• 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:
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).

Hard disagree. There was a guy earlier in the thread who wanted the sea monsters on the paper map to be more authentic medieval art, but medieval art is awful, and it's why the renaissance was a big deal. People re-discovered aesthetics. If someone wanted to take away CK2's character portraits and replace them with art done in the style of those terrible paintings that monks do, or in the style of the Bayeux tapestry, that would make the game objectively much uglier if it would early more period authenticity points.

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.

They're bad because they look bad. They look dusty. Filthy. Like someone needs to wipe them down. They may emulate Medieval heraldry, and that may make them "in one way, better", but they make me want to scrub my monitor, and that makes them objectively worse in much bigger way. CK3 should be appealing, including visually appealing, to people who aren't gigantic heraldry nerds (And I say that meaning no offense to you).

I hope they do, but if their work in CK2 is the standard, I haven't necessarily have the best hope.

CK2 was their first breakout mainstream hit. Games older than CK2 were still a mess of sliders as far as the eye can see. Charming, in their own way, but doomed to be niche. With CK2 came mainstream success, with mainstream success came more resources, and with those resources have come a LOT of visual improvements. in their subsequent titles. If you only play CK and ignore their other franchises, I can see why you'd be pessimistic. But they're demonstrably capable of creating beautiful art. Stellaris, for a random example, is a gorgeous game by any standard, not just gorgeous for a niche grand strategy game.

I mean, it's been eight years since CK2 launched. Lessons have been learned in that time.
 
  • 5
  • 5
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Hard disagree. There was a guy earlier in the thread who wanted the sea monsters on the paper map to be more authentic medieval art, but medieval art is awful, and it's why the renaissance was a big deal. People re-discovered aesthetics. If someone wanted to take away CK2's character portraits and replace them with art done in the style of those terrible paintings that monks do, or in the style of the Bayeux tapestry, that would make the game objectively much uglier if it would early more period authenticity points.

The notion that people forgot how to art in the Medieval era is an ignorant statement. It's like saying that the people who draw comics are ignorant artists who don't know how to represent volume and who go for contour all the time, like children. Medieval art (which is a very wide umbrella term, but nevermind) was not observational, it was mostly allegorical and repetitive, it copied itself. And, like Anime, there's good and bad, but it always had specific characteristics because they were established in the times after Charlemagne. Their objective was to make clear and concise images and have an effect. It was never really about representing reality as it was. And it worked.

I'm not claiming that the artists that drew the Maciejowski Bible or the master at Taüll knew as much about anatomy and volume as Raffael or Michelangelo, of course not. But they were never asked to. And if you look at the 1300's, people like Giotto are starting to break the mold, not because they've suddenly discovered a book on "how to draw" by some Ancient Roman, it was because their patrons were also beginning to want a more realistic approach to art.

No art is awful, all art is an acquired taste. I don't like contemporary art (I don't like Baroque art either), but the Baroque people sure did, and many sure like contemporary art today. Personally, I find Medieval illuminations gorgeous, when they're well done, like in the Maciejowski Bible. If you want your game to be an incoherent hodgepodge of art style, well, good for you.

90a804efa012a1821800345033135e5e.jpg





They're bad because they look bad. They look dusty. Filthy. Like someone needs to wipe them down. They may emulate Medieval heraldry, and that may make them "in one way, better", but they make me want to scrub my monitor, and that makes them objectively worse in much bigger way. CK3 should be appealing, including visually appealing, to people who aren't gigantic heraldry nerds (And I say that meaning no offense to you).

Now I'm at a loss. What are you talking about? This is Patrum Scuta, the examples from the middle. Where's the filth and the dust? They look crispy and clean:

patrumscuta-ck2-mods.jpg


CK2 was their first breakout mainstream hit. Games older than CK2 were still a mess of sliders as far as the eye can see. Charming, in their own way, but doomed to be niche. With CK2 came mainstream success, with mainstream success came more resources, and with those resources have come a LOT of visual improvements. in their subsequent titles. If you only play CK and ignore their other franchises, I can see why you'd be pessimistic. But they're demonstrably capable of creating beautiful art. Stellaris, for a random example, is a gorgeous game by any standard, not just gorgeous for a niche grand strategy game.

I mean, it's been eight years since CK2 launched. Lessons have been learned in that time.

When I look at games which have truly elegant UIs, like Endless Space, I think to myself that Paradox have serious problems approaching UI design.
 
  • 7
  • 2Like
  • 2
Reactions:
If you want your game to be an incoherent hodgepodge of art style, well, good for you.

You keep putting words in my mouth. What part of "Let the artists decide what they want to do and do it" means I want a hodgepodge? I trust professional artists being paid to produce a professional product to not produce a hodgepodge.


Gross. Take it away. If CK2's characters were done in this style, Paradox would've gone bankrupt.

Now I'm at a loss. What are you talking about? This is Patrum Scuta, the examples from the middle. Where's the filth and the dust? They look crispy and clean:

patrumscuta-ck2-mods.jpg

My mistake. I thought they were the top left / bottom middle in the previous image you posted, this one:
6847DC0D5103336DB5464A2A5FFFAE873BCD9203


I vaguely remembered playing some otherwise good mod that insisted on bundling CoAs done in that de-saturated style, and assumed that was the Patrum Scuta you were talking about.

Patrum Scuta looks fine, I guess. I would still err on giving the devs more breathing room to enact whatever their vision is. Chaining them to what a mod for a previous game did is only marginally less of a bad an idea than chaining them to 1000 year old rules that was neither designed for nor could it imagine monitors and UI.
 
  • 8
  • 4
Reactions:
You keep putting words in my mouth. What part of "Let the artists decide what they want to do and do it" means I want a hodgepodge? I trust professional artists being paid to produce a professional product to not produce a hodgepodge.

Again, I hope they know what they're doing,, but if you agree that Baroque framing, 19th Century sea monsters and vaguely-but-not-really-Medieval heraldry are the way to go... it's a hodgepodge. Sorry, it is.

You may like your variery stew, and you can like whatever you want, but it's still a mess. Compare it with a game which commits to having as much of a Medieval aesthetic as possible, Kingdom Come, in everything from the look of the world to the UI design, and you'll see that it does bring something more to the table. Immersion.

It's very clear we're not going to agree on the need for CK3 to adhere more to a Medieval aesthetic vibe. So far, their art direction looks elegant, neat and clean (don't take me wrong, I think it's good), and the little heraldry we've seen looks very nice (very much in the vein of Patrum Scuta, in fact. I would not be surprised if they had taken inspiration from it, or straight up hired the team or even Birger, the man behind Wappenwiki). I'm optimistic, but every once in a while I see things, like the anachronistic lobster, and I wish they had taken a route more akin to that of KC : D.
 
Last edited:
  • 4
  • 2
Reactions:
I actually think it's cool. It makes the map look kind of faded and beat-up, like an actual old map.
The satellite picture with three dimensional mountains, terrain, oceans and trees looks like an "actual old map" to you? Plus, those old maps wouldn't have looked like that at the time, at the time they would have been full of color, unless it was a cheap navigation map. It'd be like wanting plain white marble statues during ancient times.

What I want most of all is for it to be more crisp, making it more appealing to look at, sort of like Imperator, which most can agree on has a much nicer looking map.
 
  • 2Like
  • 2
Reactions:
Gross. Take it away. If CK2's characters were done in this style, Paradox would've gone bankrupt.
Somehow I strongly doubt it.

In fact I think the 3D models in CK3 seen so far range from "passable" to "god-awful", but I doubt that's going to considerably affect sales in any way.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Hard disagree. There was a guy earlier in the thread who wanted the sea monsters on the paper map to be more authentic medieval art, but medieval art is awful, and it's why the renaissance was a big deal. People re-discovered aesthetics. If someone wanted to take away CK2's character portraits and replace them with art done in the style of those terrible paintings that monks do, or in the style of the Bayeux tapestry, that would make the game objectively much uglier if it would early more period authenticity points.



They're bad because they look bad. They look dusty. Filthy. Like someone needs to wipe them down. They may emulate Medieval heraldry, and that may make them "in one way, better", but they make me want to scrub my monitor, and that makes them objectively worse in much bigger way. CK3 should be appealing, including visually appealing, to people who aren't gigantic heraldry nerds (And I say that meaning no offense to you).



CK2 was their first breakout mainstream hit. Games older than CK2 were still a mess of sliders as far as the eye can see. Charming, in their own way, but doomed to be niche. With CK2 came mainstream success, with mainstream success came more resources, and with those resources have come a LOT of visual improvements. in their subsequent titles. If you only play CK and ignore their other franchises, I can see why you'd be pessimistic. But they're demonstrably capable of creating beautiful art. Stellaris, for a random example, is a gorgeous game by any standard, not just gorgeous for a niche grand strategy game.

I mean, it's been eight years since CK2 launched. Lessons have been learned in that time.

I am sorry what? So did we just, finally after centuries upon centuries of arguing about it, discover objective metrics of what constitutes good looking art and no one told me about it?
 
  • 6
  • 2Like
  • 1Haha
  • 1
Reactions:
Somehow I strongly doubt it.

In fact I think the 3D models in CK3 seen so far range from "passable" to "god-awful", but I doubt that's going to considerably affect sales in any way.

Medieval art would have presented a new low. The old Mediterranean portraits have nothing on the worst of medieval art.

I am sorry what? So did we just, finally after centuries upon centuries of arguing about it, discover objective metrics of what constitutes good looking art and no one told me about it?

Good art? No, that's an open question. Bad art? Yeah, we figured that one out with trial and error.
 
  • 10
  • 2
Reactions:
Medieval art would have presented a new low.
Good art? No, that's an open question. Bad art? Yeah, we figured that one out with trial and error.

Scholarly and profound, what's on that link. Presenting a small selection of works of questionable quality and say "MEDIEVAL ART BAD!" is... not objective at all. Even those works of Medieval art which were questionable by their own standards can be considered interesting or beautiful today. Picasso certainly appreciated Romanesque art, and that shows in his own work. Was it because of its proportions, its anatomical resemblance, its fidelity to reality? No. It was because they interpreted reality in a different way and had created a different visual language to realism, impressionism or other 20th Century artistic currents.

We may be hard wired to recognise certain traits as beautiful, but the right combination is very much up to you, and changes over time.

At least we agree on something: the old Mediterranean portraits didn't look very well.
 
Last edited:
  • 5
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Scholarly and profound, what's on that link. Presenting a small selection of works of questionable quality and say "MEDIEVAL ART BAD!" is... not objective at all.

At least we agree on something: the old Mediterranean portraits didn't look very well.

The netizens of this forum place an undue importance on "scholarly" and "historical" in what is ultimately an entertainment product. If you'd like a larger selection of works of questionable quality, that link is part of a series. There's maybe 10ish more articles of similar size for your perusal, but I imagine even multiplying the sample size by 10 won't move you.


Even those works of Medieval art which were questionable by their own standards can be considered interesting or beautiful today. Picasso certainly appreciated Romanesque art, and that shows in his own work. Was it because of its proportions, its anatomical resemblance, its fidelity to reality? No. It was because they interpreted reality in a different way and had created a different visual language to realism, impressionism or other 20th Century artistic currents.

Okay, but even if we accept this "everything is beautiful in its own way" thing, the question remains who should decide what art direction CK3 should take. I say "The developers", you say "Lord Whocares from 11th century France"
 
Last edited:
  • 4
  • 4
Reactions:
Okay, but even if we accept this "everything is beautiful in its own way" thing, the question remains who should decide what art direction CK3 should take. I say "The developers", you say "Lord Whocares from 11th century France"


It's almost as if this was a game featuring Lord Whocares and 11th century France, and it would be kinda immersive if his coat of arms would look like something that could have reasonably existed in 11th century France, and that it would be kinda strange if they looked like something an abstract expressionist threw up after a particularly opulent LSD party, like they do in CK2.
 
