Any chance of a 1081 start date?

[Delta5ff]

So far only two start dates have been announced, 867 and 1066. However the Alexiad start date has always been one of my favourites as its still really close to the original start date but the map is so different around the Greek areas that I normally play. It's a completely different dynamic when the Byzantine Empire starts quite weak giving a completely different gameplay experience in that area, even affecting you further away as an alliance with the Byzantines is less viable.

I know it would mean extra work to include a start date but I feel this would be an easier one to implement as not to many changes need to be added to the map to create it and hopefully you have most of the research needed already from implementing it in CK"

 

[MrNewVegas]

You have now given a justification for every single start date in the game, and I'm quite sure the developers won't bother with it.
My hope is every start date currently (perhaps with 1337 removed, because that one is a little close to the end) but I'll be surprised if we get anything except 1066 867 and Saladin v Tricky Dick Lionheart.

 

[Metz77]

I'd love to retain Alexiad and Iron Century. Alexiad is a lot of fun to play in Anatolia/Caucasia and Iron Century is quickly becoming my preferred start for Catholic Western Europe.

 

[Serenity84]

They said that hardly anyone plays the Alexiad

This whole "I need to start as early as possible because I want to play for a long time" thing is just the biggest nonsense ever. Games are decided in 100-200 years. Even starting in 1066 I hardly ever play to the end

 

[Pied-Noir]

They should definitely add a spruced-up version of 936. It's my favourite start date now.

 

[Delta5ff]

They said that hardly anyone plays the Alexiad

This whole "I need to start as early as possible because I want to play for a long time" thing is just the biggest nonsense ever. Games are decided in 100-200 years. Even starting in 1066 I hardly ever play to the end

I agree, I think the longest game I ever played was from the earliest start date and I only got a few decades past the 1066 date.

You have now given a justification for every single start date in the game, and I'm quite sure the developers won't bother with it.
My hope is every start date currently (perhaps with 1337 removed, because that one is a little close to the end) but I'll be surprised if we get anything except 1066 867 and Saladin v Tricky Dick Lionheart.

I don't think we need every start date put in, just some of the more interesting ones

I'd love to retain Alexiad and Iron Century. Alexiad is a lot of fun to play in Anatolia/Caucasia and Iron Century is quickly becoming my preferred start for Catholic Western Europe.

I think I would have preferred the 936 start date over the 867.

Actually looking at it 867 - 936 - 1066 -1081 it creates a nice short time frame where it can offer wildly different experiences while still leaving the longest time possible for a game to run.

 

[Arko]

So far only two start dates have been announced, 867 and 1066. However the Alexiad start date has always been one of my favourites as its still really close to the original start date but the map is so different around the Greek areas that I normally play. It's a completely different dynamic when the Byzantine Empire starts quite weak giving a completely different gameplay experience in that area, even affecting you further away as an alliance with the Byzantines is less viable.

I know it would mean extra work to include a start date but I feel this would be an easier one to implement as not to many changes need to be added to the map to create it and hopefully you have most of the research needed already from implementing it in CK"

I don't think they stated it would be only startdates and not eras

 

[MrNewVegas]

All of the start dates are interesting and fun, especially the ones that come immediately after a big blob falls apart.

 

[Metz77]

I don't think they stated it would be only startdates and not eras

Not sure what you mean by eras. What they've said is that only bookmarks will be available — you won't be able to select specific dates like you could after 1066 in CK2.

 

[Pied-Noir]

Not sure what you mean by eras. What they've said is that only bookmarks will be available — you won't be able to select specific dates like you could after 1066 in CK2.

So long as they're actually polished and properly fleshed-out, I'm all for this.

 

[Delta5ff]

Not sure what you mean by eras. What they've said is that only bookmarks will be available — you won't be able to select specific dates like you could after 1066 in CK2.

I'm actually ok with it been just the bookmarks. Going through every single day for three to four centuries worth of history and trying to make it as accurate as possible is a monumental task and I'd rather they spend that time making the bookmarks the best and most accurate they can be. I also think there shouldn't be to many to start with. Maybe 5 at the most.

 

[Metz77]

So long as they're actually polished and properly fleshed-out, I'm all for this.

I agree. The reason Henrik gave was that it was far too much work for too little reward, given that nobody used it, and the time was better spent on bookmarks.

 

[Pied-Noir]

I agree. The reason Henrik gave was that it was far too much work for too little reward, given that nobody used it, and the time was better spent on bookmarks.

867
936
1066
1187

I could live with those.

 

[Metz77]

867
936
1066
1187

I could live with those.

I'd toss in 1081 as well, since it seems reasonably popular. I've never played it myself though.

Edit: whoops, I was mixing up 1081 and 1187. As I said further up, I love Alexiad.

 

[Pied-Noir]

I'd toss in 1081 as well, since it seems reasonably popular. I've never played it myself though.

Given that it's only 15 years after 1066 I'm not sure it's really worth it. I suppose if they find it easy enough to do then they can add it, but I'm really not fussed either way.

 

[Delta5ff]

I agree. The reason Henrik gave was that it was far too much work for too little reward, given that nobody used it, and the time was better spent on bookmarks.

Some people did use it, I played one game where I went to the bookmark with the queen of Jerusalem who was married to the ruler of the HRE and took the date back to the day she inherited the kingdom. And I know at least one Let's Player that normally goes to custom dates to find specific rulers, But I agree that better book marks are way better than been able to start in absolutely any date, and to be fair it is something that is almost never used so I won't be to sad to see it go although I will miss it a little.

 

[Andrzej I]

Given that it's only 15 years after 1066 I'm not sure it's really worth it. I suppose if they find it easy enough to do then they can add it, but I'm really not fussed either way.

It's mostly for breaking down the Roman Empire, I imagine, having just lost Manzikert and thus a large chunk of Anatolia to the Seljuk Turks. That, and the Komnenoi have just returned to the purple.

 

[Delta5ff]

It's mostly for breaking down the Roman Empire, I imagine, having just lost Manzikert and thus a large chunk of Anatolia to the Seljuk Turks. That, and the Komnenoi have just returned to the purple.

That's part of it, but the Alexiad is also a big interesting time in history itself.

 

[Andrzej I]

Quite agreed there! Before CK3 was announced, I had been plotting out an AAR using the 1081 bookmark. Now I'm needing to weigh over if I ought to wait for CK3 or not (especially since I'm doing a work-and-school full-time schedule right now!)

 

[JonathanViking]

I have always been the person to like Really early start date becuase then you get to start with nothing 0 upgrades at all and alot of the map is tribal.

With start date 867 the viking age has Already started Since i mostly play viking i want it to be a bit earlier so i Can build myself up and then prepare innvasion.
Also i wounder if Ragnar and his sons is gonna be Alive at the same time in 867