Interesting nations?

[♂Kipu♂]

Any good nation at the 867 with special events?

[NewbieOne]

Not sure about special events other than Harald Fairhair over in Viken and perhaps the most important (king-tier) Karlings, maybe Byzzies, but with the Byzzies I'm just guessing.

If you want something interesting in 867, the first road I'd suggest hitting is, 'which nations will no longer be there in 1066.'

So, in 1066 you will have a more modern France and Germany and no Italy, obviously no Lotharinga, no Burgundy, etc. Obvously, they will all form sooner or later, but that's because of the quirks of the game's title and inheritance system, not AI design or anything like that. So, 867 is the proper setting for a unified Italy and a separate Lotharingia — why don't you play them?

Elsewhere on the map you have just two Spanish entities — Asturias and Navarra, no Castille, no Leon, no Gallicia, etc. Might as well play them.

In the British Isles, you have your first Norse, as well as a proto-Scotland, with some Picts, Gaels and Cumbrians still trudging along as separate cultures. This includes Strathclyde/Alt Clud, if you're a fan — the northernmost kingdom of the Brythons. In Wales, if you dig enough, you can find dynasts from houses going back to Vortygern, Maxsen Wledig, the usurper Constantine, etc. — in a word, challengers to the House of Cunedda => Aberffraw's claim of supremacy. Also Cornwall is still going relatively strong with two counties, ahistorically still controlling Devon/Exeter and being independent from Wessex (neither of which is strictly accurate but especially the territorial extent). Brittany still looks more like a Celtic kingdom than a French duchy.

If you're a fan of Slavic history, obviously you have all the shattered principalities of the Poles and their close cousins, the Pomeranians. Russia obviously looks way different.

Then, there's Hungary being formed at the expense of Bulgaria, a new and thriving nation but deadly threatened by the Magyars.

Anybody you pick in India, let alone in Subsaharan Africa, is bound to prove interesting if only due to the low diffusion of knowledge about those cultures and their histories in the period among Europeans and Americans and the fact that they've been given quite some attention by the developers, a bit like a pet project (and that was a good call, I would say).

You could also Google a list of unique historical and other special buildings throughout the game, and most of them will be special enough to make the place interesting to play, usually in the way of punching above your weight economically and militarily.

And then there's quite a lot more tribalism on the map in 867 compared to 1066. All of Ireland, all of Scandinavia, almost all of the Slavs, many or most folks in Africa. You'll feel less pressure to adopt feudalism ASAP, compared to 1066 (apart from the difficulty of finding a tribal to play in 1066 except for a narrow couple of regions).

Bottom line:
- Lotharingia
- Italy
- regions such as Aquitaine and Burgundy
- Strathclyde/Alt Clut
- Cornwall
- Asturias
- anything in Africa
- most of India
- anything with a historical or other special building
- anything with Visigothic culture
- tribals if that's your thing

Anywhere in British Isles, France or Germany or anything in between them (the whole coast from Jutland to Gibraltar and beyond) will also get interesting — and not necessarily in a good way — as soon as you start playing. As anybody in the British Isles you will struggle even to survive, and survival isn't guaranteed even for large Karling kingdoms.

[Vanilla Dice]

Originally posted by NewbieOne:

Not sure about special events other than Harald Fairhair over in Viken and perhaps the most important (king-tier) Karlings, maybe Byzzies, but with the Byzzies I'm just guessing.

If you want something interesting in 867, the first road I'd suggest hitting is, 'which nations will no longer be there in 1066.'

So, in 1066 you will have a more modern France and Germany and no Italy, obviously no Lotharinga, no Burgundy, etc. Obvously, they will all form sooner or later, but that's because of the quirks of the game's title and inheritance system, not AI design or anything like that. So, 867 is the proper setting for a unified Italy and a separate Lotharingia — why don't you play them?

Elsewhere on the map you have just two Spanish entities — Asturias and Navarra, no Castille, no Leon, no Gallicia, etc. Might as well play them.

In the British Isles, you have your first Norse, as well as a proto-Scotland, with some Picts, Gaels and Cumbrians still trudging along as separate cultures. This includes Strathclyde/Alt Clud, if you're a fan — the northernmost kingdom of the Brythons. In Wales, if you dig enough, you can find dynasts from houses going back to Vortygern, Maxsen Wledig, the usurper Constantine, etc. — in a word, challengers to the House of Cunedda => Aberffraw's claim of supremacy. Also Cornwall is still going relatively strong with two counties, ahistorically still controlling Devon/Exeter and being independent from Wessex (neither of which is strictly accurate but especially the territorial extent). Brittany still looks more like a Celtic kingdom than a French duchy.

If you're a fan of Slavic history, obviously you have all the shattered principalities of the Poles and their close cousins, the Pomeranians. Russia obviously looks way different.

Then, there's Hungary being formed at the expense of Bulgaria, a new and thriving nation but deadly threatened by the Magyars.

Anybody you pick in India, let alone in Subsaharan Africa, is bound to prove interesting if only due to the low diffusion of knowledge about those cultures and their histories in the period among Europeans and Americans and the fact that they've been given quite some attention by the developers, a bit like a pet project (and that was a good call, I would say).

You could also Google a list of unique historical and other special buildings throughout the game, and most of them will be special enough to make the place interesting to play, usually in the way of punching above your weight economically and militarily.

And then there's quite a lot more tribalism on the map in 867 compared to 1066. All of Ireland, all of Scandinavia, almost all of the Slavs, many or most folks in Africa. You'll feel less pressure to adopt feudalism ASAP, compared to 1066 (apart from the difficulty of finding a tribal to play in 1066 except for a narrow couple of regions).

Bottom line:
- Lotharingia
- Italy
- regions such as Aquitaine and Burgundy
- Strathclyde/Alt Clut
- Cornwall
- Asturias
- anything in Africa
- most of India
- anything with a historical or other special building
- anything with Visigothic culture
- tribals if that's your thing

Anywhere in British Isles, France or Germany or anything in between them (the whole coast from Jutland to Gibraltar and beyond) will also get interesting — and not necessarily in a good way — as soon as you start playing. As anybody in the British Isles you will struggle even to survive, and survival isn't guaranteed even for large Karling kingdoms.

This was an interesting read, thanks for sharing.

[NewbieOne]

Oh, and apologies if you already know this or if I've already said it, but Visigoths and their child cultures (such as the Occitans) have one very useful perk: Visigothic Codes. It gives them access to High Partition right away, as opposed to having to research Heraldry in the High Middle Ages. And you aren't realistically going to research Heraldry long before 1080 (1050 is when you're allowed to begin the transition from Early to High, which takes some years, followed by the years to research Heraldry through fascination, so 1080 would be optimistic). High Partition works like normal Partition, except all the younger sons are collectively treated like a single younger brother under normal Partition, i.e. they take a half and split that among themselves, with the eldest/heir getting half, no matter how many siblings there are.

The above gives you the opportunity to benefit from investing in your demesne (from building stuff in your counties) and also to make a crowd of babies for alliances. The balancing act between extinction and fragmentation becomes much more forgiving.

If you have High Partition, you can experiment with creating and destroying duchies in order to influence the distribution of titles among your kids. Sometimes it's better for them to take one duchy and the one county in it that you own, as opposed to taking two counties from your heir's capital duchy. And sometimes it's better for them to be counts than dukes (like when they would still be taking counties from your heir's capital duchy or capital kingdom as dukes — then it's better for them to at least not be powerful dukes with their own vassals).

So getting early access to High Partition as a Visigothic realm is kinda like playing with a trainer. It's difficult to find a more useful cultural bonus.

[titanopteryx]

Iceland. It has the only catholic vikings for one thing. The other thing is it's outside the diplomatic range of most the map so few places are able to declare war on you. You can just chill up there, pun intended.

Edit: and the catholic vikings start with a woman in charge, which is not typical.

[shiggies713]

Haensteining has to be the most versatile. You can do anything. In my current playthrough I assassinated the King of France and the Byzantine Emperor. Did a Varangian Adventure on Sardina, then took Thrace when there was a 5 yr old emperor. Then took out Bulgaria, swore fealty to a new emperor after i assassinated the 5 yr old and then fabricated a claim and became Byzantine Emperor in one lifetime from being count of Montagaiu.

Then i tried to arrest any vassals i could and failed and got some decent rebellions, imprisoned them all, revoked titles, executed, and distributed out now all 5 of my sons are kings and i just got a chastity belt artifact giving -100% fertility thank god! lmao. so fun. I renamed it the Varangian Empire and am going to merge Greek and Bulgarian culture with Norse and do some hybrid christian/pagan religion eventually probably.

[Dumah]

Concept of nation did not existed back in medieval times.

[Deylendor]

Ah yes.. Haensteining's Scandiafrica

[dwarfpcfan]

It's an old one but Daurama Daura is a really fun start. Not only because you play around in a section of the world, at a time few are familiar but because she's a female ruler at the tribal level with the opportunity to create a female dominate culture. Her religion is also actually pretty good in terms of doctrines and stuff and the holy sites are attainable (making eventual feudalization a very realistic goal).

She also starts with a rival right out the gate as something to spice things up.

And she has awesome stats.

So you get a unique county, with a very good ruler, some unique personal challenges and the chance to play around with the freedom of tribal kingdoms.

And endgame it leads to one of the most fun achievements in the game (Mother of us all)

[mistinshadows]

I find it amazingly fun to play in Africa with the Mines of Mali, and build up to the Empire of Mali seeking to Unite Africa. The gold advantage is phenomenal, and I love that the holy sites for Siguism are all within decent reach.

