• 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 CK2 had several parts of the map that was outdated, and to be frank, a bit underdeveloped.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:
Levedia (and Etelköz) are unidentifieable, and should not be in game at all. The DAI calls Levedia a 'tópos', place. Which certainly doesn't merit it being a Duchy of all things. Levedia might as well have been a village for all we know. The later reference to it from the GH doesn't help its case at all either, as that work has very little truth in it. There is no reason to have either in game as Duchies.
We actually do have a pretty good idea where Etelköz laid, as the area defined by contemporary sources (around the rivers Seret/Siret, Prut, Dniester, Bug and Dnieper) matches the approximate area of the Subottsi archeological horizon. The name "Etelköz" is reconstructed from the form Atelkouzou (< *Etelküzü), yet the name is the most problematic part of the theory: in the DAI, it also appears in the forms of Atel kai Ouzou, Atel kai Kouzou, meaning "Atel and Ouz" and "Atel and Kouz". I wanted to go into depth about the topic, but it would be too long to read, so I summarize the most possible option: the latter forms are misinterpretations of Atelkouzou, Atel < *etel means "river", a generalised term from the Turkic name of the Volga, Etil, while kouzou might indeed be *küzü, köz, meaning "between". Thus the meaning "between rivers" not only is reconstructible in Proto-Hungarian, but also makes a lot of sense to call an area whose boundaries is mostly defined by riverbeds.
TL;DR Etelköz is pretty much known and understood. What you're saying about Levedia is true tho, but since it's already in the game, it's not really the topic now.
 
Last edited:
This just isn't true. Magnus -a -um unambiguously means 'great'. Vetus, priscus -a -um, antiquus -a -um, can all mean 'old', 'ancient'.

nd
Right, I correct my sentence: Magna Hungaria is literally Great Hungary but it means Ancient Hungary. About the same case as with great-grandfather - he is not big, he lived a long ago and must be revered. Of course, friar Julian knew well that Magna Hungaria is much smaller than the Kingdom of Hungary. Magna was an honorific epithet indicating its status as the supposed ancient homeland of the Hungarians.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Right, I correct my sentence: Magna Hungaria is literally Great Hungary but it means Ancient Hungary. About the same case as with great-grandfather - he is not big, he lived a long ago and must be revered. Of course, friar Julian knew well that Magna Hungaria is much smaller than the Kingdom of Hungary. Magna was an honorific epithet indicating its status as the supposed ancient homeland of the Hungarians.
But great doesn't necessarily mean big, it can be used to add emphasis to certain words, describe quality/skill or denote scale, E.g. "Great Big Tower" But the word itself has more to do other then with size. Except in Old English where it meant "big" apparently, after a little bit of research on its meaning.

Magna means great, not ancient, so Great Hungary would be the name, not Ancient Hungary. A good example of the word great not denoting size is Pompey Magnus, "Pompey the great". Many exceptional Rulers have the epithet "the Great" due to their exemplary leadership and what they achieved in their lives. except for Pompey, he gave himself the name Magnus. Yes Magna is being used to denote that it is old, but it does not mean Ancient, nor translates to Ancient, instead referring to it as great, means that it has/had existed for a very long time. so Magna Hungaria doesn't mean Ancient Hungary. Magna Hungaria literally means Great Hungaria, why call it that if you mean Ancient. Yes it also sorta means Ancient, but it is both, but technically Magna means Great, thus Great Hungary.

Here is what a dictionary site has to say on the word great:

great
  1. of much more than ordinary size, extent, volume, etc.; esp.,
    1. designating a thing or group of things larger than others of the same kind: the great cats are tigers, lions, etc.; the Great Lakes
    2. large in number, quantity, etc.; numerous: a great company
    3. long in duration: a great while
  2. much higher in some quality or degree; much above the ordinary or average; esp.,
    1. existing in a high degree; intense: a great light, great pain
    2. very much of a; acting much as (something specified): a great reader
    3. eminent; distinguished; illustrious; superior: a great playwright
    4. very impressive or imposing; remarkable: great ceremony
    5. having or showing nobility of mind, purpose, etc.; grand: a great man, great ideas
  3. of most importance; main; chief: the great seal
  4. INFORMAL clever; expert; skilful: usually with at: great at tennis
  5. INFORMAL excellent; splendid; fine
  6. NOW CHIEFLY DIAL.pregnant
    chiefly in great with child
 
