• 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.

CK2 Dev Diary #40: Visiting the Cartographer

Greetings everyone!

Today I’m here to talk about one of my favorite parts of our games (a very important one too) and something I’ve been working on. I’m going to talk about the map.

Looking at the work @Trin Tragula does for the map on EU4, I started thinking. Why don’t we do something similar to CK2? So I went looking at the map for various possible improvements. I have not added anything new in terms of provinces or areas. Instead, I wanted to focus on improving the existing map and give it some needed polish.

The CK2 map is not perfect, so there are a quite a few places to look at. But I wanted to start with the terrain and topology. As there several places on the map that, frankly, look out of place. As such, I swooped the map of the most hideous offenders. Several lakes and most major rivers are now much smoother, avoiding ugly and sharp edges. The Ural Mountains are now mostly impassable.

Below you can see a few examples.

Ural mountains:
ck2_ural_mountains.jpg


Lake Baikal, old and new:
ck2_baikal_old.png

ck2_baikal_new.png


The Ganges, old and new:
ck2_ganges_old.png

ck2_ganges_new.png



I also took this opportunity to make some smaller de jure adjustments (I know that not everyone will agree with me on these). These are done for gameplay reasons and considerations. The largest change will be for the kingdom of Cumania. Which I broke off slightly by giving the duchies of Itil and Sarkel to Khazaria, along with Crimea and Cherson (so Taurica no longer holds any de jure land).

A small shift in the kingdoms of the ERE. Greece is a very large kingdom, so I made it slightly smaller by moving Samos and Cibyrrhaeot to Anatolia, and in turn, made Anatolia stay close to the same size by making the duchies of Trebizond and Armeniacon de jure to the kingdom of Trebizond.

ck2_updated_de_jure.png



Last, and definitely not least. Let’s take a look at Hungary and the Danube. The first thing I did was to redraw parts of the Danube to make it more accurate (as we all know, the old Danube was not quite where it was supposed to be). It now flows much closer to its actual location. The counties along the river have been adjusted accordingly. Pecs, for example, is now located on the correct side of it. The rest of Hungary has also been adjusted so that the kingdom is placed within the Carpathians.

Instead of taking my word for it, you can see for yourself in the screenshot below, in which you can see the updated coast of Croatia as well.

ck2_danube_new.png


ck2_danube_old.png


Does this make the map perfect? No. But I do think it’s a step in the right direction and an improvement over the previous one.

Let me know what you think!

- The Ural mountains are now impassable
- Removed the duplicate island of Kolguyev, in the Barents Sea
- The most northern part of the Onega is now properly filled with water
- The mountains in southern Abyssinia no longer stretches onto the frame of the map
- Fixed an issue in the lower part of the river Don, where the river bed would go above water level
- Removed a bunch of trees that were placed in major rivers
- The terrain around lake Balkhash has been smoothed, to avoid sharp/rough edges
- The terrain around lake Baikal has also been smoothed, no longer will the steep cliffs surround the lake
- The Indus and the Ganges have both been cleaned up:
- The terrain now matches the actual river
- Smaller rivers no longer flow so far into the major rivers
- The borders of the rivers has been made smoother to avoid sharp/rough edges
- The Danube has been redrawn, to better represent its actual location (!)
- The county of Constantinople is now only located on the western side of the Bosphorus, merging the eastern side into the county of Nikaea, connected with a strait
- The duchies of Samos and Cibyrrhaeot are now de jure part of the kingdom of Anatolia, rather than Greece
- The duchies of Trebizond and Armeniacon is now de jure part of the kingdom of Trebizond, rather than Anatolia
- Removed the kingdom of Taurica
- The duchy of Crimea is now de jure kingdom of Khazaria
- The duchy of Cherson is now de jure kingdom of Khazaria
- The coastal counties of Croatia and Serbia have been adjusted and moved slightly to better represent their actual locations
- The eastern counties of Hungary and the surrounding area has been moved and adjusted in order to properly place the kingdom within the Carpathian mountains
- Changed the name of b_mirabel to "Majdal Yaba"
- b_mirabel will be named "Mirabel" if ruled by most European cultures
- b_mirabel will be named "Antipatris" if ruled by Byzantine cultures
- The county of Tobruk is now only located along the coast
- Moved the northern part of c_dalarna to c_herjedalen
- Moved k_venice to de jure e_italy
 
