867 Start Date & the Viking Invasion of Britain

[ChromePoison]

As we’re all likely familiar, the CK2 867 start date involves the Viking invasion of Britain by the Great Heathen Army. Specifically, Northumbria, Wessex, East Anglia, and Mercia start at war with Viking-controlled York and The Isles. Most of the time the rest of the British Isles join to help fight the Vikings. I find this undesirable compared to 769 as if you want to play in disunited England pre-1066 now you must choose a nation which starts out at war. Even worse is the AI will likely blitzkrieg you as Northumbria, forcing you to surrender in a matter of weeks. Mercia and Wessex are less bad but still start in a difficult war. Whilst historically accurate, I was wondering exactly when CK3 starts and if it will have the same issues or if it will start slightly before the Great Heathen Army arrives, giving you a bit of time to prepare. If so, are the consequences of surrendering as a Catholic Anglo-Saxon the same as they were in CK2?

On a semi-unrelated note, my first playthrough of CK3 will for sure be one of these Anglo-Saxon nations, and I’d like to do Northumbria. Given the war is next to unwinnable in CK2, how do you suggest I go about reclaiming England for Catholic Anglo-Saxons? Would scheming as a vassal of a Norseman be the best approach, or should I exile myself to Ireland as soon as possible and make a later-game comeback?

 

[vyshan]

867 starts with the great heathen army invading England in CK3.

 

[Pied-Noir]

It looks to me like the same setup as in CK II, because you're choosing people who are already established as the rulers of York and The Isles. I would imagine it'll be easy mode for the Norse because they'll have event troops and are allied, whereas the Anglo-Saxons will be poor, under-strength and fractured. There's a reason Alfred's difficulty is 'Hard' on the map screen.

It's sad really, but it seems to be how Paradox like to represent the Anglo-Saxons; they won't be much fun in either bookmark and if CK II is anything to go by then - short of miracle deaths - 1066 will be almost impossible as Harold because the game is rigged for the English to lose.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

It looks to me like the same setup as in CK II, because you're choosing people who are already established as the rulers of York and The Isles. I would imagine it'll be easy mode for the Norse because they'll have event troops and are allied, whereas the Anglo-Saxons will be poor, under-strength and fractured. There's a reason Alfred's difficulty is 'Hard' on the map screen.

It's sad really, but it seems to be how Paradox like to represent the Anglo-Saxons; they won't be much fun in either bookmark and if CK II is anything to go by then - short of miracle deaths - 1066 will be almost impossible as Harold because the game is rigged for the English to lose.

I've won all three sides of the CKII Hastings start, and without "miracle" deaths.
It's *hard* for Harold to win, sure. But he was in an almost impossible situation in real life, with having to march north, fight a big battle, and then force march south to fight *another* big battle.

 

[Pied-Noir]

I've won all three sides of the CKII Hastings start, and without "miracle" deaths.
It's *hard* for Harold to win, sure. But he was in an almost impossible situation in real life, with having to march north, fight a big battle, and then force march south to fight *another* big battle.

It used to be about right, but at some point they changed the starting troop numbers so Harold had about 1/3 of the Norwegian force's size, then you had to take on the Normans as well.

Harold beat the Norwegians and then almost beat the Normans - it could easily have gone either way, and especially if he'd stayed on the hill. It doesn't warrant a separate discussion here, but my general point is that in CK II it's way harder than it should be to win as Harold without freak luck or exploiting marriage alliances.

 

[ChromePoison]

It looks to me like the same setup as in CK II, because you're choosing people who are already established as the rulers of York and The Isles. I would imagine it'll be easy mode for the Norse because they'll have event troops and are allied, whereas the Anglo-Saxons will be poor, under-strength and fractured. There's a reason Alfred's difficulty is 'Hard' on the map screen.

It's sad really, but it seems to be how Paradox like to represent the Anglo-Saxons; they won't be much fun in either bookmark and if CK II is anything to go by then - short of miracle deaths - 1066 will be almost impossible as Harold because the game is rigged for the English to lose.

Weird that it has Alfred as selectable from the start. That would indicate it’s a bit later on in the war than CK2 since in CK2 you start as his brother, and Alfred only becomes king when his brother dies.

 

[Pied-Noir]

Weird that it has Alfred as selectable from the start. That would indicate it’s a bit later on in the war than CK2 since in CK2 you start as his brother, and Alfred only becomes king when his brother dies.

Yeah, he's just Earl of Dorset (highlighted), so i assume he's a vassal of his brother again. I think Paradox just see him as unimportant and people will only recognize Alfred.

 

[Battlex]

Yeah, he's just Earl of Dorset (highlighted), so i assume he's a vassal of his brother again. I think Paradox just see him as unimportant and people will only recognize Alfred.

Do we know if Wessex starts with elective monarchy at game start? As otherwise you can't get Alfred elected once his brother dies

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

Do we know if Wessex starts with elective monarchy at game start? As otherwise you can't get Alfred elected once his brother dies

They might have the special Anglo-Saxon system we saw briefly on one of the previews, or Alfred's nephew might be out of the picture.