• 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
 
Question about russia, will it be the kingdom of russia, or split into kiev/novgrod or something else?
edit: and will the third tier regional title for russia be Tzar?
 
Judging from what I've seen on the video about the duke of Swabia, not all provincial borders were changed. For instance to me the Austrian region (together with the Low Countries my favorite starting region for a HRE game) doesn't look completely right (not much changes when compared to the CK 1 map, with the exception of the border between Istria and Carniola), whereas other regions were improved. Although to be honest I also prefer the Mappa Regnorum map instead of the standard map.
 
Question about russia, will it be the kingdom of russia, or split into kiev/novgrod or something else?
edit: and will the third tier regional title for russia be Tzar?

The Imperial titles are not regional. If they were you couldn't do the Crusades right, because the whole point is the Emirs start as part of one Caliphate or the other and their successors get transferred to the Catholic zone theoretically under the HRE.

As for the Kingdom-level titles in Russia, the devs haven't said. I hope Kiev is Kingdom-level, and it's constituent princedoms are in it by default, but that might lead to an ahistorically cohesive Kieven Grand Principality capable of taking on the Mongols.

Russia is very complicated to simulate within the constraints offered by a game based on Catholic feudalism.

@Ruwaard
Last we'd heard the map borders were still a work in progress. I wouldn't be surprised if the dude making the changes had been too busy to finish everything. He is redoing the entire damn map, after all. But he does have four more months.

He doesn't seem to mind suggestions, so if you have some for the regions in question that don't change the total number of provinces post them and see what happens.

Nick
 
The Grand Prince of Kiev should definitely be a Kingdom-level title. Speaking of Kingdom titles, Finland should absolutely not have a Kingdom title, only a Duke - it never had a King although it was part of Sweden and Russia for a long time :p
 
Last edited:
Finland has been confirmed for a long time. The problem with not including it is that doing so means you have to divide the entire Baltic between Russia and Sweden. Russia's already too big in gameplay terms, which means you can a) make all Finland and the Baltic part of Sweden or b) make a fantasy Crusader state. A) has the disadvantage that it means any Christian state in the Baltic will be programmed to want to be a vassal of Sweden, so if Poland/Novgorod/etc. Crusades successfully all the territory will end up pledging to a state that has no relationship to them in-game, and only had a relationship to them IRL because the Swedes conquered it.

So they chose b.

Nick
 
I hope this still gets to the developers, and perhaps small changes on the map are still possible.

The recent videos and images have shown that there is a serious misalignment on the map in the Hungary region.
The provinces, as far as their general position are totally fine, the alignment of the two major rivers the Danube and the Tisza flowing nto the Hungarian plane are also alright, but there is a grave mismatch between province and river placement.

The province Pecs, should be on the right bank of the Danube (practically on the left side of it in the map view from above), also the Danube should flow next to the Pest province (given that Pest itself is on the riverbank.)

A simple suggested solution might be that might not be too much work is to simply "stretch" the Danube a bit futher into Hungary, so that it flows one more province to the right from where it is, and of course move the Tisza correspondingly a bit right too.
The river was in the right position in CK1...so this might simply be an oversight that I am just calling your attention to.

The game is shaping up to be beautiful!
 
Finland has been confirmed for a long time. The problem with not including it is that doing so means you have to divide the entire Baltic between Russia and Sweden.
Nick

Wrong, it doesn't have to be part of any Kingdom. I'm not entirely sure if this is the case in CK2 but in CK there were areas that belonged to "none" instead of a Kingdom, for example Wallachia, Sardinia, Corsica and some other regions.

2bu0s0.jpg


As you can see in the screenshot above, the province is de jure part of a Duchy but not a Kingdom. I hope they do the same with Finland instead of going for a Fantasy Kingdom.
 
Last edited:
Wrong, it doesn't have to be part of any Kingdom. I'm not entirely sure if this is the case in CK2 but in CK there were areas that belonged to "none" instead of a Kingdom, for example Wallachia, Sardinia, Corsica and some other regions.

2bu0s0.jpg


As you can see in the screenshot above, the province is de jure part of a Duchy but not a Kingdom. I hope they do the same with Finland instead of going for a Fantasy Kingdom.

There was several times in history when Kingdom of Finland was a possibility but none of them never went so far that it happened for different reasons. If there would not be Kingdom of Finland then there would not be really any reason to have Kingdom of Russia either as it was only created in 1547 far past the time period of the game. Not to mention that there is historical proof that there were kingdoms in Finland during the games time period. Even if during the swedish rule they rewrote history by claiming that they came to convert us when quite big part of the population was already christian. The northen crusades were in fact just normal war to conquer new areas not because finnish people were pagans. Its not a fantasy kingdom but highly possible kingdom tittle and even one swedish king used to call himself "king of finns".
 
There was several times in history when Kingdom of Finland was a possibility but none of them never went so far that it happened for different reasons. If there would not be Kingdom of Finland then there would not be really any reason to have Kingdom of Russia either as it was only created in 1547 far past the time period of the game. Not to mention that there is historical proof that there were kingdoms in Finland during the games time period. Even if during the swedish rule they rewrote history by claiming that they came to convert us when quite big part of the population was already christian. The northen crusades were in fact just normal war to conquer new areas not because finnish people were pagans. Its not a fantasy kingdom but highly possible kingdom tittle and even one swedish king used to call himself "king of finns".

I think you've got that mixed up. If it's used as the original "Casus Belli" then they'd be claiming that before conquering the territory. Now I'm not aware of anyone here in Sweden that actually think that it was anything but cementing our power in the north, but sticking to your original story isn't quite the same as rewriting history. ;)

You should also note that claims of "Kingship" shouldn't be taken too seriously given the game mechanics. With tribal nations it's often that anyone who has cobbled together a bit of land proclaims himself king, even if it barely covers a single county. The soundest approach to such issues is either giving them flavour-Localization when independent (similar to EU3 where someone can have the same Government and be a Duke if Vassalized, but otherwise a King) or as handled in CK1 where they had King-titles not tied to any territory so they're only Kings as long as they're not beaten by another nation (upon which that title disappears unless otherwise Claimed).

There should definitely be a Finland-Realm, though, even if not created by any local group until the Swedish Crusade claims it for Sweden.
 
Wrong, it doesn't have to be part of any Kingdom. I'm not entirely sure if this is the case in CK2 but in CK there were areas that belonged to "none" instead of a Kingdom, for example Wallachia, Sardinia, Corsica and some other regions.
Are you sure that's vanilla? I coulda sworn it was only that way in the improvement packs.

But that's not really relevant. What is relevant is that none of these regions is large. The Duchies of Finland and Karelia alone were 10 provinces in CK1. Add in the Estonians, Latvians, etc. and you would have had a 20 province hole in the map.

Which means your choices are a) make the southernish parts part of Lithuania, the easternish Russian, and the westernish Sweden, and then live with the mess when Sweden's successful Crusade leads to a much larger Lithuania, b) live with it when a human player conquers an area 50% larger then most Catholic Kingdoms and remains a Duke, or c) create a fantasy Kingdom-level title based on the largest independent country in the area.

Like it or not the kingdom's there. Largely for gameplay reasons, because IRL the neighboring states kept whatever land they conquered from pagans. If we had some way to simulate that, perhaps by changing the default Kingdom to that of the first Catholic ruler to conquer a pagan province, it would be great. But we don't. We can't use the neighboring Kingdoms without confusing the hell out of the AI. And we can't have 20 provinces of nothing. Thus Finland.

Nick
 
Wrong, it doesn't have to be part of any Kingdom. I'm not entirely sure if this is the case in CK2 but in CK there were areas that belonged to "none" instead of a Kingdom, for example Wallachia, Sardinia, Corsica and some other regions.

That was a DVIP thing, as Nick says--in vanilla CK every province belonged to a kingdom. And in this thread http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...ncial-incorporation-into-Duchies-and-Kingdoms, Doomdark says that every province in CK2 will belong to a kingdom, though of course you can change that if you want.
 
b) live with it when a human player conquers an area 50% larger then most Catholic Kingdoms and remains a Duke
...
And we can't have 20 provinces of nothing. Thus Finland.

Actually I don't see why not? The Christians who are capable of conquering those lands will be most likely either Kingdom of Sweden or a Russian Prince (in which case becoming King of Finland would be super ridiculous.)

I don't think the number of provinces is a problem either because those provinces are most likely going to have very few holdings given the almost non-existant population compared to rest of the Europe.
 
