• 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
 
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.

That is because I rather follow the spirit of his message and not the exact words;)

There are several known facts:
A/ People are interested in history
B/ People are interested in games
C/ Oddly enough, people are not interested in historical games

So that is the problem. Games must do something wrong, when they aren't able to attract that many people. The one exception with massive popularity (despite being quite bad!!) is the TW series. So logically by using what makes these games so popular, should make your games more popular too. And it seems like King is convinced, that the answer is in the graphics and UI. I am not that sure, but on the other hand I can't see any better answer, so I would most likely do the same.
 
Do the devs have any plans to make the sky blue???
 
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?

Sure not because of the campaign map. I (and most i know) loved the TW Series because of the epic 3d-Battles. The first big Battles on my computer in real 3d. The campaign map was ok....just ok. I wouldnt have a problem when the campaign map would be still 2D in TW Series. In fact, it could be even prettier then.

But i bet its for another reason, why we get a 3d-Map now in every Paradox game. Its because they lack the money to improve 2 different engines same time. They can only focuse on 1. So they decided for the more "modern" one. A 3d Map. Per Se no wrong decision, when the graphics are very detailed. I didnt liked EU3 Graphics (especially compared to EU2), but the Graphic for HoI3 was ok, because it looked very abstract. And the map in Vicky2 now is absolut sexy. Thats how we wanted HoI3 and EU3 before.

Now every engine gets better developed over time. Also the Clausewitz-Engine. The reason why so many here get shocked is, because the CK2 Map looks "uglier" then the Vicky2 Map.

But i personally think (hope) that only looks that way, because King (and Team) showed us here a close detail view. One that a normal Payer would never use. Who would play with such a view. Would be better to show us the typical view, from above, when i see many Provinces same time. Then we would maybe see, its not so different from Vicky2.

Could be, that they hold the "sexier" shots back for later... ;)
Same with this close shots of this Knights. From close they dont look very good. But it is clearly visible that they are more detailed as the Units in the last Pdox games. So i bet they look very good in the normal Player view from far above.
 
That is because I rather follow the spirit of his message and not the exact words;)

There are several known facts:
A/ People are interested in history
B/ People are interested in games
C/ Oddly enough, people are not interested in historical games

So that is the problem. Games must do something wrong, when they aren't able to attract that many people. The one exception with massive popularity (despite being quite bad!!) is the TW series. So logically by using what makes these games so popular, should make your games more popular too. And it seems like King is convinced, that the answer is in the graphics and UI. I am not that sure, but on the other hand I can't see any better answer, so I would most likely do the same.

I can't read the article form here, but I honestly can't see what aboput Paradox's recent UI would be off-putting...
 
I can't read the article form here, but I honestly can't see what aboput Paradox's recent UI would be off-putting...

It can still be improved, but I included UI only because it is mentioned in the article King posted link to.

I think the graphics part can be quite important when you want to become popular. People deeply interested in games won't mind, but chances are that those already either play PI games or will never play them anyway. The broader public needs pretty and shiny images to get interested. I personally know people that judge the game by the screenshots they see and either go "damn, that is pretty, I must try it" or "wow, that is ugly, away with it."

Keeping your games look too old is bad marketing. Hardcore gamers may prefer it or at least they don't care, but those aren't the ones you want to attract and I think King explained it very well, why should all wish for CK2 to be very popular.

EDIT: And I almost forgot one thing. Ugly looking games also scream "hardcore" at everyone, so more casually oriented people won't even try them. Shiny things look more accessible.
 
It can still be improved, but I included UI only because it is mentioned in the article King posted link to.

I think the graphics part can be quite important when you want to become popular. People deeply interested in games won't mind, but chances are that those already either play PI games or will never play them anyway. The broader public needs pretty and shiny images to get interested. I personally know people that judge the game by the screenshots they see and either go "damn, that is pretty, I must try it" or "wow, that is ugly, away with it."

Keeping your games look too old is bad marketing. Hardcore gamers may prefer it or at least they don't care, but those aren't the ones you want to attract and I think King explained it very well, why should all wish for CK2 to be very popular.

