Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Map size - then and now

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Crusader Kings II 69942 Bug Reports 19717 User Modifications 10604 Suggestions 5969 Tech Support 6373 After Action Reports
Show only dev responses
Why not all of Eurasia?

Sure, the game is called Crusader Kings, but why not have the entirety of Eurasia? I'd love to rule over the Mongols, or the Chinese dynasties. Not to mention it would add more replayability to the game rather than just Europe. I haven't played the first, so if there's any reason why adding the entirety of it would be unmanagable or bad for gameplay or whatever, please tell me. Otherwise, I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be in the game
 
JohnnyReb said:
William Duke of York is now Duke of Cambodia!


Also, holy crap dude. CK ran bad enough past 1300 because there were so many damn characters. Quadruple the map area and you'd need a supercomputer to run it.
Click to expand...

I thought about that, but then it's a newer engine from CK1. You never know what Paradox could do to improve it.
 
I believe the main reason is that the game is based on (a highly abstracted) European feudal system, which already makes a lot of people think that it overlooks variations within. Adding eastern dynasties to it, and in a convincing level, would be like building two new games for one package.
I believe Paradox still wants to reserve a possibility for Muslim playibility for an expansion. And they should do that, a game with crusades in the title but without the other side's feel sounds like a world war II game with only Germans made available for the player.
 
LordofSaxony said:
Maybe for a future expansion which can focus more on playable Islamic nations, as well as that area including the Mongol holdings.
Click to expand...
I think this would be good for an expansion. Focus on getting Europe right before we make the game too complex.

Also even then I wouldn't include all of Eurasia. It's by far not the best map, but it does the purpose of showing roughly what parts of Eurasia don't really matter:
0.jpg
 
DukeWilleo1630 said:
All I really wish for is playable islamic nations and the map stretching to indian border/central asian steppes.

It would be neat to have all of eurasia, considering dynasties essentially work the same everywhere. :p But I'd worry about map lag?
Click to expand...

There could be some expansion with the vanilla game via creative events, such as subsaharan trade, contact with Ethiopia or India. Through the same means, we could limit the map regarding Persia, etc. Although one of my long-term goals in CK1 was conquering or converting the Seljuk Turks, if the game is much harder, like EU3: HTTT hard in terms of expansion, world conquest might not be feasible for the normal player.
 
Personally, I'd like to see the map extended a bit to the east and south to include all of Persia and Nubia. It's reasonable to think that if the Crusades had been more successful, the Christian adventurers would have pushed into these regions. A bit more of the Russian steppe would provide a great way to see the Mongol Hordes flooding towards Europe. Ethiopia, India, Greenland, and North America are too far away, too big, and would have had too small an impact to be realistically included in a game focused on Medieval Europe and the Crusades. By the time those areas would become important, the timeframe of the game is reaching its end, making a switch to EU3 the best way to continue the fun.

Maybe 20% more provinces to fill in the new areas and redraw Europe's borders in a more realistic manner.
 
JohnnyReb said:
William Duke of York is now Duke of Cambodia!


Also, holy crap dude. CK ran bad enough past 1300 because there were so many damn characters. Quadruple the map area and you'd need a supercomputer to run it.
Click to expand...

But if the Duke of York was the Count of Bukhara , why would he stop there ? With Cities along the Silk Road such as Samarkand and Herat and Tashkent are within striking distance ? But , if it's just as ridiculous for the Duke of York to be the Count of Bukhara ( or for that matter Herat ) in your view , as compared to the King of Annam , or Duke of Guangdong , or Duke of Sulawesi ( Ok , the last bit is a little of an exaggeration) , they should slice off Persia from the map then. But then , you cant simulate the Mongols properly , nor the Seljuks , nor the Khorezm , nor the Timurids .

Let's face it . Cambodia might be quite irrelevant for CK Geographical region , but , are you saying that Samarkand is irrelevant to the fortunes of who controls Iran , and hence in a position to control Mesopotamia and beyond ? In that case , wouldn't Bukhara and Khiva , in the oringal CK Map be just as irrelevant ? Why don't cut off the whole of Transoxinia then ? But any successful Crsuader who has just smashed Islam in Persia would probably follow Alexanders footsteps into Transoxinia/(AKA Bactria) , if he could.

