Later starts than 1066

[red66]

please

[myperfectvictory]

No. We need earlier start dates. Waiting for Charlemagne DLC to come to this game.

Later start dates are pointless. There's only so little time you would have until the game canonically ends at 1453.

[red66]

Originally posted by Mr. A:

No. We need earlier start dates. Waiting for Charlemagne DLC to come to this game.

Later start dates are pointless. There's only so little time you would have until the game canonically ends at 1453.

or that , both really

[{FIRM} Maximus Decimus Meridius]

I’d rather have a later start date personally such as 1157 when the kingdom of Jerusalem is in full swing with Saladin at their throats and the Plantagenets begin their rule over England and half of France, just a lot to be involved in at this time. I have never played a game earlier than 1066 other than to test it and I hated every moment, it’s too chaotic and nothing historically ever happens it’s just too early honestly, I’m not trying to play in late antiquity, the whole knights in shining armour, castles and coat of arms Era that we all love didn’t actually take its form that we think of today until at the earliest the late 1100’s but really 1200’s. Not downing anyones opinion just sharing my thoughts.

[VipreRX]

I still don't understand why we can't get an official post William coronation start date. The AI sucks at the conquest and I just want everyone in their correct places on 1 Jan 1067 without having to use a mod.

[myperfectvictory]

Originally posted by VipreRX:

I still don't understand why we can't get an official post William coronation start date. The AI sucks at the conquest and I just want everyone in their correct places on 1 Jan 1067 without having to use a mod.

The AI is actually better. They are forming their historical kingdoms as accurately as they should now

[Rex is back, baby!]

-1 I disagree. More start dates will cause production of content to slow down. I rather KISS. keep it simply silly.

I'm a huge fan of Pre-Karling, but I understand the human limitations in designing it. We need a rework on crusades and religion and an expansion of functionality with trade or disease before we should even consider a third start date.

[VipreRX]

There's still no way the AI completes the Norman Conquest by Christmas of 1066 consistently.

[Rex is back, baby!]

Originally posted by VipreRX:

There's still no way the AI completes the Norman Conquest by Christmas of 1066 consistently.

This is AHISTORICAL. The "A" means alternative, not accurate. After January 1st, history deviates from the path we've come to know.

[VipreRX]

The game starts deviating from history the second you unpause but that's neither here nor there nor an excuse for not giving players the option they've had going back to CK1.

[Rex is back, baby!]

Originally posted by VipreRX:

The game starts deviating from history the second you unpause but that's neither here nor there nor an excuse for not giving players the option they've had going back to CK1.

I think the excuse they have is that it costs too much time and resources to do multiple start dates. I could be mandela effecting myself, but I recall some post about it like a year ago.

Whatever the reason, it convinced me--because I was an active pusher for PDX to make a pre Charlemagne map, even though we do technically have an overhaul mod that does it.

[76561199190121347]

There's an amazing mod called More Bookmarks+ that adds a TON of bookmarks from 769 to 1337 and it's really well made but it change a lot of gameplay mechanics

[Toblm]

Originally posted by VipreRX:

The game starts deviating from history the second you unpause but that's neither here nor there nor an excuse for not giving players the option they've had going back to CK1.

Perhaps not but what does excuse it is a careful examination of what bookmarks players use and how much effort goes into setting up a historical start date.

[Ashling]

Originally posted by Toblm:

Perhaps not but what does excuse it is a careful examination of what bookmarks players use and how much effort goes into setting up a historical start date.

Yep. They've looked into how many people use non-beginning-of-the-game starting dates for EU4 and it was like less than 10% or something. It's just not a feature people would widely use.

[Rex is back, baby!]

Originally posted by Triangle:

Originally posted by Toblm:

Perhaps not but what does excuse it is a careful examination of what bookmarks players use and how much effort goes into setting up a historical start date.

Yep. They've looked into how many people use non-beginning-of-the-game starting dates for EU4 and it was like less than 10% or something. It's just not a feature people would widely use.

Like 95% of my games have been 867 start date in CK3 >.>.
Granted, the latest I've played is prob 1100-1200, never making it to the actual 1453 end date lol.

This is why I like alternate start dates modded, because the fans of that era can still get their ideal start date, while PDX focuses more on the infrastructure of the main game. Which I honestly prefer resources not being spread out!

[Bordric]

The AI does a much better job with Normandy invasion. Williams forces stay in the south taking london etc fairly easy. But only watched it a couple times.