1419, the start date from EU2/FTG is IMO quite underexplored, with the HYW going into high gear, hussites, Ottomans recovering and austria yet to become the powerhouse. Also appeases Byzantiboos, which we know is most important 
- 5
-
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 would call it a more in depth EU.
For me the game is way more fun early mid playtrought.
Having deeper mechanics around that era (1400 to 1700) would certainly make it more interesting.
This is just my opinion tho, obviously, and to be fair I'm bias, as it is my favourite part of history to read about.
- 1
Honestly I've always been of the opinion that there should be a game from around 1700-1900 and that 1900-36 should be a game by itself but since that will never happen this is as good as it gets
- 1
What's wrong with 1444, that isn't wrong with any other date in the 15th century?
- 6
- 1
There's nothing wrong 1444, it's just that I want EU V to be different from EU IV.What's wrong with 1444, that isn't wrong with any other date in the 15th century?
- 1
I liked the multiple start dates of EU3 and early EU4.
Press F for respects...
Press F for respects...
- 2
But it is for the best though. A single start date allows them to do a LOT of research on that singular date and to then build events and flavour for the various countries out of all that research.
Which is why I think the start date for EU5 is going to be 1444 again. They've got nearly a decade of research done on the time period (and would they really want to start again?), it barely overlaps with the Crusader Kings time period and Byzantium is still present.
1444 ticks all their boxes.
- 6
But they've nearly a decade of historical research now on the 1444 date.
You have to admit the chances of them junking all that research and starting over with a newer date simply for a transient moment of freshness you may feel to load up EU5 and have the starting date be for example 1434, in other words merely for the sake of being different, is highly unlikely.
There's no problem if the start date already has the HYW as an active conflict. It would all depend on what approach EUV would take to the warfare mechanics. Can't do a HOI approach and Victoria 3 approach isn't suited. Maybe a hybrid between frontlines being set borders but you can actually see the units move automatically to clash other armies and siege down settlements. If the map is larger then it would be tedious to move units as large countries so a new system like was previously mentioned might be required. The developers also said they were considering adding pops into EUV as they almost did so in EUIV.
- 1
- Dec 14, 1999
- 21.789
- 241.804
Neither will be in any eu game. Its an era on armies, sieges and set battles.
hmm, what about something like hoi4, where there are only 2-4 start dates
perhaps one start date for each age (it would be way easier to code than the current date selector)
1444 varna, 1517 protestantism, 1636 Qing dynasty, 1789 French Revolution
- 3
Doing research on the year 1444 leads to vast knowledge about the period in general, it's not like they're going to disregard all their work if 1419 is going to be the starting date.
Quite the contrary.
Except now they have to do research to add authenticity to the 1419 state date, and all the research on 1444 has a lot less validity because the very nature of the game means 1444 won't be the same when you reach that year after starting in 1419.
All the rulers. All the little quirks. 1444 is by far the obvious starting point. That doesn't necessarily mean it WILL be the starting date, merely that 1444 has so many more advantages than any other proposition right now.
I think they'd be on safer ground iterating on the traditional model of conflict in EU5 rather than doing something different.
Nor do I think EU5 going in that direction, which Johan implies in his response, should be construed (as some will) that this is a rejection of the Victoria 3 system. The Victoria 3 system interests me, but it is also appropriate to Victoria 3 and I hope to see where the Victoria 3 devs go with it. I definitely wouldn't want it in EU5.
I would want what we have in EU4, but better, for EU5.
- 2
- 1
EU4 with a more realistic development system, (maybe pops replace the dev but you get direct control over the pops)
- 1
The system would need to allow you to play a country that didn't become a major power in real history, such as Ireland (where I live), and to play your way to being a major power. Part of this would be being able to develop your provinces/states. The current EU4 system allows that, and I would argue whatever replaces it (if it is being replaced) would have to allow that as well.
- 1
- 1