixed feelings' about the province borders (which I examplified with my comparison of the situation in France:happy: versus Germany (a pity):unsure:).
 
Last edited:
I have already expressed my opinion on the map in another thread, but not in this one, so I hope that I will not be deleted for doing it now.
I like the looks and the terrain and everything else about the map very much,

BUT:

I agree 100% with Runwaard,
The provinces of present-day Austria need to be redrawn. They are the same as in CK1. I could not force myself to play the Duchy of Austria in CK1, because it was just too annoying to look at its territory.

you can check really any map to get my point:

http://www.deutschland-im-mittelalter.de/bilder/landkarten/landkarte-mitteleuropa-mittelalter.jpg

http://www.deutschland-im-mittelalt...en/landkarte-deutsches-reich-hohenstaufen.jpg

thanks for reading

Great maps, which will at least will become useful for any future map mod, IMHO the situation under the Hohenstaufen will probably be must useful for the entire period of the game. However to be fair it is not just Austria.
 
So the map won't be changed. I accept that fact and I am not complaining.

Just for protocol I want to add that I didn't want any new provinces, but merely the shapes of the old ones changed. But I accept that this is not going to happen.

Only one thing left for me to say before I'm forever silent about this matter: The renaming of the province "morava" (name in CK1) to "znojmo" (name in CK2) made it worse than in CK1.

but this again will be thing to discuss for mods or maybe a CK3 :)
 
Last edited:
So the map won't be changed. I accept that fact and I am not complaining.

Just for protocol I want to add that I didn't want any new provinces, but merely the shapes of the old ones changed. But I accept that this is not going to happen.

Only one thing left for me to say before I'm forever silent about this matter: The renaming of the province "morava" (name in CK1) to "znojmo" (name in CK2) made it worse than in CK1.

but this again will be thing to discuss for mods or maybe a CK3 :)

I agree, accepting and not complaining yes, but that doesn't mean one has to be happy about it. :)

Then I guess we will need a map mod, which hopefully isn't too hard to do :). This will mostly be about reshaping provinces, with some exceptions, for instance instead of Znojmo/Morava north of Austria (should also include a bit of Pressburg upto the river March, now Lower Austria) I rather have a Traungau (now Upper Austria)west of it (or keep Znojmo and add Traungau); but that will be something to discuss further in a future map mod discussion. ;)
 
Last edited: