How to start in any year

[[Heretic]Rivga]

Hi All,

I am a huge fan of CK2 and after my spare time being more available have purchased the game, I maybe a little boring but I really enjoy playing CK2 as the first Plantagenet leader of England but I cannot seem to figure out how to move the years on to find him.

I seem only to be able to choose certain starting years, am I missing something obvious?

Thanks for any help.

[EA Latium]

They are not available anymore.

[galadon3]

CK3 has a whooping total of TWO starting dates, but to make up for that it makes it look like it'd be 6, while in fact they are always the same starting map just showing different rulers...

[EA Latium]

Those are just the interesting starts.

[Ashantai]

They removed the ability to start at any day and date. They'd already been moving that way when they added 867 and 936 to CK2, and I believe they'll be doing that eventually for EU5 as well.

It's already hard enough to get historical information for events 1000+ years ago, let alone every date from 1066 to 1453. Also, apparently less than 5% of campaign starts were outside the 'base' dates anyway in CK2 and EU3/4, and those were mainly for achievement purposes.

[galadon3]

Originally posted by Ashantai:

They removed the ability to start at any day and date. They'd already been moving that way when they added 867 and 936 to CK2, and I believe they'll be doing that eventually for EU5 as well.

It's already hard enough to get historical information for events 1000+ years ago, let alone every date from 1066 to 1453. Also, apparently less than 5% of campaign starts were outside the 'base' dates anyway in CK2 and EU3/4, and those were mainly for achievement purposes.

A) they HAD all that information already, or you think they somehow burned all the notes from making CK2?
B) hardly suprising as well as they hid that option in CK2, instead of actively advertising it, not sure how long it took me till I actually realized that options exists.

Originally posted by EA Latium:

Those are just the interesting starts.

Sure thing, besides Vikings and conquering England NOTHING interesting ever happend in the middle ages, damn dark ages so dark that you could only see by the fire from those houses the vikings burned...

[Razorblade]

Originally posted by galadon3:

Originally posted by Ashantai:

They removed the ability to start at any day and date. They'd already been moving that way when they added 867 and 936 to CK2, and I believe they'll be doing that eventually for EU5 as well.

It's already hard enough to get historical information for events 1000+ years ago, let alone every date from 1066 to 1453. Also, apparently less than 5% of campaign starts were outside the 'base' dates anyway in CK2 and EU3/4, and those were mainly for achievement purposes.

A) they HAD all that information already, or you think they somehow burned all the notes from making CK2?
B) hardly suprising as well as they hid that option in CK2, instead of actively advertising it, not sure how long it took me till I actually realized that options exists.

Originally posted by EA Latium:

Those are just the interesting starts.

Sure thing, besides Vikings and conquering England NOTHING interesting ever happend in the middle ages, damn dark ages so dark that you could only see by the fire from those houses the vikings burned...

We get it, you liked being able to start at random start dates, but you are one of the few who actually did so (Paradox has analytics on this; it was mentioned in one of the CK3 dev diaries). Paradox wasted hundreds of man hours researching and implementing start dates that almost no one ever used, and had to update every one of these near-unused start dates every time the map slightly changed.

Doing this all again for CK3 would have been a massive waste of time (which they clearly were already short on), even if they had a lot of the redearch already done. Even if they managed to write a program to convert between the different formats character histories have in CK2 and CK3, there are still hundreds of new provinces that they'd have to do research for, and implement by hand. They added a whole Europe's worth of new African provinces, for example. Expecting someone at Paradox to go off and major in African Histroy 867-1453 just because a few people like you liked having a thousand start dates is insane.

[Cypher]

There is a mod called "the lion and the lily" that set at in the 100 years war, you can play as Henry Plantagenet in that

[[Heretic]Rivga]

Originally posted by Cypher:

There is a mod called "the lion and the lily" that set at in the 100 years war, you can play as Henry Plantagenet in that

Ah thank you, I am shocked the 100 year war is not a starting position, maybe future expansions.

[[Heretic]Rivga]

Originally posted by Razorblade:

Originally posted by galadon3:

A) they HAD all that information already, or you think they somehow burned all the notes from making CK2?
B) hardly suprising as well as they hid that option in CK2, instead of actively advertising it, not sure how long it took me till I actually realized that options exists.


Sure thing, besides Vikings and conquering England NOTHING interesting ever happend in the middle ages, damn dark ages so dark that you could only see by the fire from those houses the vikings burned...

We get it, you liked being able to start at random start dates, but you are one of the few who actually did so (Paradox has analytics on this; it was mentioned in one of the CK3 dev diaries). Paradox wasted hundreds of man hours researching and implementing start dates that almost no one ever used, and had to update every one of these near-unused start dates every time the map slightly changed.

Doing this all again for CK3 would have been a massive waste of time (which they clearly were already short on), even if they had a lot of the redearch already done. Even if they managed to write a program to convert between the different formats character histories have in CK2 and CK3, there are still hundreds of new provinces that they'd have to do research for, and implement by hand. They added a whole Europe's worth of new African provinces, for example. Expecting someone at Paradox to go off and major in African Histroy 867-1453 just because a few people like you liked having a thousand start dates is insane.

The starting dates for a lot of the leaders are the same in CK2, so research is already done. They did not need to be so accurate for the rest of the map.

Don't get me wrong the game is still worth every penny spent on it, I am not in the least bit sorry I have purchased the title. I am a little disappointed that I cannot start where and when I want. But as a mod solves this, all is good.

[Sol]

Originally posted by Razorblade:

Originally posted by galadon3:

A) they HAD all that information already, or you think they somehow burned all the notes from making CK2?
B) hardly suprising as well as they hid that option in CK2, instead of actively advertising it, not sure how long it took me till I actually realized that options exists.


Sure thing, besides Vikings and conquering England NOTHING interesting ever happend in the middle ages, damn dark ages so dark that you could only see by the fire from those houses the vikings burned...

We get it, you liked being able to start at random start dates, but you are one of the few who actually did so (Paradox has analytics on this; it was mentioned in one of the CK3 dev diaries). Paradox wasted hundreds of man hours researching and implementing start dates that almost no one ever used, and had to update every one of these near-unused start dates every time the map slightly changed.

Doing this all again for CK3 would have been a massive waste of time (which they clearly were already short on), even if they had a lot of the redearch already done. Even if they managed to write a program to convert between the different formats character histories have in CK2 and CK3, there are still hundreds of new provinces that they'd have to do research for, and implement by hand. They added a whole Europe's worth of new African provinces, for example. Expecting someone at Paradox to go off and major in African Histroy 867-1453 just because a few people like you liked having a thousand start dates is insane.

I also enjoyed the other start dates and feel the game has no depth with only two dates.

The problem was NEVER start dates and ALWAYS them screwing around with the map. They expanded Africa a bit, then pivoted the map a bit, then re-angled the map a bit, then added India, then re-tilted it again. THAT was the problem.

[Red Dragon]

The thing is that based on the player data Paradox collected in CK2 it became clear that people basically only played either simply es early as possible or in 1066. Like 99% of games were started in these dates so it made little sense to put lots of research and development into creating more start dates in between. As long as all that development time and money was put into something else which makes the game better in other regards then I must say I'm fine with it.

[Sol]

Originally posted by Red Dragon:

The thing is that based on the player data Paradox collected in CK2 it became clear that people basically only played either simply es early as possible or in 1066. Like 99% of games were started in these dates so it made little sense to put lots of research and development into creating more start dates in between. As long as all that development time and money was put into something else which makes the game better in other regards then I must say I'm fine with it.

You think it will? I got a bridge on Jupiter for you.

The "savings" will become executive pensions. While there's a good reason not to do unneeded work, there are a LOT of options people either dislike or don't use - should we remove them all? How about Way of Life Mechanics, the most complained about component? What about India, the number 2 most complained about? (Number 3 was Aztec DLC which wasn't in base game, so I'll let it slide).

And what did players want? Things that haven't happened, like Playable Republics for CK3, and Playable Theocracies. So it's not like the data is being used to provide what we want or eliminate what we don't. It would be much better if they looked into context. Most people didn't pick later start dates because the game ends too soon. Many people who picked 1066 felt the later starts were too close to the end, and earlier starts inevitably wound up with certain blobbings such as Tengri, Islam, Lombardy, or Catholocism owning the whole map, or dominating ahistorical areas. While the later dates had more stability and less of this.

Instead of fixing any of the issues - earlier start dates with more stability and less blobbing, later start dates with more to do - that would've helped a lot. Later start dates gave you almost no time to prepare for the big invasions, too.

Most players do NOT play Multiplayer - yet the whole game is still made to suffer to cater to a non-existent crowd. I bet more people liked the other start dates than liked multiplayer.

[EA Latium]

Originally posted by galadon3:

Originally posted by EA Latium:

Those are just the interesting starts.

Sure thing, besides Vikings and conquering England NOTHING interesting ever happend in the middle ages, damn dark ages so dark that you could only see by the fire from those houses the vikings burned...

The "interesting starts" is a game feature, it's basically those tailored characters you can find in that interface with flavour text.

What I was saying it's that is not made to look like there are more start dates, but to divide them in their respective categories. This existed in CK2 as well, they were just displayed differently.

[saroalberdi]

Originally posted by galadon3:

CK3 has a whooping total of TWO starting dates, but to make up for that it makes it look like it'd be 6, while in fact they are always the same starting map just showing different rulers...

sorry to resurrect this thread. i have enjoyed CKIII for many hours, but im still dearly missing the possibility to start in the XII century. i do not mean stating in ANY year, but find puzzling that you cant play the crusader states/saladin as they were...! a thirsd starting date (just before Hattin?) will be great, maybe via
a DLC. eager to pay for it...

[Lorax]

Originally posted by Red Dragon:

The thing is that based on the player data Paradox collected in CK2 it became clear that people basically only played either simply es early as possible or in 1066. Like 99% of games were started in these dates so it made little sense to put lots of research and development into creating more start dates in between. As long as all that development time and money was put into something else which makes the game better in other regards then I must say I'm fine with it.

I don't blame them for simplifying the start dates but I really want to be able to start as king Alfred and build a strong England without being IMMEDIATELY invaded by two armies vastly stronger than my own to the point that (for me, as I'm new to the game & came over from EUIV, where I always made custom nations and started in random or personally interesting years) it's not even worth trying as I'm just not capable yet of making it through the first decade as Alfred, which is a shame