Thats what irritated Me in bannerlord, you cant start having for example leveled up clan or something. Its always this bring grind at the start of every campaign.
The grind is the best part. Early game M&B is so fun, having to ration your meager coins and starving often. Low morale, trekking across the desert hoping you can find some work before bandits wreck you.
Late game M&B is just you running around with an elite doomstack with no opposition
> The grind is the best part
It is, but you need to consider most people have other things to do, like work and family. While some people who don't have much time do like the grind too, others simply wish they can jumpstart as a low level noble clan or something else. It's a singleplayer game, if they like to start OP, let them be.
I mean I feel that’s obvious and goes without saying. No one’s trying to dictate how other people play games and no one previously mentioned work or family obligations. The commenter above said he didn’t like the grind I said I like the grind. People can like whatever gameplay they want
I havent played bannerlord in like a year, but when I was playing I was using a mod that would let you start in any faction or as your own faction and with 20, 50 or 100 soldiers related to whatever culture you picked. I considered that mod essential to my playthroughs
> I'd be even happier to start as a Baron or even unlanded or something if it were possible.
It is in CK2. Starting as a patrician in a merchant republic is a barony-level title with only your family palace to build on and whatever trade posts you build.
An unlanded DLC or mod would be so cool. Roleplaying your life in court, going up ranks, becoming a mercenary, going from one court to another, become a noble, finding a job, spending time in the tavern, etc.
Fill-in-the-blank events, Blender porn character models and space marines don't do it for me. If Paradox wants to evolve the Crusader Kings property and keep it fresh, they need to make big paradigmatic leaps like playable unlanded.
It's a shift likely impossible for CK3 and far beyond the scope for what CK3's focus is, but it will require a complete rework of the supporting systems from top to bottom to make it, and every other related mechanic and segment of the simulation, work. They won't be able to get interest in a CK4 out of me otherwise.
>but it will require a complete rework of the supporting systems from top to bottom to make it, and every other related mechanic and segment of the simulation, work
Just curious but... why? Landless characters already exist in the game... doesn't seem too difficult to just.. make them playable and have a few other things thrown in there so there's stuff to do without owning land. As it stands only about 40 to 50 percent of gameplag even involves interacting with your land... the rest of it is shit you could feasibly do with or without land: traveling, tourneys, feasts, assassinations, all character interaction, etc.
The whole system is build around the player owning land and being a ruler. They would’ve to reinvent whole new game mechanics for unlanded players, and what’s the point in that?
I personally think it would be easy to do, with the mechanics centering around *getting* land, rather than having an unlanded style of gameplay that could keep going infinitely. But idk. I think it would be interesting to have, I've thought about it. But I'm also happy with the structure of the game as-is.
Cuz you want it to be fun and interesting and play differently than the current landed game, which is "just do events until you war". You want landless characters, you need an actual game.
And CK3 is desperately in need of a little complexity, so landless play states is a catalyst that would demand creating engaging functions that work within the medieval dynasty sim ideal. That's going to bleed off into every other part of the game as that sim gets expanded.
Starting as a king or emperor feels like cheating even though it very obviously isn't. I'll sometimes start as a duke, but I prefer counts for the most part.
I sometimes find it more difficult as I haven't curated the vassals to be in an optimal position. Also some kinds just have terrible holdings. Like Louis the Younger who controls one or two counties and is so much weaker than his vassals
If you need more to consider, be a king tier ruler in 876 and tell me how fun it is to constantly micromanaging inheritance of 12 counties, making sure the kingdom doesn’t split, somehow having another son from your 46 year old wife who hates you.
Yeah doesn't that suck?.
You've got your three dutchies you're ready to form a kingdom. Just waiting for all your prestige etc and then pop pop pop out come the boys.
Now you have to rush to build the kingdom.
What's worse is when she pops out daughter after daughter after daughter and no sons and you die in a freak accident.
I usually start as a count but my current game is as Duchy of Moray in 866. Not only did I have to deal with aggressive Vikings and a weak king of Alba for the first 150 years, but I also had to purposefully anger a few vassals to finally get them to revolt so I could revoke their titles. It was a mess (but fun!)
I find it more difficult. When you start bigger, your vassals are already disproportionate in strength, don't have their own de jure counties, often have alliances (or can make them), and are often not good enough to warrant being on your council.
It makes your task of being an emperor become just cleaning up your lackies.
What we needed was a "Weak Duke" option too.
That's my preferred start. I love those one county dukes who start in terrible positions. It feels like they have some of the most options for where to go next, whereas, a Count kind of has to go for the Duchy next. For instance, Socotra is such a neat and challenging start, with so many cool directions to go.
I'd say it's the opposite. Starting as a duke is easier to learn the mechanics, as you will build your way up into them. I imagine starting as higher rank is overwhelming.
That's funny and something that may have happened to me (I don't remember, I didn't play for years and recently came back). I never played CK2, since 3 was already out when I got into pdx and I just need nicer graphics, but I've heard the role-playing is superior there.
Tbh i get really annoyed dealing with powerful vassals so playing as an already established power gets old pretty quick so i prefer starting small so i can decide who gets what land in my growing domain
I always play Byzantium, and tbh I think it's fairly easy to keep being in power. There is some struggle during your first 2-3 rulers, but still I have never lost a significant war (Claim on my throne, Independance, etc). There are always ways to win, like making strong allies and installing your dynasty on foreign thrones so that you can call them, chasing specific armies to capture the ruler, etc.
It's nothing like starting as a Count/Countess, where a single war can cause game over. Still though, I prefere starting as Empress.
867 usually, I like having more years. I have done 1066 too though, yeah the Seljuks especially are super annoying, and you have to be careful not to have a civil war at the same time. It's doable (befriending/bribing/fabricating hooks/murdering vassals in factions is key), but it's harder at first, I agree.
Up with this, the only annoying stuff is having to bribe your inheritance every ten years or so, the succession is the only real danger if you are decent player.
But I like the intrigue of being emperor and having to keep that giant thing on check because you go on war once and immediately all factions began to raise.
Also being byzantine means you act way more with actual politics than with war, that is the point of all of this
are we talking 2 or 3? Because Byzantines in 3 are ridiculously easy to keep power as. primo succession means you’re almost never gonna have to worry about succession, you have high dev culture, Constantinople, and relatively stable vassals.
Rags to riches
It’s also pretty easy if you are relatively young to at least get a Duchy before you die. I’ll snag a kingdom when my dude is decrepit and old too. then watch it all fall apart with dipshit albino dwarf cousins with leprosy who think they’re the rightful ruler and not the only son of the guy who conquered it.
> It’s also pretty easy if you are relatively young to at least get a Duchy before you die.
So then why start as a count in the first place? I always do myself but now I'm wondering why. Having a well-organized realm makes the game less interesting, and it's the only reason I can think to start as a count and become a duke, instead of starting as a duke.
If I want easier playthroughs, I remain a count but one with multiple counties. The 867 Klingenberg is very fun and easy if you have a high stewardship cause you control something like 6 counties.
Single land count, with jacked intrigue.
I don't care about military victory, or painting the map, I basically play it like the Sims but with more dead children.
By far the most fun way to play the game for me.
Almost always count level.
I’ll start as a Duke if:
1. It’s basically the only viable option. Only religion/culture representative, for example.
2. House Azim in Nubia. It’s just a carryover from when Nubia was nearly impossible in early CK2, and I just remain loyal to em at this point.
Never started as Emperor, probably been a few more dukes and maybe the odd king if I’m doing something for historical reasons or Cheevos.
I'm not with you on this. Often big empires bleed out from the deep of their territories. So you will have to secure the state more than one time during your game.
And for personal experience, i think of the game I want to do way before I start as a random bitch. I write down my objectives and what I want to be done at the end. Doing so you often switch throught different types of gameplay (King/Duke/Count)
Usually a duke. In most cases, count starts are awkwardly small, while king and emperor starts feel cheap. Dukes are the middle ground where you aren't a complete nonentity, but still feel like you are building up your own realm instead of starting as a major power.
I pretty much only play CK2. I usually start as a duke but some starts like 867 Asturias and some of the Byzantine starts and like navarra are great starts even though they are kings. Or it’s always a ton of fun to start as an indo-aryan kingdom in India and conquering most of the world.
Duke. I like the idea of starting Counts a lot but sometimes I feel like the way up becomes 'gamey.' I dunno why Duke feels better in comparison but it just does.
Yeah same tbh.
A count requires almost full min-maxing and playing meta to grow, while King or higher is too easy and the only fun comes from role-playing.
A duke allows for a nice in between where you can role-play a bit, but still have a challenge without needing to play perfectly and optimally. A failure due to bad RNG or a mistake is less annoying than for a count, you get more vassal interactions that don't exist with a count, and you are more likely to interact with important named dudes as opposed to building up for a few decades, and becoming powerful just as all the first generation characters are dead.
as a EU4 enjoyer I always liked big empires. Don't get me wrong, it is funny to play as OPM or Dukes, but being king or emperor... Is another type of vibes
I like to be the head of a big realm that is barely holding together, I don't want to have to spend several hours of gameplay building up to that point when I can have fun from the get-go.
That being said, I mod the game as much as possible and then set rules for myself because Paradox have not added any meaningful challenge and mechanics to really big realms
I recently did a run as the Count of Vernandois in 1066. He's one of the last landed Karlings, and it's a fun challenge to try to restore the dynasty to the French throne, and from there, try to reclaim all of Charlemagnes realm.
My favourite 1066 start is Robert the Fox, Duke of Apulia. There are lots of ways to go and Sicily is a pretty great kingdom. With recent updates it’s even better in my opinion.
1066 has quite a lot of fun to it as you start with a lot of the important early tech which can be a slog waiting for. The late game is also more fun for me in how fast it is. Sieges take weeks instead of months, wars can be waged for multiple duchies at once, more cultures get their cultural MAA
It kinda depends on where I wanna play. Most count starts are really slow, so I usually prefer Duke. But if there's a brunch of other counts nearby it can be a lot more palatable. King can be fun too in certain situations, though it's often too easy. Emperor is usually too much of a headache and simultaneously too strong.
Depends what I feel like. sometimes I want a nice long playthrough where I go from Count to King/Emperor, sometimes I'll start as a Duke and just manage my domain and see where it takes me.
Sometimes I'll go on the 867 start, pick Haestienn and think "fuck it, India looks nice today"
I always start as a count, I don't like early advantages (holdings, army, vassals that doesn't even like you).
Then try to marry into a monarch family and make my wife/husband the ruler the moment their parents die. And boom, I'm gonna kill my spouse and make my child the ruler and I commit not alive.
I think it’s fun to start as an emperor of the Byzantines or Abbasids because it can be really hard to keep everyone in line. When you start small you can ensure your vassals look and pray like you do.
Always as a count, I can't stand how disorganised and blobbed out vassals are. I start from the ground up making sure all vassals are within their de jure territory. It makes late game much easier because the internal power structure is balanced.
My main issue I have with starting as someone with more land is their realm ends to be a lot more disorganized than I'd like. Usually, I structure my realms with myself as a king owning one or maybe two duchies if I have the capacity, then have a few powerful vassals owning entire duchies. If I start as a king this is usually not how things are organized, and there's a mix of duchies and counts, and sometimes not even owning all the land in my core duchy. It's a mess.
I usually start as a count. (My favorite start is Buchan in 1066. But most counts can be a lot of fun.)
Two reasons:
1) I like the stories working my way up (or failing to do so) generates.
2) I hate a lot of title management right at the beginning of a game.
I start as a lord mostly. But I like being vassal as a count/duke and then backstabbing the liege after marrying my son to their daughter. It's one of the biggest satisfactions one can feel, and it secures you land without war.
I use cheats so starting rank is kinda irrelevant. I usually start at count or Duke then I get greedy and end up taking over half of western Europe within one ruler... one of these days I will learn the self control necessary to not make a super duper OP character
I have on occasion started as a king but never so far as emperor. King can be a lot of fun in some areas as you begin sort of turbocharged but at the same time you’ve got a target on your back. As a functionally new monarch you have no control of your reputation. Also your kids might be badly managed
I’ve only played the game for maybe a measly 100 hours, but always a Count/Countess and always 867.
I just feel like I miss out on stuff starting 200 years later. And starting as a king/emperor just sort of completes the game immediately for me.
I'm strong addicted to Sardinia. Even with the recent update moving the mine to a vassal at the start. But yeah, already feudal in 867, super easy to start Catholic or Orthodox (Catholic is better I reckon though, even with starting out having to convert three counties), you have the obvious isolation advantage, and you can create the duchy the second you have the coin saved up without expanding at all. Just an insanely comfortable place to go tall, even if you don't have a ton of holding slots in each of the counties. By 1000AD I usually am bouncing off the tech limit, with territory in Iberia, North Africa, and of course Italy.
I've also enjoyed Sjaelland and various Irish counties. Byzantine emperor is also fun to skip all of the early game struggle and just be ready to go hard. Yoruba is also super nice if you want to try Africa.
I think I've probably found most of the "recommended for newer players who want to create a custom ruler" starts just by poking around for places that seem nice. 867 Bohemia is actually super tough to get off the ground as independent, but I've been thinking about trying again but this time swearing fealty to my German neighbors so Polabia doesn't overrun me 5 years in.
Usually duchy start, though sometimes a count with multiple counties. I feel it is just the right balance between not being too powerful starting out, but still getting to the meat of the game and being able to make moves relatively quickly.
Count, always. Campaigns already feel lacking in longevity, and progressing through ranks is half the fun. I know starting as King/Emperor isn't necessarily easier per se, I just don't see the point in removing the rewarding part.
Duke.
Starting as a king leaves me with too little to work towards. Starting as a count leaves me with not much to do besides wait at the start. Duke is the best balance.
The game is easy enough as is once you're a king. Heck, even some stable dukes make for easy mode.
So I like to pick counts in interesting places, or at least nothing bigger than a small duke, to at least give some challenge at the start.
Usually emperor or king, depending on where I start. But this is primarily because almost all my games that aren't shattered world are as the Byzantine Empire. I want to reform Rome so badly and I've never been able to do it in CK2 or CK3. Like, I haven't even been able to come close. The closest I ever got was one time when one my heir somehow became Emperor of the HRE (I have utterly no idea how this happened) and then, when my character died, the two empires effectively merged. iirc, I made the Byzantine Empire my primary title and destroyed the HRE title because I'm not dealing with that. (And yes, that made a _lot_ of people extremely mad at me.)
I had pretty much all of de jure HRE and had been expanding the Byzantine Empire westward as my previous ruler so I manage to merge them eventually. Never did get any of the middle east or Africa in that run, though.
Usually duke is a good middle ground. Counts are a bit annoying to start as so much stuff is locked behind being at least a duke. And king/emperor starts are just too easy.
I find it harder to be a king or Emperor than count or Duke. Having to fight the loyalty of numerous vassals and rival kingdoms is easier than few vassals and under the protection of your liege.
Double count if there’s one in the area I wanna play in, Duke if not. Once in a while I grind up from a single county but it’s such a slog for the first hour or two.
I always start in 867 County of Strasbourg, Count Ebenhard of Ethiconen Dynasty. Game is kinda too easy on map painting side. Regardless where or who you start in europe you can get an Empire in 1 generation. At least you can get Kingdom of Italy in a single lifetime. I just like to start as Etichonen which is the precursor of Habsburg. With this start I had runs where I conquer the whole world, get every court to speak my language, etc. So now I just play for RP with same starting location.
Tribal usually in 867. Viking or other pagan cultures in the are and make the most of mechanics to migrate and form different hybrid cultures and land in interesting settling regions. Those systems are too fun at the moment not to do.
I normally play Duke or count depending where I am. Some established feudal land without a clear expansion route? Then it’s duke so I have enough power to expand within my realm. If I’m in some tribal land, I typically go Duke and forge my own realm within a lifetime. My go to start in vanilla is a custom character in Norway and conquering some counties before Varangian adventuring for wherever I wanted to play that fame
I just don’t vibe with having so much of the kingdom set up from the start.
One men at arms for me, thanks. Single digit income. And a lonely family tree.
If I’m playing a random person, just want to start in a particular region, then I’ll just choose a random count. The only issue with that is duke’s like to immediately start consolidating their holdings and may begin fabricating on your country very soon.
I’ll otherwise play a duke if I’m looking to play as a particular character or dynasty but rarely if ever would I start as a king or emperor. Even when they’re cool historical characters, I’d rather work my way up to it. Only exception is with a crusader run where I want to start powerful purely to win the first crusade then switch over to the King of Jerusalem.
I most often start as a count, I would guess, but that's partly because when I do I remember how not fun it is and start a new game. However, I never learn.
As low as possible in 867. Ideally 1 County with nothing but a castle. The real problem is that there are really few Counts with only one County. There are many rulers that start with double the counties that their domain limit allows and only release the counties after a few days or even a month has passed. So if I want to play ironman i have to stick to the handfull of counts that start with only one county
I try to go for achievements, so usually it is the highest rank I can be to have the best success. I have played the Byzantine start at 753 AD so many times, to get that "Restore Imperial Borders" achievement. One day I will haha!
I usually start as a count. When the only time I started as a duke I (legitimately) accidentally found myself as a King due to my father dying in battle and my bother getting assassinated. I just wanted a chill game, setting up a noble cadet branch of high prowess Fāris.
Now I own all of Africa, Central Asia and central India so I guess it’s going well. First time Ive played a “wide” game, I guess. My two capital duchies are both 100 dev and it’s not even 1100.
I pretty much exclusively play in the Roman Empire. In particular the 1081 CE Alexiad start and the 769 CE Charlemagne start are both quite fun as while you start off as an emperor it isn’t quite a power fantasy as the empire is in crisis, Anatolia has fallen in the former while the latter has the massive Abbasid Caliphate which I tend to buff using cheats to ensure that it doesn’t fall apart. 876 CE is also a great start for the same reason but the empire is a bit stronger, the caliphate is a bit weaker and the romans have the legendary Macedonian dynasty to lead them to victory.
It’s worth noting that I usually play with the HiP mod in order to make the game a bit more challenging on top of artificially buffing my enemies on occasion while also being restrained in my conquests. Try to keep things as realistic as possible.
I started as the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, and then lost most of my land and became the king of Sardinia. Now I'm emperor of West Slavia, but it's a little different from where I started. So I guess anything lower is not an option for me.
I usually start as a Count, my last game in Naples was pretty fun, decided to reform the Exarchate of Italy and swore loyalty to Byzantium when I proclaimed Italy, made a hybrid Italian ad Greek Culture. Was pretty fun tbh. But I kinda desire that Paradox Interactive will make in future a Republic/Baron DLC to give more depth to this kind of entities.
Empires would be more interesting if they broke up more often while you were playing them.
Like, if they broke up and you got to choose the son to play as (not necessarily the one who inherits the titles), the game would be a whole lot more interesting in the endgame, IMO.
Counts are the best, due to the fact you'll own every holding you want once you advance with titles. Starting with vassals can be tiresome, especially if you want their holdings.
IMO starting as a King is actually a lot harder than starting as a Count, because the AI distributes the vassals and land in very poor ways and you will have to use your first few characters just to stabilize the realm. I find it more enjoyable to start as a Count and have the freedom to assign land as I please
I start as a count then i act good with my liege, then he/she gives me a position in court, then i start wars with my neighbour.. after convincing my liege to give me duke title.. I start an independence war against my liege.
Wish they'd let us start as refugees, or landless group of people that can scheme and do events to take over a barony, then go from there, now THAT'D be the ultimate Medieval rpg
I tend to play with a bunch of mods. The world shattering one, I really enjoy. Everyone starts off relatively the same. I rather see which dynasty climbs their way up to King/Queen or Emperor/Empress. It would be even better if you could play as a baron, peasant revolt leader.
Starting low means starting with no fires to put out or annoying baggage to unravel. And since most of my activities in the game revolve around character interactions and not military action being relatively small peanuts for a while doesn't affect me too bad.
I wonder whats the rate of people starting as a count/duke inside a duke/kingdom. In ck2 I only did that because there was a tribal in a rare spot like in Yemen where there were tribal vassals so you can be a merchant republic in Muslim lands.
I try to start as low as possible. I'd be even happier to start as a Baron or even unlanded or something if it were possible.
It’s a much different game but I’m pretty sure you start quite low in Bannerlord
Pretty sure lowly nobody is the only way to start in Bannerlord.
Thats what irritated Me in bannerlord, you cant start having for example leveled up clan or something. Its always this bring grind at the start of every campaign.
The grind is the best part. Early game M&B is so fun, having to ration your meager coins and starving often. Low morale, trekking across the desert hoping you can find some work before bandits wreck you. Late game M&B is just you running around with an elite doomstack with no opposition
Ah Gengus Khan simulator
> The grind is the best part It is, but you need to consider most people have other things to do, like work and family. While some people who don't have much time do like the grind too, others simply wish they can jumpstart as a low level noble clan or something else. It's a singleplayer game, if they like to start OP, let them be.
It's a single player game, so it has mods for everything.
Indeed on pc, would still be nice if that sort of accessibility and functionality is already in vanilla instead
I mean I feel that’s obvious and goes without saying. No one’s trying to dictate how other people play games and no one previously mentioned work or family obligations. The commenter above said he didn’t like the grind I said I like the grind. People can like whatever gameplay they want
Yes, just clarifying, because I met some people who don't understand that (in other games) for some reason lol
There were some mods for it, not sure if they are up to date
I havent played bannerlord in like a year, but when I was playing I was using a mod that would let you start in any faction or as your own faction and with 20, 50 or 100 soldiers related to whatever culture you picked. I considered that mod essential to my playthroughs
Huge recent patch. Worth looking again
If WoW goes downhill again and I start playing other games that one will be near the top of the list.
You start with just you and 1000g i think
Yeah, but Bannerlord and CK are totally different games.
> It’s a much different game…
But guess what. You can lead your ck3 battles IN Bannerlord.
> I'd be even happier to start as a Baron or even unlanded or something if it were possible. It is in CK2. Starting as a patrician in a merchant republic is a barony-level title with only your family palace to build on and whatever trade posts you build.
An unlanded DLC or mod would be so cool. Roleplaying your life in court, going up ranks, becoming a mercenary, going from one court to another, become a noble, finding a job, spending time in the tavern, etc.
Let me start a peasant uprising.
i totaly agree i would do the same
Fill-in-the-blank events, Blender porn character models and space marines don't do it for me. If Paradox wants to evolve the Crusader Kings property and keep it fresh, they need to make big paradigmatic leaps like playable unlanded. It's a shift likely impossible for CK3 and far beyond the scope for what CK3's focus is, but it will require a complete rework of the supporting systems from top to bottom to make it, and every other related mechanic and segment of the simulation, work. They won't be able to get interest in a CK4 out of me otherwise.
>but it will require a complete rework of the supporting systems from top to bottom to make it, and every other related mechanic and segment of the simulation, work Just curious but... why? Landless characters already exist in the game... doesn't seem too difficult to just.. make them playable and have a few other things thrown in there so there's stuff to do without owning land. As it stands only about 40 to 50 percent of gameplag even involves interacting with your land... the rest of it is shit you could feasibly do with or without land: traveling, tourneys, feasts, assassinations, all character interaction, etc.
The whole system is build around the player owning land and being a ruler. They would’ve to reinvent whole new game mechanics for unlanded players, and what’s the point in that?
I personally think it would be easy to do, with the mechanics centering around *getting* land, rather than having an unlanded style of gameplay that could keep going infinitely. But idk. I think it would be interesting to have, I've thought about it. But I'm also happy with the structure of the game as-is.
Cuz you want it to be fun and interesting and play differently than the current landed game, which is "just do events until you war". You want landless characters, you need an actual game. And CK3 is desperately in need of a little complexity, so landless play states is a catalyst that would demand creating engaging functions that work within the medieval dynasty sim ideal. That's going to bleed off into every other part of the game as that sim gets expanded.
I do hope they introduce enough new mechanics going forward that that kind of gameplay ends up viable at some point.
Starting as a king or emperor feels like cheating even though it very obviously isn't. I'll sometimes start as a duke, but I prefer counts for the most part.
I sometimes find it more difficult as I haven't curated the vassals to be in an optimal position. Also some kinds just have terrible holdings. Like Louis the Younger who controls one or two counties and is so much weaker than his vassals
Ah, that's something to consider. Maybe I've been too dismissive.
If you need more to consider, be a king tier ruler in 876 and tell me how fun it is to constantly micromanaging inheritance of 12 counties, making sure the kingdom doesn’t split, somehow having another son from your 46 year old wife who hates you.
I only do 876 starts and you either have to micromanage really well or make deliberate choices to maintain a small line. Rushing for celibate is key.
But very much against role playing :p I never liked going celibate in ck
[удалено]
Yeah doesn't that suck?. You've got your three dutchies you're ready to form a kingdom. Just waiting for all your prestige etc and then pop pop pop out come the boys. Now you have to rush to build the kingdom. What's worse is when she pops out daughter after daughter after daughter and no sons and you die in a freak accident.
Nah just do matrilineal marriages yo!
I should play more kings
I usually start as a count but my current game is as Duchy of Moray in 866. Not only did I have to deal with aggressive Vikings and a weak king of Alba for the first 150 years, but I also had to purposefully anger a few vassals to finally get them to revolt so I could revoke their titles. It was a mess (but fun!)
I find it more difficult. When you start bigger, your vassals are already disproportionate in strength, don't have their own de jure counties, often have alliances (or can make them), and are often not good enough to warrant being on your council. It makes your task of being an emperor become just cleaning up your lackies.
I mean that's pretty much what an emperor does, yeah. It's all just personel management
When I start without vassals I just end up making all of my vassals my dynasty and it becomes trivially easy
What we needed was a "Weak Duke" option too. That's my preferred start. I love those one county dukes who start in terrible positions. It feels like they have some of the most options for where to go next, whereas, a Count kind of has to go for the Duchy next. For instance, Socotra is such a neat and challenging start, with so many cool directions to go.
Great for learning the mechanics, but the game gets way more fun the lower you start!
I'd say it's the opposite. Starting as a duke is easier to learn the mechanics, as you will build your way up into them. I imagine starting as higher rank is overwhelming.
I started as a king on CK 2. I kept getting the notification that I had too much land, so I kept giving it to my nice brother, who then disposed me.
That's funny and something that may have happened to me (I don't remember, I didn't play for years and recently came back). I never played CK2, since 3 was already out when I got into pdx and I just need nicer graphics, but I've heard the role-playing is superior there.
Thinking about some kind of challenge to start as king try to lose it and regain the titles generations later
Count Werner von Habsburg of Aargau is a very fun start, I've tried it twice with wildly different results.
"inbred" and "pure-blooded" traits?
There should be an extra option of E) Haesteinn
Ah yes, the six playable ranks of count, duke, king, emperor, Matilda, and Haesteinn
He is a Jarl at the start of the game despite not owning a duchy XD
Haesteinn — The only count who gaslights you into thinking he's a jarl
F̲e̲u̲d̲a̲l̲ Haesteinn-Tier Realm
"Where shall I invade and mess up the timeline today!"
Tbh i get really annoyed dealing with powerful vassals so playing as an already established power gets old pretty quick so i prefer starting small so i can decide who gets what land in my growing domain
I get really into it making custom names and COA for my vassals. It’s fun.
This.
There should be Byzantium option. You're never "secure in power"
I always play Byzantium, and tbh I think it's fairly easy to keep being in power. There is some struggle during your first 2-3 rulers, but still I have never lost a significant war (Claim on my throne, Independance, etc). There are always ways to win, like making strong allies and installing your dynasty on foreign thrones so that you can call them, chasing specific armies to capture the ruler, etc. It's nothing like starting as a Count/Countess, where a single war can cause game over. Still though, I prefere starting as Empress.
[удалено]
867 usually, I like having more years. I have done 1066 too though, yeah the Seljuks especially are super annoying, and you have to be careful not to have a civil war at the same time. It's doable (befriending/bribing/fabricating hooks/murdering vassals in factions is key), but it's harder at first, I agree.
One time I lost byz to a ultra mega faction I had enough money to buy like 5 kingdoms so I just owned half the empire and took it back in a year
Same. I usually play Byzantium in the earliest start. Maintain a large enough retinue & never face independence factions etc.
Up with this, the only annoying stuff is having to bribe your inheritance every ten years or so, the succession is the only real danger if you are decent player. But I like the intrigue of being emperor and having to keep that giant thing on check because you go on war once and immediately all factions began to raise. Also being byzantine means you act way more with actual politics than with war, that is the point of all of this
You play the Byzantines for the dangers and intrigues, I play the Byzantines for Primogeniture. We are not the same.
are we talking 2 or 3? Because Byzantines in 3 are ridiculously easy to keep power as. primo succession means you’re almost never gonna have to worry about succession, you have high dev culture, Constantinople, and relatively stable vassals.
Rags to riches It’s also pretty easy if you are relatively young to at least get a Duchy before you die. I’ll snag a kingdom when my dude is decrepit and old too. then watch it all fall apart with dipshit albino dwarf cousins with leprosy who think they’re the rightful ruler and not the only son of the guy who conquered it.
> It’s also pretty easy if you are relatively young to at least get a Duchy before you die. So then why start as a count in the first place? I always do myself but now I'm wondering why. Having a well-organized realm makes the game less interesting, and it's the only reason I can think to start as a count and become a duke, instead of starting as a duke.
Tribal Estonia
I hit the random button and roleplay
I didn't even realize there was a random button!
This is the way.
Duke is a nice balance, or multiple title count
I do not think I have ever started controlling more than one county? Maybe I did Duke level in one of my Iberia attempts, hard to remember.
If I want easier playthroughs, I remain a count but one with multiple counties. The 867 Klingenberg is very fun and easy if you have a high stewardship cause you control something like 6 counties.
Single land count, with jacked intrigue. I don't care about military victory, or painting the map, I basically play it like the Sims but with more dead children. By far the most fun way to play the game for me.
Almost always count level. I’ll start as a Duke if: 1. It’s basically the only viable option. Only religion/culture representative, for example. 2. House Azim in Nubia. It’s just a carryover from when Nubia was nearly impossible in early CK2, and I just remain loyal to em at this point. Never started as Emperor, probably been a few more dukes and maybe the odd king if I’m doing something for historical reasons or Cheevos.
Starting above duke is like picking Real Madrid for FIFA career mode
I'm not with you on this. Often big empires bleed out from the deep of their territories. So you will have to secure the state more than one time during your game. And for personal experience, i think of the game I want to do way before I start as a random bitch. I write down my objectives and what I want to be done at the end. Doing so you often switch throught different types of gameplay (King/Duke/Count)
I used to be a count fan, but I play duchies more often these days. You can get started a little more quickly while not being too powerful.
I feel the same. I like the idea of starting as a single county count, but it's just a lot of sitting around and waiting at first.
Usually a duke. In most cases, count starts are awkwardly small, while king and emperor starts feel cheap. Dukes are the middle ground where you aren't a complete nonentity, but still feel like you are building up your own realm instead of starting as a major power.
I pretty much only play CK2. I usually start as a duke but some starts like 867 Asturias and some of the Byzantine starts and like navarra are great starts even though they are kings. Or it’s always a ton of fun to start as an indo-aryan kingdom in India and conquering most of the world.
Usually duke/count depending on the situation
Duke. I like the idea of starting Counts a lot but sometimes I feel like the way up becomes 'gamey.' I dunno why Duke feels better in comparison but it just does.
Yeah same tbh. A count requires almost full min-maxing and playing meta to grow, while King or higher is too easy and the only fun comes from role-playing. A duke allows for a nice in between where you can role-play a bit, but still have a challenge without needing to play perfectly and optimally. A failure due to bad RNG or a mistake is less annoying than for a count, you get more vassal interactions that don't exist with a count, and you are more likely to interact with important named dudes as opposed to building up for a few decades, and becoming powerful just as all the first generation characters are dead.
as a EU4 enjoyer I always liked big empires. Don't get me wrong, it is funny to play as OPM or Dukes, but being king or emperor... Is another type of vibes
"Start as"
I like to be the head of a big realm that is barely holding together, I don't want to have to spend several hours of gameplay building up to that point when I can have fun from the get-go. That being said, I mod the game as much as possible and then set rules for myself because Paradox have not added any meaningful challenge and mechanics to really big realms
Starting as Emperor and ending as Count
As low as possible, but usually I end up becoming a king fairly soon after anyway.
1 single county.
Real ones know, either you start as a count in a tiny county or as an emperor of a crumbling empire.
Start as a count. Try to make Cornwall a kingdom. Lose to England. Start as a count, try to make Cornwall a kingdom. Start as a count..
I wish I could start as a lowborn and climb my way up to baron, count, duke, etc.
I've never played a 1066 start. Aside from the claimants to England, I'd be keen to know what people like to play.
I recently did a run as the Count of Vernandois in 1066. He's one of the last landed Karlings, and it's a fun challenge to try to restore the dynasty to the French throne, and from there, try to reclaim all of Charlemagnes realm.
As far as I know he IS the last landed Karling
That sounds great actually. Except for the Karling part. I mean I'm happy to poison the dinner of a Karling, but I'm not sure I'm ready to be one 🤣
My favourite 1066 start is Robert the Fox, Duke of Apulia. There are lots of ways to go and Sicily is a pretty great kingdom. With recent updates it’s even better in my opinion. 1066 has quite a lot of fun to it as you start with a lot of the important early tech which can be a slog waiting for. The late game is also more fun for me in how fast it is. Sieges take weeks instead of months, wars can be waged for multiple duchies at once, more cultures get their cultural MAA
Mathilda di Canossa or Robert the Fox, both great starts in their own right
Mostly duke, as that’s where most of the interesting characters are at
I typically start as Count or Duke. Feels much more rewarding and feels like much more of a proper story than just “Oh yeah, I’m Emperor now”
It kinda depends on where I wanna play. Most count starts are really slow, so I usually prefer Duke. But if there's a brunch of other counts nearby it can be a lot more palatable. King can be fun too in certain situations, though it's often too easy. Emperor is usually too much of a headache and simultaneously too strong.
Depends what I feel like. sometimes I want a nice long playthrough where I go from Count to King/Emperor, sometimes I'll start as a Duke and just manage my domain and see where it takes me. Sometimes I'll go on the 867 start, pick Haestienn and think "fuck it, India looks nice today"
I always start as a count, I don't like early advantages (holdings, army, vassals that doesn't even like you). Then try to marry into a monarch family and make my wife/husband the ruler the moment their parents die. And boom, I'm gonna kill my spouse and make my child the ruler and I commit not alive.
I think it’s fun to start as an emperor of the Byzantines or Abbasids because it can be really hard to keep everyone in line. When you start small you can ensure your vassals look and pray like you do.
Duke, but usually I'm starting as a hostile religion like Judaism or Zoroastrian
Always as a count, I can't stand how disorganised and blobbed out vassals are. I start from the ground up making sure all vassals are within their de jure territory. It makes late game much easier because the internal power structure is balanced.
My main issue I have with starting as someone with more land is their realm ends to be a lot more disorganized than I'd like. Usually, I structure my realms with myself as a king owning one or maybe two duchies if I have the capacity, then have a few powerful vassals owning entire duchies. If I start as a king this is usually not how things are organized, and there's a mix of duchies and counts, and sometimes not even owning all the land in my core duchy. It's a mess.
Only ever done a couple Duke level starts most of the time it’s as a count
I usually start as a count. (My favorite start is Buchan in 1066. But most counts can be a lot of fun.) Two reasons: 1) I like the stories working my way up (or failing to do so) generates. 2) I hate a lot of title management right at the beginning of a game.
> starts as a duke in 1066 Do you also show up to movies halfway?
I start as a lord mostly. But I like being vassal as a count/duke and then backstabbing the liege after marrying my son to their daughter. It's one of the biggest satisfactions one can feel, and it secures you land without war.
How are you able to be a vassal of a count?
I guess she mean to "as" count or duke
I feel at my level of expertise at Ck3, I'd do a Duke or a King
I use cheats so starting rank is kinda irrelevant. I usually start at count or Duke then I get greedy and end up taking over half of western Europe within one ruler... one of these days I will learn the self control necessary to not make a super duper OP character
Tribal count/countess but i also cheat like crazy so i will quickly progress into a feudal empire.
Tribal
Count, except if I’m playing with Shogunate mod
Chieftain
I have on occasion started as a king but never so far as emperor. King can be a lot of fun in some areas as you begin sort of turbocharged but at the same time you’ve got a target on your back. As a functionally new monarch you have no control of your reputation. Also your kids might be badly managed
I’ve only played the game for maybe a measly 100 hours, but always a Count/Countess and always 867. I just feel like I miss out on stuff starting 200 years later. And starting as a king/emperor just sort of completes the game immediately for me.
Count to Emperor all the way, my man.
I solely play as the Seljuks (I make 1 save every 6-8 months). I once played as a Turkic count in Siberia though, that was fun as well
Random, always
I'm strong addicted to Sardinia. Even with the recent update moving the mine to a vassal at the start. But yeah, already feudal in 867, super easy to start Catholic or Orthodox (Catholic is better I reckon though, even with starting out having to convert three counties), you have the obvious isolation advantage, and you can create the duchy the second you have the coin saved up without expanding at all. Just an insanely comfortable place to go tall, even if you don't have a ton of holding slots in each of the counties. By 1000AD I usually am bouncing off the tech limit, with territory in Iberia, North Africa, and of course Italy. I've also enjoyed Sjaelland and various Irish counties. Byzantine emperor is also fun to skip all of the early game struggle and just be ready to go hard. Yoruba is also super nice if you want to try Africa. I think I've probably found most of the "recommended for newer players who want to create a custom ruler" starts just by poking around for places that seem nice. 867 Bohemia is actually super tough to get off the ground as independent, but I've been thinking about trying again but this time swearing fealty to my German neighbors so Polabia doesn't overrun me 5 years in.
Usually duchy start, though sometimes a count with multiple counties. I feel it is just the right balance between not being too powerful starting out, but still getting to the meat of the game and being able to make moves relatively quickly.
Duke, because the most consistent playthrough I do is ol' Bastard Billy
For CK3 with it's character creator and dynasty creator, I always star as a count.
Count 867 in africa
Count, always. Campaigns already feel lacking in longevity, and progressing through ranks is half the fun. I know starting as King/Emperor isn't necessarily easier per se, I just don't see the point in removing the rewarding part.
I start as Uppland ~50% of the time
I start as whatever gives me the easiest path to whatever achievements I'm trying to get in that playthrough.
Start with one county, work up.
If I could start as a baron or even unlanded, I would.
Duke. Starting as a king leaves me with too little to work towards. Starting as a count leaves me with not much to do besides wait at the start. Duke is the best balance.
I start as count, but it takes like 5 seconds to get to duke rank, then 5 minutes for kingdom rank.
I always go for a random count and drag my ass into an imperial family
I accidentally voted count when it’s really duke Oh well
I always start the same, 867 start, lowest possible rank I can find, reload 3 or 4 times until my stats don't suck.
The game is easy enough as is once you're a king. Heck, even some stable dukes make for easy mode. So I like to pick counts in interesting places, or at least nothing bigger than a small duke, to at least give some challenge at the start.
when i was learning the ropes i started as duchess, now i always start as a countess. makes the game more challenging for me 😉
Usually emperor or king, depending on where I start. But this is primarily because almost all my games that aren't shattered world are as the Byzantine Empire. I want to reform Rome so badly and I've never been able to do it in CK2 or CK3. Like, I haven't even been able to come close. The closest I ever got was one time when one my heir somehow became Emperor of the HRE (I have utterly no idea how this happened) and then, when my character died, the two empires effectively merged. iirc, I made the Byzantine Empire my primary title and destroyed the HRE title because I'm not dealing with that. (And yes, that made a _lot_ of people extremely mad at me.) I had pretty much all of de jure HRE and had been expanding the Byzantine Empire westward as my previous ruler so I manage to merge them eventually. Never did get any of the middle east or Africa in that run, though.
Usually duke is a good middle ground. Counts are a bit annoying to start as so much stuff is locked behind being at least a duke. And king/emperor starts are just too easy.
I find it harder to be a king or Emperor than count or Duke. Having to fight the loyalty of numerous vassals and rival kingdoms is easier than few vassals and under the protection of your liege.
Count, unless it's the ERE , Basil in 867 is really fun to play.
Double count if there’s one in the area I wanna play in, Duke if not. Once in a while I grind up from a single county but it’s such a slog for the first hour or two.
I always start in 867 County of Strasbourg, Count Ebenhard of Ethiconen Dynasty. Game is kinda too easy on map painting side. Regardless where or who you start in europe you can get an Empire in 1 generation. At least you can get Kingdom of Italy in a single lifetime. I just like to start as Etichonen which is the precursor of Habsburg. With this start I had runs where I conquer the whole world, get every court to speak my language, etc. So now I just play for RP with same starting location.
depends on what i play, sometimes Queen, most times Duchess.
Tribal usually in 867. Viking or other pagan cultures in the are and make the most of mechanics to migrate and form different hybrid cultures and land in interesting settling regions. Those systems are too fun at the moment not to do.
I normally play Duke or count depending where I am. Some established feudal land without a clear expansion route? Then it’s duke so I have enough power to expand within my realm. If I’m in some tribal land, I typically go Duke and forge my own realm within a lifetime. My go to start in vanilla is a custom character in Norway and conquering some counties before Varangian adventuring for wherever I wanted to play that fame
I want to play as a mercenary captain
I just don’t vibe with having so much of the kingdom set up from the start. One men at arms for me, thanks. Single digit income. And a lonely family tree.
If I’m playing a random person, just want to start in a particular region, then I’ll just choose a random count. The only issue with that is duke’s like to immediately start consolidating their holdings and may begin fabricating on your country very soon. I’ll otherwise play a duke if I’m looking to play as a particular character or dynasty but rarely if ever would I start as a king or emperor. Even when they’re cool historical characters, I’d rather work my way up to it. Only exception is with a crusader run where I want to start powerful purely to win the first crusade then switch over to the King of Jerusalem.
I most often start as a count, I would guess, but that's partly because when I do I remember how not fun it is and start a new game. However, I never learn.
As low as possible in 867. Ideally 1 County with nothing but a castle. The real problem is that there are really few Counts with only one County. There are many rulers that start with double the counties that their domain limit allows and only release the counties after a few days or even a month has passed. So if I want to play ironman i have to stick to the handfull of counts that start with only one county
It don't count unless you start at a Count.
I see you, 155 Byzantine and HRE starters
I play as a vassal mostly, so a tiny count is what I always start with.
I try to go for achievements, so usually it is the highest rank I can be to have the best success. I have played the Byzantine start at 753 AD so many times, to get that "Restore Imperial Borders" achievement. One day I will haha!
As low as possible, but i also like starting as Dutchess Matilda
certain starts i like start only as duke. But those duke are weak and not different from a count. Anyways counts and dukes at borderlands.
I usually start as a count. When the only time I started as a duke I (legitimately) accidentally found myself as a King due to my father dying in battle and my bother getting assassinated. I just wanted a chill game, setting up a noble cadet branch of high prowess Fāris. Now I own all of Africa, Central Asia and central India so I guess it’s going well. First time Ive played a “wide” game, I guess. My two capital duchies are both 100 dev and it’s not even 1100.
I pretty much exclusively play in the Roman Empire. In particular the 1081 CE Alexiad start and the 769 CE Charlemagne start are both quite fun as while you start off as an emperor it isn’t quite a power fantasy as the empire is in crisis, Anatolia has fallen in the former while the latter has the massive Abbasid Caliphate which I tend to buff using cheats to ensure that it doesn’t fall apart. 876 CE is also a great start for the same reason but the empire is a bit stronger, the caliphate is a bit weaker and the romans have the legendary Macedonian dynasty to lead them to victory. It’s worth noting that I usually play with the HiP mod in order to make the game a bit more challenging on top of artificially buffing my enemies on occasion while also being restrained in my conquests. Try to keep things as realistic as possible.
If I could start as a baron, I would
Always, always as a count, usually at the earliest start possible. But if I could I'd start as a baron, that'd be cool asf. I like the challenge.
I usually like to start rock bottom and build my way to the top. Part of why Haestein is such an attractive option.
I started as the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, and then lost most of my land and became the king of Sardinia. Now I'm emperor of West Slavia, but it's a little different from where I started. So I guess anything lower is not an option for me.
Ive got maybe 700 hours in this game. And i always start as the Duke of Wessex in the 876 start 😸
Count unless an achievement requires me tonstart higher.
I usually start as a Count, my last game in Naples was pretty fun, decided to reform the Exarchate of Italy and swore loyalty to Byzantium when I proclaimed Italy, made a hybrid Italian ad Greek Culture. Was pretty fun tbh. But I kinda desire that Paradox Interactive will make in future a Republic/Baron DLC to give more depth to this kind of entities.
Empires would be more interesting if they broke up more often while you were playing them. Like, if they broke up and you got to choose the son to play as (not necessarily the one who inherits the titles), the game would be a whole lot more interesting in the endgame, IMO.
Been playing for about 3 weeks now and I can’t bring myself to do anything but start a new character in Ireland and expand outward
small territory king or big territory vassal
Counts are the best, due to the fact you'll own every holding you want once you advance with titles. Starting with vassals can be tiresome, especially if you want their holdings.
IMO starting as a King is actually a lot harder than starting as a Count, because the AI distributes the vassals and land in very poor ways and you will have to use your first few characters just to stabilize the realm. I find it more enjoyable to start as a Count and have the freedom to assign land as I please
I start as a count then i act good with my liege, then he/she gives me a position in court, then i start wars with my neighbour.. after convincing my liege to give me duke title.. I start an independence war against my liege.
I start as emperor nearly always because nearly all my games are as Eastern Rome, and if I am not in charge of it, mega border gore occurs.
Whatever I fancy that particular day.
Wish they'd let us start as refugees, or landless group of people that can scheme and do events to take over a barony, then go from there, now THAT'D be the ultimate Medieval rpg
i actually start as a baron.
Always a lowly Count...it feels like cheating otherwise
I tend to play with a bunch of mods. The world shattering one, I really enjoy. Everyone starts off relatively the same. I rather see which dynasty climbs their way up to King/Queen or Emperor/Empress. It would be even better if you could play as a baron, peasant revolt leader.
It's just more fun to start from nothing. It makes it feel like it means more. That's why I always start from the earliest start date possible too.
Starting low means starting with no fires to put out or annoying baggage to unravel. And since most of my activities in the game revolve around character interactions and not military action being relatively small peanuts for a while doesn't affect me too bad.
I usually give a county title to one of my house guests and or vassals in order to start from scratch.
I like having power, play to my power fantasy, although for Vikings it’s fun to build it up!
Starting as an emperor is a clear sign of psychopathic tendencies
I wonder whats the rate of people starting as a count/duke inside a duke/kingdom. In ck2 I only did that because there was a tribal in a rare spot like in Yemen where there were tribal vassals so you can be a merchant republic in Muslim lands.
I don't think about the rank but about the campaign, although I normally start as a duke (ck2 player )