• 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 CK2 had several parts of the map that was outdated, and to be frank, a bit underdeveloped.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:
There are two serious problems that I can find in what would be otherwise a fantastic Dev Diary:
1) As Nerdy22 already pointed out, making the number of maximum holdings/baronies (that is, existing and available holdings) a fixed one, and tying it to the smallest possible division of the maps, seriously hamper the maximum amount of "holdings" in a random world, as it exists in the Holy Fury feature and the mods before it (where the number of existing/available holdings in a province could be set as random or fixed).
It looks amazing but I got an issue with the fixed number of holdings.
As a fan of Holy Fury and random worlds this seems very restrictive.
Also, I don't like that the empty holdings are seemingly owned by no one in the county.

2) It is mentioned that it will not be possible to change the type of terrain in a "province" through events or script.
Sadly not, no.
However, this does not correspond to reality. During the middle ages, massive areas of forests were cut down constantly, as the population numbers rose and people looked for new places to live in and exploit. Likewise, decline of empires (Roman, Carolingian) and incidents of depopulation would cause forests to expand and swallow previously settled areas (many areas would be cut down and populated, and abandoned afterwards multiple times) . Desertification in places like North Africa and other similar incidents would cause lasting effects in several regions for centuries.
I understand that there is a severe engine limitation in the current games, but this is the sort of things that should be looked upon for a new game.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I understand people don’t want baronies to be tied to counties because it allows for the dynamic movement of a barony titles between higher titles. This makes for some interesting situations. As you said, you could conquer an entire county, have that title, but still have a few of the barons within it be vassals of a liege in another realm. However, if baronies are to be treated this way, I assume people also want the ability to be able to conquer a nearby barony/baronies and add them to one of their own counties. Or, more accurately, be the new liege lord of that baron vassal, or perhaps own the barony itself. This, obviously, has the potential to grow the size of a county and encourages, as people have expressed an interest in, ‘border gore’. Like you said, people don’t want to take ‘an entire county at a time’, but rather have the dynamic exchange of baronies between counties through both warfare and inheritance. If this is the case, I am going to explain the problem with it. If this is not the case, do not bother reading the rest of this.

A lot of the following will be said with the assumption that to be a count you must hold the capital barony of that county. But all of the scenarios described still apply if you can hold the count title and hand out baronies in that county without actually owning a barony in that county. The main focus in many of this is: barons within a county by default will pay direct tribute to the count title holder or county holder (unless an event occurs where their new liege lies elsewhere).

Now, having 30-40 baronies under 3 counties is not the same as having ‘30-40 counties under 3 duchies.’ Also, being only able to take counties containing baronies is not equivalent to being only able to take duchies containing counties. Just because baronies now have their own place on the map in CKIII, does not make them functionally equivalent to a county from CKII. To make this statement is to ignore 2 fundamental mechanics in the game: a baron vassal does not take up a vassal slot (while a count vassal does), and a county takes up 1 demesne slot.

The difference between the above scenarios is their amount of centralisation, and hence the power they provide the character at the top of the system. The easiest way to demonstrate this is to make a comparison. I am going to compare a realm where 40 baronies are under 3 counties to a realm where 40 counties are under 3 duchies. These are situations you have described to be very similar. I will illustrate why they are not.

Picture two characters, Character X and Character Y. They are both dukes, they both have a demesne limit of 3, and they both have a vassal limit of 40.
Character X has a realm with 3 counties (all a part of his demesne), and 40 baron/city vassals distributed between his 3 counties (bishop vassals are left out for mathematic simplicity down the line). X has 0/40 vassals.
Character Y has a realm of 43 counties, 3 of which are part of his demesne. Y holds all 3 duchy titles in his realm. Y has 10 baron/city vassals distributed between his own 3 counties. Each of Y’s counts have 1 demesne; their county. Each of Y’s counts have 4 baron/city vassals. So, in total, there are 170 baron/city vassals in Y’s realm. Each count is a Feudal vassal (capital = a castle). Y has 40/40 vassals.
The baron/city ratio in both X and Y’s realms is 1:1. In both realms, each barony earns 20 gold a year and has 1500 levies. Each of X and Y’s personal counties have a baron (castle) capital. In both realms, each city earns 50 gold a year. City levies are ignored, as they will be insignificant at the end. Every vassal has 50 opinion of their direct liege, and the obligations in both realms are set to the vanilla default: Feudal Levy maximum: -20%, Feudal Tax: 0%, City Tax: 25%.
It is assumed every baron can provide a maximum of 100% of their overall levy to their liege before obligation and opinion modifiers are put in place.

With all of this taken into consideration, this is each character’s power level:

X earns 25.83 gold/month. X has 13 500 levies.

Y earns 10.21 gold/month. Y has 35 550 levies.

X’s realm is almost exactly 5x smaller than Y’s realm. Yet, X earns 2.5x more gold than Y, and has more than a third of Y’s military capacity. This is because X’s realm is more centralised than Y’s realm. Y gets to see only 15% of the levies and 0% of the gold from 160 out 170 of the baronies/cities in his realm. X gets to see 30% of all of his baronies/cities’ levies, and 25% of their gold. Notice how 160/170 of the baronies/cities in Y’s realm have their income filtered through his counts before it reaches him? Notice how that does not occur in X’s realm? There is an entire rung of the feudal ladder exerting autonomy in Y’s realm that just does not exist in X’s realm.

"Also I don't think you really understand how power centralization works. You say that a single duke could personally hold 3 counties while lording over 30-40 barons, which would mean power isn't centralized, it's distributed 30-40 times. If a duke held every single holding within that duchy, that'd be centralized power."
You need to understand that power centralisation is simply more complex than that. There can be several levels to centralisation. If this hasn’t been made obvious already, I will elaborate further. Under normal CKII circumstances, it would take about 10 counties to lord over a total of 40 baronies/sub-holdings. If you have a demesne limit of only 3, you can only own 3 counties and lord over 12 of those baronies yourself. You would then need to lord over 7 counts while they lord over the leftover 28 baronies. That means, similar to Y’s situation, 28 of the 40 barons’ income is filtered through the 7 counts before it reaches you. If you can remove the need for the 7 counts, and simply lord over all of the 40 baronies yourself, you are removing 7 autonomous bodies from the system. The overall autonomy of the system is reduced, and a greater percentage of the system’s gross income makes it to you; the CENTRE of power. So, like I said before, there is a big difference between a duke handing out count titles who then hand out baron titles and a duke who just hands out baron titles.

Now, back to X and Y. The effect I described regarding X and Y’s power level becomes further exaggerated when a King is liege to dukes who are then liege to counts who are then liege to barons. This is why Kings have access to crown authority; to reduce the amount of autonomy given to their vassals. However, crown authority laws first have to be passed, and then if successful, they provide a vassal opinion penalty. This is the price a king has to pay for a greater level of centralisation. What price does the duke with 3 counties and 40 baronies/cities have to pay for their level of centralisation? Nothing.

Now, let me ask you this, if baronies were untied to counties in CKIII, why would you ever have a vassal in your realm over the title rank of baron? It is clearly mathematically superior to fill your own personal counties/county titles with baron vassals rather than having any actual real vassals. There would be absolutely no reason to have counts within your realm besides yourself, or even develop a feudal hierarchy at all. In fact, you would be able to form a Kingdom with no counts or dukes entirely. You could simply do it with your central county demesne that has been filled with a ridiculous amount of baronies/cities/bishopries.

Yes, in CKII, baronies could be located in a county in one realm but be de facto part of a county in another realm. But when was the last time you saw a count in CKII be the liege of 40 baronies due to this effect? It simply does not happen. What is the average baron/city/bishopry number for a count in CKII? Without prosperity effects, probably about 4. It is not easy to become the liege of a baron who is originally part of another realm and it is often not worth the work. In CKIII, if baronies were to be untied to counties, taking a barony from another realm and placing it into one of your counties would be as easy as taking a single county in CKII. If it has not been made obvious why this is not a good idea, I’m not sure what else to say.
Bear in mind, it was not possible to do this in CKII. There was no equivalent of “I’m just going to take this barony next door and make it a direct vassal of mine”. If one wanted to grow their power base, they had to build them, acquire more vassals or increase their demesne limit.
Imagine if you had the ability in CKII to make a claim on a city sub-holding of a nearby count. You declare war, the war is over, you have not added anything to your demesne size or vassal size, and now you have a burgher vassal giving you let’s say 1.25 gold/month. Your power level has increased, and it cost you nothing. You could do this indefinitely until all subholdings around you pay direct tribute to you. The power increase would be immense with no trade-off.

Yes, dukes can swallow entire duchies and not experience a large power creep. By the time a duke swallows another duchy, the chances are, that duke has already filled their demesne. So, the income of that entire duchy that is now part of their realm is filtered through either the counts or dukes lording over it. That filter is not negligible, and because of it, barely any of the gross levy of that duchy will reach the duke who swallowed it, and in many cases, not a single coin of its gross income will reach the duke either.
This is just not the same thing as a count taking the entirety of another county’s baronies and placing them into their own county. The degree in which they ‘reduce their power’ by allowing barons to lord over their new baronies is not that large. The count is still going to receive a large amount of that income, because they are now the direct liege of several new barons. They do not need to even take up another demesne slot to receive this power increase. They don’t even need to use a single vassal slot. The duke who swallowed an entire duchy may have only gotten 1-3 new direct vassals. Most of which are probably feudal vassals, which provide a very small amount of tax. And, that duke has now used up some of its vassal limit.
These scenarios would only ever be equivalent if the duchy that the duke swallowed somehow lost all of its count titles, and every single sub-holding/barony/city/bishopry within it now paid direct tribute to the duke who swallowed it.

So, with all of that being said: there is, in fact, a problem with “holding 1 county title and taking as many baronies as you want”. A barony in CKIII is not functionally equivalent to a county in CKII.



Calculations regarding X and Y:

X:

Personal demesne. Gold: 20 x 3 / 12 = 5, Levy: 1500 x 3 = 4500.
Barony/City to X contribution. Gold: 50 x 20 x 0.25 / 12 = 20.83, Levy: 1500 x 20 x (0.5 – 0.2) = 9000.
Total. Gold: 20.83 + 5 = 25.83, Levy: 4500 + 9000 = 13500.

Y:

Personal demesne. Gold: 20 x 3 / 12 = 5, Levy: 1500 x 3 = 4500.
Personal Barony/City-Count contribution. Gold: 50 x 5 / 12 x 0.25 = 5.21, Levy: 1500 x 5 x (0.5 – 0.2) = 2250.
Barony/City to Count contribution. Gold: 50 x 2 / 12 = 8.33, Levy: 1500 x 2 x (0.5 – 0.2) = 900.
Count to Y contribution. Gold: (20 / 12 + 8.33) x 0 = 0, Levy: (1500 + 900) x 40 x (0.5 – 0.2) = 28800.
Total. Gold: 5 + 0 + 5.21 = 10.21, Levy: 28800 + 4500 + 2250 = 35 550.

Come to think of it this problem would be solved if baron vassals just simply took up a vassal slot and if counties no longer took a demesne slot (since they're titles not land)
 
  • 1
Reactions:
As such, Baronies exist with a few things in mind

What things? The paragraph that follows only says things that they can not do. More provinces is important for warfare in hearts of iron, where there is a front line - in crusader kings, where battles are local events and not things happening over months and hundreds of kilometres, more provinces is only valuable if it means that the political map is more granular.
--Hm I see that this represents a change in the direction of the game away from the political and towards the movement of armies. And this is what I abhor, what I so very much value about CK2 is that you can find things to do to achieve your goals other than through warfare. So just please please please I hope that at least there is a settings or definition file or inheritance folder somewhere where there is something along the lines of Lowest_De_Jure_Drift_Tier = Duchy or lowest_independent_tier = count and I will adore this game forever.

If such a situation would happen, it will be inherited by the county holder instead.

This is an extremely disappointing compromise in favor of something that is not explained anywhere. Border gore is not a valid reason on any level, other than if you want to dumb the game down.

we do have a concept of leasing baronies to other rulers

This better be* damn good, and entirely without arbitrary restrictions or complex structures for modding.

( here I earlier wrote an angry ramble, sorry about that any mod or admin who might see this )

PS regarding fixed crossings over major rivers, since I doubt it will be possible to build bridges, it is nothing but arcadeism DS***

**sounds like it maybe is- make it equivalent to a /common or /decisions modifier subfolder with some good examples and it's amazing
 
Last edited:
Hallo.

First of all i love the looking of the map and i think in the end, at release, it will hopefully look even better.

I think the issue about holdings is not given. You judge the whole think with ck2 parameters in mind. So the formula there was: baronies = holdings and counties = provinces. But i think this is wrong for ck3 cause it got a new, and more important, different formula: baronies = provinces and UNKNOWN = holding.

That is a dev diary about the map. We could not expect all details about building, politics or economy could be adressed here. But i expect tons of holdings that modle the developement of provinces in future diaries. I don't think paradox is that dump and create empty provinces only with "cold and dead" numbers of "developement value X" parameters.

The goal i think was to reduce density of characters. And that could work. Take the iceland. In ck2 there were 2 provinces with each 7 posible holdings. That would make 14 characters with 14 courts full of characters. In ck3 we probably have 6 provinces with an UNKNOWN amount of (NON-character) holdings. The maximum of characters and courts we could expect is 6. And that is true during the whole gameperiod. So if the game runs stable at 762 a.d. it runs stable in 1453 a.d. too. That IS an undenyable benefit. And if you want to build 100s of holdings it does not matter anymore.

And for imersion reasons. Sure you could expect these holdings could be led by a charcter too, but below baron rank they are so unimportant that you can see them as "unknown nobodies" without family trees etc., similar to pops in other games (no i don't think we need pops in ck!).

For the other "major" issues i would agree. Every province (to avoid the bad "b-word") should be playable except you got a GOOD reason why not. EDIT: The same thing with splitting up counties. If you pervert feudal succession in not allowing to inherit provinces you should inherit due to merriage/succesion laws you should have an even BETTER reason. Bordergore is no good or even better reason. With counties you can have a wonderful bordergore too. So the next locical step is counties can't leave duchies, duchies can't leave kingdoms and kingdoms can't leave empires. That is a extremly BAD reason.

