• 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 CK2 had several parts of the map that was outdated, and to be frank, a bit underdeveloped.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:
Maybe the addition of Ethiopia to the game? They were the first Christian Kingdom.
It was already explained that Ethiopia wasn't the first Christian kingdom.
I can now add that Ethiopia is already in CK2, and since it is north of coast of Nigeria, south-east of Europe and west of India, which are all confirmed to be in CK3 I can't imagine Ethiopia not being in
 
Last edited:
Let's make counts unplayable as well then, because if you played as a count guess what? Your first goal is to become a duke, you become a duke in 20 years. Ok, now you have typical CK gameplay starting as a duke. What's even the point of that?

If you're not interested in that you can skip it, but some people would like to see such a feature in the game, I would. The "playing as a baron would be boring" excuse is not as valid as when it was used to justify unplayable barons in CK2 if in CK3 they really want to focus more on RPG elements and character development. CK2 was already less focused on map painting than any other PDS game, CK3 will be even more focused on characters

You are right, there should be the option to start playing as a serf. Then you can play becoming a yeoman, then a baron, a count, etc, etc. So much fun!!!


Seriously, I don't really care about playing as a baron , the complication that would add to the game design would not be worth the supposed fun, but I can't help being concerned for this choice to make baronies indivisible from their provinces. It is weird, in CK2 where baronies where a integral part of provinces (you had to select the province to examine the baronies) they could have belonged to character different from the province holder, but in CK3, where they are their own entity they are made almost more abstracted, a permanent part of the province. It is counterintuitive.
 
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 .


I'm not talking about walled cities.

I'm talking about walled "baronnies" and the way the walls are forming a circle.e.
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 .

I'm not talking about walled cities but about walled "baronnies".

First point, I don't like the way it is represented with castle + circle wall while it should be few building + polygon wall and only if we're talking about the fortified villages (Like Aït Benhaddou that you showed).
Second point, the fortified villages were not something common to all regions in Morocco. In the north for example, I have never heard of those kind of fortified villages, I wouldn't be suprised if it was built by the local berbers to protect themselves from other tribes.
Third point, Kasbah (I'm not talking about fortified village) was usually built inside the town and it purpose was to improve the defenses of the town because it allows the defenders to make a second stand even after enemy's infiltration inside the city.
Fourth point, most of the forteresses were built along the coast after Reconquista, it started at the times of Merinid.
Fifth point, I don't say they were no forteresses in the middle age, sure they must have been and specially along the trade caravan's road but it was definitely not something that wielded political power.

Sure Morocco had great cities but tribes played a greater role. It's the tribes that kept Morocco in some kind of perpetual war. You will always find some of them that challenge sultan's authority. After the death of a sultan, his sons fight each other and each of them is supported by tribes. Just to give you an idea, after battle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Alarcos , Sultan Abu Yaqu'b al Mansur had to go back to Maghreb because an Almoravid's pretender supported by tribes started a rebellion (According to Ibn Athir, an contemporary). Without this rebellion caused by tribes, he could easily end the Reconquista because the guys in front lost all their army. That's why I'd love to see tribes for Maghreb because they played bigger role than cities.

For Bacha, it's a turkish world that why I prefere Wali.
For Wazir, it's a man working in sultan's council at the capital.


:rolleyes:
You clearly never played CK2

Baron/count/duke/king are just the generic titles you can relate every character too. But there are tons of localized names depending on the culture, religion or government:
https://ck2.paradoxwikis.com/Vassals#Nobles
Arabs already have localized titles like Wali, Sheik or Emir. That's not going to change

In practice people still often call them counts or dukes because you can determine their rank by the portrait frames. And because you simply need a way to compare titles between different cultures

I have played CK2 and I don't want the same names.

In CK2, it's Wali (Baron), Cheikh (Count), Emir (Duke).
I'd love to see Cheikh (With special tribe mechanics), Caid (Count), Wali (Duke).

It's not the same thing. :)
 
Last edited:
With baronies present on the map but smaller map tiles, I assume that still leaves us with around the same amount of counts, dukes, and kings? Or will there be more/less?
 
I have played CK2 and I don't want the same names.

In CK2, it's Wali (Baron), Cheikh (Count), Emir (Duke).
I'd love to see Cheikh (With special tribe mechanics), Caid (Count), Wali (Duke).

It's not the same thing. :)
Except it is? All you're arguing is semantics. It's kind of you to propose the different names for the titles, but you ought to recognize all you're arguing is for different localisations. It has already been noted that Muslim realms will be following a different, clan-based system, so you'll likely have your tribal mechanics.
 
I don't particularly care about playable Barons, but I'm not a fan of the way Baronies are strictly tied to their Counties and the apparent reduction in general of the complexities around Barons.

I also think that the issue with far away countries holding a single barony in a county belonging to you was already fixed by the "No Exclave" optional rule anyway.
 
Except it is? All you're arguing is semantics. It's kind of you to propose the different names for the titles, but you ought to recognize all you're arguing is for different localisations. It has already been noted that Muslim realms will be following a different, clan-based system, so you'll likely have your tribal mechanics.

From what we know.

1) Map representation of baronies which doesn't fit to tribes.

2) Baronies can't rebel which doesn't fit to tribes.

From those 2 points, we can assume that we will basically have the same things just with different sematincs. I hope that at least the localization will be accurate.

