A shorter Enddate would help

[daniloy]

Since game starts in 1337 the enddate should before 1821. In fact, it should be before Napoleon
and the French Revolution IMO. The Age of Revolution is about mass conscription and very
rapid conquests compared to the eras before.

You would need very special mechanics that could be its own game or implement
them in an illfitting manner, because the base will be the warfare and diplomacy
before that. As mentioned the timeframe is also problem, since I assume the game
would tick too quickly to even attempt to represent the time period.

Lets look at the USA aswell. Very few want to use the startdates of 1776 in EU4, most
startdates are not balanced at all, or wait 300 years just to play them, if history actually
allows the formation of the republic.

While I think it would take content away, it would be better than using these mechanics in a different game
rather than tacking them on another. While I am not saying March of the Eagles II, a Age of Revolution
game is better than trying to compress it into Project Caesar.

Time should be rather used to work on the transition from the Middle Ages
to the Early Modern Era, which is already plenty of work.

 

[Stami]

If they have no plans for a game focusing on Napoleon Wars, then that era should definitely be included in Project Caesar, or else we get a very glaring gap in history throughout the Paradox games.

 

[capetown2]

If they have no plans for a game focusing on Napoleon Wars, then that era should definitely be included in Project Caesar, or else we get a very glaring gap in history throughout the Paradox games.

I would personally get a MOTE2 but I know many players are opposed to the idea and would prefer it in EuIV

 

[Stami]

I would personally get a MOTE2 but I know many players are opposed to the idea and would prefer it in EuIV

I would like it as well. I don't think this is an unpopular opinion. I personally don't think they will do it tbh

 

[Lightwell]

The Age of Revolution is about mass conscription and very
rapid conquests compared to the eras before.

You would need very special mechanics that could be its own game or implement
them in an illfitting manner, because the base will be the warfare and diplomacy
before that.

I would remind you that neither of these were new concepts. European states just began to be able to afford to call up, arm, and train men from across the country (on account of the black plague and inflation), but both conscription into professional armies and rapid conquests are ancient. You do not need special mechanics to simulate what was essentially the default Chinese mode of military organization.

 

[Lord Lambert]

I agree. I would like a game set mid 1700s that would include the 7 years war, american and spanish colonial independence, french revolution and napoleonic wars.

While I'm immediately aware that there will be some (specifically one user I have in mind lol, Hi BB) who will say that the game should be capable of modelling this period well enough to not need a second game, my desire for it is not only about that, but about the fact that in any game, the situation 400 years after the start is going to be remarkably different to how reality played out, and even with mechanics from god that authentically model both periods perfectly, the starting situation and the countries existing in all their various forms after 400 years of play will not be historical, nor should they be, and I would like to experience the aformentioned historical events with that historical origin setup.

 

[Aquila SPQR]

No one stops you from simply stopping playing after 1700, 1650 or any other date you'll set for yourself as "end date".

But why do you want to cut content for those who don't mind playing past that date?

 

[alexkowal123]

If they have no plans for a game focusing on Napoleon Wars, then that era should definitely be included in Project Caesar, or else we get a very glaring gap in history throughout the Paradox games.

I imagine future HOI games could start in early 1800? I think that’s appropriate.
Edit: this is apparently dumb for reasons I’m not aware of

 

[HaxMode]

I agree. I would like a game set mid 1700s that would include the 7 years war, american and spanish colonial independence, french revolution and napoleonic wars.

While I'm immediately aware that there will be some (specifically one user I have in mind lol, Hi BB) who will say that the game should be capable of modelling this period well enough to not need a second game, my desire for it is not only about that, but about the fact that in any game, the situation 400 years after the start is going to be remarkably different to how reality played out, and even with mechanics from god that authentically model both periods perfectly, the starting situation and the countries existing in all their various forms after 400 years of play will not be historical, nor should they be, and I would like to experience the aformentioned historical events with that historical origin setup.

As much as I don't like the historicity argument in general, the Age of Revolutions could really use getting separated out. People don't want to play the "Age of Revolutions", people want to play THE revolution. The French one, with Robespierre and Napoleon and the Duke of Wellington. 1750 and onwards is known in European history by specifically the actions of France, the United Kingdom, and the United States, not Revolutionary Commonwealth, Austria and Ottomans or whatnot.

 

[William the Merry]

As much as I don't like the historicity argument in general, the Age of Revolutions could really use getting separated out. People don't want to play the "Age of Revolutions", people want to play THE revolution. The French one, with Robespierre and Napoleon and the Duke of Wellington. 1750 and onwards is known in European history by specifically the actions of France, the United Kingdom, and the United States, not Revolutionary Commonwealth, Austria and Ottomans or whatnot.

What about people that want to play as Austria, keeping the empire instead of abolishing it due to losses against the jacobins

Since game starts in 1337 the enddate should before 1821. In fact, it should be before Napoleon
and the French Revolution IMO. The Age of Revolution is about mass conscription and very
rapid conquests compared to the eras before.

You would need very special mechanics that could be its own game or implement
them in an illfitting manner, because the base will be the warfare and diplomacy
before that. As mentioned the timeframe is also problem, since I assume the game
would tick too quickly to even attempt to represent the time period.

Lets look at the USA aswell. Very few want to use the startdates of 1776 in EU4, most
startdates are not balanced at all, or wait 300 years just to play them, if history actually
allows the formation of the republic.

While I think it would take content away, it would be better than using these mechanics in a different game
rather than tacking them on another. While I am not saying March of the Eagles II, a Age of Revolution
game is better than trying to compress it into Project Caesar.

Time should be rather used to work on the transition from the Middle Ages
to the Early Modern Era, which is already plenty of work.

With how the 17th and 18th century sees so many great empires fall or begin to fall, you need to play up to the revolution to get the full experience. Do the ottomans collapse under the weight of balkan revolts, does india fall under european rule after almost being unified under islamic rule, is Poland snuffed out for good, this and more is decided by the late centuries

 

[prismaticmarcus]

Well, there's no reason Project Caesar can't be two games...

 

[Arizal]

When I read "a shorter endgame", what I instead think about is that instead of the grind to WC, you should have a "Napoleonic moment" if and only if you manage to break the westphalian order, that is, establish an hegemon.

I mean by that the following : once the political order is so that nobody can realistically stop you, people should just bow. That would provide a satisfying ending to a centuries long struggle, and keep the game interesting until the end in the event you don't manage to break the wheel.

 

[William the Merry]

When I read "a shorter endgame", what I instead think about is that instead of the grind to WC, you should have a "Napoleonic moment" if and only if you manage to break the westphalian order, that is, establish an hegemon.

Or have the game respond more to you becoming the grobbest blob for what that means to political philosophy of the time

I mean by that the following : once the political order is so that nobody can realistically stop you, people should just bow. That would provide a satisfying ending to a centuries long struggle, and keep the game interesting until the end in the event you don't manage to break the wheel.

But people didnt just bow to Napoleon?

 

[fraughtGYRE]

I would remind you that neither of these were new concepts. European states just began to be able to afford to call up, arm, and train men from across the country (on account of the black plague and inflation), but both conscription into professional armies and rapid conquests are ancient. You do not need special mechanics to simulate what was essentially the default Chinese mode of military organization.

Yep. People need to recall that the much-increased number of soldiers per capita in Napoleonic France was actually just reaching the mark set by the Roman Empire some millennia and a half earlier.

Nothing special in that.

 

[Arizal]

Or have the game respond more to you becoming the grobbest blob for what that means to political philosophy of the time

I'm not saying either the system should just collapse without resistance, but if it does collapse, there is no reason to fight countless small wars. You should just have coalition wars, like Napoleon had.

But people didnt just bow to Napoleon?

Depending on what you are looking at. Germany, both Austria and Prussia, folded. They, like Italy and much of continental Europe, were adapting to the new Napoleonian order, until he showed weakness. Russia, England, and his mistakes in Spain revealed that he wasn't unbeatable.

 

[daniloy]

Yep. People need to recall that the much-increased number of soldiers per capita in Napoleonic France was actually just reaching the mark set by the Roman Empire some millennia and a half earlier.

Nothing special in that.

The Roman Imperial Army peaked at a size 400-500k soldiers in the second century with a population of maybe 75 Million.
France with a population of 38 Million was able to raise 600k and was able to recruit 2 million soldiers through the Napeolonic wars.

 

[Brynjar]

But why do you want to cut content for those who don't mind playing past that date?

People generally expect any date included in the game to have some at least somewhat historical content. The longer after the start of the game one gets, the harder it generally becomes to model historical events in a good way. Reducing the timeframe of the game will therefore open up developer resources to focus on having better content earlier in the game, which is content more people will experience.

 

[William the Merry]

People generally expect any date included in the game to have some at least somewhat historical content. The longer after the start of the game one gets, the harder it generally becomes to model historical events in a good way. Reducing the timeframe of the game will therefore open up developer resources to focus on having better content earlier in the game, which is content more people will experience.

And look what thats got us for ck3, 4 years in

 

[ero_sk]

I disagree. Assuming that the game is EU5 or its spiritual successor, to me, one of the main things about EU is that "grand" in "grand strategy" also means a grand timeline. I like leading my country from its humble beginnings to an empire spawning the globe. Not necessarily a territorial empire, but to have a large presence on the home continent and a network of influence (via trade, colonies and vassal states) around the globe. A much shorter game would inevitably mean that it wouldn't be possible, unless the game was taking some unrealistic shortcuts that wouldn't be good.

Rather than having a shorter game, I'd like to see an equally or even longer game (1300s to 1800s) with better engaging mechanics, especially the internal gameplay.

That's just my opinion and what gives ME fun though.

 

[Thorum]

Don't forget Dan Lind (another experienced pds developer, who previously did hoi4) is still developing a secret game.

With this early start date for euv, I would put money on that one being March of the eagles 2 (or another title for the revolutionary era)...