Bukhara , which is in CK1 , is a mere 200 Kilometers away from Samarkand , which IS NOT in CK1 . If I could march an army across Khorasan to conquer Bukhara, what is 200 Kilometers to me, especially if that 200 Clicks are quite flat? And Tashkent is a mere 250 Kilometers away from Samarkand . Again , any army that managed to Cross from Khorasan to Bukhara and Samarkand would find it quite easy to reach Tashkent , especially with the incentive of another rich silk Road city. Crossing from Tashkent to Xian in China of course , is quite another matter all together.

I personally would like a Map Extension all the way up to the Tian Shan and Hindu Kush and the Edge of the Kazakh Steepes . All of these form excellent geographic barriers that justify terminating the map there . Beyond the Tian Shan lies the Taklamakan Desert - one of the harshest on Earth . The Hindu Kush is a formidable challenge to cross too , and has always been regarded as the natural Geographic border of India . I'm not arguing for Punjab or the Edge of the Indo-Gangetic Plain to be included , nor Mongolia , let alone arguing for Kyoto or Malacca to be included in the game at all.

I'm just advocating a slightly saner point to end the map at . To the North , the Urals should be a good point to Terminate the map at , at the South , the Hindu Kush and Tian Shan and the Steepes of Kazakhstan . The Status Quo in CK is really bizarre - it irks me to see the map ending at Bukhara. Either terminate the map at Khorasan ( making it very difficult to truly simulate Persia) , or extend it to the Pamirs , Tian Shan and Hindu Kush.
 
Last edited:
Jinnai said:
I think this would be good for an expansion. Focus on getting Europe right before we make the game too complex.

Also even then I wouldn't include all of Eurasia. It's by far not the best map, but it does the purpose of showing roughly what parts of Eurasia don't really matter:
0.jpg
Click to expand...

That looks like Koei's Genghis Khan II. I used to love their games.
 
I think Red Rooster has the right idea (except Newfoundland) for the map. Except that I think the map should extend to Ethiopia and at least part of Northern India or Afghanistan because Ethiopia came into contact with the Europeans in the 15th century and northern India or Afghanistan must have been somewhat known to the Europeans by stories of Alexander.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Novea said:
But if the Duke of York was the Count of Bukhara , why would he stop there ? With Cities along the Silk Road such as Samarkand and Herat and Tashkent are within striking distance ? But , if it's just as ridiculous for the Duke of York to be the Count of Bukhara ( or for that matter Herat ) in your view , as compared to the King of Annam , or Duke of Guangdong , or Duke of Sulawesi ( Ok , the last bit is a little of an exaggeration) , they should slice off Persia from the map then. But then , you cant simulate the Mongols properly , nor the Seljuks , nor the Khorezm , nor the Timurids .

Let's face it . Cambodia might be quite irrelevant for CK Geographical region , but , are you saying that Samarkand is irrelevant to the fortunes of who controls Iran , and hence in a position to control Mesopotamia and beyond ? In that case , wouldn't Bukhara and Khiva , in the oringal CK Map be just as irrelevant ? Why don't cut off the whole of Transoxinia then ? But any successful Crsuader who has just smashed Islam in Persia would probably follow Alexanders footsteps into Transoxinia/(AKA Bactria) , if he could.

Bukhara , which is in CK1 , is a mere 200 Kilometers away from Samarkand , which IS NOT in CK1 . If I could march an army across Khorasan to conquer Bukhara, what is 200 Kilometers to me, especially if that 200 Clicks are quite flat? And Tashkent is a mere 250 Kilometers away from Samarkand . Again , any army that managed to Cross from Khorasan to Bukhara and Samarkand would find it quite easy to reach Tashkent , especially with the incentive of another rich silk Road city. Crossing from Tashkent to Xian in China of course , is quite another matter all together.

