CK2 Dev Diary #78 - Polishing up the Map

[Chlodio]

View attachment 333515

Now that you mentioned it, Seine does looks rather odd.

Is this any better?:

I rotated Seine a bit so that it could fit and redraw it from there. Admittedly it might not be that accurate (considering how distorted the map is accuracy is quite difficult to achieve), but at least it makes more sense in the context of the game.

Here is the part I modified:

Adaptation of it would only require copying and pasting it to the right position.

 

[Oliver*]

While ago I did and you are partially right, though my primary research was about something else, I used similar approach, and you can see the results here:
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...nt-wrong-with-ck2-islam.982579/#post-22098470

Or the crucial point briefly:



Though this wasn't meant to prove that some region should get more or less provinces, but rather to prove that CK2 doesn't follow population. And if you read that first post of quoted thread, you'd see that it works rather the oposite way: The regions which are most underpowered in terms of population/provinces(holdings) are those most powerfull in the game, so as all others say, population is the least valid argument for adding or removing provinces in CK2.

I would support your claim that France deserves few more provinces. It indeed does. But if looking around the map, at Germany, Spain or North Africa, It is the last region which needs some love. Just look at Germany or North Africa - they need the map to be reworked way more than France does.

Please name your sources, and the estimates for Bohemia, Germany and Greece+Bulgaria. I don't want to get in an argument about who was more powerful, since it requires a lot of research, but would you agree power is fairly subjective and fluctuated much more than population or wealth. How can you justify Iberia being a higher priority for more holdings than France if your pre plague population per holding actually declined well below France and Italy. I haven't researched outside of Europe, so i suppose i agree with Africa.

 

[elvain]

Please name your sources, and the estimates for Bohemia, Germany and Greece+Bulgaria. I don't want to get in an argument about who was more powerful, since it requires a lot of research, but would you agree power is fairly subjective and fluctuated much more than population or wealth. How can you justify Iberia being a higher priority for more holdings than France if your pre plague population per holding actually declined well below France and Italy. I haven't researched outside of Europe, so i suppose i agree with Africa.

If you want to argue, then let's end it here. About my sources: for Bohemia it is Josef Žemlička, AFAIK the most respected Czech medievist down here... Frankly out of my mind I don't know which of his works exactly... but since I quote 2 of his books here as source, it will probably be one of them, or both.

I am very sorry that I don't remember which source I used almost year and half ago for Greece and Bulgaria.. I might have used one single source or approximation of several sources... oh Paolo Malanima: Energy and population in Europe, he uses Russell as one of his sources, btw, but I'm not sure if I used this particular one, sorry.

The more important thing is: before you start to argue, please read my original post carefully again. Nowhere I wrote that Iberia needs adding more provinces than France. I don't even say that about Germany and North Africa, which I do indeed mention as regions which need map overhaul more than France. I meant map overhaul, nowhere I speak about adding more provinces to make certain region more powerfull. My point was and is that number of provinces or holdings in CK2 has very little too do with actual power.

France was by far the most powerfull and populous country in medieval (western) Europe. We all agree on that. Yet it doesn't mean it should have more provinces than it has now and that it needs map rework more than any other region. Rather the oposite: There are regions, such as Germany and North Africa, which desperately need their map to be redrawn - not because of power balance or anything, but because they are so neglected it is obvious on first sight. Compared to them, France looks very well.

Forget population and power, these are not the only things which matter in drawing the map.

 

[Oliver*]

If you want to argue, then let's end it here. About my sources: for Bohemia it is Josef Žemlička, AFAIK the most respected Czech medievist down here... Frankly out of my mind I don't know which of his works exactly... but since I quote 2 of his books here as source, it will probably be one of them, or both.

I am very sorry that I don't remember which source I used almost year and half ago for Greece and Bulgaria.. I might have used one single source or approximation of several sources... oh Paolo Malanima: Energy and population in Europe, he uses Russell as one of his sources, btw, but I'm not sure if I used this particular one, sorry.
.

