Map size - then and now

[Esben Sonne]

While browsing the forum, I realised that there is no need for much of the world, when playing such a Euro centric game. I see a need for the states of North Africa and some of the Middle East. But the far east and the new world and the rest of Africa? No.

So my question to you is that I would like to know how big was the map in CK1 (I jumped on the PI wagon with In Nomine, so I didn't play CK1), and if you think it could be different (and why) in CK2.

 

[Orinsul]

I liked the map in CK, alittle more of persia could maybe be good. but otherwise it was a good size. It was Europe and the Middle east and the north of africa.

i'd like to see more provinces IN europe, more detail etc. not less detail and a wider, vaguer scope.
Its about Europe, and its about a time where direct authority was expected. A king couldnt rule a province in east asia with his throne in europe. Only Genghis Khan could do that but thats because he has magic. [and or that thing about the nomadic empires that no-one can now really understand as its an entirelly different concept. but i say magic. and anyway, what the mongols meant by rule and what we did was completely different anyway. The European system was really highly developed and in a completely different direction.]

 

[Gottskalk]

I'm all for the same map with more provinces and details.

 

[the_legion]

I liked the map in CK, alittle more of persia could maybe be good. but otherwise it was a good size. It was Europe and the Middle east and the north of africa.

i'd like to see more provinces IN europe, more detail etc. not less detail and a wider, vaguer scope.

You said it.

Make the Map so big that you HAVE TO rely on Dukes and Counts because of ingame-reasons and not because some magical demesne(?)-malus.
Europe, North-Africa and "Middle east" (Still confusing because it's called the "Near East" in Germany ^^) are enough.

 

[ComradeOm]

So my question to you is that I would like to know how big was the map in CK1 (I jumped on the PI wagon with In Nomine, so I didn't play CK1), and if you think it could be different (and why) in CK2.

Here you are

Personally I think it should stay about the same. Maybe slightly extended around the edges and with more provinces but no more than that

 

[jordarkelf]

The map should at minimum contain Europe (probably without northern Scandinavia and Iceland), the Barbary Coast, the Levant. Certainly NOT in the map should be the New World, and in the east India and further east.

As for Persia, Arabia, Nubia -- maybe. It all depends on wether or not these can be portrayed accurately. Since heathens will not be playable (in the initial game at least) as per developer comments, these regions should be limited since all they will provide is a chance for extremely ahistorical gameplay... I don't necessarily want to see a Crusader Kingdom of Jemen, but at the same time Persia at least should be included since here the Turk menace spread through the Middle-east, overtaking and driving before them the Arab hordes that shifted the demographics in North Africa and pre-reconquiesta Spain.

TLDR: the original CK map probably fits best as per scope, but the provinces should be redrawn.

 

[Vesimir]

The map should be the same as it was in Crusader Kings I.

With the following changes -

1. Iceland can be CLEARLY SEEN.
2. Northern Scandinavia, Kola, and all that.
3. PTI in Arabia and Russia on the CK map should be turned into normal provs.
4. More provinces everywhere, bigger detail, stuff.
5. Special, wondrous provinces like Stonehenge, Hagia Sophia, etc. that give special bonuses.I don't know why but I just had the idea and it sounds fun.

 

[Brian Bóruma]

I'd like more provinces, but the same coverage.

 

[Earl Uhtred]

Are non-Christian realms playable?

If so, the could extend as far as Afghanistan. Otherwise it might as well cut off at hinterland North Africa and the upper Euphrates.

Within this reduced area I'd like to see perhaps 1.5x as many provinces as CK1.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

Are non-Christian realms playable?

No, they aren't.

 

[the_legion]

With the following changes -

1. Iceland can be CLEARLY SEEN.
2. Northern Scandinavia, Kola, and all that.
3. PTI in Arabia and Russia on the CK map should be turned into normal provs.
4. More provinces everywhere, bigger detail, stuff.
5. Special, wondrous provinces like Stonehenge, Hagia Sophia, etc. that give special bonuses.I don't know why but I just had the idea and it sounds fun.

1. Agree
2./3. Nope, at least with the current model extreme provinces cannot be modeled correctly. If they are in I would suggest to limit building capability
4. Agree
5. Stonehenge not, but other map bonuses are ok.

No, they aren't.

