Please expand game to 600 AD and to 1600 AD.

[markmid]

Its about degrees of scale, a few hundred years with government types to reflect that is perfectly plausible. I've said before lower crown laws, and lower moral authority would do much of this, until its built up through historical/ahistorical acts. At lower crown laws, might makes right and feuding would be more common until a kingdom establishes itself, at lower moral authority heresy and such would be more likely.

An alternative scenario takes less man hours to set up, as you can keep much of it in place, and just throw certain things in.

Dark Ages is and always has been an untapped resource, but like many have said the further you go back the harder it gets to find reliable (non conflicting) information. It is 'his'-story after all.

 

[LYNCHY]

I think a dark ages game would be amazing, but 16th century? come on, we already have EU3

 

[No idea]

600 AD to 1600 AD? That´s too much, IMHO. Starting at 900 AD would be enough to get a good glimpse at the Dark Ages. And I think the end year should be 1453, (historical year of Constantinople´s – and ERE – fall and beginning of the so called Modern Age in Europe).

 

[Thure]

Germany or the HRE work complitly different before 1000. Before 1000 there aren't families. The Duchies and Counties aren't hereditary. The Emperor/King says who will became count. And the research for the Gaus would be a absolutly hell. This time doesn't work with CK2. It must be a own game. The ages before 1000 aren't concepted for a dynastic game like CKII.

I know a game for this time, which is similar to older EU games. Great Invasions: The Darkages 350-1066. I think they use a old paradox engine for it.

 

[NewbieOne]

The problem with early starting dates is that, while it'd be lovely to play them, quite a lot would need to be different on the map and many of the de iure entities would lose sense. Before a certain date, the North and East would need to be a mass of chieftains that could go in extremely unpredictable ways, far beyond what a Stamford-start Europe looks like in the 1400-s. Succession for counts would need to resemble that of Catholic bishops in Free Investiture and duchies should, at a minimum, be BYZ-style, i.e. no opinion penalty for revocation due to lack of heredity... which would complicate things for those dukes that actually were hereditary, or for converted chieftains.

But there actually was a game set in that period IIRC.

As for past 1453, that's just EU (which starts already in 1399). It does feel bad to leave the game abruptly with so many opportunities not yet realised and so on but to keep it realistic one would probably have to develop a kind of fiction that e.g. gunpowder, renaissance and social changes didn't take Europe to new places. Which isn't that unrealistic. Who knows, for example, if there'd had been any renaissance with a pre-Manzikert BYZ going strong until 1453.

 

[cybrxkhan]

I think expanding the game to right before the Reformation and/or the colonization of the Americas (although I personally think the latter could be done through decisions and events) is within the scope of the game, as Europe was still largely feudal at the time (and still very much so in a sense until the Treaty of Westphalia). I also think 1492 is just as appropriate as an end for CKII as 1453 is, since it is the year Columbus "discovered" America, and the year the Moors were kicked out of Spain, ending the Reconquista. Expanding the timeline to 1492 would also include the Wars of the Roses, the early part of the Renaissance (great for a Republic-themed DLC!), and a bit of the rise of the Ottomans. The only issue I see is how gunpowder could be simulated in-game, but even then the only really effective "guns" at the time were the big huge primitive cannons (which, like colonizing the Americas, could be done through decisions and events, particularly during sieges).

 

[Emre Yigit]

I, ahem, disagree. For various reasons. 600 is just too damn difficult to figure out, and would likely involve a Byzantine WC. And who is there to Crusade against? Even in a later start, in addition to the ones mentioned above, there are a few obvious balance issues. I'd like to point out the fact that, say, in 800 France would be in renewed jeopardy from a united Muslim Spain and if you thought that the Fatimids in their decline were troublesome, wait until you encounter the Abbasids in the afternoon of their glory. Might make for a boring game.... The Crusade CB would not exist, but the Jihad CB would be in full force. The result would be minarets in Edinburgh and Moscow, PDQ.

And extending the game beyond the late 14th century is problematic, because the game is not set up to deal with the "modern" monarchies.

 

[unmerged(393521)]

I almost wet my pants at the prospect of playing as proper Romanos Lekapenos , Basileios II Boulgaroktonos or Heraclius <3 @___@

I also think 1492 is just as appropriate as an end for CKII as 1453 is, since it is the year Columbus "discovered" America, and the year the Moors were kicked out of Spain, ending the Reconquista. Expanding the timeline to 1492 would also include the Wars of the Roses, the early part of the Renaissance (great for a Republic-themed DLC!), and a bit of the rise of the Ottomans.

1492 sounds alright to me always treated this as a definite end of the Middle Ages .

 

[Me_]

What's the point of expanding the game to 1492 if most players quit before 1453?

 

[Emre Yigit]

When did the game get expanded to 1453??

 

[Me_]

When did the game get expanded to 1453??

On release date.

 

[Thure]

When did the game get expanded to 1453??

You can allways play untill 1453. But you can only start until 1337

 

[unmerged(271387)]

Thanks god paradox doesn't listen too much to your people's ideas.

 

[Emre Yigit]

Silly me, sorry it's been awhile! Of course, 1453! I just got confused with the last start date.

 

[cybrxkhan]

What's the point of expanding the game to 1492 if most players quit before 1453?

For the players who play late starts and want to enjoy some more time for the late-game experience. Not everybody starts in 1066.

 

[Spartanlemur]

I don't see why we have people responding by shooting down the idea of timeline expansion. How is that productive in any way or form? I think reasonable argument has been laid out for rolling it backwards by a lot and forwards by a bit, so please, lets keep this constructive and not dismissive.

 

[ziamatt]

I don't see why we have people responding by shooting down the idea of timeline expansion. How is that productive in any way or form? I think reasonable argument has been laid out for rolling it backwards by a lot and forwards by a bit, so please, lets keep this constructive and not dismissive.

Reasonable argument has also been laid out for why that's unlikely to happen, at least in CK2. How is going on about how awesome an extended timeline would be without addressing any issues like the difficulty of researching the time period any more constructive?

 

[cybrxkhan]

Reasonable argument has also been laid out for why that's unlikely to happen, at least in CK2. How is going on about how awesome an extended timeline would be without addressing any issues like the difficulty of researching the time period any more constructive?

Agreed, couldn't have stated it better.

 

[markmid]

Reasonable argument has also been laid out for why that's unlikely to happen, at least in CK2. How is going on about how awesome an extended timeline would be without addressing any issues like the difficulty of researching the time period any more constructive?

Actually it doesn't seem that hard back a few hundred years, just do some poking around online. NB I am not speaking to a 600 start, 100 or 200 years back seems more doable if at all.

 

[Spartanlemur]

Reasonable argument has also been laid out for why that's unlikely to happen, at least in CK2. How is going on about how awesome an extended timeline would be without addressing any issues like the difficulty of researching the time period any more constructive?

No problem with people saying that it would be great although unlikely. My issue was with people simply dismissing it. Maybe 600AD is too early, but as I mentioned earlier, much of the characters are already implemented (in ancestry in 1066). There is just the case of filling in the gaps and defining borders.