Last edited:
  • 3
Reactions:
I fail to see where does it matter what Magna Hungaria literally means
 
  • 2
Reactions:
But great doesn't necessarily mean big, it can be used to add emphasis to certain words, describe quality/skill or denote scale, E.g. "Great Big Tower" But the word itself has more to do other then with size. Except in Old English where it meant "big" apparently, after a little bit of research on its meaning.

Magna means great, not ancient, so Great Hungary would be the name, not Ancient Hungary. A good example of the word great not denoting size is Pompey Magnus, "Pompey the great". Many exceptional Rulers have the epithet "the Great" due to their exemplary leadership and what they achieved in their lives. except for Pompey, he gave himself the name Magnus. Yes Magna is being used to denote that it is old, but it does not mean Ancient, nor translates to Ancient, instead referring to it as great, means that it has/had existed for a very long time. so Magna Hungaria doesn't mean Ancient Hungary. Magna Hungaria literally means Great Hungaria, why call it that if you mean Ancient. Yes it also sorta means Ancient, but it is both, but technically Magna means Great, thus Great Hungary.

Here is what a dictionary site has to say on the word great:

great
  1. of much more than ordinary size, extent, volume, etc.; esp.,
    1. designating a thing or group of things larger than others of the same kind: the great cats are tigers, lions, etc.; the Great Lakes
    2. large in number, quantity, etc.; numerous: a great company
    3. long in duration: a great while
  2. much higher in some quality or degree; much above the ordinary or average; esp.,
    1. existing in a high degree; intense: a great light, great pain
    2. very much of a; acting much as (something specified): a great reader
    3. eminent; distinguished; illustrious; superior: a great playwright
    4. very impressive or imposing; remarkable: great ceremony
    5. having or showing nobility of mind, purpose, etc.; grand: a great man, great ideas
  3. of most importance; main; chief: the great seal
  4. INFORMAL clever; expert; skilful: usually with at: great at tennis
  5. INFORMAL excellent; splendid; fine
  6. NOW CHIEFLY DIAL.pregnant
    chiefly in great with child
I'm convinced. I put ancient aside. May be old can be accepted? I realised why Magna Hungaria is not translated to Great Hungary in Hungarian. The reason is that Great Hungary (Nagy-Magyarország) refers now the pre-WWI Hungary.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
So, despite the barony thing, the biggest shortcoming of the map system is still in CK3? Namely, that the borders are static, and there's no way to divide a province?
Say they did allow you to split a county between the barons.

You'd still have "no way to divide a province", as now the provinces would merely be moved down to the level of the barony. Borders would still (functionally) be static, just set at a lower level.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
So, despite the barony thing, the biggest shortcoming of the map system is still in CK3? Namely, that the borders are static, and there's no way to divide a province?

It's actually worse now since in CK3 a barony can't be under someone else besides their county. At least in CK2 you could kinda do the Hansa well by having them control cities or represent the Papacy controlling Avignon and Benevento. In CK3 you'd have to have the Hansa controlling entire counties and the Papacy controlling all of Venaissin and Benevento.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
It's actually worse now since in CK3 a barony can't be under someone else besides their county. At least in CK2 you could kinda do the Hansa well by having them control cities or represent the Papacy controlling Avignon and Benevento. In CK3 you'd have to have the Hansa controlling entire counties and the Papacy controlling all of Venaissin and Benevento.
As far as the Papacy goes, that *might* be coverable by the leasing system.

I'd expect something similar for republics when we get to those being a focus in a future DLC, rather than the republics inevitably seizing counties because they owned the city, and not representing anything but Venice even remotely correctly - with anything with an inland capital being impossible to reproduce as a working merchant republic.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
The Pope did control the whole of the Comtat Venaissin!

Even more entertainingly, the city of Avignon was the last part to fall under Papal control.
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions: