I’m one of a kind. They broke the mold after me.
What do you think of our proposal to split the game in two?
-
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.
I’m one of a kind. They broke the mold after me.
What do you think of our proposal to split the game in two?
527.
Finally Bizantine ambitions of world domination will be fulfilled mwhahahha.
Besides, I can't remember if there is a game set in the high middle ages
Finally Bizantine ambitions of world domination will be fulfilled mwhahahha.
Besides, I can't remember if there is a game set in the high middle ages
- 1
- Dec 14, 1999
- 21.789
- 241.804
Bad from both business and development perspectives.
1402 - Battle of Ankara which was a battle between Timurids and Ottomans.
- 2
As long as the game's end year is still in the 1800s, the start date should be as late as possible while still giving the Byzzieboos their carrot.
1444 is perfect for that.
Any earlier and the later eras become increasingly irrelevant. That being said, I wouldn't mind seeing 1492 or some other later start year be attempted...
1444 is perfect for that.
Any earlier and the later eras become increasingly irrelevant. That being said, I wouldn't mind seeing 1492 or some other later start year be attempted...
- 3
- 1
- Dec 14, 1999
- 21.789
- 241.804
3 quick reasons, can probably list loads more.
1) 2 seperate games = 2 seperate teams, needing double the amount of people.
2) creating a new brand is a high risk, not all work out well.
3) making a "reduced" eu in the eyes of a part of the community can be a PR disaster.
Anyway, I think 1444 is fine, but maybe 1399 isn't a bad idea. My favourite areas are the balkans/Anatolia and with the current start date it's always "topple the Ottomans before they come for you". Perhaps an earlier date could bring some freshness to the Balkans
- 2
An earlier start date is still "topple the Ottomans before they come for you" – it's just that Tamerlane will sometimes create an easy opening.
- 1
I'm quite happy with the 1444 start date.
And I disagree with the people that want the game to finish earlier than 1821.
What I would like is that the game has evolving mechanics that fit better into the 18th century.
Also conquer should be a lot slower. You shouldn't be able to conquer all Europe by 1600. Get rid of the snowball effect, which is one the worst things about PDX games, specially in EU4. I want too see large empires falling apart, not only AI large empires, but also when controlled by the player.
And I disagree with the people that want the game to finish earlier than 1821.
What I would like is that the game has evolving mechanics that fit better into the 18th century.
Also conquer should be a lot slower. You shouldn't be able to conquer all Europe by 1600. Get rid of the snowball effect, which is one the worst things about PDX games, specially in EU4. I want too see large empires falling apart, not only AI large empires, but also when controlled by the player.
- 5
- 2
Fair points. My concern is that the world changed a *lot* in the 4 centuries covered. In some ways, even more than the Vicky time period. And the Vicky games do a better job, I think, of portraying their changes.
I hope any potential EU5 takes EU4’s age mechanic and dials it up to 11.
- 1
It would be very interesting to start from late MONGOL period by 1260.
Year 1260
1. Great Mongolian Emperor Moenkh (Grandson of Genghiz Khaan) died in 1259.
2. Khubilai (Grandson of Genghiz Khaan) decided to create YUAN dynasty from Great Mongol Empire
3. Golden Horde becomes a separate Empire from Great Mongol Empire
4. Khulagu (Grandson of Genghiz Khaan) just sacked Baghdad (1258) and creates his Ilkhanate empire
I hope EUV will bring historical population, economy (just like HoI series and Victoria series) from the given period.
Year 1260
1. Great Mongolian Emperor Moenkh (Grandson of Genghiz Khaan) died in 1259.
2. Khubilai (Grandson of Genghiz Khaan) decided to create YUAN dynasty from Great Mongol Empire
3. Golden Horde becomes a separate Empire from Great Mongol Empire
4. Khulagu (Grandson of Genghiz Khaan) just sacked Baghdad (1258) and creates his Ilkhanate empire
I hope EUV will bring historical population, economy (just like HoI series and Victoria series) from the given period.
- 3
- 3
It's not Crusader Kings. It's Europa Universalis.
- 4
- 2
How about officially approved alternative start date mods? I for one prefer the old method of getting achievements, i.e. they should be earned through vanilla ironman. However not being able to pursue achievements is great turn off many players. My suggestion is that if the team does not want to invest its precious time into multiple start dates, you could outsource it to the community, and with Paradox's seal of approval, certain mods could retain their vanilla ironman capability thereby satisfying all participants in the debate.
The whole topic of achievement constraints has been done to death on the Vicky 3 forums.
The facts are:
the "no mods" rule creates that odd thing where using a mod that makes life harder for the player stops you getting your internet badges
on recent iterations of the Clausewitz engine, UI modding is powerful enough that UI mods have to be covered by the checksum in the same way as events, missions, etc, which means that "no mods" becomes disability discrimination
ironman is a purely psychological obstacle to savescumming; requiring it for achievements is obnoxious unless the game has no significant gameplay-affecting bugs
in strategy games without the "no mods" and "ironman only" constraints on achievements, it remains the case that trivial achievements have very high completion rates (much higher than Paradox titles; a 33% completion rate for an achievement like "get married" makes it look like two-thirds of your customers never got past the main menu) and sadistically hard achievements have sub-1% completion rates; all in all it very much looks like there's a bimodal distribution, where most players either care too much about hard achievements to cheat to get them, or care too little about hard achievements to cheat to get them
- 9
- 2
Do you have any stats when players end their campaigns? I usually end between 1600 and 1650 because I'm too strong at that point. That way I'm miising absolutism mechanics, imperialism cb and many other featuers but beating someone much weaker than me is just no fun.
For someone like me it would be nice to have second starting date supported in XVII century. I think 30 years war is nice conclusion of religious conflicts so after the war. That way I can start building my nation in different age
The end date of eu4 should match the start date from victoria to avoid the hole of 16 yeras in paradox games
- 3
Both Vicky and EU have issues with that date window.
(1821 is an awkward start date for a vicky game, and 1836 is an awkward end date for an EU game.)
Please, do not use any start date earlier than the current one. It's already hard enough to keep interest until 17th century. I think 1444 requires too much railroading in the early game (Burgundian Inheritance, the shenanigans with Polish, Bohemian and Hungarian thrones, the Timurids, the events regarding the English, Brandenburgian and Aragonese thrones). If Byzantium is a necessity, let's make it 1450.
- 4
- 3