New Start Date in Roads to Power (not 769)

  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I'd put money on it being either 1187 or 1204. I'd like 936, but it means carrying over (and updating) a lot of work from newer versions of CK2, and 1081 would be a lazy and redundant option given the mere 15 year difference.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
I'd love a mid-twelfth century start date that would allow us to play as the Komnenoi at the height of their power
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I'm with 1204, not only does it provide an interesting start for the Byzantine empire which will be the highlight of the DLC, but it also provides a start closer to the end-game and away from the mythical border-gore chaos that is 867, which will be more organized and closer to the Black Death, it's also closer to the end of the timeline since most people play around 200 years anyways before reaching 1453, and in my 4k hours of CK3 I have had 4-5 campaigns where I actually reached the end, I usually get bored around 1200s as the game just snowballs from there!
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
1204 in CK2 was a fun date if you like comebacks. Not just Byzantium, but also Norse paganism had all of one ruler left whose sole county had been converted under him. Also, Baltic and Finnish pagans have lost some significant ground. 249 years to come back from the brink and establish a new, great empire as any of these.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
I tried to start in 1100 in CK2 the other day, I thought that was a good start.
I did an 1144 ('The Anarchy') start in my CK2 mod, which I thought was pretty good fun.
 
I feel like almost everyone is this thread is missing the point. If you want to play a high medieval Roman Empire, what dynasty would you play: the Komnenoi. In CK2, if you wanted to play as the ERE, you didn’t pick 1066, you picked the Alexiad (the start date made and named for Alexious Komnenos).

Honestly I always picked this start date because I hate the uncertainty around who wins England in 1066, but that’s a tangent. The obvious start is 1081, not because it would be cool or different, but because it’s NECESSARY. It’s annoying to start in 1066 and know that you’re a few years short of picking the interesting famous emperor/dynasty.

Maybe I’m wrong and they do something else, but 1081 is so important to add that if they do something else, I think they would just need to add 1081 too

Think about this another way. You as the developer don’t want to add another start date. It’s a huge hurdle and you have a rule saying not to do it. But you start working on an ERE DLC, and as soon as you start doing that you get a conversation, “so if we do an ERE, we need to somehow address the Komnenoi. We could make a convoluted system to get Alexios into power, but that would take a lot of balancing and work. Why not just bring back the old Alexiad start date. We already have a lot of the history from CK2. Plus it allows us to solve the England problem and start closer to the crusades. It’s a win-win.”
 
Last edited:
  • 4Like
  • 2
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
I feel like almost everyone is this thread is missing the point. If you want to play a high medieval Roman Empire, what dynasty would you play: the Komnenoi. In CK2, if you wanted to play as the ERE, you didn’t pick 1066, you picked the Alexiad (the start date made and named for Alexious Komnenos).

Honestly I always picked this start date because I hate the uncertainty around who wins England in 1066, but that’s a tangent. The obvious start is 1081, not because it would be cool or different, but because it’s NECESSARY. It’s annoying to start in 1066 and know that you’re a few years short of picking the interesting famous emperor/dynasty.

Maybe I’m wrong and they do something else, but 1081 is so important to add that if they do something else, I think they would just need to add 1081 too

Think about this another way. You as the developer don’t want to add another start date. It’s a huge hurdle and you have a rule saying not to do it. But you start working on an ERE DLC, and as soon as you start doing that you get a conversation, “so if we do an ERE, we need to somehow address the Komnenoi. We could make a convoluted system to get Alexios into power, but that would take a lot of balancing and work. Why not just bring back the old Alexiad start date. We already have a lot of the history from CK2. Plus it allows us to solve the England problem and start closer to the crusades. It’s a win-win.”
The current setup to allow Alexios to take power is convoluted, but I don’t think adding a 1081 start date would be the best idea. There is probably a better way to have Alexios take power than the current setup or adding 1081.
 
The current setup to allow Alexios to take power is convoluted, but I don’t think adding a 1081 start date would be the best idea. There is probably a better way to have Alexios take power than the current setup or adding 1081.
Indeed there is... adding a 1058 start where you can play as Emperor Isaakios Komnenos.
 
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Indeed there is... adding a 1058 start where you can play as Emperor Isaakios Komnenos.
Ehh….
I am looking at Wikipedia right now. Unless the way succession works changes, like giving Alexios the born in purple trait and making his dad an unhistorical co emperor, that won’t work. A few historical events in the European world haven’t taken place yet, though events could be added for when triggers happen. Matilda and Henry IV were still minors. Edward the Confessor was still alive. The Seljuks hadn’t started conflict with the Byzantines. The Normans hadn’t started the campaign on Sicily yet, though Guiscard got his duke title recently.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Ehh….
I am looking at Wikipedia right now. Unless the way succession works changes, like giving Alexios the born in purple trait and making his dad an unhistorical co emperor, that won’t work. A few historical events in the European world haven’t taken place yet, though events could be added for when triggers happen. Matilda and Henry IV were still minors. Edward the Confessor was still alive. The Seljuks hadn’t started conflict with the Byzantines. The Normans hadn’t started the campaign on Sicily yet, though Guiscard got his duke title recently.
Byzantine Empire succession is currently male primogeniture(hopefully will get changes in dlc) in 1066 so Ioannes is already the heir of his brother emperor Isaakios because only son of Isaakios is already dead before 1057 and his wife Katerina is also old. PDX made it 1015 but we don't know the exact date of her birth and most likely she was older a few years. So all that is need to be done is add disinherited trait to his older two brothers. Not that I like such an approach of forced outcomes on the player but PDX like it quite much so exactly the kind of solution they would do... well not exactly since their preferred method is killing people before their time or even erasing them out of existence altogether.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Indeed there is... adding a 1058 start where you can play as Emperor Isaakios Komnenos.
Pretty funny to me he’s hesitant about 1081 being too close to 1066…so you proceed to suggest 1058 lol.

I mean realistically if we wanted the climb of Alexios Komnenos in the game, then we would have a 1076 start, the year he captures Norman lord Russel de Bailleul, the next 5 years being his quite quick rise in the ranks then usurpation as Emperor getting us to 1081. Or even 1073 where Alexios first leads troops alongside his Brother in the expedition that saw Roussel desert and create his Norman Anatolian state but both are as likely as 1058 in ever happening :(

I mean if the start is actually tied to showcase the dlc features, then neither 1081 or 1204 make sense. In 1081 the climb has just been completed for the poster boy of the start, and in 1204 there’s no Byzantine Bureaucracy to climb. That said I would still personally enjoy both starts regardless.

Ironically 936 would make more sense. The 10th century is THE century to showcase what the dlc is selling with the regencies and coemperorships of the reigns of Constantine VIII and Basil II, while having the rise and fall of many of the iconic Byzantine families like The Phokai, Skleroi, Lekapenoi and Kourkouas family.

Hence why I shill a 968 start.
 
Last edited:
  • 6Like
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
Pretty funny to me he’s hesitant about 1081 being too close to 1066…so you proceed to suggest 1058 lol.

I mean realistically if we wanted the climb of Alexios Komnenos in the game, then we would have a 1076 start, the year he captures Norman lord Russel de Bailleul, the next 5 years being his quite quick rise in the ranks then usurpation as Emperor getting us to 1081. Or even 1073 where Alexios first leads troops alongside his Brother in the expedition that saw Roussel desert and create his Norman Anatolian state but both are as likely as 1058 in ever happening :(

I mean if the start is actually tied to showcase the dlc features, then neither 1081 or 1204 make sense. In 1081 the climb has just been completed for the poster boy of the start, and in 1204 there’s no Byzantine Bureaucracy to climb. That said I would still personally enjoy both starts regardless.

Ironically 936 would make more sense. The 10th century is THE century to showcase what the dlc is selling with the regencies and coemperorships of the reigns of Constantine VIII and Basil II, while having the rise and fall of many of the iconic Byzantine families like The Phokai, Skleroi, Lekapenoi and Kourkouas family.

Hence why I shill a 968 start.
...Without acknowledging how taxing it is to research county holders between 867 and 1066. If the devs cannot manage to fix the issues (such as lack of vassals where kings and dukes are over the demesne limit on start, etc) in 867 and 1066, how can we expect them to fill an entire map worth of counties where little previous code exists? They couldn't even muster the resources to adequately touch up the setting in both 867 and 1066 for the Legacy of Persia flavor pack. I don't see it happening.

It would have to be after 1066. The closer to 1066 the less work is required due to existing rulers. It doesn't mean they can't go for something closer to the Fourth Crusade ofc, but I don't see them going further beyond that. My playthroughs end after 200 years anyway, IDK the statistics, but I'd wager most people drop it by then.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1Haha
  • 1
Reactions:
Pretty funny to me he’s hesitant about 1081 being too close to 1066…so you proceed to suggest 1058 lol.

I mean realistically if we wanted the climb of Alexios Komnenos in the game, then we would have a 1076 start, the year he captures Norman lord Russel de Bailleul, the next 5 years being his quite quick rise in the ranks then usurpation as Emperor getting us to 1081. Or even 1073 where Alexios first leads troops alongside his Brother in the expedition that saw Roussel desert and create his Norman Anatolian state but both are as likely as 1058 in ever happening :(

I mean if the start is actually tied to showcase the dlc features, then neither 1081 or 1204 make sense. In 1081 the climb has just been completed for the poster boy of the start, and in 1204 there’s no Byzantine Bureaucracy to climb. That said I would still personally enjoy both starts regardless.

Ironically 936 would make more sense. The 10th century is THE century to showcase what the dlc is selling with the regencies and coemperorships of the reigns of Constantine VIII and Basil II, while having the rise and fall of many of the iconic Byzantine families like The Phokai, Skleroi, Lekapenoi and Kourkouas family.

Hence why I shill a 968 start.
It was meant as a joke but no harm in squeezing some info in it. After all, lack of characters is my main complaint.

We may see Roussel de Bailleul as one of the adventurers. He already exists in game and I remember suggesting to make him one of the adventurers in a thread about adventurers either opened by the devs or graced by the presence of the devs.

920s would be more interesting with all the fighting with Bulgaria and Simeon making his moves to eventually take over the empire or as his son Peter.
Byzantine Struggle would also almost certainly be in Balkans as it would've been more fitting to put a struggle on the eastern front in Legacy of Persia DLC but we didn't get such a struggle so two start dates with the struggle and perhaps 1066 start as well seeing how there were several rebellions the closest being Georgi Vojtech's in 1071.

...Without acknowledging how taxing it is to research county holders between 867 and 1066. If the devs cannot manage to fix the issues (such as lack of vassals where kings and dukes are over the demesne limit on start, etc) in 867 and 1066, how can we expect them to fill an entire map worth of counties where little previous code exists? They couldn't even muster the resources to adequately touch up the setting in both 867 and 1066 for the Legacy of Persia flavor pack. I don't see it happening.

It would have to be after 1066. The closer to 1066 the less work is required due to existing rulers. It doesn't mean they can't go for something closer to the Fourth Crusade ofc, but I don't see them going further beyond that. My playthroughs end after 200 years anyway, IDK the statistics, but I'd wager most people drop it by then.
Not so taxing judging by the research put into 867 and 1066 starts as you have pointed out.
 
Last edited:
Not so taxing judging by the research put into 867 and 1066 starts as you have pointed out.
They owe most of it to CK2. What the devs put into CK3 is overall good (Iberia has some glaring Wikipedia issues but whatever) but they don't have the resources to do the whole start date justice.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
They owe most of it to CK2. What the devs put into CK3 is overall good (Iberia has some glaring Wikipedia issues but whatever) but they don't have the resources to do the whole start date justice.
Yeah what I meant was it is bad.
 
Byzantine Struggle would also almost certainly be in Balkans as it would've been more fitting to put a struggle on the eastern front in Legacy of Persia DLC but we didn't get such a struggle so two start dates with the struggle and perhaps.
In the roadmap DD the devs stated that the Caucasus were a region they were interested in doing a flavor pack for, so I imagine that a hypothetical struggle on Byzantium's eastern frontier would come with that DLC.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Apparently I'm in the minority here, because I would love, love, love to see a much earlier start date. There was an old CK2 mod I loved, The Bronze Age, which added a 1 CE start date. You could play as Judea and try to survive against Rome, or you could go a little later and pick the Himyarite Kingdom and survive long enough to fight off the rise of Mohammed and the Muslims.
I wanted to play it through to 1400's and then import a radically changed timeline into EU4, but it became unplayable before then.
I miss it so much.