Hello everyone, I'm Tegus, one of the programmers working on Crusader
Kings II. Welcome to the fifth dev diary for CK2 and the first one written
by me. In today's dev diary I'm going to talk a bit about the map and why
we've chosen to implement a new one in CK2.

As you all know, in our games the map is an important tool for both
displaying information and setting the mood of the game. In HoI3 we had a
grayish map that we felt was appropriate for a war game. We took this map
and altered it slightly when making Victoria 2, but this time the map was
drawn with vivid colors to portray the progress of the era. The next game to
use the map was Divine Wind because we all felt that EU3 was in need of a
graphical face lift. While this map technology looked good in the
mentioned games, there were certain technological limitations which we
wanted to improve upon or get rid of.

With CK2, we have devoted time to rewrite the graphics code for the map
from scratch. We are back to a pure 3D map similar to the one used in EU3:
Rome. We have visible topology and you will be able to rotate the world
around the way you please. While neither the technology nor the art assets
are in any way final, we do feel that the new map already has great
potential and is a big step in the right direction towards our visual
goals. Hopefully this new tech will also span multiple games, so we
can steadily improve it.



To be fair, if I would describe what we have done with the map so far, it
would just be sentence after sentence of technical mumbo-jumbo, so I'll
spare you the details. Let's instead focus on what visual details that
have been improved and what we want to add before the game is shipped.

We've improved the looks of the water significantly and added refraction
so you can actually see topology under the ocean surface. Aerie has taken
the time to find real-world topology data(although we've exaggerated it
somewhat), it definitely gives a cool feel to the terrain. Borders have
also gotten some love and now use a new system which enables us to make
them much smoother. Much of the previous jaggedness is gone. We've also
begun to implement and test a more detailed lighting model, which we will
continue to improve upon until we release the game. Another cool
feature(which isn't really part of the map) are the units, whose tabards
now show the heraldic flag of the unit leader.



But there are still some things which we're missing. We need trees and
rivers. We need to add province names and realm names, which exist in all
our latest games. I'd like to add more information to borders, so borders
between two realms are colored by the realms' respective colors. There are
of course lots of more things we want to do, but I won't spill the beans
just yet.



All in all, we are very happy with the way the new map is coming along.
Hopefully you will enjoy it as well once you get to play the game!

Fredrik Zetterman, Deluxe programmer, currently working on Crusader Kings
II

 

[Doomdark]

Visuals do matter Safferli, even if not to you... If you can have a political map which gives you the info but also looks even better, I can't imagine why anyone would oppose it.

You would be surprised...

 

[safferli]

You would be surprised...

Anything that can even improve on the V2 political map is I WANT IT NAO! in my book!

 

[ThalesMM]

You gave modders a reason to correct map projection.

 

[LordofSaxony]

Is the 'zoomed out' map basically just a graphical overlay? If so, do people think it would be cool if they provided a couple (or more) different zoomed out styles? Such as text-book style (think EU3), medieval parchment style, plain, etc? These could be set in the options menu, so you can set it to whatever you prefer.

 

[RedRalphWiggum]

I agree here, but better looking usually does not equal better (quicker) information access. That's why I like the terrain map: the reviewers can be pleased by adding all sorts of bells and whistles to the terrain map, and the players can be pleased by not cluttering/distracting from the actual information. You can have churches, with bells and growing depending on the size of the church building in the province, fisheries, whatever floats the artist's boat (think Settlers for the cute animations). All that on the terrain map. Would I want anything of that on the political map? Hell no, animated sheep grazing would only distract from my main goal: digesting information at a glance.

Again, I'm not one of the "I don't want any graphics, only gameplay" people. Personally, I like prettier more than less, so I'm all for better visuals -- up to a point. Terrain map in V2 gives you the "awwwww" feeling: it's simply gorgeous. But would I want to use it for gameplay? No, a simple, less intruding terrain layer on the political does that even better.

I think a lot of info could be presented with a combined terrain/political map, just use your imagination... cities could be graphically represented, with hues of colours, mouseover info, size and so on giving you access to information... I'm not saying it is definitely something that should be switched to, but you have to keep an open mind and innovate. In civ there is problems seeing exactly which city belongs to who even though it is essentially a terrain mode. Now I'm not saying that's the model PI should adopt, I'm just saying it can be done and it's worth considering trying to find a happy medium. A functional and beautiful map should be the ideal, and it looks like that's where we're headed.

You would be surprised...

On second thoughts to everything I just said, I think this map should be 2D

 

[Tiaexz]

To Doomdark/Tagus.

King said that in the new HoI3 expansion, For the Motherland, that Multi-core support would be added. Is this the same for CK2 as well?

 

[safferli]

on second thoughts to everything i just said, i think this map should be 2d

Hehe

 

[Caranorn]

Concerning the tabbards/surcoats, you will have to flip the coats of arms horizontally. In the screenshot every single tabbard is wrong. Not a big issue as it should be easy to correct (note arms on the tabbards' back will point in the same direction and not be mirror images, likewise assuming horses with horse trappers the arms will always point towards the horse's head, obviously also for banners always towards the hoist)...

The shields (more modern heater shields instead of kite if the general look of the sprites is to be preserved, exception for Byzantine influenced where kite stayed quite common, yet other for islam etc.), I think should definitelly bear (coat of) arms, but preferably the same ones as on the tabbard. While this would add nothing in clarity for gamers, it would be make much more sense than the notion of bearing the liege's arms on the shield and one's own on the tabbard...

And yes, if you have the sprites wearing great helms you will also have to give them horses. The great helm is entirely unpractical on foot. So either sprites on foot with open helmets (kettle hat or cervelliere would perfectly fit the current sprite styles) or mounted sprites with the current great helms...

