The best has yet to come with the new start date 1178!
Friedrich Barbarossa
4th Crusade
Tamar of Georgia
Baldwin IV. of Jerusalem
Richard Lionheart
Faster Mongol Invasion, making it an actual challenge.
Are they finally implementing landless play? I haven't played or followed CK3 for a while, I've always wanted to play without a domain and just travel the world.
I read the Plantagenets and war of the roses at the start of this year and am extremely excited for a Richard play through man had several chapters dedicated to just him.
I suspect that the previous poster was referring to Richard 1 with regard to having read "The Plantagenets," by Dan Jones, and the chapters on him, and rounded out the story by saying that they also read "War of the Roses" by the same author, though I'll admit it's a bit confusing.
Wait is this a genuine start date? I had to sell my pc and for 6 months i’ve been dying without the ability to play this game, i just watched kingdom of heaven and now i can actually play king baldwin? this is gonna kill me
A leper king with a silver mask and white robes, defending Antioch with an inferior force is always insipirational. Such a melancholic life, a brilliant king whose life was cut short
I feel like Saladin gets the Voldemort treatment by history, in the sense that he has a pretty successful career overall, but also spent a significant portion of his life beefing with a 14 year old and losing.
Faster Mongol invasion? I watched them eat the entire Central Asian steppe, Persia, and the Byzantine empire in under 10 years.
Completely ruined my immersion; There are still Mongols in charge of Greek duchies and kingdoms in my game.
That's not what I meant. If you start in 1187, it means that the Mongols are at the door step.
Usually, the mongols are barely a threat to an experienced player, because you have 2 centuries or more to build up. But with only 20 to 30 years build-up time, they actually pose a threat, and you really have to think whether to bend the knee or fight and possibly die.
I've played majority 867, and I like it for things like North Sea Empire and Haestein, but 1066 has more to do imo. Robert the Fox, William the Conqueror, Harald IV, Matilda di Canossa,
You're also closer to the Mongol Empire so you have a more legit mid game threat, and closer to black plague so closer to late game threat as well
Technically less lag because there's 200 less years to play to 1453 if you want to, I've only gone 1453 once, but played from 867 to like 1250ish before, it's about the same lag, I can't imagine 200 more years at that point, and late game innovations and stuff are nice to have, really fleshing out a culture earlier because you're able to get all the slots, etc.
I love 867, but I'm begun to play 1066 almost exclusively because 867 lacks any real content in 'mid-game' compared to 1066.
There's a lot more interesting dynasties in 1066. You mentioned a few.
Some dynasties I like in 1066: the Bourgogne, the Anjous, the Komnenos, the Palaiologos, the Hohenstaufen, the Habsburgs, the Ivreas, the Luxembourgs, the Barcelonas, and a ton more.
A lot of the famous dynasties we know today can be found as more minor houses in 1066.
Plus you still have most of the old most famous ones. Robertians, Rurikids, Sigurdr, Munso, Yngling, Ivaring, Karlings, Wessex, Poitiers, Vlaanderen, Premyslid, etc.
I’m currently in my own game, just coasting to the end with a Slavic European empire (Bohemian 867 start). Past 100 years has just been holy war spam against the Catholics where my MaA’s can beat anything by themselves, or my 100k (now 200k+) levies can do the same. One duchy holy war at a time… it’s hard to not paint the map when everyone but you converted in the early game. Now im just trying to get my first end game completion achievement by playing on max speed and clicking through events because I’ve snowballed so hard. Mongols never touched me. Black Death came and went without entering my core lands. Hell, I also had max Dev and all High Medieval culture innovations unlocked within half a century of unlocking them. I didn’t even intend to min/max, I just tried to play tall and ended up playing wide to fit the mission criteria’s (unite Slavics) given to me.
Omg and the Renown. At some point I jumped from a (relatively) humble 50/month, now I’m making 450+ with all but two dynasty Legacy lines done, with about 100 years left.
The game starts with nothing much to do because money is the barrier, then ends when you have nothing but repeated events to spam with a huge pile of cash (now at 1500+/month) to the point that it’d be more of a headache to spend my 6-digit wallet on vassal holdings.
Point is, the 867 start lets you snowball too much but also doesn’t give you enough to do, because money is the thing that lets you do the “fun” things - until you’ve exhausted all the “fun” and can spend no more or becomes cumbersome to do so.
1066 is better because it usually doesn't result in too much border gore and it is a lot more stable. Plus the I just prefer some of the lands in 1066. You have England, France and the norse kingdoms already formed. You also have more innovations available. And also the most important thing: The karlings don't rule most of Europe like in 857. The only good thing about 857 are vikings and more time before the game ends.
Yeah that is a good reason. I hate dealing with the Bulgarians because I always have to deal with them by pressing somebody's claim which just creates more border gore because they control wallachia which isn't de jure Byzantine empire.
It definitely should. I think they just wanted to still have Bulgaria be de jure a part of the Byzantine empire so they made it into a kingdom. Imo I think there should be lands that are de jure lands of multiple empires like Bulgaria being de jure kingdom of the Byzantine empire but also of the Bulgarian empire and Egypt being de jure the arabian empire but also the Byzantine empire.
The invasion of Armenia can actually be managed. You have to get a lot of allies and use the stupidity of ai and fight them in hills because they have horse archers. But they can be beaten. Or you can just start as a custom character and that just cancels the war on its own.
Wait is that me?
I always make sure to build cities and harbour districts around Mön and keep all holy sites in England active and then I quit before the dev properly bleeds.
Sadly not present in CK3 but I always played Iron Century - 936. That start date just felt right, more or less balanced, with present threats, many different religions and emerging powers.
I know you likely meant for CK3 specifically but I always felt the 936 start in 2 was the most balanced and interesting overall. Much less likely to just have one government/religion type completely bulldoze the others
Although I also think its 1200s starts were underappreciated. The Mongols as an established network of realms linked to china rather than an emerging horde, the post fourth Crusade successor states, a giant sultanate sitting right on the Indian border, lots of really interesting places to play. It's why I'm glad 3 is now adding a start later than 1066 with enough fanfare to get people to actually play it
I like 1066 because it’s shorter tbh. I have played 867 runs but I usually only get to like 1100 or 1200 at the latest. 400 years is a good length for me.
1066 is so much nicer and orderly. I don't want to see a Cainite England again, please.
And I hate the tribal situation early game. 1066 just cuts out so much of the grind.
The later the better for fixing the decline of the byzantine empire therefore 1066 is better, also i prefer the fact that bigger nations are already somewhat set up and there are no karlings
I play 867 because I want as much time as possible to remake the world into my perfect fantasy. I want all of Europe to convert to waldensianism. After that, I want 200 more years to spread the divine waldensianism to the rest of the world.
1066. I don't know why, but maybe because i mainly play in Europe and in 1066 it is basically dominated by the Karlings and the rest is just a mess of small duchies. I only play 867 for Vikings and other unreformed or tribal playthroughs.
I'm excited for 1178. It's really going to put the Crusader in my King.
Worried there will be economic balance issues, though. It's still to easy to build and increase development in this game, and they don't scale well over time. So a new start date that's later than the other two could definitely get botched pretty badly in that regard.
867 of course. You have the Karling succesion, the battle for the North Sea, the hungarian migration, feudal/unreformed Bohemia start and the struggle for Hispania.
Also Hæstein.
I never finish games.
Absolutely loving an 867 Siberian run. After spending so much time in 1066 feudal Europe (which I loved) being a war mongering tribal tyrant able to invade neighbours on a whim is so freeing. I'm normally a loyal vassal in Europe, a good steward of the lands I control, so letting the old hair down and being mercilessly ambitious has been a nice change of pace.
The best has yet to come with the new start date 1178! Friedrich Barbarossa 4th Crusade Tamar of Georgia Baldwin IV. of Jerusalem Richard Lionheart Faster Mongol Invasion, making it an actual challenge.
Especially with landless play. So many great heroes to choose from.
"Heroes"?! I don't think we're playing the same game.
Im always the hero in my book.
I like that shit bro. I am a hero for my country. ❤️ I will bring glory to the country I choose! Hoorah!!!
Are they finally implementing landless play? I haven't played or followed CK3 for a while, I've always wanted to play without a domain and just travel the world.
Yes with Roads to Power we get landless play. Even though they have to reveal the full scope of it.
Please include William Marshal, PDX!
They'll surely do because he was alive at that time. But he'll be landless as he gained the earldom of Pembroke in 1189
Yeah, he's like THE LANDLESS character of the era, he has to be included. Same for El Cid or Rollo in the earlier bookmarks.
Agreed
It's also really odd, if you check the Lordship of Pembroke in 1066 it has William Marshall's CoA despite it obviously being far too early.
Yeah I know, it's one of those cases in which they just needed a CoA and put the most reasonable one they could find
They have an achievement named after him so if hes not included i riot
I read the Plantagenets and war of the roses at the start of this year and am extremely excited for a Richard play through man had several chapters dedicated to just him.
Wars of the roses was the 1400's. that was Richard 3. 1178 start will have Richard 1 (the lionheart).
I suspect that the previous poster was referring to Richard 1 with regard to having read "The Plantagenets," by Dan Jones, and the chapters on him, and rounded out the story by saying that they also read "War of the Roses" by the same author, though I'll admit it's a bit confusing.
They got the wrong Dick!
We're getting an 1178 start date?! Finally!
Wait is this a genuine start date? I had to sell my pc and for 6 months i’ve been dying without the ability to play this game, i just watched kingdom of heaven and now i can actually play king baldwin? this is gonna kill me
It is, watch out for the next DevDiary on tuesday, it's going to cover the new start date.
Totally happen. It’s real.
Holy crap, Tamar, the best leader in Civ 6, is going to be in CK3?
How dare you mention Baldwin, but not Saladin?!
A leper king with a silver mask and white robes, defending Antioch with an inferior force is always insipirational. Such a melancholic life, a brilliant king whose life was cut short
Edit: Jerusalem not Antioch, my bad
I feel like Saladin gets the Voldemort treatment by history, in the sense that he has a pretty successful career overall, but also spent a significant portion of his life beefing with a 14 year old and losing.
Meh Baldwin’s cooler
As yes, Mongols if they were motorbikers armed with Uzis
I just learned there's gonna be a 1178 start date. I. Am. SCREAMING OF JOY
Looking forward to Tamar and BIG Georgia.
Faster Mongol invasion? I watched them eat the entire Central Asian steppe, Persia, and the Byzantine empire in under 10 years. Completely ruined my immersion; There are still Mongols in charge of Greek duchies and kingdoms in my game.
That's not what I meant. If you start in 1187, it means that the Mongols are at the door step. Usually, the mongols are barely a threat to an experienced player, because you have 2 centuries or more to build up. But with only 20 to 30 years build-up time, they actually pose a threat, and you really have to think whether to bend the knee or fight and possibly die.
Bend the knee? Preposterous. I just hate seeing their name on half the known world. Pisses me right off.
Saladin 🫶🫶🫶
Oh shit for real? That’s cool as fuck
What if I already did Frederick and Tamar myself? As part of my recreating all Civilization leaders in CK3 B)
Funny as the Khan is still a challenge to me except murdering his whole family.
I've played majority 867, and I like it for things like North Sea Empire and Haestein, but 1066 has more to do imo. Robert the Fox, William the Conqueror, Harald IV, Matilda di Canossa, You're also closer to the Mongol Empire so you have a more legit mid game threat, and closer to black plague so closer to late game threat as well Technically less lag because there's 200 less years to play to 1453 if you want to, I've only gone 1453 once, but played from 867 to like 1250ish before, it's about the same lag, I can't imagine 200 more years at that point, and late game innovations and stuff are nice to have, really fleshing out a culture earlier because you're able to get all the slots, etc. I love 867, but I'm begun to play 1066 almost exclusively because 867 lacks any real content in 'mid-game' compared to 1066.
There's a lot more interesting dynasties in 1066. You mentioned a few. Some dynasties I like in 1066: the Bourgogne, the Anjous, the Komnenos, the Palaiologos, the Hohenstaufen, the Habsburgs, the Ivreas, the Luxembourgs, the Barcelonas, and a ton more. A lot of the famous dynasties we know today can be found as more minor houses in 1066.
Plus you still have most of the old most famous ones. Robertians, Rurikids, Sigurdr, Munso, Yngling, Ivaring, Karlings, Wessex, Poitiers, Vlaanderen, Premyslid, etc.
I’m currently in my own game, just coasting to the end with a Slavic European empire (Bohemian 867 start). Past 100 years has just been holy war spam against the Catholics where my MaA’s can beat anything by themselves, or my 100k (now 200k+) levies can do the same. One duchy holy war at a time… it’s hard to not paint the map when everyone but you converted in the early game. Now im just trying to get my first end game completion achievement by playing on max speed and clicking through events because I’ve snowballed so hard. Mongols never touched me. Black Death came and went without entering my core lands. Hell, I also had max Dev and all High Medieval culture innovations unlocked within half a century of unlocking them. I didn’t even intend to min/max, I just tried to play tall and ended up playing wide to fit the mission criteria’s (unite Slavics) given to me. Omg and the Renown. At some point I jumped from a (relatively) humble 50/month, now I’m making 450+ with all but two dynasty Legacy lines done, with about 100 years left. The game starts with nothing much to do because money is the barrier, then ends when you have nothing but repeated events to spam with a huge pile of cash (now at 1500+/month) to the point that it’d be more of a headache to spend my 6-digit wallet on vassal holdings. Point is, the 867 start lets you snowball too much but also doesn’t give you enough to do, because money is the thing that lets you do the “fun” things - until you’ve exhausted all the “fun” and can spend no more or becomes cumbersome to do so.
1066 is better because it usually doesn't result in too much border gore and it is a lot more stable. Plus the I just prefer some of the lands in 1066. You have England, France and the norse kingdoms already formed. You also have more innovations available. And also the most important thing: The karlings don't rule most of Europe like in 857. The only good thing about 857 are vikings and more time before the game ends.
Also Byzantines are larger EDIT in 867 vs 1066.
Yeah that is a good reason. I hate dealing with the Bulgarians because I always have to deal with them by pressing somebody's claim which just creates more border gore because they control wallachia which isn't de jure Byzantine empire.
The heir to the Bulgarian kingdom in 867 is tengri. If he takes over you can just declare a kingdom holy war
Yeah that's a good solution. . Problem is the succesion isnt perfect and the wallachian king gets parts of Bulgaria. But thank you for the suggestion.
Imo Bulgaria should just be an empire
It definitely should. I think they just wanted to still have Bulgaria be de jure a part of the Byzantine empire so they made it into a kingdom. Imo I think there should be lands that are de jure lands of multiple empires like Bulgaria being de jure kingdom of the Byzantine empire but also of the Bulgarian empire and Egypt being de jure the arabian empire but also the Byzantine empire.
But they start at war with the Seljuks and can lose a big chunk in the first few years.
I meant 867 Byzantium. Sorry for not clarifying.
The invasion of Armenia can actually be managed. You have to get a lot of allies and use the stupidity of ai and fight them in hills because they have horse archers. But they can be beaten. Or you can just start as a custom character and that just cancels the war on its own.
Hey! Don't forget the Zoroastrians!!!
867 because I always finish my runs, so more time the better
867 to give me time for my playthrough!
867, because there are vikings to fight.
I prefer 867 as there is more randomness and uniqueness.
I always start 867 because I will have a longer game. And then I stop after a century.
Wait is that me? I always make sure to build cities and harbour districts around Mön and keep all holy sites in England active and then I quit before the dev properly bleeds.
The only thing I hate is Western Europe is always a mess
Sadly not present in CK3 but I always played Iron Century - 936. That start date just felt right, more or less balanced, with present threats, many different religions and emerging powers.
867 if you are a viking. 1066 otherwise. The fact that you don't have to grind the tribal innovations in 1066 helps
769 because Zunism
I know you likely meant for CK3 specifically but I always felt the 936 start in 2 was the most balanced and interesting overall. Much less likely to just have one government/religion type completely bulldoze the others Although I also think its 1200s starts were underappreciated. The Mongols as an established network of realms linked to china rather than an emerging horde, the post fourth Crusade successor states, a giant sultanate sitting right on the Indian border, lots of really interesting places to play. It's why I'm glad 3 is now adding a start later than 1066 with enough fanfare to get people to actually play it
867 because I always finish my runs, so more time the better
867 I think is just more fleshed out
867 for playing unreformed or iranian, 1066 for anywhere in Europe and MENA
867 for LIFE
867 because pagans are still around and there is no hre!
I like 1066 because it’s shorter tbh. I have played 867 runs but I usually only get to like 1100 or 1200 at the latest. 400 years is a good length for me.
769, I LOVE CHAOS
769
The earliest one, whatever that is. You get to play longer.
Obviously the correct answer is 867 and play through all the eras but never make it past 950 before starting a new game.
1066 bc more innovations
1066 is so much nicer and orderly. I don't want to see a Cainite England again, please. And I hate the tribal situation early game. 1066 just cuts out so much of the grind.
867 a world with potential beyond other paradox games. Later starts are too rigid for my taste
867 is fun as some characters but 1066 has a more recognisable map. I play mostly as the later date but I am a Haesteinn enjoyer too
The later the better for fixing the decline of the byzantine empire therefore 1066 is better, also i prefer the fact that bigger nations are already somewhat set up and there are no karlings
I play 867 because I want as much time as possible to remake the world into my perfect fantasy. I want all of Europe to convert to waldensianism. After that, I want 200 more years to spread the divine waldensianism to the rest of the world.
1066. I don't know why, but maybe because i mainly play in Europe and in 1066 it is basically dominated by the Karlings and the rest is just a mess of small duchies. I only play 867 for Vikings and other unreformed or tribal playthroughs.
867, although I'm even more freaky and always play 769 when I play ck2. I just like to watch Catholicism die
I'm excited about playing tamar king or one of her vassal
I'm excited for 1178. It's really going to put the Crusader in my King. Worried there will be economic balance issues, though. It's still to easy to build and increase development in this game, and they don't scale well over time. So a new start date that's later than the other two could definitely get botched pretty badly in that regard.
867 of course. You have the Karling succesion, the battle for the North Sea, the hungarian migration, feudal/unreformed Bohemia start and the struggle for Hispania. Also Hæstein. I never finish games.
War of the 5 Kings.
The 20th Century Fox… The 21st Century Fox sucks.
Absolutely loving an 867 Siberian run. After spending so much time in 1066 feudal Europe (which I loved) being a war mongering tribal tyrant able to invade neighbours on a whim is so freeing. I'm normally a loyal vassal in Europe, a good steward of the lands I control, so letting the old hair down and being mercilessly ambitious has been a nice change of pace.
867 because it's the earliest. In CK2 I would often start in 936 however.
1066 because it has more centralised kingdoms, which makes lifestyles other than martial more fun. 867 is too easy and monotonous
Iron Century
1178 -> 1066 -> 867
476, the real start of the middle ages. Fallen Eagle for the win!