i know Im randomly asking but does anyone know a way to get back into an instagram account?? I stupidly forgot my account password. I would love any tips you can give me
@Forrest Noel I really appreciate your reply. I got to the site thru google and im trying it out atm. I see it takes quite some time so I will get back to you later when my account password hopefully is recovered.
Earlier is better to me. I get to forge my own kingdom. And there is less unity. Of course there are plenty of big players but I can start as a count and take over other counts instead of kingdoms to start.
My new favorite thing to do is make a maintenance free raiding horde. You do this by having the adventurer trait(-50% men at arms maintenance) having 100 dread and the fearful troops perk(in the stewardship tree)it's effect is for every 2 dread you get -1% maintenance. This allows you to have free maa.
I can see how 1066 can absolutely be better now when the game is more near vanilla. As 1066 history is more polished more written sources requires less game mechanics for its story to be told. But I can also see that as the game increases in mechanics/expansions 867 can overtake 1066.
I would like another start during "The Iron Century" from CK2: That start date is the perfect in-between of 867 and 1066. The Vikings begin settling down then and Europe also feudalized more/Christianity spread; Islam reached its cultural zenith, with huge intellectual centers in Cordoba, Cairo and Baghdad; and if they wanted to expand to China, there is a huge civil war there, among lots of other things.
I hope they add the Iron Century in a future update. IMO is probably one of the best Starting Dates in CK2. You get a bit of both 867 and 1066 since its basically the period of transition when the Norse Kings started converting to Christianity, but still a lot of others remained Pagan.
769 was definitely the best date in Crusader Kings 2 specifically because Northumbria was playable and dominant in the British Isles and it’s just one of my favorite historical nations
I loved the 936 date in CK2, as it had a good mix of the sandbox feel of 867 and the relative historicity of 1066. I really hope the prioritise adding this date soon.
For vikings: 867 For not vikings: 1066 One of my issues with 867 is that you have to wait so long to get rid of confederate partition while in 1066 it's only a few years if you rush it, I'm a warmonger expansionist in ck3, so having my realm that I worked so hard to conquer getting gutted every day lifetime if I didn't monk, disinherit or sent to die enough children isn't fun. That's also probably why the Byzantine emperor is my favorite start as it starts with Primogeniture
doesn't it get boring very fast? I mean it's so easy to conquer and more so while being Byzantum. I find it more intresting to have problematic succecsions and more realistic too
@@lolaka1313 I mean primogeniture is accurate for Byzantium in 867, although I’m a noob so idk if they do this, but it would be cool if the game simulated the constant civil wars and deposition of emperors
@@lolaka1313 that’s mostly why I play as the emperor when I want to just have fun, but if I don’t want to get bored I’ll play as a Byzantine duchy on Ironman mode
I usually start at 867 and grow slowly, trying to make the most out of de jure drift and by 1066 my kingdom inside my de jure empire has absorbed almost the whole empire, making the vassal kings feel more like duchy vassals; also by 1066 my capital is one of the most developed part of the whole world and our culture has gotten far technologically: now its time to take over the world. This can be very powerful if applied in the Tamil culture area.
As a lover of History I have to agree with you. 1066 is just so much more stable and more historically accurate which matters to me. I really enjoy making my own ruler and putting a wrench in history too and since 867 is much more ahistorical, it's just not as fun for me, especially as someone who loves playing in Britannia, HRE, Italy and the Byzantines.
I started as the high chiefdom of perm in 867 with a high martial ruler ended up creating the empire of Permia that encompassed most of the Soviet Union until my dickhead vassals/god dynasty usurped my throne and declared independence but I made it until the mid 1300’s before the empire fell apart
As someone who picked up the game less than a month ago I feel that 867, depending on where you start, gives you a chance to build up a decent duchy/kingdom tier holding fairly quickly. Much smaller armies in neighboring territories if you make the right selection. 1066 is a great start if you want to get more of a feel for the vassal route.
I always start in 867, and I never play as the Vikings (even though I'm Norwegian). I usually start as Alfred the Great, who quickly inherit Wessex, then I go about taking the British Isles, forming the Empire of Britain. I also always play on Ironman. The Vikings are a nuisance, true, but I never felt they were OP. :)
I nearly always start in 867 as Asturias. I do like the idea that you have an extra 200 years to play with. Initially it was quite unstable but this seems to have improved. Not too many raids or too detrimental to my game. I normally just leave them to move on.
I probably don't have enough play throughs to really back this up, but I prefer 867 bc it seems to produce more variety all over the map, feels like if left to their own devices the superpowers in 1066 will end up in about the same situation every time.
I have not had the game long and I love the 1066 start at Matilda of Tuscany. I don’t really have much border gore for myself. It’s generally me taking all the the people around me till I can form a kingdom so my heir don’t split it all up. I tried to start as one of her ancestors in 867 and within the first couple of years I became the vassal of like 3 different people bc they kept conquering Italy. Sooo annoying lol
Genuinely been wondering why I've been struggling so much but this clarified it so well. I'm new to the game and unintentionally chose a really difficult start. Viking conquering Kent and taking over the rest of England. I used to live in Kent and miss it lol
As a person that prefers to play things other than Western European Catholics, the 867 start is far more interesting for me. Creating a Han Chinese Tibet is impossible in 1066 (Guiyi and all Han characters are gone in 1066), Welsh Brittania, a Zoroastrian Persia, starting as a Jew and reclaiming the Holy Land (versus being converted by a Sephardim) or settling Hungary as the Magyars. For me, the 1066 start is very one dimensional, with the HRE being this monolith that can't be avoided, and the same strategies game after game are employed to either destroy it from within or take it over. In the East, it's a race to do something relevant before the Mongols arrive and shit on everything (and you thought European border gore was bad). Plus, the completely disunited Muslims in 1066 get rolled by the Crusades, and either Jerusalem or the Papacy blob across Arabia pretty fast.
Before I hated playing 867 start, even if playing vikings because of the additional techs available after 1200s. But currently I'm having a blast with the new DLC as a son of Ragnar. Also, India is actually a lot more consolidated in 876 with a "three kingdoms" standoff compared to 1066
"This is just a computer game after all..." Couldn't have said it better myself! A computer game we all enjoy, nontheless. I prefer the 867 date. I like the variety of religion on the map, as well as the lack of unity throughout Europe. Makes for a much scrappier playthrough. I also enjoy the length of the game when you start earlier, it really feels like you are building up an empire from very little. Navigating confederate partition, pathing through innovations and such also proves to be much more of a challenge.
As someone new-ish to CK3 (and strategy games in general), I tend to pick the 1066 start date, as things feel a little tamer and I also recognize more historical characters. Unfortunately I’m not as knowledgeable on a lot of the history regarding this era as I want to be and it can be hard to choose some of the earlier characters because of it. But my current campaign starting with Haraldr Fairhair has been an 867 one (obviously) and it’s been a great deal of fun, mostly with a higher mortality mod where half my rulers die of typhus and I get stuck with my 4 year old heir. I also have an issue with sticking with a playthrough (with any game honestly, it’s horrible lol) so 1066 can help with my ADHD factor. I really like how you put all of this into words though, my goal with the new-ish legacy of Persia dlc is to do one of those starting characters.
Having done a couple playthroughs (ie complete ones to 1453; I've done a lot of aborted runs) I can say I definitely prefer 1066, only because the 1066 start tends to play out across the world in at least a semblance of historical accuracy. The 867 border gore just never ends, in my last 867 run it took until about 1250 for the kingdom of France to even appear, and England took even longer. Ireland made a brief appearance and the HRE, Scotland and Norway never even happened. Eastern Europe was a border gore mess from start to finish. The history nerd in me just can't get immersed properly in the 867 start, even though having those extra 200 years provides so much more story for your dynasty; it's a shame they didn't somehow tone the border gore down once you hit 1066 from an 867 start.
I love starting in 867 the majority of the time. But 1066 is great too, just jumping in during a new Era. I had to do 1066 to play as petty king murchad and lead house Brian to take all of brittania and re establish the celtic culture. Then form a new norse-gaelish culture and head a brand new empire. Europe wasn't prepared for a viking-irish emperor to sail up their rivers and start a-conquering
I absolutely agree with you, almost all of my playthroughs have been played in 1066 as I enjoy the historical accuracy and border gore is not as out of control. With the latest DLC though I've been playing on 867, as I'm trying to get the most interesting Norse achievements before the expansion comes out. Since you asked, my favourite region to play in is Iberia, both Muslim and Christian. I know a lot of the history, read a lot of books and documentaries, and just love being immersed in it. I hope there will be a Flavour Pack for the area, as the Muslim-Christian dynamics there were very unique and different to the rest of the map. Also a religious revamp on both sides will make it obviously more interesting!
Interesting points. I never thought about the start dates. I just always take 876 because I have 'more' time to play with. ;D (the truth is, I probably finished less than 1% of my campaigns) 1066 seems superior for my playstyle.
I tend to like playing as dead religions, meaning I have to create ruler from scratch then plop them down in an area where their family could have realistically hid and bided their time until they emerge to restore their faith throughout the world. I learned a lot doing this. For example, playing an unreformed faith that is considered hostile to Muslims and Christians in the Byzantine Empire is extremely difficult. It took me about 3 tries before I remembered I could modify my contract for religious protection. But still had the added difficulties of no nearby alliances and everyone on and their third cousin revolting whenever I climb my way to emperor. You do get to raid through, which is nice for early game economy. The other thing is I like to start as a Count or Duke level character. I figure that by playing the game you are making decisions that are different historically anyway, so by starting as a count or duke the result is "If I was Isekai'd into this guys life how would it change history". For both of those reasons I tend to prefer playing in 867. The benefit of the world not being as unified is that smaller people have an easier time growing through conquest. My most fun play throughs have been in 867. I once made the Greco-Rohan empire. Yup Rohan. As in The Roharrim. Combined Greek Culture with the Khazars for Horse Lords and Steppe Tolerance and had a dominant army of Cataphracts, Horse Archers, and Light Cavalry supported by a Holy Order of Heavy Infantry that can be used against basically everybody because no one wanted to be a Helenist with me. It was nice getting rid of Byzantine Traditions too which is one of the most annoying traditions in the game with its massive short reign penalty. But yeah, being horse lords with an extremely fast moving army is so fun, and adding Horse Breeders traditions later to help with army costs is just *chefs kiss*. Most of my play throughs start in or around the Byzantine Empire, while it is true that there aren't many stable superpowers in 867, the ones that exist are in that area. Although I'd call them semi-stable as they tend to break off pieces and chunks as the game goes on. I've seen the Kazaria and Abbasid Empire get massive if I leave them alone though
867 offers the possibility to experience the game in full. With the hassle of confederate partition, culture progression, reforming faith, adopt feudalism :)
Really comes down to what mood I'm in. After playing a lot of the Western European realms in CK2, I often find myself more curious about Africa, Eastern Europe and Indian/Himalayan regions. And in those areas, I do enjoy the sandbox-ish feel of 867 more, for the most part. For many of those regions, I also don't know any history, so inaccuracies are a non-factor since I don't recognise them when they pop up. By 1066, I feel that many of those regions are somewhat stabilised, which would be more interesting to me if I wanted to do a historical deep-dive, sort of reliving the heyday of a certain dynasty or something.
The major problem I’m having with CK3 over CK2 is everything comes too easy. It took me a long time to work my way up into forming kingdoms in CK2. The slow pace of forged claims meant to speed things up I had to get creative with characters and their claims, so I got more involved with the character and role playing systems. Now, everyone basically has free declarations of war on demand. I’ve been playing in Africa, and I’m barely touching the character system because I’m too busy in a race to keep conquering at the pace of my neighbors. 40 years in, and I’m one of 5 large kingdoms in my immediate area that all mostly started with one county, and I’m in a race with two of them to conquer the smaller states to our east. If I slow down for a second, I’ll get outpaced and then absorbed. In other playthroughs I’ve tried, everyone just blobs at a breakneck speed. Gameplay is always at a crazy pace of conquering.
There is atleast one (potential) viking in 1066, even if he doesn't do anything. he Jarl in Iceland is still Asartu/Norse. As far as Universities go, the only one that's in 1066 and not in 867 is the one in Cairo. All the rest of them still aren't built. "You're dealing with a strong England." Maybe for about 6-months to a year, then Harold gets overthrown and you have to deal with a STRONGER Danelaw or just England with one point five additional duchies. As far as historical accuracy, who cares? Things will change as soon as you start playing. An example. How many of you if you play William the Conqueror disinherit Robert Curthose? Does he even attack Rouen in 1077? So what's the point of historical accuracy when it will change the moment you unpause the game. My personal favorite start is William the Bastard/Conqueror in 1066. But I prefer to start in 867, because of my "pro" Speaking of my pro, in 867 there's a lot more for you to do. You mention the HRE already being formed in 1066, but Aragon is also formed. So is England and the Norman (but not English, yet) culture. You can found the Kingdom of Cornwall in 867. Yes, you COULD do it it 1066, but what's the point? You'd have to declare independence from England, then wait 5 years (unless you win your independence war BEFORE Harold Bluetooth or William the Conqueror conquers England) to grab Hwicce/Wessex, then another 5 years (unless your gobbling up Hwice/Wessex weakened the current king for the other guy to grab the throne) to gobble up the other province, to completely form Cornwall. Sure, you COULD form Cornwall with JUST Cornwall, but it'd be like Brittany, a one duchy kingdom. It's easier to do in 867. Grab the other Cornwall county, declare a war for the Duchy of Hwicce/Wessex, wait 5 years, then grab the other one.
No, Iceland and its ruler is completely christian catholic by 1066 start. They are still norse though. Even by 867 Iceland is half christian, half asatru
I like the 867 start date more only because it's easier to snowball and rapidly expand, allowing me to establish myself as a major player before anyone can stop me haha. In my first campaign I achieved near-total world domination as the Byzantines by 1330 before the patch that added harsh winter made the game too unstable to carry on.
Iberia is my favorite region in 1066 and The North Sea is my favorite region in 867... 867 is most likely gonna change around for me depending on the DLC and Flavor Packs
IMO 867 is good if you're going for a long game and also to play Pagan Tribals. Also Vikings. 1066 is good if you're planning to play the conventional Feudal Government. Really hope they add new starting dates in future expansions.
Really love playing as Vratislav. With a couple of mods like the extra build slots this can be a great tall play through. Plus you can take Hungary and give it to your son! Just make sure to take his holdings in Bohemia before you do this and give him some other county first.
I would personally love a a Charlemagne start date but I can see merits in both. 867 is a more challenging especially after northern lords in any were coastal or having a major river flowing through it in Europe. North Africa and the near east are safer but not entirely so and the Romans or the Arabs have a bigger army to see off the rarer incursions.
I sure do hope that Paradox finds a way to at least limit border gore in CK 3 because that is one of my top things I hate the most in all strategy games.
I’ll always prefer 867 start. I find wars are a lot easier. Raids I’ve gotten used to, northmen raids are the ones I usually get annoyed with. They’re very easy to counter though as most of the northmen troops are levies. Alliances are a must in 867, especially if you’re near the baltic or North Sea bc that’s where the northmen raid. I even got invaded by them playing Poland. Which is accurate so I don’t mind.
I like both but I like 1066's characters more. I know that might sound weird but in 1066 you've got William the Bastard, Matilda of Tuscany, Vratislav II, Werner Habsburg, Eadgar of Wessex and the megachad himself... Cadoc Cerneu I dunno, they just seem to have more character to them (especially knowing their historical backgrounds)
867 is a pure video game mode. If you think about what actually happens historically 867 can be very frustrating. Not saying 1066 gameplay is historical but it can kind of be described as realistic. 867 is just simply pure chaos. I feel like history nerds will tend to like 1066 and people who just like to have fun will prefer 867. In my experience 867 is more fun but only for probably the 1st or 2nd generation of your dynasty. With the whole world basically fragmented it's just too easy to become powerful in 867, and at least for me personally that's when the game gets boring. not to mention if you play 867 chances are you're playing a tribal gov or at the very least feudal/clan with plenty of holy war opportunities for expansion. 1066 will normally involve a lot more diplomacy and complex gameplay in order to expand.
867 with Whiteshirt is more interesting. You can form the Norman culture and then the English culture or stay Norse. 1066 with Denmark can be equally interesting since it has claims on England and Norway and most of the Baltic coast is pagan, the world is its oyster.
I really, really want to see a start date at 632: This was the year Muhammad died and immediately after his death, his most favored successor, Abu Bakr, faced multiple rebellions against rebels who also claimed to be Muhammad's successor, and also claimed variants of Islam that were very different than the one which eventually succeeded with Abu Bakr. I would have loved to see a start date which could include you either playing as Abu Bakr to bring down the rebels and starting the Rashidun Caliphate, or as one of the rebel leaders who succeeds and ends up creating a form of Islam radically different than the ones familiar today.
I love both X & Y how dare you criticise me Never played ck2, imperator was my first paradox game then ck3 came out a few months after I found imperator so I tried it and loved it. If I'm playing Norse/tribal I'll got 867 but if I'm playing feudal or clan I'll go 1066. I've definitely played more 867 Another great video mate easily my fav ck3 channel now
I like to play as England but I actually prefer 867. In 867 I play as Wessex and try to unify England, but the northern duchies tend to fight the vikings for me and I can pick both of them off while they're weak. In 1066 you get doubleteamed by Normandy and Norway right off the bat
I prefer 867 as starting date. My favorite campaign was to form the duchy of Austria (my homeland) and after that reunite the empire of Karl the great. Actual I am gaming as Cornwall in 867 and I could finally reconquer the lands of the native romano brits. The vikings harassed me at the beginning a bit but most of the time they just sacked my vassals and was glad that the vikings held them down a bit 😂
They should add a create new culture decision and make it like vikings becoming norman. Even if its only available for vikings and nomadic tribes it would add alot of mileage. Did a virangian adventure into the south of Spain and set myself up with granada (i think? The one with the roman fort) as a capital. Converted to catholicism and was really enjoying it until the norse culture split and i kind of lost interest at that point when i just became Swedish. If that becomes something like norman but with a Andalusian mix that would be really sweet.
I like 867 because Alfred the Great and Ludwig the Younger are very fun starts. In addition I have not had the same experience with Viking issues. Usually those Northman Armies split off all of their levies and are either in debt or starving by the time I engage, which means an easy stackwipe. The broken up map also makes it easy to conquer using the force vassalage CB. I also prefer 867 because at actually don’t like a lot of the history in 1066. It rubs me the wrong way that Charlemagne’s empire had totally collapsed by that point and was replaced by a fake HRE. I also don’t like William the Bastard’s invasion of England, because the Anglo-Saxon’s just got caught in a shitty situation against the Norwegians and the Normans, and after their defeat the Anglo-Saxon nobility was slaughtered. I have no doubt this contributes why I enjoy the aforementioned starts so much.