Everything. Cities and provinces are in the wrong places, the duchies make little sense accordingly (Shiraz, the traditional capital of Fars, is not in Fars, for example), there are no blocks around the Zagros or the deserts in the east, the border with Mesopotamia is just plain weird (they include a great big chunk of the Iraq-e Ajam in with Mesopotamia), the fact that the provinces are all weirdly shaped with ridiculous travel times, the fact that there is one huge kingdom and a few peripheral kingdoms without any rhyme or reason, the fact that "Persia" is an anachronistic and meaningless term for the period in question, and so on.
No need to get aggressive about it. I didn't mena to imply that there's nothing wrong with Persia I asked what was wrong with it out of genuine curiosity.

just like in fact the entire Middle East. The same goes for Syria, the Maghreb and even Egypt.
as for Persia, anything like this? - it's basicaly just re-painted vanilla Persia with provinces reshaped and changed dejure structure
That's really nice I especially like the wastland in the middle of the middle east, that really needs to be added.
 
No need to get aggressive about it. I didn't mena to imply that there's nothing wrong with Persia I asked what was wrong with it out of genuine curiosity.


That's really nice I especially like the wastland in the middle of the middle east, that really needs to be added.
Are you sure ther was aggressivity? I didn't sense any ;)
And thanks. Yup, the Syrian desert should really be a desert/wasteland to have the map anywhere near being both accurate and good-looking.
 
Are you sure ther was aggressivity? I didn't sense any ;)
And thanks. Yup, the Syrian desert should really be a desert/wasteland to have the map anywhere near being both accurate and good-looking.
Yeah without it you end up with these huge provinces in an area where most cities were relatively closely grouped in places where there was water. And having wastelands and mountains means that there is a terrain feel to the map, without them it just feels like a blob. With them it feels like a real place with important choke points and so on.
And I felt it felt like an angry rant. Which I felt I didn't really deserve to be the target of, I just wanted to get a chance for an educated opinion on the matter. I could however be mistaken it is hard to read someones tone.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah without it you end up with these huge provinces in an area where most cities were relatively closely grouped in places where there was water. And having wastelands and mountains means that there is a terrain feel to the map, without them it just feels like a blob. With them it feels like a real place with important choke points and so on.
And I felt it felt like an angry rant. Which I felt I didn't really deserve to be the target of, I just wanted to get a chance for an educated opinion on the matter. I could however be mistaken it is hard to read someones tone.

It wasn't aggressive! My apologies, it is hard to convey tone on the internet :p it should be read in the tone of an Englishman moaning about the inevitability of bad weather, not an angry rant against you :p.
 
It wasn't aggressive! My apologies, it is hard to convey tone on the internet :p it should be read in the tone of an Englishman moaning about the inevitability of bad weather, not an angry rant against you :p.
Situations like this are why I use the Morgan Freeman principle. Whenever I read something potentially negative, I try to read it again but imagine it's delivered in the calm and steady voice of Morgan Freeman. If it still sounds hostile, I assume it *might* be.
 
Situations like this are why I use the Morgan Freeman principle. Whenever I read something potentially negative, I try to read it again but imagine it's delivered in the calm and steady voice of Morgan Freeman. If it still sounds hostile, I assume it *might* be.
Hey I do that sometimes with Patrick Stewart, everything sounds more enlightened when read in the voice of Picard.
It actually works kind of well for this one, well up to "and so on" I have a hard time reading that in his voice.
 
