A timeline proposal EU4, CKII and HOI4

[noneofyourbusiness]

look guys, I’ve read history and feudalism started to be a thing after the fall of Rome—so it would work for CKII—and actually it would fit quite well as it would follow the journey of feudalism from its inception in the begining of the game to its end in the mid to late 1400s; even if it weren’t present earlier—there were still plenty of CKII-like aspects which would make it perfect for the game (eccelesiatical holdings; fight against Islam’s spread; tribal warfare; Germanic tribes; lands being ruled by kings; decentralization (which was what gave rise to feudalism in the first place; although its date of inception is debated as being somewhat after the fall of Rome or in the 8th century); intellectual darkness in Western Europe (to an extent); nobility (e.g. Scandinavian jarls or Anglo-Saxon earls); antikings; antipopes; the power and influence of the clergy; serfdom; warrior-kings; the palace intrigue of the era (e.g. “mayors of the palace in Merovingian France”; dynastic struggles (again like in Merovingian France); invaders (the Moors; the Arabs, etc.); and many more things)

Regarding EU4—I just can’t see why we can’t just add some pop and economic mechanics to address the Victorian Era—they’re already starting to address it with Rule Britannia—it doesn’t have be exactly like Victoria, but still

 

[shiro the bushi]

look guys, I’ve read history and feudalism started to be a thing after the fall of Rome—so it would work for CKII—and actually it would fit quite well as it would follow the journey of feudalism from its inception in the begining of the game to its end in the mid to late 1400s; even if it weren’t present earlier—there were still plenty of CKII-like aspects which would make it perfect for the game (eccelesiatical holdings; fight against Islam’s spread; tribal warfare; Germanic tribes; lands being ruled by kings; decentralization (which was what gave rise to feudalism in the first place; although its date of inception is debated as being somewhat after the fall of Rome or in the 8th century); intellectual darkness in Western Europe (to an extent); nobility (e.g. Scandinavian jarls or Anglo-Saxon earls); antikings; antipopes; the power and influence of the clergy; serfdom; warrior-kings; the palace intrigue of the era (e.g. “mayors of the palace in Merovingian France”; dynastic struggles (again like in Merovingian France); invaders (the Moors; the Arabs, etc.); and many more things)

Regarding EU4—I just can’t see why we can’t just add some pop and economic mechanics to address the Victorian Era—they’re already starting to address it with Rule Britannia—it doesn’t have be exactly like Victoria, but still

What? no feudalism as we know it and as the game represents it didnt exist till the 11th century, Before then it was tribal existences, semi nomadic existences (which paradox doesnt simulates), Proto-feudalism and a decayed version of romes government systems. The Carolingian Empire for example (The empire of Charlemagne) was a bureaucracy
Edit: This makes it a complete opposite of the "key" decentralization you're talking about

 

[noneofyourbusiness]

shiro the bushi that’s not true—it was FULLY a thing by the 11th century but its origins are debated—although I have read history and it says it began after the Fall of Rome

 

[shiro the bushi]

shiro the bushi that’s not true—it was FULLY a thing by the 11th century but its origins are debated—although I have read history and it says it began after the Fall of Rome

most sources I've read said it started at the earliest 9th century at the tail-end of the carloginians, and as I said Proto-Feudalism, as feudalism was still evolving during this time

 

[noneofyourbusiness]

well here’s the thing: proto-feudalism could still be shown accurately—I think you could also argue that’s its really just very early feudalism—it’s really a semantics game—that’s my point

 

[Hjaldrgud]

What an absolutely terrible idea.

Earlier CK is no use, since the historical evidence of families is sparse, so they would have to create families. Going earlier than p Mohammad would would spark controversies- imagine if he gets the traits 'homosexual' and 'imbecile'. It would have been Charlie Hebdo all over again.

EU 4 is so long as it is. By 1700's you are so powerful that the game is not fun anymore.

Earlier start date in HoI would spark so many butterfly effects that it would be disgusting. The game is so (rightfully) tilted tilted towards warfare. It is so narrow in its scope. Say you win as Imperial Germany by 1915. Of course you take all of Russia, mittelafrika, Singapore, Egypt. As much as you can take, leaving some small rump states. What to do now? By 1925 you would have exhausted every single building space, build 10 infrastructure in every single province. What about said rump states? A crippled France going commie, will that even be a challenge for your superpower? HoI 4 is designed from the beginning to start four years before a war and to handle ONE big war for three to five years of duration. Two wars if WW3 happens mere months later, which really should be seen as an extention of ww2. Most technologies end in 1944. Extending a game that is designed to span max ten years with _35_ years is insane and will break the game. No amount of patching will fix it.

About Vicky's supposed shortness: is it though? I easily get 10-15 hours of gameplay out of one save. Granted, it is the shortest apart from HoI, but it is more than enough. The first years go pretty fast, but when you arrive in the 20th century the game gets more advanced and slows down. If any game should be extended it should be Vicky a start in 1815 would be welcome in my eyes.

About the converter: after 500 years of CK 2, havent you conquered what is there to conquer, arent you such a dominating superpower? Do you really need to play until 1948 when you in practicality have stomped any resistance 800 years earlier?

 

[General WVPM]

What an absolutely terrible idea.

Earlier CK is no use, since the historical evidence of families is sparse, so they would have to create families. Going earlier than p Mohammad would would spark controversies- imagine if he gets the traits 'homosexual' and 'imbecile'. It would have been Charlie Hebdo all over again.