EDIT: CK is, in my opinion, the game with the closest way to simulate "life" in feudal middleages i know. The idea should always be MORE accuracy not less. And these issues (province playable, province inheritable) are major for that goal. If the base clusters of the game are not feudal the whole game is not feudal. So what ck whants to be? Sims in Middleages?

I think barons will be playable in the future but not at the beginning. They only could or would not tell. Same with hellenism. There NEVER would be a posibility to play hellenistic characters. That was the credo and now we can.

Greetings.

Edit!
 
Last edited:
In Crusader Kings III, the map will stay "flat" and won't develop as a "globe" as you dezoom.



Barony names are shown as you zoom in, yes :)
We'll talk more about map modes in the future.



More on that in a future DD ;)

Awww I really like that Google Earth-like style when you pan around the map in Imperator: Rome. That's ok, anyways. Thanks for the answer.
 
Do the area density comparison maps compare CK2 counties to CK3 baronies? Or is it a county to county comparison?

Thanks guys! Looking forward to playing it the second it releases!

County-to-barony (sadly?). The main message to retain from the map density increase is: now the movement "unit" on the map is the barony and not the county, which brings new tactical possibilities and dynamics.

(then there is the contentious question of how baronies will work, but that is a wholly separate question)
 
County-to-barony (sadly?). The main message to retain from the map density increase is: now the movement "unit" on the map is the barony and not the county, which brings new tactical possibilities and dynamics.

(then there is the contentious question of how baronies will work, but that is a wholly separate question)
Yeah I tried to compare the maps we've seen so far with CK2 and it seems like the counties are pretty much the same but well, it's not like that's inherently a bad thing, I mean, it's not like they should make counties smaller just because they have more space on the map. I don't know how big counties were on average historically so I don't really know whether they should have made them smaller or not
 
Another thing with the baronies is that, by giving them visual representation on the map, you give an incentive for them to matter. As displayed by this dev diary Paradox has done the opposite and has tied them to counties, a terrible mistake. The most common support of this seems to be the annoyance of finding just a single random baronies to create larger titles, but with baronies represented on the map this would appear to be a non-problem... only if Paradox hadn't tied them to counties.

As for barons being unplayable, I don't really see the appeal of starting as one and going to Emperor (never understood Count->Emperor either), and such characters are likely to be ahistorical figures anyways (which is also a problem with counts, who appear to have been a rarity compared to Dukes and the like directly controlling most of their land and leasing it to knights).
 
Immersive Map >> Map that the player can easily distinguish the terrain of the provinces.
 
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.

But to make Southeastern Asia on map would be also good(even better than Nigerian Coast, but as for East Asia - HIC SUNT DRACONES) - Then, would it be possible that the map shall include all the Old World after some DLCs?

I have heard that higher-tiered characters could revoke baronies at no cost. That's so awful, more awful than removing all baronies then dealing with the baron titles as honorary titles, adding buildings which can represent the removed baronies into the county building lines.(As for governments, it may not be too hard to be dealt with while we could use county flags)
 
you have to be able to conquer or inherit a barony outside of your county or even kingdom or otherwise its not historically correct nor fun and this would make the game worse then ck 2. The net thing is you should be able to conquer each holing indiviudally to amek use of the new map system. My last thought goes to playing as baron. The arony itself is the backbone of the medival society as respresented in the game. I think you as a player shpudl have the descision to be able to play as baron because even a baron could have had a few vassals. I think its due to the developers having no time to preperate the game for this feature that they are not putting this in. I Hope that we will have in the end a finished product wich will not need addional 300 Euro in dlcs to work properly.
 
I hope that is not the case. I love starting in a random spot and trying to make that county the new center of the world. It will be hard if you are hardcoded to a 2 slot county as your capital.
While I agree on the "underdog rising" concept, which is very fun and challenging for me as a player as well, I think it must still be made with some accuracy. I mean, we've been talking about historical accuracy for weeks, so we can't pretend all of a sudden that Rejkiavik, or Saharaville Nowhereland, have access to the same resources (and, as a consequence, growth possibilities) as, say, Florence or Barcelona or Alexandria, or Bordeaux in your own following example, therefore I'm not completely against the limitations in slots, and for the same reason I'm completely for the differences in starting technology levels.

So "adelante, Pedro, ma con juicio!" ("Go on, Pedro, but with good sense!") :D
 
Last edited:
A suggestion for... not the map exactly, but an UI element that interacts with it: the province finder. Can we have it similar to EU4? CK2's is way slower and heavier on the computer than EU4's (I believe that is so because CK2 tries to locate any province with the typed letters in the province finder box, while EU4 has a database specifically for that and only shows the name, doesn't trying to pre-locate the province beforehand).
 
Last edited: