• 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.

CKIII Dev Diary #25 - Map Features and Map Modes

Greetings everyone!

Today I’m here to talk a bit about the map. Building on top of our early map related DD#2 (if you have yet to read it, you can do so here), I’ll expand that discussion by outlining additional features, new information, and how you interact with the map itself!

Terrain
Let’s start with the terrain, which has a significant impact on several parts of the game. Different terrain types allow for different buildings to be constructed. For example, farmland allows for superior economy buildings, while mountainous terrain unlocks rather impressive defensive structures. They also have an effect on development, making development change faster or slower over time. Expect it to be a massive undertaking of developing the Sahara, while developing the fertile fields of India will be a much easier task.

As for combat, one of the most noticeable effects is that of combat width. When you are fielding a much larger army than your opponent, you will favour a high combat width, so you’ll want to seek to engage the enemy in plains or drylands. On the other hand, fighting in rough terrain like mountains or wetlands will restrict the number of units that can simultaneously engage the enemy, allowing small armies with powerful Men-at-Arms to truly excel. Terrain also affects army movement speed, along with the usual defensive bonus you would expect in rough terrain types, which is gained in the form of increased Advantage at the start of a battle.

The terrain types we have available are the following:
Farmlands - Has access to many different and powerful buildings, allowing you to easily customize your holding the way you want to. Paired with high development speed, farmland provinces are highly desirable to hold in your domain.
Floodplains - Another desirable terrain type used in certain areas, such as along the Nile. Similar in power to farmlands, but with some minor differences.
Plains - One of the most common terrain types, plains exist almost everywhere and provide a wide range of building options.
Drylands - A variant of plains with slightly different buildings available.
Desert - While deserts doesn’t offer a whole lot in terms of taxes, supply limit or development, it does have access to levies and a unique building chain increasing your number of available Knights.
Oasis - These exist only in certain areas. The terrain has access to similar buildings as desert, but without the penalties in supply limit or development.
Steppe - Mostly used by tribals on the wide steppe, this is where Horse Archers reign supreme. The steppe starts with low development, and has a significant penalty in development growth.
Forest - Has lower combat width and supply limit, but offers great buildings for improving archers and skirmishers.
Taiga - A variant found in the very northern parts of the map, with slightly lower combat width and supply limit than forest.
Jungle - Mainly found in India and offers even less combat width and supply limit. It does, however, have access to a unique building chain for improving your Knights and heavy cavalry.
Hills - Hills offers a small Advantage bonus in combat, and has access to both fortifications and decent tax buildings.
Mountains - Has access to great fortifications and defensive buildings, making it a long and risky business to siege down holdings.
Desert Mountains - Similar to mountains, but for desert areas (obviously), with lower supply limit, development growth, as well as a bonus that allows defending armies to take less casualties when retreating.
Wetlands - While wetlands still allow for some decent buildings, it’s a terrain type you don’t want to fight battles in if you can avoid it. Especially if there’s a risk of being on the losing side...

25_01_wetlands.jpg


25_01_farmlands.jpg


Context Sensitive Selection
We want it to be easy to gain information directly from the map. Whenever you change map modes, or have something “selected”, we update the map accordingly and allow you to often interact with the map itself. Clicking on the map on any given realm, will open that ruler’s character view. This in turn allows you to see rulers he is at war with, his allies, or direct vassals. All of this is shown directly on the map and is selectable, though you do not have to rely on finding it on the map; we still show relations and everything in the interface as well.

25_02_ruler_selection.jpg


This applies to everything we show on the map. Regardless of your map mode, you can always click to select the “entity” you are looking at. If you have the faith map mode active, you can click on a faith to open the interface for it, as well as seeing where its holy sites are located.

Realm Map Mode
Your bread and butter map mode is what we simply call the Realm map mode.
When zoomed in you’ll encounter what we call the detail level, and will see the map for what it is. Terrain of individual baronies, rivers, and holding graphics are all clearly visible.

25_03_realm_1.jpg


Zoom out a bit and you’ll transition into the Realms layer, your typical political map mode. Realms are clearly highlighted with their colour, allowing you to easily see all independent realms at a glance, while still showing the coat of arms of your direct vassals, to allow for easy realm management.

25_04_realm_2.jpg


Zoom out further and you’ll enter the paper map. This is the place to go for a rather fancy overview of the world (or excellent screenshots)! Only independent realms are shown, without any vassal breakdowns. For now, I’ll just tease you with a partial picture, as we’ll show the entire thing in a later DD. And yes, we got the mandatory sea monsters!