[NewbieOne]

Originally posted by titanopteryx:

Iceland. It has the only catholic vikings for one thing. The other thing is it's outside the diplomatic range of most the map so few places are able to declare war on you. You can just chill up there, pun intended.

Edit: and the catholic vikings start with a woman in charge, which is not typical.

Had some fun playing as them, before RC broke save compatibility. Once Norse splits, you can become the head of the Norwegian culture, if Norway isn't united and lacks superdukes and you already control the duchy. If you don't isolate, you're likely to end up expanding into the British Isles, largely through holy wars. Which is not to say you can't focus on Scandinavia. But, Ireland and Britain are closer.

Originally posted by Dumah:

Concept of nation did not existed back in medieval times.:tank:

Depends. Some scholars who enjoy drawing distinctions and contrasts will assert that, yes, but the other side of the coin is that when you say 'nation', you don't necessary mean a nation-state in the modern Westphalian sense. Tribes were ethnic in nature and they definitely were political nations if large enough.

Cultures (other than something like Cisalpine if dealt with as a separate entity) and de iure kingdoms are not a far cry from nations in their normal intuitive sense we use today, that is if one doesn't insist on highlighting certain conceptual differences and viewing them as being sufficient to draw a distinction between a nation and whatever they had in the Middle Ages.

That is not to say mediaeval monarchies operated as nations, nope. But they were often closer to nation states than to any imaginary opposite of a nation sense. You had the historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum, you had the Francorum this, Francorum that, those were pretty much nations if not necessarily always fully coextensive with the territorial extents of the corresponding monarchies or ties of vassalage.

If you are ready to accept an ethnos, gens or 'race' as a nation, then nations existed — and most kings and a lot of princes were in fact ethnarchs. Poland, Bohemia, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, those were generally nation states. France — as opposed to the larger Francophone community — had a sense of natiohood. So did Persia. It was in fact emerging even in the Kingdom of Jerusalem, which was as multiethnic as it gets (in the 12th and 13th centuries the lords of the Outremer felt a notion of ethnic separation from the crusaders arriving from Europe and speaking the same language).

The HRE, of course, was not a nation state (despite being referred to as the 'Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation' as early as late 15th century), though it did manage to create a sort of sense of political nationality (similarly to certain post-colonial states defined around a constitution).

But the fact that that the Holy Roman Empire's borders contained subjects of a dozen nations, that not all French speakers were subjects of the French crown, that there were Anglo-Saxons in Scotland, that the Normans messed up the landscape in more than one way, doesn't change this. And the political historians' darling — the Angevin Empire — of course never existed as a cohesive polity (in a way, it resembled a multinational corporation in how a lot of the territories were duchies and counties legally belonging to neighbouring kingdoms), so it doesn't count. :)

The territorial rather than ethnic designation of a lot of the kings doesn't really change things much. Besides, back in the period they were actually referred to as rex Francorum, rex Anglorum, rex Polonorum, rex Scottorum, rex Britonum, princeps Wallensium, etc. etc. Those were very much nations. Even the word 'nation' also existed and was in use. ;) it's just that competing ties of a different nature were sometimes more important and that nation didn't always coincide with language, though it usually did, same as now, and that nations weren't unified under a single monarch and wars between the various leaders weren't regarded as civil wars (though they could be regarded as fratricidal or some form of in-fighting).

Bottom line, nations did exist. :)

[The Mother Hawke]

Originally posted by Dumah:

Concept of nation did not existed back in medieval times.:tank:

Inaccurate since the word was first used in the 14th century, 200 years before the medieval period ended.

[Dumah]

Originally posted by Hawke:

Inaccurate since the word was first used in the 14th century, 200 years before the medieval period ended.

- accurate because it wasnt used in the modern sense of the word.

Originally posted by NewbieOne:

Bottom line, nations did exist. :)

- nah, they didnt. And it is rather irrelevant to CK3 anyway because you play as a character and not as a "nation".

[Simon]

Originally posted by Hawke:

Originally posted by Dumah:

Concept of nation did not existed back in medieval times.:tank:

Inaccurate since the word was first used in the 14th century, 200 years before the medieval period ended.

So this is the problem. Some individuals are definitively linking a word to the historical state of a thing. This is incorrect as language and terms of reference continually change whereas the objects themselves do not.

Nations have always existed, they just haven't always been called nations using today's definitions. At best these definitions only date back to Dr Samuel Johnson's first dictionary, at least in English.

A group of cavemen that occupy an area and prevent other cavemen from another area, foreigners, from entering their space are, using today's parlance, a nation.

Another example would be that humans did not have terms of reference to describe nuclear fusion until the 1930's so does that mean that nuclear fusion did not exist until we could describe it...no.