Since your signature explicitly asks for it, I disagree with this part.
Creating fake families is no big deal. The best paradox can do is create something close to a historical start, after that it's all a historical stuff anyway. Why care about a few made up characters (of which there are enough anyway)? And the part about Mohammed is extremely wrong. If you 'learned' from Charlie Hebdo that you have to adjust in order not to be victim of terrorists, that is extremely cowardly. Don't let terrorists dictate what can and cannot be done.

For centuries people have fought for freedom of speech, press, religion and other forms. Millions have died in wars for this. Terrorists killing a few hundred should not result in the Western world admitting defeat and giving up all those freedoms. It is an insult to our civilization and our ancestors.

 

[Hjaldrgud]

Since your signature explicitly asks for it, I disagree with this part.
Creating fake families is no big deal. The best paradox can do is create something close to a historical start, after that it's all a historical stuff anyway. Why care about a few made up characters (of which there are enough anyway)? And the part about Mohammed is extremely wrong. If you 'learned' from Charlie Hebdo that you have to adjust in order not to be victim of terrorists, that is extremely cowardly. Don't let terrorists dictate what can and cannot be done.

For centuries people have fought for freedom of speech, press, religion and other forms. Millions have died in wars for this. Terrorists killing a few hundred should not result in the Western world admitting defeat and giving up all those freedoms. It is an insult to our civilization and our ancestors.

Trust me, I am completely for free speech, but my point disappeared in my drunken ramblings 3am at night. Paradox is a Swedish company and Swedes are fanatically PC, they would never ever dare to put Mohammad in a game. It would have been hilariously easy to stump him early anyway. This would result in no Islamic Empire, a strong Byzantine Empire controlling the holy land. No use in doing the crusades then... Being CRUSADER Kings, the game would be kinda pointless in my eyes

 

[General WVPM]

Trust me, I am completely for free speech, but my point disappeared in my drunken ramblings 3am at night. Paradox is a Swedish company and Swedes are fanatically PC, they would never ever dare to put Mohammad in a game. It would have been hilariously easy to stump him early anyway. This would result in no Islamic Empire, a strong Byzantine Empire controlling the holy land. No use in doing the crusades then... Being CRUSADER Kings, the game would be kinda pointless in my eyes

I would like Crusader Kings to be more about the Crusades. But seeing as India and the steppes and even an Aztec invasion were included, I think that ship has long sailed.
Creating a start in the late 6th or early 7th would be perfect to simulate the rise of Islam as well as the collapse of the Sassanid and Eastern Roman Empires. And if Islam would be crushed, you could skip the first 3 crusades and go straigth to the sacking of Constantinople.

 

[cardinal7]

Since your signature explicitly asks for it, I disagree with this part.
Creating fake families is no big deal. The best paradox can do is create something close to a historical start, after that it's all a historical stuff anyway. Why care about a few made up characters (of which there are enough anyway)? And the part about Mohammed is extremely wrong. If you 'learned' from Charlie Hebdo that you have to adjust in order not to be victim of terrorists, that is extremely cowardly. Don't let terrorists dictate what can and cannot be done.

For centuries people have fought for freedom of speech, press, religion and other forms. Millions have died in wars for this. Terrorists killing a few hundred should not result in the Western world admitting defeat and giving up all those freedoms. It is an insult to our civilization and our ancestors.

You are suggesting a bad decision for the game for reasons many others posted and in the proccess provoke violent attacks for it. Provoking religious extremists for the sake of a video game is something that should be avoided to the extent it can be avoided and developer/publishing companies know that very well.
In a side note ck2 is the one game that has a huge timespan to do whatever can be done in the game multiple times over, so why advocate to increase that? At least eu4 at 1400 start date could be beneficial to the game granted it is done right.

 

[shiro the bushi]

I would like Crusader Kings to be more about the Crusades. But seeing as India and the steppes and even an Aztec invasion were included, I think that ship has long sailed.
Creating a start in the late 6th or early 7th would be perfect to simulate the rise of Islam as well as the collapse of the Sassanid and Eastern Roman Empires. And if Islam would be crushed, you could skip the first 3 crusades and go straigth to the sacking of Constantinople.

The developers have said on multiple occasions that crusader kings is just the title, it really doesnt have much to do with just kings crusading

 

[gja102]

Crusader Kings should start in 1081. This means you actually have the Turks in Turkey, the Normans (and therefore the English) in England, and the Hungarians in Hungary. The stage is also set for the First Crusade.

Anything between the fall of Rome and the 1070s would need different dark age mechanics, with less emphasis on dynasties, and more emphasis on the great migrations.

Europa Universalis should start in 1482, after the Treaty of Arras. This gets rid of blobby Burgundy, without relying on events, and gives a clearer set of great powers in Europe.

If you wanted to expand the scope of Victoria, I'd argue that the ideology system makes it a good candidate for covering the French Revolution (there are an awful lot of similarities between the French and Russian revolutions, so if you aspire to model one, I don't see why you can't also cover the other with similar mechanics). You could technically go all the way back to 1765 (where the Seven Years War has bankrupted France, and Britain is stepping on the Americans' toes, meaning that the preconditions for the American (and ultimately French) Revolutions are already in place).

One final thing - I don't think there should be anything stopping a little bit of overlap between timelines. There's no reason why Napoleonic content can't be in both EU and Vicky, under different mechanics. Or even putting early gunpowder warfare and expeditions to America in CK via events, to let it go past 1453 if the player desires. That way, if you are going to use a converter, you can choose a sensible point during the overlap period, rather than being tied to a specific date that might make no sense for the individual game you are playing.