You may have used Urlanis (1941) as your main European source, since it aligns very well. Even though he is popular online, his original book is incredibly obscure. Urlanis is interpreted differently on Wikipedia than Paolo Malanimas papers so his true estimates may be hard to find. He is also good reason for multiple sources as the table below shows him as an outlier. Modern historians aren't always the most supported, Ferdinand Lot wrote his estimate in 1928 and is supported by 2 modern historians. Russell has also recieved modern support for his estimates. Your website is superb though.

From (Paolo Malanima) The table above shows Urlanis as an outlier.

The more important thing is: before you start to argue, read my original post carefully again. Nowhere I wrote that Iberia needs adding more provinces than France. I don't even say that about Germany and North Africa, which I do indeed mention as regions which need map overhaul more than France. I meant map overhaul, nowhere I speak about adding more provinces to make certain region more powerfull. My argument was and is that number of provinces or holdings in CK2 has very little too do with actual power.

Ok, my mistake.

Edit: Why are people still disagreeing with this? Please check my sources first

 

[DC123456789]

I disagree, i think France is the most neglected.

And not the horrific provinces of Russia, the steppe, or West Africa? The French provinces at least resemble historical subdivisions at first glance, and aren't a a complete travesty like other parts of the map.

 

[Oliver*]

And not the horrific provinces of Russia, the steppe, or West Africa? The French provinces at least resemble historical subdivisions at first glance, and aren't a a complete travesty like other parts of the map.

I don't know, you're probably right, I think it is neglected in terms of population to holdings. I suppose i shouldn't compare border neglect to demographic neglect.

 

[elvain]

You may have used Urlanis (1941) as your main European source, since it aligns very well. Even though he is popular online, his original book is incredibly obscure. Urlanis is interpreted differently on Wikipedia than Paolo Malanimas papers so his true estimates may be hard to find. He is also good reason for multiple sources as the table below shows him as an outlier. Modern historians aren't always better, Ferdinand Lot wrote his estimate in 1928 and is supported by 2 modern historians. Russell has also recieved modern support for his estimates. Your website is superb though.
View attachment 334280
From (Paolo Malanima) The table above shows Urlanis as an outlier.

Frankly, I have no idea. I know Malanima used him as one of sources, but I really don't know. I most probably used some rough approximation of all the data available there plus some other articles which I lost in the meantime.

I would really love a game which would take population into account and make it the base of economy and power. It would very much fit to my interpretation of history and its processes, changes in power etc. But CK2 is not that game. CK2, as I and others are trying to explain to you, has provinces which roughly represent something, but as I have shown, they neither reflect historical power structure (more provinces and holdings in them does not always mean more power), nor they reflect historical distribution of population.

And as others said, there are other factors in place. For instance there are regions which were strongly centralized and should have low province density, but high holding density per province (Egypt, Bohemia, Iraq, Anatolia), and regions, with deep political fragmentation (France, Germany) - this all needs to be considered when drawing provinces, not only your population (though as I said, I think pop should play much bigger role).

I disagree, i think France is the most neglected. (in need of new provinces)

You think. okay. So let's leave the sole perspective of population and have general look at those 2 screenshots:

So, if you generally look at those 2 screenshots and compare any part of France with those parts marked in Germany and North Africa. Which one feels that received some care from the devs and which one(s) did not. Just leave population, (it did change throughout the time, so it's not that reliable) which of those regions makes you feel has received more care (than France) and which one was neglected. Was it any of those parts of Germany, or that part of North Africa or France? Don't you feel France is much better represented than the other two? You don't need to know anything about Germany or Africa.. just look how the map looks (it tells a lot about how it corresponds to contemporary situation).
I don't expect you to know and judge that half of North African provinces are either anachronistic or totally misplaced (which they are - both, some of them are even borh anachronistic AND misplaced), I'm just asking if France still feels neglected when looking there. Does it?

I don't know, you're probably right, I think it is neglected in terms of population to holdings. I suppose i shouldn't compare border neglect to demographic neglect.