I personally prefer the chaotic viking hell that is 867, living in constant fear of the angry sea people early on. I find that once you get a few men-at-arms, the viking adventurers get really easy to just stomp on however, 9000 man army where almost all of them are levies aren't very powerful.
I thought border gore was the whole point of CK3? Or at least that's how I play. I like to start as Prussia in 867. Lots of opportunity for inflicting border gore.
I have to heavily disagree with you on the assertion that 1066 is more diverse than 867. Several 867 game start religions and cultures are dead by 1066 largely because of the expansion of Islam and christianity. There is more Islam in Western Africa and India but this comes at the expense of asakum in west Africa and one of the Zoroastrian faiths in the Middle East. Judaism has been eliminated as an independent religion my the tengeri and both the Norse religion and culture have been whiped out by Catholics in the north. The world is less diverse and less likely to gain diversity in 1066 kingdoms grow more homogeneous. No new cultures can form many old religions and cultures are dead. Whereas in 867 not only are there no dead cultures and only a handful Of dead religions but the cultures that exist in 1066 will be created throughout normal gameplay disrupting the games tendency toward homogenizing your domain. By every metric 1066 is less diverse. It is instead more Abrahamic and every example you gave was literally just the speed of Islam. More Islam does not mean more diversity it means more Islam.
For me it's the opposite, I absolutely love playing 867 as non-viking becauase that's the only way the game is even slightly challanging and it's way too easy else. My favorite start is by far East Anglia, starting at war with a viking force 10 times stronger than you and it will result in a game over if you lose. So you gotta think of a solution to survive, and even if you do you can't mindlessly blob everywhere like in 1066 cuz the vikings in yorvik are just that much stronger than you and you can't really expand there. CK3 is so disgustingly easy that being an extreme underdog is the only way to make it fun
Gotta disagree with you about the more variety in the 1066 date, when you were talking about religions in Africa and such. I found the spread of Christianity and Islam really annoying about the 1066 start date and found that it homogenised my experience more than it varied it. A good example is the Rus kingdoms, all being Orthodox in 1066 vs the area being a roll of the dice whether they would go Christian, stay Slavic pagan, go Jewish 'cus of the Kazars or even the Finnish pagan. In Africa it's similar, once the Muslims start making in roads the entire area flips to Islam, but in 867 it's really a fight between which pagan religion is going to come out on top. The only time I've seen one of the African religions resist the spread of Islam is if an AI managed to reform it, which happens around 1 in 5 games, from my experience. Everything else I agree with though. I much prefer 1066 for playing as vassals in larger powers, but prefer 867 for establishing my own power from scratch.
Personally, I would post videos a little later in the day. Almost every kid in America will get out of school around 2:00 New York time (11: LA). A lot of view revenue could be lost due to a decrease in kid viewers.
personally I prefer 1066 for the sake of playing as georgia and poland both are my favorite starts I also like ireland but I just love creating mega georgia, personally I would play as germany if it existed but playing as the hre is absurd the italian states are a pain in the arse same with everyone else including the saxons
btw one of the main problems with 867 is that my authority cant be increased beyond level 2 i remember playing as whatever with that it was a pain in the arse not to be able to revoke titles
I like 867 since you can play as the Vikings. People who have the power to take over Europe in over 300 years yet when beginning as them they are the underdogs since they are outnumbered by the Catholics who can ally with the Byzantine Empire. I like to imagine the Vikings as a pile of clay which you could form into your own story. You could have a story where the Heastein dynasty creates a massive North Sea Empire which extends from Scandinavia to Italy who helped feudalize the Vikings. You can also have a story where the vikings on island invade India and raid the heavily developed land.
it's not that hard to manage confederate partition, and coupled with de jure drift it really makes sense to go slow at 867. I usually start at 867 and by 1066 my kingdom inside my de jure empire has absorbed almost the whole empire, making the vassal kings feel more like duchy vassals. Also by 1066 my capital is one of the most developed part of the whole world and our culture has gotten far technologically: now its time to take over the world.
I'm an 867 starter 100% of the way, but, I'm a Viking kind of guy, and 1066 is pretty much the end of the Viking Age
Makes sense
But isn't it the most fun (statistically) to start as one of the few remaining Norse in 1066 lol?
@@12354rony its really hard you cant get allainces
@@kwandemfayela7458 Which makes it all the more satisfying when you do succeed.
867 pros:
*Longer game if you want the maximum chance to build your dynasty
*Lots of vikings
Cons:
*Fewer advancements of any kind
*Lots of vikings
Surprised people dont say a con for 867 is that byzantine Empire really gets its engine moving and swarms in 867 and 1066 is more tame.
i know Im randomly asking but does anyone know a way to get back into an instagram account??
I stupidly forgot my account password. I would love any tips you can give me
@Lian Kyson Instablaster =)
@Forrest Noel I really appreciate your reply. I got to the site thru google and im trying it out atm.
I see it takes quite some time so I will get back to you later when my account password hopefully is recovered.
@Forrest Noel it worked and I finally got access to my account again. I'm so happy!
Thanks so much you saved my account !
Earlier is better to me. I get to forge my own kingdom. And there is less unity. Of course there are plenty of big players but I can start as a count and take over other counts instead of kingdoms to start.
I agree. I like the idea of starting up from a count and getting more land
My new favorite thing to do is make a maintenance free raiding horde.
You do this by having the adventurer trait(-50% men at arms maintenance) having 100 dread and the fearful troops perk(in the stewardship tree)it's effect is for every 2 dread you get -1% maintenance.
This allows you to have free maa.
Less cheesy Ck3 player:
@@Tortellobello45 well it's not even a good strategy, as the maa isn't free just very cheap and once the character dies the economy drops
I can see how 1066 can absolutely be better now when the game is more near vanilla. As 1066 history is more polished more written sources requires less game mechanics for its story to be told. But I can also see that as the game increases in mechanics/expansions 867 can overtake 1066.
Hopefully? I like the beginning of the Middle Ages
1066 is more *Polished*,yes :)
look at central europe's map in both S.Ds
I would like another start during "The Iron Century" from CK2: That start date is the perfect in-between of 867 and 1066. The Vikings begin settling down then and Europe also feudalized more/Christianity spread; Islam reached its cultural zenith, with huge intellectual centers in Cordoba, Cairo and Baghdad; and if they wanted to expand to China, there is a huge civil war there, among lots of other things.
I hope they add the Iron Century in a future update. IMO is probably one of the best Starting Dates in CK2. You get a bit of both 867 and 1066 since its basically the period of transition when the Norse Kings started converting to Christianity, but still a lot of others remained Pagan.
769 was definitely the best date in Crusader Kings 2 specifically because Northumbria was playable and dominant in the British Isles and it’s just one of my favorite historical nations
I loved the 936 date in CK2, as it had a good mix of the sandbox feel of 867 and the relative historicity of 1066. I really hope the prioritise adding this date soon.
For vikings: 867
For not vikings: 1066
One of my issues with 867 is that you have to wait so long to get rid of confederate partition while in 1066 it's only a few years if you rush it, I'm a warmonger expansionist in ck3, so having my realm that I worked so hard to conquer getting gutted every day lifetime if I didn't monk, disinherit or sent to die enough children isn't fun. That's also probably why the Byzantine emperor is my favorite start as it starts with Primogeniture
doesn't it get boring very fast? I mean it's so easy to conquer and more so while being Byzantum. I find it more intresting to have problematic succecsions and more realistic too
@@lolaka1313 I mean primogeniture is accurate for Byzantium in 867, although I’m a noob so idk if they do this, but it would be cool if the game simulated the constant civil wars and deposition of emperors
@@lolaka1313 probably so boring he doesn't even play the game anymore because "there's not enough to do"
You can get rid of partition very quickly in 1066 with house seniority (Bohemia starts with this in 867)
@@lolaka1313 that’s mostly why I play as the emperor when I want to just have fun, but if I don’t want to get bored I’ll play as a Byzantine duchy on Ironman mode
I usually start at 867 and grow slowly, trying to make the most out of de jure drift and by 1066 my kingdom inside my de jure empire has absorbed almost the whole empire, making the vassal kings feel more like duchy vassals; also by 1066 my capital is one of the most developed part of the whole world and our culture has gotten far technologically: now its time to take over the world. This can be very powerful if applied in the Tamil culture area.
As a lover of History I have to agree with you. 1066 is just so much more stable and more historically accurate which matters to me. I really enjoy making my own ruler and putting a wrench in history too and since 867 is much more ahistorical, it's just not as fun for me, especially as someone who loves playing in Britannia, HRE, Italy and the Byzantines.
I started as the high chiefdom of perm in 867 with a high martial ruler ended up creating the empire of Permia that encompassed most of the Soviet Union until my dickhead vassals/god dynasty usurped my throne and declared independence but I made it until the mid 1300’s before the empire fell apart
As someone who picked up the game less than a month ago I feel that 867, depending on where you start, gives you a chance to build up a decent duchy/kingdom tier holding fairly quickly. Much smaller armies in neighboring territories if you make the right selection. 1066 is a great start if you want to get more of a feel for the vassal route.
I have yet to start a 1066 game. I allways want to but than i want to See my tribal country grow and feudalize. So yeah i like 867 :D
I always start in 867, and I never play as the Vikings (even though I'm Norwegian). I usually start as Alfred the Great, who quickly inherit Wessex, then I go about taking the British Isles, forming the Empire of Britain. I also always play on Ironman.
The Vikings are a nuisance, true, but I never felt they were OP. :)
I nearly always start in 867 as Asturias. I do like the idea that you have an extra 200 years to play with. Initially it was quite unstable but this seems to have improved. Not too many raids or too detrimental to my game. I normally just leave them to move on.
I probably don't have enough play throughs to really back this up, but I prefer 867 bc it seems to produce more variety all over the map, feels like if left to their own devices the superpowers in 1066 will end up in about the same situation every time.
I'm waiting for steppe migration mechanics similar to the new Varangian Adventure CB.
I want to play as the Pechenegs and migrate somewhere new.
I have not had the game long and I love the 1066 start at Matilda of Tuscany. I don’t really have much border gore for myself. It’s generally me taking all the the people around me till I can form a kingdom so my heir don’t split it all up.
I tried to start as one of her ancestors in 867 and within the first couple of years I became the vassal of like 3 different people bc they kept conquering Italy. Sooo annoying lol
Genuinely been wondering why I've been struggling so much but this clarified it so well.
I'm new to the game and unintentionally chose a really difficult start. Viking conquering Kent and taking over the rest of England.
I used to live in Kent and miss it lol
I live in Hastings and I tried doing the same thing lol. Was wondering why I sucked
As a person that prefers to play things other than Western European Catholics, the 867 start is far more interesting for me. Creating a Han Chinese Tibet is impossible in 1066 (Guiyi and all Han characters are gone in 1066), Welsh Brittania, a Zoroastrian Persia, starting as a Jew and reclaiming the Holy Land (versus being converted by a Sephardim) or settling Hungary as the Magyars. For me, the 1066 start is very one dimensional, with the HRE being this monolith that can't be avoided, and the same strategies game after game are employed to either destroy it from within or take it over. In the East, it's a race to do something relevant before the Mongols arrive and shit on everything (and you thought European border gore was bad). Plus, the completely disunited Muslims in 1066 get rolled by the Crusades, and either Jerusalem or the Papacy blob across Arabia pretty fast.
Before I hated playing 867 start, even if playing vikings because of the additional techs available after 1200s. But currently I'm having a blast with the new DLC as a son of Ragnar.
Also, India is actually a lot more consolidated in 876 with a "three kingdoms" standoff compared to 1066
"This is just a computer game after all..."
Couldn't have said it better myself! A computer game we all enjoy, nontheless. I prefer the 867 date. I like the variety of religion on the map, as well as the lack of unity throughout Europe. Makes for a much scrappier playthrough. I also enjoy the length of the game when you start earlier, it really feels like you are building up an empire from very little. Navigating confederate partition, pathing through innovations and such also proves to be much more of a challenge.
As someone new-ish to CK3 (and strategy games in general), I tend to pick the 1066 start date, as things feel a little tamer and I also recognize more historical characters. Unfortunately I’m not as knowledgeable on a lot of the history regarding this era as I want to be and it can be hard to choose some of the earlier characters because of it. But my current campaign starting with Haraldr Fairhair has been an 867 one (obviously) and it’s been a great deal of fun, mostly with a higher mortality mod where half my rulers die of typhus and I get stuck with my 4 year old heir. I also have an issue with sticking with a playthrough (with any game honestly, it’s horrible lol) so 1066 can help with my ADHD factor. I really like how you put all of this into words though, my goal with the new-ish legacy of Persia dlc is to do one of those starting characters.
Having done a couple playthroughs (ie complete ones to 1453; I've done a lot of aborted runs) I can say I definitely prefer 1066, only because the 1066 start tends to play out across the world in at least a semblance of historical accuracy. The 867 border gore just never ends, in my last 867 run it took until about 1250 for the kingdom of France to even appear, and England took even longer. Ireland made a brief appearance and the HRE, Scotland and Norway never even happened. Eastern Europe was a border gore mess from start to finish. The history nerd in me just can't get immersed properly in the 867 start, even though having those extra 200 years provides so much more story for your dynasty; it's a shame they didn't somehow tone the border gore down once you hit 1066 from an 867 start.
I love starting in 867 the majority of the time. But 1066 is great too, just jumping in during a new Era. I had to do 1066 to play as petty king murchad and lead house Brian to take all of brittania and re establish the celtic culture. Then form a new norse-gaelish culture and head a brand new empire. Europe wasn't prepared for a viking-irish emperor to sail up their rivers and start a-conquering
I absolutely agree with you, almost all of my playthroughs have been played in 1066 as I enjoy the historical accuracy and border gore is not as out of control. With the latest DLC though I've been playing on 867, as I'm trying to get the most interesting Norse achievements before the expansion comes out.
Since you asked, my favourite region to play in is Iberia, both Muslim and Christian. I know a lot of the history, read a lot of books and documentaries, and just love being immersed in it. I hope there will be a Flavour Pack for the area, as the Muslim-Christian dynamics there were very unique and different to the rest of the map. Also a religious revamp on both sides will make it obviously more interesting!
Interesting points. I never thought about the start dates. I just always take 876 because I have 'more' time to play with. ;D (the truth is, I probably finished less than 1% of my campaigns) 1066 seems superior for my playstyle.
I've played ck3 for 200 hours and never started a 1066 character lol. Think ill try it now and yeah the map is awesome I agree.
I tend to like playing as dead religions, meaning I have to create ruler from scratch then plop them down in an area where their family could have realistically hid and bided their time until they emerge to restore their faith throughout the world. I learned a lot doing this. For example, playing an unreformed faith that is considered hostile to Muslims and Christians in the Byzantine Empire is extremely difficult. It took me about 3 tries before I remembered I could modify my contract for religious protection. But still had the added difficulties of no nearby alliances and everyone on and their third cousin revolting whenever I climb my way to emperor. You do get to raid through, which is nice for early game economy.
The other thing is I like to start as a Count or Duke level character. I figure that by playing the game you are making decisions that are different historically anyway, so by starting as a count or duke the result is "If I was Isekai'd into this guys life how would it change history".
For both of those reasons I tend to prefer playing in 867. The benefit of the world not being as unified is that smaller people have an easier time growing through conquest. My most fun play throughs have been in 867. I once made the Greco-Rohan empire. Yup Rohan. As in The Roharrim. Combined Greek Culture with the Khazars for Horse Lords and Steppe Tolerance and had a dominant army of Cataphracts, Horse Archers, and Light Cavalry supported by a Holy Order of Heavy Infantry that can be used against basically everybody because no one wanted to be a Helenist with me. It was nice getting rid of Byzantine Traditions too which is one of the most annoying traditions in the game with its massive short reign penalty. But yeah, being horse lords with an extremely fast moving army is so fun, and adding Horse Breeders traditions later to help with army costs is just *chefs kiss*.
Most of my play throughs start in or around the Byzantine Empire, while it is true that there aren't many stable superpowers in 867, the ones that exist are in that area. Although I'd call them semi-stable as they tend to break off pieces and chunks as the game goes on. I've seen the Kazaria and Abbasid Empire get massive if I leave them alone though
867 offers the possibility to experience the game in full. With the hassle of confederate partition, culture progression, reforming faith, adopt feudalism :)
I've always started at 867. Maybe I'll try others that need specific dates for achievements.
Really comes down to what mood I'm in. After playing a lot of the Western European realms in CK2, I often find myself more curious about Africa, Eastern Europe and Indian/Himalayan regions. And in those areas, I do enjoy the sandbox-ish feel of 867 more, for the most part. For many of those regions, I also don't know any history, so inaccuracies are a non-factor since I don't recognise them when they pop up. By 1066, I feel that many of those regions are somewhat stabilised, which would be more interesting to me if I wanted to do a historical deep-dive, sort of reliving the heyday of a certain dynasty or something.
The major problem I’m having with CK3 over CK2 is everything comes too easy.
It took me a long time to work my way up into forming kingdoms in CK2. The slow pace of forged claims meant to speed things up I had to get creative with characters and their claims, so I got more involved with the character and role playing systems.
Now, everyone basically has free declarations of war on demand. I’ve been playing in Africa, and I’m barely touching the character system because I’m too busy in a race to keep conquering at the pace of my neighbors.
40 years in, and I’m one of 5 large kingdoms in my immediate area that all mostly started with one county, and I’m in a race with two of them to conquer the smaller states to our east. If I slow down for a second, I’ll get outpaced and then absorbed.
In other playthroughs I’ve tried, everyone just blobs at a breakneck speed. Gameplay is always at a crazy pace of conquering.
There is atleast one (potential) viking in 1066, even if he doesn't do anything. he Jarl in Iceland is still Asartu/Norse.
As far as Universities go, the only one that's in 1066 and not in 867 is the one in Cairo. All the rest of them still aren't built.
"You're dealing with a strong England." Maybe for about 6-months to a year, then Harold gets overthrown and you have to deal with a STRONGER Danelaw or just England with one point five additional duchies.
As far as historical accuracy, who cares? Things will change as soon as you start playing. An example. How many of you if you play William the Conqueror disinherit Robert Curthose? Does he even attack Rouen in 1077? So what's the point of historical accuracy when it will change the moment you unpause the game.
My personal favorite start is William the Bastard/Conqueror in 1066. But I prefer to start in 867, because of my "pro"
Speaking of my pro, in 867 there's a lot more for you to do. You mention the HRE already being formed in 1066, but Aragon is also formed. So is England and the Norman (but not English, yet) culture. You can found the Kingdom of Cornwall in 867. Yes, you COULD do it it 1066, but what's the point? You'd have to declare independence from England, then wait 5 years (unless you win your independence war BEFORE Harold Bluetooth or William the Conqueror conquers England) to grab Hwicce/Wessex, then another 5 years (unless your gobbling up Hwice/Wessex weakened the current king for the other guy to grab the throne) to gobble up the other province, to completely form Cornwall. Sure, you COULD form Cornwall with JUST Cornwall, but it'd be like Brittany, a one duchy kingdom. It's easier to do in 867. Grab the other Cornwall county, declare a war for the Duchy of Hwicce/Wessex, wait 5 years, then grab the other one.
No, Iceland and its ruler is completely christian catholic by 1066 start. They are still norse though.
Even by 867 Iceland is half christian, half asatru
I really can't wait for earlier starts. Or later starts and pushing the end date back.
867 is just a game where you're making an abstract art painting the map broken
I like the 867 start date more only because it's easier to snowball and rapidly expand, allowing me to establish myself as a major player before anyone can stop me haha. In my first campaign I achieved near-total world domination as the Byzantines by 1330 before the patch that added harsh winter made the game too unstable to carry on.
Iberia is my favorite region in 1066 and The North Sea is my favorite region in 867... 867 is most likely gonna change around for me depending on the DLC and Flavor Packs
IMO 867 is good if you're going for a long game and also to play Pagan Tribals. Also Vikings.
1066 is good if you're planning to play the conventional Feudal Government.
Really hope they add new starting dates in future expansions.
Really love playing as Vratislav.
With a couple of mods like the extra build slots this can be a great tall play through.
Plus you can take Hungary and give it to your son!
Just make sure to take his holdings in Bohemia before you do this and give him some other county first.
That’s a fun way to play. I enjoy a tall strategy
I would personally love a a Charlemagne start date but I can see merits in both. 867 is a more challenging especially after northern lords in any were coastal or having a major river flowing through it in Europe. North Africa and the near east are safer but not entirely so and the Romans or the Arabs have a bigger army to see off the rarer incursions.
I sure do hope that Paradox finds a way to at least limit border gore in CK 3 because that is one of my top things I hate the most in all strategy games.
There's a great mod in the workshop that stops dejuor drift and greatly reduces the border wars. "No Dejuor Drift" I believe.
@@rcrhinehart66 thank you for the suggestion I'll have to check it out.
@@KingAlton9403 I really recommend the top 5-6 music mods there as well, they add a lot to my gaming enjoyment!
It’s all about the Vikings I played as Ulfrik Stormcloak 🤣😂💪🏽
I’ll always prefer 867 start. I find wars are a lot easier. Raids I’ve gotten used to, northmen raids are the ones I usually get annoyed with. They’re very easy to counter though as most of the northmen troops are levies. Alliances are a must in 867, especially if you’re near the baltic or North Sea bc that’s where the northmen raid. I even got invaded by them playing Poland. Which is accurate so I don’t mind.
I like both but I like 1066's characters more. I know that might sound weird but in 1066 you've got William the Bastard, Matilda of Tuscany, Vratislav II, Werner Habsburg, Eadgar of Wessex and the megachad himself...
Cadoc Cerneu
I dunno, they just seem to have more character to them (especially knowing their historical backgrounds)
at least haesteinn of montaigu exists
867 is a pure video game mode. If you think about what actually happens historically 867 can be very frustrating. Not saying 1066 gameplay is historical but it can kind of be described as realistic. 867 is just simply pure chaos.
I feel like history nerds will tend to like 1066 and people who just like to have fun will prefer 867.
In my experience 867 is more fun but only for probably the 1st or 2nd generation of your dynasty. With the whole world basically fragmented it's just too easy to become powerful in 867, and at least for me personally that's when the game gets boring. not to mention if you play 867 chances are you're playing a tribal gov or at the very least feudal/clan with plenty of holy war opportunities for expansion. 1066 will normally involve a lot more diplomacy and complex gameplay in order to expand.
4k+ hrs. I have made it to 1066 a few times but never started there.
I allied with France and defeated the Vikings as alba(called them once) then snow balled Ireland, parts of England and conquered France for my bro
867 with Whiteshirt is more interesting. You can form the Norman culture and then the English culture or stay Norse. 1066 with Denmark can be equally interesting since it has claims on England and Norway and most of the Baltic coast is pagan, the world is its oyster.
Getting into this game now and your videos are insanely helpful! Thank you
Cringe pfp
I really, really want to see a start date at 632: This was the year Muhammad died and immediately after his death, his most favored successor, Abu Bakr, faced multiple rebellions against rebels who also claimed to be Muhammad's successor, and also claimed variants of Islam that were very different than the one which eventually succeeded with Abu Bakr. I would have loved to see a start date which could include you either playing as Abu Bakr to bring down the rebels and starting the Rashidun Caliphate, or as one of the rebel leaders who succeeds and ends up creating a form of Islam radically different than the ones familiar today.
I only played 867 so far... But I want to do a 1066 one today. Wish me luck
Just don't play 2020 it's a terrible start date
😂😂
I played 867 and the kingdom of Brittany conquered France and then France revolted and took it back over and conquered Spain
With the flavor pack....867 is fuuuuun..Northern Lords rocks..
I love both X & Y how dare you criticise me
Never played ck2, imperator was my first paradox game then ck3 came out a few months after I found imperator so I tried it and loved it.
If I'm playing Norse/tribal I'll got 867 but if I'm playing feudal or clan I'll go 1066. I've definitely played more 867
Another great video mate easily my fav ck3 channel now
I always play 867 just because I like having longer to play, really. I know I can set there to not be an end date but still.
I feel 867 is more of start from the bottom which i like, 1066 you can be more established.
That’s very true
@@RealmBuilderGuy Alfred the great, count of dorset to empire of Britannia
I like to play as England but I actually prefer 867. In 867 I play as Wessex and try to unify England, but the northern duchies tend to fight the vikings for me and I can pick both of them off while they're weak. In 1066 you get doubleteamed by Normandy and Norway right off the bat
Good point
Playing as Harold is loads of fun, defeat Harald and William and keep the realm united
867 gives you a whole 200 years of extra play.
My main issue with 867 is that the British isles just ends up as a hell hole for the entire game if you aren't near it
idk about that tbh specially after northern lords it's not as bad
Have you seen central-eastern europe? lol
I prefer 867 as starting date. My favorite campaign was to form the duchy of Austria (my homeland) and after that reunite the empire of Karl the great. Actual I am gaming as Cornwall in 867 and I could finally reconquer the lands of the native romano brits. The vikings harassed me at the beginning a bit but most of the time they just sacked my vassals and was glad that the vikings held them down a bit 😂
lol thats exactly what I like to do give my vassals the taste of vikings
I sometimes even let them conquer a few territories of vassals in a war to weaken vassals
If border Gore is bad in 867, what do you think it will be like in the 700's start date when/if they add it?
My personal hell?🤷♂️
@@RealmBuilderGuy I was thinking that 😂
I prefer 867 for forming the HRE myself or forming the Scandinavian Kingdoms.
They should add a create new culture decision and make it like vikings becoming norman. Even if its only available for vikings and nomadic tribes it would add alot of mileage.
Did a virangian adventure into the south of Spain and set myself up with granada (i think? The one with the roman fort) as a capital. Converted to catholicism and was really enjoying it until the norse culture split and i kind of lost interest at that point when i just became Swedish. If that becomes something like norman but with a Andalusian mix that would be really sweet.
Royal court is your dlc
I like 867 because Alfred the Great and Ludwig the Younger are very fun starts. In addition I have not had the same experience with Viking issues. Usually those Northman Armies split off all of their levies and are either in debt or starving by the time I engage, which means an easy stackwipe. The broken up map also makes it easy to conquer using the force vassalage CB.
I also prefer 867 because at actually don’t like a lot of the history in 1066. It rubs me the wrong way that Charlemagne’s empire had totally collapsed by that point and was replaced by a fake HRE. I also don’t like William the Bastard’s invasion of England, because the Anglo-Saxon’s just got caught in a shitty situation against the Norwegians and the Normans, and after their defeat the Anglo-Saxon nobility was slaughtered. I have no doubt this contributes why I enjoy the aforementioned starts so much.
I personally prefer the chaotic viking hell that is 867, living in constant fear of the angry sea people early on. I find that once you get a few men-at-arms, the viking adventurers get really easy to just stomp on however, 9000 man army where almost all of them are levies aren't very powerful.
Sorry, I hate it. Nothing kills this game for me like just trying to form an Irish Duchy and then getting ROFLstomped to death by Vikings.
I thought border gore was the whole point of CK3? Or at least that's how I play. I like to start as Prussia in 867. Lots of opportunity for inflicting border gore.
I have to heavily disagree with you on the assertion that 1066 is more diverse than 867. Several 867 game start religions and cultures are dead by 1066 largely because of the expansion of Islam and christianity. There is more Islam in Western Africa and India but this comes at the expense of asakum in west Africa and one of the Zoroastrian faiths in the Middle East. Judaism has been eliminated as an independent religion my the tengeri and both the Norse religion and culture have been whiped out by Catholics in the north. The world is less diverse and less likely to gain diversity in 1066 kingdoms grow more homogeneous. No new cultures can form many old religions and cultures are dead. Whereas in 867 not only are there no dead cultures and only a handful
Of dead religions but the cultures that exist in 1066 will be created throughout normal gameplay disrupting the games tendency toward homogenizing your domain. By every metric 1066 is less diverse. It is instead more Abrahamic and every example you gave was literally just the speed of Islam. More Islam does not mean more diversity it means more Islam.
I forgot to mention the orthodox elimination of the Slavic faith Eastern Europe goes from 6 religions to 3 by 1066
For me it's the opposite, I absolutely love playing 867 as non-viking becauase that's the only way the game is even slightly challanging and it's way too easy else. My favorite start is by far East Anglia, starting at war with a viking force 10 times stronger than you and it will result in a game over if you lose. So you gotta think of a solution to survive, and even if you do you can't mindlessly blob everywhere like in 1066 cuz the vikings in yorvik are just that much stronger than you and you can't really expand there. CK3 is so disgustingly easy that being an extreme underdog is the only way to make it fun
I play on the console, so that may influence my answer. I've only played 1066 in the tutorial. I prefer 867.
I find the Norse Pagans way to strong in 867
Gotta disagree with you about the more variety in the 1066 date, when you were talking about religions in Africa and such. I found the spread of Christianity and Islam really annoying about the 1066 start date and found that it homogenised my experience more than it varied it. A good example is the Rus kingdoms, all being Orthodox in 1066 vs the area being a roll of the dice whether they would go Christian, stay Slavic pagan, go Jewish 'cus of the Kazars or even the Finnish pagan. In Africa it's similar, once the Muslims start making in roads the entire area flips to Islam, but in 867 it's really a fight between which pagan religion is going to come out on top. The only time I've seen one of the African religions resist the spread of Islam is if an AI managed to reform it, which happens around 1 in 5 games, from my experience.
Everything else I agree with though. I much prefer 1066 for playing as vassals in larger powers, but prefer 867 for establishing my own power from scratch.
867
North of Iran
Personally, I would post videos a little later in the day. Almost every kid in America will get out of school around 2:00 New York time (11: LA). A lot of view revenue could be lost due to a decrease in kid viewers.
The world is bigger than the US, you know. For all you know most of his revenue/viewers comes from europe.
What a ridiculous comment, honestly.
More start dates lol....hello two years later.
867 because it is earlier.
Fair enough 😊
personally I prefer 1066 for the sake of playing as georgia and poland both are my favorite starts I also like ireland but I just love creating mega georgia, personally I would play as germany if it existed but playing as the hre is absurd the italian states are a pain in the arse same with everyone else including the saxons
btw one of the main problems with 867 is that my authority cant be increased beyond level 2 i remember playing as whatever with that it was a pain in the arse not to be able to revoke titles
I like 867 since you can play as the Vikings. People who have the power to take over Europe in over 300 years yet when beginning as them they are the underdogs since they are outnumbered by the Catholics who can ally with the Byzantine Empire. I like to imagine the Vikings as a pile of clay which you could form into your own story.
You could have a story where the Heastein dynasty creates a massive North Sea Empire which extends from Scandinavia to Italy who helped feudalize the Vikings. You can also have a story where the vikings on island invade India and raid the heavily developed land.
I never play in 867 because I can't stand confederate partition.
I just discovered that if you play in the Basque (Northeast Spain/Southwest France) culture group you can get High Partition right from the start
It took me a while to understand confederate partition, but once I did I found it wasn't that hard to work around and added to the game.
@@DaFreeze220 oh I didn't knew that
@@thompkins6796 It may not be as bad as I think, I started playing like a week ago
it's not that hard to manage confederate partition, and coupled with de jure drift it really makes sense to go slow at 867. I usually start at 867 and by 1066 my kingdom inside my de jure empire has absorbed almost the whole empire, making the vassal kings feel more like duchy vassals. Also by 1066 my capital is one of the most developed part of the whole world and our culture has gotten far technologically: now its time to take over the world.
i like 1066 better
18:13
😂🤣😂
cumania is extremely weak lol