Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Does anybody NOT start their games from 1066?

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 69867 Bug Reports 19707 User Modifications 10588 Suggestions 5969 Tech Support 6361 After Action Reports
I hate watching the Norman Conquest drag on for years so I started my latest campaign with the post-hastings 1066 start.

I may eventually try out the 1076/1081 starts to get a better development in the middle east. It's not like you miss out on much by skipping the first 20 years.
 
idomeneas said:
Most usualy than not I start at later dates. They offer some drasticaly different challenges and map setup. For example try playing byzantium in 1337, KoJ in 1100 and so on.
Click to expand...
You just gave me a great idea for a megacampaign.Thanks :)
 
I commonly start in 1204 - 16 may of 1205 and the creation of the Latin Empire. Even if I play - say - Aragon.
 
I always start in 1066. I always use the generator to start my own dynasty. Longer game means that the new dynasty actually gets a chance to spread and get a life of its own. I like that although they strive to achieve some historical accuracy at game start the fact that the minute I start the game it is alternate history and that I am a part in shaping that. So a long time frame is more rewarding. I would start earlier if that was possible and have the game end later as well.
 
Until recently, I've started exclusively in 1066. But with Sword of Islam, I got the urge to play the Ottomans, specifically, I started with Osman I in the 1280s, when he's still a vassal of Rum (wanted to get the extra 15ish years that I could, which was pretty smart, due to muslims having a nasty 17ish-year-wait until you get any alliances due to the lack of any rulers's daughters).
 
I've experimented with several starting points for my Byzantine games. Jan 1 1082 is the earliest I will start; it is simply too easy to avoid a Manzikert type disaster, even with the fool that starts on the Byzantine throne with a 1066 start. I also prefer to start as Alexios Komnenos. Some later dates I've tried are the day that his eldest son (and successor) was born, the last month of Alexios' rule, and the last month of Manuel's rule, which takes you to 1180 and near the 1187 scenario. Alexios has terrific stats and my games always go better the longer he sits on the throne, and the 1082 start means that virtually all of Asia Minor is in the hands of the Sultanate of Rum, giving me a lot to do before looking for a-historical conquests (such as Egypt).
 
I normally play with the objective of taking history on a particular tangent, so I tend to pick particular dynasties in particular historical situations and start from there. That does tend to be at the earlier range of start dates, but not always specifically 1066. My most recent game, for instance, was played with the goal of turning Aquitaine into an independent kingdom. I started in the 1080s because I wanted to start at the beginning of the reign of a particular duke.

I've also played a few games as the Butlers in Ireland during the Third Crusade or 100 Years War starts. These are distant ancestors of mine and Count Theobald, a vassal of John Lackland, was the first to hold the name "Butler". It's kind of fun to play as one of the little guys trying to take advantage of the strife between John and Richard, as well as the opportunities for expansion in Ireland.
 
I really like picking a date between 1080 and 1130. Depending on what dynasty I feel like playing. but haven't started after 1200 in any game yet.
 
I usually start early as possible, its just my way I don't think there is anygame where I can choose the start date that I don't start beyond the start date. Hell in OpenTTD its normally not playable before 1930ish but I downloaded a few mods that makes it perfectly playable to start from 1800 and end up starting then!
 
Claudius8110 said:
1102 in Jerusalem as Baldwin I. Marry a French princess and you've got your ally to survive the quick Jihad that comes at you.
Click to expand...

I'll have to try that, as I've never found any solution to an early start as the KOJ. Does France actually help you? I'd assume you'll get that "Sorry, we're unable to assist at this time" response for a war so far away.
 
I used to start in 1066 because I foolishly believed I could finish the game all the way from there. I've since come to grips with reality. Now, I'll advance the date 10 years at a time just see how the kingdoms shift over time, then jump in when something looks interesting.
 
Henricus_Rex said:
I normally play with the objective of taking history on a particular tangent, so I tend to pick particular dynasties in particular historical situations and start from there. That does tend to be at the earlier range of start dates, but not always specifically 1066. My most recent game, for instance, was played with the goal of turning Aquitaine into an independent kingdom. I started in the 1080s because I wanted to start at the beginning of the reign of a particular duke.

I've also played a few games as the Butlers in Ireland during the Third Crusade or 100 Years War starts. These are distant ancestors of mine and Count Theobald, a vassal of John Lackland, was the first to hold the name "Butler". It's kind of fun to play as one of the little guys trying to take advantage of the strife between John and Richard, as well as the opportunities for expansion in Ireland.
Click to expand...
Really cool little fact! Probably the best reason to start a game I've seen yet!
 
When I first started playing CK2 I started from 1066 exclusively. Now, I tend to almost always start from a different date. My newest game as Bulgaria started a month after the creation of the Latin Empire in 1204.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back