You certainly should not. There are few more things to consider when drawing the map than just population. Hell... I painted background map for the whole new Middle East for the last update and, frankly, the goal was nor population, but to depict the historical reality, political and other divisions, to have the most important places of the region in so the map would make sense. Sure, my true self did take population somehow into consideration, because population was important... but in the end of map painting, it is the last thing you consider.

---------------------
EDIT: Please, take notice that in my original post both North Iberia and Maghreb are marked as more OP (in terms of population) than France. Yet I think any of those regions (especially NA) needs map rework more than France. Map rework does not equal to adding provinces

 

[Oliver*]

Frankly, I have no idea. I know Malanima used him as one of sources, but I really don't know. I most probably used some rough approximation of all the data available there plus some other articles which I lost in the meantime.

I would really love a game which would take population into account and make it the base of economy and power. It would very much fit to my interpretation of history and its processes, changes in power etc. But CK2 is not that game. CK2, as I and others are trying to explain to you, has provinces which roughly represent something, but as I have shown, they neither reflect historical power structure (more provinces and holdings in them does not always mean more power), nor they reflect historical distribution of population.

And as others said, there are other factors in place. For instance there are regions which were strongly centralized and should have low province density, but high holding density per province (Egypt, Bohemia, Iraq, Anatolia), and regions, with deep political fragmentation (France, Germany) - this all needs to be considered when drawing provinces, not only your population (though as I said, I think pop should play much bigger role).
.

Would you agree crown laws, centralization, advisors and ruler skills better represent usefulness of a province, while population and wealth should be the province base.

You think. okay. So let's leave the sole perspective of population and have general look at those 2 screenshots:.

Fine, i know. But sources seem to count for nothing on here. Obviously it was a mistake bringing up borders. But let's be honest, province names, borders and terrain will hardly affect a game compared to an ahistoricaly weak nation that is supposed to be strong. Disagree with me if you want, i'm done.

 

[Vaximillian]

Which one feels that received some care from the devs and which one(s) did not.

This question is easy. The answer is neither.

 

[Thure]

This question is easy. The answer is neither.

France at least resemble the historical borders.

Spoiler

 

[elvain]

Would you agree crown laws, centralization, advisors and ruler skills better represent usefulness of a province, while population and wealth should be the province base.

I said that. There's no disagreement between us on this.

Fine, i know. But sources seem to count for nothing on here. Obviously it was a mistake bringing up borders. But let's be honest, province names, borders and terrain will hardly affect a game compared to an ahistoricaly weak nation that is supposed to be strong. Disagree with me if you want, i'm done.

You do seem to want to argue and seek disagreement when there is none. I told you I don't want to argue nor disagree. Please read what I write, not what you think or want me to write.
I am the first one who wants this game to be fact based, to represent medieval reality. We both want the same, right?
The difference is that I take this game and its mechanics as facts, which are too late to be changed from the core - that provinces should represent, or at least mirror the population. The game does not work this way. Unfortunately.

France already IS powerfull. Not as much as some people might want, but it is.
I don't want to turn this into discussion far from the topic of map... but we know that France would deserve something more, because in medieval reality, France was far from being as centralized as it is in CK2 where the king can call his vasals in arms and they all come etc. The same with HRE. The game does not represent it. Unfortunately. But since it works as it works, you can't make France or HRE more powerfull (by adding more provinces to them), because with the way the game works, they already are overpowered to a degree, and they keep conquering everything around. Again, this is because how the game works. In reality it was the French demographic power what helped the reconquista, it was the German demographic power what made Poland, Hungary, Bohemia and the Baltics more developed.. but in game terms this all translates into military (or dynastic) conquest, which people find ahistorical.
In ideal world I would agree with you, but it is way too late to change the core working of this game.

PS: Small note. You are still operating with France's population prior to Black death, which was indeed exceptional. But if you look at 1066 France (which is the base for the map), it wasn't all that strong and powerfull, not even in terms of population

This question is easy. The answer is neither.

