Does anybody NOT start their games from 1066?

[cybrxkhan]

Reading through the forums, I get the impression that the overwhelming majority of the players here play games from the 1066 start and not after. I was wondering if anybody else, like me, prefers to start at certain later dates, and why? Or, heck, why do a lot of players seem to prefer playing from the 1066 start (or at least that's my impression)? I guess it's simply to have a longer, and thus more rewarding game?

I like to choose later dates for different roleplaying purposes, I suppose, or rather to put myself into scenarios that I personally find more interesting; for instance, in one of my games, starting in 1337, I played as a Renaissance-era Italian noble seeking to unite the fractured Italian states - I succeeded in creating a Kingdom of Italy, though the game ended with my Middle Eastern-looking king reigning over a Kingdom that just recovered from a bloody series of civil wars following the death of the first king; in another game, starting right after the Byzantine reclamation of Constantinople, I played as a generation of loyal Byzantine dukes trying to help the Emperor/Empress return Byzantium to its former glory (no matter how terribly atrocious the Emperor/Empress was). I also suppose I also have a bit of an obsession with wanting to start a game when the Byzantines are under the Komnenian or Palaiologan dynasties, and not wanting to start a game when William the Conqueror's position isn't secure (I have a bit of a soft spot for him for some reason).

 

[louie97]

I usually start later because I can spend money on things other than holdings.

 

[Mercury Knuckle]

An earlier start usually means a larger endgame score, but sometimes I like to do random starts.

First, I use this site to pick a random date between 2066 and 2337 (Note: I had to offset the date by 1000 years because it doesn't do dates from before the Gregorian Calendar). And set the starting date to match

Then I open the Definition.csv file pick a random number between 1 and 922 (with Random.org of course) and play as whoever owns that province (be it a count or a king, whatever). If you can't play with that demesne (pagan, bishopric, etc.) pick another number.

Hit play and go!

That's the only time I changed the dates.

 

[NezzeOne]

I usually start at 1066, yeah. And you're right -- to me, a longer game is often a more rich and fulfilling one.

That said, I have been playing around with starting an Ottoman game. Not exactly a lot of time to play, but it'd still be cool.

 

[Beric Dondarion]

I don't start at 1066, I pick later dates for historical nerdy reasons.

 

[Moltke]

The only time I've ever not started at 'Stamford Bridge' was once when I attempted a Geoffrey Plantagenet game. I ran into some really bad luck and was exterminated, however. The House of Anjou in 1066 is more fun anyway since you can stab William the Bastard in the back while he's playing soldier in England.

A lot of interesting things are happening in the early 12 century though, so I can understand why people enjoy starting around there.

 

[MrWeRD]

I only start at 1066 because I want the option to play as long as possible if I wanted to, but the longest I've played was to around the early 1300s. Most games, I usually stop at the mid 1200s.

 

[unmerged(528466)]

I only start at 1066 because I want the option to play as long as possible if I wanted to, but the longest I've played was to around the early 1300s. Most games, I usually stop at the mid 1200s.

Haha I am exactly the same, for some odd reason I feel I am missing out, and would be annoyed if the game ended before I had done the things I wanted. In saying that, I have never ever played the game till the end, infact not even to 50 years before the end, maybe I should try some of these other dates out. Not too sure if they work with mods though (Prince and the Thane if anyone knows the anwser.)

 

[Martellus.]

I like starting 1076/1077 (before Rum exists and after the conquest of Anatolia by Seljuq). The progression in the Near East is so, SO much better, as Fatimid doesn't blob and Seljuq always collapses anyways.

 

[KPJ]

Completely agree with Martellus, a mid-late 1070s start is significantly better than 1066 for balance.

That said, I usually start even later than that, because I find this game gets unwieldy and unfun with a very large empire, which I can't help but controlling by 2-3 centuries of play. Furthermore, at later start dates there are other interesting characters to play.

 

[mcpenguin]

I like to start around 1150. Iberia is fairly broken up to ensure christian AI gets a chance and the middle-east is pretty much chopped to pieces so I don't see major blobbing right away in my games.

 

[Comradebot]

My current game was a 1122 start.

 

[Vindahl]

I usually pick 1066, because I dont want to jump right into an excisting family... I rather like to start from scratch, build up my own lands from nothing, and start my family from the beginning, picking the wife from the start, naming my own heirs and so on... And also, it is interesting to see the realms change from game to game, and in 1066 Sep. they have the ultimate freedom to go their own ways...

However, I do sometime play later startdates, if I want to play shorter games, or where the world look a little different concerning the realms, or just if there is something interesting happering, like the Byzantine empire has fallen, and I wanna play as one of those new Dukes, or if I want to play as a crusading nation, I go to a time where the crusader states look like what I want...

 

[Westernesse]

Varies based on who I want to play, over 50% are prob 1066 though. I've also done one in 1070s as Welf (when they first get a county), 1081 for Komemos restoration, 1322 for an independant count Renaissance unification of Italy, which got way out of control and ended up with me conquering almost all of the HRE (county by county, was often fighting with better tech, terrain and leaders, but heavily outnumbered even when they had other wars) and ERE along with everything around the Mediterranean. Plantaget start, also did an el cid and first crusade jerusalem.

Really, how about we start a topic about interesting dynasties to play and what time period? I think people just don't know so they pick a 1066 one, if you give 100 different interesting/challening dynasties in a none 1066 year in a list then people can random 100 and pick one.

 

[Vindahl]

Really, how about we start a topic about interesting dynasties to play and what time period? I think people just don't know so they pick a 1066 one, if you give 100 different interesting/challening dynasties in a none 1066 year in a list then people can random 100 and pick one.

Sounds like a great idea, I think it would help a lot... As long as it is taken into consideration that some people like to start out as a count and some as a King...

 

[Haresus]

I like 1066 myself. Played as William, Irish counts, the last Karling of Vermandois, the Duke of Bohemia and the Count of Olomouc, Iberian Muslims... There is a lot to do, essentially.

 

[knppel]

Since I saw the differences in the 1077 start in a multiplayer round I usually prefer that date, reasons are already listed, less blob in Egypt, weaker Byzantium etc.
Even for the HRE it's making more sense as Heinrich IV. already took the Duchy of Bavaria back on him.
And William is King of England.
So yeah, unless I aim to blob myself and maximize my score (for which I obviously start in 1066) I'd not call it one of my prefered starting dates.

 

[Kanin_Usagi]

The Ottomans are pretty fun to try out, so I started a game pretty late with them (before Byzantine defeat was inevitable, of course). And I enjoy the challenge of being the King of Jerusalem in the super early years.

 

[TheGreatSnoop]

I've always started at 1066 for a few reasons...

1. If the game is about building your dynasty, then it makes sense to give yourself the most time to do so.

2. It's always fun to be able to watch England be fought over, plus the outcome of the Norman Conquest/Norwegian Invasion can drastically affect the game, or at least England. The Anglo-Saxon houses can fall into complete ruin or march forward into later centuries, England can become Norwegian and, in my game, I've seen a Norwegian Shetland house overthrow the house of Harald Hardrade's line and his descendants become the new royal house of England and not Norway.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

I often start in 1205.