• 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.
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.

crusader_kings_2_devdiary_5_ss1.jpg

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.

crusader_kings_2_devdiary_5_ss2.jpg

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.

crusader_kings_2_devdiary_5_ss3.jpg

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
 
What would you do different, Figo? And what do you think is a better example?

How about big-budget production, CivV:
civ5-3.jpg


Or even bigger production, E:TW:
860047-the_new_campaign_map_in_empire_total_war_super.jpg


out of those 3, I think CK is the best one, but even if you don't agree, there is SFA difference in quality. Also bear in mind you're looking at an alpha shot, though I get the impression real comparisons are not the reason for your post.
 
Wow, I never realized how bad Empire looks... And the Civ is like glorified high res cartoon :)
 
3D works fine. But you can make a normal and colorful? but not as sad shit. Why not do as well as in the DW? As good and clear picture? I think everything can be done. Very sad to watch it all.:(
redralfviggum you an example showed how it should look like.:cool:
It's the Middle Ages, why so blue I do not understand?:mad:
 
What would you do different, Figo? And what do you think is a better example?

How about big-budget production, CivV:
civ5-3.jpg


Or even bigger production, E:TW:
860047-the_new_campaign_map_in_empire_total_war_super.jpg


out of those 3, I think CK is the best one, but even if you don't agree, there is SFA difference in quality. Also bear in mind you're looking at an alpha shot, though I get the impression real comparisons are not the reason for your post.
I like 1st one from Civ5.

1) Nice colors.
2) Cool troops
3) Funny terrain detalisation
4) Huge cities (not in this screenshot)

And I know about alfa-screenshots. I discuss alfa-screenshots not final. I don't like current colors, miniatures, portrait, non-medieval interface and ground detalisation level very much and I can't listen about useless amazing things such as rotation without hurt while I see real problems. It's my opinion.
 
3D works fine. But you can make a normal and colorful? but not as sad shit. Why not do as well as in the DW? As good and clear picture? I think everything can be done. Very sad to watch it all.:(
redralfviggum you an example showed how it should look like.:cool:
It's the Middle Ages, why so blue I do not understand?:mad:

It's...a...mother-f*cking alpha screenshot.

Will you people even bother to read the thread instead of just looking at the bloody pics and replying?

Edit: Also, if you've seen the zoomed out political map screenshot, you'd see that it looks very DW-like.
 
I had the misfortune to waste some my life reading more posts wondering why we aren't making the map 2D. 3D maps are not a fad and not some thing that is going to go away. If you are of those people who a more interested in graphics rather game play, who values a 2D map so highly then I am sorry CK2 and future Paradox games are simply not for you. Please do not buy them because I don't want to have to deal with your disapointed posts afterwards. If we are showing screenshots of a 3D map and publically posting that we feel that for the very future of the genre we must embrace new graphic technologies then no ammount of posts by you will cause the map to go 2D. Now my patience with this is comming to an end. It is now reaching the point where you are spamming up this thread and preventing people with questions other than why don't you make your games like you did 5 years ago because I am some sort of Neo-Luddite and very soon I will be treating further posts on this issue as spam.

In this thread, there's only 5 posts out of 265 which state a preference for 2D map. This is a very low percentage. Understandably 3D graphics per se even can't be an issue, because probably most of the Paradox supporters know that CK2 will be based on Clausewitz game engine and that Clausewitz is a 3D engine. The main differences of opinion seems to lie in the type and style, not the software-technical details of the map (political in type and historic in style are generally preferred to photorealistic terrain map). After reading all the posts, I have a feeling that vertinox managed to resume and compress quite accurately in post #195 a lot of thoughts and wishes that majority of posters have conveyed (and in the name of justice... which often were constructive and went beyond mere "that map is ugly/gorgeous").

Doomdark has expressed his interest in fans' opinion (honest, presumably) concerning CK2 features. I guess that has emboldened even Neo-Luddites to open up and share their views.
 
In this thread, there's only 5 posts out of 265 which state a preference for 2D map. This is a very low percentage. Understandably 3D graphics per se even can't be an issue, because probably most of the Paradox supporters know that CK2 will be based on Clausewitz game engine and that Clausewitz is a 3D engine. The main differences of opinion seems to lie in the type and style, not the software-technical details of the map (political in type and historic in style are generally preferred to photorealistic terrain map). After reading all the posts, I have a feeling that vertinox managed to resume and compress quite accurately in post #195 a lot of thoughts and wishes that majority of posters have conveyed (and in the name of justice... which often were constructive and went beyond mere "that map is ugly/gorgeous").

Doomdark has expressed his interest in fans' opinion (honest, presumably) concerning CK2 features. I guess that has emboldened even Neo-Luddites to open up and share their views.

Luddite is offensive term for me. They struggled with innovations for saving their jobs.
We are interested in good quality (gameplay and graphic) even if we risk to lost beforehand useless features. Theoretically.
 
Luddite is offensive term for me. They struggled with innovations for saving their jobs.
We are interested in good quality (gameplay and graphic) even if we risk to lost beforehand useless features. Theoretically.

"Never use irony if you want to make a clear point." I always tend to forget that. Note taken, thanks for reminding me.
 
In this thread, there's only 5 posts out of 265 which state a preference for 2D map. This is a very low percentage.
Good thing game development isn't a democracy!

So you hope an implementation of 2D map after all... or what are you trying to say? :)
(Seriously, the purpose of my sentence was merely to point out the fact that this thread actually isn't "spammed" with 2D map requests, if you take and read the posts. It seems to be untrue and unfair claim otherwise. Reducing most of the debating opinions into 2D supporting position is a straw man argument.)
 

I like the color palette from ETW more than Civ5's, and it's also somewhat similar to what CK2's current palette is. I also like the tree sizes, not too big, but you can notice that a forest is there.

One of the big reasons why the CK2 map looks so barren right now, is because it is barren right now. Wait until they show the map with trees and rivers, it will look a lot better I bet.
 
I like 1st one from Civ5.

1) Nice colors.
2) Cool troops
3) Funny terrain detalisation
4) Huge cities (not in this screenshot)

And I know about alfa-screenshots. I discuss alfa-screenshots not final. I don't like current colors, miniatures, portrait, non-medieval interface and ground detalisation level very much and I can't listen about useless amazing things such as rotation without hurt while I see real problems. It's my opinion.

I really like how the Magna Mundi map is turning out. It even uses the 3D Clauswitz engine and has a very nice artistic map feel. Like it was almost hand drawn and fits the period. Oh and it has province names in old font face.

I'm just trying to put my input in here since its what I would perfer in a map and the game is early in the development process.
 
I really like how the Magna Mundi map is turning out. It even uses the 3D Clauswitz engine and has a very nice artistic map feel. Like it was almost hand drawn and fits the period. Oh and it has province names in old font face.

I'm just trying to put my input in here since its what I would perfer in a map and the game is early in the development process.

The MM map looks great. I am just not sure with those chess-like soldiers. They would be good in turn-based game, but in real time...

But that is not for this thread :)
 
I like the color palette from ETW more than Civ5's, and it's also somewhat similar to what CK2's current palette is. I also like the tree sizes, not too big, but you can notice that a forest is there.

One of the big reasons why the CK2 map looks so barren right now, is because it is barren right now. Wait until they show the map with trees and rivers, it will look a lot better I bet.

Agreed.
 
You don't understand only last small thing. If someone from this discussions say that he likes 2-D (not me). It only means that hard-worked high-quality 2D with a human souls is much more better than 3-D (or 100-D) with the dirty and ugly graphics and with terrible soldiers miniatures. That's it.

I'm sorry it's shame to post this in 2011 year with such pride like in the 1st post, and telling about innovations. I'm sorry it's true. Its 8-bit gameboy zombies strikes from the swamps.

And YES. I like 3-D very much as you too.

I fear it's you who doesn't understand. The purpose of that shot is to show the new tabard system. Nothing else is done. ALPHA screenshot etc.
 
I can't say I'm a fan of the rotating map even though I do like the map itself even if it is a bit featureless (despite topography). The rotation function seems a bit pointless and I never used it in Rome (after trying it). I couldn't see any practical use for it.

it was very useful for our artists to be able to look for map bugs or lighting bugs on units. a fixed camera is harder to work with during development.

anyway, I used the camera quite a bit during playing depending on where I was playing I would tilt it in a different direction. Southward if playing somewhere in Germany and eastward etc watching out for the seleucids etc.
 
How low exactly will you be able to go? It looks in those screenshots like you are almost on the ground... how will FoW work? Will we be looking stright into a wall of fog?

interesting idea. in other games like rome we have made the ground grayed out and darker only.
 
Might be kind of cool... and if you had military access with a neighbouring nation you could see all the way to their FoW.

What happens if you have military access with a nation behind your fow? The wall of fog would block your view?