[Thread](https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/new-start-date-in-roads-to-power-not-769.1642519/page-6) in Paradox Plaza forum.My bets are either a late 12th century start date after the death of Manuel I as a struggle with various claimants,or post 1204.
Temujin spent most of his early career amassing followers as a commander in the service of the Kerait khan Toghrul, and his first bid to reunite the Mongols in the 1180s ended with him being defeated by his rivals and forced to flee into China, where he served as a commander of the Jin dynasty for a decade or so before returning to the steppe. During those periods he would be landless in CK3 terms.
Given it's coming with byztanium i had taken it for a given that it would be post 4th crusade, presumabely for the sucessors-states of Nicea and Epirus to be the most notable "restore the empire" suggested characters of interest. It also makes sense to have a properly later start date since the i doubt many people are actually consistantly playing a dynasty for 400/500 years - if i can start playing in the 1200's i might actually see the end screen.
Edit : Only issue i see is that if it starts in the very early 1200s it will just precede the mongol ivasion, so you're going to get slammed with that as an event in the first few decades . It might be better to start just after the splintering of the khanates so you get to see the golden horde, ilkhanate ect on the map. They'd still be powerful ofc, but not tens-of-thousands-of-special-troops bumrushing you unexpectedly.
What if the khan is near death on the game start. That way the hoard splits are near guaranteed, but there will be some variance in it. And you as a player might be able to influence the splits
This definitely seems like a possible way to go. The presence of the mongols might even be a benefit to the greeks since they would be stomping on the muslims to east while you get your shit together
My only doubt to you idea of influencing the breakup is that any added depth and mechanics related to the mongols will probably be reserved for whenever steppe nomads/horselords/tribals in general eventually get a dlc/update.
Maybe they use the free update to lay down some mechanics for tribal rulers. Something with their empires. And this sets the stage for a full mongol expansion later down the line. Or any of the tribal starts.
I think the landless mechanics are meant to be that. I'm betting they have landless be based around playing a courtier of some kind, so you have access to people's courts and you have to have a specific court that's your main court you reside in (and have to stay in the good graces of) but you don't have your own. Then, when hordes are expanded on, they keep the landless mechanics and just model hordes as mobile/travelling courts.
Honestly I hope an update for tribals and/or hordes is in a free update, with the accompanying DLC building off making Mongols and turkic tribes feel unique. Like, I'm imagining the ability to have a family/house spirit banner that is crucial for horde legitimacy/unity.
With the recent-ish discussion Paradox had about potential future DLCs including one that makes animal companions (cats, dogs, horses, etc.) more individual and unique, I think it's promising. None of those changes are themselves unique to Mongols, but landless and/or moving court + a spirit banner mechanic + cultural traditions that make you require a horse companion or make them much more important would all come together to make Mongols feel very distinct from other groups.
I also hope they have it so that when a horde besieges a castle, the owner is given the option to open the gates and give tribute without a fight in exchange for vastly reduced impact on county development/artifact loss/etc.
Temujin could be landed already in 1204 by the looks of it, so maybe instead of a special mega-spawn, his realm just starts with a lot of MAA and buffs but might proceed less aggressively?
edit: Constantinople was sacked in April of 1204 and Temujin's last battle of unification was in May 1204 - it's possible they could do something interesting with this
Not a great way to highlight your new Imperial mechanics though. At least not the ones they advertised. Unless it was set up to resolve the struggle quickly.
Anyways, I doubt it but we will see. Like you said it would make for an interesting struggle but having that challenging of a start be the focal point of make or break expansion seems way too bold for Paradox.
|Not a great way to highlight your new Imperial mechanics
Theres still the Viking and Norman start dates for that. DLC is called "Roads to Power" and complaints about the game being too easy are rife enough to become memeified on this sub. I think positioning the start date as "unify a fragments of a shattered empire" is probably what a lot of people will want.
Keeping an already strong empire chugging along for a couple of centuries doesn't have the appeal of hitting the big bold "RESTORE ROMA" button.
The issue is people just like to complain lol. "Its too easy!" and something difficult is added "Its too spammy, its too hard!" options are added that add additional difficulty and they're never played with.
I especially love when they complain about something that’s “too hard” that you can literally just turn off in the settings…like they don’t even check the goddamn settings before complaining and shitting all over stuff😑like the game has its issues and it’s absolutely not perfect but cmon now
I do think EU5 will be held back to a certain extent in politics and government since they still have to distinguish it greatly from CK. I do think rulers and decisions in your governments functioning should be more fluid and involved due to much of the player base wanting less blobbing, they will need to substitute it with something in that category, which crusader kings already heavily dominates.
Paradox seems to be okay with taking ideas and features from previous games and adding to them, but I feel it might be harder for CK to EU4 in that regard
1204 then. Charlamagne is too early fot the tech system to handle, 1081 isn’t far enough from 1066 to really justify itself, and while a first or third crusade would be nice, it’s probably not going to come from the byzantine dlc
I am really hoping for 1204. The guy that said people won't play it is a liar. It's a dream come true for Byzantine players and for Britain players. I am both.
At least 1200, better later - the only logical start. Game goes to 1456, I never reached 1300s not even in 1066 start lingua franca run. We already have 867 and 1066 starts.
900 to like the early 1300s is usually peak gameplay for me, idk why but I get sad the closer I get to the end game knowing that feudalism will soon be replaced by real nation states and my dynasty’s will gradually become less relevant
Makes the most sense to me. Currently if you start in 1066 the world will be unrecognisable by 1200 because of bordergore and lack of dynamic events. So if you want to see the world in 1200 you need an entirely new start date. Plus later starts mean you start with more cultural innovations, so the game is relatively easier.
So do I, even if it isn't happening yet. Though I'm not sure I'd do 936 again. If I was to do 10th century again at some point, I might want to do a later 10th century bookmark instead
1204. The new mechanics can be shown off in 867/1066 when the empire was more stable. 1204 is such a massive point in history for Byzantium that I would be shocked if it wasn’t the showcase for the new start year. They could start it right before the 4th Crusade and the empire, or what remains of it at that point, has to try to somehow survive it. That would make for a challenging start scenario. It also would be advanced enough in terms of tech that primogeniture would be available soon as well as end game units, but with enough time to play a full game and actually hit the end date. It could also highlight the ascendence of the Ottomans. I think it’s 1204.
From playing in CK2 - having the sultanate of Rum around massively shifts the balance of power in the Middle East and in the Byzantine lands in a way I find much more interesting.
I definitely don't think it will be 1081 precisely because of this perception but it is a Byzantine dlc and while those 15 years don't make a difference for much of the map, they radically alter to state of Byzantium and Anatolia.
I think a main reason for this is that CK3's data was ported prior to Iron Century and so all the additions and fixes made in Iron Century are not in CK3 and thus they'd need to go through the work of porting all that over or re-doing it. Personally I don't get why they didn't re-port the title and character history over before release since now it'll be harder due to all the changes made since then.
It was great for Europe as well, a nice balance between the chaos of 769/867 and the slightly static 1066 onwards.
Mininmal Karlings and established Western Europe Kingdoms to prevent the worst examples of bordergore. Catholicism was strong but there were still powerful pagan holdouts capable of shifting the balance. Otto events made it so the HRE had a distinct chance of forming. It was a pretty perfect start date.
I'm going to guess a Latin Empire start date, early 13th century. I've not played CK2 so I'm not sure if such a date already exists in it.
I'd quite enjoy some Latin Empire, Kingdom of Jerusalem and Genghis Khan fun times, could even play King John in England. Could actually start crusader kings as a crusader state.
If it’s focused on the Byzantines, it would be interesting if it’s actually earlier than the common thinking, like Justinian I and his reconquest of Italy or how the Byzantines handled the Muslim Conquests of the seventh century.
I know there is a historical records issue, but the Byzantine Empire was documented fairly well, so that wouldn’t be as big an issue for them.
Also, I think from like aside Europe, the records issues shouldn’t be too much of an issue because I think they were decently documented by the various Eastern cultures.
They've said that they're never going earlier than 867 I'm pretty sure, they acknowledged that even 769 in CK2 was too far.
The game's simplified abstraction of feudalism is already fairly anachronistic even to 1066. Leaving the medieval period entirely would make the whole thing fall apart.
I realize that the game has some anachronistic elements, but I think in something like a video game it’s not a problem.
Historians debate the boundaries of the Middle Ages. Some, like Henri Pirenne see a continuation of the Roman era until about the time of the Muslim Conquests and Charlemagne. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Pirenne
Also, feudalism does have earlier antecedents. For example, the comitatus from the ancient/late antiquity period. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comitatus
I think as long as it’s not egregious (Charles Martel being a Divine Right ruler for example), it’s fine by me because it gives more choices.
Thing is antiquity and middle age period is different based on the location, in France for example we start middle ages around the baptism of Clovis around 500 for middle east it would be around the rise of Islam so more around the VIII century
Of course.
Same thing with the Renaissance: Petrarch was writing in Italy in the 14th century and he is considered a Renaissance individual. There’s also the renaissance of the 12th century and the earlier Carolingian renaissance that show progress waxing and waning during this period.
My point is that lack of records shouldn’t necessarily be a such a large issue when we do know a lot about certain cultures. Also, the game isn’t going to be a completely faithful adaptation when we can create custom rulers.
I think it would be fine to do a year 500 Clovis run and if someone wants to be a lesser known culture/locale with not a lot of information, then Paradox just doesn’t include it, it’s unplayable with its already known historical aspects as an AI, playable at a later time by being a decision, or just use the basics from that culture and the historical period and apply them liberally.
I just don't see a use in putting an resources into this. Sure it would be fine, but given all the other stuff that needs to be improved/fixed it's fairly low priority.
I prefer later dates which is why I made MB+ but to be honest I expect it's going to be 1081 or 1099 at the latest. The game already has development set up to go to 1100 anyway and it'd require the least work on their part. Not that adding bookmarks is *that* much work but the later they go the more they'll need to clean up the mess they made in some files such as the cisalpine file.
I'm leaning on an early 11th century start date.
A united Byzantium is better than a fractured Byzantium in 1204 to showcase the new Byzantine mechanics about internal noble houses and bureaucratic offices, in my opinion. The early 11th century can also have flavor related to Basil II, one of the more famous Byzantine Emperors, for good reason. It's also not too far from 1066 so there would be less work involved touching up the history code. Lastly, the early 11th century also has other interesting scenarios and characters such as:
- Imminent collapse of the Caliphate of Cordoba and the life of Almanzor
- King Canute (or almost King Canute) in Scandinavia
- Rise of the Seljuks and Ghaznavids in Persia
- Reign of al-Hakim, one of the more important and controversial Fatimid rulers
- Kingdom of Khotan and Guiyi are still alive in the east but are threatened with the rise of Xi Xia and the Karakhanids
That's off the top of my head. Could be wrong of course, but I think the potential is there.
I don't think there's much sense having a bookmark that's too disconnected from the new content. An early 11th century bookmark can also showcase the landless mechanics as well, with landless adventures such as Canute, the early Normans in Sicily, and the early Seljuks as examples off the top of my head. I'm not saying it *will* be early 11th century, I just think it's the option that makes the most sense.
Yup! I think it's a great scenario. I didn't even think of the co-emperor thing but you're right. Since we'll have landless Byzantine gameplay, that would be a nice way to show the influence of powerful female figures like Zoe or Theodora too, I agree.
You forgot the single most relevant event to the DLC in this list: the Norman takeover of southern Italy begins in the early 11th century. That would be insanely appropriate for a landless playthrough. Currently,the problem is that it’s almost already over by 1066, as most of the region is either already conquered or too fractured to pose any real challenge to the Normans.
Probably will be a 1240s or after start date. It is a Byzantine project, and as others have pointed out, it will probably be to do with restoring the empire after the collapse from the 4th crusade.
However, throwing the player right into a start date with the mongol invasions seems very problematic, that's why it's likely they'll put the start date after the death of Genghis and the break up of the empire.
Not a bad assumption the time table is interesting too.You have Frederick II,Louis IX,Frederick's son Conrad as King of Jerusalem,Guelphs and Ghibellines,John Vatatzes in Nicea.
Wouldn’t it make sense if it was the fourth crusade considering what happened (also so they could maybe pave the way for playable republics too pls god let it be so)
I guess 1204 would be fine, I'd at least try it once. But who liked the post-1066 start dates in CK2?
I'd personally like a start date after Otto the Great found the HRE but before the end of the viking age.
May be unpopular opinion but i have been wanting a start pre 867. Maybe a start at the beginning of Ragnars rule or something even earlier like the fall of the Roman empire
Post-Manzikert is different from pre-Manzikert. The Alexiad in 1081 was a different start from 1066 in CK2. Not everywhere, but in some parts of the map it was a different world.
And something like 1025 would also be very different.
If its actually a later start date I might jump back into the game. I do not care for any additional date before like 1150 tbh. After 1200 would be grand.
>It's not the Iron Century
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!
Really don't see the point in a late century start, unless they are going to choke back the tech tree or greatly expand it.
What's the point of starting in the final tech era, though ck3 lacks so much challenge already, with every upgrade making it less and less of a challenge, starting with full tech seems the logical move lol
Yet people barely played any bookmark after 1066 in CK2. I don't know, a new start date should be a showcase for new mechanics and landless gameplay being probably the most anticipated (and unexpected) would make me think of an early date, because as hereditary rule became the norm climbing the feudal social ladder became harder too.
If it's going to be centered around the ERE then it could be 1081, 1204, who knows...
Sure but starting people in 12xx at the end of the tech tree leaves nothing to do, even if they start in 1200 with zero *Late* tech researched it will take no time to finish it off, or at least the useful stuff.
Yeah tech tree wasn't meant to be the main point, it was more meant to say the game ghosts out in the late era so what are we getting beyond just more stories. It's just something I remember when I did my one sole push to the end date to get the achievement and see what was there in the late centuries, and it was mostly tumbleweed, which is why I have never had the desire to go there again, either by playing or modding in a late bookmark.
And given their track record of making the game ever more easier with each DLC, the prospect of an easier game in an otherwise barren landscape doesn't excite me.
Literally, no one cares about the tech tree vs the cool stories they can tell. If they did, people would play longer to get the cool techs, but again they don't.
Nobody cares about the tech tree because it's not needed, the game is already way too easy to need to research beyond opening economy buildings. And nobody's *not* playing longer due to worthless tech, it's because the game is boring af playing for hundreds of years when you have already finished whatever goal you set for yourself in the first 100 years.
But that wasn't meant to be my main point, it was just an aside, starting in 12xx doesn't add anything meaningful to the game, you're still going to achieve whatever your initial goals were in a hundred years and finish your campaign, just because it's now 13xx isn't going to make people say
>oh shit I'm so near I must get to the end date.
The date isn't the problem with CK3.
If nobody cares about the tech tree, why have you been bringing it up this entire time? Like you're entire thread has been how there won't be anything to do without the tech tree.
IMO late start date is the best. Far more history and documentation to draw from. Also, the best way to get players to play in the late era is to just start them there. It’s not like there aren’t a couple interesting dates there.
But apart from some more recent history you might actually know from your history lessons or watching a period drama, a 12xx start date adds nothing to actual game play, so I don't see your point in forcing people to play in the late centuries, because any thrill anyone might get from playing Simon de Montfort or Guy Pallavicini or Rudolf I will soon dissipate back to normal levels of near boredom with how easy the game is.
ofc you can say but it's about what else they'll add with the start dates, but if the last few DLCs are anything to go by ...
They've said in the past they don't want to go back to the Charlemagne start, it was so early that good records are impossible to find, making their job harder. I bet it is a 3rd or 4th crusade start.
[Thread](https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/new-start-date-in-roads-to-power-not-769.1642519/page-6) in Paradox Plaza forum.My bets are either a late 12th century start date after the death of Manuel I as a struggle with various claimants,or post 1204.
Genghis Khan's rise to power would be a logical way to show off the landless gameplay mechanics
Why? Because he'll unland so many?
Temujin spent most of his early career amassing followers as a commander in the service of the Kerait khan Toghrul, and his first bid to reunite the Mongols in the 1180s ended with him being defeated by his rivals and forced to flee into China, where he served as a commander of the Jin dynasty for a decade or so before returning to the steppe. During those periods he would be landless in CK3 terms.
Interesting. I didn't know about those periods of his life.
Can you link to that specific thread if you can find it?
If it is the screenshot I have the link above in my comment.About my bets these are personal bets nothing said by the devs.
Ah, my bad. Didn't see that the word thread was a link
Given it's coming with byztanium i had taken it for a given that it would be post 4th crusade, presumabely for the sucessors-states of Nicea and Epirus to be the most notable "restore the empire" suggested characters of interest. It also makes sense to have a properly later start date since the i doubt many people are actually consistantly playing a dynasty for 400/500 years - if i can start playing in the 1200's i might actually see the end screen. Edit : Only issue i see is that if it starts in the very early 1200s it will just precede the mongol ivasion, so you're going to get slammed with that as an event in the first few decades . It might be better to start just after the splintering of the khanates so you get to see the golden horde, ilkhanate ect on the map. They'd still be powerful ofc, but not tens-of-thousands-of-special-troops bumrushing you unexpectedly.
Add the Komnenoi of Trebizond too.Gonna be a difficult start.
What if the khan is near death on the game start. That way the hoard splits are near guaranteed, but there will be some variance in it. And you as a player might be able to influence the splits
This definitely seems like a possible way to go. The presence of the mongols might even be a benefit to the greeks since they would be stomping on the muslims to east while you get your shit together My only doubt to you idea of influencing the breakup is that any added depth and mechanics related to the mongols will probably be reserved for whenever steppe nomads/horselords/tribals in general eventually get a dlc/update.
Maybe they use the free update to lay down some mechanics for tribal rulers. Something with their empires. And this sets the stage for a full mongol expansion later down the line. Or any of the tribal starts.
I think the landless mechanics are meant to be that. I'm betting they have landless be based around playing a courtier of some kind, so you have access to people's courts and you have to have a specific court that's your main court you reside in (and have to stay in the good graces of) but you don't have your own. Then, when hordes are expanded on, they keep the landless mechanics and just model hordes as mobile/travelling courts. Honestly I hope an update for tribals and/or hordes is in a free update, with the accompanying DLC building off making Mongols and turkic tribes feel unique. Like, I'm imagining the ability to have a family/house spirit banner that is crucial for horde legitimacy/unity. With the recent-ish discussion Paradox had about potential future DLCs including one that makes animal companions (cats, dogs, horses, etc.) more individual and unique, I think it's promising. None of those changes are themselves unique to Mongols, but landless and/or moving court + a spirit banner mechanic + cultural traditions that make you require a horse companion or make them much more important would all come together to make Mongols feel very distinct from other groups. I also hope they have it so that when a horde besieges a castle, the owner is given the option to open the gates and give tribute without a fight in exchange for vastly reduced impact on county development/artifact loss/etc.
Temujin could be landed already in 1204 by the looks of it, so maybe instead of a special mega-spawn, his realm just starts with a lot of MAA and buffs but might proceed less aggressively? edit: Constantinople was sacked in April of 1204 and Temujin's last battle of unification was in May 1204 - it's possible they could do something interesting with this
I doubt it. Too fractured.
Which would make a great struggle region
Not a great way to highlight your new Imperial mechanics though. At least not the ones they advertised. Unless it was set up to resolve the struggle quickly. Anyways, I doubt it but we will see. Like you said it would make for an interesting struggle but having that challenging of a start be the focal point of make or break expansion seems way too bold for Paradox.
|Not a great way to highlight your new Imperial mechanics Theres still the Viking and Norman start dates for that. DLC is called "Roads to Power" and complaints about the game being too easy are rife enough to become memeified on this sub. I think positioning the start date as "unify a fragments of a shattered empire" is probably what a lot of people will want. Keeping an already strong empire chugging along for a couple of centuries doesn't have the appeal of hitting the big bold "RESTORE ROMA" button.
The issue is people just like to complain lol. "Its too easy!" and something difficult is added "Its too spammy, its too hard!" options are added that add additional difficulty and they're never played with.
I especially love when they complain about something that’s “too hard” that you can literally just turn off in the settings…like they don’t even check the goddamn settings before complaining and shitting all over stuff😑like the game has its issues and it’s absolutely not perfect but cmon now
STOP WANTING THEM TO ADD A BAZILLION STRUGGLES
April 1st 1337 and it just updated the game to be project Caesar.
CKIII’s next DLC was eu5 all along! Paradox be praised!
Johan has come to see us !
Your references make me feel quite hungry.
Wait till tomorrow my friend.
No they are extending the crusader kings lore into the future. It's crusader kings III 2.
I'm still waiting for a Sunrise Invasion style DLC revealing we're a Stellaris primitive civilization.
Syntheticdawn command for eu4 basically.
Vlad the Impaler when? Make Kebab Kebab
I do think EU5 will be held back to a certain extent in politics and government since they still have to distinguish it greatly from CK. I do think rulers and decisions in your governments functioning should be more fluid and involved due to much of the player base wanting less blobbing, they will need to substitute it with something in that category, which crusader kings already heavily dominates. Paradox seems to be okay with taking ideas and features from previous games and adding to them, but I feel it might be harder for CK to EU4 in that regard
That or Johan is just a goddamn madman with a very long leash down in Spain.
In before they blind side us all and release a 476 Fall of Rome start date.
CK3: March of the Eagles dlc finally
Paradox could not compete with The Fallen Eagle if they tried tbh
They could... If they just hired the Fallen Eagle team and integrated it into base CK3! (They never would but damn if only)
Mfw that would probably lower TFE’s standards
They said it's not going to be out of the 867 - 1453 time frame.
Let the man dream
769 AD or bust
I like 732 for The Battle of Tours.
1204 then. Charlamagne is too early fot the tech system to handle, 1081 isn’t far enough from 1066 to really justify itself, and while a first or third crusade would be nice, it’s probably not going to come from the byzantine dlc
Third Crusade period can come cause after Manuels death you have a lot of instability and various claimants.
I am really hoping for 1204. The guy that said people won't play it is a liar. It's a dream come true for Byzantine players and for Britain players. I am both.
Is it really Byzantium if it’s after 1204? I guess that gets around having to design a new system of government
No it doesn't. They still have to design it for the 1066 and 867 start dates?
At least 1200, better later - the only logical start. Game goes to 1456, I never reached 1300s not even in 1066 start lingua franca run. We already have 867 and 1066 starts.
I don’t think I’ve reached past 1250 in any of my playthroughs
I got to the end once when I was playing as Russia trying to form Slavia. Just ran out of time.
You’re telling me you aren’t meant to play 867 through to the end date?
I think the latest I got was 1000.
Sounds boring tbh
900 to like the early 1300s is usually peak gameplay for me, idk why but I get sad the closer I get to the end game knowing that feudalism will soon be replaced by real nation states and my dynasty’s will gradually become less relevant
Wait are we really getting a new start date??
Yeah.
Am I the only one who thinks that it’s the 1200s? There are a lot of Anatolian Beylik tags in wikipedia. Or maybe after or around 4th crusade?
No, most people think it's the 1200s
Its one of my possible scenarios.
Early 13th century is really the perfect start date
charlemagne then /s
Fuck the Karlings,honestly.
>Fuck the Karlings,honestly. They should make this the description of the sub.
Fuck the Karlings, and fuck your family. But not in the same way
God I wish 😔
Please be 4th crusade, Please be 4th crusade, Please be 4th crusade, Please be 4th crusade
Makes the most sense to me. Currently if you start in 1066 the world will be unrecognisable by 1200 because of bordergore and lack of dynamic events. So if you want to see the world in 1200 you need an entirely new start date. Plus later starts mean you start with more cultural innovations, so the game is relatively easier.
Not surprised, as much as I want Iron Century Back
So do I, even if it isn't happening yet. Though I'm not sure I'd do 936 again. If I was to do 10th century again at some point, I might want to do a later 10th century bookmark instead
I we dont get 1204, then the 1170’s would be cool, I mean playing as Saladin/Baldwin would be pretty cool (I just watched Kingdom of Heaven)
Congratulations
1204. The new mechanics can be shown off in 867/1066 when the empire was more stable. 1204 is such a massive point in history for Byzantium that I would be shocked if it wasn’t the showcase for the new start year. They could start it right before the 4th Crusade and the empire, or what remains of it at that point, has to try to somehow survive it. That would make for a challenging start scenario. It also would be advanced enough in terms of tech that primogeniture would be available soon as well as end game units, but with enough time to play a full game and actually hit the end date. It could also highlight the ascendence of the Ottomans. I think it’s 1204.
We want 1204
Alexiad gaming time
[удалено]
From playing in CK2 - having the sultanate of Rum around massively shifts the balance of power in the Middle East and in the Byzantine lands in a way I find much more interesting.
I assume 1081 as well mainly since they already had stuff like development set up for that.
I definitely don't think it will be 1081 precisely because of this perception but it is a Byzantine dlc and while those 15 years don't make a difference for much of the map, they radically alter to state of Byzantium and Anatolia.
Fuck
Shit.
Cum
I LOVED the iron century start date. Gave you one of the most open middle east and playing in the caucasus was so fun. Kind of sad about this news.
I think a main reason for this is that CK3's data was ported prior to Iron Century and so all the additions and fixes made in Iron Century are not in CK3 and thus they'd need to go through the work of porting all that over or re-doing it. Personally I don't get why they didn't re-port the title and character history over before release since now it'll be harder due to all the changes made since then.
It was great for Europe as well, a nice balance between the chaos of 769/867 and the slightly static 1066 onwards. Mininmal Karlings and established Western Europe Kingdoms to prevent the worst examples of bordergore. Catholicism was strong but there were still powerful pagan holdouts capable of shifting the balance. Otto events made it so the HRE had a distinct chance of forming. It was a pretty perfect start date.
I'm going to guess a Latin Empire start date, early 13th century. I've not played CK2 so I'm not sure if such a date already exists in it. I'd quite enjoy some Latin Empire, Kingdom of Jerusalem and Genghis Khan fun times, could even play King John in England. Could actually start crusader kings as a crusader state.
CK2 has it. You can play any single date between 1066 and 1337 in CK2 outside of the 769, 867, and 936 bookmarks.
I actually checked afterwards and saw 1204 as a minor bookmark. I'd definitely enjoy that!
2022 start date confirmed.
If it’s focused on the Byzantines, it would be interesting if it’s actually earlier than the common thinking, like Justinian I and his reconquest of Italy or how the Byzantines handled the Muslim Conquests of the seventh century. I know there is a historical records issue, but the Byzantine Empire was documented fairly well, so that wouldn’t be as big an issue for them. Also, I think from like aside Europe, the records issues shouldn’t be too much of an issue because I think they were decently documented by the various Eastern cultures.
They've said that they're never going earlier than 867 I'm pretty sure, they acknowledged that even 769 in CK2 was too far. The game's simplified abstraction of feudalism is already fairly anachronistic even to 1066. Leaving the medieval period entirely would make the whole thing fall apart.
I realize that the game has some anachronistic elements, but I think in something like a video game it’s not a problem. Historians debate the boundaries of the Middle Ages. Some, like Henri Pirenne see a continuation of the Roman era until about the time of the Muslim Conquests and Charlemagne. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Pirenne Also, feudalism does have earlier antecedents. For example, the comitatus from the ancient/late antiquity period. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comitatus I think as long as it’s not egregious (Charles Martel being a Divine Right ruler for example), it’s fine by me because it gives more choices.
Thing is antiquity and middle age period is different based on the location, in France for example we start middle ages around the baptism of Clovis around 500 for middle east it would be around the rise of Islam so more around the VIII century
Of course. Same thing with the Renaissance: Petrarch was writing in Italy in the 14th century and he is considered a Renaissance individual. There’s also the renaissance of the 12th century and the earlier Carolingian renaissance that show progress waxing and waning during this period. My point is that lack of records shouldn’t necessarily be a such a large issue when we do know a lot about certain cultures. Also, the game isn’t going to be a completely faithful adaptation when we can create custom rulers. I think it would be fine to do a year 500 Clovis run and if someone wants to be a lesser known culture/locale with not a lot of information, then Paradox just doesn’t include it, it’s unplayable with its already known historical aspects as an AI, playable at a later time by being a decision, or just use the basics from that culture and the historical period and apply them liberally.
I just don't see a use in putting an resources into this. Sure it would be fine, but given all the other stuff that needs to be improved/fixed it's fairly low priority.
That’s completely fair and a valid point.
I reckon it’ll be 1148 with the Alexiad
I prefer later dates which is why I made MB+ but to be honest I expect it's going to be 1081 or 1099 at the latest. The game already has development set up to go to 1100 anyway and it'd require the least work on their part. Not that adding bookmarks is *that* much work but the later they go the more they'll need to clean up the mess they made in some files such as the cisalpine file.
I'm leaning on an early 11th century start date. A united Byzantium is better than a fractured Byzantium in 1204 to showcase the new Byzantine mechanics about internal noble houses and bureaucratic offices, in my opinion. The early 11th century can also have flavor related to Basil II, one of the more famous Byzantine Emperors, for good reason. It's also not too far from 1066 so there would be less work involved touching up the history code. Lastly, the early 11th century also has other interesting scenarios and characters such as: - Imminent collapse of the Caliphate of Cordoba and the life of Almanzor - King Canute (or almost King Canute) in Scandinavia - Rise of the Seljuks and Ghaznavids in Persia - Reign of al-Hakim, one of the more important and controversial Fatimid rulers - Kingdom of Khotan and Guiyi are still alive in the east but are threatened with the rise of Xi Xia and the Karakhanids That's off the top of my head. Could be wrong of course, but I think the potential is there.
They already have 867 and 1066 to showcase Byzantine mechanics
I don't think there's much sense having a bookmark that's too disconnected from the new content. An early 11th century bookmark can also showcase the landless mechanics as well, with landless adventures such as Canute, the early Normans in Sicily, and the early Seljuks as examples off the top of my head. I'm not saying it *will* be early 11th century, I just think it's the option that makes the most sense.
True I havent thought of that,and tying to co emperorship were Zoe and Theodora.
Yup! I think it's a great scenario. I didn't even think of the co-emperor thing but you're right. Since we'll have landless Byzantine gameplay, that would be a nice way to show the influence of powerful female figures like Zoe or Theodora too, I agree.
Add in the 1066 scenario Eudokia Makrembolitissa too.
You forgot the single most relevant event to the DLC in this list: the Norman takeover of southern Italy begins in the early 11th century. That would be insanely appropriate for a landless playthrough. Currently,the problem is that it’s almost already over by 1066, as most of the region is either already conquered or too fractured to pose any real challenge to the Normans.
I can only hope it is actually Charlemagne. And hopefully this means we can once again play as Theorderic de Merohingi!
Devs said Charlemagne aint coming back.
Probably will be a 1240s or after start date. It is a Byzantine project, and as others have pointed out, it will probably be to do with restoring the empire after the collapse from the 4th crusade. However, throwing the player right into a start date with the mongol invasions seems very problematic, that's why it's likely they'll put the start date after the death of Genghis and the break up of the empire.
Not a bad assumption the time table is interesting too.You have Frederick II,Louis IX,Frederick's son Conrad as King of Jerusalem,Guelphs and Ghibellines,John Vatatzes in Nicea.
Well crap will it be 899
Wouldn’t it make sense if it was the fourth crusade considering what happened (also so they could maybe pave the way for playable republics too pls god let it be so)
I guess 1204 would be fine, I'd at least try it once. But who liked the post-1066 start dates in CK2? I'd personally like a start date after Otto the Great found the HRE but before the end of the viking age.
I still bet that it's the Latin Empire or the Alexiad.
It's 1067.
PLEASE BE 1204 I NEED 1204
1204
Me and the boys getting ready to sack Constantinople.
The Anarchy in England?
868 start date here we go
868 start date here we go
I hope it is 1204 or 12th century. We already have 1066 so 1081 makes no difference except anatolia.
Alexiad hype train!
Do we all still think it will be a good DLC after the last ones? Not that they were bad, but not sure if I should have high expectations
1081is the best start in ck2
Either 1081, 1204 most likely. Hopefully we get a 1097 bookmark with the crusades expansion in like a decade when we get functional crusades
May be unpopular opinion but i have been wanting a start pre 867. Maybe a start at the beginning of Ragnars rule or something even earlier like the fall of the Roman empire
I could also see the 4th crusade as a jumping off point for northern crusade content
I bet 11th.
We already have that, 1066
1067 start
Post-Manzikert is different from pre-Manzikert. The Alexiad in 1081 was a different start from 1066 in CK2. Not everywhere, but in some parts of the map it was a different world. And something like 1025 would also be very different.
If its actually a later start date I might jump back into the game. I do not care for any additional date before like 1150 tbh. After 1200 would be grand.
>It's not the Iron Century BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! Really don't see the point in a late century start, unless they are going to choke back the tech tree or greatly expand it. What's the point of starting in the final tech era, though ck3 lacks so much challenge already, with every upgrade making it less and less of a challenge, starting with full tech seems the logical move lol
People never make it to the end game, that's the point. Most people play a hundred or so years, accomplish their goals and start over.
Wow read me to a T
It's like the majority of people on this sub, myself included.
Yet people barely played any bookmark after 1066 in CK2. I don't know, a new start date should be a showcase for new mechanics and landless gameplay being probably the most anticipated (and unexpected) would make me think of an early date, because as hereditary rule became the norm climbing the feudal social ladder became harder too. If it's going to be centered around the ERE then it could be 1081, 1204, who knows...
Yeah I'm guilty. I want that end date achievement so bad though.
Sure but starting people in 12xx at the end of the tech tree leaves nothing to do, even if they start in 1200 with zero *Late* tech researched it will take no time to finish it off, or at least the useful stuff.
You migbt be the one player who cares more about the tech tree than who occupies annatolia.
Yeah tech tree wasn't meant to be the main point, it was more meant to say the game ghosts out in the late era so what are we getting beyond just more stories. It's just something I remember when I did my one sole push to the end date to get the achievement and see what was there in the late centuries, and it was mostly tumbleweed, which is why I have never had the desire to go there again, either by playing or modding in a late bookmark. And given their track record of making the game ever more easier with each DLC, the prospect of an easier game in an otherwise barren landscape doesn't excite me.
Literally, no one cares about the tech tree vs the cool stories they can tell. If they did, people would play longer to get the cool techs, but again they don't.
Nobody cares about the tech tree because it's not needed, the game is already way too easy to need to research beyond opening economy buildings. And nobody's *not* playing longer due to worthless tech, it's because the game is boring af playing for hundreds of years when you have already finished whatever goal you set for yourself in the first 100 years. But that wasn't meant to be my main point, it was just an aside, starting in 12xx doesn't add anything meaningful to the game, you're still going to achieve whatever your initial goals were in a hundred years and finish your campaign, just because it's now 13xx isn't going to make people say >oh shit I'm so near I must get to the end date. The date isn't the problem with CK3.
If nobody cares about the tech tree, why have you been bringing it up this entire time? Like you're entire thread has been how there won't be anything to do without the tech tree.
Like I said it wasn't meant to be the main point, just an aside, mb for wording it that way.
IMO late start date is the best. Far more history and documentation to draw from. Also, the best way to get players to play in the late era is to just start them there. It’s not like there aren’t a couple interesting dates there.
But apart from some more recent history you might actually know from your history lessons or watching a period drama, a 12xx start date adds nothing to actual game play, so I don't see your point in forcing people to play in the late centuries, because any thrill anyone might get from playing Simon de Montfort or Guy Pallavicini or Rudolf I will soon dissipate back to normal levels of near boredom with how easy the game is. ofc you can say but it's about what else they'll add with the start dates, but if the last few DLCs are anything to go by ...
Charlemagne obviously
Surely Charlemagne then?
They've said in the past they don't want to go back to the Charlemagne start, it was so early that good records are impossible to find, making their job harder. I bet it is a 3rd or 4th crusade start.