What should the EUV Start Date(s) be?

[RaccoonCity]

Neither will be in any eu game. Its an era on armies, sieges and set battles.

Bro please add POPs to EU5 I beg you.

Not only is a deeper way of representing "development" of provinces, but the potential it can add to religion, cultures and colonization is great.

Specially colonization, it can be the way to actually make colonization an interesting mechanic.

 

[TheCleanerDragon]

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.

If they move the start date back they won't necessarily chuck all the research they've done in the trash, some of it will still be usable. Changing the start date won't be a "transient moment of freshness" a different starting position will change the strategy of every country in the game, so that freshness will last a lot longer than the first time the game is booted up.

 

[Danskjävel]

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.

Yes obviously. You'd have to do research if you're going to introduce new mechanics for a 1444 start in EUV too. My point is that when you're researching the year 1444 you don't just type 1444 in a search engine and than enter. Doing research from that era encompasses sources from a larger time period - and thus the "decade of research on the time period" is not going to be wasted as they'd have to start over again as you insinuate.

Also there's the work from all the other titles ranging from Crusader Kings through Europa Universalis 1-4. Doing research is the name of the game with this genre, and they're very likely not going to start over from picking a new start date.

1444 also ticks the box of lots of people feeling like they're reselling the same product with a new skin (graphics, UI) for an AAA-game price tag. I also think doing some more research is easier than reinventing the Europa Universalis series, as they'd have to if they're going to have an identical start.

 

[Prince_Riku_Lyonheart]

From what I've read here, the start date should either be between 1412-1422 or just stay 1444. Any later railroads the course of history too much any any earlier changes the scope of a game to which most people ALREADY don't make it to the end. I like the idea of focusing on the 1412 or therabouts collection of events and powers, as they are less focused on just Europe. EU as a brand may have begun as the European Colonialism grand strat game, but nowadays it is the LEAST European-centric of the major PDX properties, to my mind. Branding is what it is but let it not constrain us to pick a key date as it relates to Europe alone.

 

[YashaCarry]

November 10th 1444, because one day more than the current one is good enough for me.

 

[brifbates]

That's too late, there's no Byzantium.

Which would actually be a good thing as there would be no more need to make odd balancing decisions or apply other means to ensure that the average Byz fan can succeed with them when the reality is they were doomed long before the end actually came. As long as they are on the map the expectation will be that mediocre players can succeed with them, which is terrible for the overall game.

 

[grommile]

Which would actually be a good thing as there would be no more need to make odd balancing decisions or apply other means to ensure that the average Byz fan can succeed with them when the reality is they were doomed long before the end actually came. As long as they are on the map the expectation will be that mediocre players can succeed with them, which is terrible for the overall game.

It's not just that they're on the map.

It's that there's an achievement and achievements require ironman + no mods + normal-or-higher difficulty + historical lucky nations.

 

[Zoot1337]

Which would actually be a good thing as there would be no more need to make odd balancing decisions or apply other means to ensure that the average Byz fan can succeed with them when the reality is they were doomed long before the end actually came. As long as they are on the map the expectation will be that mediocre players can succeed with them, which is terrible for the overall game.

You're now an enemy of the Byzantine lobby

 

[LucaF.]

10th october 1333.

 

[brifbates]

You're now an enemy of the Byzantine lobby

Don't care, just calling it how I see it. Not to mention that I've long been their enemy because of posts like that one. Or posts decrying the continual nerfing of the Ottomans because they're bad and can't beat them, etc..

 

[Azkiol]

.
I would want what we have in EU4, but better, for EU5.

So... Imperator?

 

[nocthesis]

My preference as a player would be to explore a slightly earlier start date. EU2, EU3 and EU4 have all had different openings and I think it is a nice way of making each game fresh and allowing you to explore new scenarios and geopolitical situations.

The main "issue" I have is right now the game doesn't really progress very well. I appreciate the effort that was put in to rectify this with the Ages mechanic, but the late game often feels substantially less flavourful and often just seems like blob-management. An Empire that is ascendent in the mid 16th century is very likely to still be around by the end of the game, and the struggles and changes nations went through over the centuries doesn't feel particularly well represented.

Pushing the timeline too far back could compound this issue. And would arguably even further dilute the aspects of the game that already feel a little overlooked - Reformation, the huge societal changes associated with the Renaissance, colonisation and industrialisation, as the reality is as the game progresses more and more players drop out.

I think a nice medium would perhaps be just a few decades prior - the Ottoman interregnum or the immediate aftermath (as some have suggested) would open up a much more interesting Middle East and Eastern Europe (especially with the Golden Horde still around), so I would probably favour that.

 

[Obeliskkai]

So... Imperator?

If Imperator was better, sure.

I impulse bought the game after it came out and gave it a go, but bounced off it hard. Not only for all the mechanic issues people were complaining about, but because I discovered while I am fascinated by the time period, I wasn't fascinated enough to play a Paradox style grand strategy game set during the period.

Frankly there were too many unknowns they had to make up to fill in the gaps. But that was a personal bugbear.

If Imperator's lessons can be improved to EU5 to improve it, that would be a great thing.

