How is 769 "imbalanced?"

[iron0037]

Since the release of Charlemagne, I've seen dozens of forumites label the 769 bookmark as "imbalanced." Can someone explain what is meant by that and what changes you'd make to correct the situation?

Is it that...

• You don't consider the bookmark historically accurate? If so, what errors do you observe?
• You dislike that many of the characters are fictional? If so, how would you fix this? How is this a balance issue?
  
• You don't like that there are giant blobs? If so, would you adjust it at the expense of historical accuracy?*
  
• You don't like that the game leads to ahistorical outcomes? If so, how is this different/worse than other start dates?
• Something else?

I'm trying to understand if it's the database (title, province, and character histories) or the game engine (AI, rules definitions, laws, etc) that is the root cause of the complaint. It might also help if you identify what start dates are balanced better in your opinion and why you think that. Thanks!

* It can be argued that the Abbasids are already nerfed from historical reality. At the time, rulers of remote provinces were governors appointed by the caliph, thus they should have ducal viceroys like Byzantium. Several realms are set as tributaries rather than being direct vassals.

 

[StarSword]

The main complaint I see is specifically that the Islamic countries are super-strong and the Christian ones other than Lombardy and Byzantium super-weak, which makes it ridiculously hard to play as the Spaniards in particular: they nearly always get steamrolled by the Umayyads, which is NOT historically accurate. The game doesn't simulate big empires like Islamic Spain cracking under their own weight very well, and the Muslims have fewer civil wars than Christians (in large part because of lack of elective succession for vassals to faction for).

 

[Boodas]

People hate that the Muslim Powers (Abbasids & Umayyads) role over everything and basically become immortal. Meanwhile the Christian Empire's (Charlemagne & Byzantium) usually fail. Charles or Karlmann either die to early ruining any chance of an Empire or just get rolled over by the Umayyad empire. Byzantium being the Iconoclastic heresy is to busy with internal problems to stop the Abbasid steam role. Asturias stands no chance against the Umayyads. The pagans (mainly the Norse) get their raiding tech and raze the last inkling of Catholic moral authority. Heresy spreads and the world turns into Green/Gold around the Mediterranean. With millions of pagan raiders crushing the north.

By 1066 Catholicism/Orthodoxy is all but dead, HRE is no where to be found, France is fully Muslim, and Germany is either heretics or ruled by the Viking/Slavic pagans. England is... well... it depends honestly. The steppes are a wild card and India usually just does its own thing.

 

[Less2]

As a general rule Muslim succession is very imba and OP for the AI which is otherwise handicapped at managing succession.

On the flip side Gavelkind is very, very bad for the AI and causes nations to disintegrate into a clusterfuck. AI rulers that don't have a single dejure kingdom or empire will swiftly become a confetti nation upon first succession with 2 or more children.

As you can see, 769 is the start date with the highest muslim power and the most catholic states that are running gavelkind and who are almost certainly going to collapse.

Iberia is shown as being majority Catholic, but by CK2 mechanics this is fairly irrelevant since all of the rulers down to the counts are Sunni. By CK2 mechanics the only way to have a 'real' revolt is if Dukes and Counts are the ones starting the revolt, but this will not happen because they are Sunni. Because of this the only effect of being Muslim and ruling over a land almost entirely made of Catholics is that a few minor revolts will happen randomly and the region swiftly becomes Sunni.

The Pagans are just annoying. So many independent states raiding and the AI is basically incapable of reforming their religion to create something that has a chance of lasting.

 

[Asiak]

I have seen the Umayyads fall to a decadence revolt once and the Abbasids twice. Yes the number of times they do not still out weighs the number of times they don't.

But the reality is decadence isn't broken anymore, it just isn't going to be all the time.

 

[kviiri]

I don't know about the balance of 769 start itself, but I think it's an excellent showcase of problems the game has in general. 769 prominently features a huge gavelkind realm - Gavelkind realms split badly, where real life Karling empire split fairly neatly CK2 tends to produce messy borders that look like Jackson Pollock paintings.

As of the non-gk big realms, they're Byzantines and Abbasids, and since the game is very kind on blobs they tend to start large and stay large. They lack viable competition in the 769 start. CK2 tries to go for "small guys have small problems, big guys have big problems", but it falls short of these ideals.

 

[WSnova]

The bookmark by itself is fine.

The imbalanced thing are the blobs and this bookmark starts with the biggest blobs.

 

[Anastasius]

I don't know honestly,since the latest patches and the Conclave DLC I honestly don't see how are the Abbasids or Umayyads a real threat. The Abbasids shatter most the time early on,the Umayyads don't seem to have the inner stability to blob as they used to,sure they take Asturias in a few bites,but they no longer get to Bavaria within a generation either.
Europe is in complete anarchy that is true,catholic moral authority is usually down to 0 within 50 years,due to Rome itself getting invaded by a norse germanic adventurer waaay to often successfully. There is just no reaction to this from the catholic monarchs,they are too busy fighting heretics and their own vassals.
The ERE is still one of the most stable realms,although they seems to have a difficult time with the endless civil wars,they handle them better then the Catholics.
All in all I don't like this start date either,but I find myself unable to start in a later one,it's like having a Stockholm syndrome.

 

[Arimahn]

The start date was never balanced to begin with. At first the Carolingian Empire fell apart almost immediately without ever properly reforming. Now the Muslims gobble up Aquitaine with regularity. The AI just can't handle the setup.

 

[BD13]

Charles usually dies too young to create an Empire and then Gravelkind rips France apart. Hispania almost always ends up being made and it almost always eats up a very broken France.

This is what 9 out of my 10 of my CM bookmark playthroughs look like.

Spoiler: pics

 

[Anastasius]

Charles usually dies too young to create an Empire and then Gravelkind rips France apart. Hispania almost always ends up being made and it almost always eats up a very broken France.

This is what 9 out of my 10 of my CM bookmark playthroughs look like.

Spoiler: pics

View attachment 171488 View attachment 171489 View attachment 171490

You think that's bad,you must have forgotten how it was after TOG was released...

 

[iron0037]

So what I'm hearing is "the shortcomings of CK2's game mechanics become more apparent at the 769 start date because of the particularly dissatisfying ahistorical outcomes it produces." Is that a fair assessment?

If that's the case, then I find it curious that 769 gets bashed so heavily whereas 867 gets a free pass. Really, none of the bookmarks lead to reasonable outcomes in my experience; 769 simply has more time for things to go further astray. I also find it interesting that no one complains about the stability of the Byzantines. In most of my games (at any start date), they go on some ahistorical expansion bender.

 

[dragoon9105]

867 has the Benefit of at least 1/3 the time the Karlings murder each other to such an extent someone manages to form the HRE through decision. That and literally all the Kingdoms in Europe are allied so they can better Jump on the Muslims when Crusades fire.

Also people play 769 more becuase it's an earlier date. People usually always pick the earliest date and then just quit in the 1200's rather than pick 1066 and play all the way through.

 

[Soylent Dave]

Part of the problem is that much of Europe should really be in a 'not quite feudal but more than tribal' state of affairs, which the game can't really simulate - it makes a decent stab at it with lots of small feudal realms, but then these are really weak vs. the relatively unified Muslims and raiding pagans.

The other problem is - as people have noted - that this situation exacerbates other issues with the engine; the smaller, weaker, Catholic states look even weaker by comparison to the Islamic empires (whose internal turmoil is less catastrophic and tends toward keeping the realm - and the faith - relatively strong). Although to be fair, this isn't particularly ahistorical - the Catholic nations were divided and relatively weak at the time (Karl excepted), and the Caliphate did steamroller its way across Spain, with Asturias alone barely holding on.

Personally, I think one of the more obvious issues is that Asturias - and to a lesser degree other historically 'hard to conquer' (or 'not worth the effort to conquer') regions like Scotland - aren't actually hard to conquer. There are terrain modifiers, and supply issues... but they don't make enough of a difference.

Should such terrain modifiers be a lot higher for mountainous regions, making defence easier? I can see why they're not 'high enough', because how high would they have to be to give tiny nations a chance against massive ones (as often happened historically), and how frustrating for the player would that be if they were?

 

[Llyw olaf]

Also people play 769 more becuase it's an earlier date. People usually always pick the earliest date and then just quit in the 1200's rather than pick 1066 and play all the way through.

Which is very disappointing and means that a future CK3 will very likely only have a "Total War" style grand campaign.
I could accept the loss of being able to choose any start date, but having only one bookmark to start from? I would hate that, especially with the range of historical characters and dynasties I can choose from CK's period, I love that type of uniqueness Paradox offer's compared to other games.
Going by forum posts and let's plays I know I'm in the minority in not primarily choosing 769 for every campaign, it and 1337 are my least played, I just hope that the Crusader Kings series will at least keep more than one bookmark/scenario in any future games.

 

[Zolotaya]

I disagree with most posting in this thread.

 

[Runite]

I agree with the post above my post.

 

[Dr Gonzo]

I agree with the two posts above my post.

 

[shiro the bushi]

I agree with one of the three posts above me

 

[Aries666]

Ummyads...