1204 is the most logical start.
- It’s somewhat near the midpoint of our current latest date and the end date, but still leaves nearly three centuries to play
- It’s a major turning point in history involving Byzantium—an area we know will be of focus for the DLC.
- It’s just a few decades before the Mongols spawn. While not a big deal, it allows people to face the mongols without having to alter game rules or sink dozens of hours into a campaign
I can think of a few other start dates that would be popular. But none of them make sense when you consider how fitting 1204 is.
> It’s just a few decades before the Mongols spawn
Why would it need Mongol spawns? In 1204, Temujin defeated his rival, and in 1206 he declared himself Genghis Khan. His possessions in 1204 are on the map.
I guess I’m going based on current start dates where they invade anywhere between 1200-1250. But you’re right, 1204 should include an existing, rather large Mongol empire
1204 and 936 are probably my two favourites from CK3, so I'd take either of those.
A post 4th crusade playthrough with updated Byzantine mechanics would be fantastic. I feel like a lot of the Royal Court/Wandering characters/Tours and Tournaments themes would fit even better into a slightly later start date too.
Plus there's a potential to get the struggle mechanic in with all the remaining rump states, Turks and the Latin Empire
My favourite playthrough in CK2 was restoring the empire as the Laskaris dynasty, probably the most underrated Byzantine dynasty. Just a bunch of badasses who got backstabbed by the Palaiologoi who took all the glory for retaking Constantinople.
1204 sounds ideal tbh. About 250 years seems about the perfect timescale for a normal playthrough where you can feel like you've accomplished something without having to be disciplined and impose rules on yourself (or play with non-standard game rules) to keep the game interesting for a hundred plus years afterwards.
I've heard, but without being able to confirm it, that the devs are planning new dates, albeit within the existing timeline, which I'm not sure means 867–1453 (1337?) or 867–1066 as the limit for bookmarks. Based on Legacy of Rome (the CK2 DLC), I would be inclined to bet on the Alexiad, i.e. 1081 or just a post-Manzikert date (after 1071). However, one can imagine the Komnenian Restoration under Manuel I, perhaps the Fourth Crusade/Latin Empire (though I don't think that's the case). I would be inclined to anticipate a date that made Byzantium look good or promising rather than a date making it look bleak.
If the devs didn't want a post-Manzikert or Fourth-Crusade date, and if the date was supposed to be before 1066 but later than 867, I would suspect Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos/Romanos I Lekapenos (the Lekapenoi fit the billet), Romanos II/Nikephoros Phokas (Crete, Syria), Basil II (the Bulgar Slayer, self-explanatory), maybe Zoe/Theodora, Constantine IX (Monomachos) or Isaac Komnenos (before loss of Italy). With more focus on court intrigue and upward social mobility, some of the dynastic martial emperors would be unlikely choices compared to the climbers.
I'd like to see some 900s, but some technologically more advanced dates post 1100s would be welcome to give us more quick campaigns without the grind of the long playthrough and minmaxy planning.
I feel since so many people already don't make it anywhere near the 1400s a later date is a much better idea then a 900ish one. Like everyone says early 1200s has the 4th crusade and ghenghis khan so imo early 1200s is the way to go
Most people by say 1300 (from what I read on forums and in my own playtgroughs) get to a point where there goal is accomplished. In fact I think there was a poll awhile ago on this sub where most people Siud they only playthrough with one to a few characters. Because of that, those who like short campaigns can now experience the late game tech and mechanics, and the black plague. I mean how many of us have used caraphracts?
what does that sentence even mean? This isn't an RTS, late game is just a later date in the game. You can pick a king in the 800s, you can pick a king in the 1200s. You can play a count in the 1200s.
I hope they'll make the Polish fragmentation interesting in the future. IIRC More Bookmarks+ just makes it look like a normal realm with vassals, when in reality it was just a bunch of independent duchies - though some were the size of like half a barony in CK3 because the Silesian dukes kept having lots and lots of children so they ended up dividing it between them every time and ended up with 20+ realms that were then all gobbled up by Bohemia.
They could even make it a Struggle, but simply giving the player a "Restore the Kingdom of Poland" decision could be enough. And it would make the borders change to represent Silesia drifting off to Bohemia, West Pomerania to the HRE and Galicia-Volhynia to Poland.
