Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

What should the EUV Start Date(s) be?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Europa Universalis IV 82772 EUIV: Bug Reports 1347 EUIV: Suggestions 19380 EUIV: Technical Support 6898 EUIV: FAQ & Strategy Guides 241 EUIV: AAR's, Let's Plays, and Fan Fiction EU IV: Alternate History Short Story Contest Contr 30
Show only dev responses
O

oilver

Guest
I would like to hear the forums opinion on if the start date(s) should change in EUV, and if so how they should change. Start-dates are an important issue worthy of discussion since they function as focal point for development of new mechanics for the game.

Personally, I would like to see consolidated start-dates similar to CK III with the second start-date at 1648 as it would encourage more play in the later-half of the game and give the option of playing in India where an AI Mughals exist.

Otherwise I should flag in July there was also a discussion on start-dates, but in the context of an EUIV DLC:

1350 Start Date Final EU4 Expansion?

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...
forum.paradoxplaza.com forum.paradoxplaza.com
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • 3Like
  • 2
Reactions:
1399. One of the reasons I have never been happy with this game, was not having an earlier start game, even if it was in a DLC. Strange how they dropped this from EU3 but kept the late game of 1821 that hardly anyone ever plays to.
 
  • 9
  • 7
  • 1Like
Reactions:
zorkman said:
Strange how they dropped this from EU3 but kept the late game of 1821 that hardly anyone ever plays to.
Click to expand...
A lot of people were deeply dissatisfied with the consequences of the 1399 start date; importantly, that list of people included the people in charge of writing the game, who at one point explicitly described EU3's move to a 1399 start date as a mistake.

Shortening the end date would have upset the people who did like it without providing any real benefit for the people who never got that far in the first place.
 
  • 6
  • 4Like
  • 2
Reactions:
zorkman said:
1399. One of the reasons I have never been happy with this game, was not having an earlier start game, even if it was in a DLC. Strange how they dropped this from EU3 but kept the late game of 1821 that hardly anyone ever plays to.
Click to expand...
Why do you want 1399 back?

At a glance the 1399 and 1444 maps look very similar, the major change is that the Timurids and Golden/Great Horde are stronger. There are start dates much closer to 1444 where this is true also, there is also from 1403-1415 in which Ottomans are much weaker and Byzantium a bit stronger.
 
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
oilver said:
At a glance the 1399 and 1444 maps look very similar,
Click to expand...
In 1399:

Timur the Lame is still alive

the Ottoman ruler is (by Paradox's reckoning) not as good as Mehmet II

the Golden Horde is still united, making it a much more intimidating opponent for Moscow

Aragon and Castile have different royal houses

The King of France is mentally ill (and questionably competent even when lucid)

The king of England is not incompetent
 
  • 6Like
  • 3
Reactions:
Assuming two maintained start dates like CK3:

May 30, 1453 (sorry Byzaboos, you can restore the Empire as Trebizond or Morea)

October 24, 1648 (Peace of Westphalia)

A July 14, 1789 with detailed event chains for the Revolutionary wars would be fun too.
 
  • 17
  • 12Like
Reactions:
December 1356:
- Sweden and Castille are each in civil wars
- France is king-less after the Battle of Poitiers a few months before
- through a Golden Bull, the HRE is reformed into the structure it is modeled in EU with Grand Electors and all that
- China is rising up against the Yuan Mongols... several factions, the Ming included, are jockeying for the Mandate of Heaven
- ....
 
  • 24Like
  • 7
  • 6
  • 2
Reactions:
oilver said:
Why do you want 1399 back?

At a glance the 1399 and 1444 maps look very similar, the major change is that the Timurids and Golden/Great Horde are stronger. There are start dates much closer to 1444 where this is true also, there is also from 1403-1415 in which Ottomans are much weaker and Byzantium a bit stronger.
Click to expand...
For me, it´s Czech nationalism. Who was the HRE emperor in 1399?:)

More seriously, I feel like 1399 is going too far back. While 1444 is at least somewhat connected to early modernity, 1399 seems to still have more in common with the high middle ages rather than the age of exploration or enlightenment, and therefore it doesn´t really sit well thematically with the rest of the timeframe.
 
  • 28
  • 2Like
Reactions:
oilver said:
Why do you want 1399 back?

At a glance the 1399 and 1444 maps look very similar, the major change is that the Timurids and Golden/Great Horde are stronger. There are start dates much closer to 1444 where this is true also, there is also from 1403-1415 in which Ottomans are much weaker and Byzantium a bit stronger.
Click to expand...
Exactly. It weakens those three world powers France/Ottomans/Muscovy(Russia) & makes the game different & less predictable, which is certainly a good thing in my book. Nothing worse when the same old countries are always dominant, made worse with the ridiclous lucky nations.
 
  • 14
  • 2
Reactions:
Hawkslime said:
For me, it´s Czech nationalism. Who was the HRE emperor in 1399?:)

More seriously, I feel like 1399 is going too far back. While 1444 is at least somewhat connected to early modernity, 1399 seems to have more in common with the high middle ages rather than the age of exploration or enlightenment, and therefore it doesn´t really sit well thematically with the rest of the timeframe.
Click to expand...
What has the Napoleonic era & Industrilisation got to do with the Age of Enlightenment, but people have no problem the game ending in 1821.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
zorkman said:
What has the Napoleonic era & Industrilisation got to do with the Age of Enlightenment, but people have no problem the game ending in 1821.
Click to expand...
Industrial revolution occurs while the enlightenment is still ongoing, what is the problem?
 
  • 4Like
Reactions:
zorkman said:
Exactly. It weakens those three world powers France/Ottomans/Muscovy(Russia) & makes the game different & less predictable, which is certainly a good thing in my book. Nothing worse when the same old countries are always dominant, made worse with the ridiclous lucky nations.
Click to expand...
There is an irreconcilable tension between the people who want a hardcore sandbox where (to paraphrase Murray Walker) anything can happen and it usually does, and the people who want to look at the parts of the map they haven't been directly interfering in and not (usually!) feel like they're staring at a bizarro alt-hist world.

1399 swings a lot further in favour of the hardcore sandbox than even 1444, which itself is a lot further in that direction than 1453 or 1492.

(But yeah, the Lucky Nations feature can go in the bin.)
zorkman said:
What has the Napoleonic era & Industrilisation got to do with the Age of Enlightenment, but people have no problem the game ending in 1821.
Click to expand...
I seldom played much past 1650, so I don't care whether the game ends in 1750, 1776, 1789, 1793, or 1821 because I hardly ever got there... but the people who do play that far into the game probably care a lot.

(Wikipedia tells me the Enlightenment era is traditionally considered to have ended in 1789, though some scholars set the mark as late as 1804, and the Industrial Revolution is considered to have started around 1760.)
 
  • 13Like
  • 2
Reactions:
I only know that if Byzantium is not on the map, there will be very unhappy people here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back