Are you disappointed there won't be a proper Crusader Kings scenario?

[Axis89]

CK I and CK II both had 1187 and 1337 scenarios, which meant various interesting medieval characters and dynasties were playable, and the Crusader states were established. I feel both of these bookmarks are iconic within the franchise and although I appreciate that far fewer people play 1337 than 867, it's still a fun scenario with lots of interesting history and famous dynasties to play as. It's always fun to play as the Plantagenets and yet they won't even be in CK III, which feels odd to me.

Are you disappointed at the lack of 936, 1081, 1187, 1204, 1220 or 1337 bookmarks? (769 was a horrible waste of time and I'm glad it's not coming back)

Would you like to see any of these return as DLC, and if so, would you be willing to pay for them?

Just like Byzantine Empire goverment system and flavour, just like custom character creator more start dates probably will come later but deserves proper attention to make it right.
At the moement they are focusing on what they have, and to me it looks amazing, but I cant wait to see a equally well made Byzantine update, a charatcer creator where you maybe can make your spouse and ancestors too?(Wishful thinking) and updates where they add start dates with proper attention to detail, story, events etc.

Im hoping for a crusader start date, a mongol start date and maybe even a rise of Islam start date/right after the islamic prophet lives start date(So that it wont be offensive or misinterpreted, kinda sensitive to some)

 

[Skales]

I miss the post-Hastings start date. Now every map will be ruined with Norway owning Normandy and the subsequent gavelkind chaos :/

 

[Olden Weiss]

Not really, simply because I always started as early as I could anyway (1066, if I felt like skipping Old Gods). A bit disappointed there's no post-Hastings start, though. At least, that's how it seems. Some seem to think one of the other bookmarks in 1066 might be after Hastings.

 

[CruelDesir3]

Not at all. While some people will certainly be disappointed in not having a specific character at a specific date, that's not really what CK3 is about. Those characters are gone within a generation and we're back into sandbox mode no matter what date you start with.

I'm TOTALLY on board with Paradox keeping the two announced start dates. They should focus on other things then mapping start dates that playtesting statistics (in EU4) have shown few people ever utilize.

 

[Karlington]

Would you like to see any of these return as DLC, and if so, would you be willing to pay for them?

No, I have no real interest in these additional start dates. I only very rarely played unusual start dates in CK2 (usually for some specific achievement), and didn't enjoy them any more than the default ones.

 

[The Shacks]

Latin Empire start was rather fun for a more focused campaign either as Nicea/Treiibizond or the Latin States. Never really went further further than 1066 beyond that though, always have that mental thing where your like hrhmm what if I really enjoy this playthrough I dont want it to end too early.

 

[Strangedane]

I rarely played anything but the first starting date.

Specific scenarios interest me a lot less than whatever mess can compile over the centuries.

 

[Masternachos]

It would be great if major DLCs introduced relevant start dates; for example, a DLC that reintroduces nomads also introduces a Genghis Khan start date.

 

[Froggie]

I'm going to be satisfied building up my realm from a Count or Duke into a large Kingdom & then down the line see the Pope call for a crusade, joining it in more of an RP sense.

 

[theKing1988]

Anyone who likes the later startdates can count on me to deliver when i adapt SWMH to CK3.

I have done years worth of work on the later startdates together with my co-mods and i am not about to throw it out the window.

 

[Vanhal]

No, the only one i actually played outside of 867 and 1066 is 769.

 

[Iaminfantry]

What makes people so hung up on 1081 if I may ask?

 

[theKing1988]

What makes people so hung up on 1081 if I may ask?

The gameplay possibilities.

I could turn the question around and ask the same question for 769 and 867, but i already know the answer. I just don't agree with the answer all that much

 

[Battlex]

What makes people so hung up on 1081 if I may ask?

Alexiad start date, all the characters from the Alexiad, England is Norman, sicily has formed, matilda isn't doing cooky shit

 

[Pied-Noir]

What makes people so hung up on 1081 if I may ask?

The greatest of the Norman kings is alive!

 

[vyshan]

Anyone who likes the later startdates can count on me to deliver when i adapt SWMH to CK3.

I have done years worth of work on the later startdates together with my co-mods and i am not about to throw it out the window.

Huzzah!

 

[Iaminfantry]

Alexiad start date, all the characters from the Alexiad, England is Norman, sicily has formed, matilda isn't doing cooky shit

The greatest of the Norman kings is alive!

Yep William is alive lol and on his way out only a couple years from death. 1081 wasn't all to exciting regarding alexios besides the
conspiracy against Nikephoros III Botaneiates besides that its was just minor fighting with normans and turks until 1095 when his ambassadors approached Pope Urban II for help against the turks which ultimately kicked off the first crusade. So is 1081 great? not really is Alexios Komnenos? yes definitely he prolonged the Byzantines downfall for who knows how long because what he did.

 

[Pied-Noir]

Yep William is alive lol and on his way out only a couple years from death. 1081 wasn't all to exciting regarding alexios besides the
conspiracy against Nikephoros III Botaneiates besides that its was just minor fighting with normans and turks until 1095 when his ambassadors approached Pope Urban II for help against the turks which ultimately kicked off the first crusade. So is 1081 great? not really is Alexios Komnenos? yes definitely he prolonged the Byzantines downfall for who knows how long because what he did.

How dare you, sir. I meant Henry!

 

[Iaminfantry]

How dare you, sir. I meant Henry!

William I[a] (c. 1028[1] – 9 September 1087), usually known as William the Conqueror and sometimes William the Bastard,[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_the_Conqueror#cite_note-4 was the first Norman King of England, reigning from 1066 until his death in 1087.

 

[theKing1988]

William I[a] (c. 1028[1] – 9 September 1087), usually known as William the Conqueror and sometimes William the Bastard,[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_the_Conqueror#cite_note-4 was the first Norman King of England, reigning from 1066 until his death in 1087.

Try reading what he actually writes, rather than what you think he writes. Nowhere does he say REIGNING King