They are already porting the terrain map of V2 to the new EUIII expansion. So the map of CK2 will most likely be just as pretty as that of V2 or even prettier since Paradox is constantly improving those parts of their games.
-
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.
They are already porting the terrain map of V2 to the new EUIII expansion. So the map of CK2 will most likely be just as pretty as that of V2 or even prettier since Paradox is constantly improving those parts of their games.
I agree. CK's map in any mode was vomitous both in composition and layout. Thank God for the attractive shields and sprites which diverted one's attention somewhat. In Pdx's defence, early alpha screens released when Snowball was still in charge of development suggest they inherited the map and graphics from them.
It's all but certain the new game will have V2 style graphics, they're even redoing EU3 to fit that
I would sort've hate to see them go the direction of the Civ series, and reallocate what would seem to be the lionshare of development efforts to pretties: pigs grunting, trees swaying, soldiers wiping their noses and shuffling their feet, etc., all for the sake of creating a superficial and ephemeral illusion of 'naturalism' which disintegrates the first time you see an AI uber-stack of 60 'musketman' land amphibiously next to your capital, or the game CTDs because of the Gfx processing overload . . .
But still a happy-medium ala the new Vicky2 graphics would be sweet for the medieval era covered by CK.
CKI had such fascinating game dynamics, I think I definitely would've played it more had it not been so straining on the visual perceptual apparatii and hand-eye mechanisms
Because CK looks to be at an early stage of development, maybe it's worth it. I can dream.
Of course we don't know anything about the game yet so it's a stab in the dark. But it can't do any harm, right?
I like some of this, but most of this I'd definitely not go with.
1) Druim Alban -- no. Not a province ... and is in the wrong place.
2) Moray should stretch further west in Loch Ness. Area north of Lochaber should be Garmoran, with Ross to the east.
3) Sodor and Innse Gall. Sodor is a diocese, not a secular province. The secular province is Innse Gall. Your Innse Gall should be Islay, separate as in the MacRuairidhs and MacDonalds.
4) Your Mar is just Aberdeenshire. Aberdeen itself is closest to the province known as the Stewartry, Na Mhaoirne, "the Mearns".
5) Strathmore ... totally wrong in this case. This is an area of Angus. The area you are covering is Strathearn and Gowrie. Gowrie is the core province of the Scottish kingdom (hence why no seperate earls) containing Scone, Perth, Forteviot, Dunkeld, Abernethy, and so on ... Strathearn is another core earldom.
6) Stirling is a pointless province ... its no more important that Perth, Edinburgh, St Andrews, and so on ... and is not a county in this era.
7) Lennox does not cut across the Clyde into Strathgryfe.
8) Kyle is ok, but shouldn't include Carrick. Carrick needs to be in the game.
9) I'd call Nithsdale Strathnith, the area being Gall-Gaidheil/Gaelic in culture until at least the 14th century.
10) Given what's been missed out, ther's no case for Tweedale. It should be part of Lothian or partitioned between Lothian and Teviotdale.
11) Northumberland ... a bit deterministic for 1066, no? Bamburgh perhaps? Same issue with Lancashire having Furness ... this is to do with land-holding patterns towards the end of the 11th century. Maybe a place for Allerdale?
12) Why Airedale?
I think Fiftypence's map has got it right, roughly (always good to have more provinces!):
Last edited:
If there was an expansion to play as the muslims, then the whole of the middle east into India (upto the himalayas) would be necessary, and also alot of fun, but would laso require an earlier start date.
As it is though, I think the map is more or less fine, save for a few adjustments on the periphery. Like everyone else, my feeling is that we need more detail in Europe and the middle east instead of Alexandrian illusions. Besides, hopefully in CK2, having more then one Kingdom should be almost impossible to manage without an exceptional and rare King.
As it is though, I think the map is more or less fine, save for a few adjustments on the periphery. Like everyone else, my feeling is that we need more detail in Europe and the middle east instead of Alexandrian illusions. Besides, hopefully in CK2, having more then one Kingdom should be almost impossible to manage without an exceptional and rare King.