I personally would like a Map Extension all the way up to the Tian Shan and Hindu Kush and the Edge of the Kazakh Steepes . All of these form excellent geographic barriers that justify terminating the map there . Beyond the Tian Shan lies the Taklamakan Desert - one of the harshest on Earth . The Hindu Kush is a formidable challenge to cross too , and has always been regarded as the natural Geographic border of India . I'm not arguing for Punjab or the Edge of the Indo-Gangetic Plain to be included , nor Mongolia , let alone arguing for Kyoto or Malacca to be included in the game at all.

I'm just advocating a slightly saner point to end the map at . To the North , the Urals should be a good point to Terminate the map at , at the South , the Hindu Kush and Tian Shan and the Steepes of Kazakhstan . The Status Quo in CK is really bizarre - it irks me to see the map ending at Bukhara. Either terminate the map at Khorasan ( making it very difficult to truly simulate Persia) , or extend it to the Pamirs , Tian Shan and Hindu Kush.
Click to expand...

Worth repeating as a whole.

Not much i can add of substance but here are some maps for those trying to following what might be far-flung place names:

Caliphate

Ghaznavid Empire

Khwarezmian Empire

Khara-Khitai/Khwarezm 1200

Tian Shan

Chagatai Khanate

The last one especially for the inclusion of Tashkent, Samarkand, and Bukhara together.
 
Last edited:
It's not the most elegant of arguments, but after inclusion of Central Asia, India, China etc to the map it sounds peculiar to call the new game Crusader Kings 2 anymore. The weight would be so much shifted outside the Europe. (In the case of and on the time period covered by Europa Universalis it wouldn't be a problem and it wouldn't dilute the name.) How many of the CK players would go for the world conquest anyway? (In the vanilla CK2 muslims aren't going to be playable.)

And the problem isn't a map size per se, but a historical 'dynasty' research and semi-realistic simulation of all those colourful areas (if we want the sequel to be a historical strategy game like its predecessor). Is the expected result really worth the effort?
 
Rather than increasing the map to include half (or all) Asia and Africa just because they were vaguely known, I'd suggest to use an abstracted system like boxes (ala AGEOD games) for eventual expeditions outside of the map, or to show what happens (which power is dominant) there.

(ie : you want your midas touched nephew to conclude trade agreements with states of the silk road ? move him to eastern border of the map then to the Silk Road box out of the map, and you will have the results of his commercial expedition some years later -or no news as he chosen to become an advisor of Genghis Khan- ; you see the Horde flag appearing in the "Central Asian Steppes" box meaning the mongols are close to reach the map, and want to send an expedition to slow them ? move an army to the "Steppes" box out of the map ; some months later you will have the result of the battle and your army back on the map if some of your men survived ; you want to send men to search the legendary kingdom of Sabah in Ethiopia hoping to find some Salomon relics to increase your piety ? the same, etc...)

It would give the feeling of a (vaguely know but still mysterious) world existing outside of Europe, without adding the possibility to see the catholic duchy of Northern Hindustan created or an iberian Sheikh becoming invulnerable because he inherited some sunni province located in actual Afghanistan.
 
Last edited:
Count of Reval said:
And the problem isn't a map size per se, but a historical 'dynasty' research and semi-realistic simulation of all those colourful areas (if we want the sequel to be a historical strategy game like its predecessor). Is the expected result really worth the effort?
Click to expand...

That depends. A slight addition could well yield a great result, e.g. the recent posts were about the Tian Shan, the Indus/Hindu Kush. If it's supposed to be even faintly historical then the colossal Before and After could really use some 'depth'. The slight expansion could really put events into context. As-is, the Mongols pop up in what appears to be the middle of nowhere at the end of the map. Okay, so the Mongols are late-game entrants. But the area was also important for the Seljuks in 1066 too.
 
While I concede the name of Crusader Kings does imply something, the fact that it is a Christian based game does lend itself to the extension of the map to Samarkand and there abouts. Those areas east of Jerusalem had a large population of Christians in them, to the point where there was a hierarchy of Patriarchs and Catholicoi stretching from the Holy Land to Beijing. While I would certainly not advocate including all of Asia, I definitely agree with the parameters marked out by Novea
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back