1350 Start Date Final EU4 Expansion?

[JJEmperor74]

I suggest a new start date, a new pre-renaissance institution, more tech groups (good thing they dont already start at tech 1) and new lqnd and naval unit types. I think this would be a really exciting idea for a final DLC for the game as it would open up new opportunities for alternate history such as stopping the decline of Byzantium, preventing the French resurgence in the 100 years war, being able to fight more of the Spanish reconquista, stopping the collapse of the Yuan dynasty, etc. It would be a great opportunity to introduce a few new tags, governments, and perhaps even serving as an excuse to introduce new cultures and religions more relevant to the mid 1300s.

 

[Mindel]

This would also involve throwing away multiple expansions' worth of missions and other work which have been designed around the political setup in the current 1444 starting date, so I think there's no chance of it happening.

You would have better luck lobbying for it in EU5 than in EU4.

 

[grommile]

You would have better luck lobbying for it in EU5 than in EU4.

And even that's a pretty slim chance. EU4 has a start date of 1444 precisely because of all the problems that 1399 caused in late EU3.

 

[necro84]

1) and new lqnd and naval unit types

Adding more unit types shouldn't be part of DLC, it would change whole combat system. It's completly new game

You have 1356 mod that gives most of this opportunities - civil war in Castille, fall of Yuan and Golden Horde, rise of Timur and Ottomans

 

[gigau]

This would also involve throwing away multiple expansions' worth of missions and other work which have been designed around the political setup in the current 1444 starting date, so I think there's no chance of it happening.

Not to mention the research and work required for the historical setup.

 

[annulen]

I would rather like to see some effort put to fixing balance of existing start dates. It would be great to have at least one fully supported starting date in the middle of campaign (e.g. existing 1618 bookmark), or have one supported bookmark for beginning of every age. Unsupported bookmarks should be removed (it would still be possible to set date manually if anyone wants)

 

[Arizal]

This would also involve throwing away multiple expansions' worth of missions and other work which have been designed around the political setup in the current 1444 starting date, so I think there's no chance of it happening.

You would have better luck lobbying for it in EU5 than in EU4.

Please throw away those multiple missions!

In all seriousness, people are right in saying that the initial situation (1444) has been the object of intense scrutiny and a 1350 start date would break the game majorly, as societies weren’t at the same stage and numerous events didn’t happen yet. Taking the idea group “exploration” in 1350 wouldn’t make sense, for starter.

To me it would take more than new I statufions to cover a century of history, and such an endeavour would push the devs even further away from reworking core mechanics.

As a final expansion, it would also be dangerous to leave something of this scope hanging, as it would inevitably happen since support would be removed shortly after the release.

 

[ArtFart]

I would rather like to see some effort put to fixing balance of existing start dates. It would be great to have at least one fully supported starting date in the middle of campaign (e.g. existing 1618 bookmark), or have one supported bookmark for beginning of every age. Unsupported bookmarks should be removed (it would still be possible to set date manually if anyone wants)

Yeah, I think at least 1 needs to be fully supported again. I actually really like the idea of the date changer and it's a shame, but understandable, they stopped support for it, but they could at least support 1 bookmark maybe.

 

[Nostalgium]

A post-Peace of Westphalia bookmark could actually be pretty interesting. It established a new status quo in Europe, and divides the campaign into two rougly 200-year sections. Given how often people on these forums will say they drop their campaigns in the mid-1600s, it also matches up relatively well for years played. And sure, we miss the 30-years-war, but we instead get the Great Northern War right around the corner, and the various Revolutions (American, French) aren't too far off either.

I'd be all for purging most of the other bookmarks (and the day/month/year counter, even if I do ever so love the idea of it) for a fully supported 1648-bookmark, myself. Like CK3's 867/1066 split, which both feel like separate campaigns.

On the topic of this thread for pushing back the start date though? No. The farther you push EU4 back into the Medieval period, the less it's going to feel like a game about the Age of Sail. Hell, I'd even argue 1444 is pushing it a bit. I'd even be quite happy starting the game a few decades later, when the push for westwards exploration really started to gather steam.

 

[ArtFart]

A post-Peace of Westphalia bookmark could actually be pretty interesting. It established a new status quo in Europe, and divides the campaign into two rougly 200-year sections. Given how often people on these forums will say they drop their campaigns in the mid-1600s, it also matches up relatively well for years played. And sure, we miss the 30-years-war, but we instead get the Great Northern War right around the corner, and the various Revolutions (American, French) aren't too far off either.

I'd be all for purging most of the other bookmarks (and the day/month/year counter, even if I do ever so love the idea of it) for a fully supported 1648-bookmark, myself. Like CK3's 867/1066 split, which both feel like separate campaigns.

On the topic of this thread for pushing back the start date though? No. The farther you push EU4 back into the Medieval period, the less it's going to feel like a game about the Age of Sail. Hell, I'd even argue 1444 is pushing it a bit. I'd even be quite happy starting the game a few decades later, when the push for westwards exploration really started to gather steam.

Tbh, I would also be for the removal of the date changer and other bookmarks if we can get at least 1 fully supported mid game bookmark, like your proposed 1648 bookmark. I'm not sure how difficult it would be, maybe not too difficult, effectively sort the forts out, fill the appropriate missions that would be historically filled for the countries and be done with it. Probably waaaay more complex than that, but it would be an awesome update.

 

[EarlKonrad]

I suggest a new start date, a new pre-renaissance institution, more tech groups (good thing they dont already start at tech 1) and new lqnd and naval unit types. I think this would be a really exciting idea for a final DLC for the game as it would open up new opportunities for alternate history such as stopping the decline of Byzantium, preventing the French resurgence in the 100 years war, being able to fight more of the Spanish reconquista, stopping the collapse of the Yuan dynasty, etc. It would be a great opportunity to introduce a few new tags, governments, and perhaps even serving as an excuse to introduce new cultures and religions more relevant to the mid 1300s.

And I suggest you download a mod. Can't beat free.

 

[CMDR_HERNE]

Eventually fix the balancing of the other start dates please.

 

[Sete]

I would stop the game around 1700 to be fair.

 

[annulen]

I would stop the game around 1700 to be fair.

You are not fair, ages of absolutism and revolutions are quite interesting. That's why we need fully supported start date in 1600s, IMO.

 

[Nostalgium]

I would stop the game around 1700 to be fair.

I've made the case for EU4 covering primarily the pre-Peace of Westphalia stage and another, new IP covering 1648-1821 in the past, and I'll pretty much keep making it. Have the Religious Wars be what WW1 is to Vicky and Fall of Constantinople is to CK3. Comes with the added bonus of EU5 then being able to focus fully on the Renaissance, the Reformation and the exploration of the world, and give those mechanics the depth it absolutely deserves, while this new title could focus on the emergence of nation-states, standing armies, the Enlightenment and the Revolutions, with all the depth those mechanics absolutely deserve.

This is also why I think 1648 would be a good bookmark to support if you're gonna "divide" EU4 in two via bookmarks.

 

[annulen]

Tbh, I would also be for the removal of the date changer and other bookmarks if we can get at least 1 fully supported mid game bookmark, like your proposed 1648 bookmark.

I don't think removal of date changer is necessary or would help with anything. Game files refer to certain dates when specific events happened or specific changes to the world are made. For example, if start date is before 1645 St. Helena is uncolonized, between 1645.1.1 and 1707.5.12 it changes owners depending on year, and finally ends up British. A lot of missions have "completed_by" field specifying year when they are assumed to be completed. So date changer can actually make sense, even though experience may not be as smooth as with supported start date.

 

[annulen]

I've made the case for EU4 covering primarily the pre-Peace of Westphalia stage and another, new IP covering 1648-1821 in the past, and I'll pretty much keep making it. Have the Religious Wars be what WW1 is to Vicky and Fall of Constantinople is to CK3. Comes with the added bonus of EU5 then being able to focus fully on the Renaissance, the Reformation and the exploration of the world, and give those mechanics the depth it absolutely deserves, while this new title could focus on the emergence of nation-states, standing armies, the Enlightenment and the Revolutions, with all the depth those mechanics absolutely deserve.

This is also why I think 1648 would be a good bookmark to support if you're gonna "divide" EU4 in two via bookmarks.

Note that EU4 doesn't start with the Fall of Constantinople, it starts in 1444 so that it could be prevented. By the same logic, I think that 1618 is better start date than 1648. Also, we already have 1618 bookmark in game, but nothing between 1618 and 1701, and I guess reasons were the same - League Wars is a big event and it should be possible to take part in it without playing previous 150 years.

 

[ArtFart]

I don't think removal of date changer is necessary or would help with anything. Game files refer to certain dates when specific events happened or specific changes to the world are made. For example, if start date is before 1645 St. Helena is uncolonized, between 1645.1.1 and 1707.5.12 it changes owners depending on year, and finally ends up British. A lot of missions have "completed_by" field specifying year when they are assumed to be completed. So date changer can actually make sense, even though experience may not be as smooth as with supported start date.

Yeah the issue with the date changer as is right now is the numerous changes the game has undertaken since it's release, most notably the fort rework, as such, any significant date past 1444 (say 1500+) is broken due to the forts being all wrong, dev being all wonky etc etc. Devs have said it's basically a waste of time as according to them no one uses them (I used to!).

To fix a bookmark in an update shouldn't be too much of a task, but without being a dev we can't really tell. But I would for one be all for a bookmark around the 1600s mark being revamped and updated so we can play without major fort and development issues, however unfortunately, the devs, at least they used to, see updating any of the bookmarked dates as a waste of time. I'd love a dev to come and explain whether or not they could do it and whether it'd be worth it.

 

[Blust]

They should throw away all the other possible dates and only keep 1444, truth be told

 

[FantasticFwoosh]

And even that's a pretty slim chance. EU4 has a start date of 1444 precisely because of all the problems that 1399 caused in late EU3.

I mean, they could just do a remake or clauzwitz engine 2 fresh trilogy game of EU3 to satisfy this curiousity and procure revenue rather than overload the EU4 DLC lists with a bookmark expansion. The American Dream DLC (virtually discontinued flavor pack) sunk because it didn't bring anything especially new mechanically that paid off losing your total gametime, into being a 1 nation sidequest of a already established setting.

Not that the bar is especially high, but it was the earliest swing at the flavorpacks we have now and it pales a awful lot.

If it had forced in conditions of being its own campaign, resetting the tech tree etc that went further than what we can experience at the moment and stopped in 1936 then it'd be much more noteworthy. But it means moot when mods can stretch all the way to year 0 ad/ce to 3000. Then the real fresh hell of mixing multiple bookmarks as anybody who plays ET can attest begins as most people burn out playing the abridged EU4 Imperator (earliest date) and keeping the map historical and MI's coherent to follow beyond that point.