• 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.

CK3 Dev Diary #2- The Medieval Map

Hello everyone!

I would like to take a moment to talk about the map of Crusader Kings 3, what the vision for the map is, and how it is different from Crusader Kings 2.

Let’s start with our ambitions. CK2 had several parts of the map that was outdated, and to be frank, a bit underdeveloped. When we started to update the map for CK3, we knew that we wanted to take a pass at everything, do additional research, and update the different areas accordingly. This goes for the entire De Jure title hierarchy, so there are several new kingdoms and duchies present. In terms of scope, the map will roughly match that of CK2. I know I will disappoint those of you hoping for China, but, sadly, it will not be on the map. We will however, have a few new additions: the entirety of Tibet will be present, unlike CK2 where the most eastern parts were excluded, and sub-Saharan Africa is also extended, where we’ve gone all the way to the Nigerian coast.

When setting the map visuals, province layout, rivers, and more, the focus has always been on clarity. The map should be easy to read and get information from. For example, you should be able to read most of the terrain simply by looking at the map, without the need to click on the province, or tooltip it, in order to find that out, while rivers should be easy to see and let you know if you will cross one when moving armies around.

We represent the map on three different zoom levels. When zoomed far out, the map will turn into an actual paper map, allowing for an easy overview and stylish screenshots. Zoom in a bit and you will have the 3D map, with the typical political overlay, great for interacting with your vassals and other realms. Zoom in even further and you’ll see the names of all the counties along with the terrain, as we strip away the realm colors. Perfect for moving armies around and knowing where to pick your battles, without the need to switch around to different map modes (but don’t worry, we still have several map modes for easily accessing different information).

One of the most notable changes is how we handle Baronies. In CK2, Counties were the smallest entity we had on the map, a province if you will, with several Baronies represented through the interface of the County view. In CK3, we took the next logical step and made Baronies into their own provinces. We have been able to create a map with much more granularity and better accuracy. Most Counties will normally consist of two to five Baronies, with some exceptions. The amount of provinces will be noticeable when waging war, as it offers a larger degree of movement for you armies (more on that in the future).

dd_02_baronies.png


To give you a good idea of the increased province density, here is a comparison of the British Islands in CK2 and CK3, being on the left and right side, respectively:

dd_02_ck2_ck3_comparison.png


Before you all go nuts about playable baronies: No. You cannot play as a Baron. The lowest playable rank will still be that of a Count. The emphasis will therefore be on the Counties rather than the individual Baronies. As such, Baronies exist with a few things in mind. For example, they can never leave a county. This means Counties stay the same over time, avoiding weird splits where a single barony goes independent or to another realm (reducing that hideous border-gore ever-so-slightly). The number of Baronies within a County is one factor that represents its wealth and how “good” it is. Another important factor is the terrain. A County with a lot of Desert will not be as beneficial as one with a lot of Farmlands for example.

Speaking of terrain, we have several different terrain types spread out across the map. Instead of having a single terrain spread out across large areas of the map, we differentiate between similar terrain types by separating them, such as Forest and Taiga, or Plains and Drylands. Not only does it make the map look and feel distinct in different parts of the world, they also have a different impact on gameplay.

dd_02_england.png


dd_02_maghreb.png


Then we have Impassable Terrain. These are far more frequent, and in many cases much larger, than you will be used to from CK2. We’ve essentially used these for any area that we consider uninhabited enough to warrant it not being part of an existing County. Some areas have plenty of smaller impassable provinces, such as the mountains surrounding Bohemia, while others have fewer and far larger pieces of inhospitable land, such as the deserts of Arabia and Syria. Impassable Terrain cannot be traversed by armies, often creating bottlenecks that you’ll have to pass through or perhaps even choose to go around, should it be heavily fortified.

dd_02_impassable.png


That’s it for now. I hope you enjoyed this early sneak peak of the map and I'll be sure to show more to you in the future!
 
  • 6Like
  • 2
Reactions:
I get no playable barons, and frankly the pragmatic reasons (performance, etc) win out over the minor cool factor. As plenty of others have said though, perma-linked barons is just bizarre. I can support it as an optional game rule ala no exclaves, a multiplayer option to improve performance but the explanation given seems like the weak handwave it is. Bordergore is historical and was a major factor in both dynastic and personal ambition and policies (Burgundy!) and to use it as an excuse for removing a feature seems almost insulting. There are about a dozen ways to even go around that aesthetic excuse, (the current CK2 solution,i.e. county owner color over the county with tiny flags denoting barony owner when zoomed all the way in) that it makes me start to wonder if we're looking at a major hard backend change here that will seriously hurt modding.
 
For example, Kiev. How could it be of a russian culture if the Kievan royals founded Moscow in the 13th century which was the start of the russian culture as it is, and so on, and so forth..
Russian in CK2 means a common eastern slavic culture before it split into Ukrainian, Belorussian and what you call "Russian as it is". And since they called themselves Rus, even in Kiev (*), obviously that culture's name would be Russian, even if it might be different from what we know as Russian today.

(*) It's even called Kievan Rus in the game, although now that I have a chance let me say that it shouldn't. They didn't call themselves Kievan Rus, just Rus for all the Russian lands or Kievan Principality for lands of Kiev, and Kievan Rus is just a term historians use for the period when the Principality of Kiev happened to be the center of all the Russian lands. However in the game any other Principality can become that or even an external force can conquer these territories, in which cases it makes no sense for all the Principalities be just Principalities (actually they're Kingdoms right now, but they should be Grand Principalities with Duchies being Principalities) while only Kiev somehow being Kievan Rus for no reason. It's like... if you start as a random count in Scotland, conquer all of the Britain, form the Empire and a couple of Kingdoms to fit in the vassal limit, and then discovered what you thought was the Kingdom of England was actually for no particular reason called London's Britain. Even if it isn't Britain, but only one Kingdom of it that historically happened to become the most prominent, but not in your game, and it might even not have its capital in London.
 
In Maghreb, baronny has no meaning.
Turn it to tribe, each tribe has it sheikh.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheikh

Count has no meaning too.
Turn it to Province, each province has it Qaid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qaid

Duke has no meaning too.
Turn it to Wilayah, each state (big region) has it Wali.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wāli

It may be not 100% historical but it's better than nothing.

The system of Iqta' was quite different and CK3 can't represent it.

The baronnies are represetend by fortress with circle walls? I don't like it for Morocco. Things were not like that.

I would love to see more density for Morocco. Cities were not a thing at that time except big cities like Marrakesh and Fez. Everything turned around tribes in various regions :

Rif, Ghomara, Sous, Zayane, Chaouia, Doukkala ...

what are you talking about ? many of the actual morroco's main cities existed during the middle ages as real walled cities , and if we count them thats around 20 at least . ad to that the hundreds of kasbah (forts) built in between the 800s and 1700s that exist everywhere in morroco today .

500px-Braun_Anfa_UBHD.jpg


497e39cbb7838f93d1e1efc803edcb0e.jpg


tangier-morocco-and-safi-malta-top-bottom-from-left-ceuta-spain-and-illustration-id664675369


for this one its the spanish siege of a morrocan fort and the naval skirmishes around it ( yes morroco and spain fought many battles on sea usually in support of armies on land during the struggle for who will control the straight of gibraltar on both southern spain and northern morroco )
view-of-penon-de-velez-de-la-gomera-morocco-colored-engraving-from-de-illustration-id664671759



civitates-orbis-terrarum-sale-marruecos-grabado-1572-author-braun-georg-1541-1622-hogenberg-frans-location-private-collection-R4EY74.jpg



civitates-orbis-terrarum-tanger-marruecos-grabado-1572-author-braun-georg-1541-1622-hogenberg-frans-location-private-collection-R4EYBH.jpg




45cf616e-921b-49b9-a758-cfa6bc531b40.jpg



this is a kasbah (fort) the same yunkai and pentos on game of thrones
ait_benhaddou_high_atlas_morocco.jpg


36730598.jpg


this is in sijilmasa , the gate to morroco from the desert , and as you can see it wasnt just a camp for nomades but a real city with things built in it .

75123779-580x387.jpg



maybe you are morrocan but you underestimate a lot the history of your country that was nowhere near that afhghan hillmens image you have . morrocan main cities looked like the andalusian ones especially those near the coast , also you can see that in cities like marrakesh who was built andalusian style especially on its original monuments like the koutoubia mosque .
also ranks you mentioned yes they sound tribal but those are bedouin relics , something taken from the arabs , the morrocans also used other high ranks like basha and wizir , liwaa , and more .
 
Last edited:
I support inclusion of playable baronies. They are still a standard and complete part of the game's feudal system, even if tiny in scale...and feudalism is the focus of this game. It would be disappointing to see all those baronies be present on the map, only to be rendered unplayable. It is not as if we're asking for landless courtiers or clergy...just one more level of feudal rulers - barons, that have potential now that they are actually present on the map.

I at least hope it is moddable with proper functionality, so someone can enable playable baronies after release.

As for the map, it looks amazing. I am hoping for an Imperator-level detail on the map, and turns out that is actually in. :)
 
Looking good so far! :D I like that you've chosen to make the map a lot more granular. I'm assuming the subsections of the map mean you can move more than one army into the province to besiege all the holdings at once.

A quick question - how will Hospitals, Forts and Great Works be represented on the Map? Will they show up in one of the individual Baronies, or will there be an extra slot for them to represent them on the map?
 
A quick question - how will Hospitals, Forts and Great Works be represented on the Map? Will they show up in one of the individual Baronies, or will there be an extra slot for them to represent them on the map?