This coounty's northern and eastern border s pretty accurately match the borders of the duchy of Austria and even even today's borders.
I dislike the "borders change, no need to make them in any way accurate, everything's equally wrong" argument. Very, very much.
Mods like swmh show how nice a ck2 map can be.
Pardon if i made it sound like i was dismissing accuracy on the basis of border movement over time, this was not my intent... which was to say that I know it can't be completely accurate but it can become close.
Everything. Cities and provinces are in the wrong places, the duchies make little sense accordingly (Shiraz, the traditional capital of Fars, is not in Fars, for example), there are no blocks around the Zagros or the deserts in the east, the border with Mesopotamia is just plain weird (they include a great big chunk of the Iraq-e Ajam in with Mesopotamia), the fact that the provinces are all weirdly shaped with ridiculous travel times, the fact that there is one huge kingdom and a few peripheral kingdoms without any rhyme or reason, the fact that "Persia" is an anachronistic and meaningless term for the period in question, and so on.

Persia was a word that was synonomous with that region/country until, at least the fall of the last Shah, and still being used by some... me for instance :p (especially when my boyfriend who's not Iranian makes an effort to correct me on how it's pronounced when he knows nothing about how it's pronounced) (it could be more Archaic could be called Parthia for instance) And it's meaningless is more due, if anything, to the fact Persia was never really united, during that time period, except by those who invaded the country, the Caliphs, Seljuks, Mongols, and the Timurids. What actually bugs me is the name Mesopotamia for the Kingdom around Modern Iraq (which i do NOT consider a worthy substitute) Which is a Greek Word, and names a region that had not been an independent Realm since the Archaemenids Conquered it, then you add to that you have a Duchy that is part of Armenia that is also called Mesopotamia.... It should be in my opinion tore apart, and merged with part of Syria, and other Kingdoms and named something else... and/or rename the duchy something else. I do add that Persia is the largest Kingdom Title in the Empire of Persia (The Empire is most Certianly not united during that time period except by invaders)... Similarly to pretty much every Main Kingdom to dejure Empires, Greece-Byzantium, Italy-Italy (which that Dejure Empire is just... horrible...one kingdom (two with the future One County, One Duchy, Kingdom of Venice being added) but I digress, it doesn't surprise me that CK2's map is inaccurate.
 
Persia was a word that was synonomous with that region/country until, at least the fall of the last Shah, and still being used by some... me for instance :p (especially when my boyfriend who's not Iranian makes an effort to correct me on how it's pronounced when he knows nothing about how it's pronounced) (it could be more Archaic could be called Parthia for instance) And it's meaningless is more due, if anything, to the fact Persia was never really united, during that time period, except by those who invaded the country, the Caliphs, Seljuks, Mongols, and the Timurids. What actually bugs me is the name Mesopotamia for the Kingdom around Modern Iraq (which i do NOT consider a worthy substitute) Which is a Greek Word, and names a region that had not been an independent Realm since the Archaemenids Conquered it, then you add to that you have a Duchy that is part of Armenia that is also called Mesopotamia.... It should be in my opinion tore apart, and merged with part of Syria, and other Kingdoms and named something else... and/or rename the duchy something else. I do add that Persia is the largest Kingdom Title in the Empire of Persia (The Empire is most Certianly not united during that time period except by invaders)... Similarly to pretty much every Main Kingdom to dejure Empires, Greece-Byzantium, Italy-Italy (which that Dejure Empire is just... horrible...one kingdom (two with the future One County, One Duchy, Kingdom of Venice being added) but I digress, it doesn't surprise me that CK2's map is inaccurate.
both Iran and Iraq are much more ancient names than many people consider them.

I think that the need for de jure reorganization of the empire of Iran/Persia is evident to anybody who knows the region a little.
There definitely should be several kingdoms instead that one, to reflect the local kingdoms of the era - so there should at least be 2 kingdoms: Khorasan in the north-east to be the powerbase of the Samanids and later Malikshah and Sanjar as well as Khwrezmshahs. And then the "Persia propper" - the Persian Iraq and Fars, which were centers of Western Persian power.

As for Mesopotmia question - The north should IMHO be a kingdom which is partly in today's Syria and partly in Iraq... the region which historicaly is known as al-Jazira (Mesopotamia), while the south should be either as separate kingdom named Iraq, or be part of the west Iranian kingdom. I would prefer the former.

Or something like this:
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...-changes-community-list.999327/#post-22426059
 
Last edited:
As has been pointed out, Anatolia looks weird now, as does Greece. I think it would be better to rename Anatolia to Ikonion (Rum or Konya for Turks, removing the need for a separate Kingdom of Rum), restore Greece to it's old borders, and split it into 2 kingdoms: Thessalonike and Nikaia. Maybe split Epirus and Morea from the former if you feel inclined.
This seems reasonable.
 
both Iran and Iraq are much more ancient names than many people consider them.

I think that the need for de jure reorganization of the empire of Iran/Persia is evident to anybody who knows the region a little.
There definitely should be several kingdoms instead that one, to reflect the local kingdoms of the era - so there should at least be 2 kingdoms: Khorasan in the north-east to be the powerbase of the Samanids and later Malikshah and Sanjar as well as Khwrezmshahs. And then the "Persia propper" - the Persian Iraq and Fars, which were centers of Western Persian power.

As for Mesopotmia question - The north should IMHO be a kingdom which is partly in today's Syria and partly in Iraq... the region which historicaly is known as al-Jazira (Mesopotamia), while the south should be either as separate kingdom named Iraq, or be part of the west Iranian kingdom. I would prefer the former.

Or something like this:
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...-changes-community-list.999327/#post-22426059

Ibn Battuta's Legacy is quite possibly my favourite mod, and fixes a lot of the problems with Iran, so good job there :).
 
Pardon if i made it sound like i was dismissing accuracy on the basis of border movement over time, this was not my intent... which was to say that I know it can't be completely accurate but it can become close.


Persia was a word that was synonomous with that region/country until, at least the fall of the last Shah, and still being used by some... me for instance :p (especially when my boyfriend who's not Iranian makes an effort to correct me on how it's pronounced when he knows nothing about how it's pronounced) (it could be more Archaic could be called Parthia for instance) And it's meaningless is more due, if anything, to the fact Persia was never really united, during that time period, except by those who invaded the country, the Caliphs, Seljuks, Mongols, and the Timurids. What actually bugs me is the name Mesopotamia for the Kingdom around Modern Iraq (which i do NOT consider a worthy substitute) Which is a Greek Word, and names a region that had not been an independent Realm since the Archaemenids Conquered it, then you add to that you have a Duchy that is part of Armenia that is also called Mesopotamia.... It should be in my opinion tore apart, and merged with part of Syria, and other Kingdoms and named something else... and/or rename the duchy something else. I do add that Persia is the largest Kingdom Title in the Empire of Persia (The Empire is most Certianly not united during that time period except by invaders)... Similarly to pretty much every Main Kingdom to dejure Empires, Greece-Byzantium, Italy-Italy (which that Dejure Empire is just... horrible...one kingdom (two with the future One County, One Duchy, Kingdom of Venice being added) but I digress, it doesn't surprise me that CK2's map is inaccurate.

I do not wish to be impolite but I don't know how else to say this. I'm assuming you are of Iranian descent and live outside the Middle-East. One thing I've noticed with many Iranians living in the west is that they like to refer to themselves as Persians and to Iran as Persia. It is understandable from a present-day point of view i.e. you do not wish people to associate you with the image that many people have of Iran because of it's government. Persia on the other hand conjures up exotic images of Darius, Persepolis, bazaars and of course The Prince of Persia ; ). However, Iranians themselves have almost always called their country Iran and themselves Iranians. In fact it was the father of the last shah, Reza Pahlavi who in 1935 asked the international community to start calling Persia by it's native name, Iran. The name Iran goes back at least 2000 years, if not 2500. During the Sasanian dynasty the name of the country was Eranshahr which meant something akin to the realm of Iran. Persia is in essence only the Iranian region of Fars. Before the Arab conquests this region was called Pars but because the -p doesn't exist in Arabic this changed to an -f (which for some reason Modern Persian took over despite there being a -p in it). Look up the historian Touraj Daryaee if you'd like to find out more about this. I was lucky enough that he gave a guest lecture at my university but there are some decent videos on youtube. Though I agree with you that the name Mesopotamia might not be the most adequate name for the kingdom I disagree with you regarding it being split up and given to Syria and other surrounding kingdoms. Following your argument that it hadn't been an indepent realm since antiquity the same should apply to Syria. The fact is that there were no Sultanates based in that area throughout the period (granted the Zengids controlled the entire area but they were Emirs), but that would leave no kingdoms in the area and the kingdoms in that area represent possible kingdoms.

both Iran and Iraq are much more ancient names than many people consider them.

I think that the need for de jure reorganization of the empire of Iran/Persia is evident to anybody who knows the region a little.
There definitely should be several kingdoms instead that one, to reflect the local kingdoms of the era - so there should at least be 2 kingdoms: Khorasan in the north-east to be the powerbase of the Samanids and later Malikshah and Sanjar as well as Khwrezmshahs. And then the "Persia propper" - the Persian Iraq and Fars, which were centers of Western Persian power.

As for Mesopotmia question - The north should IMHO be a kingdom which is partly in today's Syria and partly in Iraq... the region which historicaly is known as al-Jazira (Mesopotamia), while the south should be either as separate kingdom named Iraq, or be part of the west Iranian kingdom. I would prefer the former.

Or something like this:
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...-changes-community-list.999327/#post-22426059

Based on the map you linked to I'm not sure if I agree with you, not entirely at least. Khorasan should definitely be it's own kingdom, but Daylam in my opinion doesn't make a lot of sense as a kingdom. I do not recall any polity in that area that ever pretended to be, let alone be recognized as, Sultans. As celethiel has already pointed out, Persia is not the only kingdom within a dejure empire that is larger than most other kingdoms: England is by far the biggest kingdom within Brittania, Andalusia within Iberia, Pannonia within Carpathia. Furthermore, it would make sense to have a larger 'central' kingdom in a larger empire, considering the vastness of the dejure Persian Empire.
That aside, I find your map to be truly beautiful although I do have some suggestions. I would add at least two mountain chains, the Alborz and Zagroz. Both are necessary to limit the way that armies could move across the terrain, and in the case of the Alborz mountains it might make a zoroastrian campaign less suicidal.
 
Based on the map you linked to I'm not sure if I agree with you, not entirely at least. Khorasan should definitely be it's own kingdom, but Daylam in my opinion doesn't make a lot of sense as a kingdom.

Why not? The Justanids and Ziyarids ruled the area in varying degrees of autonomy during much of the game's time-frame. They may not have been Sultans since that term came into being halfway through the game's playable years; but there were kings of Gilan and Daylam. At best there could be petty kings formed from duchies in the region.

I do not recall any polity in that area that ever pretended to be, let alone be recognized as, Sultans.

And Sultan is a late development of the trend towards decentralization following popular jurisprudence movements regarding the increasingly secular role of the Sunni caliph. The kings in the Alborz existed for hundreds of years prior to the first person to be named Sultan.

That aside, I find your map to be truly beautiful although I do have some suggestions. I would add at least two mountain chains, the Alborz and Zagroz. Both are necessary to limit the way that armies could move across the terrain, and in the case of the Alborz mountains it might make a zoroastrian campaign less suicidal.

