Best Start Date?

[RonBurgundy]

I tend to always go for the earliest start date (The Charlemagne one) because I get more game and nothing has happened (no Turks, Mongols, HRE) and I feel like anything can happen. The base game start doesn't seem that interesting to me. You've already got France, the HRE, England, and Spain is just a short way to becoming consolidated. I feel like there's really nothing interesting that can happen in that start. Plus, it's already a few hundred years after the Charlie start so that's LESS game you have to play.

However, being around these forums, there are some of you who swear by that starting date and feel that the Charlie one is inferior. I was just wondering what your thoughts on the different start dates were and which you feel is the most dynamic and interesting.

Thank you in advance.

 

[lopiko]

It's just that the earliest start dates tend to end with border gore while the 1066+ start dates are more stable. Interesting things still happen in them while being a little more believable.

 

[CatilinamSum]

I'm also a 769 fan (more or less for the reasons you cited), but I think that 1066 is the more balanced, immersive start of the two, and allows many of the game's underutilized mechanics to shine (the SoA Catholicism changes, for example). I rarely start later than 1066 because the game simply feels too short past that point, and because so many cultures and religions have already vanished. I like the two dates equally, but for differing reasons.

The only start I actively dislike is 867. 867 feels cheesy due to its reliance on scripted wars and event troops near the start, causing all kinds of weirdness.

I do, however, feel that one of 769's biggest problems - nauseating border gore - will be solved by the upcoming exclaves game rule. I'm almost more excited for that than any other feature of Holy Fury.

 

[Stepina]

I often do the Charlie start, can't tell you the last time I did a start later than 867, i feel like I should try it though border gore doesn't bother me as much

 

[RonBurgundy]

I also hear that Crusades are rarely successful starting at 769 and I know Holy Fury changes those as well. Maybe I should take a break from CK2 until that DLC drops.

 

[Badesumofu]

It seems like people who enjoy more unpredictable games prefer 769, while people who prefer more historical games prefer 1066. Personally I really enjoy 'what if' type scenarios so I've had lot of fun with 769.

 

[Cal585]

769 is too random for me. I like to feel like I'm actually playing in a medieval setting. And how often do you actually play to the very end of the game? I did it for achievements but otherwise there's always another start that interests me once I've accomplished all my goals.

1081 used to be my go-to, with a more dynamic Greece/Anatolia and you're not too far from the Black Death or Mongol invasions. Plus it's fun watching the historical names expand as well knowing that they might be a threat to you in the future.
I also enjoy 867 but there's just so many Karlings...

 

[RonBurgundy]

I've never played to the end of the game

 

[Byzantium2000]

1118 and 1141 are my favorite starts, the reigns of John and Manuel komnenos, you got a strong but not op Byzantium, a respectable rum that doesn’t have its broken 16k merc stack, the selijuks are weakened so they don’t blob like in the Alexios start which is my most hated start, not too far from the mongols, so can enjoy Chinese and Mongolian China, France is split between them and England, Iberia is perfectly balenced between Christians and Muslims, and Russia is likely to not get stomped by nomads, it’s a start that can go very historically or off the walls.

 

[Wakizashi]

I just really love the early Middle Ages when it comes to the medieval times. The earlier the better, so I naturally opt for 769 in almost every game I play. The abundance of lesser known cultures and religions, as well as the vast amount of possibilities for alt-history results make it all the more interesting. If there ever were to be an even earlier possible starting date, I would go for that.

 

[Rubidium]

769 is just a blob fest, and I find that boring. You've got a couple giant Catholic blobs, a couple giant Sunni blobs, and an Orthodox blob. They either stick around all game being boring blobs, or the Catholics break into ugly messes of gavelkind nonsense. Not to mention the raiders EVERYWHERE, being obnoxious without really adding much fun. There are no real marriage partners either, which means you have to wait a generation before you can do the crazy inheritance shenanigans that are one of the best things about CK2. Besides, no one actually plays to the end of the game, so "more time" is basically an illusion. We'll leave aside the historicity issues, because 769 is best treated as a fantasy scenario, and I do play AGOT or Elder Kings on occasion, so I can understand people who like fantasy, even if it isn't what I'm looking for in vanilla.