Note, the attachments of the grips on the inside of the shields are improbable. They are usually attached diagonally and not horizontally as in the screenshot. This is to achieve greater protection coverage, better distribution of weight etc. Of course this ammount of realism is not necessary for game sprites, just in case the shields are revisited...

You should probably replace the sprites' boots with low shoes, at least for western European units. While boots are commonly worn by re-enactors few are ever seen in medieval illustrations or statues. Again not the most important aspect of the sprites...

P.S.: I assume the sprites are supposed to represent late 13th to early 14th century, but there are some more conflicting elements which make dating tough...

 

[Raz0r]

Bu tthe Total War Series has a a 3D map. So either you feel that you don't like the kind of map seen in Total War or you think our switch to a 3D map is nice.

i know that total war has a 3d map, but what i wanted to say two things,

first that the 3d map in total war looks better than the 3d one of CKII (at the moment)
and second that i would prefer a 2d map if the CKII map stays like this

greetz

P.S. nevertheless i'm sure that i'm going to buy the game anyway

 

[Tegus]

Concerning the tabbards/surcoats, you will have to flip the coats of arms horizontally.

I keep telling our artist to fix the texturing as well, but he seems to ignore me...

 

[unmerged(133356)]

I have no problem with a 3D map that is useful and clean.

I do have a problem with a 3D map that is cluttered, busy, overwhelming, whatever you want to call it.

 

[Maldenic]

There seems to be an uncanny valley for maps, and currently I think these maps are right in there. Though I assume that polishing will push the end product out of that valley.

Personally I think a lot of the beauty of maps of Paradox games is in the simple abstraction rather than the realism. EUIII and V2 both look nicer in political map mode, and I am more interested in "painting the world my colour" than in looking at trees and mountains. Not that I don't like terrain, but terrain isn't what the game is about. Whilst no doubt some people will complain if their local mountain range doesn't look right, I'd lean towards a more V2 style of presenting terrain than a satellite image. V2 really was the ideal way of doing it, and I certainly wouldn't mind a sort of dark-age version of that. On the other hand, I didn't mind EU:Rome's map, so I guess the style you are going for here will be more than acceptable.

But I'll be open minded about how it turns out, hopefully CKII will work out in 3D and look great.

One final thing I should note is that, for me, the relational view was much more useful than the realm view in CK. Being able to easily see who you rule, who is at war with you, and who they are at war with is of the greatest importance.

 

[Kriegsspieler]

One final thing I should note is that, for me, the relational view was much more useful than the realm view in CK. Being able to easily see who you rule, who is at war with you, and who they are at war with is of the greatest importance.

Amen to that, although the realm display also got some clicks sometimes. In CK you've got to be able to find out who is lining up with whom!

On the more general issue of terrain vs. political maps, I believe a terrain map is eye candy and, as was made evident in HOI3, not even really necessary, since a political map can present enough terrain features to make switching to a specialized terrain map largely unnecessary.

EDIT: In general, my choice for maps are those that make the fewest demands on my video card and processor!

 

[Sult]

Bu tthe Total War Series has a a 3D map. So either you feel that you don't like the kind of map seen in Total War or you think our switch to a 3D map is nice.

However, the world map of the Total War give you a sense of what the terrain of the battle map will look like before you enter a battle, where the terrain may give the player an advantage. What benefits the player with the 3D map of CK2?

 

[King]

However, the world map of the Total War give you a sense of what the terrain of the battle map will look like before you enter a battle, where the terrain may give the player an advantage. What benefits the player with the 3D map of CK2?

Your question makes absolutely no sense. The map in Total War could no doubt indicate what the terrain would be on a 2D map if the developers were inclined to go for a 2D map, from that perspective is there no benefit for a 3D map in Total War.

 

[KonradRichtmark]

As for the whole terrain vs political mapmode,

Will it be like in V2, where political mapmode will simply paint the surface of the terrain map in colours according to realm? If it is so, we'd really get the best of both worlds. In V2, even in political mapmode, the 3D nature of the terrain made it pretty easy to see what terrain there is in which province despite the political colouring. Which, in turn, made fighting wars so much easier, showing you where the defensible terrain is simultaneously as showing who controls what territory.

 

[Kriegsspieler]

As for the whole terrain vs political mapmode,

Will it be like in V2, where political mapmode will simply paint the surface of the terrain map in colours according to realm? If it is so, we'd really get the best of both worlds. In V2, even in political mapmode, the 3D nature of the terrain made it pretty easy to see what terrain there is in which province despite the political colouring. Which, in turn, made fighting wars so much easier, showing you where the defensible terrain is simultaneously as showing who controls what territory.

Exactly right. Terrain can be a substrate over which a particular map mode paints the realm, relations, etc.

 

[HKK]

The map looks great, just a quick note: The name of Sana'a is spelled left-to-right on its COA. It's a common unicode problem. Sana'a should look like this صنعاء‎.

 

[Nick B II]

One final thing I should note is that, for me, the relational view was much more useful than the realm view in CK. Being able to easily see who you rule, who is at war with you, and who they are at war with is of the greatest importance.

In CK1 that was basically the only map mode I used.

I'd resort to political occassionally, to see how big another country was, but even then it was easier to figure out from relations. It was also better because I'd see who was a sub-vasal and who was a direct vassal.

I never bothered with terrain map mode. It would probably have been smart to use it to avoid mountains, but hey.


So my question for the Devs is this:
What's happening to Relations Map Mode?

Nick

 

[RedRooster81]

Your question makes absolutely no sense. The map in Total War could no doubt indicate what the terrain would be on a 2D map if the developers were inclined to go for a 2D map, from that perspective is there no benefit for a 3D map in Total War.

I think that he was trying to ask what effect terrain will have on battles. Like in EU3 where mountainous terrain gave defenders an advantage.