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 69866 Bug Reports 19707 User Modifications 10587 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
I would prefer to have just the current 'one sprite - one army' look. I like to see the details, and making them 1/6 (or something similar) will just be generic men wandering around ... and I fail to see how a 6 man army is more immesive than a one man army. Just put a counter under the army sprite like in EU3, Rome and Vicky2, so you can see armysize at a glace.

Why are people complaining about map rotation?? ... it is in, live with it ... and you don't have to use it if you don't want to. I could understand if you were forced to use it against your will.
 
LordofSaxony said:
I suppose they could shrink the soldier graphics down to about 1/6 the size or so, and have each group of 5,000 soldiers act as 1 soldier icon. So if you have 15,000 soldiers you'll see 3 soldiers grouped, if you have 30,000 you'll see 6 soldiers grouped, and so on. You wouldn't even need to hover over their army to see the size, you could have a solid guess that way, at least within 5k or so.
Click to expand...


For Victoria 2 we looked at having multiple soldiers. The reason we decided not have them was partly aesthetic, the soldiers became to small and that looked bad. But the main reason was performance. one soldier has about 25 bones for animation. with 6 soldiers you have 150. For each unit on the map! This is a lot of vertex calculation calculations to make! And at times there will be very many units on the map at once and it would be unsustainable.

you might say, but Victoria 1 had groups, and so dose Civ 5.

- Well, in Victoria 1 they were a single pre-rendered 2d sprite, which is just not viable option anymore.
- And in Civ 5, there are no where near the amount of units on the map, compared to a Paradox game.

But for every game we re-review things like this, and see if we can be done. We have dreams too, but we can't do the impossible.
 
vertinox said:
The first 2 Total War games had really good maps (Shogun and Medevial Total War), of course thoese were 2d. Rome: Total War's map, not so great.
Click to expand...

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 throughtrying 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.
 
Interesting article. I also agree; after a few years of extreme success with the 3D Clausewitz engine, would it really be realistic to ask a growing company to go back to 2D?
 
I tend to find the Paradox maps rather ugly so almost from the start I change what I can change, I lean towards a map looking more like a map but I think that depends on the game.

I don't know why but Paradox seem to be inspired by the look of other games rather then actually sitting down and creating their own style. I am unfamiliar with this game but the most appropriate appearance would seem to be the Lord of the Rings type look but in 3D.

If the map is more like Rome I would ask does this mean there is a single and very large texture file for the terrain because this could mean that you could have any appearance you wanted, you should also be able to adjust the heights and create a flat appearance.

As regards combing the information of both the terrain and the political in one map I can only see this as a possibility if you first move away from what I will call the total war look, dark forests and brown mountains make it almost impossible to combine the two.

You really need a stylised map with a dynamic but new type of border system, something like this that I photoshopped., of course the type of game would dictate the style but looking at the map now there is no real change its OK but its really just more of the same.

CKIImap.jpg
 
Juano said:
I suppose that sums it up - some want a map, some want a world.
Click to expand...

I dont know if its as black and white as that, you could imagine a map laid over a 3D world, there are so many options that you should not restrict yourself to just two. By the way I think the campaign maps for ETW and NTW are not that good either. Of course people have to run the game as well so that is also part of the design process.
 
delra said:
Will it lag? Performance is more important than appearance. You made DW map cute but majority of players can't play the game unless they are zoomed out so this new graphics isn't used at all. Please keep that in mind.
Click to expand...

No, I think you'll find the majority of players can play DW just fine.
 
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 throughtrying 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...

I agree that is the best route to go, but at the same time I can see why people get nervous when the visuals get some love. Now I'm all for it, and I don't see any dumbging down at all (every itineration of Paradox's core games is more complex and deep than the last), but other game companies do have a history of beefing up graphic while similtaneously dumbing down gameplay to get a bigger fanbase. Again, I see no evidence whatsoever that PI are doing that, but it is an industry trend, so it's understandable that people worry.

Aerie said:
For Victoria 2 we looked at having multiple soldiers. The reason we decided not have them was partly aesthetic, the soldiers became to small and that looked bad. But the main reason was performance. one soldier has about 25 bones for animation. with 6 soldiers you have 150. For each unit on the map! This is a lot of vertex calculation calculations to make! And at times there will be very many units on the map at once and it would be unsustainable.

you might say, but Victoria 1 had groups, and so dose Civ 5.

- Well, in Victoria 1 they were a single pre-rendered 2d sprite, which is just not viable option anymore.
- And in Civ 5, there are no where near the amount of units on the map, compared to a Paradox game.

But for every game we re-review things like this, and see if we can be done. We have dreams too, but we can't do the impossible.
Click to expand...

Jesus you made the right decision.... the game would explode if there was a big rebellion in china
 
Great reply, King. I like the new map, and I support the merge of terrain and political maps.

Just please let me see my realm and others spanning the map in neat colors when I zoom out. ;)
 
I like the units a lot although i hope the shields are a place holder and will be different. They dozens of units with the blue and white checkered design is unpleasing to the eye. Maybe if you could use the heraldry on the shields it would be better?
 
Juano said:
Modestus said:
I lean towards a map looking more like a map but I think that depends on the game.
Click to expand...
I suppose that sums it up - some want a map, some want a world.
Click to expand...

Picturing a "real world" instead of "drawn medieval-style map" is in my opinion a lost opportunity to add an appropriate atmosphere into the game - and that is its biggest flaw, as I see it. (No more dragons in the sea, it's an era of Google Earth now...) In addition, aiming at realism (in any field) is always risky because you have such an unflexible target to meet. More loose artistic expression would give some more freedom and buffer for err. Besides, disproportionally tall unit models on geographical/physical map and dark CoA shields hanging in the air, although they certainly look neat, might dissolve an illusion of realism anyway and create a claustrophobic feel at the same time.

Talking about the preferred style of the main map... mixing something like Montjoie!'s map with Knights of Honor's political map and tweaking it for Crusader Kings' purpose and style (more provinces, less intensive colors, added smaller castles etc) might look cool. As Modestus mentioned before, 3D doesn't rule out mapish maps (take for example map in the CK1 intro).

All in all, no doubt, Paradox knows the best all the considerations that are relevant and sticks with its own vision. I respect that - just expressed my view.

knightsofhonormap.jpg


montjoie1.jpg


montjoie2.jpg
 
I think I'm in the minority here that I actually prefer the Clauswitz engine. I didn't liked EU2, Vicky and HOI2 maps. Sorry but they just look bland. "oh look, that province is a forest. Let's colour it entirely with green! This province is mountainous, colour it brown!" In the end, you have a terrain map that looks like a bloody mosaic.

100% of my game is that I use the political map not the terrain one unless I'm playing games that uses the new engine.
 
I am usually strictily against total 3D maps with full rotational view in strategies for one simple reason. Clarity. The more graphic stuff you add, the less clear the picture is and you have to focus more attention on just getting information.

Short example:

Caesar 3. Nice and simple. You get what you see and there is no problem recognizing what is where. Every building can be seen and easily recognized and one simple push of the button hides buildings so you can also see roads behind them.

CAESAR1.jpg


Casear 4. Full 3D map that becomes quite chaotic. You need to find the correct zoom level and angle to see things, otherwise you will spend a lot of time just adjusting the camera. Not to mention that the size of map and buildings in games liek Caesar 4 or Simcity 4 is not what it used to be. You can no longer fit so huge cities there. Really games like that made me stop playing the new strategies that include, but are not limited to Caesar 4 (loved Caesar 3), Simcity 4 (loved Simcity 3), Stronghold 2 (had blast playing 1 and Crusaders) and Heroes of Might and Magic 5 (loved the whole series)

caesar-iv-20060922033011163-000.jpg



But so far it seems like CKII won't have problem with this. I still don't understand why I would need rotating world, when everyone is used to the "north belongs up" scheme, but that's not much of a problem.
 
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 throughtrying 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...

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.
 
Last edited:
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 can rotate it or not.
But the point is, your current teasers and screens look outright as ugly as the 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...

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?
 
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...

I'm sorry, but I don't understand the relevance to what I said.
King offered a link that debates UI issues which confront newbies with an overload of information in the worst possible forms. I question how 3D, rotation and whatever else shall change anything about this.

Total War is absolutely irrelevant as it sees far less action and events in the turn based mode (and thus can afford the terrible terrible UI that it has). And the combats are indeed rather dull, doesn't change the fact that people still play them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back