Tuva might be a little better than Bashkiria, because it offers the possibility of taking the "Great Khan' decision, which is quite good, though you would probably want to move out of it as soon as possible. I have not looked up that decision, so I may be wrong and Bashkiria can use it.
The one I found particularly underwhelming is creating the Kingdom of Bosnia by decision. The rewards are nothing: a bit of extra Fame or Devotion (not even Prestige or Piety), and you need to hold and completely control the duchies of Upper Bosnia, Lower Bosnia, and Zachlumia. Then you've got this small, mountainous kingdom. Or, you can conquer just one more county, and create the Kingdom of Croatia, which has a much larger de jure land, you don't have to wait to be out of the Tribal era, your culture doesn't matter, and it actually earns you Prestige instead of costing it.
Man, these days its not too difficult to create extremely powerful small kingdom anywhere on the map. And yes, while you stuggle with development with those particular kingdoms, with some of them, you can hold all the titles within them yourself which gives you quite respectable army size. Also, do not underestimate mountain and jungle territories. What they lack in development they excel at defence and buffing MAA. You can make ridiculously strong archer/xbowmen regiments on jungle territory and heavy infantry on mountainous territory as you have extra support buildings for those units in those regions! When it comes to Mongol invasion, keep in mind that it wont happen before late medieval era so you got alot of time to prepare. Generally speaking, i dont think you should worry too much about it at all if you are familiar with the game, its literally a joke! At this stage of the game, for me atleast, handling an army of 30-40k troops is a childs play and thats roughly how much men Mongols come with!
Just finished playthrough for Gyalrong, ending with formed Tibet empire slightly above it's de jure size. The biggest issue was terrible mountains and hills supply capacity that makes warfare harder with time. But there are also one great thing about this kingdom - you have 2 Vvluphixje holy sites already inside it's border, 2 more in the neighbour kingdoms and last one is not so far away as well, so you could convert, reform and have controlled holy sites bonuses from the very start of the game.
You’re right, do you know when they added them? I’m guessing it was a add on from the Persia update but if it was earlier then that looks pretty bad on my behalf lol
I actually prefer mountain and jungle terrain, if you manage to make a culture that rewards the terrain you become untouchable to outsiders. Build high level fortifications and simply starve the enemy out if they try to enter. Best mountain area is Armenia, best jungle (imo) is the area in southern Nigeria, which also has a special building
i did a varangian adventure to Gyalrong. Nothing like having vigmens and Varangian veterans Tibet. I welcome Mongols to try and invade my little slice of heaven.
I think Jungle's dev growth malus is more than counterbalanced by elephantry, not only does it buff one of the best MAA in the game, it also boosts your knight cap. Of course this also means that your vassals will have higher knight caps, which makes civil wars deadlier.
Yoooo Bashkir is one of the best starts in the game for a DIY nomadic invasion run. Form the kingdom, take perm and hybridise to get forest wardens plus forest folk for insane Forest terrain buffs and the best non-horse archer in the early game, and then Legendary adventure to somewhere in Europe and get pillaging. Prussia is perfect for a first stop (or settle and take the empire) but I once sent my Bashkir horse archers all the way down to Gascogne and made a new kingdom of Bashquiria. Might do this again and invade Cornwall then switch to Tall mode.
I played as the Qiang Xepheili or what ever it’s called and Gyalrong was the stepping stone Kingdom I used to unite Tibet. It was the only time I had success playing in Tibet with the goal of forming Tibet.
While thats not necesarily helping Gondwana in particular Junble might not be so terrible in India as it allow to build Elephant-themed special MAM building.
oh. Gyalrong actually was the first kingdom I've ever created in CK3. It was in my first ever run in the game. It didnt last long until I've lost interest in the run, after I've lost a big chunk of my land due to succession lol
I’ve played Siberia and loved it. Empire of Siberia was my passion project. Except I migrated from Senegambia as a Serer count and it took years to feudalize along with reforming the Hausan faith from there. 😭
Bashkiria is not bad. you're a steppe nomad people when starting there, so the steppe territory is a plus. and you can raid the rich parts of Khazaria once you're strong or it breaks
I dont understand what your logic about "dont form this kingdom", forming a kingdom will allow you more vassals, holding cap, and more MAA slot. Whats the downside to it? You have to pay a few gold for the Royal Court mechanic?
I mean, if you were thinking about starting in an area and your goal was to form a kingdom, would you choose these over every other option? That’s what I meant by that
@@ScreamingEagles. Ah, so what you meant is "Top 5 worst starting kingdoms in CK3" or "Top 5 worst starting locations in CK3". Also, half of the kingdoms listed are in Tribal area, which imo, doesn't really matter since you really make gold from raids anyway.
Complex question, Italy is not that good, Roma was in Romagna. Bohemia, Romagna, Andalusia, Lotharingia, Ghana, egipt and some Indian kingdom are so good as France or England.
I've tried Tibet a few times and despise playing there, doesn't help that I always start as a Count in all my playthroughs. Even in EU4 the region was probably my most miserable playthrough. I feel like it would be better in CK3 with China officially in the game in some capacity, same goes for India.
Gonna have to disagree with Bashkiria and Tuva. Tuva, being an incredibly small kingdom is easy to form, and in the mountains. Now you may say "Oh, but aren't mountains bad for terrain, and the unique Horse Archers the local cultures get are bad in the mountains!", you'd be partially correct. Tuva is good because if you conquer it early and invest in some pikemen and bowmen you'll be pretty much invincible. Doing this means you can play incredibly tall unopposed. I have actually done this, making a custom one-duchy kingdom of Western Sayan and reached 100 development by 1200, where I then fought back the mongol invasion. Next, Bashkiria. Same reasons really - except some bonuses. Because you're in hill terrain, if you manage to reform Tengrism to get Megalithic Constructions, you skyrocket in development. Bashkir culture also makes defending easier with Stoic, and its location means you can screw around in Europe. Nearby are also the incredibly small kingdoms of Kimek and the Caspian Steppe which would be good next targets. I'd also contest the Saharan Kingdoms. If you go for Anbiya, in your capital duchy you have a mine AND a holy site (if you convert to Bidaism) which again I've gotten to 76 development before 1066. There is also another mine in the territory so I think calling it one of the 5 worst kingdoms is unfair. Sahara is worse I'll agree, because the only mine there can only be built once you reach feudal. Also, it's not super hard to beat Maghreb. Before the year 900 I subjugated them, because in the duchy with the mine you start as tribal - and tribal is THE most overpowered government for conquest in the early game, because troops are soooo cheap. I have taken literally the worst 0 development Taiga terrain as the Sami and made it a utopia - starting development is extremely deceiving, because while you CAN increase development super easy through culture and Stewards, the AI does not and will fall behind. I'd argue that smaller kingdoms are better because when you die less land gets split among your children. One of my most fun games was where I made a 1 duchy kingdom in Gotland (Visby), because my land NEVER split. With especially Tuva and Bashkiria there are a large number of holding slots in the counties, meaning when you go to feudal you have so many holdings to play around with. Its kinda hard to find a kingdom that's actively bad because most either are coastal so they benefit from ships, have a special building like a holy site, mine, or others, OR they have a ton of compact holdings, so from experience I'd say my least favourite kingdom is Sibir, with neither holy sites or large counties with lots of holdings. Ostyak culture (which btw is a racist term used by russians to describe native siberians like the Selkups, Khanty, Nenets ect, so not cool Paradox) also doesn't start with Forest Wardens which is ESSENTIAL to play in the area giving you bonuses in Taiga to development and the unique unit that does better in Taiga, so you'd either have to form a divergent culture OR somehow become culture head. I'm literally so sorry for writing this essay, please do not take any of this as an attack - I've spent way too long playing this game and I needed it to pay off somehow, and I still enjoyed the video :>
playing tall provides a very satisfactory feeling. Getting to 100 development in persia by 950 was really fun. Looking for new places to take that kind of playstyle else where. This comment is a great read btw, might try Tuva or Bashkiria.
Ah, these are all the mid kingdoms you need to make when doing a WC run to not go over your vassal limit.
Thats basically the whole game
Tannu Tuva? Holy shit is this a HOI4 reference????!!!???
I havent played hoi4 in years but I still remember this
Tannu what?
Its not reference, just historical homeland of Tuvan people
NOOOOOO,you went against Gyalrong,the Shang kingdom!!! 😭😭😭
Shangzhou why
Tuva might be a little better than Bashkiria, because it offers the possibility of taking the "Great Khan' decision, which is quite good, though you would probably want to move out of it as soon as possible. I have not looked up that decision, so I may be wrong and Bashkiria can use it.
The one I found particularly underwhelming is creating the Kingdom of Bosnia by decision. The rewards are nothing: a bit of extra Fame or Devotion (not even Prestige or Piety), and you need to hold and completely control the duchies of Upper Bosnia, Lower Bosnia, and Zachlumia. Then you've got this small, mountainous kingdom. Or, you can conquer just one more county, and create the Kingdom of Croatia, which has a much larger de jure land, you don't have to wait to be out of the Tribal era, your culture doesn't matter, and it actually earns you Prestige instead of costing it.
The one benefit to small kingdoms is you can easily hold all counties yourself. Then you can just stack bonuses on say knights.
Man, these days its not too difficult to create extremely powerful small kingdom anywhere on the map. And yes, while you stuggle with development with those particular kingdoms, with some of them, you can hold all the titles within them yourself which gives you quite respectable army size.
Also, do not underestimate mountain and jungle territories. What they lack in development they excel at defence and buffing MAA. You can make ridiculously strong archer/xbowmen regiments on jungle territory and heavy infantry on mountainous territory as you have extra support buildings for those units in those regions!
When it comes to Mongol invasion, keep in mind that it wont happen before late medieval era so you got alot of time to prepare. Generally speaking, i dont think you should worry too much about it at all if you are familiar with the game, its literally a joke! At this stage of the game, for me atleast, handling an army of 30-40k troops is a childs play and thats roughly how much men Mongols come with!
Just finished playthrough for Gyalrong, ending with formed Tibet empire slightly above it's de jure size.
The biggest issue was terrible mountains and hills supply capacity that makes warfare harder with time.
But there are also one great thing about this kingdom - you have 2 Vvluphixje holy sites already inside it's border, 2 more in the neighbour kingdoms and last one is not so far away as well, so you could convert, reform and have controlled holy sites bonuses from the very start of the game.
Making a kingdom next to the Mongols by 1200 sounds like fun.
Anbiya has 2 gold mines already build though, i´d say some siberian kingdom in the middle of nowhere with 0 developement is worse off
You’re right, do you know when they added them? I’m guessing it was a add on from the Persia update but if it was earlier then that looks pretty bad on my behalf lol
@@ScreamingEagles. I think it was the tours and tournaments dlc, I like the style of your videos anyway👍
@@ScreamingEagles. and sahara horsemans are pretty good, and marroco in the early start is a piece of cake easy raiding, easy to conquer
I actually prefer mountain and jungle terrain, if you manage to make a culture that rewards the terrain you become untouchable to outsiders. Build high level fortifications and simply starve the enemy out if they try to enter. Best mountain area is Armenia, best jungle (imo) is the area in southern Nigeria, which also has a special building
Walls of Benin?
4:20 telling me the Land you do have to conquer is shityy
Except the Saharan kingdom I played all of these kingdoms. They are my lifeline. I love weird and tiny kingdoms that are a struggle to hold.
You take that back about the glorious and majestic Tannu Tuva!
I played a game as the Greek guy on Cyprus and ended up with Syria, Jerusalem and Egypt as a Byzantine vassal before I got bored.
i did a varangian adventure to Gyalrong. Nothing like having vigmens and Varangian veterans Tibet. I welcome Mongols to try and invade my little slice of heaven.
Those two small kindgdoms are so useful when trying to give your children insepent kingdoms.
I think Jungle's dev growth malus is more than counterbalanced by elephantry, not only does it buff one of the best MAA in the game, it also boosts your knight cap.
Of course this also means that your vassals will have higher knight caps, which makes civil wars deadlier.
Yoooo Bashkir is one of the best starts in the game for a DIY nomadic invasion run.
Form the kingdom, take perm and hybridise to get forest wardens plus forest folk for insane Forest terrain buffs and the best non-horse archer in the early game, and then Legendary adventure to somewhere in Europe and get pillaging. Prussia is perfect for a first stop (or settle and take the empire) but I once sent my Bashkir horse archers all the way down to Gascogne and made a new kingdom of Bashquiria.
Might do this again and invade Cornwall then switch to Tall mode.
Any Yugra lovers out there?
I need to play a Anbiya campaign sometime. It looks pretty fun, actually.
I'm a Siberian empire lover
Tuva was quite good when I did my Mongol horde destroyers. All of those juicy mountains are like Kryptonite to Horse Archers.
Always difficult to tell the difference between east and west
It took a while for someone to comment on it lol, I noticed it immediately after it went live and cringed
I played as the Qiang Xepheili or what ever it’s called and Gyalrong was the stepping stone Kingdom I used to unite Tibet. It was the only time I had success playing in Tibet with the goal of forming Tibet.
While thats not necesarily helping Gondwana in particular Junble might not be so terrible in India as it allow to build Elephant-themed special MAM building.
oh. Gyalrong actually was the first kingdom I've ever created in CK3. It was in my first ever run in the game. It didnt last long until I've lost interest in the run, after I've lost a big chunk of my land due to succession lol
Tannu what?
I’ve played Siberia and loved it. Empire of Siberia was my passion project. Except I migrated from Senegambia as a Serer count and it took years to feudalize along with reforming the Hausan faith from there. 😭
Tannu What?
btw mountain baronies are absolutely broken once you actually get the dev up. Of course anything is broken if you do that but don't underestimate them
Mountain baronies are why Tibet is actually a great place. You do have to be a bit more patient and strategic, but it's awesome.
Bashkiria is not bad. you're a steppe nomad people when starting there, so the steppe territory is a plus. and you can raid the rich parts of Khazaria once you're strong or it breaks
What is the music in first half
Tannu Tuva on top!!!!!!!! Tuvians best nation
I don't know if it's cheating but Mann and the Isles with just the minimum territory would be my pick.
I dont understand what your logic about "dont form this kingdom", forming a kingdom will allow you more vassals, holding cap, and more MAA slot. Whats the downside to it? You have to pay a few gold for the Royal Court mechanic?
I mean, if you were thinking about starting in an area and your goal was to form a kingdom, would you choose these over every other option? That’s what I meant by that
@@ScreamingEagles. Ah, so what you meant is "Top 5 worst starting kingdoms in CK3" or "Top 5 worst starting locations in CK3". Also, half of the kingdoms listed are in Tribal area, which imo, doesn't really matter since you really make gold from raids anyway.
Best kingdoms list?
For me it's probably something like:
1. Thessalonica
2. France
3. England
4. Italy
5. Persia
Complex question, Italy is not that good, Roma was in Romagna. Bohemia, Romagna, Andalusia, Lotharingia, Ghana, egipt and some Indian kingdom are so good as France or England.
I've tried Tibet a few times and despise playing there, doesn't help that I always start as a Count in all my playthroughs. Even in EU4 the region was probably my most miserable playthrough.
I feel like it would be better in CK3 with China officially in the game in some capacity, same goes for India.
Jungle doesnt suck thats how you stack elephant damage
Shityy county xdd
the stronger and richier kingdon in ck3 for tall players is defnatly JERUSSALEN
Krete and Cyprus are good for giving kids so you don't have to Partion a better Kingdom to them. :p
Dude your accent is WILD
Adrar has gold mies, so it is not bad at all
Gonna have to disagree with Bashkiria and Tuva. Tuva, being an incredibly small kingdom is easy to form, and in the mountains.
Now you may say "Oh, but aren't mountains bad for terrain, and the unique Horse Archers the local cultures get are bad in the mountains!", you'd be partially correct. Tuva is good because if you conquer it early and invest in some pikemen and bowmen you'll be pretty much invincible. Doing this means you can play incredibly tall unopposed. I have actually done this, making a custom one-duchy kingdom of Western Sayan and reached 100 development by 1200, where I then fought back the mongol invasion.
Next, Bashkiria. Same reasons really - except some bonuses. Because you're in hill terrain, if you manage to reform Tengrism to get Megalithic Constructions, you skyrocket in development. Bashkir culture also makes defending easier with Stoic, and its location means you can screw around in Europe. Nearby are also the incredibly small kingdoms of Kimek and the Caspian Steppe which would be good next targets.
I'd also contest the Saharan Kingdoms. If you go for Anbiya, in your capital duchy you have a mine AND a holy site (if you convert to Bidaism) which again I've gotten to 76 development before 1066. There is also another mine in the territory so I think calling it one of the 5 worst kingdoms is unfair. Sahara is worse I'll agree, because the only mine there can only be built once you reach feudal. Also, it's not super hard to beat Maghreb. Before the year 900 I subjugated them, because in the duchy with the mine you start as tribal - and tribal is THE most overpowered government for conquest in the early game, because troops are soooo cheap.
I have taken literally the worst 0 development Taiga terrain as the Sami and made it a utopia - starting development is extremely deceiving, because while you CAN increase development super easy through culture and Stewards, the AI does not and will fall behind. I'd argue that smaller kingdoms are better because when you die less land gets split among your children. One of my most fun games was where I made a 1 duchy kingdom in Gotland (Visby), because my land NEVER split. With especially Tuva and Bashkiria there are a large number of holding slots in the counties, meaning when you go to feudal you have so many holdings to play around with.
Its kinda hard to find a kingdom that's actively bad because most either are coastal so they benefit from ships, have a special building like a holy site, mine, or others, OR they have a ton of compact holdings, so from experience I'd say my least favourite kingdom is Sibir, with neither holy sites or large counties with lots of holdings. Ostyak culture (which btw is a racist term used by russians to describe native siberians like the Selkups, Khanty, Nenets ect, so not cool Paradox) also doesn't start with Forest Wardens which is ESSENTIAL to play in the area giving you bonuses in Taiga to development and the unique unit that does better in Taiga, so you'd either have to form a divergent culture OR somehow become culture head.
I'm literally so sorry for writing this essay, please do not take any of this as an attack - I've spent way too long playing this game and I needed it to pay off somehow, and I still enjoyed the video :>
playing tall provides a very satisfactory feeling. Getting to 100 development in persia by 950 was really fun. Looking for new places to take that kind of playstyle else where. This comment is a great read btw, might try Tuva or Bashkiria.
Tana Tuva best land
Doesn't matter since Ck3 is freaking easy
Nailed it. Terrible locations lol
Sounds like your voice is ai generated
That tends to happen when I’m reading off a script lol
Tannu what?
a man of culture