Crusader Kings 2 Redux

[Saladin]

So, I just got this game and started a campaign as Grand Prince of Novgorod in 1066.
Good choice or should I start another game?

[Tamas]

So, I just got this game and started a campaign as Grand Prince of Novgorod in 1066.
Good choice or should I start another game?

I think many people bounce off CK2 because they try to handle it as a min-maxing strategy game. It is not that. If you scratch under the surface the actual mechanics are not very good (almost nonexistent economy, and warfare absolutely boils down to numbers). But that doesn't matter. It is a strategy-RPG hybrid, and should be approached as such.

Embrace the chaos and the fact you barely know why NPCs do what they do and how to counter them. These are the best periods of the game. Once you learn the intricacies it will become trivially easy, so don't worry, play what you want, and enjoy the ride.

[Saladin]

So, I just got this game and started a campaign as Grand Prince of Novgorod in 1066.
Good choice or should I start another game?

I think many people bounce off CK2 because they try to handle it as a min-maxing strategy game. It is not that. If you scratch under the surface the actual mechanics are not very good (almost nonexistent economy, and warfare absolutely boils down to numbers). But that doesn't matter. It is a strategy-RPG hybrid, and should be approached as such.

Embrace the chaos and the fact you barely know why NPCs do what they do and how to counter them. These are the best periods of the game. Once you learn the intricacies it will become trivially easy, so don't worry, play what you want, and enjoy the ride.

I'm treating it as a "marry to get more land"-simulator. 

[dps]

So, I just got this game and started a campaign as Grand Prince of Novgorod in 1066.
Good choice or should I start another game?

While I don't exactly disagree with what Tamas posted, the learning curve, as typical of Paradox game, is quite steep.  I haven't played the 1066 start in years (I almost always start in 769) but IIRC the Russian principalities are a fairly tough start in 1066,  That may have change anyway with all the updates there have been.  Do you just have the base game, or did you get a bunch of the DLCs or a bundle that included them?

Anyway, the traditional advice for newbies is to start in Ireland in 1066, but I disagree with that idea.  I recommend that newbies start as Poland in 1066.  You'll be a Christian ruler with lots of nearby pagan lands to expand into.  But since you already started a game, go ahead and play it out. 

[Josephus]

Watch out for Mongols.

[mongers]

Watch out for Mongols.

Thanks !

[mongers]

So, I just got this game and started a campaign as Grand Prince of Novgorod in 1066.
Good choice or should I start another game?

I think many people bounce off CK2 because they try to handle it as a min-maxing strategy game. It is not that. If you scratch under the surface the actual mechanics are not very good (almost nonexistent economy, and warfare absolutely boils down to numbers). But that doesn't matter. It is a strategy-RPG hybrid, and should be approached as such.

Embrace the chaos and the fact you barely know why NPCs do what they do and how to counter them. These are the best periods of the game. Once you learn the intricacies it will become trivially easy, so don't worry, play what you want, and enjoy the ride.

Tamas, interesting advice, thanks.

Bought some extra expansions, mainly so I could send a friend the base game/dlc I already had and because you guys rate it so highly, but I'm sort of lost about the mechanics and DLC functionality, so your advice and Sals is a helpful perspective. 

[Saladin]

So, I just got this game and started a campaign as Grand Prince of Novgorod in 1066.
Good choice or should I start another game?

While I don't exactly disagree with what Tamas posted, the learning curve, as typical of Paradox game, is quite steep.  I haven't played the 1066 start in years (I almost always start in 769) but IIRC the Russian principalities are a fairly tough start in 1066,  That may have change anyway with all the updates there have been.  Do you just have the base game, or did you get a bunch of the DLCs or a bundle that included them?

Anyway, the traditional advice for newbies is to start in Ireland in 1066, but I disagree with that idea.  I recommend that newbies start as Poland in 1066.  You'll be a Christian ruler with lots of nearby pagan lands to expand into.  But since you already started a game, go ahead and play it out.

It's my girlfriends copy of the game but IIRC there are a bunch of DLC's. But I might start a new game since I haven't played this particular save since I started it up. So 769 is a better start than 1066?

[dps]

So, I just got this game and started a campaign as Grand Prince of Novgorod in 1066.
Good choice or should I start another game?

While I don't exactly disagree with what Tamas posted, the learning curve, as typical of Paradox game, is quite steep.  I haven't played the 1066 start in years (I almost always start in 769) but IIRC the Russian principalities are a fairly tough start in 1066,  That may have change anyway with all the updates there have been.  Do you just have the base game, or did you get a bunch of the DLCs or a bundle that included them?

Anyway, the traditional advice for newbies is to start in Ireland in 1066, but I disagree with that idea.  I recommend that newbies start as Poland in 1066.  You'll be a Christian ruler with lots of nearby pagan lands to expand into.  But since you already started a game, go ahead and play it out.

It's my girlfriends copy of the game but IIRC there are a bunch of DLC's. But I might start a new game since I haven't played this particular save since I started it up. So 769 is a better start than 1066?

Well, you get to play longer.  I'm not sure that I'd say it's better, exactly.  Also, pagans are generally more interesting to play, and overall they're in better position in 769.  OTOH, a lot of people say that the 867 start is the best.  Certainly the 1066 start is popular as well;  it's also a good start for newbies because the earlier starts are only available with DLCs, so you can try out the game with a 1066 start and see if you like it before buying any DLCs.

[Valmy]

It depends on what you are going for. Obviously the later you start the less silly your game will be. Earlier on you can see things like Germanic Paganism wipe out Catholicism and things like that.

[jimmy olsen]

Duke of Lower Lorraine inherited via senority, so I controlled Lower Lorraine and Burgundy, along with a few other French counties here and there.

Rebelled against the Queen of Lothringia while she was fighting off another rebellion and toppled her, usurping the crown.  A few months later the Emperor was killed in battle and I was voted Emperor! Totally unexpected.

From Count of Vermandios to Holy Roman Emperor in 105 years! 

[jimmy olsen]

So, I just got this game and started a campaign as Grand Prince of Novgorod in 1066.
Good choice or should I start another game?

While I don't exactly disagree with what Tamas posted, the learning curve, as typical of Paradox game, is quite steep.  I haven't played the 1066 start in years (I almost always start in 769) but IIRC the Russian principalities are a fairly tough start in 1066,  That may have change anyway with all the updates there have been.  Do you just have the base game, or did you get a bunch of the DLCs or a bundle that included them?

Anyway, the traditional advice for newbies is to start in Ireland in 1066, but I disagree with that idea.  I recommend that newbies start as Poland in 1066.  You'll be a Christian ruler with lots of nearby pagan lands to expand into.  But since you already started a game, go ahead and play it out.

It's my girlfriends copy of the game but IIRC there are a bunch of DLC's. But I might start a new game since I haven't played this particular save since I started it up. So 769 is a better start than 1066?

Well, you get to play longer.  I'm not sure that I'd say it's better, exactly.  Also, pagans are generally more interesting to play, and overall they're in better position in 769.  OTOH, a lot of people say that the 867 start is the best.  Certainly the 1066 start is popular as well;  it's also a good start for newbies because the earlier starts are only available with DLCs, so you can try out the game with a 1066 start and see if you like it before buying any DLCs.

Anyone played the 936 start? How is it?

[Razgovory]

So, I just got this game and started a campaign as Grand Prince of Novgorod in 1066.
Good choice or should I start another game?

I think many people bounce off CK2 because they try to handle it as a min-maxing strategy game. It is not that. If you scratch under the surface the actual mechanics are not very good (almost nonexistent economy, and warfare absolutely boils down to numbers). But that doesn't matter. It is a strategy-RPG hybrid, and should be approached as such.

Embrace the chaos and the fact you barely know why NPCs do what they do and how to counter them. These are the best periods of the game. Once you learn the intricacies it will become trivially easy, so don't worry, play what you want, and enjoy the ride.

I purposefully try not to learn the intricacies of a game for just that reason.  I often have more fun when I make decisions based on incomplete knowledge.

[mongers]

I purposefully try not to learn the intricacies of a game for just that reason.  I often have more fun when I make decisions based on incomplete knowledge.

Good attitude Raz. 

[jimmy olsen]