I agree, and not just to draw in new players either. I'm a hardcore Paradox fan, and I'm all for better graphics just for their own sake.
 
I don't understand... even if you won't use these new mechanisms, why do you oppose them?

Hum, did that question point to me? If yes ... what mechanism? And where did I oppose a mechanism? Okay, I guess you wanted to ask someone else. ;)

That is because I rather follow the spirit of his message and not the exact words;)

There are several known facts:
A/ People are interested in history
B/ People are interested in games
C/ Oddly enough, people are not interested in historical games

So that is the problem. Games must do something wrong, when they aren't able to attract that many people. The one exception with massive popularity (despite being quite bad!!) is the TW series. So logically by using what makes these games so popular, should make your games more popular too. And it seems like King is convinced, that the answer is in the graphics and UI. I am not that sure, but on the other hand I can't see any better answer, so I would most likely do the same.

The problem is, King mentioned 3D and offered an article about UIs to back it. There is no connection between both, in anything that they offered us in the dev diaries or following replies.
You also seem to not understand that I would welcome a beautiful map, not caring if its 2D or 3D. The point is - it isn't beautiful, not even slightly. So I don't damn 3D, I damn what PI delivered so far. I also already said that I know that it is prealpha and might improve, as well as I said that I doubt it as this never happened with any of their previous games. Sorry, but I hate to repeat myself all over again. :p

EDIT: And I almost forgot one thing. Ugly looking games also scream "hardcore" at everyone, so more casually oriented people won't even try them. Shiny things look more accessible.

Indeed. So CK2 will target the same hardcore audience as EU3 1.0 did? :D
 
So that is the problem. Games must do something wrong, when they aren't able to attract that many people. The one exception with massive popularity (despite being quite bad!!) is the TW series. So logically by using what makes these games so popular, should make your games more popular too. And it seems like King is convinced, that the answer is in the graphics and UI. I am not that sure, but on the other hand I can't see any better answer, so I would most likely do the same.

Well, i doubt TW would be such a success, when it had only the campaign map, and no battles in 3d at all. Then this series wouldnt have gone until a Shogun2. It would have ended just after Shogun1. The special from TW was and is "big 3d battles". They were never known for something else. Playing on the campaign map is just filling the time between the battles. Without battles it would be a risk clone.

EU3 Games are very differnt. They were never bought because they have the best graphics on the market, or sexy 3d battles. They just got bought, because they are complex and lovely in detail. They dont need 3d Battles. So its hard to compare the minimalistic TW Series with the complex Paradox Games, in sight of, how good they sell.

Oh, and btw, go and tell the TW Fans, that Shogun2 gets sold without 3d-battles this time. Guess what? Nobody would buy it. The 3d-campaign Map is absolutly irrelevant. I even belive, Shogun2 would sell same good, when they used a modern 2D Campaign map. In fact the best 3D Map would be one, that look like 2D, but with zoom capability. Thats why i like the HoI3 map.

P.S. I never rotate the HoI3 Map. Why should i? Just a little zooming in and out...to get more details. I also never use the diagonal close-up view. It also looks ugly. Thats why i dont need sprites anymore. I loved to play with them on the 2d-Map in HoI2 and EU1/2. In Hoi3 just ugly. But on the other hand, the Counters are so much better now then in HoI2, so its fun to play with them.
 
It can still be improved, but I included UI only because it is mentioned in the article King posted link to.

I think the graphics part can be quite important when you want to become popular. People deeply interested in games won't mind, but chances are that those already either play PI games or will never play them anyway. The broader public needs pretty and shiny images to get interested. I personally know people that judge the game by the screenshots they see and either go "damn, that is pretty, I must try it" or "wow, that is ugly, away with it."

Keeping your games look too old is bad marketing. Hardcore gamers may prefer it or at least they don't care, but those aren't the ones you want to attract and I think King explained it very well, why should all wish for CK2 to be very popular.

EDIT: And I almost forgot one thing. Ugly looking games also scream "hardcore" at everyone, so more casually oriented people won't even try them. Shiny things look more accessible.

