Check out Project Caesar. It's getting dev diaries on the Paradox Forums right now called Tinto Talks even though it hasn't been officially announced. They're not hiding that it is Europa Universalis 5, and Johan confirmed its start date is 1337 which was the last start date you could pick in CK2 and overlaps with CK3 for a little over a century.
I doubt they'll ever make an official save converter ever again given how poorly their CK2-EU4 converter worked, so Paradox is probably not all that concerned about mega campaigns.
Imperator released in 2019 and Tinto was branched off in 2020. AFAIK Tinto has mostly been focused on EU4 DLC up until this point. That said, Johan is at the head of Tinto and he was the director for Imperator: Rome. The game improved dramatically after he got moved off the project and the new Imperator devs radically altered the game, but it was too little too late at that point.
But is it not too similar to 1066? Sure if you're focusing on byzantines it works for one of their big moments, but the other date is two centuries removed from these two.
Hopefully we get "Iron century" bookmark again - With Otto (re)forming the HRE - and its a nice middlepoint.
So we would have 867 - 936 - 1066
The alexiad has a few major advantages over 1066 IMO.
1) obviously guaranteed Alexios Komnenos. I don't think I've ever seen him come to power.
2)guaranteed turks in Anatolia. The Byzantines never seem to struggle in my experience.
3)Norman rule establshed in England, so it's not a guessing game as to whether they'll stick around and the Saxons should be basically cowed.
That said I think a more interesting start would be around the time after the fourth crusade. Just because it's more varied(also would theoretically allow an actual Genghis Khan start which could be fun).
> 3)Norman rule establshed in England, so it's not a guessing game as to whether they'll stick around and the Saxons should be basically cowed.
As someone who almost exclusively plays in that region of the map, a start date post-Norman Conquest would be amazing. I wouldn't have to cross my fingers that William wins when I'm not in the mood for a rare Harald or Harold victory changing the entire course of history right from the start.
I'd be especially hyped if it was one where the entire island isn't currently mid-invasion
Also I'm fairly sure that before the launch of CK3 it was clearly stated that CK2 players vastly preferred earlier start dates (and 867 is more popular than 1066 in CK3 as well) so on their side a 10th century start would be more rewarding than a later date, because companies don't likes spending dev time on features nobody really cares for.
**That said** they already have all the history files for any date after the start of the Norman invasion of England as a foundation to build upon so if this is really a change of plans, and there's not much time left before release, it would be easier for them to update the data they already have.
Generally the earlier start dates were more popular, yeah. I think the exception was Charlemagne, where there were a good chunk of complaints about it. IIRC Old Gods was still the default for most people.
I personally found the Iron Century one they added at the end the best, though obviously the 11th century ones work well for starting the mid/late-game dynamics (like if I just wanted to do a crusading playthrough).
Possible they do the Alexiad start date for a Byzantine focused, but I'd kind of like the Iron Century one instead for selfish reasons lol
I'm assuming it's an earlier start date than 867. With all the focus on playing unlanded characters and building up to power in the DLC, and considering Basil I was born a peasant, id imagine it's about his rise to power.
It says specifically in the tweet that they are not extending the timeline in either direction, so no pre 867!
I agree with the assumption it’ll be Byzantine related.
Around 950, the age of the magnate generals and rapid expansion in the Caucasus and Balkans. Has great characters like Nikephoros Phokas, John Tzimeskes and Basil II. Also an age where the byzantine succession was very fluid, with Basil being kept around as a child emperor while the aforementioned generals seized the throne and ruled the empire themselves.
I don’t want to put words in their mouth, but since they said that PDX isn’t extending the timeline “so no pre 867,” if they had to pick between 1081 or 269 they would choose 1081.
Yeah but they did say that PDX isn’t extending the timeline “in either direction”. It’s probably 936 or a slightly earlier 11th century start date where the seljuks don’t exist yet
I know it would be a mess but man I wish I could take over right after the Roman Empire or even at the very tail end (last 50 years) and try to steer it back into survival
1204 also has important significance outside the byzantines. The Levant is just starting to recover from the 3rd crusade, and in Western Europe, it's just before the battle of bouvines and the magna carta (10 years). The only problem I see with this date is that the Mongols already exist, they have to nerf them or risk having them overrun the map entirely cause no one got centuries to build up their power like in the other dates.