25_05_realm_3.jpg


Other Map Modes
Our other map modes remain consistent in the information they show as you zoom in and out, and do not have the level dependency of Realms. If you have the faith map mode open, you are gonna want to see faiths regardless of your zoom level. You’ll still get the spectacular paper map when you zoom further out, but the information shown on the map will remain the same.

De Jure - As you’d expect, we have dedicated map modes for showing the De Jure areas of duchies, kingdoms, and empires.

Faiths - Allows you to easily see what faiths are spread out around the world.

Cultures - For that nifty culture overview.

Houses - Since it’s a game about characters and dynasties, we want it to be easy to see which house is governing the different realms.

Counties - Highlights individual counties in their respective colour.

Terrain - Shows all terrain types in different colours, for that quick and easy overview of the dominant terrain in any given area. Very useful if you have several Men-at-Arms options available with different terrain bonuses.

Governments - The map mode for viewing what kind of government rulers have.

Development - Gives you an overview of what the development level is across the map.

25_06_house_map_mode.jpg


That’s it for today! I’ll be back next week with another map related entry. Where I plan to simply show you, well, everything regarding the scope of the map and how different parts of the world looks!
 
  • 112Like
  • 67Love
  • 18
  • 10
  • 3
Reactions:
The paper map is absolutely stunning, love it. The realms layer is a bit... meh, though. Will have to see how it plays but I suspect I will be craving a more detailed paper map on zoom, rather than the realms layer. Either way, great job!
 
  • 4
Reactions:
You seem to be underestimating the number of different, unique coats of arms that a given heraldic jurisdiction could require. These could be staggeringly large numbers.

Coats had to be unique, not only with regard to existing coats of arms, but also with regard to "dead" coats. Many of the "lowborn" characters of CKII would have been holders of coats unique to either themselves or their immediate patrilineal descent.
Brothers who inherited or obtained separate grants of land may or may not have chosen to bear arms with similar markings, and there was no guarantee that a second, third, or subsequent son would retain the family coat (unlike in CK, where barring major changes, you stay with the dynastic arms with no changes) rather than select a new coat.

And yes, there were many, many areas that didn't use heraldry in the same fashion as the West. There were periods where heraldry was not used in the West - but in this case a lot of the families from that period will be surviving through to take the places of the families that historically existed in the heraldic era - and with artificially few "new" coats being used by them.

Remember as well that CKIII has the baronies belonging to the counts in whose counties they exist, so again fewer characters are required to be given coats than historically would have been necessary.
It would be nice to see heraldry rules enforced by culture group, so Western Europe gets standard rules and then the other groups get different/variant color sets and charges to reflect their surroundings and cultures.

Also I think we saw an example of Quartering at least for the dynasty houses, I would love to see that expanded on. That helps solve some of the issues of huge numbers of characters and helps differentiate dynastic lines.

But I also would like them to include the 2 basic furs, they are were in use during this time even if uncommonly on the heraldic shield itself. Just exapnds the variables more and give access to more character.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
No, it was very, very prevalent.

Here are just two scholarly articles about it.
Gesture appreciated. Will look into it.
What about epidemics, then? They were in CK2 and I definitely not controlled by the player...
Epidemics are said to be reworked and not in on release IIRC. Diseases like cancer may still be though. and of course the ubiquitous stress, that explains a lot of yellow hearts (this character is at sub-optimal health icon) we keep seeing in the DDs.
You know what, since people probably don't want to play the church game (too complex being one of the reasons), I might just go over every DD again and digest it.
It would be nice to see heraldry rules enforced by culture group, so Western Europe gets standard rules and then the other groups get different/variant color sets and charges to reflect their surroundings and cultures.

Also I think we saw an example of Quartering at least for the dynasty houses, I would love to see that expanded on. That helps solve some of the issues of huge numbers of characters and helps differentiate dynastic lines.

But I also would like them to include the 2 basic furs, they are were in use during this time even if uncommonly on the heraldic shield itself. Just exapnds the variables more and give access to more character.
Maybe CKIII will still have "Party Per Fess" (is it spelled like that?) when the coat of arms designer comes out.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I like the maps. Especially what I'm seeing with Scotland. :)
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I don't understand all the fuss about heraldry and "how difficult it is to do European and non-European heraldry... guys, Patrum Scuta has been doing that, excellently, for half a decade, if not more. If you've never seen the mod Patrum Scuta, that's the gold standard for heraldry in CK2.

Given that CoA in Crusader Kings aren't limited to just the landed nobility of Western Europe, but instead cover an area from Mali to Mongolia, I think it's fine and even preferred to not strictly adhere to the 5 colors rules of heraldry. Some of the CoAs in CK2 could look quite questionable at times for sure, but there's plenty of a healthy middle ground to explore without tying the system to "real heraldry rules or bust", especially outside Christendom.

Adding more colours would be a mistake. Western Europe had heraldry, the rest of the world didn't. Are you going to break European heraldry because you want other places in the map to have... also incorrect heraldry? (Because, remember, they didn't have heraldry)

But, again, you can set a different amount of charges and designs, and use different colours, for different cultures, so I don't see the problem.

Colors and metals are one part of the issue, but heraldic charges can be used to differentiate cultures and ways of life, too. Give nomads an abnormally high amount of ahistorical horsey charges would make them immediately stand out between Arabic calligraphy, Chinese dragons and European lions and eagles.

Exactly. Again, look at how well Patrum Scuta does that.

Gesture appreciated. Will look into it.

Epidemics are said to be reworked and not in on release IIRC. Diseases like cancer may still be though. and of course the ubiquitous stress, that explains a lot of yellow hearts (this character is at sub-optimal health icon) we keep seeing in the DDs.
You know what, since people probably don't want to play the church game (too complex being one of the reasons), I might just go over every DD again and digest it.

Maybe CKIII will still have "Party Per Fess" (is it spelled like that?) when the coat of arms designer comes out.

Patry per pal or per fess is a good way to go.

In fact, if CKIII could do that, it would be gold for cadet branches: mix the CoA of the father and the mother in a quartered or party format, like so:

220px-Mallorca_Montpellier.svg.png
220px-De_la_Cerda_Ancient.svg.png
220px-Blanche_of_Castile.svg.png
220px-Raymond_Berengar_of_Aragon_and_Anjou.svg.png

The first one, the first King of Mallorca (Aragon + Montpellier), is a good example: party per fess Aragon and Montpellier (since he descended from James the conqueror of Mallorca, and Maria of Montpellier, and also was lord of that city). In other examples, the arms of Aragon are not party, but chief.

Sometimes, though, the cadet branch would aquire a bend:

220px-Paterno.svg.png
220px-Capet_Bourbon.svg.png
220px-D%27Evreux.svg.png


Or a bordure:

220px-Alfonso_de_Molina.svg.png
220px-Alfonso_de_Aragon_y_Castilla.svg.png
220px-Valois.svg.png
220px-Charles_of_La_Marche.svg.png


Or a lambel (popular in France, but not so much in England outside of the Royal family, and only began to latch on in Spain in the 1400's. The arms of Infante Martin, future Martin I the Humane, are one of the first examples of lambel in Spain, so we could differenciate heraldic tradition culturally; iberian cultures use party and quartered much more often than France, while France likes borduring and bending more than quartering and partying... wait)

220px-Martin_Aragon.svg.png
220px-Louis_VI_of_France.svg.png
 
Last edited:
  • 8
  • 6Like
  • 2
Reactions:
Exactly. Again, look at how well Patrum Scuta does that.



Patry per pal or per fess is a good way to go.

In fact, if CKIII could do that, it would be gold for cadet branches: mix the CoA of the father and the mother in a quartered or party format, like so:

220px-Mallorca_Montpellier.svg.png
220px-De_la_Cerda_Ancient.svg.png
220px-Blanche_of_Castile.svg.png
220px-Raymond_Berengar_of_Aragon_and_Anjou.svg.png

The first one, the first King of Mallorca (Aragon + Montpellier), is a good example: party per fess Aragon and Montpellier (since he descended from James the conqueror of Mallorca, and Maria of Montpellier, and also was lord of that city). In other examples, the arms of Aragon are not party, but chief.

Sometimes, though, the cadet branch would aquire a bend:

220px-Paterno.svg.png
220px-Capet_Bourbon.svg.png
220px-D%27Evreux.svg.png


Or a bordure:

220px-Alfonso_de_Molina.svg.png
220px-Alfonso_de_Aragon_y_Castilla.svg.png
220px-Valois.svg.png
220px-Charles_of_La_Marche.svg.png


Or a lambel (popular in France, but not so much in England outside of the Royal family, and only began to latch on in Spain in the 1400's. The arms of Infante Martin, future Martin I the Humane, are one of the first examples of lambel in Spain, so we could differenciate heraldic tradition culturally; iberian cultures use party and quartered much more often than France, while France likes borduring and bending more than quartering and partying... wait)

220px-Martin_Aragon.svg.png
220px-Louis_VI_of_France.svg.png
Despite this being primarily aesthetics, it is finally good to see that culture has effects on the game beyond revolt risk, levy limits, special units, opinion modifiers and names.

Tying in with rules like heraldry, it would be nice if one day, different cultures have different laws and vassal contract options ...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • 2
Reactions:
Going to admit i'm still a bit salty over Galicia being beige instead of their traditional blue and Leon being red instead of their traditional purple/violet.

What colour will Portugal be? Please tell me its going to be blue and not red again...
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Adding more colours would be a mistake. Western Europe had heraldry, the rest of the world didn't. Are you going to break European heraldry because you want other places in the map to have... also incorrect heraldry? (Because, remember, they didn't have heraldry)

Describing adding like a bronze and a purple or something as "Breaking" heraldry is a bit dramatic, isn't it? The rest of the world didn't have heraldry but they DO have CoAs, because that's the way CK does things. Personally, I think having nice-looking and varied CoAs is worth way way more than "Realistic heraldry that strictly clings to the rules from a buncha-hundred years ago" as a bullet point on the back of the box.

I feel like half my posts in this CK3 forum is making this point, but CK is a game and not a historical simulator. Game logic and accessibility and fun must necessarily come before being absolutely true to history.
 
  • 5
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Am I the only one who doesn't quite like the dull and vague colors of the map, especially when zoomed in? The colors when zoomed in are so bleak and the fuzzy borders and coastlines doesn't help it either. The paper map looks amazing though, and I would honestly prefer it if the game had that aesthetic overall, even if it too lacks a bit of color.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Describing adding like a bronze and a purple or something as "Breaking" heraldry is a bit dramatic, isn't it? The rest of the world didn't have heraldry but they DO have CoAs, because that's the way CK does things. Personally, I think having nice-looking and varied CoAs is worth way way more than "Realistic heraldry that strictly clings to the rules from a buncha-hundred years ago" as a bullet point on the back of the box.

Heraldic rules are made to look good. That's why they exist. Are you really, REALLY going to tell me that Vanilla coas look better than Patrum Scuta's?

6847DC0D5103336DB5464A2A5FFFAE873BCD9203


Link in case you want to take a look:

In other words, what do you add by allowing for bronze or sanguine or steel as heraldic colours, if neither the Islamic world, nor the pagans in Scandinavia or the Eastern slavic territories, etc, used heraldry? The CoAs Paradox give them are, at best, reinterpretations of historical flags; at worst, adaptations of modern symbols, with imaginary but plausible symbology being, in my opinion, the lesser evil. But these were not heraldry. So in adding other colours to the mix just because, you are forcing random CoAs in France to look brown-and-red. You may be ok with this, but now my immersion is a bit broken. And you've gained nothing.

I feel like half my posts in this CK3 forum is making this point, but CK is a game and not a historical simulator. Game logic and accessibility and fun must necessarily come before being absolutely true to history.

Breaking heraldry rules doesn't make the game more fun. For anyone.

Am I the only one who doesn't quite like the dull and vague colors of the map, especially when zoomed in? The colors when zoomed in are so bleak and the fuzzy borders and coastlines doesn't help it either. The paper map looks amazing though, and I would honestly prefer it if the game had that aesthetic overall, even if it too lacks a bit of color.

I quite like them, in fact. But there's no accounting for taste.
 
  • 5
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Heraldic rules are made to look good. That's why they exist. Are you really, REALLY going to tell me that Vanilla coas look better than Patrum Scuta's?

6847DC0D5103336DB5464A2A5FFFAE873BCD9203


Link in case you want to take a look:

No, that's explicitly not what I'm telling you. I said above that CK2's CoA's have their issues. I reject the idea that the next thought should be "...And therefore we should by limited by historical heraldry rules". There's plenty of middle ground to explore. Heraldric rules are made to look good but they don't have exclusive claim on that. Anything the devs implement, be it historical or not, would also be "made to look good" if the artists are doing their jobs.

For the record, I actually don't like the look for Patrum Scuta's CoAs. They're bad in an interesting way distinct from the way that vanilla CoAs are bad, but they're bad all the same.

In other words, what do you add by allowing for bronze or sanguine or steel as heraldic colours, if neither the Islamic world, nor the pagans in Scandinavia or the Eastern slavic territories, etc, used heraldry? The CoAs Paradox give them are, at best, reinterpretations of historical flags; at worst, adaptations of modern symbols, with imaginary but plausible symbology being, in my opinion, the lesser evil. But these were not heraldry.

What do I we add by adding more colors? We add...more colors. More options. It's a self-evident good. Whatever the pagans in Scandinavia did a thousand years ago has no bearing on that being a good idea in a video game in 2020. Whether or not you call it heraldry or not doesn't matter. The game is using little symbols in shield shapes to differentiate titles and dynasties. Call it "imaginary symbology" if it helps you, the function it serves in the game remains the same.

So in adding other colours to the mix just because, you are forcing random CoAs in France to look brown-and-red. You may be ok with this, but now my immersion is a bit broken. And you've gained nothing.

You seem to think that by arguing against adhering to the strict rules such as they were, I'm advocating for a vanilla CK2-style "anything goes" approach. I'm not. I'm saying I trust the dev team to make good looking CoAs, and if they decide to dip a toe or two outside historic heraldry then that's fine.
 
  • 6
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Am I the only one who doesn't quite like the dull and vague colors of the map, especially when zoomed in? The colors when zoomed in are so bleak and the fuzzy borders and coastlines doesn't help it either. The paper map looks amazing though, and I would honestly prefer it if the game had that aesthetic overall, even if it too lacks a bit of color.
I actually think it's cool. It makes the map look kind of faded and beat-up, like an actual old map.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
No, that's explicitly not what I'm telling you. I said above that CK2's CoA's have their issues. I reject the idea that the next thought should be "...And therefore we should by limited by historical heraldry rules". There's plenty of middle ground to explore. Heraldric rules are made to look good but they don't have exclusive claim on that. Anything the devs implement, be it historical or not, would also be "made to look good" if the artists are doing their jobs.

Sure. But, again, this is just a cosmetic element. It doesn't add or subtract to the game mechanics, it only enriches our experience by making our knowledge of Medieval visual art and aesthetics better.... or it doesn't, by giving us the wrong idea of what the Middle Ages looked like (in, among other ways, heraldry).

For the record, I actually don't like the look for Patrum Scuta's CoAs. They're bad in an interesting way, distinct from the way that vanilla CoAs are bad, but they're bad all the same.

They're bad? Sorry, but I don't follow. They're exactly like European heraldry. How are they bad at that?

You may not like their style, but in one way, objectively speaking, they're better: they emulate Medieval heraldry. That, in its own, makes them better.

BESIDES, the mod has distinct heraldry for Norse, Muslim, and all kinds of pagan symbology. We can set different colours and parameters depending on religion. There's really no problem.

What do I we add by adding more colors? We add...more colors. More options. It's a self-evident good. Whatever the pagans in Scandinavia did a thousand years ago has no bearing on that being a good idea in a video game in 2020. Whether or not you call it heraldry or not doesn't matter. The game is using little symbols in shield shapes to differentiate titles and dynasties. Call it "imaginary symbology" if it helps you, the function it serves in the game remains the same.

The thing is, we don't know what the Norse used. We don't. We have some second hand descriptions, but we don't really know what kind of symbols or emblems the Norse, or the ancient Slavs, or the Zoroastrians, used as widespread symbology.

We do know about Feudal Europe.

It looks like our disagreement here stems from our respect for established visual traditions. You don't care if European heraldry is not plausible, and I do. I think we're at an impasse.

You seem to think that by arguing against adhering to the strict rules such as they were, I'm advocating for a vanilla CK2-style "anything goes" approach. I'm not. I'm saying I trust the dev team to make good looking CoAs, and if they decide to dip a toe or two outside historic heraldry then that's fine.

I hope they do, but if their work in CK2 is the standard, I haven't necessarily have the best hope.
 
  • 6
  • 1
Reactions:
Wouldn't it make more sense to have terrain, political, and paper maps be just different map buttons rather than zoom levels? Zoom transitions might sound fancy, but are needlessly constraining from a practical perspective.

Needlessly constraining? Sorta like tooltips that cover half the screen and appear instantly? And which paradox has NEVER even considered introducing tooltip delay options for?

Like that?

because I'll take transitions over POPUP distractions ALL THE F'ING time...
 
  • 1
Reactions:
The thing is, we don't know what the Norse used. We don't. We have some second hand descriptions, but we don't really know what kind of symbols or emblems the Norse, or the ancient Slavs, or the Zoroastrians, used as widespread symbology.
I agree mostly with this statement, but there are surviving sculptures of the faravahar in the ruins of Persepolis. We do know a little, if a lot less than Muslims, what did the Zoroastrians use for symbology. But then again you did say widespread, and Zoroastrianism has not been widespread since nigh fourteen centuries ago ...

Also, interestingly, the forum thinks "symbology" is a spelling error ...
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions: