What should the EUV Start Date(s) be?

[DominusNovus]

I only know that if Byzantium is not on the map, there will be very unhappy people here.

Personally, I'd love it if the overall time frame were slightly longer... but if the game were split in two. For example, one focused on the age of discovery, starting with the early Portuguese expeditions. Say... 1341 or so. And end with the 30 years war, which pretty much determines the fate of the HRE and Reformation. So, 1340s to 1640s. Then game 2 can be from the 1640s to the 1830s.

 

[EUnderhill]

Personally, I'd love it if the overall time frame were slightly longer... but if the game were split in two. For example, one focused on the age of discovery, starting with the early Portuguese expeditions. Say... 1341 or so. And end with the 30 years war, which pretty much determines the fate of the HRE and Reformation. So, 1340s to 1640s. Then game 2 can be from the 1640s to the 1830s.

1648-1848

 

[DominusNovus]

1648-1848

I like it! A slight overlap with Vicky, but not too bad. Better than a gap of 15 years. Plus, it plays into the concept of the genesis of the Nation State being rooted in the Treaty of Westphalia.

 

[Sete]

Personally, I'd love it if the overall time frame were slightly longer... but if the game were split in two. For example, one focused on the age of discovery, starting with the early Portuguese expeditions. Say... 1341 or so. And end with the 30 years war, which pretty much determines the fate of the HRE and Reformation. So, 1340s to 1640s. Then game 2 can be from the 1640s to the 1830s.

You. I like you.

 

[Crazymalian]

Personally, I'd love it if the overall time frame were slightly longer... but if the game were split in two. For example, one focused on the age of discovery, starting with the early Portuguese expeditions. Say... 1341 or so. And end with the 30 years war, which pretty much determines the fate of the HRE and Reformation. So, 1340s to 1640s. Then game 2 can be from the 1640s to the 1830s.

Totally agree. I dont feel the current engine makes the ages after reformation very well. Its not necessarily due to the lack of flavour, but i just dont feel the engine is built for it in the same way as the early 1400s.

 

[strqfzd911]

I would say sometime in 1413 (or 1410s)

21st March - Henry V becomes king in England and embarks on conquest in France, winning the famous battle of Agincourt in 1415
5th July - Battle of Camurlu, ending the Ottoman Interregnum, Mehmed I begins the conquest of lost Ottoman territory in Anatolia and the Balkans
2nd October - Poland and Lithuania sign the Union of Horodlo, which lays one of the foundations for their future personal union

In the general timeframe:

- Yongle Emperor in Ming begins his northern campaigns against the Yuan
- Jan hus is burned at the stake
- Portugal besieges and conquers the city of Cueta from the Moors
- King Sejong (the 6/5/5 guy in korea in 1444) succeeds to the throne
- English win the siege of Rouen, capturing Normandy
- Portugal discovers the Madeira islands
- Ming Admiral Zheng He embarks on his voyages to India and Arabia

 

[DominusNovus]

You. I like you.

Thanks! I like me too.

 

[Hezekiah]

I would like the start date to be early enough to allow for Joan of Arc (to, of course, invade England and burn Henry VI at the stake for heresy), so maybe 1422 with the death of Henry V?

At a stretch, I would like to play as Timur in his early reign (1370s) and imitate his military campaigns.

 

[grommile]

to, of course, invade England and burn Henry VI at the stake for heresy

Even the most corrupt of cardinals might cavil at burning a ten year old child for heresy

 

[Josar]

1413, the Ottomans Interregnum is over and the country is still stable, but it allows the age to be closer in length the the others, and maybe some counterplay against the Ottomans.

 

[vaLor-]

Maybe not the fun answer, but I think the best start date for EU5 is 1444. From what I know about the extreme lack of historical sources in places like russia/urals (which are currently highly inaccurately presented ingame) and much of the RotW, it will only get more and more strikingly inaccurate for every year earlier that you go. If 1444 was to be abandoned, EU5 fans would likely have to reconcile the ability to play as Byzantium at the start date.

 

[Lehnaru]

3 start dates (but no more): 1356 as the earliest start date, something in between like 1399, and 1444 as the latest. All for reasons stated above! Kinda like CK3 but with an extra start date in the middle. A decent enough compromise in interesting and familiar periods with not too much extra work for the devs like with all of eu4's start dates. Assuming idea groups work the same way as eu4, maybe each earlier start date could add an extra idea group slot too.

 

[HansFlammenwerfer]

3 start dates (but no more): 1356 as the earliest start date, something in between like 1399, and 1444 as the latest. All for reasons stated above! Kinda like CK3 but with an extra start date in the middle. A decent enough compromise in interesting and familiar periods with not too much extra work for the devs like with all of eu4's start dates. Assuming idea groups work the same way as eu4, maybe each earlier start date could add an extra idea group slot too.

I just worry about maintaining all 3 start dates; it feels like it'll just extend the delay between expansions -- not because new content is added -- but because the same content has to be balanced for 3 dates all the time.

It'd be great to have 3 starting dates, but imo they should be spread out; otherwise you'll just play 1356...

 

[brifbates]

3 start dates (but no more): 1356 as the earliest start date, something in between like 1399, and 1444 as the latest. All for reasons stated above! Kinda like CK3 but with an extra start date in the middle. A decent enough compromise in interesting and familiar periods with not too much extra work for the devs like with all of eu4's start dates. Assuming idea groups work the same way as eu4, maybe each earlier start date could add an extra idea group slot too.

If you have the earlier dates there's zero reason to choose 1444 over 1453 (or something later). The only reason IV starts in 1444 is to keep Byzantium on the map.

 

[grommile]

The only reason IV starts in 1444 is to keep Byzantium on the map.

Not quite the only one; it's in the middle of a period of truce in the HYW.

 

[necro84]

If you have the earlier dates there's zero reason to choose 1444 over 1453 (or something later). The only reason IV starts in 1444 is to keep Byzantium on the map.

There are lots of differences - e.g. Timurids, AQQ with it's best ruler on the way to defeat QQ, PLC, India (especially Delhi), France/England situation, Milan with Sforzas, Sweden isn't part of Kalmar Union

 

[EUnderhill]

At a stretch, I would like to play as Timur in his early reign (1370s) and imitate his military campaigns.

I would too, but in a scenario designed to end around 1600 or so.

 

[Lazy Sorcerer]

Personally, I'd love it if the overall time frame were slightly longer... but if the game were split in two. For example, one focused on the age of discovery, starting with the early Portuguese expeditions. Say... 1341 or so. And end with the 30 years war, which pretty much determines the fate of the HRE and Reformation. So, 1340s to 1640s. Then game 2 can be from the 1640s to the 1830s.

I just entered this thread to suggest the exact same thing. Are you and I some kind of lost twins, since we seem to share opinions on Victoria as well?

 

[Johan]

3 start dates (but no more):

The likelihood of us making a game with multiple startdates again is slim to none though.

 

[Slaytanic]

The likelihood of us making a game with multiple startdates again is slim to none though.

Amen