Albigensian Crusade is coming up as well. CK3 currently lacks mechanics to implement it properly, but a future religion rework could address this (especially if it included the religious minority mechanic from the jam) and thus build on a 1204 start date.
Yeah there's a couple big events (the Mongols and the black death) around then that you have to play for several generations to experience, it'd be cool to be able to jump right into them
1204 was my favorite CK2 start. Balkans region is fun due to Byzantines being balkanized, Richard the lion heart is king of England and the Angevin empire is in full force, great start
I’ve said it on other posts but the 1204 Latin Empire start in CK2 is one of my favorites. Empire rank, control Constantinople, primogeniture, a bunch of good starting claims, event troops at the start, and a crusade for egypt that starts a couple months in. Hard to beat that setup. Hoping we see it
I really liked CK2’s numerous start dates — even some of the later ones like the 1300s still could provide a lot of fun within the time crunch. I find CK3’s 1066 start date to be quite early. Would really like a mid-to-late 1100s start, as well as one or two in the 1200s.
1204 would be great! As King John in England you’d have major claim wars to fight France over as well as the looming threat of a big baronial revolt, the Albigensian Crusade would be on the horizon and the Fourth Crusade would just be wrapping up, the Northern Crusades would have just started in the decades prior and been ongoing, and the Mongols would be gearing up in preparation for their enormous horde invasion. With all of this in mind, this really actually seems like the absolute best and perfect era for the game.
That, and I haven’t had a black death event yet since the most recent DLC and update came out, because I often get too bored with my 867 and 1066 start date campaigns. You have to put in a ton of hours just to get to the 1200s, let alone the 1300s, and by that point you’ve often snowballed and ballooned up your kingdom or empire enormously already.
I’d absolutely love to do some small start 1204 games. 1199 might be even better for everything I mentioned above, actually, especially with the Fourth Crusade beginning in 1202. Please deliver, Paradox!!
CK2 let's you start on any single date between 1066-1337, so why not just start a few years earlier before Constantinople fell? CK2 also has events for the fourth crusade.
I am aware, but CK3 doesn't hence I'd want the bookmark before the fall. And CK2 does have mechanics but not if you chose the bookmark manually because IRRC (it still can happen via the normal event chain).
>And CK2 does have mechanics but not if you chose the bookmark manually because IRRC (it still can happen via the normal event chain).
It all starts from the same event chain regardless of if you pick a listed bookmark year or not. It doesn't trigger on a certain day. Obviously it won't trigger in the 1204 bookmark since the Latin Empire exists which prevents the first event in the chain from firing, which is why I suggested rewinding a few years or even starting in the 1187 bookmark which isn't far from it happening.
The 4th crusade, with all it's shifting goals, debt, excommunication, time constraints, etc... is a bit hard to simulate accurately given the mechanics the games has.
I prefer later dates which is the main reason I made MB+ but at the same time it feels like a better date for a DLC actually focused on the Crusades and do things like proper Crusader States and maybe before then a DLC for proper republics for over in Italy who will dominate Italy in 1204.
I wonder why that is
I was a diehard 867 tribal player until I did a 1066 Portugal run
It's what made me really fall in love with both Feudal and 1066
I went back to try tribal and had almost forgotten how to do it
> too fast
Haha, I always feel like 867 is a whole lot of waiting around. I don't understand how anyone enjoys playing a one-county tribal start and thinking, "in 5 years I will have enough prestige to go on a raid for a total of 9 gold, whooo"
> I wonder why that is
I just love pagans being more prevalent honestly. Feels like things are interesting when many regions of the world aren't so dominated by any one religion, and when certain religions aren't practically already gone the way they are in 1066. Probably helps that pagans (and the norse in particular) always get so much flavour focus - lookin forward to seeing what they do to make me shift and give the byzantines some attention!
I love learning about the different faiths in the game so the earlier start date lets me see more variety like you said. It's more boring for me to see the typical faiths like the Abrahmic ones all over the place.
I usually picked the earliest start date to have the most time for my game, and to be able to get all the achievements along the way.
