Best starting date

[Santôka]

Well I bought the game a few days ago and I love it, I think I got a hold of the basics by now, so I want to start a nice game and was wondering what start date you guys think is the most balanced all around : I'm not looking for a particularely favorable date for a particular character, just a date where things don't get out of hands to fast, like the HRE and the Almohavids I've seen.

 

[Battle bunny]

Well, in vanilla, the HRE is bound to go crazy every game, and so do several others, regardless of the start date. Perhaps try the 1081 or 1204 start dates, where the Byzantines don't go crazy. In addition, I can only recommend CK2+ for an experience where the HRE doesn't take over half the world with France and the Fatimids dividing up the rest. Expansion tends to be quite reasonably limited there. I assume other mods like Project Balance also accomplish this, though I've never tried them.

 

[A_Dane]

IMO, it depends on what you want, it you want to start early with a somewhat historical progress, go for either the second 1066 start where William is already in power, or 1081.

Mind you, as Battle Bunny said, the HRE will probably go crazy either way, same for the fatimids, but not much to be done about that unless you wanna mod it yourself/install some mods.

 

[Werson]

The Alexiad is good, as the Byzzies are weak and don't go crazy, England isn't a mess as the Normans have stabilized it, Fatimids are weak, and Seljuks strong. That's the only date I start.

 

[Lessing]

I always use 1066 because starting later seems like coming to a party that already peaked before you arrived.

 

[l3ol3o]

The Alexiad is good, as the Byzzies are weak and don't go crazy, England isn't a mess as the Normans have stabilized it, Fatimids are weak, and Seljuks strong. That's the only date I start.

I agree with this. I like this start the best. I think the year is 1081? It's only 15 years from the earliest start so it doesn't change much. Everything it changes though is for the better IMO. Even though I like this start the best, in most of my games I find myself starting in 1066 just because I like starting at the very beginning.

If your like me and have been playing this game since it was released and normally play the early dates, starting after 1200 or even later can bring a new feel into the game.

 

[aniuby]

IMO, it depends on what you want, it you want to start early with a somewhat historical progress, go for either the second 1066 start where William is already in power, or 1081.

A good point. I always wondered as to the purpose of the second 1066 bookmark since it's so close to the starting one. So many other juicy pivotal moments in history have been left out of the bookmarks but for some reason PI decided to pick one which is less than a year after the first. Now I see why.

Anyway I always stick with the first start date for more (intentionally designed) playtime but I'll look closely at this one to see the differences - if, apart from William winning, Byz and Fatimids are weaker, I'd seriously consider it.

 

[Santôka]

Well, in vanilla, the HRE is bound to go crazy every game, and so do several others, regardless of the start date. Perhaps try the 1081 or 1204 start dates, where the Byzantines don't go crazy. In addition, I can only recommend CK2+ for an experience where the HRE doesn't take over half the world with France and the Fatimids dividing up the rest. Expansion tends to be quite reasonably limited there. I assume other mods like Project Balance also accomplish this, though I've never tried them.

Yeah, CK2+ did it for me, thanks for the tip. And I'm sticking to 1081 start, best all around I think.

 

[A_Dane]

A good point. I always wondered as to the purpose of the second 1066 bookmark since it's so close to the starting one. So many other juicy pivotal moments in history have been left out of the bookmarks but for some reason PI decided to pick one which is less than a year after the first. Now I see why.

Anyway I always stick with the first start date for more (intentionally designed) playtime but I'll look closely at this one to see the differences - if, apart from William winning, Byz and Fatimids are weaker, I'd seriously consider it.

I usually play at the earliest start dates as well, but both the Fatimids and Byzzies are considerably weaker at this point. (Though, I'm not sure you can really stop the byzzies, the main problem is that they can expand over most of the Balkans and south Italy with ease due to de jure casus belli's)

 

[NewbieOne]

I'd just pick a character, place and time on their own merits, subjective to you, i.e. in simpler words, whatever you like. Just don't hold yourself back. Whether you like the Hundred Years War period more or the Conquest or the Third Crusade, this or that part of the world, anything can feel good as long as it has appeal to you. But like others said, there are benefits from starting a little later in a long campaign, that is when William the Conqueror is already in power in England, the Byzzies have lost at Manzikert, Seljuks outpaced Fatimids, whatever else you don't want to see.

 

[clykke]

1066 gives you a longer game. Longer games are best.