Kingdom of Sweden or a Russian Prince (in which case becoming King of Finland would be super ridiculous.)

Why would it be "super ridiculous" for a Swede or Russian to rule as "King of Finland" (ignoring the fact that they'd still have their original Kingdom-title as their name and that Swedish monarchs included the title)? Are you unaware that nationalism didn't exist as we understand it? Plenty of kings of wildly unrelated cultures have sat upon various thrones around Europe, with their cultural background being more or less turned a polite blind eye to as long as they're a decent ruler (with varying degrees of resentment depending on the sentiment of that local culture, naturally).
 
Actually I don't see why not? The Christians who are capable of conquering those lands will be most likely either Kingdom of Sweden or a Russian Prince (in which case becoming King of Finland would be super ridiculous.)

I did it as an independent Count. Ethnic Swede, and managed to parlay my conquests into election to the Swedish throne. It would have been a lot less fun if there was no King-title to create in that region.

A Russian Prince who did the same has earned a promotion to King-tier.

BTW guys, keep in mind Grand Dukes and High Dukes are in the game already. The King-tier titles of Lithuania and Poland were respectively a Grand and High Duchy IRL.

Nick
 
Why would it be "super ridiculous" for a Swede or Russian to rule as "King of Finland" (ignoring the fact that they'd still have their original Kingdom-title as their name and that Swedish monarchs included the title)? Are you unaware that nationalism didn't exist as we understand it? Plenty of kings of wildly unrelated cultures have sat upon various thrones around Europe, with their cultural background being more or less turned a polite blind eye to as long as they're a decent ruler (with varying degrees of resentment depending on the sentiment of that local culture, naturally).

In addition to being anachronistic and unhistorical it wouldn't make much sense as Finland at that time was mostly uninhabited and uncivilized with the exception of coastal settlements. If a Swedish or Russian nobleman had in fact conquered Finland and crowned himself the King, it would have been a big joke with no one in Europe taking him seriously.

I agree with the poster above that Finland should be covered by a Duchy level title but definitely not a 3rd tier King title.
 
I agree with the poster above that Finland should be covered by a Duchy level title but definitely not a 3rd tier King title.

Here's the problem:
We say Finland you think "Republic of." That is in CK1. It is a Duchy-tag.

The Kingdom tag is 20 provinces. Most of them are not in modern Finland. 40% of them are in territory that no Finnish ruler has ever thought of including. The Knights of Livonia, for example, are in Finland. All of Karelia, including bits the Russians don't think of as Karelia, is in Finland. Half of Novgorod is in Finland. Estonia is in Finland.

All told it's clearly a stronger, and much richer, country then any Scandinavian state. It's as large, and about as rich, as it's Baltic neighbors Poland and Lithuania. It may be poorer then Bohemia, but it's larger. It's both richer and larger then any of the three Celtic kingdoms, easily beats most of the post-Reconquista Iberian kingdoms in size, and beats all the pre-Reconquista Iberian kingdoms in wealth and population. It's also stronger then Bulgaria.

Is it anachronistic to have a state this size that nobody thought of in Medieval times? Hell yes. But the alternative is making Russia, virtually impossible to create at 51 provinces, even more difficult to create; giving the Grand Duke of Lithuania de facto sovereignty over the Livonian knights; and ensuring anyone who manages to Crusade against the Duchy of Finland's pagans loses the whole shebang to the Swedes.

Is Finland really a god name for it? Probably not, but it's not like there are a lot of alternatives available for a country that needs to a) include all Finland, b) include the Northwestern most bits of Russia, and c) include both modern Latvia and modern Lithuania.

Nick
 
Is Finland really a god name for it? Probably not, but it's not like there are a lot of alternatives available for a country that needs to a) include all Finland, b) include the Northwestern most bits of Russia, and c) include both modern Latvia and modern Lithuania.

Why would Finland not be a good name for it? Most of the areas is even in modern times populated with people that speak some language that is related to finnish. Not to mention that almost all the areas had mostly finnish language group populations living in them in the games time period.
 
Why would Finland not be a good name for it? Most of the areas is even in modern times populated with people that speak some language that is related to finnish. Not to mention that almost all the areas had mostly finnish language group populations living in them in the games time period.
Would Denmark be a good name for a nation that included Sweden and Norway into it? Probably not.