• 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 CK2 had several parts of the map that was outdated, and to be frank, a bit underdeveloped.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:
While I dont feel anything for playable barons I do think that barony border-gore adds a certain charml. Inheritance is a messy business after all. I don't see how using the enclave rules cant solve the issue of extremes, russian prince owning a castle in andalusia, but lets a german border count keep his castle in france. I feel this is a big loss for simulation in favour for map painting.

Border gore is a staple of the medieval ages. And in fact you could keep the border colors inside the same county intact, while still having individual baronies held by other people, that would be a compromise. Part of the barony's income and manpower should still go to the de facto count, but when you hold baronies abroad you should also be entitled to some of their income.
 
barony gore was stupid though because you needed a whole war just to take a tiny castle, and with how CBs worked, it was pretty much all you could do with a whole war, then you got a super long truce afterward.
 
barony gore was stupid though because you needed a whole war just to take a tiny castle, and with how CBs worked, it was pretty much all you could do with a whole war, then you got a super long truce afterward.

That kind of calls for a solution that is "better war/peace diplomacy etc" rather than "oh, lets just kind of make baronies a bit pointless".
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
barony gore was stupid though because you needed a whole war just to take a tiny castle, and with how CBs worked, it was pretty much all you could do with a whole war, then you got a super long truce afterward.
That kind of calls for a solution that is "better war/peace diplomacy etc" rather than "oh, lets just kind of make baronies a bit pointless".

Or you could have a game rule.
 
this whole thing about playable barons is pointless. If you played as a Baron guess what? Your first goal is to become a count, you become a count in 20 years. Ok, now you have typical CK gameplay starting as a count. what's even the point of that? It wouldn't make sense any other way, unless you think it's sensible that in baron-level gameplay you would conquer a bunch of baronies then become a count, like how a count conquers counties to become a duke, duke conquers duchies to become a king, etc - which I would find absurd, personally. All it would do is add a small amount of lower-tier gameplay before you're back to a typical Crusader Kings game.
Let's make counts unplayable as well then, because if you played as a count guess what? Your first goal is to become a duke, you become a duke in 20 years. Ok, now you have typical CK gameplay starting as a duke. What's even the point of that?

If you're not interested in that you can skip it, but some people would like to see such a feature in the game, I would. The "playing as a baron would be boring" excuse is not as valid as when it was used to justify unplayable barons in CK2 if in CK3 they really want to focus more on RPG elements and character development. CK2 was already less focused on map painting than any other PDS game, CK3 will be even more focused on characters
 
Last edited:
I am very disappointed to hear that you are not going to implement the convex map of Imperator: Rome in Crusader Kings III.

This feature of I:R really delighted me because of how much it improved upon the map projection and, frankly, I had hoped for it to become a mainstay of all new Paradox GSG-titles going forward.

I do most humbly beseech you to reconsider this position. :(
 
Last edited:
The map looks great and I like the increased detail and visual representation of the holdings within each county. But do not like the plan to lock of these holdings to the counties. The expanded map detail would be perfect for the way baronies are treated in CK2, but in CK3 you are giving us these nice visuals while placing restrictions that will limit how they will be played. We don't know yet how this will effect how Holy Order and Merchant Republic holdings are depicted in the future, but this does indicate it will have to be done much differently.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
This looks really awesome and I do appreciate the expansion down to the nigerian coast.

as it offers a larger degree of movement for you armies (more on that in the future).
On the topic of movement and travel time, one additional question.
Are you planning to implement the Itinerant court system of the early HRE? ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itinerant_court )
The german Emperors had been famous for their amount of travel and modern day german Highways still follow the old imperial path the emperors used to travel from Kaiserpfalz to Kaiserpfalz. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaiserpfalz )
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Huh, reading through the thread made me realize something. Counties divided into visible baronies would be the stuff that border disputes are made of, if they weren't inseparably tied to their parent county as they are now: you know for a fact that barony x belongs to your county, but is currently being enjoyed by the county over! How dare he! Or county y has a pretty nice city on your border. Would be a shame if something happened to it while he was exhausting his troops and not paying attention to you.

I never minded the issue of bordergore, so not sure how much of that is the actual reason why they stapled baronies to counties or if that's just being cheeky for the fans :p

However, cool dev diary all around. Denser and more thorough map sounds exciting. Looks like I'll have to actually care about what types of land I'm holding/conquering, rather than just a capitalistic "more is better, full stop". Used to be I'd only care about terrain in regard to warfare.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Hrrrm. Having actual Baronies on the map that could individually change Counties would have given the option of actual shifting borders over time, in the sense of Counties being partially taken over by other Duchies/Kingdoms/etc, and Baronies drifting into their new Counties. Which would have been at least a tiny way to actually change borders - instead of just coloring the same borders in a different color always.

Feels like a wasted opportunity, but apparently all aspects like this need to be streamlined and linear and all that. Not too promising so far, I think.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I don't like this DD. To me it seems that there are no more provinces on the map (excluding the newly added parts of tibet and africa) than there were in Ck2.
Instead you've cut provinces into baronies that show up on map, which is cool and all. BUT since you can't play as a baron or conquer just 1 barony from a province it is rather meaningless. You will always conquer the entire county with all the baronies or nothing at all. So whats the point?
The map has no more actual province density than ck2 had and that is very very disappointing.
Also i don't like how you presented those screenshots:
You say "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"
But you actually show a screenshot from ck2 provinces and then screenshot of ck3 baronies!? If that's not bait-and-switch i don't know what is.
Being sneaky and deceiving is kind of a theme for Paradox these days so it's not really a surprise. Still waiting for a year long exclusive Epic Games store beta for ck3.
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I don't sound like you were going to hang up on the barony. They're there to represent finer details of the map and and when you actually build a castle in your county you place with strategic postion in mine. I'm wondering how they're going to represent major cities like Constantinople Cairo Baghdad and Paris etc. The merchant republics for now I can just see them being county-level cities? I'm looking forward to see how they implement this all in the game play so I'm going to hold my judgment and not be a doomsayer. Also you guys are all complaining about being a back I want to be a Country Gentleman okay!
 
I have two things I'm hoping will be answered.

1. Are we stuck with the barony amount that each county has? I noticed that some places in the British Isles had about 4 baronies, and some had 3. Are we no longer able to bring the to 7 baronies? I am fine with this, just so long as we can still make those counties rich.

2. Will we still have the opening in the mountains in Norway, that was added in Holy Fury. I really don't want to go back to having to walk all the way around them, just to conquer someone. That mountain pass was quite invaluable to the conquest, and survival of a Norwegian kingdom.