Oh, come on!
So let's compare facts
Here's CK2 France compared to map of historical regions posted by @Thure just above:

You know I'm long standing hardline critic of PDS approach to the map. But honestly, throughout my years long work on CK2 map modding I have never seen anything even close to this. If you claim that this almost perfect border of France, with all the regions being roughly at their place, in fact most of them almost precisely... if you claim that this is a result of no care.. then should I really post similar comparison of Germany or North Africa?

Like @Olivier* said, it would deserve some provinces to represent its exceptional population, but solely from map painting perspective, it is one of the best done regions on CK2 map. And stone me to death for this if you like.

 

[Oliver*]

I said that. There's no disagreement between us on this.


You do seem to want to argue and seek disagreement when there is none. I told you I don't want to argue nor disagree. Please read what I write, not what you think or want me to write.
I am the first one who wants this game to be fact based, to represent medieval reality. We both want the same, right?
The difference is that I take this game and its mechanics as facts, which are too late to be changed from the core - that provinces should represent, or at least mirror the population. The game does not work this way. Unfortunately.

Understood

France already IS powerfull. Not as much as some people might want, but it is.
I don't want to turn this into discussion far from the topic of map... but we know that France would deserve something more, because in medieval reality, France was far from being as centralized as it is in CK2 where the king can call his vasals in arms and they all come etc. The same with HRE. The game does not represent it. Unfortunately. But since it works as it works, you can't make France or HRE more powerfull (by adding more provinces to them), because with the way the game works, they already are overpowered to a degree, and they keep conquering everything around.

France and HRE are not comparably powerful. Both estimates by J.C Russell (the only historian i have found with a HRE estimate) France 1328, HRE 1346. I used console to remove all HRE from Italy, as his estimate is 700,000 sq km not including Italy. Possible Savoy and Provence is supposed to be included. French estimate is from the Hearth tax of 1328, so borders are correct i guess.

In ideal world I would agree with you, but it is way too late to change the core working of this game.

It's never too late

PS: Small note. You are still operating with France's population prior to Black death, which was indeed exceptional. But if you look at 1066 France (which is the base for the map), it wasn't all that strong and powerfull, not even in terms of population

The population increase was huge, England may have had a 500% increase between 1086 and 1346, this understandably can't be represented in game. I don't think we should aim for 1066 estimates. I don't have many sources for France 1066, but they may have had as low as 4million in contemporary borders. Maybe max holdings could be considered as pre plague.

 

[elvain]

Understood


France and HRE are not comparably powerful. Both estimates by J.C Russell (the only historian i have found with a HRE estimate) France 1328, HRE 1346. I used console to remove all HRE from Italy, as his estimate is 700,000 sq km not including Italy. Possible Savoy and Provence is supposed to be included. French estimate is from the Hearth tax of 1328, so borders are correct i guess.
View attachment 334382

You really don't need to convince me that the CK2 map does not reflect medieval population. Didn't I show you my analysis of the very same?
The game does not reflect it because it works differently and does not use population as base of economy and power.

You're wasting our time when trying to convince convinced. You just refuse to realize facts. Not about historical demography but about this game and how it works. I'm done with this topic. I am very sorry.

It's never too late

It indeed is. Certainly for CK2.

You can't just easily change the base for calculating power in a video game. Certainly not 6 or how many years afret its release and more than a dozen of gameplay DLCs. You would need to recalculate almost every mechanic, which uses military power, rebalance everything. Can you imagine how big effort would that be? And that's just balancing. Before that the whole map would have to be redone, since it - as both of us have shown - it does not reflect population distribution in various areas. Notably this should be done right after a major map overhaul changed the whole eastern part of the map. I myself spent several dozens of hours on that just searching sources and putting them in a shape so PDX guys could do their job...

Can you imagine the work (and money) cost for this operation? Would you as project leader give all the money necessary for a DLC which builds new features people would buy just to completely change the basics of the game... basics, which took houndreds of hours coding and tens of thousands hours testing and ballancing... all that because one forum user thinks that the best part of the map is not good enough for his tastes.
Are you really that naive to think this could happen and PDX would allocate its resources (and money) on this?

