The devs say they will not be focusing on making multiple start dates any more

[TyroniusRex]

I think this is a fair decision as it allows for time to spent elsewhere, improving and polishing the game.

Anyway I've enjoyed many of the start dates for the different experiences they give but these days I mostly play 1066 as i simply prefer to play closer to the historic crusading era and I also appreciate that it seems more 'balanced' and a little less chaotic in terms of huuuge blobs or border gore, but at the same time I hate the thought of possibly not having the earlier starts anymore for those runs where you want a 700 year old chinese icelandic merchant republic run for some reason, if that makes any sense.

I guess i just dont know what i hate more, the thought of losing the more free sandboxy feel of the charlie start, or losing the historical value of starts like the 1081 start that provide some nerd like me with historical immersion and fun characters to play as that actually existed !

Oh god paradox dont make me choose

Edit: im talking about a hypothetical scenario involving CK3, not the ck2 we have now

 

[kmh42]

Where did they say that?

 

[Crenickator]

How exactly would they get rid of the Charlie start when that's one of the main DLC features?

Did Paradox have some kind of executive shift or something lately? After Stellaris 2.0, now CK2 devs are wanting to cut features?

 

[Z-Z-Z]

This not the news I wanted to hear today. Who told you this?

 

[Rags17]

Speaking as as guy who had to manually edit 1355 province history files (and not the hundreds of ducal, King tier and Empire tier titles too) I can say that what PDX needs is a custom utility that spits out title histories on demand. I made a simple one for my mod, they need something a bit more complex to fill in entire histories.

 

[EricTheGreat12]

I think this is a fair decision as it allows for time to spent elsewhere, improving and polishing the game.

Anyway I've enjoyed many of the start dates for the different experiences they give but these days I mostly play 1066 as i simply prefer to play closer to the historic crusading era and I also appreciate that it seems more 'balanced' and a little less chaotic in terms of huuuge blobs or border gore, but at the same time I hate the thought of possibly not having the earlier starts anymore for those runs where you want a 700 year old chinese icelandic merchant republic run for some reason, if that makes any sense.

I guess i just dont know what i hate more, the thought of losing the more free sandboxy feel of the charlie start, or losing the historical value of starts like the 1081 start that provide some nerd like me with historical immersion and fun characters to play as that actually existed !

Oh god paradox dont make me choose

The poster's comment and title contradict each other, as the title says that they'll stop developing new start dates where as the comment states that they are cutting the Charlemagne and Viking start dates. OP is a pathetic troll, and unfortunately his comments were taken seriously

 

[Rationalsanity]

The later (post 1066) dates don't get as much support as the first three, that's true. And they'll probably be dropped if/when CK3 is a thing (as we saw in HOI4). But there's no way they'd cut existing dates in CK2, they'll just keep ignoring them.

 

[TyroniusRex]

Sorry i should have made it clearer i was referring to comments made by paradox devs that they find it could be a large waste of time to make so many start dates when their polls suggest that the vast majority of people say they usally play from the earliest start date : this suggests to me that in a hypothetical CK3 for example we would likely see FEWER and perhaps one or two (a la HOI4) start dates, so with this in mind, I suppose my question really is: if you were forced to choose only one start date for ck3 what would you choose?

Sorry everyone first time poster didnt mean to scare you all with my confusing wording and aimless rambling i work 14 hour shifts at a care job right now and ck2 is like the drugs habit that gets me thru life so i probably dont talk much sense

More replies appreciated!

 

[Rationalsanity]

Definitely 1066, or a date close to it. And one date with a few more religions being viable, so 867.

 

[caedussl]

It makes sense to cut all the start dates after 1066, but 867 and 769 are very popular. Unless they wanted to split the eras (have CK only be a High Middle Ages game, and make another one for the period in between Rome and CK), it doesn't make sense. It would alienate so many players.

 

[Parafoudre]

I discovered the gamea few weeks before TOG came out, so I played a few days with 1066... But since TOG came out, never played in anything but 769 & 867. I didn't even try.

 

[Heiliges Thüringens Reich]

Damn, I was expecting CK3 with MORE start dates.

Well, while I usually play in the 769 start, 867 is nice too (always start my Georgia games there). Heck, even the 1337 one is interesting (had a game as Lombardy coming close to unify Italy before 1453, but the new patches killed it).

 

[faiuwle]

Ideally CK3 would have roughly the same number of bookmarks but eliminate the ability to pick any day of any year between 1066 and 1337 to play on. I would guess that the vast majority of players never play any date that isn't a bookmark, but having to set up starts for every single possible day was probably very taxing on the devs.

 

[Thure]

Ideally CK3 would have roughly the same number of bookmarks but eliminate the ability to pick any day of any year between 1066 and 1337 to play on. I would guess that the vast majority of players never play any date that isn't a bookmark, but having to set up starts for every single possible day was probably very taxing on the devs.

Yeah. Even if it's sad because I really love some of the scenarios which are hidden between the start dates.

 

[Ruwaard]

Yeah. Even if it's sad because I really love some of the scenarios which are hidden between the start dates.

This, various regions have rather interesting periods, outside of the bookmarked ones. OTOH CK II started out with 4 start dates (2 in 1066), which got expanded along the way. Though I like the later additions, I still like 1066 best and I'm also fond of the 1337 start date.
CK III will probably lose some bookmarked start dates; 867, 1066, 1337 and maybe 769 (depending on start date of the entire game) seem safe, but the bookmarks between 1066 and 1337 definitely won't all come back.

 

[Bernard95]

This is very old news, but yes Paradox has zero interest in doing multiple bookmarks in any of their games going forward because the vast majority of players only play the first bookmark.

 

[Black Turtle]

Johan and probably other devs as well have said that less than 1% of the player base use bookmarks that aren't 1444 or anything after 1066. I can see CK3 having maybe three bookmarks, and that's pushing it, but they definitely will not have the year by year bookmarks like in CK2. It'll probably just be 1066 and maybe 867 or 769, but anything else would be a complete waste of dev time.

 

[JonathanOfArc]

I mostly play 867 and 1066. With some 769 and what is it, 1204? The start with the Latin Empire. I like the different starts, they all change a lot for me and the type of game I'm playing in each. The fact you can pick any day after the 1066 bookmark is probably not necessary but it's one of those things that always wow'd me. Sometimes I like playing around 1066 but I'll move ahead a few years when I want a weakened Byzantium. In the 1070's their starting land is less and less, but you're essentially still playing with a mostly 1066 type start. It's likely a ton of work though so if it didn't show up in a CK3 I'd understand but hope there are at least 3 bookmarks, each with a different time and feel to them. It's makes sense for HOI to only have 2 but CK2's time spawn is much larger and if there is only 1066, or only 769 since that's what most people play, there will never be a chance of playing as the Latin Empire as it was. Heh, I figure most people won't care much, I don't expect many others care about the Latin Empire.

 

[Snow Crystal]

It's a sad fact that very few will actually play outside of 769, 867 and 1066. And since titles like Naples, Latin Empire etc most likely will have a chance of happening in the game naturally in the next expansion, thats just another good reason not to care about later start dates. Sadly

 

[Nyrael]

Just to clarify: this does NOT refer to adding earlier start dates, it just refers to no longer having the ability to select any date we want and that they won't add too many bookmarks. The problem is that majority of people play only the earliest possible date, followed by dates that used to be start dates.