Not sure about forts and hospitals but they've confirmed great works won't be in the game, at least on release iirc.
 
Terrain map seems inconsistent with regions like Britain (green, trees, farms) looking too unrealistic and cartoonish, while desert regions look a bit better in detail. Those farms are hard to look at, each one looks like the surface of a low-poly bubble.

Second, the model representations of the "baronies" are also cartoonish and monotonous. I see maybe 3 different types? Castle, church/monastery, and maybe what is supposed to be a village?? Even then it will get tiring fast because the overwhelming type is that repetitive "castle": perfect circles with little flags, equidistant throughout the map.

With the aimed level of detail in number of provinces, there should be realistic population-based representations of villages or simply for most baronies. At the very least, please make some distinguishing features for the "capital" cities or provinces: I know London around 1100A.D. had around 18,000, which is still greater than just 2 or 3 little buildings or the same old circular "castle". Please put some distinct features and more realistic looking cities where there should be higher population areas.

I'm excited and appreciate to see that the goal is to create a beautiful terrain map with more playability. If there is one aspect of Imperator Rome that Paradox achieved best, it would be the Terrain map realism and attention to detail, and the smooth "political map colors" overlay in that mode. The farms and terrain in IR are very beautiful, places like the Nile Delta are a prime example of the effort they put into that map. CK3 should aim for similiar realism.
 
No. You can still inherit baronies from your own counties, but not from a county belonging to someone else. If such a situation would happen, it will be inherited by the county holder instead.

Am I right in assuming this would give a claim to the barony/county for the person who otherwise would have inherited?
 
Terrain map seems inconsistent with regions like Britain (green, trees, farms) looking too unrealistic and cartoonish, while desert regions look a bit better in detail. Those farms are hard to look at, each one looks like the surface of a low-poly bubble.

Second, the model representations of the "baronies" are also cartoonish and monotonous. I see maybe 3 different types? Castle, church/monastery, and maybe what is supposed to be a village?? Even then it will get tiring fast because the overwhelming type is that repetitive "castle": perfect circles with little flags, equidistant throughout the map.

With the aimed level of detail in number of provinces, there should be realistic population-based representations of villages or simply for most baronies. At the very least, please make some distinguishing features for the "capital" cities or provinces: I know London around 1100A.D. had around 18,000, which is still greater than just 2 or 3 little buildings or the same old circular "castle". Please put some distinct features and more realistic looking cities where there should be higher population areas.

I'm excited and appreciate to see that the goal is to create a beautiful terrain map with more playability. If there is one aspect of Imperator Rome that Paradox achieved best, it would be the Terrain map realism and attention to detail, and the smooth "political map colors" overlay in that mode. The farms and terrain in IR are very beautiful, places like the Nile Delta are a prime example of the effort they put into that map. CK3 should aim for similiar realism.
I said this before in a different thread, but CK2's primitive system of settlement clusters was nice for giving some visual indicator of how developed a given area was. It'd get downright dense if you built up your holdings, and I loved it.

I feel you on the bubbly appearance of some of the features, though. The big UNDER DEVELOPMENT is some comfort, but I guess it'd depend on how boardgame they want CK3 to be.
 
The former. You cannot transfer barony vassals out of a given county, and the county holder will always be that baron's liege.

Does this mean that if you grant a county title to a baron, they will automatically loose the baron title? (assuming the county title is not the same county the barony belongs to)
 
Would we get a fairly consistent density of provinces across the civilised world? (except deserts, tundras, etc)
EUIV seems to struggle with province density quite a bit, when you compare HRE/Post-Dhrama India to China it starts to look a bit hilarious.
This is probably harder than EUiv/Ckii given we are working on barony level.
 
Has anything been said on how they might streamline game management? When I see four times the map density, what I really see is four times the amount of sieges, whack-a-mole, micro-management and busywork. Has anything been released that suggests how PDS are going to quarter the busywork to compensate for 4 times the density? I want to play at King, not play at bureaucrat.
 
'unpacking' counties like this is the probable reason that we can't have non dejure owners of baronies now. If you could then suddenly chunks of the map would be very border gore heavy.

I hope they find a solution to this is a real step back imo, especially with the difficulty it might have in reintroducing things like republics.

EDIT: baronies on maps is also the defiant reason extra holdings can't be added. I hope they feel the benefits of this system outweigh the losses.
 
Last edited:
Now that I relies that those provinces are baronies instead of counties I take back what I said earlier.
What we are looking at here is fewer overall holdings. In 1066 the British isles have a total of 239 constructed holdings, with free space for another 92. This is before we start counting the prosperity mechanic from Reaper's Due. In comparison CK3 in the same area appears to only have 281 total slots for holdings.
Constructed Baronies.png
Potential Baronies.png
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: