Any chance of a 1081 start date?

[Farabi]

I would quite like to see the 867 start date pushed back about 25 years to ~840. Louis the Pious has died and his legacy - and that of Charlemagne - is immediately contested; the ‘Abbasid Empire is strong and al-Mu’tasim rules with his Turkish soldiers from Samarra while poets celebrate his victories against the Romans; and his tenacious enemy Theophilos in Constantinople sits in judgment over the idolatrous icons. Oh, and the Vikings are gradually starting to become more of a threat...

It seems a bit more of a broadly playable date before everything goes into crisis mode. Can Charlemagne’s Empire be reunited? Can the Anarchy at Samarra be avoided? Will iconoclasm remain dominant in Constantinople? And who will be the first Norseman to rule in Britain?

 

[omega20056]

1187 is probably best for the last start date. Trying to represent the Fourth Crusade properly is hard.

 

[gja102]

1081 is a good idea, as the situation in the Middle East is a lot more interesting, post-Manzikert. The Crusader conflicts of the next few centuries make a lot more sense with a non-blobbing Byzantium.

In fact, what advantage does starting 15 years earlier in 1066 have?

Obviously it was chosen because that's the earliest the Normans are in England. However, if you're not going to start pre-Hastings, then I'm not sure what difference it makes whether you start in year 1 of William's rule, or year 15. In fact, the first ten years of Norman rule in England were a mess of rebellions, so you could argue that 1081 would be better from an English gameplay perspective, too (as the Norman status quo is established and you won't see the same doomed Anglo-Saxon rebellions happen every single game like you did in CK1).

From memory, the Medieval Total War games always started in the 1080s rather than the 1060s. So presumably those developers felt the 1080s made more sense.

Genuine question, as I don't know the wider history, but are there any other reasons why 1066 would have preferable gameplay over 1081?

 

[bitmapmedivh]

1081 is a good idea, as the situation in the Middle East is a lot more interesting, post-Manzikert. The Crusader conflicts of the next few centuries make a lot more sense with a non-blobbing Byzantium.

In fact, what advantage does starting 15 years earlier in 1066 have?

Obviously it was chosen because that's the earliest the Normans are in England. However, if you're not going to start pre-Hastings, then I'm not sure what difference it makes whether you start in year 1 of William's rule, or year 15. In fact, the first ten years of Norman rule in England were a mess of rebellions, so you could argue that 1081 would be better from an English gameplay perspective, too (as the Norman status quo is established and you won't see the same doomed Anglo-Saxon rebellions happen every single game like you did in CK1).

From memory, the Medieval Total War games always started in the 1080s rather than the 1060s. So presumably those developers felt the 1080s made more sense.

Genuine question, as I don't know the wider history, but are there any other reasons why 1066 would have preferable gameplay over 1081?

IIRC, it's also the year when the last Pagan king of Sweden ruled, Erik the Heathen. So it might just be PDS' usual Swedish bias.

 

[Andrzej I]

There is also the Investiture Crisis, which hasn't happened in 1066, but has gone into full swing by 1081. Furthermore, there is still some Islamic rule over Sicily, with the de Hautevilles having not completed their conquest of southern Italy. Boleslaw the Bold still rules over Poland, you have the three brothers in Spain rather than a unified Castile-Leon (and Galicia), and perhaps some other rulers of interest that are escaping me.

Still, I do agree that 1081 may be a more interesting choice than 1066, especially with a weakened Byzantium and an HRE that is in conflict with the Pope.

 

[gja102]

There is also the Investiture Crisis, which hasn't happened in 1066, but has gone into full swing by 1081.

Oh, that's a good point. The Investiture Crisis didn't seem to be that well modeled in CK2 so I suppose starting part way through that conflict isn't ideal (unless you were going to improve the mechanics or include an event chain).

 

[Delta5ff]

I would quite like to see the 867 start date pushed back about 25 years to ~840. Louis the Pious has died and his legacy - and that of Charlemagne - is immediately contested; the ‘Abbasid Empire is strong and al-Mu’tasim rules with his Turkish soldiers from Samarra while poets celebrate his victories against the Romans; and his tenacious enemy Theophilos in Constantinople sits in judgment over the idolatrous icons. Oh, and the Vikings are gradually starting to become more of a threat...

It seems a bit more of a broadly playable date before everything goes into crisis mode. Can Charlemagne’s Empire be reunited? Can the Anarchy at Samarra be avoided? Will iconoclasm remain dominant in Constantinople? And who will be the first Norseman to rule in Britain?

That sounds like a really interesting time period, now I'd like to see a 840 start date too.

1081 is a good idea, as the situation in the Middle East is a lot more interesting, post-Manzikert. The Crusader conflicts of the next few centuries make a lot more sense with a non-blobbing Byzantium.

In fact, what advantage does starting 15 years earlier in 1066 have?

Obviously it was chosen because that's the earliest the Normans are in England. However, if you're not going to start pre-Hastings, then I'm not sure what difference it makes whether you start in year 1 of William's rule, or year 15. In fact, the first ten years of Norman rule in England were a mess of rebellions, so you could argue that 1081 would be better from an English gameplay perspective, too (as the Norman status quo is established and you won't see the same doomed Anglo-Saxon rebellions happen every single game like you did in CK1).

From memory, the Medieval Total War games always started in the 1080s rather than the 1060s. So presumably those developers felt the 1080s made more sense.

Genuine question, as I don't know the wider history, but are there any other reasons why 1066 would have preferable gameplay over 1081?

The only reason I see for 1066 over 1081 is if they do like CK2 and start with the big three way war just having kicked off. Although unless I specifically want to be an active part of the war I'd always pick the bookmark that had concluded the war because I didn't want to deal with event spawn nonsense.

 

[Nyrael]

The bookmarks I'd like to see in the game:
1204 Latin Empire of Constantinople

Ah yes, I almost forgot this one! This bookmark has to stay! I know we can create the Latin Empire via Crusades, but it isn't the same as taking this crumbling Empire in its historical state and making it into a proper Empire! (and then Khans come and convert the entire Middle East to Catholicism, thus killing your dreams of glorious crusades).

 

[Pied-Noir]

Ah yes, I almost forgot this one! This bookmark has to stay! I know we can create the Latin Empire via Crusades, but it isn't the same as taking this crumbling Empire in its historical state and making it into a proper Empire! (and then Khans come and convert the entire Middle East to Catholicism, thus killing your dreams of glorious crusades).

King John.

 

[vandevere]

King John.

Yeah...Him too!

The Magna Carta was a relatively important event in English history...

 

[Miroku20X6]

1187 is probably best for the last start date. Trying to represent the Fourth Crusade properly is hard.

I think 1337 remains the most logical final start date. Participate in 100 Year War and build up the Ottomans among possible campaigns. It leaves 100+ years of game time, which is all people play most of the time anyways.

 

[Will Steel]

The thing with CK games is, even custom/non-standard start dates have interesting historical people to play with. CK2 had a huge list of them and made enjoyable challenges out of them.

I hope they at least allow us to mod the start dates into the game, with a complete day-month-year functionality like CK2 did.

 

[Metz77]

The thing with CK games is, even custom/non-standard start dates have interesting historical people to play with. CK2 had a huge list of them and made enjoyable challenges out of them.

I hope they at least allow us to mod the start dates into the game, with a complete day-month-year functionality like CK2 did.

You'd probably have to mod them in as additional bookmarks, but I can't see why you wouldn't be able to specify down to the date.

 

[Metz77]

I think 1337 remains the most logical final start date. Participate in 100 Year War and build up the Ottomans among possible campaigns. It leaves 100+ years of game time, which is all people play most of the time anyways.

I sincerely doubt we'll see 1337 — it was the latest bookmark in CK2 and the devs have already said they want to remove the later starts.

 

[stavern]

Okay so read a wiki page about 1081 and what is so special about that year? A new byzantine emperor. A norman fleet attacking byzantines in a city in Albania.

 

[Metz77]

Okay so read a wiki page about 1081 and what is so special about that year? A new byzantine emperor. A norman fleet attacking byzantines in a city in Albania.

It's the beginning of the Kommenos restoration, a major resurgence of Byzantine power for one of the last times before their end.

It's also one of the only bookmarked start dates where the Byzantines aren't necessarily powerful enough to hold out for the entire game.

Edit: It's also just prior to the historical First Crusade, which Alexios helped to instigate.

 

[Andrzej I]

Also, for what it's worth, Henry IV would be excommunicated in 1081, providing some instability to the Holy Roman Empire, thereby weakening yet another 1066 superpower, even if but briefly. Furthermore, the Seljuks conquer Jerusalem four years prior, making them, and not the Fatimids, the target of a Crusade for Jerusalem, as per history.

 

[Serenity84]

Okay so read a wiki page about 1081 and what is so special about that year? A new byzantine emperor..

The new emperor is a huge deal. Unlike the previous one he was very competent and led the country to a political, military, and also cultural renaissance. The empire is very weakened with the loss of Anatolia, but also in a good position for a comeback. In game that's a lot more interesting than starting with being more powerful than all your neighbors.

 

[klopkr]

All I want is my mongol bookmark!

 

[Abraman]

I see a lot of people writing off 1337. Surely other people enjoyed it? Trying to resuscitate the Byzantines has always been really fun for me.