Unfortunately graphics arent the only "bad" diffrence between TW and paradox games (I honestly dont care about graphics). Simply paradox games are just too hard for casuals, TW you can play right away and fighting is more interesting. And oh tutorials are better on TW.
 
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?

Marketing.
 
Hum, did that question point to me? If yes ... what mechanism? And where did I oppose a mechanism? Okay, I guess you wanted to ask someone else. ;)

I'm just asking generally... if it was announced tomorrow that any of the games I like was getting a new, improved, beautiful map I'd be delighted. If it was also combined with a list of great new features, I'd be doubly so. I don't agree with everything paradox does, but I cannot see why anyone is against this.
 
The problem is, King mentioned 3D and offered an article about UIs to back it. There is no connection between both, in anything that they offered us in the dev diaries or following replies.
You also seem to not understand that I would welcome a beautiful map, not caring if its 2D or 3D. The point is - it isn't beautiful, not even slightly. So I don't damn 3D, I damn what PI delivered so far. I also already said that I know that it is prealpha and might improve, as well as I said that I doubt it as this never happened with any of their previous games. Sorry, but I to repeate myself all over. :p

The map is still in very early stages and devs already said, that it will be improved. Be glad they showed you something and all others will see only the final product ;)

Remember the V2 map with L shaped harbours that made Italy look like that giant machine used in mines?

Indeed. So CK2 will target the same hardcore audience as EU3 1.0 did? :D

To be honest my only problem with EU3 map were the colours that made it look like Las Vegas commerical. Otherwise it was quite OK and it was also the very first Paradox game that got some major space in czech gaming magazines, so I'd say the new graphics did its job :p

EDIT:
Unfortunately graphics arent the only "bad" diffrence between TW and paradox games (I honestly dont care about graphics). Simply paradox games are just too hard for casuals, TW you can play right away and fighting is more interesting. And oh tutorials are better on TW.
I don't think that you need less time to learn how to play tactical battles than how to play Paradox games and I wouldn't consider them harder. Both need a bit different skills. For example I was always way better at Paradox games although I started with them roughly the same time as with Shogun.
 
That is because I rather follow the spirit of his message and not the exact words;)

There are several known facts:
A/ People are interested in history
B/ People are interested in games
C/ Oddly enough, people are not interested in historical games

So that is the problem. Games must do something wrong, when they aren't able to attract that many people. The one exception with massive popularity (despite being quite bad!!) is the TW series. So logically by using what makes these games so popular, should make your games more popular too. And it seems like King is convinced, that the answer is in the graphics and UI. I am not that sure, but on the other hand I can't see any better answer, so I would most likely do the same.

It's a tricky question. The graphics is likely part of the attraction, but what else does TW offer that makes it so popular. I have Medieval 2 on my desktop, but all complaints aside, I think that it is the battles that make that game. It's what they do best over at CA. This July 2008 interview with one of their top people tends to lean that way, too. http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=19328 As much as I enjoy playing Paradox games, things are frankly a bit abstract, especially in those periods where you watch the clock, waiting for your boy-king to finish his education and ride off and conquer something.

Now, King and the other Paradox devs know their business. I am a historian by trade, not a game designer, but from teaching college history for a few years I would say that people are interested in history but not necessarily reading, which for me is where games might fill in some gaps, as a teaching tool for the public. I spend a lot of time on wars, political intrigue, and royal scandals (especially of the greed-and-lust category) in my lectures. I have also asked my students point-blank what they are interested in reading about and what in history is the "good stuff," because ultimately I want to sell books, so I can understand in a way where King is coming from. Along those lines, I found this discussion on the TW forums interesting, as to what TW hardcore gamers want out of the next installment in that franchise. http://forums.totalwar.com/showthread.php/3493-How-to-advance-the-Total-War-series

There has been some talk from the devs on making battles more interesting (well, more interesting than rolling dice at least). So for me what is going to sell CK2 is the interaction between characters, which TW does not have (where relations are more implied, but there is a nice diplomacy model [I like the offer-counteroffer screen]). There always needs to be something to do besides conquering the world, which is what I have been trying to suggest in various threads on this forum. So far, there are a lot of features announced that offer room for this sort of thing to happen. I think that a lot of us here feel invested in the future of Paradox and the success of CK2, so we want to do what we can to insure that future.

