Problem all paradox games have

[General WVPM]

No matter how early you make the start date, (some) people will always want to start earlier to change what happened before.
In HOI people want to change the 1914-1936 years.
In Victoria people want to change the 1750-1836 years.
In CK2 you see paradox has pushed the starting date back like 250 years and still (some) people want to start earlier, they for example want to experience tribal migrations and the fall of the western roman empire.
I am one of those people.

What do you think starting dates?
Should they be before important events if possible, like hearts of iron before hitler took over or europa universalis before the battle of varna was lost?
Or do you feel that the games would become too unrealistic and sandboxy?

 

[Sarius1997]

Would become to sandboxy. Yes, it kind of would work, but i wouldn´t like it. It rather could imagine setting the enddate further in the future. HoI could go until the Korean War, and Vicky, well, i´d love to see it end in 2015.

 

[the cool guy]

CK2 really shouldn't have been pushed anywhere this far back. At the earliest it should start when the HRE is formed.
As for the other games they have to start somewhere and i would rather have a better and more balanced start date than an earlier start date. EU4 could be pused back a little for a more fun date but not much same for Vicky. Pushing HoI is just pointless tbh.

 

[ariansandstrom]

Connect the start and end dates of different games!

 

[General WVPM]

connection end and start dates is what paradox has been trying, i dont think it works great though, in most cases the end game is not so good, while it means for the other game that they become more restricted.
as for pushing the end dates, thats a quite related problem, but personally i feel that the next game picks it up quite well after the end date, for example ck2 cant handle colonialization, while eu4 does a decent job portraying the 15th century, which allows players to build up before the big exploration age, really nice.
a HRE start for ck2 sounds nice, but then i think we'd really need a dark ages game, from the last days of the western roman empire till the new (holy) roman empire.

 

[ariansandstrom]

connection end and start dates is what paradox has been trying, i dont think it works great though, in most cases the end game is not so good, while it means for the other game that they become more restricted.
as for pushing the end dates, thats a quite related problem, but personally i feel that the next game picks it up quite well after the end date, for example ck2 cant handle colonialization, while eu4 does a decent job portraying the 15th century, which allows players to build up before the big exploration age, really nice.
a HRE start for ck2 sounds nice, but then i think we'd really need a dark ages game, from the last days of the western roman empire till the new (holy) roman empire.

What I meant is not to leave out short time periods between for example Victoria and Europa Universalis. It has always annoyed me.

 

[AchedTeacher]

I want CK2 to go towards the future, and refine the existing later startdates.

 

[aruon]

my view on start/end dates:

HOI - 1936 start date is good as it's going to get. between the rise of the Nazis in 1933 and the classic 1936 start, almost nothing of relevance to HOI (or any PDS game really) happened between those dates. as for the end date, i wouldn't have any problem seeing the end extended for X amount of years.

Victoria - i don't have V2 nor have i ever played it (well other than the demo but that doesn't really count) so i'm an outsider for Victoria, however considering it progresses at the same pace as EU, i would happily see a timeline extension for the vicky games. even if it progresses slower in practice than EU, only a hundred years at 1 tick = 1 day is a bit limited by comparison with the other franchises. it's almost like comparing Pitfall for the Atari 2600 to Castlevania for the NES; sure pitfall is fun (and longer than most/all a2600 games), but in the end, your only playing for 20 minutes at a time.

crusader kings - personally, i couldn't care less what time period or how long you want to play CK2 in. late middle ages? check! early middle ages? Czech! dark ages, fall of rome, beginning of rome? sure! distant space faring future? post-apocalyptic? total conversion? why the hell not! all that CK2 needs is naval warfare and it could very well be as close to perfect as a grand strategy genre game there has ever been. the timeline really doesn't matter all that much here. at least until american colonization begins. that would need an AI reworking.

as for EU, eh. it about as perfect as it could get. it could get slightly extended to include the intergame though.

agree/disagree peeps?

 

[WeissRaben]

Mmmmh.

Hearts of Iron: I'm pretty sure it could be extended back to 1933, offer some more diplomatic and internal leeway and allow for many different WWIIs, instead of always Danzig or War. Maybe a timeline extension to 1955, in case Operation Unthinkable goes hot, but not much more.

Victoria: End date is good. Start date could be whenever between 1815 and 1836, so it COULD start in 1821, but revolts should be revamped quite a bit.

Crusader Kings: ...oh god, what a mess. Could plausibly end in 1600: the main point of the game, feudalism, lasted that long. But the world had moved on, with colonization, the Protestants and so on; 1453 probably is a date as good as any.
As for the start, 769 is fifty shades of too soon. There was no recognizable feudalism around, by that point: almost everyone on the map should start with duke viceroys, at the very least, and offer some way to move from there.

As for Europa Universalis...meh. It disregards completely to depict the time period it's supposed to represent, so I guess it could start in 279 a.D and end in 1859, or whatever.

 

[yourworstnightm]

CK2 really shouldn't have been pushed anywhere this far back. At the earliest it should start when the HRE is formed.
As for the other games they have to start somewhere and i would rather have a better and more balanced start date than an earlier start date. EU4 could be pused back a little for a more fun date but not much same for Vicky. Pushing HoI is just pointless tbh.

Yes, the Charlemagne start date is an utter mess. Not a time period well suited for CK2.

 

[Leon_Aditzu]

The truth is that we want paradox game that will have all eras, entire glob and all the features which will be unlocked with research of new technology like a more in depth Civ version.

 

[General WVPM]

...

disagree mostly, i think ck2 should start ~1000 and there should really be a dark age game from ~450 - ~1000
dont get your points after the victoria stuff
eu, would be nice to start before the ERE is crushed

...

hoi, i'd really want to start before nazis come to power, maybe 1930 or 1920s, hoi3 has a nice politics system, but its not used at all and could use some attention, which would make weimar republic fun to play (keep the republic save from monarchists, communists and nazis).
ck2, totally agree on start date, 1600 feels too late though to end
good point for eu, it could be used back in the ancient time, colonize massila as greece XD

The truth is that we want paradox game that will have all eras, entire glob and all the features which will be unlocked with research of new technology like a more in depth Civ version.

actually i prefer a limited globe, to prevent early global domination, but thats probably just me

 

[Pugmak]

Imo, it's not a problem.

The devs pick the start and end dates that interest or make sense to them, then, modders change it to suit themselves and others in the community.