 

[Metz]

A POP system and more complex economics (Victoria 3 lite economics) would allow for gameplay to be more tall and less wide. A lot of inner Africa should also be blocked off from colonization since that is more of a Victoria 3 time period thing.

 

[Obeliskkai]

Yes obviously. You'd have to do research if you're going to introduce new mechanics for a 1444 start in EUV too. My point is that when you're researching the year 1444 you don't just type 1444 in a search engine and than enter. Doing research from that era encompasses sources from a larger time period - and thus the "decade of research on the time period" is not going to be wasted as they'd have to start over again as you insinuate.

Also there's the work from all the other titles ranging from Crusader Kings through Europa Universalis 1-4. Doing research is the name of the game with this genre, and they're very likely not going to start over from picking a new start date.

1444 also ticks the box of lots of people feeling like they're reselling the same product with a new skin (graphics, UI) for an AAA-game price tag. I also think doing some more research is easier than reinventing the Europa Universalis series, as they'd have to if they're going to have an identical start.

I think you are placing too much emphasis on how much impact a change of start date would have, nor do I think keeping EU4's 1444 start date in EU5 would render EU5 a reskin of EU4 anymore than HOI4 is a reskin of HOI3 because both come with a 1936 start date.

Besides, Johan's presence in this thread and his discussion and engagement with some points whilst keeping his statements as broad as possible is a strong hint to me that EU5 is already in development. Many people have reached this conclusion based on EU4 clearly winding down with the map freeze, tidying up exercises on game mechanics and a retreat from big expansions (Leviathan, the last one, is nearly two years old). Even the dev diary this week reinforces this point of view, as we are told about a look at the Ming and the Far East before next week's changes to the Ottomans. These are probably the last times these regions and powers will be looked at, a determination to fulfil their promise that EU4 will be in as a good a shape possible when development finally ceases. That could occur at any point now.

In other words, EU5's start date is likely already chosen. Johan has been explicit they aren't doing multiple start dates anymore. 1444 is the obvious start date as it ticks so many boxes. It could be something as you said, but I don't think changing the date for the sake of changing the date is going to happen.

And there are plenty of areas I hope EU5 I hope is different from EU4 so that it can't be accused of being a reskin, regardless of the date. I am hoping for estates and states to have a far bigger role. I am hoping for an easier to understand yet robust trade system that doesn't favour Europe. I am hoping for a development system that isn't based on spending points. I am hoping for the mana system to be removed entirely. I am hoping for a new way of colonization to work. I am hoping for a better balance between tall and wide. I am hoping for a more dynamic mission system.

In short, I am hoping that with the chance to start afresh, they can make a superior game to the one we have had. And that won't be a reskin.

 

[Obeliskkai]

A POP system and more complex economics (Victoria 3 lite economics) would allow for gameplay to be more tall and less wide. A lot of inner Africa should also be blocked off from colonization since that is more of a Victoria 3 time period thing.

But there are powers in Africa that shouldn't have that issue, and it would deny the counter-factual fantasy of being an African power that takes over the continent to stand up to the Europeans if they are blocked as well.

 

[potatato]

A fun start date could be about 1403 during the Ottoman Interregnum in the early fifteenth century. It would be both an opportunity for a more challenging Ottoman start and less cheese-y difficult Byzantine start.
Moving west, the HRE is in the middle of a deadlock/interregnum, so Habsburg dominance isn't quite assured.
And finally in Western Europe all of the main players in the Lancastrian phase of the HYW have been born, but fighting hasn't started yet.

For a later start date, the day after the battle of Towton in 1461 would start with a Yorkist England, Louis XI in France and only the Empire of Trebizond remaining for a Byzantine restoration.

 

[Blindbohemian]

I think it gets forgotten that as well as going early enough to be interesting, EU has to balance the start being late enough that we see the dynamics which typified the era playing out. Part of the problem with 1399 was turbo-Bohemia, the monstrous Timurids never falling, and so on. The earlier you go the greater the divergence, which I understand some players appreciate but which doesn’t seem to be (and shouldn’t be, in my view) Paradox’s goal.

In that light, 1444 is really about the earliest I think can work. While a weaker Ottomans would create interesting divergences its ultimate effect would be to ahistorically upend the balance of power in Europe and the Middle East, which I don’t think would be all that good. I’d much prefer a date like 1482, skipping all the issues with Burgundy, but that’s too late for our slavering Byzantophile friends who for some reason don’t want to play CK. I would think 1453 would be the best date, with a rump Byzantium on the map for masochists, a Trebizond for a very satisfying restoration game, and an otherwise much more settled world.

 

[grommile]

that’s too late for our slavering Byzantophile friends who for some reason don’t want to play CK.

To be fair to them, "rising from the ashes" is a more compelling narrative for a Byzantine campaign than "never failing in the first place".

(Also, the gameplay experience for CK3's ERE is, as I understand it, a bit too much like the rest of Europe at the moment.)

 

[Anemetius]

1444 allows the most amount of countrys to still be playable in alot of the world without being complete anarchy of Bohemia conquering everything east of itself that was EU3.

ah, trollhemia, brings back memories.