I know it's not your decission but why not? People request it since CK1 and
the muslims had some sort of feudal system, too.
I understand it if you don't want Knightly orders or Democratic Cities beeing playable but
somehow I can't understand the game limitations there. Is there any official info about this
besides "it is not in"
Just kindly asking, no trolling *taking-cover*

 

[Duke of Bavaria]

I still woul like to see the map expand a little into persia, so the muslims can have actual kingdoms in their real size.

 

[Earl Uhtred]

If we can't play the 'slims, how about abstracting their internal politics? Everything that happened out that way was pretty irrelevant in CK1, they were just there to breed and mark time until the player saw fit to conquer them.

 

[Orinsul]

1. Agree
2./3. Nope, at least with the current model extreme provinces cannot be modeled correctly. If they are in I would suggest to limit building capability
4. Agree
5. Stonehenge not, but other map bonuses are ok.


I know it's not your decission but why not? People request it since CK1 and
the muslims had some sort of feudal system, too.
I understand it if you don't want Knightly orders or Democratic Cities beeing playable but
somehow I can't understand the game limitations there. Is there any official info about this
besides "it is not in"
Just kindly asking, no trolling *taking-cover*

Because its too Big.
its a completely different civilisation to represent, so as to do it justice, and to do justice to Christendom too, they have decided to leave it off till an expansion so that Europe can be represented fully and perfectly and then have a whole team devoted soley to doing the same for the moslems too.
So its not as in EU3 where all countries are the same, vague and dull. but that Europe might be Europe and that the game might be all it deserves to be.

And as to province specific things, which is why im posting. Not stone henge, it really isnt important until the Victorian era, in the time covered by the game its not even the biggest or most important one.

by Ely really needs a static modifier. giving a really high defence bonus. Pretty much every civil war or rebellion in england ended with a half-decade long siege at Ely.
A Stone fortified Church in the middle of the Fens with one tiny causeway leading to it.
and hopefully as its own province this time, then we could play the Wake!!!

Also the obvious, Rome, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Paris and the other great and important cities really ought to get special treatment of one kind or another, especially given that there is no population size.

and i kind of liked iceland being a bugger to find. it was nice to lose your kingdoms and run off somewhere that was literally off the map to lick your wounds and plot revenge. but with the new engine, and im guessing HoI3/V2 fullscreen window interfaces it'll be visible as anything

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

I know it's not your decission but why not? People request it since CK1 and
the muslims had some sort of feudal system, too.
I understand it if you don't want Knightly orders or Democratic Cities beeing playable but
somehow I can't understand the game limitations there. Is there any official info about this
besides "it is not in"
Just kindly asking, no trolling *taking-cover*

There is a sticky at the top of this forum, called 'Developer's Comments' there you will find everything the developers have said about the game on this forum.

 

[RedRooster81]

I would suggest natural boundaries. The Urals work pretty well for Russia, and nothing was known of south of the Canaries, but I agree that Iceland needs to be fully portrayed and why not Greenland and (pushing it) Newfoundland, because that was part of the known world, too. I would like to see a little bit more of the Red Sea and Persian Gulf, though I don't know how far down we should be able to go. It might be fun to throw in Ethiopia, with an event "I found Prester John!" Regarding Persia, I would push things back a little further east, but also simulate Turkish and Persian migrations into the game world somehow. The Seljuk Turks had more territory than is portrayed in game now, so as they are a major enemy for Byzantium and the Crusader States that should be taken into consideration.

 

[Fire and Ash]

I liked the original map, but it would be be nice to see it devided up into more provinces and greater detail.

 

[jordarkelf]

One the one hand I'd prefer a map which does not extend too far into muslim Arabia or pagan Africa, since there is no plausible crusader realm setup there and it will just lead to madness.
On the other hand, map enhancements in expansions are virtually impossible so the map needs to be as big as possible if a CK2 expansion will introduce playable muslims.
Still I think the absolute limits should be the Sahara (or Sahel), Urals, Persia/Arabia (not India) -- and no New World. Even Greenland ought not be included... there is no way it could be colonized for a long period in the CK timeperiod.

 

[esbenmf]

On the Greenland note: There were a quite stable (if small) cluster of settlements in greenland almost throughout the period of CKI (1066-1453), from around 1000 to at least 1408: See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland#Norse_settlement

 

[Camara]

Greenland can be included, but not Newfoundland. The knowledge of Newfoundland was lost, unlike Greenland.