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.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly. You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Hello guys, i am excited like you about CK-3, but i see some table about provinces which shows provinces compare CK-2, so it shows Syria, Palestine provinces reduced by -4 or sth. So my concern it should be more than CK-2 10-15 because it is is one of the most important places in medieval game like crusaders, wars .. i perefer bigger scaling or more provinces middle-east than india or mongolia (no offense please). because this is medieval.
So we should inform it increasing provinces about paradox team please, if possible i dont know how.
If anyone have table can you post it please ?
I wouldn't want to summon him for such a small matter, but if you think it's important, you might want to call upon elvain to weigh in. He is quite knowledgeable on this region of the world and I believe he posted something about this topic in his analysis of what went wrong with CK2 Islam so he would likely be able to weigh in on this better than any other member of the community.
Hello everyone! I am very excited about the CK3. After all the years CK2 is still an enjoyable game, yet now it seems to be upgrading itself to the new decade of grand strategy gaming. I am pretty sure everyone here is somewhat interested about...
forum.paradoxplaza.com
and this table:
It says kingdom of Jerusalem has -2 counties and kingdom of Syria has one down.
From the map comparison as well as screenshots it seems to me that the region is now little more realistic (honestly, the CK2 map had the coastal strip way too wide with Jordan river way far from the coast.
Although I have personally helped with the overhaul of CK2's map of the Middle East for Jade Dragon, I can say that I like the CK3 map and division of Middle East better than the one I helped designing for CK2. The area is just little less distorted.
Although I have personally helped with the overhaul of CK2's map of the Middle East for Jade Dragon, I can say that I like the CK3 map and division of Middle East better than the one I helped designing for CK2. The area is just little less distorted.
View attachment 607014
Thank you for table and feedback
i mean maybe more cities Tyre, Nablus, Nazareth or maybe one more cities below Jerusalem sth like this
Hi all, Due to some attention given on the forum to the province density of certain areas of the CK3 map, particularly when it comes to the issue of petitioning for an increase in the number of counties in a kingdom, I wanted to get an objective...
forum.paradoxplaza.com
it shows quite clearly that Jerusalem is the 3rd in province density by map pixels and Syria isn't far behind, so they both probably don't have much space for being even more dense. I personally don't think it matters that much, because provinces can be wealthier when larger etc., but there you can at least see that no Indian kingdom is anywhere near being as dense as Syria or Jerusalem and that except 2 all are behind kingdoms of the Fertile crescent.
Also if you check the province borders in the thread I linked above and check the screenshot you posted, it is pretty clear that provinces on the coast of Syria and Palestine are among the smallest and that they probably don't have many baronies. Hence with the current number of baronies they can hardly get more dense.
the question is, could they have more dense baronies? I wish they could, but from what I know about Paradox games' maps, the devs don't seem to like provinces smaller than certain size.
Which leads to another question. If there isn't much space for adding more baronies, which are now on the map, what should they do to increase number of provinces?
the options are limited:
1) misplace the places of Palestine (like CK2 did) and eat the desert?
2) Have the provinces in the Levant have only 1-2 baronies? quite a few of them already seem to have just 2, wouldn't adding the 2 provinces you mentioned leave Jerusalem with just one barony, would that be better?
TBH I don't like either of those options...
so maybe the other option could be to change the projection and make the Middle East be like Europe and look larger than other regions. But what would it do with the entire map, if the central part is made disproportionally larger?
From my perspective none of these possibilities would lead to any better looking Levant, or only slightly with very high cost, but at the same time I do accept that we all have our own tastes and others might prefer what somebody else considers wrong, bad or ugly.
I wouldn't want to summon him for such a small matter, but if you think it's important, you might want to call upon elvain to weigh in. He is quite knowledgeable on this region of the world and I believe he posted something about this topic in his analysis of what went wrong with CK2 Islam so he would likely be able to weigh in on this better than any other member of the community.
This is irony, isn't it?
Look, he's back, let's tease the quarrelsome braggingly lecturous asshole and make him again spend insane amounts of time here trying to tell us his stuff about things he believes to know...
no really, there are others who could answer better, they just probably don't want to bother discussing/arguing with me if I eventually jump in. but I promise, I'm gradually withdrawing... at last
I agree that the shape at least of Palestine in CK3 is much better and will more accurately represent the terrain of the Kingdom of Jerusalem at least, which should make Crusades and wars of reconquest for Muslims more interesting and historical. And as Elvain points out the narrower (and realistic) shape of Palestine makes more province density difficult, so you have to choose between showing it to be the thin strip of land along the coast that it is/was, or exaggerating its shape inaccurately to make it look bigger.
I think what they've done with it is quite nice and even more density would perhaps be too much. Depending on how province development works and is changed during the game's continued development post-release it could be irrelevant anyway such that province density isn't actually all that important, but that remains to be seen.
From my perspective none of these possibilities would lead to any better looking Levant, or only slightly with very high cost, but at the same time I do accept that we all have our own tastes and others might prefer what somebody else considers wrong, bad or ugly.
Btw, I just wanted to say that I'm pretty positive that Jerusalem will have more than just 6 counties, although I know it wasn't the main point of your concern
I don't understand. Why in CKIII we need so much African provinces, that was wild and undiscovered at that time, but they decreased on 22 Russian provinces...
I don't understand. Why in CKIII we need so much African provinces, that was wild and undiscovered at that time, but they decreased on 22 Russian provinces...
The first thing is that undiscovered (by Europeans) =/= uninhabited. Early medieval Sub-Saharan Africa was far more civilized than contemporary Russia.
(EDIT: I know it may be painful for a Russian to read this, but actually much of West Africa was on par or more developed than even Central and Western Europe in 867 and 1066, although much of the rest of WestAfrica was inhabited by hunters-gatherers with first signs of settled civilizations after 1200, meaning still earlier than much of Russia)
Secondly, the late map revision of CK2 went havoc in some parts of the map. In many barely inhabited areas provinces were being added just in order to avoid too long travelling from one place to another. Many of those (removed CK2)provinces are 1 barony counties.
CK3 avoids this logistic problem by having baronies present on the map. It means it's no longer necessary to have many small counties in areas where it makes no sense. The CK2 1 barony counties can turn into baronies, but the number of counties relatively decreses, although the level of detail os the same or even increased. I don't see any issue in that
When it comes to the middle east. This is where I wish you could split counties up and rule over individual barons instead of a whole county worth of baronies as a unit.
Okey, mistake on my end, what i miss are the visualisation of cities on the map. There we have only castles, which makes the map look empty. I really liked the city animations in CK2 and Rome.
Okey, mistake on my end, what i miss are the visualisation of cities on the map. There we have only castles, which makes the map look empty. I really liked the city animations in CK2 and Rome.
Well, the holding graphics are bit bland, especially city and temple ones... I would like some more interesting graphics than just a church, motte and bailey and a couple of houses as we finally got the baronies on the map, also more dynamic look would be nice to be able to separate a border town from a bustling city, or a primitive palisade structure from advanced fortress. It would bring more life to the world, but at least they should be easy to spot on the map, which I guess they haven´t been at least on the map picture on this thread where the castles are easy to spot but towns and temples blend to the desert background.
Well, the holding graphics are bit bland, especially city and temple ones... I would like some more interesting graphics than just a church, motte and bailey and a couple of houses as we finally got the baronies on the map, also more dynamic look would be nice to be able to separate a border town from a bustling city, or a primitive palisade structure from advanced fortress. It would bring more life to the world, but at least they should be easy to spot on the map, which I guess they haven´t been at least on the map picture on this thread where the castles are easy to spot but towns and temples blend to the desert background.
At least they did say they're displaying certain "great works" on the map as well, so that should also help to liven up the map. Of course, I hated using the terrain map in CK2 as it was just so annoying trying to keep track of my counties that way, imo. I am not thrilled with the idea of having the map type connected to zoom level. I saw in the videos that certain map types can be displayed whenever you want, but I'm not sure about the one I used most of the time... the political map. I'd like to use that most of the time and it would be nice for it to include visualizations of the castles, etc. I just prefer having counties with colored backgrounds rather than using colored borders. I find it's much easier to view that way, but I do miss some of the graphics that go along with it.
.png){kind=avatar}