For whole 6 years they didn't have enough resources to fix parts of map which are pain to play at, or to fix gameplay problems which community asks for years... Do you really believe they will use them to rework what already works?

The population increase was huge, England may have had a 500% increase between 1086 and 1346, this understandably can't be represented in game. I don't think we should aim for 1066 estimates. I don't have many sources for France 1066, but they may have had as low as 4million in contemporary borders. Maybe max holdings could be considered as pre plague.

The map is designed to represent late 11th century. It is not designed neither for 14th century, nor for population. So taking 14th century population as reference point for judging the quality of the map is just wrong. Is this clear?

I'd really love to discuss how medieval demography was evolving, I love to research sources on that. I like it and I believe it was the essence of rise and fall of kingdoms and empires. We can do that (probably somewhere else). We just should both know that the impact of such discussion would have no effect on CK2. (btw, that's why didn't really care about sourcing my statements. I don't want to waste 30 minutes on something, which has zero impact

 

[Oliver*]

The map is designed to represent late 11th century. It is not designed neither for 14th century, nor for population. So taking 14th century population as reference point for judging the quality of the map is just wrong. Is this clear?

How do you know, has a dev told you. Why aren't Paris, Brugges, Milan, Prague and London 3-4 holding provinces, should Hamburg and Lubeck even exist. If this was true, there would be no max holdings, just static 1066 holdings.

 

[elvain]

How do you know, has a dev told you. Why aren't Paris, Brugges, Milan, Prague and London 3-4 holding provinces, would Hamburg and Lubeck even be on the map if this was true.

It has been mentioned many times on the forums...
And though I can't say anything about our communication, yes, I've been in contact with the devs (for instance due to the map overhaul of Middle East which is no secret).

Though you seem to interpret it that way, I don't say that neither population nor 14th century is not taken into consideration. I just say that the map is mainly designed around late 11th century situation and that despite your wishes, 14th century population is not considered the most important factor (reference point). That's all.

The cities you mention were indeed wealthy and their biggest fame lies in 13th century or later (we both know it was due to population, but...you know...). Just, please, read what is written, not what you want to read in your seek for arguments...

I bet you know what I'm trying to say, you just refuse to accept reality of this game and keep trying to argue.

I'm getting tired of that approach, sorry

 

[Oliver*]

It has been mentioned many times on the forums...

It would be helpful to find these mentions by devs.

And though I can't say anything about our communication, yes, I've been in contact with the devs (for instance due to the map overhaul of Middle East which is no secret).

IIRC middle east did not experience the same population boom as Europe so it could be a consideration when comparing them.

Though you seem to interpret it that way, I don't say that neither population nor 14th century is not taken into consideration. I just say that the map is mainly designed around late 11th century situation and that despite your wishes, 14th century population is not considered the most important factor (reference point). That's all.

That is literally what you said, at least you are compromising, but still not enough.

The cities you mention were indeed wealthy and their biggest fame lies in 13th century or later (we both know it was due to population, but...you know...). Just, please, read what is written, not what you want to read in your seek for arguments...

I bet you know what I'm trying to say, you just refuse to accept reality of this game and keep trying to argue.

No, you build your narrative around your opinions and say them as fact. Being condescending does not make you right, just because i concede some points does not make me wrong, being impartial is important.

 

[elvain]

snip

Sorry, I have other job to do now... will answer in PM. I will only repeat that you should read what I write, not what you want to read.

Also I should point out that my obligation goes to PDX and NDA contract I have signed, not to you. Therefore I won't tell you about what my feelings are based on.

 

[DukeBoabbyOfPhilippines]

Can't we get, like, a huge update on Bavaria. Like how Bavarians invented the donut filled with cream or some such?

 

[Xetfield]

Will there be a new DD today?

 

[Keizer Harm]

Will there be a new DD today?

I'm still betting on the 19th