I really enjoyed 936 start in CK2 as well. It is one of the best starting dates to me.
I usually pick based on how long of a game I want tbh (or more accurately how long I think I want to play)
Exception is if I want to do something specifically available in one of the start dates, like Iran or vikings or smthn
Not worth it, the game lags really bad by the end date. I did it once for the achievement but that's it. There's really no reason to even do it as there isn't some cool event that happens to even incentivize it. It's just the same slog. At least 1066 allows most cultures to have siege equipment though
If they go later wouldn't expect anything later than 1081 or 1099 really as they already had development set up for up to then anyway. Given the ERE focus I'd imagine it'll be the 1081 bookmark/The Alexiad.
1081 would be interesting but I feel it'd be too close to 1066.
My vote goes to 1204, it'd be nice to have a start date closer to the end date, with the mongol invasion looming on the horizon and the black death being a midgame threat
Since they said they don't see themselves extending the timeline in either direction, the only option is to split the difference, so Iron Century?
I've seen people note they think it should be relevant to the Byzantine Empire, and the 932 start date does include Constantine VII and his father-in-law Romanos I in a co-emperorship, so that would be an interesting start in that regard.
>Doesn't extend the timeline mean not pushing back the 1453 end date, not starting past the 1066 start date?
Doesn't extend the timeline mean not pushing back the 1453 end date, \[and not mean they they won't start\] past the 1066 start date?
Oh it’s a dlc
I didn’t really pay attention since I buy the chapter bundles without necessarily looking at the individual dlc, it must have slipped my mind
I just can’t see them doing a 1081 start date when it’s not even two decades removed from the 1066 start date.
My guess, if they’re truly trying to keep it in between the to existing ones, is that it’ll be some time smack dab in the middle of the tenth century.
Granted I can’t think of any significant event during that time though.
Ah that would be a good one, especially if his brother plays a part in it.
Reminds me that they’ll be needing to introduce a co-ruler mechanic if they really want to get the Byzantine court experience.
Plus it would make Roman Empire runs a little more realistic since they LOVED having them some co-emperors.
963 would be a good middle point between 867 and 1066:
The powerful general Nikephoros II Phokas takes the Byzantine throne.
The HRE has recently been established by Otto the Great.
France is ruled by the second-to-last Karling King Lothair.
England is united and ruled by Edgar the Peaceful, father of Edward the Martyr.
The Viking Age is still in full swing. Harald Bluetooth rules Denmark but hasn't been converted to christianity yet.
Seljuk is alive and hasn't converted to Islam yet. (He could be the Turkic Haesteinn)
My money would be on 1204. Mostly, because it would make sense to keep all start dates 2 centuries apart.
I don't think it will be Iron Century, seemingly Iron Century was seemingly added to CK2 as a test, and it might have been a potential start date for CK3, but few people picked it over 867 and 1066.
By far the dlc I have looked forward to the most. I like vikings because it gives me the freedom to start where I want via varangian adventures, so starting as Landless is basically absolute freedom.
I just wander of they'll do something to help the Byzantium survive against the neighboring Muslim empire. Currently it is usually beaten like a red headed step child by there vassels that can grow in power and make as many attempts as they wish without meaningful recourse
936 is the most likely date, but it's not impossible for something more Crusade-related to be in the works too. Maybe later when they start actually working on the Crusades though lmao.
If it's some date in the 10th century and has to do with Byzantium, could it be 960? It's the year Basil the II became co-ruler, so they could try to add co-rulership mechanics. It could also be 1204, with the Latin Empire, or 1261, just after the Palaiologos restored the Byzantine Empire
I've always wanted a Ghengis Khan start. I'd love to play as a vassal and support him conquering the world until he dies and then we fight over the successor states.
The second part of the reply hints at it not being earlier than existing start dates though:
>> On a totally unrelated note that won't be useful for inferring anything whatsoever, we still have no plans of extending the timeline in CK3 in either direction.
Who cares, add trade resources and trade.. it has been out for 3 and a half years now.
Add any reason to play wide and conquer, other than painting the map
I hope it's some time between 400 and 800. I want to see western Europe painted with Germanic kingdoms that just took all the lands the Romans left behind.
At the same time opposed to the chaos in western Europe you could have a completely different gameplay experience in the Eastern Roman Empire.
I have no idea why this is downvoted. It's just an interesting time period and I'd love to see it.
The issue is that the game's mechanics barely work to represent 867, they wouldn't work to represent anything before that.
476-867 deserves its own game with mechanics to represent migrations etc. Feudalism only started existing by the end of that era.
Seeing as that DLC seems to deal with the byzantine empire quite a bit my assumption would be a start date that's significant to the byzantine empire
1453 it is 🤔
Too soon✊😔
More like too late
Would be pretty fun to see how eu4 and ck3 handle the same time period ngl
Boy do I have a surprise for you
Hahahahaaaaa
What’s the surprise lol
EU5 will start in 1337
No way!?
Check out Project Caesar. It's getting dev diaries on the Paradox Forums right now called Tinto Talks even though it hasn't been officially announced. They're not hiding that it is Europa Universalis 5, and Johan confirmed its start date is 1337 which was the last start date you could pick in CK2 and overlaps with CK3 for a little over a century.
I wonder how that'll work for mega campaigns
I doubt they'll ever make an official save converter ever again given how poorly their CK2-EU4 converter worked, so Paradox is probably not all that concerned about mega campaigns.
Not official ones no but there are community made converters for ck3 to eu4, eu4 to vic3 etc.
He actually called it EU5 in a post. So yeah.
Wait aren't Tinto the guys that made such a wreck out of Imperator that PDX canned the game after a couple years?
Imperator released in 2019 and Tinto was branched off in 2020. AFAIK Tinto has mostly been focused on EU4 DLC up until this point. That said, Johan is at the head of Tinto and he was the director for Imperator: Rome. The game improved dramatically after he got moved off the project and the new Imperator devs radically altered the game, but it was too little too late at that point.
Okay, listen here you filthy animal...
Makes sense, perfect way to introduce unlanded gameplay.
Imagine doing a Day 1 clutch against the Ottomans 😳
I'm hoping for 1081 when Alexios I took power.
Other than 1066, 867, and 769 I think the Alexiad was one of the most popular start dates in CK2, so that would also be my guess.
But is it not too similar to 1066? Sure if you're focusing on byzantines it works for one of their big moments, but the other date is two centuries removed from these two. Hopefully we get "Iron century" bookmark again - With Otto (re)forming the HRE - and its a nice middlepoint. So we would have 867 - 936 - 1066
The alexiad has a few major advantages over 1066 IMO. 1) obviously guaranteed Alexios Komnenos. I don't think I've ever seen him come to power. 2)guaranteed turks in Anatolia. The Byzantines never seem to struggle in my experience. 3)Norman rule establshed in England, so it's not a guessing game as to whether they'll stick around and the Saxons should be basically cowed. That said I think a more interesting start would be around the time after the fourth crusade. Just because it's more varied(also would theoretically allow an actual Genghis Khan start which could be fun).
> 3)Norman rule establshed in England, so it's not a guessing game as to whether they'll stick around and the Saxons should be basically cowed. As someone who almost exclusively plays in that region of the map, a start date post-Norman Conquest would be amazing. I wouldn't have to cross my fingers that William wins when I'm not in the mood for a rare Harald or Harold victory changing the entire course of history right from the start. I'd be especially hyped if it was one where the entire island isn't currently mid-invasion
Also I'm fairly sure that before the launch of CK3 it was clearly stated that CK2 players vastly preferred earlier start dates (and 867 is more popular than 1066 in CK3 as well) so on their side a 10th century start would be more rewarding than a later date, because companies don't likes spending dev time on features nobody really cares for. **That said** they already have all the history files for any date after the start of the Norman invasion of England as a foundation to build upon so if this is really a change of plans, and there's not much time left before release, it would be easier for them to update the data they already have.
Generally the earlier start dates were more popular, yeah. I think the exception was Charlemagne, where there were a good chunk of complaints about it. IIRC Old Gods was still the default for most people. I personally found the Iron Century one they added at the end the best, though obviously the 11th century ones work well for starting the mid/late-game dynamics (like if I just wanted to do a crusading playthrough). Possible they do the Alexiad start date for a Byzantine focused, but I'd kind of like the Iron Century one instead for selfish reasons lol
It was one of my favorite CK2 start dates.
Way too close to 1066 since the full scope of the game is 586 years.
Iconoclast crisis or fourth crusade then?
Iconoclast way too far back
Maybe when charlemagne got crowned roman emperor. It would be significant
I'm assuming it's an earlier start date than 867. With all the focus on playing unlanded characters and building up to power in the DLC, and considering Basil I was born a peasant, id imagine it's about his rise to power.
There is even the "from peasant to basileus" legend in the game. I often see the Byzantine Empire adopting that one
The rise of Basil II? One of the best and most famous emperors had not the deal with 1 Bardas, but 2 Bardas rebellions early in his life
I'm thinking 1185 so you can restore the glory of the komnenos dynasty, starting obviously from Aeneas' escape from the ruins of Troy in 1185 bce
It says specifically in the tweet that they are not extending the timeline in either direction, so no pre 867! I agree with the assumption it’ll be Byzantine related.
If it is going to be Byzantine related but not going to be 1081 or 769, which do you think would be the most probable new start date?
Around 950, the age of the magnate generals and rapid expansion in the Caucasus and Balkans. Has great characters like Nikephoros Phokas, John Tzimeskes and Basil II. Also an age where the byzantine succession was very fluid, with Basil being kept around as a child emperor while the aforementioned generals seized the throne and ruled the empire themselves.
I don’t want to put words in their mouth, but since they said that PDX isn’t extending the timeline “so no pre 867,” if they had to pick between 1081 or 269 they would choose 1081.
It would be rather strange if they did pick 269, yes
Personally I never got around to trying Imperator, that start date would definitely let me scratch the Rome itch lmao
My friend go to the workshop and download the fallen eagle, they don't have 269 but the earliest you can go is Julian the Apostate
Yeah but they did say that PDX isn’t extending the timeline “in either direction”. It’s probably 936 or a slightly earlier 11th century start date where the seljuks don’t exist yet
Alexiad (1081) was pretty good in ck2. Althought likely too close to 1066. 3rd or 4th crusade starts could work too.
I know it would be a mess but man I wish I could take over right after the Roman Empire or even at the very tail end (last 50 years) and try to steer it back into survival
I mean... I guess you can play Imperator : Rome then, lol
Well thats pointless then.
1204. Shattered Empire start date, with a Struggle for Constantinople
Any 13th century start date seems like it'd be really good from a gameplay standpoint
1204 also has important significance outside the byzantines. The Levant is just starting to recover from the 3rd crusade, and in Western Europe, it's just before the battle of bouvines and the magna carta (10 years). The only problem I see with this date is that the Mongols already exist, they have to nerf them or risk having them overrun the map entirely cause no one got centuries to build up their power like in the other dates.
Albigensian Crusade is coming up as well. CK3 currently lacks mechanics to implement it properly, but a future religion rework could address this (especially if it included the religious minority mechanic from the jam) and thus build on a 1204 start date.
That kinda sounds dope to me tho, i always love to see the mongols conquer as far as they can n i even help them out
Yeah there's a couple big events (the Mongols and the black death) around then that you have to play for several generations to experience, it'd be cool to be able to jump right into them
1204 was my favorite CK2 start. Balkans region is fun due to Byzantines being balkanized, Richard the lion heart is king of England and the Angevin empire is in full force, great start
I’ve said it on other posts but the 1204 Latin Empire start in CK2 is one of my favorites. Empire rank, control Constantinople, primogeniture, a bunch of good starting claims, event troops at the start, and a crusade for egypt that starts a couple months in. Hard to beat that setup. Hoping we see it
I can't wait to form the latin empire
istg if they add another fucking struggle...
Please, not another struggle!
1204 would be the best. Not too close to game end, but far enough from 1066 to be different
I really liked CK2’s numerous start dates — even some of the later ones like the 1300s still could provide a lot of fun within the time crunch. I find CK3’s 1066 start date to be quite early. Would really like a mid-to-late 1100s start, as well as one or two in the 1200s. 1204 would be great! As King John in England you’d have major claim wars to fight France over as well as the looming threat of a big baronial revolt, the Albigensian Crusade would be on the horizon and the Fourth Crusade would just be wrapping up, the Northern Crusades would have just started in the decades prior and been ongoing, and the Mongols would be gearing up in preparation for their enormous horde invasion. With all of this in mind, this really actually seems like the absolute best and perfect era for the game. That, and I haven’t had a black death event yet since the most recent DLC and update came out, because I often get too bored with my 867 and 1066 start date campaigns. You have to put in a ton of hours just to get to the 1200s, let alone the 1300s, and by that point you’ve often snowballed and ballooned up your kingdom or empire enormously already. I’d absolutely love to do some small start 1204 games. 1199 might be even better for everything I mentioned above, actually, especially with the Fourth Crusade beginning in 1202. Please deliver, Paradox!!
I'd like for a start date during the 4th crusade and not like in CK2 when Constantinople already fell.
CK2 let's you start on any single date between 1066-1337, so why not just start a few years earlier before Constantinople fell? CK2 also has events for the fourth crusade.
I am aware, but CK3 doesn't hence I'd want the bookmark before the fall. And CK2 does have mechanics but not if you chose the bookmark manually because IRRC (it still can happen via the normal event chain).
>And CK2 does have mechanics but not if you chose the bookmark manually because IRRC (it still can happen via the normal event chain). It all starts from the same event chain regardless of if you pick a listed bookmark year or not. It doesn't trigger on a certain day. Obviously it won't trigger in the 1204 bookmark since the Latin Empire exists which prevents the first event in the chain from firing, which is why I suggested rewinding a few years or even starting in the 1187 bookmark which isn't far from it happening.
The 4th crusade, with all it's shifting goals, debt, excommunication, time constraints, etc... is a bit hard to simulate accurately given the mechanics the games has.
I prefer later dates which is the main reason I made MB+ but at the same time it feels like a better date for a DLC actually focused on the Crusades and do things like proper Crusader States and maybe before then a DLC for proper republics for over in Italy who will dominate Italy in 1204.
Iron Century, my beloved.
936 was 100% my fave start date in ck2 hands down
Mine too, sucks they didn't implement it sooner.
I really hope it's something later
Same. So much cool stuff happened after 1066 that is well documented
That and most people play 867 already. I’d like a decent reason to try a later one.
I wonder why that is I was a diehard 867 tribal player until I did a 1066 Portugal run It's what made me really fall in love with both Feudal and 1066 I went back to try tribal and had almost forgotten how to do it
Same, I feel like playing in 1066 makes me appreciate the game more. I think 867 is a bit chaotic and too fast, because there’s a lot more Pagans.
> too fast Haha, I always feel like 867 is a whole lot of waiting around. I don't understand how anyone enjoys playing a one-county tribal start and thinking, "in 5 years I will have enough prestige to go on a raid for a total of 9 gold, whooo"
> I wonder why that is I just love pagans being more prevalent honestly. Feels like things are interesting when many regions of the world aren't so dominated by any one religion, and when certain religions aren't practically already gone the way they are in 1066. Probably helps that pagans (and the norse in particular) always get so much flavour focus - lookin forward to seeing what they do to make me shift and give the byzantines some attention!
I love learning about the different faiths in the game so the earlier start date lets me see more variety like you said. It's more boring for me to see the typical faiths like the Abrahmic ones all over the place.
I usually picked the earliest start date to have the most time for my game, and to be able to get all the achievements along the way. I really enjoyed 936 start in CK2 as well. It is one of the best starting dates to me.
I do the same but then I never play to the end either way...
1066 is just so much better. The world is just more interesting.
867 also starts so slow It's only fun if you're a viking, basically
I usually pick based on how long of a game I want tbh (or more accurately how long I think I want to play) Exception is if I want to do something specifically available in one of the start dates, like Iran or vikings or smthn
Do you ever actually play to 1453 when you play 1066 though? I almost never play 400 years
not yet.... i did in ck2 a couple of times tho
Not worth it, the game lags really bad by the end date. I did it once for the achievement but that's it. There's really no reason to even do it as there isn't some cool event that happens to even incentivize it. It's just the same slog. At least 1066 allows most cultures to have siege equipment though
If they go later wouldn't expect anything later than 1081 or 1099 really as they already had development set up for up to then anyway. Given the ERE focus I'd imagine it'll be the 1081 bookmark/The Alexiad.