867 vs. 1066 (or later; I actually like post-Manzikert starts for the fun of seeing the Byzantine Empire actually in trouble on occasion) comes down to how I'm feeling in terms of balancing the annoyance of never ending raiders vs. the annoyance of dealing with the HRE. There's also the issue of whether I feel like playing as any particular character or not, which determines a lot of things (can't play as good old fratricidal Alfonso VI if you start in 867). And of course, playing as a merchant republic in the early start dates is an exercise in futility.

More broadly, the earlier start dates (especially 769, but also 867 to some extent) tend to be dominated by blob-on-blob warfare and inter-religious wars, which I find less interesting than the intra-religious conflicts that dominate the later start dates. Wars in CK2 are actually fairly boring compared to the scheming that leads up to those wars: getting CBs and interacting with your vassals/co-religionist neighbors. It's also one reason I'm not a big fan of reformed pagan games; even leaving aside the ahistoricity of it all, you quickly end up playing as the only blob of your religion, holy warring your neighbors in a "raise levies==>march to target==>conquer==>disband levies==>prepare next war" cycle or (if you play with defensive pacts) insert a decade of waiting in between.

 

[Knotz]

Charlemagne gives me the most playtime but he tends to fuck shit up so bad that Europe never recovers. Bordergore so bad even I mind. 867 has my favorite start of all time and is generally unobjectionable otherwise. The later start dates always make me feel as if I've given up too much playtime even if I rarely actually play an entire game.

 

[Heiliges Thüringens Reich]

769 and 867, yo!

 

[Metz77]

I prefer 867 as historically it covers my favorite period of medieval history (the Golden Age of Anglo-Saxon England and the height of power for the vikings).

 

[ernst_earnest]

I never got the argument about how the 76 start gives you the most playtime when most people dont finish their campaigns

 

[AllThat4Nothing]

I never got the argument about how the 76 start gives you the most playtime when most people dont finish their campaigns

That's a good point. I don't think I played a single campaign more than 300 years. Either boredom or major mistakes make me start another.

*must remember to turn the Aztecs off if I intend to play in western Europe...*

 

[WJS]

If I want to do a pagan run, I'll usually choose 867. If I want to play Catholics, I'll choose 1066. If I play outside Europe, I'm usually choosing 769.

ETA: Then again, I regularly choose Tribal powers, so maybe that affects my preferred start date approach.

 

[elvain]

over here it's clearly 1066, 1081 and later

769 is a fantasy scenario for me. If I want fantasy, I play completely different games. In CK2 I sometimes play 867 - mainly Persia or North and West Africa, but the latter 2 require modded map.

When I play in Europe I almost always play marriage game, which doesn't make sense neither in 867 nor in 769. And yes, the blobs are awful. Also game's graphics and lifestyle events etc. are almost all designed for era starting with 11th century and it really kills immersion for me to imagine how my character in 8th century lives in stone castle with high towers and deals with rich city patricians demanding some rights, organizing annual fairs etc.

And like others I don't really get the argument about the early start dates giving you more time to play. Despite starting in 1066 or even later, I rarely play until the end date.

 

[Liquid Ghost]

I only play 769 if I want to play a hardcore Reconquista campaign with the Cantabria dynasty. Otherwise I've come to confirm what the forums say: the blobs just bludgeon each other and nearly always stay stable.

 

[mrstevehazzard]

It just depends on who I want to play as I guess. I actually love 1066, gearing up for a 1066 game once HF comes out...I'm also pretty partial to the Latin Empire start dates. But if I want to play pagan, the DLC dates are fun too.