Edit: while I was writing a few others pitched in their opinions. Man, I am long-winded sometimes. ;)
 
I'm just asking generally... if it was announced tomorrow that any of the games I like was getting a new, improved, beautiful map I'd be delighted. If it was also combined with a list of great new features, I'd be doubly so. I don't agree with everything paradox does, but I cannot see why anyone is against this.

Well let me tell you it this way. We have quite some experience about PI's graphical abilities. This experience combined with the status quo of the product, causes the fear that they will not only fail to achieve their, indeed very likeable, target to improve their eye candy status, but that they will even more fail backwards to where they were with EU3 1.0.

Perhaps this will be the first time that we see a dramatic graphical improvement during development ever, I really hope so. But due the mentioned experience we have very few reasons to believe so, thus it is a logical move to warn and moan that they don't seem to be on track. 3D and rotation, just for it's own sake, will fail if this is what it will look like.
If it really should get much better, it might have been smarter to offer first screens later and just discuss game design first. It surprised me anyways why they started their diaries 1 year ahead of the release btw.
 
It's a tricky question. The graphics is likely part of the attraction, but what else does TW offer that makes it so popular. I have Medieval 2 on my desktop, but all complaints aside, I think that it is the battles that make that game. It's what they do best over at CA. This July 2008 interview with one of their top people tends to lean that way, too. http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=19328 As much as I enjoy playing Paradox games, things are frankly a bit abstract, especially in those periods where you watch the clock, waiting for your boy-king to finish his education and ride off and conquer something.

Now, King and the other Paradox devs know their business. I am a historian by trade, not a game designer, but from teaching college history for a few years I would say that people are interested in history but not necessarily reading, which for me is where games might fill in some gaps, as a teaching tool for the public. I spend a lot of time on wars, political intrigue, and royal scandals (especially of the greed-and-lust category) in my lectures. I have also asked my students point-blank what they are interested in reading about and what in history is the "good stuff," because ultimately I want to sell books, so I can understand in a way where King is coming from. Along those lines, I found this discussion on the TW forums interesting, as to what TW hardcore gamers want out of the next installment in that franchise. http://forums.totalwar.com/showthread.php/3493-How-to-advance-the-Total-War-series

There has been some talk from the devs on making battles more interesting (well, more interesting than rolling dice at least). So for me what is going to sell CK2 is the interaction between characters, which TW does not have (where relations are more implied, but there is a nice diplomacy model [I like the offer-counteroffer screen]). There always needs to be something to do besides conquering the world, which is what I have been trying to suggest in various threads on this forum. So far, there are a lot of features announced that offer room for this sort of thing to happen. I think that a lot of us here feel invested in the future of Paradox and the success of CK2, so we want to do what we can to insure that future.

Edit: while I was writing a few others pitched in their opinions. Man, I am long-winded sometimes. ;)

I think we will both agree that battles are out of question right now and it would also be bad decision to implement them. Every review would only focus on this comparison with TW series.

Seriously though, I can't imagine playing campaign and still using manually controlled battles. Whenever you've got more than 10 units, you are no longer able to make some plans. At least I'm not. So I assume that if the battles are really that important, they serve only on three levels:

A/ Attracting that small minority of people that has enough brain capacity to manage even bigger armies
B/ Hook to get people interested
C/ A second game that adds historical and custom battles to campaign.

But maybe I am just bad example since I wasn't able to enjoy any TW game since they switched to map without provinces.



EDIT: Although a man who used this words when talking about Empire
"No, and we've got a system in place to make sure that the AI is selecting the right tactics and the right "plays," if you like, at the right time."
Can't be taken to seriously ;)
 
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.

You have not read to the bottom of my post. I am going to ignore your post for your own good.
 
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.

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.