  • 3
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
It's almost as if this was a game featuring Lord Whocares and 11th century France, and it would be kinda immersive if his coat of arms would look like something that could have reasonably existed in 11th century France, and that it would be kinda strange if they looked like something an abstract expressionist threw up after a particularly opulent LSD party, like they do in CK2.

You're missing my point. Lord Whocares is probably not an artist, even if he was one he would be unqualified as a digital artist in 2020, he certainly had no conception of game design or UI/UX, and even if he did have all those things it's not his project.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
You're missing my point. Lord Whocares is probably not an artist, even if he was one, he would be unqualified as a digital artist in 2020, he certainly had no conception of game design or UI/UX, and even if he did have all those things it's not his project.

I am sorry, but I don't quite understand your argument now. Not only do you think that we can find some art to be objectively ugly, which mind you, we can't. But you somehow think that the developers choosing how they should go about making the game is somehow mutually exclusive with putting realistic medieval art in it?

I think everyone here agrees that the developers can do whatever they wish, but we may still try to convince them, or suggest to them, what they should do. The fact that someone is suggesting to them something else to what you would suggest to them, does not mean that they are not allowed to do whatever they want.
 
  • 6
  • 2
Reactions:
I am sorry, but I don't quite understand your argument now. Not only do you think that we can find some art to be objectively ugly, which mind you, we can't. But you somehow think that the developers choosing how they should go about making the game is somehow mutually exclusive with putting realistic medieval art in it?

I think everyone here agrees that the developers can do whatever they wish, but we may still try to convince them, or suggest to them, what they should do. The fact that someone is suggesting to them something else to what you would suggest to them, does not mean that they are not allowed to do whatever they want.

"Here are the exact perscribed rules from history, follow these to the letter, any deviation is failure" is not suggesting.
 
  • 5
  • 3
Reactions:
In all seriousness, someone saying that they would like to see realistic looking medieval art (which in my opinion, looks quite good) is no more enforcing their view on the developers, than whatever you are telling them to do. So please, try to not bring your morals into, what is, in essence, an argument about realism and to a lesser extend, good looking art.
 
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
'Here are objective rules which define whether art is good or bad, deviation from those will make your game look worse.'

What set of rules are you talking about, exactly?
Where did I perscribe any rules at all, except "Maybe don't make necks bend at 90 degree angles like they do in medieval art"?

Keep in mind this whole conversation started when I suggested, that maybe it would be okay to add a few extra CoA colors like a bronze or a purple, and in response I was told this would be immersion-shattering.

In all seriousness, someone saying that they would like to see realistic looking medieval art (which in my opinion, looks quite good) is no more enforcing their view on the developers, than whatever you are telling them to do. So please, try to not bring your morals into, what is, in essence, an argument about realism and to a lesser extend, good looking art.

"Realistic looking medieval art" is practically an oxymoron.
 
  • 2
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
What set of rules are you talking about, exactly?
Where did I perscribe any rules at all, except "Maybe don't make necks bend at 90 degree angles like they do in medieval art"?

Keep in mind this whole conversation started when I suggested, that maybe it would be okay to add a few extra CoA colors like a bronze or a purple, and in response I was told this would be immersion-shattering.



"Realistic looking medieval art" is practically an oxymoron.


How is that an oxymoron?

You implicitly prescribed a ruleset when you said that it is objectively, OBJECTIVELY possible to determine bad art, if that is possible, then you must certainly have an OBJECTIVE ruleset?
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
View attachment 574081

Anglo-saxon England not using the Three Lions CoA.... YES!!!!




(...)
Wouldn't an Or Wyvern on Gules have been a better choice for England (attributed to England (Wessex) in the Bayeux Tapestry). Personally I like historic arms and historically attributed arms, but I'm not a big fan of modern fantasy ones, then I'd rather have the Plantegenet 3 Or Lions Guardant Passant on Gules.

Also the Paper map looks magnificent.