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
Garuda said:
* * * Dissenter in the Ranks Alert * * *

I prefer the beautiful maps and graphics of CKI, EU1&2 and Vicky 1.
Click to expand...

I know one cannot argue about taste, but do you (or anyone else who prefers 2D maps) mind explaining to me why you think 2D is superior to 3D? To me functionality and clarity come first, visual beauty second. However that does not mean that I don't want visual improvement when possible. Apart from some issues with historical borders (mainly in Eastern Europe) I am quite pleased with the screenshots I have seen so far of the map. The map is visually attractive and does not seem to lack in functionality.
 
Kandletaadu said:
I think that if you would compare the old europa games with clausewitz ones, then the older ones chewd less your computer hardware. At least with the V2 and DV anyway.
Click to expand...

The Europa Engine was facing a bottleneck. Absolutely everything was done on the CPU, including drawing the map. It is wrong to say that the "older games chewed less computer hardware". If the GPU handled drawing the map while the CPU handled everything else, even if you suppose the power of both the CPU and GPU combined equaled the power of another CPU running the same game, that computer with the CPU and GPU would run the game more efficiently.
 
Kandletaadu said:
I think that if you would compare the old europa games with clausewitz ones, then the older ones chewd less your computer hardware. At least with the V2 and DV anyway.
Click to expand...

I have not experienced that yet until now, but then I haven't played Victoria 2's grand campaign until the end (btw CK1 started to lag after 1100). Anyway, like Sult I have always assumed that the lags in Clausewitz games were due to the fact that they do not support multicore CPU's. It's a flaw of this engine but it's not related at all to 3D maps perse. The large amounts of data and calculations Paradox games have to keep track off, seems more of a cause to me. A cause that will be alleviated when multicore is supported (and CK2 is heading in this direction).
 
IMO everyone is entitled to their opinions, including those fans who prefer 2D over 3D. Because IMHO 3D is something worthwhile to strive for, I am just curious as to why someone would prefer 2D over 3D. The system requirements are one reason. Personally I can fully sympathise with the aesthetic argument (2D does give one the feeling that one is staring down a real map). Personally, even though 2D has always served the fanbase well, I think it is right for Paradox to exploit these knew technological possibilities.

I too hope not to ignite a flame war (everyone has their preferences, I for one prefer my game to arrive in an old-fashioned box). I certainly hope all Paradox fans will enjoy CK2 when it is released.
 
Hertog Jan said:
I am just curious as to why someone would prefer 2D over 3D.
Click to expand...

Personally I find 3-d maps distracting. Distracting both in the manner that it adds nothing to my game experience while taxing my less-than-perfect eyesight, and distracting because I'm always left with the thought, "They spent their time on this?!?" I'm a gamer from the old Avalon Hill boardgame era, map is a utilitarian necessity for the game, not a selling point. I'd be interested in why those that like the 3-d map like it so much. What does it do for you?
 
RickInVA said:
I'd be interested in why those that like the 3-d map like it so much. What does it do for you?
Click to expand...

It is aesthetic and feels more alive; I feel less like I'm playing a game on a map, and more like I'm experiencing the world itself. It just draws me in more, and this of course is going to vary from person to person. I'm sure quite a few would prefer an medieval style map drawn on a parchment.

I'd like to know how some can find the map of the original to be more beautiful. I can understand how some will prefer it stylistically, but more beautiful? No. Not only were the graphics technically inferior, the map was also somewhat ugly. It has nothing to do with 2d vs 3d or realisic vs old-map, the map just wasn't attractive.
 
RickInVA said:
Personally I find 3-d maps distracting. Distracting both in the manner that it adds nothing to my game experience while taxing my less-than-perfect eyesight, and distracting because I'm always left with the thought, "They spent their time on this?!?" I'm a gamer from the old Avalon Hill boardgame era, map is a utilitarian necessity for the game, not a selling point. I'd be interested in why those that like the 3-d map like it so much. What does it do for you?
Click to expand...

In 2007 I had to get used to EUIII having a 3D map, but I have since gotten used to it. You say 3D maps distract you. In what way, if I may ask? It is true that more details are now visible on the game map, which may potentially clutter the view, but I must add that it hasn't been bothering me. You are perfectly well entitled to your views, but I think Paradox has waited quite long before switching to 3D and that a return to 2D is not going to happen. 3D just works well for most. As to a map being a mere neccesity and not a selling point, I disagree completely. Any feature that is appealing, is a selling point. Gameplay features are the most important, but a nice and attractive map may convince people to buy the game too (especially considering the fact that the map occupies about 80% of any screenshot).
 
I prefer 2D over 3D-for-the-sake-of-3D. Although the 'Uncanny Valley' is being bridged as 3D and aesthetics are becoming more smooth. For example, when it comes to CRPG's I prefered Baldur's Gate and Planescape: Torment over any 3D CRPG during the 2000-2008ish era. The 2D isometric perspective and the beautiful touch for detail was more immersive than the uncanny, unreal feeling of, for example, Morrowind. It was big and sprawling, but also 'dead', 'cold' and 'fake'.

The same goes for the Paradox games. The older games breathe atmosphere that the newer generation seems to lack. However, when I look at the CK2 screens I think in terms of 'pretty' and 'woah!' That's saying something.
 
Hertog Jan said:
In 2007 I had to get used to EUIII having a 3D map, but I have since gotten used to it. You say 3D maps distract you. In what way, if I may ask? It is true that more details are now visible on the game map, which may potentially clutter the view, but I must add that it hasn't been bothering me. You are perfectly well entitled to your views, but I think Paradox has waited quite long before switching to 3D and that a return to 2D is not going to happen. 3D just works well for most. As to a map being a mere neccesity and not a selling point, I disagree completely. Any feature that is appealing, is a selling point. Gameplay features are the most important, but a nice and attractive map may convince people to buy the game too (especially considering the fact that the map occupies about 80% of any screenshot).
Click to expand...

First of all, I'm not under a delusion that my desired 2-d map will be making a return. Having said that...

Distracting: Look at the map sample of Italy in the post. There are a lot of province ownership shields floating around. Can you say for sure which areas they are associated with? Perhaps its just my poor eyesight, but I cannot easily determine which provinces those shields are assocaited with. That distracts. Its not a problem with a 2-d map. Then I look to the north. The Alps are blocking my view of provinces to their North. Very realistic if I'm standing in Campania, not so usefull in a game. So I now have to not just move north, but kind of adjust my camera view to get a good look "behind" the mountains. Again, IMHO, distracting. Again, not an issue with a 2-d map.

Necessity vs. Selling Point: With anything that any company produces all the components take time and money to produce. When I look at any game with a fancy map I see hours and dollars spent to make it. Time and money that could have been better spent, IMHO, on other areas of the game. Even if no additional time would have been spent on other areas this represents money spent that I have to pay for in a higher sale price for the product. And if indeed the sale price is not impacted, that money represents lower profit to the company, which makes it harder for them to produce more and better games that I enjoy.

What it represents: In a large way, IMHO, it is not the map per se, it is what the map represents. IMHO, 3-d maps, and sprites instead of counters, and fancy artwork are form over substance. From time to time I have been lured into purchasing something due to its prettyness, where in the end there was no substance and I realized I was fooled. Once bitten, twice shy. So when a game designer/publisher goes to great legenths to make a game pretty I have serious doubts that there is as much attention being devoted to the actual mechanics and gameplay (Civilization 5 anyone?). Sell me on what it does, not on what it looks like.
 
RickInVA said:
First of all, I'm not under a delusion that my desired 2-d map will be making a return. Having said that...

Distracting: Look at the map sample of Italy in the post. There are a lot of province ownership shields floating around. Can you say for sure which areas they are associated with? Perhaps its just my poor eyesight, but I cannot easily determine which provinces those shields are assocaited with. That distracts. Its not a problem with a 2-d map. Then I look to the north. The Alps are blocking my view of provinces to their North. Very realistic if I'm standing in Campania, not so usefull in a game. So I now have to not just move north, but kind of adjust my camera view to get a good look "behind" the mountains. Again, IMHO, distracting. Again, not an issue with a 2-d map.

Necessity vs. Selling Point: With anything that any company produces all the components take time and money to produce. When I look at any game with a fancy map I see hours and dollars spent to make it. Time and money that could have been better spent, IMHO, on other areas of the game. Even if no additional time would have been spent on other areas this represents money spent that I have to pay for in a higher sale price for the product. And if indeed the sale price is not impacted, that money represents lower profit to the company, which makes it harder for them to produce more and better games that I enjoy.

What it represents: In a large way, IMHO, it is not the map per se, it is what the map represents. IMHO, 3-d maps, and sprites instead of counters, and fancy artwork are form over substance. From time to time I have been lured into purchasing something due to its prettyness, where in the end there was no substance and I realized I was fooled. Once bitten, twice shy. So when a game designer/publisher goes to great legenths to make a game pretty I have serious doubts that there is as much attention being devoted to the actual mechanics and gameplay (Civilization 5 anyone?). Sell me on what it does, not on what it looks like.
Click to expand...

On your example with respect to distraction: Aren't you exaggerating a bit here. In CK1 there were many more shields, on a much smaller surface area. I for one think this screenshot shows a great improvement: the new map enables me to see all the independent dukes and kings at a glance from Campania and does away with the showing all the counts. So Paradox is already making sure only the essentials appear on the map. About the Alps: If Campania is your vantage point, in CK1 your could only see the immediate environment of Campania. In CK2 one can see all the way to the Alps. If you want to see north of the Alps you would have to move up there anyway, whether playing 2D CK1 or 3D CK2. In CK1 you would again be restricted to your direct environment, but in CK2 you can see all the way towards Denmark. In short, I don't think your argument of distraction makes much sense.

On selling points: I again disagree. First of all designing any map entails work. Besides Paradox reuses many of the old provinces for the new map. This by itself already reduces the workload. Furthermore, the Clausewitz engine is also carried over from Vicky 2. Making a fancy map costs money, but also think about the value it may generate. If the map looks good (and admit, many people consider the map to be attractive) the game will sell better. Add to this that money cannot describe the joy one gets from seeing a pretty map. Last but not least, Paradox may need to invest in a 3D map because their games may start to look tacky or outdated and this may hurt sales and revenue (which then also cannot be reinvested into new games).

On representation: One cannot argue about taste. If these are your experiences I am sorry that you have felt cheated before.
 
Hertog Jan said:
I for one think this screenshot shows a great improvement: the new map enables me to see all the independent dukes and kings at a glance from Campania and does away with the showing all the counts.
Click to expand...

I again went to look at the sample map. I still find I cannot agree with you. Either your eyesight is just better than mine (in which case congrats) or perhaps you are more willing to assume which province the shield is supposed to be associated with. On the 2-d map there is no reason to make assumptions, it is right there! I hope there is some alternate map-mode that isn't 3-d!

I see that we must simply agree to disagree. I don't like the 3-d map. I don't see what there is to like about the 3-d map. What is so much better about it? I will admit to being old fashioned. I will admit that I don't like things just because they are new and "improved". (I'm not trying to say I dislike things because they are new, but that I don't automatically like them just because they are new). Lastly I am not trying to convince you or anyone else that the 2-d map is superior. I was merely replying to another post that asked why people didn't like the 3-d map. I did so. I didn't do so to have my opinions rejected and dismissed. I do feel those ways, and nothing you can say will change that, so I really fail to understand why you feel the need to "refute" my opinions. If you say why you like the 3-d map I will not try to change your mind, please give me the same courtsey.
 
Last edited:
And just because... :)

Did I mention how much I dislike sprites? All those little soldiers marching across the map in screen shot #2? Its like CK2 is trying to be a FPS. I really hope there is a option to use counters instead. I literally would be inclined not to buy the game if I have to watch all those little guys marching about the map. If I do buy CK2 it will be in spite of the features in this DD, not because of it.
 
I did not mean to offend you. I do respect your views, but I do appreciate good arguments for views too and the argument of distraction didn't cut it for me. I don't know whether my eyesight is better than yours, but I do wear glasses. Regardless of eyesight, knowing your heraldry can make a big difference in recognising kingdoms from afar (I recognised Apulia, the Papacy, Croatia, Hungary, Poland and La Serenissima Venezia). I will no longer dwell on 3D/2D, we've both stated our case. Don't worry about being old-fashioned (conservative is neater word), so am I. I've said before that I prefer my game to come in a box. I too often frown on whether new things really constitute progress and I also prefer substance over style. But if the core is OK, than I do not mind a nice package either. I am pretty sure CK2 will have many gameplay features to love and am confident that we can all enjoy it.

EDIT:
About the sprites: Have a look at this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TH3l7ZPwKKY. In it the player (Johan?) launches an attack on the Duchy of Normandy as King Philip I of France. When the levies are raised, small coats of arms (the medieval version of counters) show up. I do not know whether this is an option you can tick in the game settings or whether it has something to do with zoom level (the video centred on northern France).
 
Last edited:
RickInVA said:
On the 2-d map there is no reason to make assumptions, it is right there!
Click to expand...

It is simply the way you perceive the map. I'm sure you aren't alone in your troubles of identifying ownership and so on, but my guess is the majority of us have no such issues (otherwise many more would comment).

Fortunately for you that one of the benefits of 3d maps is that they can be easily modified. I'm sure someone will create and release a map that is more to your taste.
 
RickInVA said:
And just because... :)

Did I mention how much I dislike sprites? All those little soldiers marching across the map in screen shot #2? Its like CK2 is trying to be a FPS. I really hope there is a option to use counters instead. I literally would be inclined not to buy the game if I have to watch all those little guys marching about the map. If I do buy CK2 it will be in spite of the features in this DD, not because of it.
Click to expand...
You are aware that all Paradox games use sprites, right?
 
There is? Haven't seen it in EU2,3, Rome or Vicky2
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back