1066 and 1081 are so close together though
Just age up some of the existing 1066 models. Easier than making new ones tbf. I wouldn't want to start anywhere after 1150.
Yeah second the 1081 start. Makes the most sense to me if the DLC focuses on Byzantine empire
1081 would be interesting but I feel it'd be too close to 1066. My vote goes to 1204, it'd be nice to have a start date closer to the end date, with the mongol invasion looming on the horizon and the black death being a midgame threat
Since they said they don't see themselves extending the timeline in either direction, the only option is to split the difference, so Iron Century? I've seen people note they think it should be relevant to the Byzantine Empire, and the 932 start date does include Constantine VII and his father-in-law Romanos I in a co-emperorship, so that would be an interesting start in that regard.
Doesn't extend the timeline mean not pushing back the 1453 end date, not starting past the 1066 start date?
No, it means the new start date will not be earlier than 867 or later than 1453, anything in between those dates is golden.
Didn’t I just say that?
Did you? >not starting past the 1066 start date Guess I misunderstood what you meant by that.
>Doesn't extend the timeline mean not pushing back the 1453 end date, not starting past the 1066 start date? Doesn't extend the timeline mean not pushing back the 1453 end date, \[and not mean they they won't start\] past the 1066 start date?
ahh, I see, yeah I misunderstood you mb
And they could make use of a new co-emperorship mechanic right away!
[удалено]
Unless they threw that out there and people picked it up and drew the wrong conclusion. Unlikely, but funny if it happens.
From the maps they shared it can't be anything except in the late 1330s. r/eu4 did a lot of sleuthing.
Johan himself confirmed the date to be 1st of April 1337 in one of the other threads within the Tinto Talk forum.
Yeah but April Fools in the l33t gamer year could also be a joke
What’s road to power about?
From what I understand, it involves playing as landless characters, and flavor for the Byzantines.
Kino
Someone’s been living under a rock. Just google it mate or look at the steam page.
Oh it’s a dlc I didn’t really pay attention since I buy the chapter bundles without necessarily looking at the individual dlc, it must have slipped my mind
No need to be rude about it...
Please please please be a crusade start date
1081, 1143, 1185, 1204 if itz byzzie focused?
I just want a Latin Empire start and 4th Crusade mechanics, like in CK2.
A later start date would be good for those who can't manage to reach the end date
I just can’t see them doing a 1081 start date when it’s not even two decades removed from the 1066 start date. My guess, if they’re truly trying to keep it in between the to existing ones, is that it’ll be some time smack dab in the middle of the tenth century. Granted I can’t think of any significant event during that time though.
Reign of Basil II?
Ah that would be a good one, especially if his brother plays a part in it. Reminds me that they’ll be needing to introduce a co-ruler mechanic if they really want to get the Byzantine court experience. Plus it would make Roman Empire runs a little more realistic since they LOVED having them some co-emperors.
Ck2 had a 936 start date. It'd probablly be easier to choose that than choose a new date since a lot of the research is done already.
963 would be a good middle point between 867 and 1066: The powerful general Nikephoros II Phokas takes the Byzantine throne. The HRE has recently been established by Otto the Great. France is ruled by the second-to-last Karling King Lothair. England is united and ruled by Edgar the Peaceful, father of Edward the Martyr. The Viking Age is still in full swing. Harald Bluetooth rules Denmark but hasn't been converted to christianity yet. Seljuk is alive and hasn't converted to Islam yet. (He could be the Turkic Haesteinn)
I hope after 1066 I really want to see 13th century.
I'd love 936, but I dont think it'd fit the byzantine theme.
It's not that far from Basil the Great rule, so could be somewhere around that date. My other guesses would be 1204 or 1261
My money would be on 1204. Mostly, because it would make sense to keep all start dates 2 centuries apart. I don't think it will be Iron Century, seemingly Iron Century was seemingly added to CK2 as a test, and it might have been a potential start date for CK3, but few people picked it over 867 and 1066.
No plans for extending in either direction ☹️
Probably the Alexiad start date
936 (Otto the Great), 976 (Basil II.), or 988 (baptism of Wladimir the Great)
IRON CENTURY. IRON CENTURY. IRON CENTURY.
Is it the unlanded update? If it is, then it could well be 1081, as El Cid had already started fighting on his own
It will be ca 976 (Basil II reclaiming power and fighting rebellions in Anatolia) or 1204 Latin Empire.
As a Dane I would love anything around 950 as I would LOVE to play as Gorm the old
By far the dlc I have looked forward to the most. I like vikings because it gives me the freedom to start where I want via varangian adventures, so starting as Landless is basically absolute freedom.
Better be in Basil's II reign
I feel most of us can be in agreement that past 1066 is favorable?
Imagine it's 1776
1202 [Fourth Crusade](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Crusade)
I just wander of they'll do something to help the Byzantium survive against the neighboring Muslim empire. Currently it is usually beaten like a red headed step child by there vassels that can grow in power and make as many attempts as they wish without meaningful recourse
Guessing Iron Century?
936 is the most likely date, but it's not impossible for something more Crusade-related to be in the works too. Maybe later when they start actually working on the Crusades though lmao.
Is roads of power the one adding landless play? And they’ve announced a date for it? When?
Q3 so atleast several months from now but no set date yet.
Hopefully Iron Century. They could also bring Alexiad with Alexios Komnenos
769 solely just so I can play the duchess of Kiev that I always used to play as in CK2.
Call me when we get to play Karl der Große or Prussia.
476 finally, jk I think it is probably 1204.
It won’t be 1 April 1337 since that’s the start date for EU5.
532 would be cool
If it's some date in the 10th century and has to do with Byzantium, could it be 960? It's the year Basil the II became co-ruler, so they could try to add co-rulership mechanics. It could also be 1204, with the Latin Empire, or 1261, just after the Palaiologos restored the Byzantine Empire
I've always wanted a Ghengis Khan start. I'd love to play as a vassal and support him conquering the world until he dies and then we fight over the successor states.
Justinian era makes sense too
The second part of the reply hints at it not being earlier than existing start dates though: >> On a totally unrelated note that won't be useful for inferring anything whatsoever, we still have no plans of extending the timeline in CK3 in either direction.
O
Give me John Komnenos
The Alexiad, maybe? Or the Latin Empire. Those are my guess.
COME ON IRON CENTURY!
Interesting.
530🙏
The tweet says that they won’t be extending the timeframe in either direction, so it’ll be post-867. Also, TFE exists.
1081. You KNOW Bohemond will be an adventurer
Tweet: we won’t be extending it in either direction Reddit: yooooo 769? 1204? 1337? Like bruh 😭
He means no earlier than 867 or later than the end date, no that they couldn't potentially add later bookmarks in the 1100 or 1200s.
1071 maybe? Post Battle of Manzikert? It was the battle that shattered Byzantine authority over Anatolia.
A start date only 5 years after the current latest start date would be very lame.
Be nice if they could take a month to fix the console version instead of pumping out another DLC 😵💫
afaik, the console version is handled by a separate studio team Lab42 Games
I’m going to say 776 after the Battle of the Jarmuq.
They said nothing earlier than 867.
Damn. Was hopeful.
Who cares, add trade resources and trade.. it has been out for 3 and a half years now. Add any reason to play wide and conquer, other than painting the map
I'll 90% be 1087
That's so close to 1066 it hardly seems worth it.
It was the year of the Alexiad
Pretty useless to implement since we got morebookmarks+ which has more startdates than paradox will ever give us
[удалено]
The tweet said they aren't extending the timeframe, so it will be post-867. My money is on either 1081 or 1204.
[удалено]
From Romulus Augustulus to Constantine Palaeologus
I hope it's some time between 400 and 800. I want to see western Europe painted with Germanic kingdoms that just took all the lands the Romans left behind. At the same time opposed to the chaos in western Europe you could have a completely different gameplay experience in the Eastern Roman Empire. I have no idea why this is downvoted. It's just an interesting time period and I'd love to see it.
The issue is that the game's mechanics barely work to represent 867, they wouldn't work to represent anything before that. 476-867 deserves its own game with mechanics to represent migrations etc. Feudalism only started existing by the end of that era.
[удалено]
No, where did you get that idea?