Let's discuss. What do you people think would be the best starting year? I personally like 1066, but also start from the Great Schism or Manzikert would be awesome.
-
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.
- Status
When was the great schism? 1050-somethin? Seems like a good date to me. It's the end date that I tend to worry about, I'd like the game to potentially go on as long as possible. :rofl:
1000 AD the beginning of the High Middle Ages. I think it should be made so that the East-West schism doesn't necessarily have to happen or might happen in a much later date.
William I to Henry IV
The dates should obviously be based exclusively on the reigns of English Kings :rofl:
On other 'start date' news is there an official ETA yet? Not a demand just wondering what is being planned...
The dates should obviously be based exclusively on the reigns of English Kings :rofl:
On other 'start date' news is there an official ETA yet? Not a demand just wondering what is being planned...
1066. All the research is done. Let's focus on adding later scenarios (such as 1096 or 1204) instead. Because like Vicky each scenario requires a huge amount of research/work which will probably mean no rolling start date a la EUIII
I agree.
Of course if you start at say 1054 you could still use a lot of data from 1066 but not all of it so they would have to skim through all the data again, which takes a lot time.
Nothing official yet, but it is safe to assume that the development will take 1 year just like HoI3 and V2. So most likely Q3 2011.
The research will be on getting the dynastys right though, it doesn't have the problems with Pops that Vicky had or with divisions/deployments that HoI had.
They presumably have the dynastys done to the final start date for CK which was what about 1300 or so?
I would have thought that CK might be quite a good bet for a rolling start...
I doubt that considering the amount of data that is required for that. Just look at the 1066 scenario and how many characters and relations between characters there are and then imagine doing that to cover 400 years.
I'd like a 1066/1087 start, but I'd also like an extended end, seeing it go all the way to 1485 would be enormously fantastic!
EDIT - Particularly if we could have a 1455 scenario
EDIT - Particularly if we could have a 1455 scenario
I enjoyed the 1066 scenario. Never played any others.
Surely they have to have multiple campaigns in CKII because unlike Victoria, the timeline is much to long and the map changes so much.
But for the most part they should focus on improving the role playing ability. Thus making a single province count less boring. Seriously, I'm playing as Corsica and it is mostly waiting to marry off sons and waiting to die.
Surely they have to have multiple campaigns in CKII because unlike Victoria, the timeline is much to long and the map changes so much.
But for the most part they should focus on improving the role playing ability. Thus making a single province count less boring. Seriously, I'm playing as Corsica and it is mostly waiting to marry off sons and waiting to die.
CK1's start date is simply perfect, before 1066 there were lots of changes that would cause game going mad
1014.
I've advocated it for years, but I'll repeat it once more.
Independent Italy, Independent Burgundy, Independent Germany, Bulgarian Empire vs. Byzantines, Basil II, the last great Roman Emperor, united Ireland under Brian Boru, England split in half, Danelaw, etc. etc.
With EU3 starting in 1399, the 1453 end-date from CK1 is obsolete. So, cut 50 years out from the late game and add 50 years to the beginning. 1014-1399, with the ability to play as factions you almost never saw in CK1... like Saxon England, for one.
To all of the people who say that it's best to just start in 1066 since we already have the research done, that's somewhat accurate, sure... but it took dozens of guys, including myself, to help get us to that point... so if P'dox did move the startdate, we would volunteer our services again to make it more accurate.
I've advocated it for years, but I'll repeat it once more.
Independent Italy, Independent Burgundy, Independent Germany, Bulgarian Empire vs. Byzantines, Basil II, the last great Roman Emperor, united Ireland under Brian Boru, England split in half, Danelaw, etc. etc.
With EU3 starting in 1399, the 1453 end-date from CK1 is obsolete. So, cut 50 years out from the late game and add 50 years to the beginning. 1014-1399, with the ability to play as factions you almost never saw in CK1... like Saxon England, for one.
To all of the people who say that it's best to just start in 1066 since we already have the research done, that's somewhat accurate, sure... but it took dozens of guys, including myself, to help get us to that point... so if P'dox did move the startdate, we would volunteer our services again to make it more accurate.
I'd actually also support a 1014 start, though I really think things like the Wars of the Roses can only really be properly portrayed in something like CK, EU3 leaves much to be desired with regards to Medieval gameplay.
I think for practical reasons 1066 is a good choice, although an earlier date would leave more room for important technological, economic, and cultural changes.
Just for the sake of argument, however, it might be interesting to have ruling courts evolve more permanent bureaucracies, to have more sophisticated contracts come into trade and business relations -- things like that.
The downside is that the further back one goes in time, the more difficult (read: fanciful) dynastic lineages become to trace!
Just for the sake of argument, however, it might be interesting to have ruling courts evolve more permanent bureaucracies, to have more sophisticated contracts come into trade and business relations -- things like that.
The downside is that the further back one goes in time, the more difficult (read: fanciful) dynastic lineages become to trace!
That's stupid. You don't see Vicky II starting at 1821 because that's where EUIII left off. Why should CK have to work around EU III?
1453 is a good year to end. If anything I'd like to see that stretched further to end of the Wars of the Roses of even 1492.
And here I thought you'd say the HYW.
The Wars of the Roses were probably too late to be covered by CK, unless they add an expansion pack to 1492 or something.
That's stupid. You don't see Vicky II starting at 1821 because that's where EUIII left off. Why should CK have to work around EU III?
Victoria ends when HOI begins, does it not? When EU3 came out, it began in 1453 until expansions pushed the startdate back.
But I digress. CK1 handled the HYW horribly. Capture a few cities in the King's demense and the war's over in a year.
Hopefully it's different now, but if the gameplay is the same, I'd prefer to handle my England vs. France fun goodness in EU.
How about, say, 1016, after the dust had cleared a bit? It's generally a bad idea to start at a time of total chaos since it more or less guarantees your game will spin off into complete batfeck straight away.
I'd actually favour keeping the end date where it is or even extending it to 1494 or so.
I'd actually favour keeping the end date where it is or even extending it to 1494 or so.
Would be nice if they made the map from modder projects, the Vicky2 map from the screenshots were perfect!
- Status