And if they give us that start at least a count under Charlemagne should play different than a count in 1250..
Start dates
- Thread starter ernst_earnest
- Start date
-
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.
769 was the best start date in CK2 due to the longevity of the game along with what was going on in the map throughout history with events.
One of the biggest failures and missed opportunities in CK2 was not including the Battle of Tours which is considered one of the most defining battles of human history which was even earlier than 720
I'd personally like to see it go all the way back to the end of the Rashidun Caliphate where the Umayyads start to take power and expand which is the true start of the Middle Ages IMHO
769 was probably the worst of the added start dates post-release. way too many blobs and it just turned into nonsense 99% of the time
Right, let's ignore immersion and historicity of one of the most important time periods in human history because of "muh parity and muh blobs"
One of the most, if not the most pivotal batenof the Middle Ages was the Battle of Tours and not including it again in your 3rd medieval RPG simulator is not only a disservice to fans, but also history as a whole.
Actually from a historical perspective the battle of tours was not really that important. In general most "decisive" battles were not that important as most people attribute to them.
I've said it often enough before about CK2, and might as well say it here. I'd much prefer later start dates, when the era better aligns with game mechanics, and more famous names take the stage. The Norman Conquest and First, Third, and Fourth Crusades are all well and good, but give me more focus on Charles of Anjou's nascent Sicilian empire, the Scottish independence wars, the Hundred Years' War, Byzantium of the Palaiologoi, the rise of Tamerlane, and the Wars of the Roses and I'll be over the moon. Crusader Kings derives the richness of its gameplay from its cast of characters, and the later medieval period delivers on characters in every way imaginable.
The sieges of Constantinople were actually far more important than the battle of Tours.
I also think that the later start dates provide more opportunities for political intrigue and character interaction than the earlier ones. However, I never got why many people tend to only play the early ones - while they are angry about ahistorical outcomes and blobbing and never finish to the end year - which are products of the early start dates!
Honestly, the biggest reason I and others I know only played the earlier start dates is that there was pretty clearly a lot more effort put into them - later start dates often lumped a large number of titles onto a smaller pool of rulers, excluding not-insignificant historical figures, had more inaccuracies in terms of birth and death dates, and generally wasn't as mechanically balanced as the earlier periods. I think if this game were to cultivate later starts and invest as much time and effort into making them an interesting starting point, they would get just as much, and probably more, players than the earlier periods.
More start dates makes sense for CK2. For EU4 most only used 1444 and the situation would be similar with Imperator. With CK2 afaik the starting date that players choose is much more spread out and so it justifies the inclusion of such a feature.
Though I am 100% certain that the option to start from ANY date, as in down to each individual day, is gone for good. Barely anyone used that, and it takes a lot of effort to put in so isn't justifiable. Rather I am certain that they'll introduce a handful of set start dates and develop those. For example, a 867 start date, 1066 start date, 1204 start date and maybe 1337. That way you have Viking Age, Conquest of England (they might split it into 2 so you can play as harold or william, or maybe just start with harold), Fall of Constantinople and 1337 for late middle ages.
Though I am 100% certain that the option to start from ANY date, as in down to each individual day, is gone for good. Barely anyone used that, and it takes a lot of effort to put in so isn't justifiable. Rather I am certain that they'll introduce a handful of set start dates and develop those. For example, a 867 start date, 1066 start date, 1204 start date and maybe 1337. That way you have Viking Age, Conquest of England (they might split it into 2 so you can play as harold or william, or maybe just start with harold), Fall of Constantinople and 1337 for late middle ages.
Thank you! Why on earth would I want to play a game that matches up perfectly with actual history from beginning to end? I know exactly how that turns out, sooner or later I always lose, and 90% of it as boring as hell. If I want history, I'll read a book.
Map imbalances and not actually reflecting the government at the time are one thing, but being upset that the map "eventually" becomes "nonsense" are whining that the late game is boring (up for debate) or they are whining about what inevitably happens in all strategy games. Name me one strategy game that doesn't eventually become either border gore or blobbing if you play it long enough.
hopefully not
let's reserve it for a Dark-ages era game. The world of Crusader kings was very different from the one of Charlemagne
Only a tiny portion of the player base will even notice. The reason they moved away from the open range style of start date, is because less then 10% of the player base ever plays outside the earliest start date they can. Why devote resources to something that no one uses, when you can devote it to the aspects the overwhelming majority do?
769 was great started date because of the chaos existed. Byzantine Empire in chaos because of the Iconomachy. The fractured central Europe during Charlemagne campaign.
The upcoming start of the Sunni vs Shia civil war. The Lateran Council.
867 is one of the most stable period for blobbing. The Byzantine empire is solid under Bazil I. So are the west kingdoms including Britain.
Also "blobbing" is something that occurs when you try. I wonder how many started as just simple counts under 3 higher ranks above them.
Like the count of Naxos in 769 start. To "blob" is impossible even by 1100AD, however doing a solo crusade as a bottom tier count to form the Kingdom of Jerusalem feels like a great achievement. Or start as a Patrician in Amalfi and play without mass murdering the other families.
Also some of the mechanics feel more suited to the Late Middle Ages than to earlier dates, like Mercenary Free Companies and fixed succession laws.