Why 1066?

[CCR_of_the_Code]

While the battle between MTW and CK is already starting I would like to point out a major flaw in CK's design- starting the game at 1066.
Why?
Because the battle of Manzekirt was more or less a total fluke and it had a much larger impact on what the Mideval world turned into- the pillage of Constantinople, Turkish Anaotlia and the other crusades are all more or less direct descendants of that fateful battle.
Would Alexius 1 Comnenus send the letter to the Count of Flanders?

 

[unmerged(10262)]

How about Hasting

 

[unmerged(7090)]

Yes, how about Hastings. The events surrounding the end of King Cnute's reign across most of the Northwest (roughly Scandinavia, Normandy, the Celtic Fringe and England & Lowland Scotland)--starting with the death of St. Olaf at King Cnute's hand at Stiklarstadir (about 1030 IRC) and leading to the struggle for hegemony culminating in Stamford Bridge and Hastings is the most exciting and action-packed episode in the history of the Northwest. And Crusader Kings starts...when it's already finished!?

 

[Amadís de Gaula]

Aside Hastings, El Cid was named in 1066 Alférez of the Castillian armies...

2 good reasons.

 

[unmerged(7090)]

Originally posted by Amadís de Gaula
Aside Hastings, El Cid was named in 1066 Alférez of the Castillian armies...

2 good reasons.

I meant Hastings as a baaaaaaaad reason. I really want to play the period leading up to William's conquest of England. Also, I think the map should be reduced to just the Northwest and the time period changed to run from 1030 to 1087--in this period, the Northwest was far more interesting than any other part of Europe (prepares trusty Norman kite-shield to recieve blows).

 

[unmerged(6777)]

Some managable period needs to be chosen and 1066+ is as good as any (and considerably better than most). Keep in mind that

• EU2 brought us back a little earlier to a 1419 start
• now CK will start in 1066 and overlap the start of the EU2 period slightly
• Paradox has already indicated that they have at least 2 more games in the early stages of development...

It would make some sense to me that one of these might cover the period that immediately precedes CK. In a few years' time we might even be able to play a series of grand strategy games from the dawn of civilization almost to the present day. I, for one, am happy to let the individual games' cutoffs be determined by whatever factors seem most prudent from a game design and mechanics standpoint.

*salivates at the thought of a 50,000-year GC*

 

[magicpiper97]

Originally posted by loseth
I meant Hastings as a baaaaaaaad reason. I really want to play the period leading up to William's conquest of England. Also, I think the map should be reduced to just the Northwest and the time period changed to run from 1030 to 1087--in this period, the Northwest was far more interesting than any other part of Europe (prepares trusty Norman kite-shield to recieve blows).

Sounds interesting, but it's a completely different game - not CK
But I'd certainly look forward to a game like this if I ever heard of one...

 

[unmerged(7090)]

Originally posted by MrT
Some managable period needs to be chosen and 1066+ is as good as any (and considerably better than most).

Yeah. In all seriousness, I think it's probably best for Paradox to avoid periods of rapid, politically complex change like the 1030-1066 period in the Northwest. In EUII, such periods inevitably ended up being beyond the scope of the engine, resulting in gross simplifications at best (e.g. the EUII Reformation) and alternate histories at worst (e.g. in EUII history, the Ottomans never became a super-power).

 

[unmerged(6160)]

1066: The year the world changed....
Modern England would have been much different without the Normans, changing the course of history....

 

[unmerged(7090)]

Originally posted by magicpiper97
Sounds interesting, but it's a completely different game - not CK
But I'd certainly look forward to a game like this if I ever heard of one...

I would kill for a game like that, but alas, I have a feeling it's a bit too niche-markety to ever actually happen...

 

[CCR_of_the_Code]

True, but the immideate effects cannot begin to be compared to the effects of Manzekirt- the Crusades and the end of Byzantium are two biggies, as well as the rise of the Turks.
It's unfair to have such a ango-centric view of history. Without Manzekirt the Comnenus dynasty (if it even came to power) would be able to expand, the Rennisanse would never have happened because there would be no fourth crusade. That simple.
In the long run Hastings is almost as important as Manzekirt, but for the first couple of years the two where not even compareable.

 

[unmerged(7090)]

Originally posted by CCR_of_the_Code
True, but the immideate effects cannot begin to be compared to the effects of Manzekirt- the Crusades and the end of Byzantium are two biggies, as well as the rise of the Turks.
It's unfair to have such a ango-centric view of history. Without Manzekirt the Comnenus dynasty (if it even came to power) would be able to expand, the Rennisanse would never have happened because there would be no fourth crusade. That simple.
In the long run Hastings is almost as important as Manzekirt, but for the first couple of years the two where not even compareable.

I don't think it's possible for us to have any idea of what would have happened if Manzikert had turned out to be the routine border action it was supposed to be. Maybe Byzantium would never have collapsed, maybe there would have been some equally disastrous battle a few years or centuries later or maybe something else we haven't even thought of would have happened. There's just no way of knowing.

But, I do take your point. Manzikert had a much bigger immediate impact (or semi-immediate impact--the Seljuks also ran into trouble soon after Manzikert) than Hastings and will probably prove near-impossible for the game engine to simulate accurately, so...yes, I think you're right that 1071 (that was Manzikert, wasn't it?) would probably have been a better starting point than 1066.

 

[unmerged(6160)]

1066 is probably better known by most than Manizkert, and when anyone says 1066, everybody knows exactly what your talking about...

 

[unmerged(7090)]

Originally posted by historycaesar
1066 is probably better known by most than Manizkert, and when anyone says 1066, everybody knows exactly what your talking about...

True, but as CCR implied, not selecting that better known date might have given us a chance to help correct an overly Anglo-centric view of history that does tend to prevail across the English speaking world (not that we're the only ones guilty... :cough: cough: erm... Polish... :cough: cough: ).

 

[Havard]

(Some OT posts deleted...)

The start date is final, and set to after Hastings. Why can only the designers answer, but a few arguments has been mentioned.

The events loseth mentions for the period before Hastings is very interesting, but would put great strain on a game engine that is supposed to last for 400 years. It makes the design prosess a lot easier to not have to cater for that. I too would love to see a game covering this, but that's for another game.

Now to Manzikiert... Is Manzikiert an important eventy in history? Definitely. Is it more important as a single event/battle compared to Hastings? I'd say not. The Byzantine empire was crumbling, and IMO it was only a matter of time before they had had the Turks on their throat anyway. In their sorry state they would not have been able to withstand the Turks for long anyway...

I do not think the date is selected out of an anglo-centric view of history. It's a convenient date to choose so that you don't have to model the first "Battle of Britain" between William and the two Haralds...

 

[Snall]

Its sorta funny how he had him prionser for a bit like that..anyway...ahem..1066 is fine, I just want to play the damn thing. I should never look on the net..I should just check game stores once a month or so..then I wouldn't have to go through these hunger pangs for so many great titles...*sigh*

 

[CCR_of_the_Code]

Sorry state with Romanus Diogenes?
Sure, after Basil things started looking bad, but if Manzekirt had proven to be a succes (as was likely, if that one man had not spread the rumor of defeat and left the battle), Romanus very well could have had one or two succesful campaigns.
How is Byzantium simulated anyway?

 

[Wulfram]

Originally posted by Havard
Now to Manzikiert... Is Manzikiert an important eventy in history? Definitely. Is it more important as a single event/battle compared to Hastings? I'd say not. The Byzantine empire was crumbling, and IMO it was only a matter of time before they had had the Turks on their throat anyway. In their sorry state they would not have been able to withstand the Turks for long anyway...

Crumbling? The Empire was near it's largest extent, with only some minor losses (The notable one being southern italy, which was pretty minor really). Had some problems certainly, but not significantly more than in the 7th, 8th or early 9th centuries.

The turkish empire fell apart only 21 years after Manzikert, so they don't have to survive for long. They might even have been able to grab a some Fatimid territory during the turkish collapse.

I must also point out that after they recovered from the defeat (And the Norman and Petcheneg invasions), they held the upper hand for more than three quarters of a century against the Turks (Until the Battle of Myriocephalon in 1176), while also feeling able to launch ambitious campaigns in the west. I mean, even the Empire of Nicaea was able to fight the turks with some success, despite being busy recovering C'nople and dealing with the Despotate of Epirus.

If there's any reason not to regard Manzikert as important, it's that it didn't guarantee the fall of the Empire. Even Anatolia might have been recovered until the previously mention Battle of Myriocephalon.

 

[Demetrios]

One of the things about Manzikert is that our sources are so scarce, lacking in detail, and biased in one way or another that it's pretty easy for anyone to take what little we know and string together all sorts of theories about what happened and what could have happened. Therefore debating about the battle is in some ways an exercise in futility, as anyone can arrange the "facts" to suit their arguments...

 

[Idiotboy]

Originally posted by Demetrios
One of the things about Manzikert is that our sources are so scarce, lacking in detail, and biased in one way or another that it's pretty easy for anyone to take what little we know and string together all sorts of theories about what happened and what could have happened. Therefore debating about the battle is in some ways an exercise in futility, as anyone can arrange the "facts" to suit their arguments...

*Snicker* Yes it´s funny isn´t it. It tend to always degenerate into the side arguing that it was a fluke against the side that argues that only kryptonite would have been an effective weapon agains the seldjuks.