Now, I'm looking forward to that clan-based system. I hope it will not be just some opinion modifier. Let hope for real tribal mechanics. :)
 
You are right, there should be the option to start playing as a serf. Then you can play becoming a yeoman, then a baron, a count, etc, etc. So much fun!!!
I know you're joking but I think the idea is that having Barons produces a greater under dog story of a Baron murding, banging or rebelling against his Liege-Count and taking power for himself especially if they have palace coups.

Though the removal of the more interesting part of baronies such as building up say Holland into a true economic powerhouse of Europe or the time I turned Fyn into the largest collection of levied soldiers in Europe by having so many upgraded castles there is a shame unless they somehow pull a sneaky and we find out that cities, churches and sub forts are available in baronies to be upgraded with ducets. Though I think the mention of leasing baronies might be how they can have the King of France still collect taxes from Normandy.

Now, I'm looking forward to that clan-based system. I hope it will not be just some opinion modifier. Let hope for real tribal mechanics.
Now my historic knowledge on the Maghreb region is rather lax compared to other regions in this period, and as I doubt the Clans of the Maghreb were anything like the Scottish Clans so that's probably a bad comparison. What would you recommend as tribal mechanics for the Maghreb?
 
I must say I'm really disappointed by the fact that baronies are tied to, and indivisible from counties. I thought that their representation in the map would take us in the opposite direction, that is, the inclusion of holdings within the baronies so as to better represent towns, villages, abbeys, watchtowers, etc., but apparently we have baronies merely to look at them and that's it. The map is going to look barren compared to CK2. As have been mentioned, now that the amount of holdings is fixed (as in "stationary") and new ones can't be created, there's even less holdings than the potential total of holdings in CK2 (as per the total count of baronies in Great Britain by @Licarious)

I hope the map models in the screenshots are placeholders due to the game's still in development. Having the same model rotate in different holdings looks repetitive and dull.

And please reconsider the pegging down of baronies to the counties. Bordergore may not be popular, but is historical.
 
Last edited:
Something I haven't seen people note, is that under this system, Holy Orders won't be able to get castles in your lands.

I really hope mods will enable barony-bordergore, and maybe even playable barons...

I am trying to figure the holy order barony situation. In my current play through my insane king went to war with the knights templar, led by his brother. If we cannot grant baronies to outside sources it will reduce some of the fun.
 
I am trying to figure the holy order barony situation. In my current play through my insane king went to war with the knights templar, led by his brother. If we cannot grant baronies to outside sources it will reduce some of the fun.
Ah going to war with holy orders is great, I conquered Norse Poland and tried to expel the Jomsvikings and found out they had a castle in every single Polish province and owned Pomerania.
 
I presume there will be the usual 3 feudal holdings and possibly tribal holdings.

Please consider allowing for more kind of holdings, or somehow to allow for future implementation of things such as monasteries.

Also have you considered a county level upgrade window to represent the wider development of the county outside the individual barony upgrades, which in ck2 are limited to military and income upgrades. Xxxxx
 
That is a lot of provinces. My first thought is great! More land to give to my dynasty! My second is whether or not I will need to rent server time from NASA in order to play this game.
 
barony gore was stupid though because you needed a whole war just to take a tiny castle, and with how CBs worked, it was pretty much all you could do with a whole war, then you got a super long truce afterward.

Lets not forget that after you have sieged it down, you were at 10% warscore and had to wait for 5-6 years until it ticked to 100% warscore because the enemy holy order or whoever it is you were attacking, were just too far away from you to even bother sending your troops over there.
 
Last edited:
The former. You cannot transfer barony vassals out of a given county, and the county holder will always be that baron's liege.

I am sure there is a good reason but might i ask you to reconsider. The ability to gift a castle to a holy order in lands on your border is an event in ck2 that happens every single playthrough. If you are taking this away, is there going to do this without giving away control of a county to the holy order?

Or are holy orders gone now and that is why the ability is gone?
 
Don't care about playable barons but overall the vibe I'm getting here is that a lot of this is building some core aspects of the game with performance in mind. So far we've seen temple holder relevance funnelled into a single archbishop, we've seen the relevance of barons as characters/agents reduced and while it SEEMS nice to have evertyhing visible on map it seems to me to imply that there will be no way to build new holdings ie no building tall, no new holdings, no gradually accruing effect on performance.

I'm not gonna complain offhand, so far none of the changes are killing me but I'd hope the performance gain is nice and shiny like. Or that they use the extra legroom for something genuinely engaging and complex we haven't seen yet.
 
Baronies now have development levels which you can see in one of the screenshots in the dev diary. That is likely where demesne improvement will come in.

I saw the development 5 on that one barony but is that the walls or the whole economic system. I took it as the walls so that we were not surprised when we went to assault a castle to discover oops its level 6.
 
Hmm... How about events adding new holding slots for provinces with great prosperity?
Is something like that still be in a game?

I will miss those, however, if every province has the ability to get to 7 holdings without that event it would not be needed. In fact, if the ability was less random and more in our countrol i would love to lose the event lol.
 
That is a lot of provinces. My first thought is great! More land to give to my dynasty! My second is whether or not I will need to rent server time from NASA in order to play this game.
It's quite deceptive.

The developers have said that in terms of actual provinces/counties, the map won't be too much bigger than CK II's.

The reasons it looks like there are loads more provinces is because baronies now physically exist on the map, and have their own borders. They're still part of counties, however, and counties remain the smallest independent entity on the map. They will still be the 'provinces' you click on, it seems.

So, for example, if you compare the two maps of the British Isles you'd think there's been a huge increase in the number of counties/provinces, but there hasn't.