Would you happen to know which portions of either mountain range are impassable, as well as common routes taken through them? This information is hard to find in English.
 
I do not wish to be impolite but I don't know how else to say this. I'm assuming you are of Iranian descent and live outside the Middle-East. One thing I've noticed with many Iranians living in the west is that they like to refer to themselves as Persians and to Iran as Persia. It is understandable from a present-day point of view i.e. you do not wish people to associate you with the image that many people have of Iran because of it's government. Persia on the other hand conjures up exotic images of Darius, Persepolis, bazaars and of course The Prince of Persia ; ). However, Iranians themselves have almost always called their country Iran and themselves Iranians. In fact it was the father of the last shah, Reza Pahlavi who in 1935 asked the international community to start calling Persia by it's native name, Iran. The name Iran goes back at least 2000 years, if not 2500. During the Sasanian dynasty the name of the country was Eranshahr which meant something akin to the realm of Iran. Persia is in essence only the Iranian region of Fars. Before the Arab conquests this region was called Pars but because the -p doesn't exist in Arabic this changed to an -f (which for some reason Modern Persian took over despite there being a -p in it). Look up the historian Touraj Daryaee if you'd like to find out more about this. I was lucky enough that he gave a guest lecture at my university but there are some decent videos on youtube. Though I agree with you that the name Mesopotamia might not be the most adequate name for the kingdom I disagree with you regarding it being split up and given to Syria and other surrounding kingdoms. Following your argument that it hadn't been an indepent realm since antiquity the same should apply to Syria. The fact is that there were no Sultanates based in that area throughout the period (granted the Zengids controlled the entire area but they were Emirs), but that would leave no kingdoms in the area and the kingdoms in that area represent possible kingdoms.



Based on the map you linked to I'm not sure if I agree with you, not entirely at least. Khorasan should definitely be it's own kingdom, but Daylam in my opinion doesn't make a lot of sense as a kingdom. I do not recall any polity in that area that ever pretended to be, let alone be recognized as, Sultans. As celethiel has already pointed out, Persia is not the only kingdom within a dejure empire that is larger than most other kingdoms: England is by far the biggest kingdom within Brittania, Andalusia within Iberia, Pannonia within Carpathia. Furthermore, it would make sense to have a larger 'central' kingdom in a larger empire, considering the vastness of the dejure Persian Empire.
That aside, I find your map to be truly beautiful although I do have some suggestions. I would add at least two mountain chains, the Alborz and Zagroz. Both are necessary to limit the way that armies could move across the terrain, and in the case of the Alborz mountains it might make a zoroastrian campaign less suicidal.
I though it would be better to post my answer here, if you don't mind.
 
Last edited:
Great work with the Danube! Please also add Lake Balaton to Hungary. The visual update is enough, don't have to change the provinces, but it's the largest lake in Central Europe and it's missing :(
 
Great work with the Danube! Please also add Lake Balaton to Hungary. The visual update is enough, don't have to change the provinces, but it's the largest lake in Central Europe and it's missing :(
Never heard of it but anything that makes an area seem more like a real place and less like blob on a map is welcome.
 
Never heard of it but anything that makes an area seem more like a real place and less like blob on a map is welcome.

Never heard of the magyar version of Mallorca ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Balaton
Lots of young drunken tourists* and an accidently nice landscape which gets ignored by most aforementioned tourists,...which is probaly for the better.
It's slightly bigger than the other two (not sure how many are in game) european lakes (Genfersee (Lake Léman) and Bodensee).


* it's not as bad as i made it sound
 
On the topic of Balaton, Pecs's Slavic name should be Blatnograd, not Balaton - Balaton is the Hungarian adaptation of Blatъno (Јezero).
 
My only map complain is, that on the de jure map, there should be the Empire of Prussia somewhere between Germania/HRE and Russia ;) (Better being anachronistic then entirely made up.)