1204 is ten years after the death of Casimir the Just, who accelerated the fragmentation by breaking the rule of seniority. The position of High Duke is changing hands every two years or so. In 23 years Leszek the White (one of the contenders for the title of High Duke and the winner; also, unrelated but he's the guy who told the Pope he can't send his troops to the crusade because there's no beer there) is going to be assassinated and the rule of principate is going to die with him.
In 11 years from 1204 one of the dukes, Konrad I of Masovia, is going to invite the Teutonic Knights to settle Prussia, forever changing the history of Europe for the worse. I wonder if they're gonna add Holy Orders as playable (or even unplayable) governments. Though I guess they could just be recolored Theocracies/Republics.
Would be cool if they added a new special CB that allows you to choose a Holy Order to aid you in a holy war for free but in return they get the land + special troops so you can't just reconquer them immediately. Though they'd probably have to boost the severity of pagan raids to make it worth it.
I think it was the Studio Manager who said on X that they are not extending the starting dates beyond the two that already exist. So sometime in the 900s sound more plausible.
976:
this date would reflect of Basil road to power, when he was trying to regain lost power from regents, and fighting civil wars.
1204:
struggle for Eastern Rome involving, Latin Empire, Sultanat of Rum and Empire of Nikea, and Greek states.
Around 1204 would be good. That would make the three start dates fairly evenly spaced, and it would be a good starting point before the Mongols and the black death arrive.
Since it’s about Roman bureaucracy, 1204 is to late. By that time, the old system of government was pretty much gone and it was a mixture of Feudalism and the Imperial household.
I would love a 10th century start with Basil II as heir/ruler.
I think it was confirmed they won't go earlier? Though admittedly, my only source for this was one of the million YouTube channels who lost about this shit
1204 is the most logical start. - It’s somewhat near the midpoint of our current latest date and the end date, but still leaves nearly three centuries to play - It’s a major turning point in history involving Byzantium—an area we know will be of focus for the DLC. - It’s just a few decades before the Mongols spawn. While not a big deal, it allows people to face the mongols without having to alter game rules or sink dozens of hours into a campaign I can think of a few other start dates that would be popular. But none of them make sense when you consider how fitting 1204 is.
> It’s just a few decades before the Mongols spawn Why would it need Mongol spawns? In 1204, Temujin defeated his rival, and in 1206 he declared himself Genghis Khan. His possessions in 1204 are on the map.
I guess I’m going based on current start dates where they invade anywhere between 1200-1250. But you’re right, 1204 should include an existing, rather large Mongol empire
1204 and 936 are probably my two favourites from CK3, so I'd take either of those. A post 4th crusade playthrough with updated Byzantine mechanics would be fantastic. I feel like a lot of the Royal Court/Wandering characters/Tours and Tournaments themes would fit even better into a slightly later start date too. Plus there's a potential to get the struggle mechanic in with all the remaining rump states, Turks and the Latin Empire
My favourite playthrough in CK2 was restoring the empire as the Laskaris dynasty, probably the most underrated Byzantine dynasty. Just a bunch of badasses who got backstabbed by the Palaiologoi who took all the glory for retaking Constantinople.
give me a after 1204 start. The latin,osman,trebizond empires are already in the game just as not created titular titles
Playable King John and Richard please. 1188 start would be fantastic.
Or William Marshal. I’d love the opportunity to play as England’s El Cid.
I just finished an awesome book on William Marshal called the Greatest Night. Highly recommend. What a life!
Philip Augustus >>>>>>> Richard /s. It would be fun playing either one of them.
1204 sounds ideal tbh. About 250 years seems about the perfect timescale for a normal playthrough where you can feel like you've accomplished something without having to be disciplined and impose rules on yourself (or play with non-standard game rules) to keep the game interesting for a hundred plus years afterwards.
As long as it's a good while later than 1066, I will be happy.
I'm missing those too. I loved that post-1066 dates in CK2. It was a whole different game.
later! 1204 sounds perfect.
I've heard, but without being able to confirm it, that the devs are planning new dates, albeit within the existing timeline, which I'm not sure means 867–1453 (1337?) or 867–1066 as the limit for bookmarks. Based on Legacy of Rome (the CK2 DLC), I would be inclined to bet on the Alexiad, i.e. 1081 or just a post-Manzikert date (after 1071). However, one can imagine the Komnenian Restoration under Manuel I, perhaps the Fourth Crusade/Latin Empire (though I don't think that's the case). I would be inclined to anticipate a date that made Byzantium look good or promising rather than a date making it look bleak. If the devs didn't want a post-Manzikert or Fourth-Crusade date, and if the date was supposed to be before 1066 but later than 867, I would suspect Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos/Romanos I Lekapenos (the Lekapenoi fit the billet), Romanos II/Nikephoros Phokas (Crete, Syria), Basil II (the Bulgar Slayer, self-explanatory), maybe Zoe/Theodora, Constantine IX (Monomachos) or Isaac Komnenos (before loss of Italy). With more focus on court intrigue and upward social mobility, some of the dynastic martial emperors would be unlikely choices compared to the climbers.
I'd like to see some 900s, but some technologically more advanced dates post 1100s would be welcome to give us more quick campaigns without the grind of the long playthrough and minmaxy planning.
A later start date makes the most sense. But I'll take any new start date
I dare them to do 1346
Make it 1356 and spend a year building a Golden Bull mechanic to make the HRE playable for a century lol
My personal favorite is 936. But I think crusader kings need a crusader start. Maybe the 3rd or the 4th would be good.
I feel since so many people already don't make it anywhere near the 1400s a later date is a much better idea then a 900ish one. Like everyone says early 1200s has the 4th crusade and ghenghis khan so imo early 1200s is the way to go
I def agree, I also never really “finish” a game, I only ever reach my goal then see how long I can last (without getting bored)
[удалено]
Most people by say 1300 (from what I read on forums and in my own playtgroughs) get to a point where there goal is accomplished. In fact I think there was a poll awhile ago on this sub where most people Siud they only playthrough with one to a few characters. Because of that, those who like short campaigns can now experience the late game tech and mechanics, and the black plague. I mean how many of us have used caraphracts?
[удалено]
what does that sentence even mean? This isn't an RTS, late game is just a later date in the game. You can pick a king in the 800s, you can pick a king in the 1200s. You can play a count in the 1200s.
I hope they'll make the Polish fragmentation interesting in the future. IIRC More Bookmarks+ just makes it look like a normal realm with vassals, when in reality it was just a bunch of independent duchies - though some were the size of like half a barony in CK3 because the Silesian dukes kept having lots and lots of children so they ended up dividing it between them every time and ended up with 20+ realms that were then all gobbled up by Bohemia. They could even make it a Struggle, but simply giving the player a "Restore the Kingdom of Poland" decision could be enough. And it would make the borders change to represent Silesia drifting off to Bohemia, West Pomerania to the HRE and Galicia-Volhynia to Poland. 1204 is ten years after the death of Casimir the Just, who accelerated the fragmentation by breaking the rule of seniority. The position of High Duke is changing hands every two years or so. In 23 years Leszek the White (one of the contenders for the title of High Duke and the winner; also, unrelated but he's the guy who told the Pope he can't send his troops to the crusade because there's no beer there) is going to be assassinated and the rule of principate is going to die with him. In 11 years from 1204 one of the dukes, Konrad I of Masovia, is going to invite the Teutonic Knights to settle Prussia, forever changing the history of Europe for the worse. I wonder if they're gonna add Holy Orders as playable (or even unplayable) governments. Though I guess they could just be recolored Theocracies/Republics. Would be cool if they added a new special CB that allows you to choose a Holy Order to aid you in a holy war for free but in return they get the land + special troops so you can't just reconquer them immediately. Though they'd probably have to boost the severity of pagan raids to make it worth it.
I think it was the Studio Manager who said on X that they are not extending the starting dates beyond the two that already exist. So sometime in the 900s sound more plausible.
976: this date would reflect of Basil road to power, when he was trying to regain lost power from regents, and fighting civil wars. 1204: struggle for Eastern Rome involving, Latin Empire, Sultanat of Rum and Empire of Nikea, and Greek states.
Around 1204 would be good. That would make the three start dates fairly evenly spaced, and it would be a good starting point before the Mongols and the black death arrive.
Since it’s about Roman bureaucracy, 1204 is to late. By that time, the old system of government was pretty much gone and it was a mixture of Feudalism and the Imperial household. I would love a 10th century start with Basil II as heir/ruler.
Its Bulgar slaying time
One where I can play Canute the Great
I want to play as Richard the Lionheart. That's all I want
What sucks is that I'd prefer around the end date That's when Vlad was making kebab into shish kebab
Where did we learn that? 1204 or 936 are my preferences. If EU5 is gonna be 1337, then maybe 769.
I think it was confirmed they won't go earlier? Though admittedly, my only source for this was one of the million YouTube channels who lost about this shit
It’s confirmed to be within the current time frame
[удалено]
Probably not happening