Expanding the Map

[pengoyo]

CK3 is shallow in regional flavour, with every region except for the Norse and the Iberians feeling the exact same. A tribal count in Igboland plays the exact same as a tribal count in Burma. The Chinese, Tibetans, Buryats, and pre-conquest Maygars have the exact same hairstyle and clothings.

I don't disagree with your overall point that regions don't play that differently in CK3 (at least compared to the extremely different play styles of each government type in CK2). But I find it odd that within region difference always seemed to be glossed over in these discussions. Because in CK2 there little to no mechanical difference between playing 2 characters that shared the same government type and religion (i.e. all Muslims, all Norse pagans, all non-Norse pagans, all Catholics, and all non-Catholic Christians, etc played pretty much the same as other members of their faith/religion/religious group). Where as in CK3 there is much more within group variation. Playing a heresy in CK3 actually play differently (Waldensian and Lollardy's lay clergy springs to mind), where as in CK2 it was pretty much either just identical copy of the main religion or a stripped down version of it. Not to mention culture actually matters in CK3.

To be clear, I would still like to see some mechanics added to help make regions as a whole more unique. For example, Catholicism and Orthodoxy as well as the major branches of Islam (Sunni, Shia, and Muhakkima) could each benefit from some unique mechanics. Additionally I'd like to see each religion have some unique mechanics tied to them, outside of just default virtues and opinion. That way even a reformed Hindu and Buddhist faith play differently. As well as more region or culture group specific decisions and mechanics.

What's the point of having China or Japan if they play almost equal to any other country half a world away? Because that is the present state of the game: starting in Bagdad or in Connacht feels 90% the same.

Because the regions are meaningful to some players.

I've seen many people on this forum say they only play or prefer to play in a specific region of the map. And I don't think I've ever seen someone respond to this by saying they shouldn't because everywhere plays the same.

People bring their own understanding of the various regions of the map to this game that can give certain regions importance beyond just their game mechanics.

Also I'd be very surprised if a map expansion didn't come along with special unique mechanics for at least the major players in East Asia. Thus adding value for players less familiar with the region.

Not to mention many realms on the current eastern edge of the map (and the Cholas) interacted a lot with China and/or Southeast Asia. Thus expanding the map would solve the weird cutoff that currently exists.

So while expanding the map isn't my highest priority for the game currently. I'd still be happy if it happened, as I'd find value in it just being a part of the CK3 map (and obviously the better the mechanics flesh out the region, the happier I'd be).

certainly with a not so small performance hit to implement it.

I think the performance worry is over stated. Adding East Asia will be a lot less demanding on performance than adding India was for CK2. This is for a couple reasons.

One, East Asia will represent smaller percentage increase in counties. This is because the CK3 map is already so huge and there isn't much of much of Eurasia to add. IIRC it a 20%-25% increase in the map size to add East Asia to fill in the rest of the map that is already in the game files, and much that will be water zones instead of counties. This will result in a smaller percentage increase than the straight up 30.1% increase in number of counties (only counting playable provinces, not sea zones or impassible) that Rajas of India added when it added India, eastern Persia, and the western steppe (not to mention it increased density in some areas already on the map). Interestingly Holy Fury increased counties in CK2 by 29% and that patch increased CK2's performance (I think this shows how Paradox learned their lesson on improving performance when expanding the map).

Two, while a lot of people live in East Asia, especially China. County and barony density is only loosely correlated with population in CK3 as development carries a lot of the load there in CK3. You can see this with Germany being the region with the most counties and baronies, despite not even being the most populous regions in Europe. It needs all these counties, not due to population, but because of its highly politically fractured history. Barony density especially is no longer really correlated with population in CK3, unlike CK2 (just compare the number of baronies in Constantinople in the two games, 6/7 in CK2 and 1 in CK3).

Three, CK3 is a lot more optimized game than CK3, especially when it comes to the load that added counties add to the game. Thus less optimization will be needed to make an expanded map not slow down play (and as mentioned early, Paradox seems to be acutely aware this is a concern of players when expanding the map).

 

[Darumaka]

You're not in the minority at all, pretty sure this is a universally held position. CK3 is shallow in regional flavour, with every region except for the Norse and the Iberians feeling the exact same. A tribal count in Igboland plays the exact same as a tribal count in Burma. The Chinese, Tibetans, Buryats, and pre-conquest Maygars have the exact same hairstyle and clothings. The current lack of regional flavour should be improved first before adding the Far East.

The worst part is that the Norse only have flavour in the 867 start date and there's pretty much nothing for the 1066 start

 

[Germanicus_Caesar]

I don't disagree with your overall point that regions don't play that differently in CK3 (at least compared to the extremely different play styles of each government type in CK2). But I find it odd that within region difference always seemed to be glossed over in these discussions. Because in CK2 there little to no mechanical difference between playing 2 characters that shared the same government type and religion (i.e. all Muslims, all Norse pagans, all non-Norse pagans, all Catholics, and all non-Catholic Christians, etc played pretty much the same as other members of their faith/religion/religious group). Where as in CK3 there is much more within group variation. Playing a heresy in CK3 actually play differently (Waldensian and Lollardy's lay clergy springs to mind), where as in CK2 it was pretty much either just identical copy of the main religion or a stripped down version of it. Not to mention culture actually matters in CK3.

To be clear, I would still like to see some mechanics added to help make regions as a whole more unique. For example, Catholicism and Orthodoxy as well as the major branches of Islam (Sunni, Shia, and Muhakkima) could each benefit from some unique mechanics. Additionally I'd like to see each religion have some unique mechanics tied to them, outside of just default virtues and opinion. That way even a reformed Hindu and Buddhist faith play differently. As well as more region or culture group specific decisions and mechanics.


Because the regions are meaningful to some players.

I've seen many people on this forum say they only play or prefer to play in a specific region of the map. And I don't think I've ever seen someone respond to this by saying they shouldn't because everywhere plays the same.

People bring their own understanding of the various regions of the map to this game that can give certain regions importance beyond just their game mechanics.

Also I'd be very surprised if a map expansion didn't come along with special unique mechanics for at least the major players in East Asia. Thus adding value for players less familiar with the region.

Not to mention many realms on the current eastern edge of the map (and the Cholas) interacted a lot with China and/or Southeast Asia. Thus expanding the map would solve the weird cutoff that currently exists.

So while expanding the map isn't my highest priority for the game currently. I'd still be happy if it happened, as I'd find value in it just being a part of the CK3 map (and obviously the better the mechanics flesh out the region, the happier I'd be).


I think the performance worry is over stated. Adding East Asia will be a lot less demanding on performance than adding India was for CK2. This is for a couple reasons.

One, East Asia will represent smaller percentage increase in counties. This is because the CK3 map is already so huge and there isn't much of much of Eurasia to add. IIRC it a 20%-25% increase in the map size to add East Asia to fill in the rest of the map that is already in the game files, and much that will be water zones instead of counties. This will result in a smaller percentage increase than the straight up 30.1% increase in number of counties (only counting playable provinces, not sea zones or impassible) that Rajas of India added when it added India, eastern Persia, and the western steppe (not to mention it increased density in some areas already on the map). Interestingly Holy Fury increased counties in CK2 by 29% and that patch increased CK2's performance (I think this shows how Paradox learned their lesson on improving performance when expanding the map).

Two, while a lot of people live in East Asia, especially China. County and barony density is only loosely correlated with population in CK3 as development carries a lot of the load there in CK3. You can see this with Germany being the region with the most counties and baronies, despite not even being the most populous regions in Europe. It needs all these counties, not due to population, but because of its highly politically fractured history. Barony density especially is no longer really correlated with population in CK3, unlike CK2 (just compare the number of baronies in Constantinople in the two games, 6/7 in CK2 and 1 in CK3).

Three, CK3 is a lot more optimized game than CK3, especially when it comes to the load that added counties add to the game. Thus less optimization will be needed to make an expanded map not slow down play (and as mentioned early, Paradox seems to be acutely aware this is a concern of players when expanding the map).

All well said.

 

[Jiben]

A china expansion low key needs to have a dedicated patch and expansion since it would be a huge undertaking.

Otherwise i imagine the map could be slowly filled out when Paradox works on neighbouring regions.

As an example if paradox did a east africa flavour pack it might be a good chance to expand the map around there, how far i don't know but having the swahili on the map could be fun but that would admittedly be quite the map expansion south.

 

[Wojtek_M]

Befor map expansion I want to see difrent levels of knowlege of other countries. I dont want to know what happend in China when playing in Africa.
Eu4 have 3 levels. You don't knew nothing, you see everiyhing without units movement and you see units too.
I would love to see more such levels in ck3, five, meybe more. I want to have difrent knolege about othere courts. (For example you need to send someone to other court, to know stats of other kings douthers). I don't want to know development of province in Italy befor I land there as Viking rider.
Area of the map that I don't see complitly can be even scripted for performence.

 

[AHumpierRogue]

I really, really want to see China in game some day. It's one of my favorite regions to learn about and discuss so I'll always champion it, but I understand why others would be worried. Also, I partly feel like it'd be better to somewhat piecemeal the far east. Maybe 1 expansion that focuses on Southeast Asia, adding both Mainland and Maritime southeast asia to the map would be cool(plus maybe it could revisit India on the side). Then a second expansion adding China, Korea, Japan, the eastern steppe and (what would become) Manchuria. Just to divide the resources a bit rather than having everything in one go.

The game needs much more depth in the current gameplay for the already gargantuan size of the current map before the devs think of expanding this almost blank canvas, certainly with a not so small performance hit to implement it. What's the point of having China or Japan if they play almost equal to any other country half a world away? Because that is the present state of the game: starting in Bagdad or in Connacht feels 90% the same.

I would not be worried about this. I have no doubt that Paradox would not just add counties to the map when they add China, they would most likely add in unique mechanics and stuff for them. Paradox pretty consistently releases better DLCs than the ones before as they build on each other so I have no doubts that if they add china, it will be of a decent quality. A more accurate worry would be will adding the far east leave some spots currently on the map in the dust, and the answer is probably yes, much as I am supportive of the far east. But it's for Paradox to decide when that's fair.

 

[Darumaka]

I would not be worried about this. I have no doubt that Paradox would not just add counties to the map when they add China, they would most likely add in unique mechanics and stuff for them. Paradox pretty consistently releases better DLCs than the ones before as they build on each other so I have no doubts that if they add china, it will be of a decent quality. A more accurate worry would be will adding the far east leave some spots currently on the map in the dust, and the answer is probably yes, much as I am supportive of the far east. But it's for Paradox to decide when that's fair.

Well compared to CK2 they added Burma, greatly expanded the steppes, Tibet, and especially West Africa yet there is no content for any of them. Whether you play as an Irish minor, a coastal tribe from Nigeria, or a kingdom up in the jungles of Bengal there is hardly any difference in feeling, flavour, or mechanics. The worry is definitely warranted.

Plus there is the Northern Lords expansion to further fuel the worries about the scope of any expansion, as that DLC added next to nothing for 1066 Scandinavians despite the focus of the DLC being said Scandis. Nobody wants yet another bland piece of map with nothing to do, hence why most appear to not want the map expanded.

 

[AHumpierRogue]

Well compared to CK2 they added Burma, greatly expanded the steppes, Tibet, and especially West Africa yet there is no content for any of them. Whether you play as an Irish minor, a coastal tribe from Nigeria, or a kingdom up in the jungles of Bengal there is hardly any difference in feeling, flavour, or mechanics. The worry is definitely warranted.

That was all part of the base game. Not applicable.

Northern Lords focusing solely on the Norse religion and not giving any real flavor for the christian norse is a shame, but I am not worried about it.

 

[Aidanator800]

I have to agree with @AHumpierRogue here, I don't think it's fair to compare the base-game additions to the map to any future ones. Burma, Mongolia, and East/West Africa haven't had an entire DLC dedicated to them (at least, not yet), whereas any China or Southeast Asia expansion absolutely will. This isn't CK2, where a DLC could be sold off of a map expansion alone, the major CK3 DLCs (which an East Asia expansion absolutely will be) have proven to have a lot of different features added onto each one.

 

[Eltener]

Not to mention culture actually matters in CK3.

How? In ck2 cultures had set retinues and only certain cultures could do certain things. Also while religion was the main factor in government type, there were a couple cultural distinctions like Han being able to form a unique government type. In CK3 every culture can be reformed, diverged or hybridised incredibly easily to just make whatever culture you want and play in the exact same way in any part of the map.

 

[pengoyo]

How? In ck2 cultures had set retinues and only certain cultures could do certain things. Also while religion was the main factor in government type, there were a couple cultural distinctions like Han being able to form a unique government type. In CK3 every culture can be reformed, diverged or hybridised incredibly easily to just make whatever culture you want and play in the exact same way in any part of the map.

There a plenty of tradition, innovations, MaA, and decisions that are tied to certain cultures or culture groups in CK3. And sure you can gain access to others by hybridizing. But you can gain those benefits by converting cultures too in both CK2 and CK3.

Outside of the small difference of retinue and opinion (both of which have parallels in CK3), these cultures played mechanically the same in CK2: German, Lombard, English, Dutch, French, Occitan, Outremer, Sardinian, Castilian, Catalan, Portuguese, Finnish, Sami, Estonian, Komi, Khanty, Nenets, Mordvin, Meshchera, Lettigallian, Lithuanian, Prussian, Bedouin, Levantine, Egyptian, Andalusian, Russian, Pomeranian, Bohemian, Polish, Slovien, Croatian, Serbian, Vlach, Bulgarian, Bosnian, Carantanian, Persian, Sogdian, Tocharian, Kurdish, Afghan, Baloch, Saka, Ethiopian, Somali, Nubian, Kanuri, Hausa, Zaghawa, Mandé, Soninke, Songhay, Ashkenazi, Sephardi, Bengali, Oriya, Assamese, Hindustani, Gujarati, Panjabi, Rajput, Sindhi, Marathi, Sinhala, Tamil, Telugu, and Kannada.

And most of the cultures not on this list, like the Greeks, Norse, and Mongols, have their fellow culture group members just be clones of them. And outside of the Altaic, Tibetan, and Chinese all the mechanic of these unique culture groups in CK2 are in CK3 (mostly mechanics related to China are what are currently missing from CK3).

 

[IanReSc]

Burma, Mongolia, and East/West Africa haven't had an entire DLC dedicated to them (at least, not yet), whereas any China or Southeast Asia expansion absolutely will. This isn't CK2, where a DLC could be sold off of a map expansion alone, the major CK3 DLCs (which an East Asia expansion absolutely will be) have proven to have a lot of different features added onto each one.

I agree and while I am looking forward to what mechanics and flavour each DLC brings, I am also a bit hesitant. Why? Because at the current pace it will take a very long time to cover the entire map with struggles and other packs. Even if you put aside major packs that would deal with the ERE and such, one struggle pack per year seems not enough to cover the map in the end.

By the end of 2023 we'll have two regions with that sort of flavour and mechanic. Two out of how many? Northern Lords should have included one and one can only assume that they will receive it along with their fellow Vikings, once the British Isles get a struggle pack, but that still leaves us with well over a dozen areas of the map. One would assume that the HRE and maybe the ERE receive one such pack, replicating their internal stuggle, but that still leaves Italy, the entirety of Africa, the Levantine, Eastern Europe, the Steppe and India. By that point we haven't even included a possible China or Japan.

So as much as I am looking forward to it, I would very much like to have a look at their long term game plan.

 

[mustard11]

I'd like that too, but they're under no obligation or pressure to do so because there simply isn't any competition to this type of game, and thus no impetus to show us the finer details about the carrot at the end of the stick, that is, upcoming DLCs. (Although I did like that Manor Lords demo that came out on Steam a couple months back!)