Start Dates

[Farabi]

Absurd reductive Islamophobia aside, I’d say one of the greatest problems of representing the ‘Long Late Antiquity’ through the 7th and 8th centuries is adequately representing what changed - and what did not - through this extraordinary period.

The political, social and cultural differences between the dynamic religious/tribal confederation that expanded out from Arabia under Abu Bakr and the settled, developed, diverse bureaucratic imperial state of the ‘Abbasids 200 years later are too extreme to adequately reproduce - and the Iqta system loosely modelled in CK2 didn’t even exist until the 10th century!

I would have liked to have seen a slightly earlier ~840 start date in CK3 so I could play Theophilos and al-Mu’tasim in full vigour, and see the fallout from the death of Louis the Pious (possibly with a script triggered Viking Siege of Paris a few years in), but to be honest I think even 867 is too early to properly represent without major gameplay differences to the 1066 date. I await al-Mu’tazz’s struggles with the Turks with some trepidation.

 

[PDX-Nicou]

For those who didn't know, we announced the following Start Dates during the PDXCon19

The time period of CK3 is chosen based upon what players enjoyed playing in CK2. As it turns out, players prefer to start in 1066 or as a pagan in 867, so we decided to focus upon those dates for the release

 

[tribnia]

For those who didn't know, we announced the following Start Dates during the PDXCon19

The time period of CK3 is chosen based upon what players enjoyed playing in CK2. As it turns out, players prefer to start in 1066 or as a pagan in 867, so we decided to focus upon those dates for the release

Does that mean that there will only be these two bookmarks?

 

[PDX-Nicou]

At the moment, we are planning on these two given dates for Launch.
I enjoyed reading the many threads about your preferred Starting Dates; Rest assured that I have raised your suggestions to the dev team. It doesn't mean that we will add more starting dates to be also there at Launch, but we are keeping our ears and eyes wide open for feedback.
Thanks for your time and passion for Crusader Kings!

 

[Dromedari]

We need a start at the Second Crusade. Melisende of Jerusalem, Baldwin, Eleanor of Aquitaine, Louis VII of France, Henry II, Nur al-Din, Manuel Komnenos, Reinaldo of Chatillon...

All these incredible characters cannot be left out of a game that has the title Crusader Kings!

 

[Gurkhal]

I really hope we can get a 8th century start, at least, because to me just some 400 years wouldn't be enough to do all the stuff I want to see. Many of which requires me to found my own heresy and probably convert my realm as well.

I'm holding on to my hope, Paradox, and I hope you'll deliver earlier starts for us.

Digression: Besides if you implement from the start non-feudal ways to hold landed estates and provincial positions of authority under a central government you would be able to push the game even further back and perhaps better simulate the breakdown of central control and rise of local/region/decentralized power in a state. As was to my understanding seen in both Europe after the breakdown of the Carolingian Empire and the Abbasid Caliphate (on this later I am not as sure as on the former, so if I am entirely wrong, please make a post and inform us about it).

Or at the very least, consider some anti-blob mechanics.

 

[elvain]

I really hope we can get a 8th century start, at least, because to me just some 400 years wouldn't be enough to do all the stuff I want to see. Many of which requires me to found my own heresy and probably convert my realm as well.

I'm holding on to my hope, Paradox, and I hope you'll deliver earlier starts for us.

Digression: Besides if you implement from the start non-feudal ways to hold landed estates and provincial positions of authority under a central government you would be able to push the game even further back and perhaps better simulate the breakdown of central control and rise of local/region/decentralized power in a state. As was to my understanding seen in both Europe after the breakdown of the Carolingian Empire and the Abbasid Caliphate (on this later I am not as sure as on the former, so if I am entirely wrong, please make a post and inform us about it).

Or at the very least, consider some anti-blob mechanics.

for people like you it would be much better to just mod or extend the END date, not pushing the start date.

EDIT: I understand you want or need to play longer time, that's no problem. But it really isn't a reason to push the game out of its time frame.

 

[Rubidium]

Yeah, the CK2 mechanics could work reasonably well up until 1510s (when Martin Luther starts acting up, and the Conquest of Mexico means the New World is suddenly big money and not just a peripheral Spanish concern), while giving you another 60 years of gameplay. They really don't work in the 700s (and are honestly kind of a stretch in the 800s).

 

[Torngasuk]

I hadn't put a great deal of thought into this topic thus far, but now that I know that we're likely to only see two start dates at launch, I'm going to have to refine my opinions somewhat, because 1066 simply isn't enough for me. It has its high points, certainly, but I wouldn't consider it the most interesting or definitive start date by any means. People naturally gravitate toward what they consider to be the default or most natural choice: if the Third Crusade was treated by the game as the primary start date and placed first in the list, I figure odds are decent that we'd all be talking about how much people enjoy playing Richard the Lionheart and Saladin, but that's neither here nor there. If need be, I'll be the very first in line to mod the 12th-14th centuries into the game, because I honestly believe they're a more representative and enjoyable sandbox to play in, but of course I'd much rather see them implemented with the same degree of care and professionalism that the rest of the game will enjoy, if not at launch, then as an expansion down the road.

So, start dates. My primary criteria is really quite simple: what dates have the largest number of interesting characters and situations available to explore? There are a few that come to mind. The dates aren't particularly specific, and are weighted more to enjoy the largest number of overlapping reigns belonging to noteworthy characters that we would be inclined to start as.

1102, slightly after the First Crusade, because this gives a foothold in the Holy Land to Raymond IV, count of Toulouse, in establishing himself in the future county of Tripoli, last of the mainstream early crusader states. Baldwin I reigns in Jerusalem, the future Baldwin II in Edessa, and Bohemond I in Antioch. Henry I has just recently taken the throne in England, and Poland is divided in civil strife after the death of Wladyslaw I. Your archetypal crusader start.

Then we get a little bit more interesting. 1131: Fulk and Melisende ruling in Jerusalem. The magnificent Roger II just crowned in Sicily, and Henry I drawing close to the end of his life in England, with the stage set for the fallout over Matilda's inheritance, and a young Eleanor of Aquitaine. Alfonso the Emperor ruling over Leon, Castile, and Galicia, as well. The early crusader states coming close to the peak of their historical power and influence.

1189, the Third Crusade almost speaks for itself. Richard the Lionheart. Saladin. Philip Augustus. Frederick Barbarossa. Rǫgnvaldr Guðrøðarson, king of the Isles, "the greatest warrior in the western lands." William the Good, king of Sicily, and William the Lion, king of Scotland. Conrad of Montferrat. Balian of Ibelin. Guy of Lusignan. The iconic Crusader Kings era, when almost all the famous names and dynasties are in play.

1205-1206. Two words: Genghis Khan. But also the aftermath of the Fourth Crusade. King John in England. Valdemar the Conqueror, king of Denmark. Also important to capture in this window of opportunity: Boniface of Montferrat, king of Thessalonica. The first start that would offer a playable kingdom of Cyprus. Alexios and David Komnenos founding Trebizond. The emperor Kaloyan in Bulgaria. One of the first two Latin Emperors in Constantinople.

1248, for similar reasons to 1189. Right before the Seventh Crusade. Saint Louis and that famous adventurer, Charles of Anjou. Henry III, king of England, Simon de Montfort, and Llywelyn the Last in Wales. Frederick II Hohenstaufen. James the Conqueror, King of Aragon. William of Villehardouin, prince of Achaea. Birger Jarl in Sweden. Baibars as a young commander.

There are other dates I could suggest, with equally fascinating casts of characters, especially later ones, but for now I'll settle for the battles that I might at least have a modest chance at winning.

 

[IAmNotAmused]

I didn't actually see that, I only saw the Muhammad bit. If it's the same situation as before, with the earlier 769 scenarios then it's fine - I was thinking more those Age of Islam scenarios people like to ask for.

The Arab conquests grew out of the Last Byzantine-Sassanid War which exhausted both powers leaving an opening for the Arabs. That war ended in 628, only a couple years before the death of Muhammed in 632 and four years before Yarmouk. Starting the scenario with the elevation of Abu Bakr to Caliph is not going to change much geopolitically, while avoiding the Muhammed question entirely.

Digression: Besides if you implement from the start non-feudal ways to hold landed estates and provincial positions of authority under a central government you would be able to push the game even further back and perhaps better simulate the breakdown of central control and rise of local/region/decentralized power in a state. As was to my understanding seen in both Europe after the breakdown of the Carolingian Empire and the Abbasid Caliphate (on this later I am not as sure as on the former, so if I am entirely wrong, please make a post and inform us about it).

Yeah, a proper imperial bureaucracy is required to both properly simulate the Byzantines and caliphate, as well as represent any pre-feudal systems in Late Antiquity. You'd also need a mechanism representing the breakdown of the administrative order into feudal systems. It's not just central authority, but also strength of institutions in general.

 

[Feeblezak]

Muhammad was actually a character in Crusader Kings 2. In a way.

Always felt his stats were pretty crappy considering his achievements in life.

 

[IAmNotAmused]

Muhammad was actually a character in Crusader Kings 2. In a way.

Always felt his stats were pretty crappy considering his achievements in life.

Yeah, but having him in there as an easter (no pun intended) egg is an entirely different thing than a scenario where the player is Muhammed with free reign to do just about anything, or you're playing against him and can do bodily harm to him.

A "castrated and blinded Muhammed" meme might get someone killed in real life.

Also, pretty sure his stats in CK2 were the base 5 with the listed traits. His numbers aren't far off from St. Peter (first entry in the county of Rome).

Fun fact: Emperor Heraclius is the earliest character with the crusader trait.

 

[DPS]

Actually, I think the Prophet's stats are random. Not sure about that, though.

 

[defy]

What is the "Muhammad problem"?

 

[neutrondecay]

What is the "Muhammad problem"?

Read the thread. There have been several explanations, from different perspectives.

nd